Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Captain Obvious presents: results of major sex study

Page 1 of 1 [ 12 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

Ragtime
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Nov 2006
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,927
Location: Dallas, Texas

01 Aug 2007, 8:36 am

"It is more about lust in the body than a love connection in the heart. U.S college-aged men and women agree on their top reasons for having sex — they were attracted to the person, they wanted to experience physical pleasure and 'it feels good,' according to a peer-reviewed study in the August edition of Archives of Sexual Behavior."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,291647,00.html


_________________
Christianity is different than Judaism only in people's minds -- not in the Bible.


MrMark
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Jul 2006
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,918
Location: Tallahassee, FL

01 Aug 2007, 12:11 pm

Sounds like predictable, age-appropriate reasoning and behavior to me.


_________________
"The cordial quality of pear or plum
Rises as gladly in the single tree
As in the whole orchards resonant with bees."
- Emerson


Crazy_Ben
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 198
Location: St. Petersburg, FL USA

01 Aug 2007, 1:11 pm

Wait a minute here, kids, are you telling me that Jared Diamond was right, sex is FUN? No way, I just don't think I can believe it...
"Maud! Maud! Buy us another peer-reviewed study! They're sayin' that sex is fun!"...


_________________
We are Taiyozoku, the Sun Tribe!


KimJ
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jun 2006
Age: 54
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,418
Location: Arizona

01 Aug 2007, 2:15 pm

:lol: Apparently it wasn't so obvious to the people doing the study. They were maintaining that women have sex while "looking for love". A euphemism for "women sleep with men to trap them into marriage".



Crazy_Ben
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 198
Location: St. Petersburg, FL USA

01 Aug 2007, 5:46 pm

Another theory goes something like this: young women want to have sex to experiment and in the process they figure (if they're lucky) what sorts of men they are really attracted to.


_________________
We are Taiyozoku, the Sun Tribe!


Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

03 Aug 2007, 6:03 pm

This will be the same scientists who spent thousands of pounds of grant money trying to discover if toast always falls butter side down then. Or any one of a thousand obvious things that "science" proves, at great expense. And to think that the THICK kids used to get into trouble for setting fire to the gas-taps at school, or making nitro-glycerine, or mustard gas.. and now people are paying the smart kids to twat about on the JOB.

F*cking time-wasters. Get a proper job or research something worth studying. They haven't cracked that cancer thing yet, yknow...


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Bodorus
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 71

05 Aug 2007, 7:56 am

Crazy_Ben wrote:
Wait a minute here, kids, are you telling me that Jared Diamond was right, sex is FUN? No way, I just don't think I can believe it...
"Maud! Maud! Buy us another peer-reviewed study! They're sayin' that sex is fun!"...


I wouldn't know sex is fun if nobody told me, and i don't think i'll ever be able to confirm this.
but maybe it isn't, maybe it's just conspiracy :P yeah, i think it is.



Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

05 Aug 2007, 10:44 am

Macbeth wrote:
This will be the same scientists who spent thousands of pounds of grant money trying to discover if toast always falls butter side down then. Or any one of a thousand obvious things that "science" proves, at great expense. And to think that the THICK kids used to get into trouble for setting fire to the gas-taps at school, or making nitro-glycerine, or mustard gas.. and now people are paying the smart kids to twat about on the JOB.

F*cking time-wasters. Get a proper job or research something worth studying. They haven't cracked that cancer thing yet, yknow...


If thats the attitude we take to science then we will never get anything more done. Science requires lots of little dabblers off in the corner just in case one comes up with the next breakthrough in science. The greatest leaps in science have always come from men who didn't set out to make great discoveries, just men who set out answer a question that was annoying them half to death.



Macbeth
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 May 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,984
Location: UK Doncaster

05 Aug 2007, 1:08 pm

Flagg wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
This will be the same scientists who spent thousands of pounds of grant money trying to discover if toast always falls butter side down then. Or any one of a thousand obvious things that "science" proves, at great expense. And to think that the THICK kids used to get into trouble for setting fire to the gas-taps at school, or making nitro-glycerine, or mustard gas.. and now people are paying the smart kids to twat about on the JOB.

F*cking time-wasters. Get a proper job or research something worth studying. They haven't cracked that cancer thing yet, yknow...


If thats the attitude we take to science then we will never get anything more done. Science requires lots of little dabblers off in the corner just in case one comes up with the next breakthrough in science. The greatest leaps in science have always come from men who didn't set out to make great discoveries, just men who set out answer a question that was annoying them half to death.


Just to clarify: I have no issue with "dabbling in the corner" or the whole accidental discovery part of science. Discovering post-it notes whilst trying to make superglue, or inventing microwave cookery when you should be watching the radar,. thats all fine. I just take issue with people requesting funding to research utterly dumbass things in their own right. Though possibly the fault lies with the people who allocate the funding in the first place. Either way, large amounts of cash is used in pointless tasks to prove stuff that doesnt usually need proving.


_________________
"There is a time when the operation of the machine becomes so odious, makes you so sick at heart,
that you can't take part" [Mario Savo, 1964]


Flagg
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Nov 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,399
Location: Western US

05 Aug 2007, 4:24 pm

Macbeth wrote:
Flagg wrote:
Macbeth wrote:
This will be the same scientists who spent thousands of pounds of grant money trying to discover if toast always falls butter side down then. Or any one of a thousand obvious things that "science" proves, at great expense. And to think that the THICK kids used to get into trouble for setting fire to the gas-taps at school, or making nitro-glycerine, or mustard gas.. and now people are paying the smart kids to twat about on the JOB.

F*cking time-wasters. Get a proper job or research something worth studying. They haven't cracked that cancer thing yet, yknow...


If thats the attitude we take to science then we will never get anything more done. Science requires lots of little dabblers off in the corner just in case one comes up with the next breakthrough in science. The greatest leaps in science have always come from men who didn't set out to make great discoveries, just men who set out answer a question that was annoying them half to death.


Actually you need to study these things a lot of the time. It's supposedly common sense kids love Santa but a study found the fear of Santa is more common then noctophobia in children. And it's "common sense" a heavy object falls faster - which is a bald faced lie (It's only 3.2 p/s p/s - meaning only time in the air affects the basic formula for determining the velocity of the object). A lot of obvious studies are needed in science, to test how distance affects vision you must first prove its harder to see things at a distance scientically.

Just to clarify: I have no issue with "dabbling in the corner" or the whole accidental discovery part of science. Discovering post-it notes whilst trying to make superglue, or inventing microwave cookery when you should be watching the radar,. thats all fine. I just take issue with people requesting funding to research utterly dumbass things in their own right. Though possibly the fault lies with the people who allocate the funding in the first place. Either way, large amounts of cash is used in pointless tasks to prove stuff that doesnt usually need proving.



Elemental
Pileated woodpecker
Pileated woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Apr 2007
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 182

09 Aug 2007, 3:20 pm

Flagg wrote:
If thats the attitude we take to science then we will never get anything more done. Science requires lots of little dabblers off in the corner just in case one comes up with the next breakthrough in science. The greatest leaps in science have always come from men who didn't set out to make great discoveries, just men who set out answer a question that was annoying them half to death.


There's a nice quote somewhere about how the quote that precedes great discoveries isn't so much "Eureka!" as "Huh, that's odd..."



Pandora
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jun 2005
Age: 63
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,553
Location: Townsville

10 Aug 2007, 8:32 am

KimJ wrote:
:lol: Apparently it wasn't so obvious to the people doing the study. They were maintaining that women have sex while "looking for love". A euphemism for "women sleep with men to trap them into marriage".
Maybe a few do, but I don't think it would be too common nowadays.


_________________
Break out you Western girls,
Someday soon you're gonna rule the world.
Break out you Western girls,
Hold your heads up high.
"Western Girls" - Dragon