A Conclusive Scientific Inquiry Into the Latent Homosexuality of Dr. Richard Cox.

Brody "the Bodman" Dickworth So as everyone can see, Dr. Cox has been very busy filling this supposedly scientific blog with personal attacks against my character and scientific ability. Rather than lower myself to his level, I wish to elevate myself with my own original, high quality scientific research, the likes of which has not yet appeared on this blog.

Perhaps the first question that pops into the mind of the unscientific reader of this blog is, “Why do these guys care so much about penises? Are they gay?” Luckily, this question need not be relegated to the realm of whispers and rumor, but can be given a definitive scientific answer.

Let me first examine the case of myself.  A scientific observer would note that I have not myself written any research articles on animal penises, but have merely scrutinized the scientific merits of Dr. Cox’s articles. I have always been more interested in the “science” than the “penis” of penis science.  This is why, when I discovered penis science is more about penises than science, I dropped out of graduate school to pursue my wildly successful career as a world class body builder (“The Bodman”).  Furthermore, I own a 2012 Turbo Diesel Dodge Ram 3500 with 350 Horsepower, 800 pound-feet of Torque, and the 3500 Max Tow package, which give me a whopping 22,750-pound maximum towing capacity.  My truck also has a Mega Cab with plenty of interior volume, and of course, a Hemi. With such masculine evidence, one does not even need scientific training to recognize that I cannot be a homosexual.

Unfortunately, as we turn our gaze toward the sexuality of Dr. Cox, no solid evidence of any kind is within our grasp.  To the contrary, here we have a man who, by his own admission, spent years of his life in malarial jungles looking for penises, while also claiming to sleep with beautiful South American women. However, that he has in fact had sex with at least one woman is no mere rumor, as fifteen years ago he had to have successfully copulated with the woman who bore him his daughter. Moreover, before my bodybuilding days one of my girlfriends even claims to have slept with Dr. Cox in a desperate attempt to make me jealous. But I don’t believe that at all because she was basically a pathological liar. In fact, given how angry she was with me for dumping her, I wouldn’t be surprised if she spread all sorts of ludicrous lies about me and my merits as a man.

Anyway, on the whole Dr. Cox gives the appearance of being heterosexual, or at least that’s what I thought until an unusual incident occured here at PRIC offices just a few weeks ago.  A dozen of my pro bodybuilder brothers and I decided to meet in my office for a “grease session,” when Richard walked in on us.  When he saw us he just stared, to the point that we all started to feel sort of awkward.  I mean, this wouldn’t have been so bad if we were still greasing each other’s backs, but we were in the delicate, vulnerable buttock stage of the grease-down (most bodybuilders are so swoll that it’s difficult for them to grease their own buttocks properly). Needless to say, his silence alone was creeping us out, so I had to take my hand off my partner–before all the grease was rubbed in–point to the door, and shout, “Dude, get the fuck out!”  Damn near ruined the whole session.

This incident shows that Dr. Cox’s sexuality is not so transparent after all. With a matter this obscure we must dig deeper using equally obscure methodology–the ancient and powerful techniques of Aristotle. The Aristotelian method of doing science is famous for being difficult to employ, which is why it has fallen into disuse. However, I have been practicing the Aristotelian method in secret for quite some time now, and my skills have become highly developed. Indeed Aristotle was able to settle metaphysical issues of the profoundest depth despite a total lack of external evidence of any kind, so surely his methods will suffice to determine the sexuality of Dr. Cox with the admittedly ambiguous evidence we actually have on hand now.

Aristotelian methodology requires we start from first principles, and then proceed to analyze the evidence in light of these principles, if it exists. A full investigation will require we separate the form from the matter of the substance involved, and identify its four types of causes underlying the substance’s form and existence. My fellow Aristotelians know that this means we must first start by determining the essence of the homosexual male, and this in turn means distinguishing the essential accidents that constitute the formal actuality of a homosexual male from the accidental accidents that are attributable only to the realization of potentialities inherent in the matter of homosexual substances, such as dick-sucking.

To the lay reader who finds this jargon dizzying, what I am asking for, roughly, is the attributes of a homosexual male that make him a homosexual male, as opposed to the kind of attribute that even a non-homosexual male could have.  For example, is performing sexual acts on another male an essential attribute of the homosexual? Certainly not, since there are many homosexuals who live celibate lives, and conversely many heterosexuals who, in a moment of pure drunken curiosity, have fondled the genitalia of a passed out man to see if that man was gay, and for no other reason. Also, there is a lot of gay sex happening in prison, despite the fact that most of the men in prisons are muscular badasses and so definitely not gay.

No, what is actually the primary difference between the gay man and the straight man? This is the hard part about the Aristotelian method–one must abstract the answer from his or her concrete experiences until the answer becomes self-evident. In this case, what we find is that the gay man thinks about penises all the time, while the straight man does not.  This and this alone is the decisive marker of homosexuality.

Based on our Aristotelian considerations, we are forced to the conclusion that in fact Dr. Cox is, in his deepest essence, a homosexual because he thinks about penises constantly. It is reassuring that this scientific conclusion is verified by the common sense observations that he has a penchant for overly scientific erudition and a love for French wine, as well as a magnetic attraction to groups of men greasing one another’s asses.


3 Comments on “A Conclusive Scientific Inquiry Into the Latent Homosexuality of Dr. Richard Cox.”

  1. […] A Conclusive Scientific Inquiry Into the Latent Homosexuality of Dr. Richard Cox. […]

  2. […] begin with, do not listen to the hacks that refereed my unassailable article on Cox’s homosexuality. As little Richard himself demonstrates on a weekly basis, the world of penis science is full of […]

  3. anonymous says:

    You do realize that you are a grade-a asshole right?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s