Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/14/2004 3:35:52 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:55:20 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2004 3:55:31 AM EST by thelibertarian]
Kind of junky science:

"The researchers found that after two months, females exposed to the breastfeeding pads who had regular partners experienced a 24% increase in sexual desire. Women without partners had a 17% increase in sexual fantasies. "


I suspect there are some lurking variables there--like women who took part in a "sex" study found themselves more focused on sex. How do you quantify a 17% increase in something like fantasies? Or a 24% increase in "desire?" "Gee, honey, I feel 24% more sexual this month than last month..."

Oh, and swiping pads on one woman's tits and armpits, and then giving those pads to another woman to swipe under her nose is just gross. Reminds me of some mens' obessions with sniffing soiled panties.

Also a sign of junk science is the concept of chemosignals--can't be smelled or otherwise perceived, but somehow have a magical effect on people. Uh, yeah, whatever.

Link Posted: 10/14/2004 3:58:35 AM EST

I suspect there are some lurking variables there--.......


Don't really have much info so I'm hesitant to defend the study but, if it's a junk study then why didn't the people in the control group (they're still in a --sex-- study remember) report the same improvement as the experimental group?
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:02:45 AM EST
It seems to be a fairly decent study actually.

It is sufficent to prove that there IS something there, even if they don't know WHICH chemical is doing it.

The Perfume industry has worked for a thousand years with research that was significantly LESS scientific than this...
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:12:32 AM EST
No need for a study, I could have told them that their conclusion was true.

GunLvr
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:14:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By GunLvrPHD:
No need for a study, I could have told them that their conclusion was true.

GunLvr



Yeah, but they had to prove that it did this without SEEING the breast...

SEEING the brest is very much a KNOWN aphrodisiac
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:14:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/14/2004 4:15:07 AM EST by wedge1082]
How does that fit in with this?
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:16:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
How does that fit in with this?



Uh, it doesnt.

Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:17:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
How does that fit in with this?



Uh, it doesnt.




Sorry I could not resist.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:20:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
How does that fit in with this?



damn wedge. that's nasty...
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 4:26:49 AM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
How does that fit in with this?



damn wedge. that's nasty...



It's cat's fault. She planted that web page in my memory a couple months ago.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:19:33 AM EST

Originally Posted By hk940:

Originally Posted By wedge1082:
How does that fit in with this?



damn wedge. that's nasty...



I feel worse for having seen it myself.
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:24:43 AM EST
Well, breastfeeding definetly makes me horny.

Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:28:01 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/14/2004 7:31:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:
Kind of junky science:

"The researchers found that after two months, females exposed to the breastfeeding pads who had regular partners experienced a 24% increase in sexual desire. Women without partners had a 17% increase in sexual fantasies. "


I suspect there are some lurking variables there--like women who took part in a "sex" study found themselves more focused on sex. How do you quantify a 17% increase in something like fantasies? Or a 24% increase in "desire?" "Gee, honey, I feel 24% more sexual this month than last month..."

Oh, and swiping pads on one woman's tits and armpits, and then giving those pads to another woman to swipe under her nose is just gross. Reminds me of some mens' obessions with sniffing soiled panties.

Also a sign of junk science is the concept of chemosignals--can't be smelled or otherwise perceived, but somehow have a magical effect on people. Uh, yeah, whatever.




Chemosignals sound like a type of pheremone. I didn't read the article, but bugs and other animals have been getting sexually aroused from pheremones for many a moon. We can't see or smell them, but they affect a very primitive part of our brain. So the story goes.
Top Top