All About Sex

Im in my 50s now and while I had never heard of the McClintock effect I have been syncronising my periods with my lesbian lovers and other women I have lived with for years.
Going to the Michigan womyns music festival, an annual event for the last 35 years, the organisers advise festival goers that women regularly get unexpected periods due to the presence of thousands of women at the event.
Dont know who this McClintock is but s/he doesnt seem to have done the right research.

I totally agree...frustrated at reading this article of nonsense this is the point I was eagerly about to make.

The speculative conclusions drawn here seem to be largely based on the study participants' self-evaluation of mood, etc. Another commenter noticed what also jumped out at me as a very obvious possibility, but was never mentioned. That, perhaps, the participants who "never" wore condoms were people who were, from the start, the least worried about ANYTHING, or at least had a perception of personal invincibility. Additionally, I have met many people who were happily ignorant of anything unsavory to think about, such as STI's, nuclear power plant explosions, etc. It was as if they simply "didn't want to think about it" if the consideration of it would be emotionally unpleasant, and they actively avoided becoming informed of such things.

Perhaps these "least depressed" people were so because of a variety of factors that had little to do with semen. Perhaps an emotional predisposition toward avoidance of unpleasantries combined with the often resultant ignorance of them contributed to both being the least depressed and comfort with unprotected sex.

I am not saying that I think this is the "real" reason, to the exclusion of what are probably many factors involved. It just seemed that the emotional and personality predispositions of the participants were given little mention, hence possibly little consideration, in the drawing of their conclusions.

@Steven: The McClintock effect is synchronized menstruating. Look at the start of the article.

Cheezus, Steven. What exactly did you think the McClintock effect was, if you didn't catch that?

Because they're saying that maybe girls period sync because of the hormones in the semen and lesbians don't have these hormones because they do not engage in sex with men. So they do not maintain these hormones induced from semen.

This is a silly article. The study itself is correlational, and as any good scientist knows "correlation does not imply causation". There are many, many factors that might explain the association between sex without condoms and elevated mood found in this study. For example, young women with naturally occurring higher mood might choose to engage in sex without condoms because being happier they feel more indestructible (and are therefore more reckless). This is an example of a "direction effect", in which the casual pathway proceeds from happiness to choosing sex without condoms, rather than from sperm to happiness. It is also possible, for example, that there is a "third variable" that explains the effect. An example of a third variable is illustrated by the comment below: perhaps some property of the condoms themselves reduces happiness. Or, perhaps women who are choosing to have sex without condoms have higher quality relationships with their sexual partners, which in turn leads to higher levels of happiness. To speculate that sperm is a causal factor without a randomly-controlled study is irresponsible at best, and (given the author is male) narcissistic at worst.

Women who were not sexually active at all were included in the study, so the toxicity of condoms would not be relevant to them.

Anaphylactic shock has nothing to do with toxicity. It's a hypersensitivity reaction. Do you also think peanuts and shellfish are toxic?

As a Psychology Professor and researcher I can tell you that Psychology Today cares a lot more about profit than responsible dissemination of research findings.

No, no it does not "get around" that issue. Please do not think that ingesting semen and exposing yourself to herpes, HIV, and a slew of other STDs is "safe sex" simply because it won't leave you with a baby.

Get a firm grip on your ears. Another REMF that did not read but scanned the information. Obviously your limited skills prevented you from fully explaining yourself lest you be exposed as a chapter 4-DD. Rather than a vasectomy give your hapless husband running shoes; something he really needs.
I notice you missed the idea of mood enhancing. Why? No canadian bull? Any reference to the anti-depressants? Just stupidity-routine. You need a shirt-BS---It's not just my breakfast anymore.

How can the article be bs when your own words proved the information? 4 days? Sounds like you prove the theory. At most you would have had three-BCT does not last forever-then AIT starts.
Give sad sack wings and take a high colonic for the forced march. Something you both desperatley need. Him so he can sky and you to clear your vision.

ovulation in itself does not cause women to want sex during ovulation. Like too many others, you refused to read the article as a whole as opposed to the exception-like saying smoking is ok beause someone somked for 50 years and died of a car wreck rather than smoking related issues.Itis much more than hormones. Why can't you figure that out? Was semen listed as a causation of women feeling different during ovulation? Which paragraph and sentence was it. Get your micro out and pinpoint it. The shock should not be about the article but your closed and limited mental skills. Spouting off to spout may make you fel superior but truly shows your lack of reading skills.
Hope you feel better about yourself. If not, I am certain you will flatten the next guy that holds a door open for you. Happens to me all the time.
Truly funny thing-lesbians love me.