Another sex therapist here (hi!): this works both ways. Although less commonly discussed, men can also not have an orgasm every time, and their partners can respond in the same way.

Except without the exploring thoughts part. Basically, the younger the person you’re working with, the more purely behavioral the treatment is.

Two possibilities (amongst many): collecting email addresses to increase the value of the Gawker enterprise when it’s sold / dismantled; or (and I think this is the more likely option), the Giz staff are aware of a pending reorg/disappearance and don’t wish to lose loyal viewers during the hubbub (bub).

I think your original interpretation is the valid one. Quoting single words generally means that the author doesn’t agree with the term, or is mocking its usage. It is not standard style to put quotes around single words without further explanation, so I am confused by the author’s response.

I think that was a very good choice on your part.

So I can learn the definitions of words, right?

Thanks! In my defense: https://www.google.com/search?q=defin…

Wait. Is that twice a week or once every two weeks?

Very nice example of thoughtful science journalism. Thanks!

Well, I want one. I can’t possibly afford one, but I do want one.

Heaven help the children in stock photos, then.

It’s ridiculous to think that the barrier to a pedophile abusing children is that s/he doesn’t know where any are or what they look like.

I’m about 88% certain that my cat - when I had a cat - would go out of her way to find things to be briefly terrified of in order to liven up her day. I contributed when I could; she seemed to appreciate it.

I cannot imagine a llama cooler than that one.

So first, the one who makes the claims would provide the evidence, and you made the claims. My argument is that there is no evidence. The easiest way to prove me wrong is to provide said evidence. I cannot, of course, prove that there is no evidence, because one can’t prove a negative.

Um. Yes? Broadly speaking? But that still doesn’t tell us anything about the argument you made.

Part of the study is a metaanalysis, which is to say that it’s a summary of existing studies, so this isn’t really breaking news. And the fact that increased maternal and paternal age is related to autism doesn’t mean we have any understanding of the cause - it just means that there is a connection. But yes, I agree -…

http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16…

There is also no reason to believe that an age gap of that size is negatively predictive of the satisfaction, sincerity or duration of a relationship.

Increased paternal age is definitely related to autism, but there’s no reason to think that it’s the ‘leading cause.’ And why would that be a horrible thing to say?