In researching luteininzing hormone, I came across this:
“PHILADELPHIA – Scientists at the University of Pennsylvania and the Monell Chemical Senses Center in Philadelphia have found that exposure to male perspiration has marked psychological and physiological effects on women: It can brighten women’s moods, reducing tension and increasing relaxation, and also has a direct effect on the release of luteinizing hormone, which affects the length and timing of the menstrual cycle.”
Ewwwwwwwww! Brighten my mood? That’s not what usually happens if I get a dose of my beloved’s smelly arm pit.
It gets worse…“The underarm extracts used in the study came from men who bathed with fragrance-free soap and refrained from deodorant use for four weeks.”
Four weeks!!..gag…cough…ack.
“Half the women received three applications of the male secretions during a six-hour period, followed three controlled exposures to ethanol, used as a control substance, over a six-hour period.”
Ethanol as a control substance? Read, they had to get them drunk!
Researchers must sit in a room doing shots, laughing their asses off thinking of bizarre research projects they can get grant money for. The follow up study will probably involve women willing to perform sex acts on barn animals after being exposed to circus workers scrotum scrapings. Gotta love science.
for some odd reason I am doubting that they fed them grain alcohol… for the experiment to be performed following any kind of scientific method, the control must be administered/introduced in the same manor as the variable being studied. So, since I doubt that anyone could pay any woman enough to drink armpit sweat, I am deducing that they simply rubbed it on them or just let them smell it… good try though! lol!
and I agree, the crap they give money to morons to research is pitiful and stupid- like they guy researching and declaring that eating your bugars is good for you…
I am not surprised that people attack research that is described in the newspaper (or magazines). Most times, the person writing the newspaper article has not read the actual research report (or grant proposal) and therefore they are providing a dumbed-down version of the study (and the subsequent findings). As such, it is impossible for the newspaper consumer to see the underlying motivation for a given study.
I guess I shouldn’t be surprised that people are very critical of scientific research that they do not (or in other cases cannot) understand.
Without research (which on the surface may seem ridiculous), our world would be a very different (and I would argue worse) place.
Actualy, that study was already done. They found that the type of worker would have an effect on her willingness to perform. So while an animial tamer or human canibal would increase her propensity to do the act, a trapeeze swinger or clown would reduce her willingness. They think it has something to do with “manly” things such as gun powder residue or sweat from fear.
I think it’s in the Fall 98 issue of the Journal of Animal Reproduction and Sexuality.
I’m going to have to disagree with DA MAN. I’ve seen women drink urine, have sex with farm animals, and lick asshole. That being said, I don’t think it would be difficult to get women to drink a little sweat. Why, I even got a volunteer to take an oral dose last night from my nut sack.
