However of potential candidates that both men and women were willing to hook up with; men chose a little over three possible partners on average while women chose a little under three partners out of the ten.This rather neatly puts a stake in the heart of many of the evo-psych arguments about who’s biologically programmed to want sex; as soon as the social and safety factors are eliminated, the difference in interest for casual sex is negligible.It also allows for other sexually transmitted diseases to pass, such as Herpes Simplex Virus-2, Hepatitis B and Syphilis.The trick to dramatically lowering your risks is to really know your partner well, to know their sexual history, and to know their current health status (the couple who gets tested together doesn't get a disease together.... Positive Consequences: Do we REALLY need to list the positive benefits of kissing??Of course, the study was fatally flawed; as has been pointed out many times, Johnny Rando rolling up on a college campus and asking chicks to bang him betrays a rather severe lack of social calibration at .
The ur-evidence of this belief is the infamous Clark-Hatfield study, which was published in 1989 and replicated over and over again by You Tube pranksters as “social experiments” ever since.It’s the subject of many a heated debate, the punchline to hacky comedians’ jokes and the background noise in movies and sitcoms since pretty much forever.We’re given any number of reasons for this, from the classic “sperm is cheap/eggs are expensive” evo-psych rationale to the more mercenary “women use sex for barter” market view of human sexuality.) However, a new study published in the journal Like Dr.Terri Conley before them, researchers Andreas Baranowski and Heiko Hecht at the Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz decided to conduct a series of experiments to test the Clark-Hatfield studies… First, they replicated the original study’s methodology.