To all those women who like to swallow...

[gorie]

[ QUOTE ]
The form you usually take it in should be fine [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]
i don't think you understand my problem !

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
These findings probably have more to do with the personality type(s) that would or would not use a condom, than some sort of chemical reaction to semen. A woman who is more likely to use a condom is probably a more careful and cautious person than someone who would opt not to use one. And in my own experience, the more careful and cautious I tend to be, the less laid back and happy I am. Even if it is the man in the relationship who pushes the condom, there is a good chance that he is careful and cautious and not as laid back as someone who would not, thereby also increasing the chance that he is not as exciting to be around, thus having an effect on the woman's mood.

There is also the possibility that couples that are very fond of one and other (who on average have a greater sense of well-being)are more likely to engage in unprotected sex than people who are just in it for the sex itself.

There then comes my last conclusion which is; that a girl who is not very appealling to the opposite sex (and thus more likely to have low self-esteem) would be less likely to have unprotected sex than a very attractive girl. This statement may very well indeed be ignorant, but I am speaking from my own point of view that I myself would be more inclined to rawdog a smokin' hot chick than a slightly above average girl.

I think this study is rather pointless as there is hardly a convincing way to determine the cause from the effect.

P.S. I found this very bizzare (and funny):
"I understand that among some gay males who have anal intercourse, it is not uncommon to attempt to retain the semen for extended periods of time,"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that's a very cornball and trivial understanding of people and their sexuality. It sounds like ideas formed from watching too many "hip" t.v. commercials or from the furtive fumbling sex of really young people who don't know what they're doing or who they are yet.

Being able to do a very moderate amount of thinking, or thinking ahead, doesn't make you any less passionate and warm. Being confident and smoothly in control can soothe your partner and make her feel good, and be a turn-on of its own. Jumping around like a jackrabbit or simply ignoring precautions doesn't make you "hot" or spontaneous or anything; it coul mean you're passionate, but it also can just means you're dumb or desperate or inexperienced.

I guess it's like when you're a kid, all you want to eat is sugar cubes, and when you grow up, you realize food is a lot more fun than that.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
From the study report:
"The team found that women whose partners never used condoms scored 8 on average, those who sometimes used them scored 10.5, those who usually used them scored 15 and those who always used them scored 11.3. Women who weren't having sex at all scored 13.5."

small sample sizes:
1st study= 293 female students
2nd study= 700 women

It should also be noted that the Beck Deression Inventory scores like this:
63 total points possible
0-13 = normal/ minimal
14-19 = mild depression
20-28 = moderate depression
29-63 = severe depression

This study is 2-3 years old.

A conclusion that semen is happy juice is pretty far fetched.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? The main thing is not whether this theory is true, but whether it's useful.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]


Being able to do a very moderate amount of thinking, or thinking ahead, doesn't make you any less passionate and warm. Being confident and smoothly in control can soothe your partner and make her feel good, and be a turn-on of its own. Jumping around like a jackrabbit or simply ignoring precautions doesn't make you "hot" or spontaneous or anything; it coul mean you're passionate, but it also can just means you're dumb or desperate or inexperienced.


[/ QUOTE ]

I mentioned nothing about being passionate, warm, "smoothly in control", hot, or spontanious, nor did I say that my points could not be contradicted on a case by case basis. I simply stated that ON AVERAGE, careful and cautious people are less LIKELY than laidback freespirited people to live in the present moment and enjoy life to the fullest (hense there overall sense of wellbeing). And that these "laidback freespirited" people, ON AVERAGE, would be less LIKELY to take precautions (such as having protected sex) each and every time, if at all, than the more cautious people.

[Elecman]

[ QUOTE ]
These findings probably have more to do with the personality type(s) that would or would not use a condom, than some sort of chemical reaction to semen. A woman who is more likely to use a condom is probably a more careful and cautious person than someone who would opt not to use one. And in my own experience, the more careful and cautious I tend to be, the less laid back and happy I am. Even if it is the man in the relationship who pushes the condom, there is a good chance that he is careful and cautious and not as laid back as someone who would not, thereby also increasing the chance that he is not as exciting to be around, thus having an effect on the woman's mood.

There is also the possibility that couples that are very fond of one and other (who on average have a greater sense of well-being)are more likely to engage in unprotected sex than people who are just in it for the sex itself.

There then comes my last conclusion which is; that a girl who is not very appealling to the opposite sex (and thus more likely to have low self-esteem) would be less likely to have unprotected sex than a very attractive girl. This statement may very well indeed be ignorant, but I am speaking from my own point of view that I myself would be more inclined to rawdog a smokin' hot chick than a slightly above average girl.

I think this study is rather pointless as there is hardly a convincing way to determine the cause from the effect.

P.S. I found this very bizzare (and funny):
"I understand that among some gay males who have anal intercourse, it is not uncommon to attempt to retain the semen for extended periods of time,"

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're on the right track by guessing that there are lurking variables unnaccounted for, but I dont think it's that ugly chicks use condoms more often. actually for some reason i think they'd be less inclined to care about STD's. heres a quote from the article:

"The team found that women whose partners never used condoms scored 8 on average, those who sometimes used them scored 10.5, those who usually used them scored 15 and those who always used them scored 11.3. Women who weren't having sex at all scored 13.5."

so those who always use them are less depressed than those who usually use them? that seems to contradict the whole claim. Heres the deal:
Those who never use comdoms are more likely to be in a consistent, more stable relationship with an individual, therefore less depression.
Those who always use them are more likely to be in the same boat as those who never use them than are those who sometimes use them, therefore less depression.
Girls who sometimes use them may have to use them when they go off the pill for that one week or so.
The most depressed group is those that usually use them. These girls are the sluts. I can't think of a situation in which a girl usually has sex w/ a condom but sometimes doesn't, except that she has a lot of partners and leaves it up to them whether or not they use one. These girls are more unstable and probably less secure, therefore more depressed. Also, theres a header in that article that says "Suicide Attempts" but doesnt say a damn thing about suicide, which leads me to believe that its crap anyway.
what do you think?
disclaimer - i didnt read the article extremely closely so if it says something like none of the girls were in a monogamous relationship, i guess i'm wrong.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
The team found that women whose partners never used condoms scored 8 on average, those who sometimes used them scored 10.5, those who usually used them scored 15 and those who always used them scored 11.3. Women who weren't having sex at all scored 13.5.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the 8 vs 11.3 is the only legit stat to look at, and even that one is probably due to being content with the relationship. Sex is much different without a condom, no matter how thin it is, so that is a factor as well.

The 15 for "usually" wearing a condom is likely due to "OH GOD I MIGHT BE PREGNANT" depression when the guy doesn't suit up.

To title the article in a way that implies that the major differing factor is the exchange of semen says a lot about the scientists or writers.

~D

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]


I think you're on the right track by guessing that there are lurking variables unnaccounted for, but I dont think it's that ugly chicks use condoms more often. actually for some reason i think they'd be less inclined to care about STD's. heres a quote from the article:

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, I think I agree with you. I was just speaking from my own point of view I guess.

[Jazza]

[ QUOTE ]
These findings probably have more to do with the personality type(s) that would or would not use a condom, than some sort of chemical reaction to semen. A woman who is more likely to use a condom is probably a more careful and cautious person than someone who would opt not to use one. And in my own experience, the more careful and cautious I tend to be, the less laid back and happy I am. Even if it is the man in the relationship who pushes the condom, there is a good chance that he is careful and cautious and not as laid back as someone who would not, thereby also increasing the chance that he is not as exciting to be around, thus having an effect on the woman's mood.

There is also the possibility that couples that are very fond of one and other (who on average have a greater sense of well-being)are more likely to engage in unprotected sex than people who are just in it for the sex itself.

There then comes my last conclusion which is; that a girl who is not very appealling to the opposite sex (and thus more likely to have low self-esteem) would be less likely to have unprotected sex than a very attractive girl. This statement may very well indeed be ignorant, but I am speaking from my own point of view that I myself would be more inclined to rawdog a smokin' hot chick than a slightly above average girl.

I think this study is rather pointless as there is hardly a convincing way to determine the cause from the effect.

P.S. I found this very bizzare (and funny):
"I understand that among some gay males who have anal intercourse, it is not uncommon to attempt to retain the semen for extended periods of time,"

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying you've just now thought of things that the scientists who did the study did not think of themselves?

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
This study is 2-3 years old.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was about to post a generic "welcome to 2002" response, but you handled it already.

~D

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
These findings probably have more to do with the personality type(s) that would or would not use a condom, than some sort of chemical reaction to semen. A woman who is more likely to use a condom is probably a more careful and cautious person than someone who would opt not to use one. And in my own experience, the more careful and cautious I tend to be, the less laid back and happy I am. Even if it is the man in the relationship who pushes the condom, there is a good chance that he is careful and cautious and not as laid back as someone who would not, thereby also increasing the chance that he is not as exciting to be around, thus having an effect on the woman's mood.

There is also the possibility that couples that are very fond of one and other (who on average have a greater sense of well-being)are more likely to engage in unprotected sex than people who are just in it for the sex itself.

There then comes my last conclusion which is; that a girl who is not very appealling to the opposite sex (and thus more likely to have low self-esteem) would be less likely to have unprotected sex than a very attractive girl. This statement may very well indeed be ignorant, but I am speaking from my own point of view that I myself would be more inclined to rawdog a smokin' hot chick than a slightly above average girl.

I think this study is rather pointless as there is hardly a convincing way to determine the cause from the effect.

P.S. I found this very bizzare (and funny):
"I understand that among some gay males who have anal intercourse, it is not uncommon to attempt to retain the semen for extended periods of time,"

[/ QUOTE ]

are you saying you've just now thought of things that the scientists who did the study did not think of themselves?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I'm quite confident that the overwhelming amount of possible variables in this particular study (most of which I have probably not even thought of yet) have already been considered. I am just simply amazed that hardly any variables were touched upon or discounted. I see many ridiculous studies like this in the news(usually designed to sell you some sort of product) that have absolutly no way of distinguishing the cause from the effect.