Female art students more sexually active than male science nerds: study
December 4, 2008Female arts students at university are the most sexually active while male science students are the most likely to be virgins, Australian researchers said Thursday.
Content from AFP expires 1 month after original publication date. For more information about AFP, please visit www.afp.com .
Similar stories from PHYSorg:
New study measures hookah use among Florida teens
20 hours ago |
not rated yet |
1
Implantable Glucose Sensor Could Spell Relief for Millions of Diabetics (w/ Video)
Nov 09, 2009 |
5 / 5 (4) |
0
Touting tech tools of the future
Nov 05, 2009 |
not rated yet |
0
Mom was right: Why nice guys usually get the girls
Nov 05, 2009 |
4.6 / 5 (9) |
1
Weight matters: 'Normal' sized girls are judged to be more attractive by young men
Oct 27, 2009 |
4.5 / 5 (8) |
4
Display comments: newest first
Why yes. Read the last line.
It reveals sexual promiscuity is on the rise, as the number of infectees within the same age group quadrupled.
This is to be expected when we raise entire generations to "do what feels good".
Maybe if I do a psychological study on why people think water is wet... I could finally fund that Montana dream home of mine.
Yes, its so much better to rise people to do "what feels bad". Weren't you a science student by any chance?
As for comments on promiscuity as some sort of moral compass issue:
Art Students are far more likely to get the ideas behind environmental issues (for example), while Science students are more likely to try and foul the presented logic with their desired directions. Contrary to popular belief, the linear mind of the science student is more dangerous to free thinking and association that is critical to being able to understand a plethora of necessary points in a real world, not the rigidified and codified world of 'science'.
The art student is generally more aware that their being is constructed/based on an emotional and out of control monkey that creates problems in the human world at every turn, where the science student is incredibly likely to miss this point to their grave. Go science! Self realization isn't on the Science curriculum, yet it is a fundamental point in order to go forth and do the world no harm.
So how does this veiled attack on humanitarian thinking, caring, Art Students go, again? Tell me again what the agenda is, this time more clearly.
Your "art talk" is definitely up to speed.
exist merely on the ends of this here bell
curve. The epic "reason vs passion" argument,
presented with such fervor. Well guess what
progress is not made by means of "self
realization."
I for one plan to "rise" my kids very carefully if I ever have any. "Weren't you" an English student by any chance?
I suppose we can bid farewell to the entire field of Environmental Engineering then...
Strange. I thought that was more a tendency of the human condition than a scientists-only problem. Perhaps my comprehension of political science and politics in general is flawed.
If science was completely "codified" scientific progress would not happen. People would simply memorize things all their life and never make anything new. It is the ability to look at all of the points in the real world and make new associations which permits progress, and this ability is highly prized among scientists.
Additionally, look up the Renaissance or the origins of the Cubism art movement. The line between art and science isn't quite as clean as you might like it to be.
You seem to have forgotten about the entire field of biology which came up with this "monkey idea" in the first place.
I'd be hard pressed to believe "self realization" is on any curriculum. Wouldn't it, by definition, be something you must figure out for yourself and not something somebody else can teach you?
How about you tell me again how the comment you are responding to singled out art students at all or how your response actually addressed any of the perceived complaints?
Does anyone here actually have any knowledge of what is studied in art schools these days? ---- All the philosophy that led to the Enlightenment aka the Birth of Science (Hegel, Kant, etc, etc - any of you heard of them?), post-structuralism and the rise of Quantum Mechanics and Chaotic Systems) then this "scientists are smart - artists are dumb" rubbish would never get off the ground.
Anyone remember that Da Vinci guy? was he an artist or a scientist?
jeezus, i wonder why i read physorg sometimes.
Is it any shocker that students who are interested in science have more knowledge about diseases than students who are interested in art? Did they ask follow-up questions, like "How did you learn about Chlamydia?" What about the parents' educational background? Are these students more knowledgeable about sex because their parents raised them that way?
Makes me wonder what it might be like over in the staff lounge in the School of Law...
Now for the engineer in me. The real lesson in this is that the multitude of girls sleeping with a relatively small but highly promiscious group of males leads to a higher concentration of infected possible mates.
If 100 people have to pick from 100 marbles, but all of them wanted the same 10 marbles and if 1 out of the hundred people had leprosy then in the next iteration 10 have leprosy. Then best case scenario you go to 20, worst case you go to outbreak.
Moral of the story? For all you sleazy girls, go bang a nerd it might just save your life. To all the Dorks who get some after this post, please wire payment to my account in the Caymans.
No one needs a psyche...more than psyche. Go to university with sexual issues, if you are taking psyche. Psyches are helpful if not curious folk.