'Time Bomb'
Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, flaming otters, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.
No, the idea is that a lower level of stress in general might lead to both more ease in public speaking and more interest in penetrative sex.
I'm not sure I buy it, and I'm also not sure what would be the point of it if true, but the problem with the headline (and the news's generally sloppy handling of it) is the assumption of causation.
the idea is that a lower level of stress in general might lead to both more ease in public speaking and more interest in penetrative sex
But I still don't get the idea of penetrative sex being linked in that direction to lower stress. Why would it be? More than the other way round?
I was thinking more that lubrication and relaxation are more likely to go well if one has lower levels of stress than otherwise. That's not going to explain the men -- maybe higher levels of stress are communicated to their partners? -- but that's what I've got.
I was thinking more that lubrication and relaxation are more likely to go well if one has lower levels of stress than otherwise.
But then you need more detail about why there wasn't penetrative sex...did they intend to and couldn't physiologically pull it off? Did they never intend to? Did things never get that far because it all fizzled?
But then you need more detail about why there wasn't penetrative sex
I do? I was proposing an alternate explanation, not stating a conclusion that I intended to support with research.
For example -- and I am pulling this out of my hindparts:
It's the billion other details that get my hindparts in a twist, personally. But the above scenario is a more logical psycho-social explanation for the study's findings than "If you only were straighter and narrower, you'd be less tongue-tied in front of a crowd!" as if the g-spot plugged directly into the social-skills part of the brain.
I was proposing an alternate explanation, not stating a conclusion that I intended to support with research.
Fine. Turn down a golden opportunity for a paper. Or we can read it as you plural, the general you. If one doesn't know why penetrative sex didn't happen, how strong an explanation is it? For one, that is.
It's the 20th anniversary of the loss of Challenger. (Tomorrow, IIRC.)
7 myths about the Challenger shuttle disaster
It didn't explode, the crew didn't die instantly and it wasn't inevitable
Yeah, the "explosion" thing that always gets repeated has bugged me:
Myth #2: Challenger exploded
The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word. There was no shock wave, no detonation, no "bang" — viewers on the ground just heard the roar of the engines stop as the shuttle’s fuel tank tore apart, spilling liquid oxygen and hydrogen which formed a huge fireball at an altitude of 46,000 ft. (Some television documentaries later added the sound of an explosion to these images.) But both solid-fuel strap-on boosters climbed up out of the cloud, still firing and unharmed by any explosion. Challenger itself was torn apart as it was flung free of the other rocket components and turned broadside into the Mach 2 airstream. Individual propellant tanks were seen exploding — but by then, the spacecraft was already in pieces.
Someone I don't know at work forwarded me and a number of other people a video file. Which I didn't watch. When I replied to him asking why he'd sent it to me, he said "it just went by mistake." Now I want to watch the video. To see exactly what he's being so passive about spamming.
Very crafty.
Diamond-encrusted chocolate. $5 million!