The Heat of the Moment

Just yesterday, a couple of IRMA members were once again talking/ranting about the disconnect in microbicde research between the protocols of the scientific endeavor and the ways in which PEOPLE ACTUALLY HAVE SEX.

While we have to answer certain questions in microbicide studies, and to determine the answers we have to design the studies in very structured ways - we have yet to get a handle on the "messiness of sex" - and that most of us do not follow strict step-by-step instructions (first put it there, then do a little of this, then...) when we are getting busy...

The Wisdom of Whores has a great post on a related topic:

I’ve been known to take the piss out of scientists who think people make decisions about sex the way they make decisions about what stocks to invest in, nice and rationally. My published references even include “Sex is fun, remember?”. In my experience, a hard-on (or its female equivalent, a wide-on) tends to disrupt rational decision-making. And I’ve just found a scientific paper that proves it.

In The Heat of the Moment (pdf), scientists Dan Ariely and George Lowenstein asked college boys to say what they would do to get laid. Would they buy a girl a nice dinner? Would they consider sleeping with a woman over 40 (!!) And what would they do to stay safe? Would they use a condom even if the girl might change her mind while they went to get one? (Please! Don’t they know what watch pockets are for?) Using a one-handed keypad the boys answered the on-screen questions twice. One time flaccid, another time “in a state of arousal”. Yes, the boys were paid US$ 10 to wank while they answered questions — the “arousal” round of questions was accompanied by on-screen porn.

Read the rest of her post - Paid to pleasure yourself: nice work if one can get it dept