The most important experiment ever undertaken

The Nazis were renowned for their famous but useless experiments on human beings. We, however, are much more fortunate, for we now have the results of a much more important experiment on humans, and from which we can draw powerful, practical inferences. Of course this experiment, as any experiment conducted on humans that results in the trashing or loss of lives, has come at great cost. But I think it’s been worth it, and I think you will agree.
It’s a conversation with the universe that we had to have… should it culminate in our extinction, may something of what we’ve learned pass on to the greater unified whole. And well it should, for there are lessons here that are relevant to every culture that can possibly exist across the width and span of the universe.
Wars come and go. Every culture has them, and most every culture pretends to learn from them with their sanctimonious appeals to “learn from history.” And in spite of their repetitious, inane blather, every culture continues to repeat the same mistakes. Such is the human condition, with wars being their most predictable outcome.
But the experiment that I am referring to is a one-off. It probably won’t be repeated, at least in our corner of our galaxy, and at our global scale. But this experiment is different to all the others, because it takes us beyond the human condition, to confront something more profound. For we must now ask ourselves, in what ways are we different to the animals? This experiment that I am referring to goes some way to addressing the following questions:
1) Is human behavior programmed into the genetic code, or is it cultural?
2) Does the genetic code wire the brain, or is it experience that wires the brain?
3) What is the relationship between biology and culture?
4) What happens if we tweak biology? What happens if we tamper with it, and change the nature of experience? What happens if we introduce new experiences and new choices, and what if these radically different options “wire the brain” in new ways, ways that are alien to what we’ve ever understood and assumed about “the human condition?”
5)  What are the repercussions of tampering with biology? What sorts of predictions can we make?
The experiment that I am referring to is the introduction and normalization of our contraceptive technologies into mainstream cultures… that is, cultures comprised of human brains.
We are living in an era of emerging awareness of how brains work. Norman Doidge (2008) has provided a compelling analysis with clinical examples, showing us that the brain rewires itself with experience. These ideas have important implications for the role of culture in rewiring human brains, for ultimately almost all human experience is derived within the context of culture:

So a neuroplastically informed view of culture and the brain implies a two-way street: the brain and genetics produce culture, but culture also shapes the brain. Sometimes these changes can be dramatic.

(Doidge, 2008, p. 288)

There is little in this dry, concise summary of Doidge’s principle theme to really fire us up, but its implications are fundamentally paradigm-busting. Because men and women make different choices from their culture, these ideas have important implications for the evolution of gender roles within culture, and how men’s and women’s brains are wired. For example, men’s predisposition to favor analytical/spatial oriented activities, like map-reading, and women’s predisposition to favor communication oriented activities relating to language use, impact on how the brain is wired and how functional specializations develop within the brain.
This is supported in studies such as that of Haier et al (2005), where it is was found that men’s and women’s brains differ in the distribution of white (glial) and grey (neural) matter, with intelligence tests showing that on average, men used 6.5 times as much grey matter as women did, but that women used 9 times as much white matter as men did.
From the perspective of the point being made in this post, it is important to emphasize that this glial/neural wiring does not “determine” gender differences in behavior, but evolves as a two-way interplay between male/female biology and culture. By way of example, think of your brain as a colony of neurons and glia, and then think of how a termite colony or a city evolves. The functional divisions in the city (industrial zones, commercial districts, class-differentiated residential zones, etc) evolve more by way of interactions with the environment than by interventions from town-planners.
Throughout his Appendix 1, Doidge (2008) provides a rounded, well-paced introduction to this neuroplastically informed view of culture, and his reference to Michael Merzenich, from an interview by Stefanie Olsen (2005), provides a clearer appreciation of the relevance of his thesis to the modern context:

The Internet is just one of those things that contemporary humans can spend millions of ‘practice’ events at, that the average human a thousand years ago had absolutely no exposure to. Our brains are massively remodeled by this exposure–but so, too, by reading, by television, by video games, by modern electronics, by contemporary music, by contemporary ‘tools,’ etc.

(Doidge, 2008, p. 306)

Of course our contraceptive devices must surely be factored in with the modern technology in respect of which Merzenich is quoted. And how our contraceptive technologies are implemented is differentiated according to sex and gender. So what might some of the implications be?
Clearly, the choices to which we have been exposed over the past 50 years are unlike anything that has ever gone before. Chateau Heartiste (CH) (2012) agrees, and makes his point with reference to an excerpt from paragraph 17 of the Encyclical Letter of his Holiness Pope Paul VI:

Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men — especially the young, who are so vulnerable on this point — have need of encouragement to be faithful to the moral law, so that they must not be offered some easy means of eluding its observance. It is also to be feared that the man, growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.

(Pope Paul VI, 1968, par. 17)

CH makes the following important observations:

  • Just as contraceptives predispose men to devaluing women, so too, they predispose women to devaluing men – CH takes pains, however, to emphasize that it’s beta men that are being devalued when women exercise their preferences for “risky sex with caddish alpha males on the make.” As we shall soon see, CH’s beta qualifier is problematic;
  • CH guesstimates that his aggregate sexual experiences would have amounted to about one tenth of his actual record, were it not for the ready availability of reliable contraception;
  • CH’s eminently sensible inference is that, in the absence of reliable contraception:


A world in which women had to grapple with real, palpable fears of STDs, pregnancy and subsequent abandonment is, not to put too fine a point on it, a really shitty world for womanizers and serial monogamists and uncomplicated lovers of the art of seduction itself. I imagine I’d have to *gasp* start promising marriage or some such claptrap to any woman I wanted to bang, just to loosen her up enough to unhook her bra.

In other words, the ready availability of reliable contraceptive technologies throughout culture impacts directly on the choices that men and women make… and therefore, on how men’s and women’s brains are wired. That CH’s sexual exploits would have been truncated by 90%, by his estimate, implies a serious variation in lifestyle attributable to the contraceptive pill.
Of course CH’s anecdotal opinion does not constitute the sort of empirical verification we require of falsifiable science, but what we are discussing is not amenable to traditional analytical methods. Because the subject matter has such serious implications, however, these questions do need to be addressed. We can’t put them to the side while we wait for genocentric science to “catch up.”
Let us review. By diminishing the inconvenience of ill-timed pregnancy to almost zero, the contraceptive pill impacts on cultural logic principally in the following ways:

  • The commoditization of sex. Sex has been removed from its principle role relating to reproduction. Rather, sex has become mainstreamed as a leisure activity, a commodity, a form of entertainment, something with value to which a price can be attributed. In the space of less than a couple of decades, the porn industry has progressed to now providing easy access to cheap porn online. This relentless immersion in a sea of pornographic images, online, on billboards, in newsagents, continues to remind men of their “needs,” rewiring the brains of men who become ever-more convinced of the “needs” that are said to be programmed into their DNA. And it continues to rewire the brains of women who come to believe that all men are rutting, drooling hound-dogs who are only ever after one thing. And as the rewiring proceeds, we forget that women also have within them the capacity for overwhelming sexual arousal that is in no way less than the primal motivations of men. All this, ultimately, thanks to our contraceptive technologies;
  • With sex having become a leisure commodity with a price, the manner of sexual transactions has been radically transformed. Shysters, conmen, prostitutes and gold-diggers increasingly influence the cultural playing-field and new cultural options become validated. A line is crossed. What was previously forbidden by culture becomes a cultural norm. Culture is a whole, and it adapts. The trickle becomes a flood, and groupthink, with its obsession with fads, idolatry and hedonism, becomes the new norm. With new cultural benchmarks, peer pressure replaces family values. Game becomes the province of shysters and conmen along with the needy and the desperate, while hypergamy takes on many of the characteristics of prostitution in its opportunism, crassness and arbitrariness. As culture transforms to the new standard, its character changes, and opportunism based in self-interest would seem to be its most enduring feature;
  • As a commodity with both monetary and cultural value, sex as a leisure activity, kick-started during the sexual revolution, played a crucial role in the rise of feminism. The relationship between the success of feminism and the rise of our contraceptive technologies is not an accident. By commoditizing sex, feminism mobilized chivalry and prostitution in new ways. Feminism is both chivalry and prostitution, in that it depends on female sexuality to get its way. Feminism is chivalry in that it is simply a restatement of our established tradition of pedestalizing women and it is prostitution in that it relies on chivalry to extract freebies for women at the expense of men.

If we have our reservations about religion, with its abstract, otherworldly references to impractical concepts like heaven and hell, then what we are witnessing today is the transformation of culture to a kind of hell on earth. You cannot get more hands-on than that.

Cultural wholes

It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss cultural wholes in detail. Nonetheless, these are important ideas that we need to at least touch on. We need to understand that every culture is a whole in the sense that every culture stands for something. What the culture stands for is what gives it its “flavor”. Throughout history, people have tried to provide an interpretation along these lines, trying to provide a definition of cultural essence.
Elias Cannetti’s (1973) discussion of national crowd symbols is about as sophisticated an interpretation that we might hope for, given the dominance of our genocentric paradigm. He provides compelling examples in his descriptions of national crowd symbols as they apply to English, Dutch, German, French, Swiss, Spanish, Italian and Jewish cultures.
What a culture stands for, what gives it its flavor, is its history. This includes its interactions with its environment, for example, the meanings attributed to the sea that surrounds a culture (as in Canetti’s portrayal of the English crowd symbol), or the forests that define its order (Canetti’s portrayal of the German crowd symbol).
Applying Canetti’s idea of national crowd symbols to the United States, we find that the American founding fathers and the US Constitution, slavery, the abolition of slavery, immigration, religious values, idealism, falsifiable science (and the genocentrism that is its legacy), idealism and so on, all came together to account for a flavor that is readily identifiable in mid-twentieth century America and the American flag. This America we might associate with individualism, innovation and standing up for what you believe in.
Feminism, liberalism and its associated groupthink all came together by the twenty-first century to transform America to something unrecognizable from what it once was. This contemporary America of today we are more likely to now associate with groupthink, self-interest (as opposed to individualism) and supplicating acquiescence. These transformations are taking place throughout most of the western world… pretty much every culture is in the process of being transformed into a new whole that is increasingly unrecognizable to what the culture once stood for.
Cultural transformations blend the old with the new. For example, the undercurrents of collectivism, authoritarianism, acquiescence to authority, misogyny and misandry that characterized Australia at its inception are alive and well today. Indeed, the current leftist paradigm that is sweeping the world resonates with something from Australia’s authoritarian, collectivist past of which both dominant political parties in Australia (Labor and conservative-Liberal) are manifestations. Australia provides rich, fertile soil for the feminist agenda, regardless of which party is ascendant – one in the context of Marxist feminism, the other in the context of conservative chivalry with a collectivist bent.
Every normal, well-adjusted person in a culture accepts what their culture stands for. They embrace their cultural identity and if they did not, then they would not be “normal” as their culture defines “normal”. A culture that accepts feminism and incorporates it into its legal and social structures stands for a collective ideal. That collective ideal we might interpret as liberalism. Every normal, well-adjusted person in a liberal culture incorporates liberalism into their identity. They “like” being liberals. They speak like liberals, in the accent of liberals.
Of course there comes a point of cultural absurdity where people begin to question their cultural norms. What was once blindly accepted as normal becomes absurd, and those ingesting the red pill begin to realize that the old normal becomes the new insane.
Enter AVfM, stage right.
So what does all this have to do with our contraceptive technologies, the sexual revolution and cultural decay? Let us take a look at the alpha/beta distinction that is routinely being played out at the House of Chateau.

Alpha/beta unity

The alpha/beta distinction is one that does not apply as a universal across all cultures. There are cultures where the image of the strutting alpha versus supplicating beta really doesn’t resonate in the same way that it does in the secular Anglosphere. During the European Renaissance, for example, we doubt that the dominant alpha deriving his sense of worth from how often he gets laid would have much staying power.
In fact, truth be told, the classic PUA-guru stereotype, average in stature, appearance, purpose and ambition, would probably have Renaissance-Euros scratching their heads in bemusement, wondering what all the fuss was about. Digging a bit deeper, we would find that legends like Giacomo Casanova(Wikipedia, 2012) would probably have borne little resemblance to our contemporary ideal of the exciting, bad-boy alpha. Why? Because they come from cultures that stand for concepts that are entirely alien to the genocentric/ materialistic/ hedonistic/ secular paradigm that currently dominates mainstream thought.
For example, of Casanova’s time studying law at university, Wikipedia observes “…he had become something of a dandy—tall and dark, his long hair powdered, scented, and elaborately curled.” We get the impression that Casanova was an exceptional individual, one who Wikipedia describes as “[having] an intense appetite for knowledge, and a perpetually inquisitive mind… valued intelligence in a woman… a man of far-ranging intellect and curiosity.” With his training in law and his connections among the powerful and the elite, he probably had more characteristics in common with the gayest in our gay communities rather than bearing any resemblance to the rebellious, bad-boy reprobate/frat-boy that characterizes contemporary hookup culture.
The fictional operatic character, Don Juan/ Don Giovanni (Wikipedia, 2012), typically portrayed as a “young, arrogant, sexually promiscuous nobleman” predisposed to duels and to networking with the rich and famous, is similarly quite alien to the PUA stereotype. As a fictional character, he may bear little resemblance to the reality, but he would certainly be a manifestation of the cultural values aspired to at the time.
No matter which character we analyze from centuries ago, fictional or otherwise, one is left with the impression that they tend to exceptional individuals that stood for higher values, holding to notions of courage, guts and honour – they were a very different breed to today’s paper-Lothario/court-jester whose validation is contingent on obtaining sex from women by performing tricks. One famous PUA-guru reminds me of my accountant. Another reminds me of my car mechanic. Both are about as formidable as Wayne (from the movie Wayne’s World).
Casanova’s chronicled lifetime exploits, numbering anything between 122 and 200 (as variously reported), pale to insignificance in comparison to the thousands that some contemporary movie and rock legends, like Jack Nicholson, Mick Jagger or Warren Beatty, are said to lay claim to. If we accept these sorts of figures as reasonable, it does raise the question… how can you become a proficient, talented performer when you must, on average, be fucking a different woman most every other day of the week, at a minimum (divide 5000 by 365 over, say, 20 years of productivity)?
Why bother? Doesn’t it get old? At what point does the whiff of yet another vajayjay make you want to retch? How many coyote moments must you chew through? How can one even be bothered to clutter his life with the menagerie of mediocrity that a different woman every other day of the week would seem to imply? After all, they cannot all be “nines” and “tens” because one city – nay, ten cities – only has so many “hot” women. What’s the significance of a culture predisposed to accepting these legendary tallies and touting them as achievements? What exactly is the nature of this obsession with quantity that we might ultimately attribute to our contraceptive technologies?
Having clarified my scepticism, I should add that during my time playing in a band, we were followed around by a smattering of groupies. Women would make themselves available, and those in our band that would regularly partake of what was on offer frequently enjoyed a brief, animalistic release that was more of an obligatory drill than an exciting thrill.
Driving back home one night after a gig, for example, I parked our car on the side of the highway to rest, when our guitarist would unceremoniously drag his compliant groupie from the back seat, without conversation, and take her to a nearby bush and dump his load into her. A few miles down the road, we’d drop her off, and none of us would hear from her again. Very Bang Bus, to say the least, only it was no act. In her compliance and his indifference, it wasn’t rape, but it certainly was not something to write home about, nor share with her grand-children in her old age. What did she get out of it? Boasting rights?
She laid a band guitarist, of course! A very average base guitarist, I might add. But more authentic rock legends surely have an easier time of it, given their frequent, fleeting stays in accessible hotel rooms with bevies of women queued up for their chance to sample fame, and for them there is no shortage of opportunity. Sure, for the most conspicuous among alpha rock legends, the thousands are easily achievable… but from our perspective… why bother?
And when his thousands of copulations become something of an undifferentiated blur, it’s hard to imagine anything coming close, for a woman, to an exciting rape fantasy being realized. But maybe herein lies the typical groupie’s cognitive dissonance. Perhaps what she is secretly hoping for, in her attempt to realize her rape fantasy, is that she alone, from among all his conquests numbering in the thousands, is so desirable that he becomes overwhelmed in his passion to the extent that he cannot help but ravish her. Yeah, right. In her dreams.

Novelty and excitement amid a sea of mediocrity

If we accept the thesis that central to female sexual arousal is the thrill of the forbidden (meaning the cultural forbidden, where it is culture that establishes what is known and permissible about the world), then whence do women have this need met? Can an aging rock legend, or any other uber-alpha tallying 5000 paramours or more, make a woman feel like she’s doing something novel, exciting and forbidden? Can he fulfil her rape fantasies? Or will the cold, clinical and indifferent approach of someone who’s had thousands before her leave her feeling anything but sexually violated and aroused?
Well, she may feel violated, but perhaps it’s not quite what she had in mind. Her fantasy of being ravished by a high-voltage rock legend craving release for his uncontrollable urges will more likely fall flat. Her post-copulatory experience will likely leave her feeling more like a used tampon or a mechanic’s oil-soaked rag tossed in the corner than a desirable beauty spent after a torrid ravishing.
She might be able to claim bragging rights, but at what point does the excitement of what she had imagined in her rape fantasies kick in? We can only imagine that her experience would be one of disappointment… bragging rights notwithstanding.
Perhaps the solution to her impending disappointment is not an uber-alpha with the predictable grind of thousands of paramours, but an uber-thug predisposed to unpredictable mood swings and maybe even denied access to any paramours at all. Much has been written about women’s attraction to dangerous criminals and rapists who have been convicted, and the word to describe this proclivity is hybristophilia.
Julie Bindel’s (2012) thesis is that the women who fall for convicted criminals are, contrary to media portrayals of them as unhinged, “… well adjusted, with good social skills.” Among her examples, she cites the story of “bright, articulate and immediately likeable” socialite Rosalie, who had gone on from her marriage to socialite lawyer Victor Martinez, to marry convicted rapist and serial killer of women, Oscar Bolin. A contrasting turn of events to say the least, given that in her second marriage, any thought of throwing parties for politicians and celebrities was no longer an indulgence that she would have access to.
Bindel quotes from her conversation with Dr Lorraine Sheridan, a forensic psychologist with the Sellenger Centre for Research in Law, Justice and Social Change at Australia’s Edith Cowan University:

Women who get into relationships with death row prisoners often have much in common with those who spend their lives creating shrines to and writing to celebrities […] These women have a relationship, in their perception, with an exciting, high-status person […] The death row romances take this a step further, in that they are able to have a reciprocal ‘celebrity’ relationship. There’s also the factor of having nabbed an ultra alpha male, one who has carried out the greatest of violent acts.

At one level, all this seems to corroborate the alpha/beta dichotomy that the PUA community takes for granted. But at another level, there seems to be something missing from this picture. The incarcerated criminal of Rosalie’s second marriage is not strutting about like a conquering alpha. Rather, he is rotting in a cell, his spirit bowed and subdued. Psychically, he must surely be a castrato, and his wife would seem to have him right where she wants him, under her control in a prison cell – writes Bindel:

Yet there is something grotesque about the way they objectify these men in cages and are able to exercise absolute control over them.

Who would have thought? Is there something about our zeitgeist that is leaving women somehow unfulfilled? One thing we can say for certain… Rosalie’s incarcerated alpha Oscar Bindel is no dandy Giacomo Casanova.
From a broader perspective, our inferences are consistent with those of Otto Weininger (1906), who observed a relationship between criminality and prostitution. The shared principle being that there is something about female sexuality that in moral conduct is drawn to the formidable and the possible in man, but in immoral conduct is drawn to the dangerous and the degenerate. Thus the thrill of the forbidden is related to the thrill of throwing it away.


There is a wealth of inferences that can be made from an in-depth analysis of the experiment that is our contraceptive industry and its impact on culture. Such an analysis, were it to be conducted by a reputable academia with due rigor, has within it the potential to seed an entirely new paradigm. Obviously we cannot but scratch the surface here. So we’ll conclude this post with a point-form summary.

  • Our contraceptive technologies are responsible for options that were never available prior the sexual revolution. As a consequence of these new options, our brains are wired in new ways to account for new desires and motivations that never existed before;
  • Our contraceptive technologies, as derivatives of the genocentric paradigm, are an integral component of the sexual revolution. There can be no sexual revolution without some form of reliable contraceptive technology;
  • Feminism is an integral component of the sexual revolution. There can be no sexual revolution without some form of feminism. Why? Because the sexual revolution is driven by primal impulses that shift the balance of power. Men, as the source of contrived, market-driven demand, have “needs” that must be met, while women, as the source of supply, can only respond to so many needs, there are only so many women to go around. The thrill of the forbidden provides the basis for these primal impulses, and when women no longer experience the thrill of the forbidden, that is, when the forbidden becomes mundane and men become undifferentiated, always-available drones that inspire neither passion nor fantasy, women will hold the balance of power in their control of supply.  Feminism represents the power vacuum into which those who are in control of supply will drift;
  • But isn’t it possible at all to have a sexual revolution… in the sense of the promiscuity and the porn industry characterizing our zeitgeist… in the absence of the sort toxic hatred exemplified in feminism? No, I would argue that it is not. In the context of any form of sexual permissiveness, the primal motivations of the human sex drive will always provide the basis for self-interest and the pecking orders that are destined to crystallize out of them. For example, the alpha/beta distinction held by PUAs is false and has no basis in objective reality. Such distinctions are an inevitable outcome of self-interest;
  • Our contemporary experience of feminism and its relationship to our contraceptive industry provides tangible evidence of the reality of hell. It takes vague, abstract, religious references alluding to angels, God and Satan to provide a hands-on interpretation of heaven and hell in the context of cultural health and well-being and cultural decline. There are indeed consequences for tampering with natural law, and consequences for bad choices;
  • Abortion has progressed from being an option of last resort to an instrument of convenience that provides everyone with greater agency over their lifestyle choices. This amps the dumb materialism of the west to new highs. Irrespective of what beliefs we might hold as to when life begins or even the morality of snuffing it out, that a mother would kill her own crosses a line. Irrespective of whether life is deemed to start at 5 hours or 5 weeks or 5 months of gestation, what kind of love can a woman who would kill her growing fetus in the interests of lifestyle choice have for her offspring? Just because our cultures have incorporated abortion as mainstream does not make it right – our cultures are the experiment, and our indifference is a part of what we are investigating. Yet, for all our comfortable acceptance of it, it is well documented that psychological sequelae can persist for years following an abortion (Mail Online, 2005). As they say in the movies, the first time you kill someone is the hardest, and it gets easier as you go along. But just because it gets easier, just because your neural wiring adapts to enable you to accept it, does not mean that you’re going to get away with it scot-free;
  • The Nazis loved their children and their opposite sex. Pictures of Hitler abound where he is in the company of fawning women and their beaming children. Communists and Stalinists loved their children and their opposite sex, as did North Koreans, or pretty much any other totalitarian regime that understood the importance of investing in their children’s futures. Even racist fringe-dwellers like the Ku Klux Klan were capable of loving their own kind. Only feminists can incorporate the hatred of their children and their own kind into their ideology. Only feminism, as a totalitarian ideology, is willing to routinely harm its sons, husbands, fathers, brothers and uncles, disadvantage them, put them down and deny them opportunities at every turn. Feminism is a viciously toxic, hateful and ugly ideology that does not refrain from negativity of the most damaging kind;
  • Our experiment establishes that when nature removes the consequences of childbirth from women’s choices, their choices will retreat from the formidable and the respectable towards the mundane and the desperate. Proximity and arbitrariness rather than quality and agency become the primary variables impacting on choice, with shallowness displacing authenticity in both men and women. Social proof, negs and cocky one-liners become the PUA tactics of choice that have women, if not swoon, then at least enter into the proximity wherein they might realize their arbitrary, dumb choices. The dudes of Wayne’s World are now in the running, they stand a chance, while less shallow men, disinclined to compete against the tiresome Garths and Waynes of our zeitgeist, might prefer the solace of going their own way. The exceptionalism that distinguished Giacomo Casanova and Don Juan from the masses becomes a distant memory. Quantity trumps quality. Mediocrity becomes the new standard-bearer and groupthink the source of motivation;
  • It is according to the above terms that human brains are now being wired, and human motivations are now being formed. Welcome to hell on earth, the hell of which feminism is an integral part. The first word that comes to mind… holocaust.


Bindel, J., 2012. In love with a death row dandy. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].
Canetti, E., 1973. Crowds and power. Aylesbury(Bucks): Penguin Books.
Chateau Heartiste, 2012. Pope Paul VI On Birth Control Externalities. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].
Doidge, N., 2008. The Brain that Changes Itself. Melbourne: Scribe Publications.
Doidge, N., 2012. The brain that changes itself official website. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].
Haier, R. J. et al., 2005. The neuroanatomy of general intelligence: sex matters. NeuroImage, 25, 320-327.. NeuroImage, Volume 25, pp. 320-327.
Mail Online, 2005. Abortion trauma ‘can last for years’. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 8 December 2012].
Olsen, S., 2005. Newsmaker: Are we getting smarter or dumber?. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 12 2012].
Pope Paul VI, 1968. Humanae Vitae (On the Regulation of Human Births), Encyclical of Pope Paul VI. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 4 December 2012].
Weininger, O., 1906. Sex and character. Translated from the 6th German edition ed. London: William Heinemann. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.
Weininger, O. & Solway, K., n.d. Sex and character, by Otto Weininger. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 10 December 2012].
Wikipedia, 2012. Don Giovanni. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].
Wikipedia, 2012. Giacomo Casanova. [Online]
Available at:
[Accessed 6 December 2012].

Recommended Content

%d bloggers like this: