Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Love & Sex’

A surefire way to suck the romance out of any kiss is to envision it as free shipping for germs. Recent research by British scientists sheds light on why that is actually a good thing.

Writing in the journal Medical Hypotheses, researcher Dr Colin Hendrie from the University of Leeds said: ‘Female inoculation with a specific male’s cytomegalovirus is most efficiently achieved through mouth-to-mouth contact and saliva exchange, particularly where the flow of saliva is from the male to the typically shorter female.’

Cytomegalovirus is likely to be only one of many germs which take advantage of kissing as a transfer system and which can confer benefits rather than harm to the recipient.

Cytomegalovirus, which lurks in saliva, normally causes no problems. But it can be extremely dangerous if caught while pregnant and can kill unborn babies or cause birth defects.

These can include problems ranging from deafness to cerebral palsy.

Kissing, over the course of several months and increasing in intensity, transfers small amounts of the virus each time. The result is a built up immunity to the virus, thereby cutting the risk of infection and potential damage to the fetus tremendously. Previous research had hypothesized that kissing was important because it conveyed fitness information about the individual through saliva. Given this new data and given that there are many other methods for determining fitness, kissing is not likely to have evolved as a means of determining fitness from an evolutionary perspective.

Dr Hendrie said: ‘Information concerning body tone, smell, reproductive condition, disease state and, of course, personal physical and oral hygiene can all be gained solely from close physical proximity.’

‘The small amount of additional information from kissing is an unlikely pressure for its development.’

People have subconsciously understood for a long time that germs can be transferred via kissing, hence that use of copious amounts of alcohol when strangers kiss. Clearly, it is being used as an antiseptic.

Read Full Post »

What a terrific piece of news from the scientific community:

Ogling over women’s breasts is good for a man’s health and can add years to his life, medical experts have discovered. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, “Just 10 minutes of staring at the charms of a well-endowed female is roughly equivalent to a 30-minute aerobics work-out” declared gerontologist Dr. Karen Weatherby.

Dr. Weatherby and fellow researchers at three hospitals in Frankfurt, Germany, reached the startling conclusion after comparing the health of 200 male outpatients – half of whom were instructed to look at busty females daily, the other half told to refrain from doing so. The study revealed that after five years, the chest-watchers had lower blood pressure, slower resting pulse rates and fewer instances of coronary artery disease.

“Sexual excitement gets the heart pumping and improves blood circulation,” explains Dr. Weatherby. “There’s no question: Gazing at breasts makes men healthier.” “Our study indicates that engaging in this activity a few minutes daily cuts the risk of stroke and heart attack in half. We believe that by doing so consistently, the average man can extend his life four to five years.”

File this one in the “too good to be true department”.

If the story smacks of tabloid journalism, it’s because that’s precisely what it is. The text began circulating in March or April 2000, mere weeks after a very similar article appeared in the consistently misinformative Weekly World News — nor is this the first time we’ve run into baseless Internet rumors traceable to precisely that source.

It goes without saying (I hope) that it’s unwise to take medical advice from supermarket tabloids, still less from forwarded emails. Males who wish to increase their lifespans ought to consider practicing common sense as an alternative — it’s more likely to achieve the desired result than any amount of public breast ogling.

Sorry fellas, but you will not be able to justify staring based on “some scientific research you read somewhere”. Instead, take the high road and blame Leslie Bennetts style nagging for your wandering eyes – but don’t forget to look your best otherwise you won’t be able to turn her off. If you are concerned about your health don’t forget that video games are good for the heart and for the mind.

Read Full Post »

Leslie Bennetts writes in MSNBC (Chores for two: Why men don’t pitch in) explaining how she gets her husband to pitch in for household chores.

Yes, dear readers, it’s true: Maintaining some semblance of parity in your marriage requires you to deploy the same kinds of nasty tactics you swore you would never stoop to as a parent but nonetheless found yourself using the minute you actually had a kid. Bribery and punishment work; so do yelling and complaining. Threats are also effective, as long as everyone knows you mean business. With husbands, tender blandishments and nooky are particularly useful, as is the withholding of the aforementioned.

Dr. Helen takes the time to explain nicely why those actions are actually teaching her children all the wrong lessons:

No, ma’am, you are teaching your children that mommy is a nagging bitch and that you hold men in such contempt that you view them as children to do your bidding. You are teaching them that psychological warfare is the only way to get what you want. You overlook your husband’s strong points and what he brings to your family and see yourself, as you mention, as a heroine. Your narcissism is deafening and while you may think you are “striking a blow” for all womankind here, you are doing nothing more than teaching your children that manipulation and threats are the way to engage in a “loving” relationship.

Rachel Lucas whips out the clue-bat and administers a vicious beating, sarcasm style:

Another thing I’ll be sure never to do, from now on as I fully manifest my inner bitch-martyr, is to ever stop for one fucking MINUTE to think about how I am singlehandedly causing every young man who reads my articles to run screaming in terror the minute a girl utters the word “marriage” to him. I will not worry that my words do nothing but a disservice to other women, confirming ugly stereotypes and mens’ worst fears about taking on a wife. It’s not MY problem if men are too weak and immature to sign up for a life closely resembling a forced death march.

Moron Pundit clearly and effectively shows how Leslie Bennetts is wrong by simply placing the shoe on the other foot:

Yes, dear readers, it’s true: Maintaining some semblance of sexual activity in your marriage requires you to deploy the same kinds of nasty tactics you swore you would never stoop to as a parent but nonetheless found yourself using the minute you actually had a kid. Bribery and beating work; so do yelling and bullying. Threats are also effective, as long as everyone knows you mean business (a convenient ‘fall down the stairs’ always works). With wives, throwing things, pushing her around and body blows are particularly useful, as is telling her you only do it because you love her after the aforementioned.

Ace joins in on the action:

But as to the real, bigger point: As was said of Tom in Miller’s Crossing, “I’ve never met anyone who made being a son-of-a-bitch such a point of pride.”Feminism seems to be teaching women that narcissism, unpleasantness, selfishness, and hectoring, nagging, domineering, insufferable behavior are somehow virtues to be praised.

We would like to thank Leslie Bennetts for airing dirty personal laundry in public, so the rest of us can learn a valuable lesson about what not to do.

Read Full Post »

Is “C-V Distance” The New Phrenology?

Phrenology is pseudo-scientific (a.k.a. baloney) theory which claims to be able to determine personality traits based on skull shape.

Kim Wallen, professor of psychology and behavioral neuroendocrinology at Emory University has proposed the idea that the clitoral-vaginal distance can be a physiological indication of a woman’s ability to experience a vaginal orgasm.

In fact, there’s even an easy “rule of thumb,” Wallen says: Clitoris-vagina distances less than 2.5 cm — that’s roughly from the tip of your thumb to your first knuckle — tend to yield reliable orgasms during sex. More than a thumb’s length? Regular intercourse alone typically might not do the trick.

Princess Marie Bonaparte, a psychoanalyst, studied this phenomena in the 1920’s, and gathered c-v and orgasm data.

Recently, Wallen dug up Bonaparte’s measurements and analyzed them with modern statistical techniques. Sure enough, he found a striking correlation. Now he is hoping to do his own measurement study.

As of now it remains plausible, but uncertain. We will withhold judgment until a modern scientific study is done. Some data has been gathered to indicate how widespread the problem may be.

Preliminary work has revealed that only about 7% of women always have orgasms with sex alone, he says, while 27% say they never do.

Dr. Wallen also preaches positivity:

“Personally, I don’t think the inability to experience no-hands, penis-only intercourse with orgasm says anything about a happy sex life,” he says. “Maybe it could allow couples to be a bit more inventive in how they have sex.”

Dr. Wallen is the author of Reproduction in Context: Social and Environmental Influences on Reproduction, which examines reproductive behaviors in animals ranging from turtles and lizards to humans and nonhuman primates from the perspectives of ethology, endocrinology, behavioral genetics, and evolutionary ecology.

Read Full Post »

Face It, You’re Being Judged

An interesting new study investigated how women determine attractiveness in male faces.

“We have found that women evaluate facial attractiveness on two levels — a sexual level, based on specific facial features like the jawbone, cheekbone and lips, and a nonsexual level based on overall aesthetics,” said Robert G. Franklin, graduate student in psychology working with Reginald Adams, assistant professor of psychology and neurology, Penn State. “At the most basic sexual level, attractiveness represents a quality that should increase reproductive potential, like fertility or health.”

The study asked women to rate the attractiveness of male and female faces in two categories – as dates and lab partners. First a baseline was established by one group. A second group of women where then asked to perform the same evaluation on the same facial images, but the some of the images were split horizontally.

By dividing the faces in half and disrupting the test subjects’ total facial processing, the researchers believed that women would rely more on specific facial features to determine attractiveness. They thought that this sexual route would come into play particularly when the participants saw faces that were suited as hypothetical dates rather than lab partners. The study showed exactly that.

The participating women were heterosexual, so the second group’s non-sexual evaluation of a split image featuring a female face closely matched the evaluation of the first group. The second group’s split face choices for date worthy males closely correlated with the first group as well.

The bottom line is that, at a statistically significant level, splitting the faces in half made the women rely on a purely sexual strategy of processing male faces. The study verifies that these two ways of assessing facial appeal exist and can be separated for women.

Attractiveness has a component that is independent of culture & society.

Researchers have long known that women’s biological routes of sexual attraction derive from an instinctive reproductive desire, relying on estrogen and related hormones to regulate them. The overall aesthetic approach is a less reward-based function, driven by progesterone.

How this complex network of hormones interacts and is channeled through the conscious brain and the human culture that shapes it is a mystery.

Men, don’t forget to look your best when you leave the house because you are always being judged and evaluated by women, like a piece of meat at the butcher shop.

Read Full Post »

Do Single Women Seek Attached Men?

It is an age old question: which gender is most likely to steal a mate from an existing relationship, and are they themselves likely to be in a relationship at the time? Typically men have been blamed, but recent research shows that assumption to be false.

Single women are the most likely to poach a mate according to the report published in Journal of Experimental Social Psychology [PDF].

Noting that single women often complain that “all the good men are taken,” the psychologists wondered if “this perception is really based on the fact that taken men are perceived as good.” To investigate, the researchers quizzed male and female undergraduates — some involved in romantic relationships, some unattached — about their ideal romantic partner.

Although the women in the study denied that the status (attached or single) of the men they were looking at played any part in their decisions, the data showed otherwise. The researchers have decided to look into the data more carefully to make sure they are properly understanding the motivation of the women.

Read Full Post »

Before you get all grossed out and try to blame us for losing your lunch, take a moment to ponder the seriousness of this question. At some point in our evolutionary history, it made sense for us to lose body hair. The advantage in having little or no body hair has to do with the human ability of running upright. We are actually the most energy efficient runners (next to dogs) in the animal kingdom, and one way such a thing is possible is through an efficient cooling system, via sweat. Sweating works much more effectively without fur getting in the way of course.

Now, back to our original question.

Robin Weiss, a virologist at University College London, had an intimate revelation in the shower recently.

Public hair, he decided, developed as a sexual ornament. It became bushy and prominent after our ancestors split from non-human primates, he says, when we lost most of our other body hair. As it disappeared, human pubic hair acquired a new role as a prominent sexual ornament, a visual signal of sexual maturity and possibly a reservoir for sexual pheromones.

This theory is actually supported by examining the DNA of lice, both the human and gorilla versions.

Our ancestors and those of gorillas went their separate evolutionary ways at least 7 million years ago. But the lice that infect gorillas and modern humans didn’t become different species until much later – around 3.3 million years ago, as revealed through research in 2007 by David Reed of the University of Florida Natural History Museum in Gainesville.

Reed argues that gorilla lice crossed over to humans through incidental contact, such as humans sleeping in an abandoned gorilla nest. Weiss argues that the pubic hair in humans evolved to become coarser, which gave the gorilla lice something to get a grip on.

To back up his case Weiss visited zoos to peer at the groins of our closest relatives. He noticed that in other great apes, hair in the pubic region was if anything much finer and shorter than elsewhere on the body – the opposite of the human situation. It supported his argument that human pubic hair is different and probably unique, both in its evolution and in its physical appearance and purpose.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »