To all those women who like to swallow...

[Aytumious]

Great News!!

[SpearsBritney]

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,"

[Rotating Rabbit]

...ok but its not the first survey thats concluded this.

and:

"What's more, the longer the interval since they last had sex, the more depressed the women who never or sometimes used condoms got. But the time since the last sexual encounter made no difference to the mood of women who usually or always used condoms."

How do you explain that?

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
...ok but its not the first survey thats concluded this.

and:

"What's more, the longer the interval since they last had sex, the more depressed the women who never or sometimes used condoms got. But the time since the last sexual encounter made no difference to the mood of women who usually or always used condoms."

How do you explain that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the fat ugly bitch who no guy would touch without a rubber is probably morbidly depressed to begin with, so the long periods without sex have no real effect on her already miserable state.

[MCS]

[ QUOTE ]
"What's more, the longer the interval since they last had sex, the more depressed the women who never or sometimes used condoms got. But the time since the last sexual encounter made no difference to the mood of women who usually or always used condoms."

How do you explain that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because if you're a woman whose partner is not using condoms, the semen is making you happier. When you stop having sex, you're no longer getting that boost. So you may revert back to your previous semenless state, when you were more depressed.

However, if your partner IS using condoms, then you're not getting Semen Benefits anyway, so it doesn't matter as much if you stop having sex.

[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.

[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.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. You posed a dichotomy between caution and being laidback and free-spirited. This dichotomy does not exist. It's a childish thought.

The opposite of being free-spirited is not being cautious. Caution has nothing to do with it. You're getting concepts totally mixed up. The opposite of being free-spirited might be being repressed, withdrawn, emotionally unavailable, or extremely controlling, perhaps. All those would work.

But the opposite of being free-spirited is definitely not being responsible or taking elementary precautions. The opposite of being cautious would be something like being careless or irresponsible, not being free-spirited.

If you are positing caution and free-spiritedness as opposites, then aren't you positing carelessness or irresponsibility as things that come with free-spiritedness?

I have to say again that equating free-spiritedness with being irresponsible is a very childish, impulsive idea of sex. Not that sex and desire don't have a big childish element to them, and that feeling that way isn't natural. But people grow up, too, and it doesn't affect their having fun.

Actually, equating taking elementary precautions with a lack of free-spiritedness is making too much of too little. It's also the mistake made by someone likely to put themselves in great danger of having kids before he or she wants them, or catching a few too many diseases, though. If all it takes is putting on a rubber to squash your free-spiritedness, it was definitely hanging on by an incredibly flimsy thread in the first place. If it ever really existed at all.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's it. You posed a dichotomy between caution and being laidback and free-spirited. This dichotomy does not exist. It's a childish thought.

The opposite of being free-spirited is not being cautious. Caution has nothing to do with it. You're getting concepts totally mixed up. The opposite of being free-spirited might be being repressed, withdrawn, emotionally unavailable, or extremely controlling, perhaps. All those would work.

But the opposite of being free-spirited is definitely not being responsible or taking elementary precautions. The opposite of being cautious would be something like being careless or irresponsible, not being free-spirited.

If you are positing caution and free-spiritedness as opposites, then aren't you positing carelessness or irresponsibility as things that come with free-spiritedness?

I have to say again that equating free-spiritedness with being irresponsible is a very childish, impulsive idea of sex. Not that sex and desire don't have a big childish element to them, and that feeling that way isn't natural. But people grow up, too, and it doesn't affect their having fun.

Actually, equating taking elementary precautions with a lack of free-spiritedness is making too much of too little. It's also the mistake made by someone likely to put themselves in great danger of having kids before he or she wants them, or catching a few too many diseases, though. If all it takes is putting on a rubber to squash your free-spiritedness, it was definitely hanging on by an incredibly flimsy thread in the first place. If it ever really existed at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you may be free-spirited, and at the same time may very well take what you deem "elementry" precautions. I am not infering that a "free-spirited" person is not able to take "elementry" precautions. I appoligize for using big words like AVERAGE and LIKELY .

[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.