I once saw a .50 caliber bullet pass through the chest of some Hadji shooting at us with an AK. It put a hole the size of a milk jug clean through; this was not a problem for me.

But to this day, I freak out when a woman starts to cry. It scares the ever living shit out of me.

This reminds me of a date I went on many years ago. We went to see 28 Days, a Sandra Bullock film where her character has substance abuse issues and goes to rehab. My date cried. The date went nowhere.

Which brings up a question: Do the womens tears not only reduce our arousal, but annoy us, and is there any corelation in men between being annoyed and a decrease in sexual arousal as well.

Also, were mens tears included in the test? Because John Boenhers tears in congress yesterday were annoying as fuck as well!

Oh yay. A study based on male arousal to female actions. How original.

Yaknow what? I'm a straight female and I'm freaked out and not aroused by male or female crying. But I guess that's less titillating.

The responses were only slightly lower than otherwise - easily overcome by even the most desultory ministrations.

The women I'm with only tend to cry after I have sex with them.

This effect can be negated by either lots of chocolate (for her) of plenty of beer (for him).

Sooo, we're conducting experiments like this instead of finding a cure for cancer because...?

Excellent! Next time some guy won't leave me alone, I know what to do!

@2 Great question -- was it women's tears or just tears? Need a control for that.

@3, too.

If this study is as simplistic as it is presented here, it really is crappy science.

I'm betting humans are turned off by tears.

Stupid study.

Oh come on Dan, you know very well that we're taught that it's fucked-up for men to be turned on by women crying. :-p Rapists might be, but since we rejected the Lesbian Separatist idea that all hetero sex is rape, like, 30 years ago, this is hardly surprising. And yes, I know you're joking. (But you're constant, even joking, ridicule of Women's Studies is helping create a hostile social climate that's keeping us from gaining legitimacy and perpetuating heterosexism!!! Aahhh!!! Seriously though, very few Women's Studies programs are, or ever were, like the anti-feminist-backlash-hyped misandrist lairs of separatism.)

@2: You're probably joking, but... Did you read the article? Or Dan's post, even? The men weren't watching the women cry, they were given collected tears to smell...

@3: ? You're pissed because someone's doing a study that suggests that, contrary to our cultural paradigm, rape isn't natural/normal (what with crying being a common response to rape), and in fact there exist biological triggers that act against it? I agree that "male" sexuality is still far more studied than "female" sexuality, and it shouldn't be, but this really seems like the wrong study on which to position a principled stand. If you're that upset, do the study yourself: how do male tears affect female sexual response? I'll bet you'll find they're a turn-off, and it won't be shocking, because duh, there really aren't any established cultural practices that suggest the opposite. Also, misplaced vitriol like your comment helps validate statements like Dan's Women's-Studies-bashing. Fuckin' stop it. Or at least express yourself in a more nuanced and articulate fashion that doesn't allow for overgeneralized knee-jerk responses to your overgeneralized knee-jerk commentary.

On a completely unrelated note, the ad for Lover's Lair, while undeniable clever, is also terrifying: there's a Sawzall with a penis instead of a blade. One thing I will never let come near my genitals, blade or no, is a Sawzall. I've used them to demolish things made from drywall, wood, steel, brick, and concrete. No sir, not coming near anything below the beltline.

Well, that's evolutionarily interesting.

Why would something like this evolve in us? Maybe one function would be to halt male aggression towards females - the crying cavewoman oddly made the angry caveman less angry (testosterone decrease), he just threw down the club and shuffled out of the cave, strangely disquieted.

A form of power for the (relatively) powerless, mayhaps? Things that make you go "hhmmmm"...

For the menfolk--recent movie most likely to get a guy laid--Unstoppable.

@8: I agree, this is a flagrant misuse of humanity's one and only research facility.

But what if they're HAPPY tears? Was there a difference?

I also thought this was interesting. We love who we love, but love is blind.

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/n…

What about whining voices? Is the pitch designed to raise levels of adrenaline? The world wants to know?

For some reason I cant get the name "Scott Tetherman" out of my head. The tears taste sooo sweet.

John @11, oh, excuse the fuck out of me for not specifically stating the "smell of the tears part", which was clearly stated even in the slog post here! I'm sorry I didn't create a post as lengthy as yours to spell this out.

Oh shit. I've been doing it wrong all this time.

@11 "You're pissed because someone's doing a study that suggests that, contrary to our cultural paradigm, rape isn't natural/normal (what with crying being a common response to rape)"

What?

These conclusions do not match my experience. Tears elicit comforting (from me, at least). Comfort leads to touching and overt displays of affection. And we all know where that can lead.

@22 Mommy just wanted a backrub...

Here are the last two paragraphs of the article -- even they don't suggest controlling for gender. This assumption that only women's tears effect women is really odd to me.

Because the authors of the latest study did not compare the effects of emotional and non-emotional tears, they could not directly assess how the crying women's feelings influenced the signal. Chen says that to explore whether tears evoked by different emotions serve unique functions and have a distinct chemical makeup, the researchers should also perform experiments in which they elicit happy weeping, or neutral tears caused by allergens or irritants such as onions.

But first, says Chen, the authors should repeat their experiments while preventing the tears from rolling down the woman's cheek. The skin secretes chemical cues that vary with the emotional state of the individual, she explains, so the tears may have carried these signals into the vial. Despite her concerns, Chen says that "overall, as a first study, it's very exciting and it suddenly opens the door for a lot more studies in the future".

Sorry, I meant "women's tear affect men". Bad grammar and mis-spoke word both. Jeesh.

All I could think about when I read this is how my boyfriend seems to completely lock up whenever I cry. His eyes get really wide and he freezes like a deer in headlights. It's like I can actually hear him thinking, "Oh my god, WHAT DO I DO? MAKE IT STOP, MAKE IT STOP!"

Cue the indignant letters from male kinksters who only get off on sex with crying women...

My completely anecdotal experience suggests a negative correlation between women who watch romcoms and women who love sex. If anything, women who love tearjerkers should load up the queue with that crap.

I feel that I should have something mean-spirited readily available to say regarding the fairer sex as regards this topic. I am disappointed with myself.

@29, if it's both true and funny, is it really mean spirited?

This matches my personal experience.

Unless she's really really hot.

Maybe this can explain why my ex had such instant boner meltdowns on the few occasions when he made me cry (in a happy way) while orgasming prior to him.

@14: There're always people doing stupid, pointless "research" studies in order to get grant money. Doesn't make it less stupid or pointless. Now, admittedly, the people doing a study like this are probably too incompetent to contribute anything to a project that might actually, I don't know, help somebody, but they took money and research space that another actual scientist could have used. Pity.

Given the overpopulation of the world, maybe frivolous stuff like this is a better use of science than anything that saves lives. Whats the point of saving any of us if we don't understand each other?

Star Trek had this figured out long ago (starts at about 35 seconds in).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew58E2DbR…

I don't know about you, but I'd have to cry a WHOLE FUCKING LOT to produce enough tears for my boyfriend to smell. What the hell? Did they think men were pressing their faces up against women while they cry? I don't get how the SMELL is the turn-off factor in your partner's tears.

@34: Wow, depressed much? I hope you never get one of those diseases which real scientists are working to cure, but haven't yet. You might think there was a reason to save a life if it happened to be yours. Just sayin'.

Knowledge is knowledge. I guess.

I hope they make this part of some interesting theory (with other studies) that explains something... rather than being just yet another little fact that just floats around.

Assuming, of course, it won't be disproved by another experiment.

Hey, Dan, you must have been talking to the fundies I knew in college. At least that women's-studies crack sounds alot like the sort of crap they would say.

@FLgirl: The fact that you're incapable of seeing value in any research that doesn't lead to some miraculous cure for a previously incurable disease says more about your intellect than the value of the research you are dismissing. If life were an on/off switch, a dichotomous variable with two levels - dead or alive - then your critique would have value. But people with even the slightest capacity for critical thought recognize that there are shades of gray. You are clearly not among their ranks.

@41: Oooh, Fallen, did I piss you off by pointing out the really, really obvious? So sorry. And you can talk about "shades of gray" all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that this was a self-serving piece of crap study done for research bucks and publicity, and anyone with half a mind knows it. And I find your hostility toward me personally interesting, considering that my response didn't attack you. Unless, of course, you're one of those useless sell out "scientists" who are happy to conduct any experiement that gives them press/helps their careers, which are the only things they're interested in.

Hmm. But no. That couldn't be.