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."
90% of their porn involves women crying.
Geez, guys. Mental age should be at least 16, mental altitude should be at least a foot above the gutter.
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.
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?
Man, I love it when they cry. All 7 of em. You know. Here in my basement. Brb, moms calling.
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
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.
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.
If something is there concentrate or synthesize it and test it one by one.
Unless I have gone funny, I think that nature has pulled a swift one here that no-one has picked up... Here's how:
/. and I seem to have missed a 4) PROFIT!!!! in there, but meh.
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
*sips coffee*
Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
(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.
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.