According to the Journal of the American Medical Association, is seems that men aren’t the only ones who can benefit by taking Viagra (Sildenafil).

It seems that a new study has found that women with sexual dysfunction caused by antidepressant use experienced a reduction in adverse sexual effects when they were prescribed Viagra.

Sexual dysfunction is a frequent side effect of antidepressant use (particularly with serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SRI) antidepressants) and a major influence for early discontinuation of treatment. And, Doctors report that this can often lead to treatment failure.

In a controlled clinical trial, women taking SRI antidepressants were instructed to take between 50 milligrams and 100 milligrams of Viagra or a placebo approximately one to two hours before anticipated sexual activity for eight weeks. Researchers say women in the Viagra group showed greater improvement in sexual function than women in the placebo group.

The study authors wrote:

These findings are important not only because women experience major depressive disorder at nearly double the rate of men and because they experience greater resulting sexual dysfunction than men, but also because it establishes that [drugs like Viagra] are effective in both sexes for this purpose and improve depression disease management outcomes.

Posted by Jonathan as Biochemistry at 10:11 PM BST

No Comments »

Cockblocking is a male-to-male inhibitive action that prevents another man from connecting with a woman whom he has shown subtle interest in.

In most circumstances, the person cockblocking will also have an interest in the woman, but she is neutral or disinterested towards him, whilst he is yearning for her. The blocker is therefore extremely unlikely to gain an advantage from this strategy, but might actually be using the tactic as a sort of Kamikaze action, simply to spoil someone else’s post-bar experiences.

The blockers main aim is straightforward: he will be trying to create a persistent interruption that disturbs the natural flow and progression of the seduction. Therefore, this tactic is typically employed by disruptive macho men, who have very few other more intelligent strategies at their disposal.

The cockblock manoeuvre will be an intentional act, such as the blocker deliberately raising a past issue that he knows will cause embarrassment to the man, highlighting and exaggerating his negative character traits, physically intruding himself between the people he is blocking, or even strategically spilling a drink over the gentleman whom he is blocking. This is not an exhaustive list of possibilities, and many more actions are possible, merely limited by the imagination and creativity of the blocker.

From the blockers perspective, a successful result would be that the person being cockblocked is subtly prevented from conversing with a woman that he is trying to get to know better, whilst simultaneously, the person blocked finds himself in a bind:

• On the one hand he cannot raise the issue in front of the social group, without publicly expressing romantic interest in the woman (thereby embarrassing her, and creating an impression that he is desperate or needy)

• On the other hand he cannot confront the person playing cockblock without appearing to be acting irrationally to something that the blocker will always claim was accidental, or simply intended as a joke.

A quick mention should also be made about situations where the man and woman are suddenly and unexpectedly interrupted by an over-protective friend, who insists upon dragging the woman away with some rather arbitrary reason. At first glance, this appears to be a cockblock situation, but in all likelihood this act would be most likely where the man has spent much too long trying to obtain future contact details from the woman; and her friend has either become bored, or fears that she will be abandoned at the bar (or possibly both). Therefore, this situation cannot really be classed as a hostile action carried out for a malicious reason.

If the situation does not occur in an especially noisy environment, it may be possible to drop subtle hints to the girl, casually alluding to the “competition” being faced (or some similar line of conversation); perhaps she will take the hint, be prepared to leave her friends, and move to a different area of the building with a random guy she has just met; but this is unlikely to have a high chance of a successful outcome unless she really likes you already.

If the blocker is a (supposed) friend, then the answer has to be to completely avoid that person in future, since violence or strong language would solve nothing, and the person playing cockblock most probably only has very limited social skills in the first place (or else he would have shown the initiative to find someone else to seduce). In this circumstance, once the blocker realises that it is not socially acceptable to maliciously interfere with another person’s love life, he should either try to make amends and apologize profusely, or find new acquaintances that are more tolerant of his choice of ways of interacting with people.

In the event that a seducer finds the cockblock experience happening to him regularly, the only real solution to the dilemma is to ask why he is going to places where a cockblock so frequently develops… It may be that he is choosing the wrong class of bars or nightclubs – And it should be noted that cockblocking situations occur infrequently outside of these types of establishments.

Finally, in many circumstances, a cockblock situation can be avoided altogether if the seducer is decisive and acts quickly with the woman i.e. before the blocker has an opportunity to realise that someone else has taken an interest in the person that he is pining for. Put simply, don’t rush over to the lady like a lovesick teenager, just pay the woman a visit on the way to a different area of the place you’re in, and if another guy suddenly sidles up to the two of you, be on the look out for the tactics you’ve just learned about. You might even be able to quickly turn the tables on him, if he starts exhibiting signs of anti-social behaviour.

Posted by Jonathan as Psychology, Sociology at 11:55 PM BST

No Comments »

One of the big mysteries of relationships that women sometimes ponder is how they can best find and keep a man.

Thus, in the same way that men sometimes have the crazy idea that if they quiz a woman, she will tell them some big secret about how to shag loads of hot babes; women get the daft notion that any man can reveal some confidential information about how they can keep a man faithful.

In this latter case, typically, the man will skirt the issue, and say “why would you want to do that? Isn’t variety the spice of life?” Or worse, he’ll give her an answer based on some fantasy situation he’d like to encounter, i.e. he’ll say “Put on a short skirt, a tight top, walk into a bar and get completely drunk”. Then the girl protests that she’s not a slut, and gets rather upset about the whole episode.

Obviously, the girl knows that this option is available to her, but she doesn’t want to choose it. Rather like the old diet joke that suggests you can lose 10 lbs of weight by chopping off your leg, there’s been a communication breakdown; the girl really meant she wanted a relationship that lasted longer than breakfast the following day.

However, in this case, gender stereotype roles aren’t useful to us. And, in my experience, its better to take the view that men are a little more complicated than they’re generally given credit for; whilst women, instead of being complicated, just vary more in their responses to the men around them (which, naturally, gives them an appearance of being complicated).

This is not to say that there are no men that are simple, or no girls that enjoy sex a lot. But, society does tend to admonish those women as the sort of people you wouldn’t take home to meet your parents, and then labels them as sluts, harlots or jezebels etc.

So, bearing the above gross generalizations in mind, as well as the fact that this article makes no attempt to offer a complete or in-depth explanation, it seems that males actually have two meta-sexual strategies that constitute a proximate answer to the question:

Firstly, men are attracted to nymphomaniacs: As an example, a man sees a girl somewhere, and she offers him sex – Of course, the answer is almost invariably “Yes please!” Then, so long as she maintains good bi-lateral symmetry, good health, stays free of parasites, and most importantly, keeps having sex on demand, a relationship may develop. Or more likely, the girl changes, or becomes defective in some way, and then things break down.

It should also be noted that especially beautiful girls often tend to attract kamikaze idiots, without enough skills to find their own girls, but just enough ability to make a nuisance of themselves. Jealously seems to drive these people to play cockblock (even if they know they haven’t a snowball’s chance in hell with the girl, were the couple to split up). This usually takes the form of dragging up any embarrassing events they might know about the man’s past, pointing out and exaggerating character flaws to the girl, or maybe just old fashioned spreading rumours and lies amongst her friends, to try to destroy the relationship by proxy.

I can only guess that low-status males with no hope of finding a half-decent girl of there own get a power-trip out of this, but if anyone has a better answer, please do tell.

Secondly, men can appreciate a girl that’s intelligent, with a good personality: This is the more complex of the two meta-strategies, so an example might be most useful here. Perhaps a man meets a girl that’s clean, healthy and free from parasites; not necessarily gorgeous, but not downright ugly either. However, most importantly, she’ll be a pleasant, cheerful person that takes an interest in the world around her, doesn’t believe that everything revolves around her, and is prepared to invest a little time and effort into having fun with a new partner, maybe even trying new experiences, being reasonably open minded, and even helpful and supportive of a partner.

Now, this isn’t intended to be an absolute set of rules, just a vague description of someone that’s basically a good person, with a nice personality.

In this case, the tendency is that the woman isn’t model quality, but other factors make up for minor deficiencies, and since men don’t usually have firmly fixed rules about the women they like, they’ll tend to grant some leeway, especially if the woman is lower maintenance, doesn’t demand too much, and generally gives everyone less earache.

Now here’s the interesting bit; at the same time, friends, colleagues and relatives are seeing the pair together having fun, and they’ll start saying what a great couple they make, and similar statements; this reinforces the couple, and a relationship starts to develop. So, oftentimes, when relationships happen they seem to go via the route of ‘relationship by default’. I.e. a man goes out with a woman for a bit, they have sex a couple of times, and even though nobody said anything about a relationship, it’s just assumed that a relationship exists – often for quite a considerable length of time afterwards.

Of course, if the girl isn’t model quality, and more certainly once the relationship is on a more secure footing, then the couple become more resilient to the hassles of jealous idiots playing cockblock.

We can also turn to Behavioural Ecologists for the distal explanation. These people tell us that ultimately men want to impregnate as many women as possible, because they are driven by their genes to reproduce; sex is enjoyable, and they have a lot of sperm to distribute.

Ironically though, whilst women are certainly capable of having a lot more sex than men are, the overall risks are much higher for women, since if they become pregnant, they are gestating for next nine months, lactating for several months after that, and then responsible for feeding, clothing and educating the child for several years thereafter. Not to mention any problems that might arise from the pregnancy itself.

So, if that’s to be the case for the human race to continue into the future, the woman would very much like to know who fertilized her eggs, and the man would like to be sure that he is the father; or else there is no reason for him to stay around and provide support, parental care, protection and companionship for the mother, or even guaranteed paternity for her future offspring.

Thus, we come to the concept of hypergyny. This essentially means that women tend to pair with a man of slightly higher socio-economic status (SES) than themselves (although in more recent times, this may be more likely isogamy, meaning equal SES). In this case, that would be an indication that the man has the gumption to be able to look after himself, herself and any children they end up producing, share the burdens of life, and thus probably won’t just abandon her at a moments notice for another woman, because he has now more heavily invested in the relationship too.

It’s worth noting that in cultures which permit polygamy, the rules are always that the man needs to be able to support all the women he is paired with. Conversely, the opposite is also true (although less common), where men are unable to support even one woman, they end up sharing a wife (polyandry) with a brother or other men. Several primitive tribes in extremely harsh environments, such as the Nyinba of North West Nepal, or the Ladakhi Buddhists in the Himalayas exhibit this phenomena.

In the case that a woman decided to have sex with every man that asked, she’d be permanently sore, plus there’s the risk that she’d finish up pregnant by some man that her Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) was incompatible with, or the resulting child may receive poor quality genes from a diseased, deformed or otherwise low genetic viability father. This may result in spontaneous abortion, or a sickly child that might not survive to adulthood – obviously a bad deal after all the effort expended by the woman, and much better avoided by choosing a partner wisely, in the first instance.

A quick caveat is needed here, to debunk some common myths: (1) why don’t women dump men more often, or only choose a muscled Adonis that the media tries so hard to make guys think they have to become? And (2) why don’t men drop women every time a better looking / younger / sluttier one comes along?

The answer here is that there’s this crazy little thing called ‘love’, which so often seems to cause artists and poets everywhere so much heartache…

But then, what is love really? Obviously, it’s just a feeling. And, as every good Biochemist will tell you, all feelings are esentially biochemical. For example, you feel hungry, but you don’t eat to stop yourself feeling hungry, you eat to maintain a level of nutrition in your body – your body just told you that you needed more food by making you feel hungry. Likewise, with the feeling of love, your body tells you to stay with the person you’re with, because that person is physically (and quite possibly even biochemically) compatible with you. Thus, any children you have will tend to survive better with two parents rather than with just the one. The genes get to replicate; two people get regular sex, and all the other attendant benefits of a stable relationship.

In summary then, the answer is that a girl needs to do a little bit more than just sit back looking pretty, claiming she’s too shy, or that it’s the man’s job to do all the running in a relationship (acting like a parasite), unless she wants meta-strategy #1. On the other hand, in some ways, men are lucky that they only need to maintain a basic level of smart appearance and hygiene etc., after which the additional benefits of beautification start to diminish exponentially (remember, Adonis was only a god of vegetation (fairly low SES compared to the rest of the pantheon)), at which point sensible men will generally concentrate on incresing their rank, by being successful at whatever interests or career path they have chosen. Women on the other hand must constantly fight a battle with ageing, to remain pretty, as well as whatever else they choose to do.

Posted by Jonathan as Anthropology, Sociobiology at 12:15 AM BST

No Comments »

Curiosity has the better of me today, and I’m wondering why specifically people visit this sort of website…

This seems like a fairly interesting question to pester the readership with, so I’ll throw it into a quick survey.

As usual, all the answers are private and confidential – so do feel free to take part without any embarrassment.

The question is:

Posted by Jonathan as Polls & Surveys at 11:56 PM BST

No Comments »

Pole-dancing, the only exercise form where participants can wear stiletto heels, is a fitness craze that’s sweeping the world, if this short video is to be believed.

Watching an artiste go through a mesmerising routine of gymnastic and ornamental moves, up and down the pole, is a breathtaking and exotic experience.

And, apparently, despite its strip-club association, learning to Pole-dance isn’t sleazy, since it takes a good deal of time and practise to learn; although like a lot of things in life, getting there could be half the fun.

Don’t worry if you’re a guy though, apparently in Europe, men are lining up to participate in this sort of dance training, as well as women.

Posted by Jonathan as Miscellaneous at 11:53 PM BST

No Comments »

Researchers have found that women are more attracted to men with stubble than those with clean-shaven faces or full beards, when seeking partners for love, sex or marriage.

According to the researchers at Northumbria University, British women aged 18 to 44, who participated in the study, rated men with one-to-two days of follicular growth as tough, mature, aggressive, dominant and masculine – and as the best romantic partners, either for a fling or a long-term relationships.

The explanation for the preference is not clear, but experts in human evolution say that that facial hair may be a sign of aggression, because it boosts the apparent size of the lower jaw, emphasising the teeth as weapons.

According to the researchers, stubbly men offer women the best compromise — not too strongly masculine, but mature and with the potential to grow a full beard.

Lead researcher, Dr Nick Neave said:

The results were very clear cut, the face that had the light stubble was thought to be much more attractive, much sexier.

It was preferred for a short-term partner, it was preferred for a long-term partner.

In a preliminary test, shaven male faces were rated by women for attractiveness. And, from these, the researchers selected only average-looking subjects (men who were neither especially handsome nor ugly), from those results of that study.

Using advanced computer software, each of the fifteen pictures of men’s faces was altered to give the appearance of five different facial-hair appearances: clean-shaven, light stubble, heavy stubble, light beard and full beard.

The pictures were then shown to 76 women who were asked to rate them for masculinity, aggression, dominance, attractiveness, age, and social maturity. They were also asked to note how desirable each man would be as a short-term or long-term partner.

After evaluating the various degrees of hairiness of the subjects, the majority of women agreed light stubble was most appealing, whilst men who were clean-shaven or fully beard were least appealing. Clean-shaven men were dismissed as lacking social maturity and masculinity, while faces with full beards were judged to be the most masculine and socially mature. However, full beards were also viewed as too aggressive, thought to look about five years older, were less attractive and overly dominant.

Writing in the journal Personality and Individual Differences, the researchers conclude:

Facial hair, or beardedness, is a powerful sociosexual signal, and an obvious biological marker of sexual maturity.

Facial hair may have been sexually selected by females on the basis of associated male success, despite its threatening appearance. Clean-shaven faces therefore may suggest appeasement, as well as being an obvious sign of sexual immaturity.

Increasing levels of facial hair were associated with increased perceptions of aggression, in that bearded faces were perceived as being the most aggressive, whilst clean-shaven faces were rated as being the least aggressive. And as facial hair increased in a linear fashion, so did female ratings of masculinity and dominance.

In desirability for a short-term relationship, a female preference for male faces with stubble or light beard was found, with clean-shaven and fully bearded faces being the least preferred. This indicates that females are not selecting faces displaying relatively high or low masculinity, but are rather preferring males who are clearly mature (post-pubertal) but not too masculinised. The same pattern was found for preferences for a long-term relationship.

The researchers now want to extend their study internationally; and Dr Neave was quoted as saying:

Preference for facial hair is clearly a cultural thing, but I think the underlying mechanism is that it signals masculinity, it starts off very wispy and very pathetic, really, and then gets much thicker and finally, with older people, gets scraggy. So it’s a sign of sexual maturity.

There are large cultural differences in perceptions of facial hair, and we are hoping to expand on this research by conducting a large-scale study assessing female perceptions of male facial hair in different in as many countries as possible.

Females seem to have a preference for faces that are masculine, but not too masculine, they don’t want these hulking cavemen, yet they also don’t want faces that are too immature.

Posted by Jonathan as Sociobiology, Sociology at 11:56 PM BST

No Comments »

A new study has revealed that having sex more often may help prevent the development of erectile dysfunction.

According to the research, published in the July 2008 issue of The American Journal of Medicine, researchers from Finland revealed that men who had intercourse more often were less likely to develop erectile dysfunction.

Over a period of five years, the team studied 989 men aged between 55 to 75 years from Pirkanmaa, Finland, and found that men reporting intercourse less than once per week had twice the incidence of erectile dysfunction compared with those reporting intercourse once per week. Further, the risk of erectile dysfunction was inversely related to the frequency of intercourse.

Other factors that may have affected the incidence of erectile dysfunction, such as age, chronic medical conditions (diabetes, heart disease, hypertension, cerebrovascular disease and depression), body mass index and smoking were included in the analysis of the data.

Erectile dysfunction incidence was 79 cases per 1,000 in men who reported sexual intercourse less than once per week, dropping to 32 cases per 1,000 in men reporting intercourse once per week and falling further to 16 per 1,000 in those reporting intercourse 3 or more times per week.

In addition, the frequency of morning erections predicted the development of complete erectile dysfunction, with an approximately 2.5-fold increase in risk among those with less than 1 morning erection per week compared with 2 to 3 morning erections per week.

Juha Koskimäki, MD, PhD, of the Department of Urology at Tampere University Hospital, Finland stated:

Regular intercourse has an important role in preserving erectile function among elderly men, whereas morning erection does not exert a similar effect.

Continued sexual activity decreases the incidence of erectile dysfunction in direct proportion to coital frequency.

The study indicates that regular intercourse protects men from the development of erectile dysfunction, which may, in turn, impact general health and quality of life. So, the investigators advise clinicians to support the sexual activity of their patients.

Posted by Jonathan as Biology, Sociology at 11:55 PM BST

2 Comments »

It seems that the sexual revolution of the 1960’s that was supposed to free women for casual encounters has failed.

Researchers at Durham University surveyed 1,743 men and women that had engaged in one-night stands. They then asked the respondents to rate their positive and negative feelings the following morning, in an internet survey.

Women reported negative feelings after fleeting sexual encounters and felt “used” after one-night stands, according to the research, led by Professor Anne Campbell.

The study, part of a project at Durham University, and published in the June issue of the journal Human Nature, found that after a one-night stand women were overwhelmed with negative feelings, believed they had somehow let themselves down, and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation.

Women also found casual sex less satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, did not seem to consider the experience as a prelude to a long-term relationship.

Professor Campbell explained:

What the women seemed to object to was not the fleetingness of the encounter but the fact that the man did not seem to appreciate her. The women thought this lack of gratitude implied that she did this with anybody.

On the other hand, compared to just 54 percent of women, who reported positive feeling, 80 percent of men had overall positive feelings about the experience, felt greater sexual satisfaction and contentment afterwards, as well as a greater sense of well-being and confidence about themselves. They were also more likely than women to want their friends to hear about what they had done.

The study concluded women “have not adapted” to meaningless sex, because it did not suit them at this stage in evolution; whereas men are more likely to reproduce, and therefore they would benefit from numerous short-term partners.

For women, finding partners of high genetic quality is a stronger motivator than sheer number, and it is commonly believed that women are more willing to have casual sex when there is a chance of forming a long-term relationship.

Professor Campbell went on to state:

In evolutionary terms women bear the brunt of parental care and it has been generally thought that it was to their advantage to choose their mate carefully and remain faithful to make sure that their mate had no reason to believe he was raising another man’s child.

Posted by Jonathan as Sociobiology, Sociology at 11:54 PM BST

No Comments »

Good news for men with very attractive partners: in scientific terms, you’re probably having more sex (in-pair copulations) than other guys.

However, according to a new study, the reason that you’re doing this is to mark your territory, and hold on to a partner who’s more likely to be pursued by other men and thus put you at risk of being cheated on.

It might seem obvious that more attractive partners inspire more frequent sex, but according to Farnaz Kaighobadi, a PhD student in Evolutionary Psychology, at Florida Atlantic University, the reasons are found in our evolutionary past, and run much deeper than simply thinking your mate is pretty hot.

Farnaz Kaighobadi claims:

In this context, sex is a “mate retention behaviour” designed to hold on to a partner who might otherwise stray and to increase the odds that any children born are those of the woman’s mate. Other such behaviours range from kind gestures like buying small gifts or offering compliments to nasty traits like sifting through a partner’s mail or threatening anyone who shows interest in them.

The underlying reasons are deeply unconscious.

It’s not like men are sitting there and thinking, ‘My partner is attractive so it’s likely she’s going to be unfaithful, so let me have more sex with her; it could be simply, ‘My partner is hot, I’m going to have more sex with her.’

Men reported that they have sex with their partners an average of 3.3 times in a typical week, Kaighobadi says, and they assigned them an average attractiveness rating of 7.9 on a scale of 0 to 9. Then, with each one-point increase in attractiveness, the frequency of sex increased by 40 percent, she says.

The study involved 277 heterosexual men, and was co-authored by Todd Shackelford. It will be published in an upcoming issue of the journal Personality and Individual Differences.

Kaighobadi also noted:

It’s not yet clear how this dynamic plays out in same-sex couples.

Posted by Jonathan as Sociobiology at 11:54 PM BST

No Comments »