Unprotected Sex Makes Women Happier, According To New Study

MissK

Iheart~Cali wrote: »

kai_valya wrote: »

on a sidenote, sperm is also great for combating morning sickness in pregnant women, but only if the sperm she is swallowing comes from the man who got her pregnant

What on Earth? Are you forreal? Where did u see this? Link?

just recently heard this as well, looking for link..

Edit:

A psychologist at the University at Albany-SUNY has claimed that women who consume sperm from the male who impregnated them are likely to counteract the common side effect during pregnancy.
Gordon Gallup, who works within the university's psychology department, believes that morning sickness is simply caused by the introduction of semen, a foreign substance, in order to impregnate her.

Futhermore, the doctor believes that pregnant women should, rather than abstain from sex, cater to their partner's sexual needs in order to remain healthy themselves.
In a line that may leave many questioning his credibility, Dr Gallup believes that women are able to build up a tolerance to the semen that impregnated them by simply digesting more of it.


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/08/10/study-oral-sex-cures-morning-sickness/

blackrain

covet wrote: »

blackrain wrote: »

covet wrote: »

blackrain wrote: »

kai_valya wrote: »

i just thought it was a fun(ny) article didn't say it was absolutely concrete

and in the article i posted, i think they are referring to the sperm that has fertilized the woman's egg. and there's already research that suggests that in some ways a female's body views a fetus as a foreign object, thus the morning sickness. if it wasn't for a pregnant woman's body suppressing its immune system, it would probably reject the baby. it would not be that much of a leap to think that it is the sperm part of the zygote causing this disruption since the egg is from the woman's own body

I actually watched a documentary this morning that said this exact same thing. When a woman gets pregnant her immune system lowers itself in order to not kill the fetus off because by literal definition it's a parasite inside the woman's body and the immune system would treat it as such.

please don't call the baby a parasite.... I have an issue with this as a woman who is pro choice, but believes in life at conception... and as a feminist who has to hear some feminists call the embryo a parasite.

par·a·site   [par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

the definition fits...it's not a bad thing..it's all about context..

I'm glad that you know how to use the dictionary, fam....

glad you know i wont stop using the word just because you don't like it

Iheart~Cali

covet wrote: »

lighthearted26 wrote: »

@damobb true but even then there's still a chance of catching something. I just recently found out alot of clinics dont routinely check for herpes. They test for everything else but that shit. So niggas coming out the clinic thinking they clean but they done had herpes for years and don't even know it smh.

There is no way to test for herpes unless you already suspect you have it.

But the only way they can test for it is to take a sample from the sore area.

Huh ??? False. A blood sample is taken and analyzed for the presence of antibodies to herpes as well as other diseases and infections. It doesn't matter if you know you have it or not.

MissK

@Covet

Thought the same as I was reading it, I mean Dr. Gallup...haha

Oh and welcome...

lighthearted26

Man all these std you can have with no symptoms including the herp. That's what's so scary about them.

*goes to Sam's club condom aisle and stocks up*

MR.CJ

word to mr. marcus

Iheart~Cali

No that's wrong. Even if someone is not currently having an outbreak, the antibodies are still detectible in their blood. You said the only way they can test for it is to take a sample from the sore area. That's not true. Of course an outbreak CAN be used as a diagnosis, but it's not the only way.

Tommy bilfiger

Iheart~Cali wrote: »

No that's wrong. Even if someone is not currently having an outbreak, the antibodies are still detectable in their blood. You said the only way they can test for it is to take a sample from the sore area. That's not true. Of course an outbreak CAN be used as a diagnosis, but it's not the only way.

Why are you so well versed on this subject?

Iheart~Cali

MissK wrote: »

Iheart~Cali wrote: »

kai_valya wrote: »

on a sidenote, sperm is also great for combating morning sickness in pregnant women, but only if the sperm she is swallowing comes from the man who got her pregnant

What on Earth? Are you forreal? Where did u see this? Link?

just recently heard this as well, looking for link..

Edit:

A psychologist at the University at Albany-SUNY has claimed that women who consume sperm from the male who impregnated them are likely to counteract the common side effect during pregnancy.
Gordon Gallup, who works within the university's psychology department, believes that morning sickness is simply caused by the introduction of semen, a foreign substance, in order to impregnate her.

Futhermore, the doctor believes that pregnant women should, rather than abstain from sex, cater to their partner's sexual needs in order to remain healthy themselves.
In a line that may leave many questioning his credibility, Dr Gallup believes that women are able to build up a tolerance to the semen that impregnated them by simply digesting more of it.


http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/08/10/study-oral-sex-cures-morning-sickness/

That guy is batshit. I can't speak on the sperm helping to alleviate m/s. But the sperm damn sure doesn't cause m/s.... That's just crazy talk.

lighthearted26

@iheartcali yea that's what I thought. I knew it had to do with a blood test just like testing for HIV.

@covet yea after Sam's club I'm stopping by Walgreens to get all them shots. One in each arm

MissK

@iheartcali

Agreed.

MC The Rapper

hahaha they know its chance they can get in a nigga pockets

Iheart~Cali

Tommy bilfiger wrote: »

Iheart~Cali wrote: »

No that's wrong. Even if someone is not currently having an outbreak, the antibodies are still detectable in their blood. You said the only way they can test for it is to take a sample from the sore area. That's not true. Of course an outbreak CAN be used as a diagnosis, but it's not the only way.

Why are you so well versed on this subject?

Thought it was common knowledge.

Iheart~Cali

I Googled and the only returns are from that same study from Dr. Gallup at Albany. I'm not buying it. Maybe if there were more independent studies...but that's the only one I see.

deadeye

'Think we've got some feds on here.

Just an observation.

blackrain

Tommy bilfiger wrote: »

Iheart~Cali wrote: »

No that's wrong. Even if someone is not currently having an outbreak, the antibodies are still detectable in their blood. You said the only way they can test for it is to take a sample from the sore area. That's not true. Of course an outbreak CAN be used as a diagnosis, but it's not the only way.

Why are you so well versed on this subject?

You'd be shocked at how many adults don't know about std's and sex education in general. Fools in their 30's and 40's still believing myths they heard when they were 13

damobb2deep

lighthearted26 wrote: »

@covet see that's what I'm talking about. All these years I been getting tested regularly and I just assumed herpes was included in all those tests. No one finds that as crazy as I do? Im somewhat of a hypochondriac so maybe that's why.

lol trust me if u have herpes u will kno...