Can you be specific about how it's different? And explain the moral calculus that says it's ok for families to smack each other around?

Cardboard boxes are ridiculously useful, but I've always lived in places with enough humidity, at least in the summer, that keeping them for any period of time leads to a stinky, stinky mess. Any thoughts about how to best store cardboard boxes to avoid making them into a mold/bug habitat?

I almost certainly use those clips in my research, so please trust me when I say: no, you really don't. They're not objectionable - at all - but they are quite boring. My aesthetic objection to them is mostly the fake boobs, but that's just me.

Two phenomena, both of which are really interesting.

This is truly wonderful and useful. Citation management is ridiculously (and, to me, unnecessarily) complicated.

I think lack of anonymity would make things better, but, given the stupid things famous people say (including death threats) in the complete absence of any anonymity, I do not believe there is evidence to suggest that it would actually solve the problem.

I'm sure you're right. I also suspect that the lack of immediate consequences enhance existing impulse control issues.

My Facebook feed would suggest that lack of anonymity isn't the only solution.

There is good research out there that says that women (generally) have relatively low sexual satisfaction with first-time partners. Generally, women report increased sexual satisfaction as the number of encounters with the same partner increases (up to a limit, of course). For men, the first encounter is often very…

It's unusual but not rare, and it's almost certainly treatable. The treatment odds are much better if you can bring your partner with you to treatment, since you can work on both issues like trust and relaxation, and technical issues (by which I mean what to do when).

Your quote specifies two reasons for the rejection - they said it wasn't efficacious enough, and that the benefits did not outweigh the side effects. So I agree and disagree, since it clearly is at least in part that it had troublesome side effects, and that the effect that it produces was small.

There's also no real reason to believe those are actual risk factors - it isn't clear that there are risk factors at all. There is some reason to believe that the kinds of people/things/stuff to which we're attracted is largely determined in the womb, either through genetics or through hormonal exposure in the womb. …

I think your experience is pretty common, and is why when a woman comes in with desire issues we look at (a) relationship factors, (b) sexual function, and (c) partner competence before we look at the fundamental rate of sexual desire. That being said, there are different levels of sexual desire, and women and men…

I'm assuming this article is is about flibanserin, which it would be helpful to actually name. In that case, the drug was already rejected once, for terrible reasons, so while I agree with you in general, in this particular case, there is no good reason to reject - the side effect profile is very nearly trivial…

Thanks for citing the science. I am a researcher who studies, among other things, the sequelae of childhood abuse, both sexual and physical. (a) the vast majority of people who are abused as children do not go on to become abusers. (b) there are plenty (as you note, the majority) of abusers for whom there is no…

That's what I meant; poor phrasing on my part.

Well, if it was an existing data set, it wouldn't have mattered if they were under 18 or not. It seems that the researchers may have been less than forthright with the IRB, in which case their asses will be handed to them after an unsatisfyingly slow and thorough review.

It's a little scary to watch media coverage of something you know something about, isn't it? Makes one wonder what other important facts get glossed over or ignored...

And this was an existing data set.

Let's start by saying the two situations are different, in quality and quantity.