Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Find Tears Are the Anti-Viagra

An anonymous reader writes "The male test subjects didn't know what they were smelling, they were just given little vials of clear liquid and told to sniff. But when those vials contained a woman's tears (collected while she watched a sad movie), the men rated pictures of women's faces as less sexually attractive, and their saliva contained less testosterone. Is this proof that humans make and respond to pheromones? The researcher behind the study doesn't use that controversial word, but he says his findings do prove that tears contain meaningful chemical messages."

207 comments

  1. Tell it to the Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    90% of their porn involves women crying.

    1. Re:Tell it to the Japanese by Pax681 · · Score: 1

      hmmm a drawn together moment!

      Spanky: So was he any good, Mr. Nagasaki?[referring to Ling-Ling]

      Ling-Ling: He cry a lot.

      Spanky: Sorry about that. He's new.

      Ling-Ling: Oh No! I like it! Tears are best lubricant.

    2. Re:Tell it to the Japanese by jandrese · · Score: 2

      Somehow I don't think they get the pheromones on the DVDs though.

      --

      I read the internet for the articles.
    3. Re:Tell it to the Japanese by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      That is exactly what I thought of when first hearing about this.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    4. Re:Tell it to the Japanese by Vegemeister · · Score: 1

      Meh. Cheesy American porn noises are no better,

    5. Re:Tell it to the Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Might be interesting to repeat the experiment in Japan and compare the results.

    6. Re:Tell it to the Japanese by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "90% of their porn involves women crying."

      Those tentacle and eel insertions DO look painful.
      Squid, not so much...

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Tell it to the Japanese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of Japanese porn are *you* watching?

    8. Re:Tell it to the Japanese by AvonJohn · · Score: 1

      That 's kind of creepy.

  2. (collected while she watched a sad movie) by blai · · Score: 1

    And if it were collected while she watched a comedy?
    And if it were collected while he watched a sad movie?

    --
    In soviet Russia, God creates you!
    1. Re:(collected while she watched a sad movie) by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      And if it were collected during sex? I guess that would be tricky.

    2. Re:(collected while she watched a sad movie) by Fluffeh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unless I have gone funny, I think that nature has pulled a swift one here that no-one has picked up... Here's how:

      Males found women less attractive when in contact with the tears - not even knowing what they were.
      Therefore, something in the tears makes males less likely to see an attractive woman. It doesn't say that it makes the woman crying the ONLY one less attractive.
      Therefore, perhaps it is a mechanism developed by nature to stop males just finding a "hottie" so to speak while another woman was crying and instead focus as a group on what was making the woman cry?
      Problem is fixed, woman stops crying and the males then pair off with the females and further the species once more?

      hmmmm, this is /. and I seem to have missed a 4) PROFIT!!!! in there, but meh.

      *sips coffee*

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    3. Re:(collected while she watched a sad movie) by The+Hatchet · · Score: 1

      I would say that explanation is a lot more logical. Also, whenever I see a girl crying I feel naturally implored to attempt to comfort her in any way possible.

      --
      Where is the mod rating for "scary"? Also, ...
    4. Re:(collected while she watched a sad movie) by werewolf1031 · · Score: 1

      Eh, not me. Don't get me wrong, I am in no way a sadist -- I take no pleasure in the suffering of others, and I'm not without compassion. But it's been my observation that if someone's sitting down and crying as opposed to rushing around frantically, then it's not a life-and-death emergency that you need to jump into, so the only thing required is (maybe) a shoulder to cry on. It's not that I don't feel sympathy, I just suck at comforting people in "their time of need" (ie. loved one passed away, or their SO left them, etc.).

      Give me an emergency "oh shit" situation to deal with and I can do what needs to be done; been there, and I know I can handle it. But I'll leave the comforting to more capable hands, as I simply lack the skills (and, admittedly, the will) do adequately do so.

  3. Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I can only get it up if she's crying.

    1. Re:Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I take it that's before you slipped in the rohypnol?

    2. Re:Personally... by couchslug · · Score: 2

      There is a whole genre of such pr0n, so what deters some clearly arouses others.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Personally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I find it's quite a thrill
      When she grinds me against her will
      Yes a lap dance is so much better when the stripper is cryin'

      Hooray for Boobies

    4. Re:Personally... by RDW · · Score: 2

      At least one other study, conducted on a Mr JT Kirk of Iowa, has reported results consistent with your experience:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaan_of_Troyius

  4. It's a safety mechanism for women..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a safety mechanism for women.....

    RAPIST: SHUT UP AND LAY STILL!!
    RAPE VICTIM: NO!! Please! Don't do this! *sob* *sob* Don't do this to me!
    RAPIST: *sniffs* ohhh shit... *loses errection* sorry, have a good night. Gotta go

    1. Re:It's a safety mechanism for women..... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It's certainly possible that in a species where rape is a viable reproductive strategy for males that females would evolve some mechanisms to retain the ability to select who they reproduce with. Mallard drakes are notorious rapists -- they don't even care if the victim is female, or even alive. Both sexes have corkscrew-shaped sex organs, but the females' turn in the opposite direction. As a result, research has shown that while the majority of copulations are involuntary on the part of the female, the majority of conceptions are the result of voluntary copulation, because if she doesn't cooperate the drake is unlikely to achieve sufficient penetration.

      I would hesitate to assume this same evolutionary logic applies to humans and tears. In any event, I would imagine it's more complicated and touches more aspects of our social nature.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  5. Not for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I find the opposite is true. Nothing is more attractive than holding and protecting a crying woman. It really pumps up testoterone and triggers deeper emotions, which often naturally leads to sex.

    1. Re:Not for me by WarJolt · · Score: 1

      I find the opposite is true. Nothing is more attractive than holding and protecting a crying woman. It really pumps up testoterone and triggers deeper emotions, which often naturally leads to sex.

      Naturally taking advantage of a woman when she is vulnerable leads to sex. It's ok if you're already involved, but she might regret it later.

    2. Re:Not for me by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 0

      That's p fuckin creepy dude.

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    3. Re:Not for me by HelloKitty2 · · Score: 0

      You're p fucking stupid

    4. Re:Not for me by umghhh · · Score: 1

      so she will regret it and what then....????? Crie of course which leads to more sex and crying which leads to even more sex and more crying.

    5. Re:Not for me by 19thNervousBreakdown · · Score: 1

      Who would have thought somebody who calls themselves "HelloKitty2" wouldn't get ironic use of internet grammar?

      --
      <xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
    6. Re:Not for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reverse, it is me that is being taken advantage off. Crying triggers the protector instinct that is powerfull factor in all good men, and is easy to abuse. That sex follows falling in love is the only possive side-effect of being deeply in love with a manipulative woman.

    7. Re:Not for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's only "taking advantage" if "holding and protecting" is a switch that turns on whenever she starts crying and shuts off the moment she stops crying and starts fucking.

  6. The level of discourse by uid7306m · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Geez, guys. Mental age should be at least 16, mental altitude should be at least a foot above the gutter.

    1. Re:The level of discourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pfft - whatever happened to "dig for victory?"

    2. Re:The level of discourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez, guys. Mental age should be at least 16

      Clearly, you are lost. I think you want some other site.

    3. Re:The level of discourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You shall be the first to fall in 4chan's overthrow of Slashdot. No refuge for the hippies!

    4. Re:The level of discourse by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      Hippies, as opposed to the drop-out good-for-nothing 16-25 year olds frequenting 4chan?

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
    5. Re:The level of discourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the transition is going wel11!!!!!!!!111

    6. Re:The level of discourse by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Yeah but the editors at /. would know with a story like this the #commentlisting was going to be overly populated with such discourse.

      Its not like /. attracts people with healthy sexual appetites, quite the opposite, considering most of them are buying plastic vagina molds of their favorite pornstar and calling it "their" girl.

    7. Re:The level of discourse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know about you, but my gutters are already a good 10 feet off the ground. What difference would another foot make?

    8. Re:The level of discourse by syousef · · Score: 2

      Geez, guys. Mental age should be at least 16, mental altitude should be at least a foot above the gutter.

      Why? Being old sucks. And the gutter is nice and warm. ;-)

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    9. Re:The level of discourse by hduff · · Score: 1

      Geez, guys. Mental age should be at least 16, mental altitude should be at least a foot above the gutter.

      On Slashdot?

      The discourse is usually at basement level, not upstairs with mom.

      --
      "I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
    10. Re:The level of discourse by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Who let the geek speak up? You're gonna get it at lunch break!

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:The level of discourse by Brafil · · Score: 1

      That's for Australians.

    12. Re:The level of discourse by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      The gutter? I can't reach that high.

  7. So how do we explain make-up sex? by rsborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember lots of tears and well, it still happened every time.

    Perhaps not all generated tears are the same (maybe this explains why guys avoid chick flicks?)

    --
    Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    1. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Alopex · · Score: 1

      The article points to: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7294117 It's a 30 year old study that showed the composition of "emotional" tears differs from the composition of tears produced in response to an irritant.

    2. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because the man doesn't usually control when a sexual encounter happens, the woman does. Make up sex is when the woman is either trying to induce you to stay in the relationship or is turned on because of how you responded to the argument.

    3. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by durrr · · Score: 1

      You seem to be blissfully unaware of our history until a few decades ago.

    4. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      In the animal kingdom, in primates, and in primitive tribes this is still true. Note I said "usually".

    5. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by sackvillian · · Score: 1

      Why propose that tears caused by a fight might have significant chemical differences from tears caused by a sad movie instead of considering a hugely different state of mind for the male?

      Occam's razor: maybe men who are having a tiff with a lover and see a tear will react differently than men sitting in an experimenter's room, smelling unlabeled vials.

      --
      Hey mate, spare a sig?
    6. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Societies where the woman controls sex should be destroyed. Actually they're usually the least fertile so they will be destroyed, I'm glad of that. Good by you fucking worthless pro-women's rights scum.

    7. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      What about tears produced by an irritant?

      I'm sure one of my ex-girlfriends could drum up some crying for the study.

    8. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The keyword is "history". Since we began to record history, your statements are true. However, it is speculated, that sometime in pre-historic times, the GPs comment was valid, and for possibly a long time. Our speculation of pre-historic sexual relationships is created through several sciences, and pieced together. There is a notable exception in the male dominancy within historic times, but even then the women achieved status by their connection to deceased or infant males. http://womenshistory.about.com/od/ancientqueens/tp/women_pharaohs.htm In fact, to further support proof of male dominancy, mothers in germany have only within the last decade begun to enter the workforce.

    9. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by DarkWicked · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps, just perhaps, people get grossed out whenever you make them sniff a vial of something they recognize as bodily fluids, no matter what kind they are.

    10. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It cannot be the anti-Viagra becaus eif she is crying you want to, and theoretically, can do her younger better looking sister.

    11. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Because the man doesn't usually control when a sexual encounter happens, the woman does.

      Are you speaking specifically about make-up sex, or sex in general? Because if it's the latter, my experience says that you're wrong. A very active sex life (e.g. twice a night or more, over the period of a month or more) can be difficult for most men over the age of 25 due to the male refractory period. Men need some time to recover, whereas so long as you are careful not to hurt your partner, a woman could have sex as often as she desires. Likewise, for a man, an orgasm generally means sex is over (unless he's exceptionally well rested) whereas a woman can orgasm as many times as she wishes.

      Likewise, it's not terribly difficult to arouse a partner if you're passionate and understand what turns your partner on. I've been in plenty of relationships where my partner wants sex and I'm just too damned tired.

      Your statement doesn't match my experience at all, except when pursing someone who isn't terribly interested in having sex with me (hint.)

      Regarding make-up sex... When someone is upset, or especially when they are sad... We tend to open up, and discuss things. In a relationship with partners that are feeling somewhat isolated or disconnected, that openness and communication can easily lead to a feeling of closeness as the issues you are experiencing are dealt with. I've personally found that love and a feeling of connectedness or closeness are very strongly related, and that strong feelings often invoke a feeling of passion. Passion + connectedness = very good sex.

      I'd personally think that make-up sex is actually pretty common, so long as your partner isn't still harboring hurt feelings.

    12. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder if this guy is serious or what. Because he's describing our Western society.

    13. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 1

      What about tears produced by an irritant?

      I'm sure one of my ex-girlfriends could drum up some crying for the study.

      One of my ex-girlfriends *is* an irritant.

    14. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      RTFA. They did the same thing with vials of saline that had been washed over the same women's faces. No effect on arousal. There was no way for the subjects to know what was bodily fluids, and what wasn't.

    15. Re:So how do we explain make-up sex? by Pence128 · · Score: 1

      -1 the exact same joke gp made

      --
      404: sig not found.
  8. Re:Because by LordNimon · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hey, I've always thought it's better when she cries.

    --
    And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
    To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
  9. Pheremones? by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

    Is this proof that humans make and respond to pheromones?

    Anyone can find this out very easily: Just don't shower or apply deodorant for a couple of days, and you will notice everyone around you respond (assuming you leave your parent's basement on a regular basis).

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:Pheremones? by Quasar1999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Are you mad??? Asking people on slashdot to shower even less???

      Pheremones don't have a noticable scent/odor... someone not showering AND failing to apply deodorant is gonna smell pretty awful, especially if it's for days.

      --

      ---
      Programming is like sex... Make one mistake and support it the rest of your life.
    2. Re:Pheremones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I recently read a study where women subconsciously preferred men who slightly smelled of sweat compared to recently clean. I think the best bet to pick up women (say at a bar) is to shower right before but not put on deodorant, you're not going to stink unless you go dancing or do some intense activity. If you do pick up a girl, just put on deodorant before the deed, carry it in your car or something.

    3. Re:Pheremones? by Bobakitoo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pheremones from other species dont have noticeable scent to you. You are not rigged to recognize and response to them. To each species, their pheromones has a distincive smell that provoke a specific emotional impuse to act in some way. eg: It smell attractive.

      Deodorant are not natural and are merely masking the human odor. If you think natural odor smell awful, it is only because you are not use to it. Just like puritain are scandalized over the sight of a naked body. Hygiene is important, and restraining too strong odor is also important, but demanding that everyone has the same standardized "aqua fresh" scent is wrong.

    4. Re:Pheremones? by SanityInAnarchy · · Score: 1

      Deodorant isn't just "masking" odor with another scent -- it's not perfume. (Notice that there are unscented deodorants.) What it does is kill the bacteria which are causing that odor, which seems like a reasonable thing to do.

      --
      Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
    5. Re:Pheremones? by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      (assuming you leave your parent's basement on a regular basis)

      But it's scary up there. Full of judgment, people that expect you to pay for things yourself, and an alarming shortage of freely available Hot Pockets.

    6. Re:Pheremones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are made of bacteria, killing the odorous one IS masking odor. An equilibrated bacterial flora do not smell awful.

    7. Re:Pheremones? by angus77 · · Score: 2

      Masking covers up the problem, but the problem's still there underneath. Killing is....killing.

    8. Re:Pheremones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is not the bacteria, the problem is the disequilibrium and it is caused by poor hygiene. Wash often and after sweating is better then appying some products that only mask the poor hygiene.

    9. Re:Pheremones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Immeadiately after a shower you have a short window of opportunity for your natural pheremones to work properly, before B.O. builds up.

      So your best option is to shower, then excercise.

    10. Re:Pheremones? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Deodorant isn't just "masking" odor with another scent -- it's not perfume. (Notice that there are unscented deodorants.) What it does is kill the bacteria which are causing that odor, which seems like a reasonable thing to do.

      What it actually does is trap dead skin cells and bacteria under your armpits where they rot and smell like death, so you have to use even more to cover it up. No amount of deodorant or antiperspirant keeps me from smelling like sweat after hard physical exertion, but I smell better after hard physical exertion since I gave up antiperspirant and deodorant. I find that taking a shower and putting on clean clothes every day is all the cleanliness I need. Instead of spraying toxics under my arms, I shower. Maybe more people should try it. If I have to smell one more young girl doused in dollar store body spray I may go postal. It gives me a fucking headache every time. A huge number of the chemicals used in such products are known to be toxic. Many toxic European products are being dumped on the US market because the EU banned everything not already shown to be harmless.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:Pheremones? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The problem is that if you use antiperspirant (or even most deodorants) it is nearly impossible to wash it all off, and it's trapping stuff beneath it, so it actually makes the problem worse.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Pheremones? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      well this is hopeless - sex discussion on /. and on top an attempt to divulge into the world of other physical activity - I mean how theoretical can you get?

    13. Re:Pheremones? by operagost · · Score: 1

      Deodorant are not natural and are merely masking the human odor. If you think natural odor smell awful, it is only because you are not use to it. Just like puritain are scandalized over the sight of a naked body.

      Questionable analogy there, Chief No-Take-A-Bath.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:Pheremones? by operagost · · Score: 1

      What it actually does is trap dead skin cells and bacteria under your armpits where they rot and smell like death, so you have to use even more to cover it up.

      Most deodorants include triclosan, alcohol, and other anti-bacterials, Mr. Stinky-poo.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    15. Re:Pheremones? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most deodorants include triclosan, alcohol, and other anti-bacterials, Mr. Stinky-poo.

      That's nice. That does nothing to prevent the rotting of the skin you're trapping beneath it. It kills off the surface stuff only. Then it makes it harder to get clean afterwards to the point where most people never do.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:Pheremones? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Deadpool? Is that you?

  10. Re:It has to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But the mother-in-law's vaginal odor is awwwright.

  11. Well of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I find I am less arroused when I see tears.

    Perhaps it is the wintery freshness of mace.

  12. Rapists. by queazocotal · · Score: 5, Interesting

    An interesting test would be to do a similar study on violent rapists.
    (excluding those in pre-existing relationships with the victim).
    Are they less affected, or even aroused, by the same signals?

    1. Re:Rapists. by jamesh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Maybe that's the secret. Rapists have nasal congestion problems!

      I wonder how much of it is learned too... sure our brains can 'smell' tears, but the response could still be a result of conditioning rather than anything hardwired.

    2. Re:Rapists. by JustSomeGuyNamedWolf · · Score: 1

      The motivation behind rape usually is not sexual in nature; it's about power. In raping someone, and it isn't always a woman, the attacker fulfills that need for power and control. I'm sure there are others who could explain this in far more depth than I am capable of but you get the general idea.

    3. Re:Rapists. by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The motivation behind rape usually is not sexual in nature; it's about power.

      Seriously, what does that even mean? My view is that sex and power (for either sex) aren't something you can easily split up.

      The confusion gets even worse when all coercive sex is categorized as rape. A boyfriend or husband whining that they aren't getting enough sex is not what I view as an exercise of power.

      OTOH, why do people pursue power over others? I think that urge is closely related to sex. This leads not only to rape, but also males in leadership roles maintaining lovers (of either sex) on the side and on the female side a strong pursuit of powerful males. It also explains how some people can enjoy killing other people.

      Anyway, as a result, I don't support the claim that rape is about power not sex, because I don't think the two behaviors/goals are separable (especially given that the rapist is having forced sex with the victim, that doesn't seem an "either/or" choice to me). There also seems to me to be plenty of evidence that sex and power-seeking behaviors are commonly intertwined in many human activities.

    4. Re:Rapists. by catmistake · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rape is not a crime of passion and desire. It is a crime of violence. Rape is about (that illusion known as) control. You can't stop a rapist by "turning them off" sexually. There's more than one way to stop a rapist, of course, but I recommend vigorously and repeatedly applying a baseball bat to either head.

    5. Re:Rapists. by ryanov · · Score: 1

      Do you really not know what that means? It means that rape has little to do with sex and more with the desire to dominate, violate, and humiliate.

      Sex in a relationship is not the same as sex as part of a rape.

    6. Re:Rapists. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Rape *is* a relationship. A nasty one, but like slavery, a relationship none the less.

      Never assume otherwise, or you will be very confused by the slippery slope between normal human tensions and abuse.

    7. Re:Rapists. by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      That also doesn't make it a crime: the changes in child-rape laws, the changes in spousal rape laws, the changes in sexual abuse laws in the workplace (especially in third world countries), and the policies in different countries of what constitutes drug-aided rape involving alcohol or light intoxicant, or even the relationships between therapist and client or priest and worshipper involving sexuality all have had different standards at different times. Throw in rape as a legal punishment or as treatment of conquered civilians, both men and women, and you have a long, long history of rape as a legal procedure.

      That doesn't make it fair, proper, or safe. Like slavery, it insults other people's bodies and takes away their control over their fate and especially their own bodies. But it's certainly a legally supported act in many societies, and is a fairly frequent behavior in the animal kingdom, so it's as natural as other slightly unusual sexual behaviors, including homosexuality, incest, polyamory, or doing it standing up or back to front.

    8. Re:Rapists. by Rectal+Prolapse · · Score: 1

      Where is the evidence to support this assertion?

      I here this all the time, that rape is all about control. But i have not found any scientific evidence to support this. Maybe rape is...a desperate way to get sex?

    9. Re:Rapists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You may be aware that 9 ou tof 10 rapes are made by people who are relatives of the victim (that she/he knows beforehand). So if you "exclude those in pre-existing relationships", unless by "relationship" you mean the sexual relationship thingie, you exclude pretty much everyone...

    10. Re:Rapists. by khallow · · Score: 1

      Do you really not know what that means? It means that rape has little to do with sex and more with the desire to dominate, violate, and humiliate.

      And why do the desires to "dominate, violate, and humiliate" not have much to do with sex, especially since there are similar behaviors where they do?

    11. Re:Rapists. by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Sex, can also very much about power. Power can be highly arousing, and the feeling of being out of control can likewise be arousing. My personal experience is that when a woman trusts you completely, the feeling of a man controlling his partner can be very much a turn-on for both parties.

      So while saying rape is about violence is true, it ignores that violence is often about passion and desire for the people who commit rape. Personally, I think forced castration would probably solve the problem, even if it's somewhat unethical.

    12. Re:Rapists. by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      If all you want is sex, go pay a prostitute. In the long run it's probably cheaper and a whole lot less fuss.

      Rape is generally about one person saying their will has absolute priority over that of another. The difference between rape and say rough sex is consent. It is denying the ability of one party to say no, whether through force, deception, drugs or simply the maturity to understand the implications.

      It's all about power.

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
    13. Re:Rapists. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's really two kinds of rape. There is rape of opportunity, and rape by people who prefer rape. The latter is well understood, by psychology, and is being referred to here as the only kind of rape. If this confuses you, GP, it's because there are indeed rapes that aren't all about control and power. It's easy to think of rapists as all monsters who are evil and want to destroy another person because it makes them feel better, but there are other people who just want to have sex, and think they can get away with using coercion or force to get it.

      There is correlation between legal prostitution and reduced rape rates, in a few studies I've seen. That would be the result of the rape of opportunity folks getting off without hurting people, or getting involved in a system (black market prostitution) that hurts people.

  13. Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What about 9?

  14. What? by santax · · Score: 5, Funny

    Man, I love it when they cry. All 7 of em. You know. Here in my basement. Brb, moms calling.

    1. Re:What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of apostrophe actually makes that joke funnier.

  15. Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by Lord+Kano · · Score: 4, Interesting

    should already know this. A woman who cries to win an argument, then you lose all interest in romance, then she cries because you don't want to touch her, then you are even less interested. It's a vicious cycle that ends up in either broken or sexless relationships. I know.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      all relationships end up sexless!!

    2. Re:Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by jamesh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      all relationships end up sexless!!

      Yes, because we all die in the end. If it happens sooner then you're doing it wrong.

    3. Re:Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by PPH · · Score: 1

      all relationships end up sexless!!

      If the goal of the manipulation is to avoid sex. If women want sex (note to Slashdotters: they do) the crying thing would be negative feedback and would be conditioned out of their behavior.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by Lord+Kano · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the goal of the manipulation is to avoid sex. If women want sex (note to Slashdotters: they do) the crying thing would be negative feedback and would be conditioned out of their behavior.

      Only if they want sex more than they want to win arguments.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand the "only if" qualifier. Make sure you hook up with one that likes sex. Everything else takes care of itself.

    6. Re:Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by SpecBear · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, because we all die in the end. If it happens sooner then you're doing it wrong.

      And if it happens later, then you're doing it even wronger.

    7. Re:Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because we all die in the end. If it happens sooner then you're doing it wrong.

      And if it happens later, then you're doing it even wronger.

      But at least you're doing it.

    8. Re:Anyone who has ever dated a manipulative crier by zaaj · · Score: 2

      Shouldn't that be: "If it happens sooner then you're not doing it, right?"

  16. Meaningless. by Seumas · · Score: 4, Funny

    This has nothing to do with whether a woman crying is a turn-off (yes, white-knights, we all know crying girls make you so so so so sad). This has to do with a vial of tear-juice impacting your judgement in how attractive women are. I guess this will be completely relevant when women start literally crying buckets. Until then, when do you actually come in contact with enough tears at one time that it could possibly effect you? I'm sure a vial full of ear-wax shoved right under my nose would repulse me, too, and the last thing I'd be thinking about is sex.

    1. Re:Meaningless. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      inconceivable!

    2. Re:Meaningless. by misexistentialist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is a pretty useless hypothesis to prove since crying women look repulsive. I think the study misses the point and that the scent is supposed to help trigger the nurturing response of fathers.

  17. Re:It has to be said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ewwwww

  18. Seriously by MrQuacker · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Do some actual science. Toss some tears into a gas chromatography analyzer and see whats in them.

    If something is there concentrate or synthesize it and test it one by one.

    1. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its hard to tell what was once there though. That's the beauty of homeopathic dilution; there might not even be a single molecule of anything interesting left in there, but the tears STILL work to get some male to defend the female. Especially if they are Elasian tears; those ones are hard to break free from.

    2. Re:Seriously by ebonum · · Score: 2

      Winning recipe!
      If you planted an air freshener loaded with this stuff ( see above post - you need to figure out how to synthesize it ) in an NFL team's locker room, think of the competitive advantage!

      If you work for JP Morgan, you would want to load up the Goldman trading floor with this stuff. Take the testosterone out and they will suffer.

    3. Re:Seriously by Johnno74 · · Score: 1

      Problem is there is undoubtedly lots of different stuff in tears - probably many thousands of different compounds. Big job to see which compound is having that effect.

    4. Re:Seriously by CrazyJim1 · · Score: 1

      Toss some tears into a gas

      Then you can disperse rioters

    5. Re:Seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to see something made into a product. Having an overactive sex drive can be a curse and can prevent someone from leading a normal life. Exercise helps a lot of people, but not everyone.

    6. Re:Seriously by couchslug · · Score: 1

      Mod up! This was the only really worthwhile comment in the thread.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    7. Re:Seriously by Kilrah_il · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean, you want to analyze each chemical in the tears (or at least each one that is in an abnormal concentration in sad women's tears) to see if it does, what? Oh, I know, to see if it makes men less horny. But how did you know it should make them less horny? By doing a research such as the one in TFA.
      Science has many steps and levels of research. Usually you start by researching a general phenomenon and deriving a basic idea of "what the heck is happening" (i.e. sad women's tears cause men to be less sexually aroused). After that you go into smaller details and try to find what is causing said phenomenon (i.e. chemical X and/or Y cause men to be less sexually aroused). And the last step is using the sum of all the small details to make a theory that can be put to practical use (e.g. let's make product MakeWomenSafe(TM) to chemically castrate too-sexually violent men).
      Not always do we have all of those steps, but it's hard to start at the gas chromatography stage before finishing the first, general step - which is also actual science.

      --
      Whenever in an argument, remember this.
    8. Re:Seriously by MrQuacker · · Score: 1

      Hmm, true. I guess I skipped a few steps ahead :)

  19. Re:Because by mug+funky · · Score: 3, Interesting

    an ex of mine had bipolar, and would often have an attack of intense depression during the night.

    if you've ever woken up at 4am to a crying girl trying to hump you, you may find evidence to the contrary of TFA.

  20. I can't believe I'm saying this, but . . . by wrencherd · · Score: 2

    I'm sure a vial full of ear-wax shoved right under my nose would repulse me, too, and the last thing I'd be thinking about is sex.

    . . . I think that's a valid point for a different reason; I think it's pretty well-settled that a person likes-, and is not offended, by the smells of their lover(-s).

    If that's true then perhaps these guys were not turned on b/c they did not "recognize" the smell and they interpreted the tears as just stinky fluid.

  21. I think it is the other way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Tears is a signal that reduces the testosterone which is connected to both sex drive and aggression. I think this signal is "meant" to reduce aggression -- lowering sex drive being just a coincidence.

    Crying is admitting your vulnerability, it's an honest signal to the aggressor. It's also an element of "happy tears" I think..

    1. Re:I think it is the other way by vede · · Score: 1

      I think this is the most intelligent comment so far here... Consider that tears have been widely suggested to be a response to feelings of helplessness, the presence of tears would indicate that any conflict has been won (the other parties indicating their own helplessness), and if the conflict is over, then there's less need for testosterone at the moment.

    2. Re:I think it is the other way by PPH · · Score: 1

      Its a good point. I just don't understand the subject line "I think its the other way". The other way being what? An increase in sex drive? Only if one accepts the act of courting as a kind of aggression.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    3. Re:I think it is the other way by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if one accepts the act of courting as a kind of aggression.

      Ummm...where have you been?

      (I am interested because it sounds like a civil place)

    4. Re:I think it is the other way by PPH · · Score: 1

      Ummm...where have you been?

      What's your point?

      Sex, among higher primates including homo sapiens, fosters cooperation and peace within groups. Read
      Sex at Dawn for a good explanation of the differences between various species approaches toward mating. The bottom line is that there is little, if any, anthropological and physiological evidence for the sorts of competition that lower species and traditional cultural norms impose. So the need for some sort of pheromone that regulates sexual aggression or signals submission would seem to have no function and therefore no evolutionary basis. As an unintended consequence of a response to some other form of aggression, it might make sense.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  22. Women get the short end of the stick by justinlee37 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Throughout most of human history, the man has been the gatekeeper to sexual activity, not the woman. In fact, it was only until very recently that a man could be legally prosecuted for raping his wife.

    In the United States, South Dakota was the first state to criminalize "spousal rape." This did not happen until 1975. The last state to criminalize "spousal rape" was 1993.

    In even earlier (bust still recent) history, say prior to the 1900's, women were not allowed to vote or own property in a marriage, and they were usually not able to live on their own due to the fact that few people would hire them for any job, and without anti-discrimination laws in place employers were free to systematically deny women employment, or even to pay them a lower wage just because they were female.

    In the Middle Ages in Europe, and still today in many cultures around the world, marriages are arranged by the parents and children, especially daughters, may have little say in when they get married or to whom. Combine that with a society in which a woman can't have a political voice, can't refuse to have sex with her husband, can't divorce him, and may be legally beaten by her husband, and you'll find that historically, women have had VERY little say in when a sexual encounter happens, or even with whom it happens with.

    Things have began to change recently, which is good, but 1316311 makes an excellent point. It would be a shame if you missed the point, which is why I took the time to compose this message and provide at least one reference. "Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it," blah blah blah, and all that rubbish.

    1. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many if not most men aren't rapists, even historically.

    2. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you haven't fallen for the feminist's propaganda. We'll have to fix that.

    3. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see I let my penis think for me: that should be feminist or feminists'.

    4. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Capt.+Skinny · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're talking about marriage. ShooterNeo was likely referring to a dating relationship, when the woman often has the upper hand. Man pursues woman, man must conciliate woman.

    5. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Ihmhi · · Score: 3, Funny

      Throughout most of human history, the man has been the gatekeeper to sexual activity, not the woman.

      Having the man be the gatekeeper to sexual activity is about as good an idea as having the woman be the gatekeeper for the credit cards.

    6. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by DrVomact · · Score: 0

      Throughout most of human history, the man has been the gatekeeper to sexual activity, not the woman. In fact, it was only until very recently that a man could be legally prosecuted for raping his wife.

      I'm sorry, but you seem to have responded to the wrong topic. The cited study concerned the effect on sexual arousal in males when exposed to the smell of female tears. I don't know whether the study's conclusions are correct or not, but I do know that "rape" is not synonymous with "sexual intercourse"—and never has been. You ought, therefore, to find a forum where a discussion of rape laws, women's rights, and marriage customs are relevant.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    7. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Actually studies of primitive tribes and/or of primates reveal that rape isn't the majority of the matings. The reason is that primates, like humans, live in tribes. It is thought that a typical human tribe's natural size is on the order of 100 individuals. In such a tribe, there are consequences for rape. In those times, there was no privacy, so it would be obvious if a rape happened and the male family members of the woman might potentially take action.

      These ideas come from a field of science known as evolutionary psychology, and are based on field research and mathematical modeling. (evolutionary psychology is a hard science based on facts and testable hypotheses not a soft science like normal psychology)

    8. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by inviolet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In even earlier (bust still recent) history, say prior to the 1900's, women were not allowed to vote or own property in a marriage, and they were usually not able to live on their own due to the fact that few people would hire them for any job, and without anti-discrimination laws in place employers were free to systematically deny women employment, or even to pay them a lower wage just because they were female.

      You had me until the "lower wage for the same work" rant.

      If that rant was true, why would anyone hire a male? If females have the same productivity, yet 25-50% less labor cost... greedy money-grubbing capitalists will eschew males, not females. And since labor costs are such a large part of total costs, a 25% savings in labor can triple the profit margin... and so greedy money-grubbing shareholders will get into the act too.

      Except that isn't happening. Hmmm. Must be a giant worldwide conspiracy to drastically cut profit margins. Yeah, that's it.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    9. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's more to do with the fact that
      a) there is an implicit assumption in most people (of both sexes) that a woman will be less good than a man (at any job, with the possible exception of child care, which has an anti-male stigma), so why would you hire less competent people?
      b) many low-wage jobs are manual, and women are statistically smaller and less durable than men on average.

    10. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      If that rant was true, why would anyone hire a male? If females have the same productivity, yet 25-50% less labor cost...

      LOL.

      Because in the same society in which women were presumed so inferior as to not be fit to own property, naturally no employer considered them to be equally productive even if it was demonstrably the case. Of course in this same society, the supply of women trying to enter the job pool was drastically lower as a woman's place was in the home. It wasn't until the 1940s that women entered the workforce in large numbers, and latter than that when dual-income homes became common. So even if a particular employer had realized this reduction in labor cost, there simply weren't enough women seeking employment for it to apply globally.

      Except that isn't happening. Hmmm. Must be a giant worldwide conspiracy to drastically cut profit margins. Yeah, that's it.

      LOL. Of course. Because if large numbers of people engage in economically sub-optimal decision making as a result of ignorance, prejudice, and sexism, then that obviously means that in reality the sub-optimal behavior could not have existed.

      How many George Washington Carvers did the world miss out on because of prejudice against Africans? The loss of economic productivity from the inventions they would have created is surely tremendous. Ergo, either the capacity for Africans to be scientists and inventors is a myth with only a few exceptions, or it was a vast conspiracy to cut profits.

      LOL.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partly because of the very prejudice you yourself are displaying here—that women in general are less productive workers than men. That is an ignorant assumption.

      In any case, you're missing the point when you say why don't employers try to pay less for their employees: they do! When they're women and they can get away with it! Particularly from the perspective of history, women had very few choices and thus could be exploited far more than equally capable men. And there is a great reluctance to correct this historical momentum; it costs money to pay women equally, you know.

      The issue of "Equal pay for Equal work" has always been exactly that: getting equal pay for equal fucking work. Why is it that, amongst all the other discrimination documented against women that doesn't make sense, the one that saves people lots of money is so hard to believe?

    12. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 1

      How many George Washington Carvers did the world miss out on because of prejudice against Africans? The loss of economic productivity from the inventions they would have created is surely tremendous.
      The plural of anecdote is not data. Secondly, for most forms of physical labor the average man is more productive than the average woman. Until the post war period most jobs were far too physical to allow women to compete equally(obv. exceptions being education and nursing). However, if you want to join the womynists, and blame everything on oppression then shine on you crazy diamond.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    13. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Women did just fine in factories during WWII.

      But the observation was women were restricted in opportunities and pay in nearly all fields until recently -- education and nursing being counterexamples, yet hardly the only non-physically-intensive professions. I am not and need not blame everything entirely on oppression, however said oppression did demonstrably exist and restrict women. How sadly binary your thinking is, where there's either this acknowledging historical fact and being a "womynist", or crafting absurd models of a perfect meritocracy in which women could easily have risen to their level of capability and simply fell short.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    14. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of marriage if we're not guaranteed sex? Why work hard and be a devoted husband? Without these guarantees, there is no "contract" of marriage, since there's no "valuable consideration". I don't believe in beating, but I do believe in guaranteed sex.

    15. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Partly because of the very prejudice you yourself are displaying here—that women in general are less productive workers than men. That is an ignorant assumption.

      Tell me... who automatically receives, by law, several weeks or even months of paid leave, when a guy gets a girl pregnant (assuming that both of them work full-time jobs)?

      The result is that women who want (or might want) to have children tend to be relegated to more disposable jobs, because they will need to either be done without (putting a bigger workload on everyone else) or replaced (costing more to hire someone on top of the paid maternity leave they're already paying the woman) during the latter part of the pregnancy. The more disposable a worker is, the less money they tend to make.

      You might argue that this particular woman is a career-minded individual who doesn't want marriage and/or kids - well, she might change her mind. She's still a liability. Sure, it isn't really fair, but what's the alternative?

    16. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by youn · · Score: 1

      To be fair, not all of them get the short end of the stick ;) ... literally, meta-physically, philosophically... and other ways too :)

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    17. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by inviolet · · Score: 1

      Because in the same society in which women were presumed so inferior as to not be fit to own property, naturally no employer considered them to be equally productive even if it was demonstrably the case.

      The point is, you propose that society of the time was so broken that everyone preferred the collective error ("her work is worth less") at the cost of high profits ("her work is equal, and much cheaper"). That is an extraordinary claim in light of humans' well-documented nature as greedy moneygrubbers. So, your evidence to back this claim is...?

      Of course in this same society, the supply of women trying to enter the job pool was drastically lower as a woman's place was in the home. It wasn't until the 1940s that women entered the workforce in large numbers, and latter than that when dual-income homes became common. So even if a particular employer had realized this reduction in labor cost, there simply weren't enough women seeking employment for it to apply globally.

      In a job where women have equal output (all things considered), the economic advantage of realizing it would be a game-changer in any market where it occurred. It is very hard to claim that a) nobody realized it even though business owners spend all day thinking about how to cut costs, or b) perhaps a few did realize it but their competitors didn't catch on.

      Granted, the further back we go the smaller the fraction of total costs is the labor cost; however, labor has always been a significant fraction (hugely so today) and even 5% savings is a BIG edge to have over one's competitors. You propose that business have spent a century ignoring a major legal avenue of cost savings, and so again I wonder where your data is to back this remarkable claim.

      For myself, I suspect that women are paid less because they carry hidden long-term costs. I am a woman and I am well aware of the ways that I will cost my employer more over the long term... not least of which is the fact that I will probably quit working after a few years in order to stay home with my kids. Poof, there goes all that investment they made in me.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    18. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are only looking at a brief and very narrow point in history. Before the Dark Ages, Puritanism and the rise of Juedo-Christian religions, women were both the rulers and the worshipped. Though in many cultures there was a better balance and both men and women were seen as equals, ruling equally and being worshiped equally.

    19. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey the middle ages sounded pretty good for men. No wonder the tea party wants to go back in time.

    20. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you are talking about earlier (19th and 20th century) women's labor situations from a 2010 frame of reference. Before 1920 women were nothing. Worthless. Uneducated. I'm not talking about the upper classes (even though that was also considered true for them, yet they didn't need to work) but the lower classes where they did need to work. That's who wasn't paid a man's wages. Basic jobs for those low class women was household work, cleaning, ironing, etc., when male/female overlap did exist, probably in service industry, males got the big bucks as they had family to support.

    21. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 1

      I guess the same reason we didn't serve blacks in restaurants a few decades ago. I mean, who would give up their money? They have the same US Dollars!

    22. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by inviolet · · Score: 1

      I guess the same reason we didn't serve blacks in restaurants a few decades ago. I mean, who would give up their money? They have the same US Dollars!

      Except that they'd then lose their white clientele.

      --
      FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
    23. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I didn't know we had a state called "1993". Do we still have 50 states or did we exchange California for "1993"?

    24. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      I was speaking historically, but it matters not. Perhaps it is the fact that even though women are not 25% less productive, some people believe that they are 25% less productive without making objective examinations, and that alone would be all that is required for those people to decide to hire them at 25% less pay.

      I believe that there is plenty of historical documentation of the fact that women were historically paid less than men for the same jobs, but I have better things to do than look up such data for your own edification. In fact, you're lucky I even wasted this much time responding.

    25. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      You got me. I meant to say "South Carolina" in 1993, but I fucked it up. Congratulations, you are the grammar Hitler of the day. Please report to City Hall immediately to receive your medal and schedule your parade.

    26. Re:Women get the short end of the stick by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't continue to be a major avenue of cost savings if everyone acknowledged it openly and women's wages eventually rose to the level of men's. Maybe women were widely employed by savings-minded managers in the past, because they were paid less. I can't say, I haven't done any extensive research on the topic.

      It is unfortunate that women are more likely to leave work in order to raise children simply because they are the ones who are socially expected to raise children. If they were paid less than their husbands due to this trend, it would only help to strengthen the trend even more, leading to a circular cycle that (for better or for worse) would continue to support a traditional family structure and a gender division of labor.

  23. Irony by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    Ironic, considering tears make the best lube.

  24. Think deeper by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

    If the tears have a chemical message that is aversive to us, we will perhaps take action to remove the unpleasant stimulus, IE comfort the crying person so they stop producing tears. Also don't neglect that the chemical message contained by the tears is only part of what's going on psychologically when you're fighting with your significant other; the empathetic emotional pain you feel when you see them upset is likely a much stronger driving force.

    In short, every crying girl needs a good hot dicking. That is, unless she keeps crying during the dicking, in which case you might be raping her and you should probably stop. Unless, you know, you're both kinky and happen to be into that kind of thing.

    Maybe the chemical message in the tears that reduces arousal is part of some defense mechanism against rape?

    1. Re:Think deeper by syousef · · Score: 1

      If the tears have a chemical message that is aversive to us, we will perhaps take action to remove the unpleasant stimulus, IE comfort the crying person so they stop producing tears. Also don't neglect that the chemical message contained by the tears is only part of what's going on psychologically when you're fighting with your significant other; the empathetic emotional pain you feel when you see them upset is likely a much stronger driving force.

      In short, every crying girl needs a good hot dicking. That is, unless she keeps crying during the dicking, in which case you might be raping her and you should probably stop. Unless, you know, you're both kinky and happen to be into that kind of thing.

      Maybe the chemical message in the tears that reduces arousal is part of some defense mechanism against rape?

      So much wrong with your statement...

      First of all not all sex is about love and emotional empathy. People have sex without caring about each other. People stay together when they no longer care too. Not saying it's right but we're not in a perfect world and this is certainly common enough unfortunately.

      Secondly, your assessment of what "every crying girl needs" undoes every positive thing you've said in your other message reminding us of female rights. Personally I think you're over-compensating and are a mysogynist in denial. If that crying girl was your mother/daughter/sister/niece/best female friend would you advocate the same? Would you want someone taking advantage of them?

      Thirdly, there is a world of difference between dominance/submission fantasies and actual rape. Very few women actually want to be raped, and they are in need of professional pyschiatric care. Your comments trivialise this. Also there is never a good time or reason to be confused about whether or not there is consent unless you like hurting women and you'd like to end up in prison where you might experience the same.

      When a girl is balling her eyes out, if you do care, you try to help her. Sex can be comforting but it can also be damaging. If your first thought is how you can profit from her tears, you're not helping her so don't pretend - in fact you need help yourself.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:Think deeper by justinlee37 · · Score: 1

      First of all, you're right. Not all sex is about love and emotional empathy. Sometimes people have sex for extremely selfish reasons. However, I would think that more often than not, love and emotional empathy are often related to "make-up sex", the subject of the OP's post.

      My "assessment" of what "every crying girl needs" doesn't undo any positive thing about statements whatsoever. It's an attempt at humor in order to lighten the tone of the conversation. No, I wouldn't advocate taking advantage of anyone for any reason. If someone I cared about was sad and would be cheered up by a good, consensual hot dicking from the lover of their choice, I would fully support such a turn of events.

      Yes, I know that there is a "world of difference" between BDSM fantasies and actual rape. I know that no one actually wants to be raped and my comments were not intended trivialize this. The phrase "might be raping her" is intended to be humorous and the humor is directly derived from how it trivializes such a horrible act and how implausible it is that anyone could be unsure of whether or not they were committing rape. As for the phrase "into that kind of thing," I obviously meant BDSM roleplaying and specifically the act of crying during intercourse. Crying during intercourse is not particularly common and if the act is consensual (IE not rape), it is almost certainly kinky. Again, that is all I meant to convey in my obviously poor attempt at humor.

      Obviously sex can be damaging. Rape is one of the most common causes of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, also known as PTSD or "shell shock" if you are being extremely informal. Despite the fact that rape causes PTSD, it is not normally associated with the disorder.

      I'm sorry if you felt that I was trivializing rape, it was completely unintentional.

      Don't worry about whether or not I need help, I don't, I've been in a perfectly healthy relationship for about a year now and I roleplay both the "top" and "bottom" positions in BDSM interchangeably with my partner. We use a safeword. So, I am extremely aware of the fact that fantasies of rape and actual rape are very different, you're preaching to the choir here. However I appreciate that you made note of the fact for the benefit of everyone else reading the thread.

  25. Re:Because by c6gunner · · Score: 1

    Hey, I've always thought it's better when she cries.

    So true!.

  26. skichau by leochau12 · · Score: 1

    I don't buy this study -- I guess these scientist haven't heard of make-up-sex.

  27. Bah! by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    Tears can't hold a candle to vomit when it comes to killing the mood. Back when I was in college one of my dates threw up while we were making out in bed. We had both been drinking, but apparently she had had way too much. It ruined the sheets and bedspread, and even went all over the floor.

    Ultimate anti-Viagra!!

    1. Re:Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, rule 34 still applies ... Though, I think Max Hardcore or whatever his name got charged over it. It is, however, something I have stumbled upon on the web.

      That was some nasty shit. People do some WIERD things.

    2. Re:Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like this?

      MSFW

    3. Re:Bah! by Macgrrl · · Score: 1

      The term you are looking for is rainbow or roman showers. ;P

      --
      Sara
      Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
  28. It's a pheromone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A within-species chemical signal is by definition a pheromone.

    1. Re:It's a pheromone by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Well, it's a controversial word when it relates to humans. Nobody wants to admit that specific chemicals can produce specific behaviors in human beings. Too much like mind control, and the potential abuses are huge. In TFA the guy says that basically, yeah, it's a pheromone, but he doesn't want to get into the semantic argument with people who are interested in humans not having any pheromones.

  29. Re:Because by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want your life

  30. Bloodhound Gange disagrees! by Kenja · · Score: 1

    Yes, a lap dance is so much better when the stripper is cryin'. Well I find it's quite a thrill, When she grinds me against her will, Yes a lap dance is so much better when the stripper is cryin'

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  31. It depends by PPH · · Score: 1

    I used to work with a guy who was such an undesireable date, he had to get women drunk to sleep with him. He bragged about his conquests and more than once described how his dates would hurl at some point during 'the act'. We figured that he had conditioned himself to ignore the puke and keep pumping.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. It figures by PPH · · Score: 1, Funny

    John Boehner becomes speaker of the House and starts bawling right and left. Its all a part of the right wing's campaign against sex.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:It figures by mrxak · · Score: 1

      This study didn't bother with male tears, or female test subjects, which is a cryin' shame. It would be very interesting to see the differences, if any.

  33. I've actually known this for years... by Lord_of_the_nerf · · Score: 1

    I found this out the time I accidentally picked up Deep Heat rather than lubricant.

    Though admittedly the tears were mine and they may not have been the biggest contributor to my lack of arousal.

  34. Somehow... by dos4who · · Score: 1

    "you ain't so purty whens you cries" doesn't seem like good lyrics for a country song...

    --
    "Yes, I have a Disaster Recovery Plan. It's called my Resume"
  35. Uh by jav1231 · · Score: 1

    Welcome to three days ago. BTW: Seattle's going to beat New Orleans. Seriously!

  36. Re:Because by Hylandr · · Score: 2

    Whats wrong with twenty-eight year olds?

    There's twenty of them...

    And the lap dance is so much better when the stripper is cryin, Etc.

    - Dan.

    --
    ~ People that think they are better than anyone else for any reason are the cause of all the strife in the world.
  37. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guys avoid chick flicks because they lack entertainment value.

  38. Hormones in tears by blackbeak · · Score: 1

    If I recall correctly, babies cry about 25% of the time. Their tears are the primary mechanism which allows them to shed excess hormones created by stress. It's no surprise to me that a woman's tears would also contain some sort of hormone(s), any of which, if inhaled, would likely temporarily interfere with hormone production in the inhaler.

    --
    Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
    1. Re:Hormones in tears by natespizer · · Score: 1

      I have a 15 month old - just gotta call bull shit on this one. He never even tried 5% of the time let alone 25%. If a baby is crying 6 hours a day you are doing it wrong.

    2. Re:Hormones in tears by blackbeak · · Score: 1
      Maybe I shouldn't be beating them 25% of the time! ;o)

      Actually, my kids are older now, and didn't cry that much either back then. But I do recall the figure being about that high, and that the release of stress hormones is a prime factor. Like they say, "your mileage may vary"!

      --
      Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
    3. Re:Hormones in tears by blackbeak · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I should say, "I do recall reading somewhere the figure..."

      --
      Everything and its opposite is true. Get used to it.
  39. Re:Because by mug+funky · · Score: 2, Insightful

    careful what you wish for... wifey has a baby due in june.

  40. pheromones are controversial? by devent · · Score: 1

    Since when are pheromones controversial? We are still animals, of course we produce and react to pheromones. I though that was establish science. Hm, a quick Google search shows that there aren't so many studies of human pheromones, how come?

    --
    http://www.mueller-public.de - My site http://www.anr-institute.com/ - Advanced Natural Research Institute
    1. Re:pheromones are controversial? by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Fears about mind control. If you can make a product that causes somebody to be intensely sexually attracted to you, that has societal and possibly even legal implications. If you can make a product that reduces aggression, and governments get their hands on it...

  41. we need more studies by treebeard77 · · Score: 1

    where are the studies of the effect of men's tears on women's libidos? very sexist not to study both effects. ;)

    1. Re:we need more studies by plastbox · · Score: 1

      Far more interesting (and relevant) is the effects of hormonal prevention on women's libidos. I don't recall which studies I'm thinking about exactly, but it is a well established fact that women ovulating find high levels of testosterone (e.g. muscles, dominant behavior, general manlyness) attractive while women on the other side of the hormonal scale (pregnant, menstruating, etc.) find typical "female" features more attractive. If a female body is in "get baby!"-mode, she prefers manly men who can protect her offspring as well as contribute good genes. If it's in "has baby!"-mode, she prefers the emotionally available, "soft" man. Hormonal prevention works by tricking the female body into thinking it's pregnant all the time. The result? Tokyo Hotel is hot, burly, hairy men have fallen out of fashion. Seriously.. look at teens these days. The guys generally considered attractive are the semi-anorexic ones with no hair except the neatly styled stuff on their heads. Ask your mother and grandmothers about their taste in men and the answer is likely to be "Butch and if possibly, hairy!". True story!

  42. Proven? I don't think so. by twocows · · Score: 2

    He doesn't use the controversial word "pheromones" but he still uses the controversial word "proven." Establishing a link doesn't prove anything, it merely establishes a link.
    I am not a statistician, though; maybe this case is different. I'm still skeptical, however.

  43. Re:Because by MrKaos · · Score: 1

    Isn't that what they say about a lap dance?

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
  44. Weaponize it! by ebonum · · Score: 1

    If you planted an air freshener loaded with this stuff ( you need to figure out how to synthesize it ) in an NFL team's locker room, think of the competitive advantage!

    If you work for JP Morgan, you would want to load up the Goldman trading floor with this stuff. Take the testosterone out and they will suffer!

  45. Quit your crying.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    make me a sammich!

  46. Re:Because by couchslug · · Score: 1

    "12 y/o girls don't count."

    I blame the education system!

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  47. What isn't said by dugeen · · Score: 1

    I shudder to think what Israeli army researchers are doing to make women cry.

    1. Re:What isn't said by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1

      Making them study Middle East politics I'd imagine.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
  48. Sad by Stooshie · · Score: 1

    "(collected while she watched a sad movie)"

    I'm glad you said that, I would have wondered how they got the women to cry otherwise.

    --
    America, Home of the Brave. ... .and the Squaw.
    1. Re:Sad by bakes · · Score: 1

      Women (and men) cry for many reasons. Sadness, joy, pain, anger, ...

      I am interested in seeing the effects of 'happy tears' on the same group of men. And the effects of both happy and sad tears on other women.

      --
      Ho! Haha! Guard! Turn! Parry! Dodge! Spin! Ha! Thrust!
  49. Re:It has to be said by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1

    Funny, for me the anti-Viagra has always been vaginal odor.

    Do you parents know you're gay?

    --
    "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  50. There is a reason for vaginal odor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    has to do with an environment that is especially conducive to strains of bacteria that produce smelly (sulfur?) compounds.

    My ex-wife traded her friend for all his sex books. One of them was titled Guide to getting it on. I flipped it open to a random page one day, and one aspect of the vaginal odor quandary was revealed to me: soap.

    Most soaps are very basic, while a few are "pH balanced" to be slightly acidic. When a alkaline-pH soap is used, smelly bacteria thrive (because the skin is supposed to be slightly acidic). When a pH-balanced (slightly acidic) soap is used, the bacteria are much more balanced.

    There are more considerations, of course. But this is a good start. If I wasn't posting anonymous so I can moderate myself, I'd post a link to my e-book.... :)

  51. QQ? by andyr86 · · Score: 1

    QQ?

  52. sex drive goes down when you yourself cries by anss123 · · Score: 1

    I think it's more likely that your sex drive goes down when you yourself cries. It's not like you're sniffing the poor gal's tears, right?

  53. Re:Because by grub · · Score: 0


    There are always tears when I have sex, it's the pepper spray.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
  54. UTTER BS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There would be no rapists nor a fetish niche for those who secretly like rape if women's tears would be the turn off switch.

  55. Re:Because by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 1

    You sure you're not Max Cannon?

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  56. Demonstrates women can undo men's accomplishments by Lead+Butthead · · Score: 1

    Took years of research and clinical trials to give men an erection, only to be undone by what women do, naturally (intentionally or not.)

    --
    ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
  57. Seriously doubtful, There's a much easier answer. by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    Seriously, the actual science here is that tears lower testosterone levels in men, which in addition to arousal also control anger and rage. The claim that tears make men less aroused, is rather pointless and a terrible explanation for anything. At best the response would nearly certainly be against uxoricide. So that when men beat their wives, they would at some point stop and not beat the potential future mother of their children to death. Also, in social situtuations where men tend to get out of control and fight, women tend to cry. As such, prevention of violence against one's spouse as well as violence to others would be much more likely to be the clear evolutionary explanation.

    Did we get this? No. The media are portraying this in the funny "women tears make men feel less sexy" light, rather than the more apparent men are violent and having some kind of general social cue to make them less violent at times would be good and apparently exists in humans. Violent men... boring. Penis... ahahahhahahaahhaahahah.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  58. Re:Seriously doubtful, There's a much easier answe by mrxak · · Score: 1

    I think you have a valid point, but the test was specifically having men look at pictures of women and rate their attractiveness. Yes, they tested testosterone too, and if you RTFA you'd see that the researchers did consider a change in sexual arousal may merely be a side effect, as you say. The "media" did cover mainly the sexual side of things, because well, the researchers were covering mainly the sexual side of things in this study.

  59. Bloodhound Gang by bradgoodman · · Score: 1

    "A lapdance is so much better when the Stripper is crying" - The Bloodhound Gang