That's the third paragraph of the NYT article "Cannabis for Better Sex? Here’s What the Science Says. The research is thin, but anecdotal experience suggests that the right dose and delivery method can make a positive difference for some people."
If it's about women, tell me it's about women. What's with the "some people"?
The next paragraph, summing up what the experts said:
It’s hard to say with certainty that cannabis will increase desire or improve your sex life, but anecdotal evidence suggests that the right dose of cannabis can make a woman’s orgasms more satisfying and increase sex drive. This is in part because cannabis can enhance the senses and also alleviate some of the symptoms that inhibit desire, like anxiety, sleeplessness or pain. It can have positive effects for men, as well, but also several negative ones, and women should be aware of its potential downsides, too.
Both men and women have long reported that cannabis alters their sexual experience....
Okay, so there is something here for men (other than the notion that whatever makes things better for women will, by that alone, make it better for men).
Finally, there's this:
According to the International Society for Sexual Medicine, some men report that their sexual performance improves when they use marijuana, while others may experience problems such as less motivation for sex, erectile dysfunction, trouble reaching orgasm or premature ejaculation.
Let me suggest that "less motivation" explains all the effects listed above — for the women as well as the men. Think about it!
Posts
32 comments:
Now do alcohol.
Shorter NYT: let’s conflate anecdotal evidence we like with science.
here's a Fun Thing
currently, because of it's (FDA?) schedule, pot is Very hard to medical studies on; so pro pot people can say that pot "doesn't do ANYTHING BAD!" Because no one's actually tested it
(Surely you've heard, "pot doesn't cause cancer!" ? What this actually means, is: no one has 'proved' pot causes cancer; because no one has tested it.
If the democrats make it federally 'legal'; PRESUMABLY they'll de schedule it. And that should mean that rigorous testing can commence.
IS pot 'safer than alcohol'? IS pot 'safer than tobacco'? It would be interesting to actually run tests
ALL of this, is irreverent though. The Real Question is:
HOW will pot effect a woman's problems such as less motivation for sex, erectile dysfunction, trouble reaching orgasm or premature ejaculation.
If pot use is going to mean that a woman can't sustain her erection long enough to satisfy her man; HOW is she going to be able to insure that he stays with her?
Althouse said...
If it's about women, tell me it's about women. What's with the "some people"?
...Okay, so there is something here for men (other than the notion that whatever makes things better for women will, by that alone, make it better for men).
What can we say? We're 'people pleasers.'
"Let me suggest that "less motivation" explains all the effects listed above — for the women as well as the men. Think about it!"
Let me suggest that thinking about less motivation explaining all the effects won't reduce all the effects. Think about it!
Getting occasionally high and having sex is one thing, getting habitually high is another.
Some people have penises and pretend to be women.
some people believe that these people are actually "women"
Others have vaginas, pretend to be men and some people believe they are.
Perhaps this is why the writer uses "some people". The conc concept of "woman" and to a lesser extent "men" is fast fading into the distance.
As we watch it recede in the rear view mirror, we should ask ourselves "have I contributed to this disgustpating state of affairs? How do I feel about being an isn't? What can I do to reverse this mess?"
John LGBTQBNY Henry
Sweet lady Jane makes sex more fun?
What a news flash.
John LGBTQBNY Henry
First reaction to story: "gynecologist"? Or just another perv?
"If it's about women, tell me it's about women. What's with the "some people"?"
According to experts, women don't exist. And men are better women than all of these nonexistent women. According to the experts.
Did I say that's what the best experts say?
I did a short stretch in the late 70's playing with pot. Didn't care for it, but not because I didn't try. Regarding sex. At the time, don't think one way or the other....today I'm sure the pot made sex way better, back then. So we have talked about pulling into one of pot stores in Illinois, and making a night of it, now that I'm retired and not subject to random drug tests to keep my CDL current. But we haven't quite got there yet.
>>If it's about women, tell me it's about women. What's with the "some people"?
I had no idea you were also a biologist, Ann.
What's a woman?
This article is both confusing and offensive. First, it uses this strange word "woman." What's a "woman"? The author should have interviewed a biologist to establish a definition, so we would all have even the vaguest clue what they are talking about. Second, the article was offensive. Even though my lack of a degree in biology means I have no idea what the term "woman" means, I have this unshakeable conviction that the appropriate term would have been "bleeder," "birthing person," or "chest feeder." If this undoubtedly white privileged author, secure in their misogyny and heteronormativity, doesn't shape up and quick, I may have to do a little mostly peaceful protesting to get my point across.
Need to be careful on the gender ID so I’ll dispense with that first: I identify as a lower receiver on an AR pattern rifle. Not sure of the appropriate pronouns but don’t let the “receiver” part fool you as I also house the trigger assembly and make things go bang. Xe/Xhe maybe? My non-binary status gives me authority to comment.
I broke 3 vertebrae in my back 5 years ago and have been on a steady cocktail of opioids, muscle relaxants and nerve suppressors. Docs were amazed I could walk after a week in the hospital. It’s in a position where surgery would involve laying a bunch of internal organs on an OR table and then several hours splayed open while specialist attempted a very low probability fix.
So opioids for life! I’m under prescribed due to Fed regulation to stem the “opioid epidemic” and augment the gap until refills with CBD oil of dubious legality in that the CBD tincture either mimics THC structure, or, I know a guy…
In our mid-fifties, we aren’t rabbits in my household but we still have occasional fun. Opioids and sex? Forget about it. While fantastic for the wife, a real let down for me. It deadens much more than just pain. But during that gap where I’m waiting on refills, I’ll say that between ice cream and Cheetos binges and when the wife gets a bit frisky, the CBD oil is definitely up to the task. On a couple of occasions we’ve both achieved some really remarkable things (my wife is a real trooper and will sometimes share a bit of the elixir to level the playing field a bit) but there is not a lot of consistency and sometimes we get hyper-fixated on whatever Netflix show is streaming in the background and just nod off to sleep.
Anecdotal and not conclusive so I’ll continue to study and report back when I have more definitive data.
IMHO, pot only makes you think sex is better. Kind of like how that ice cream is the best you ever had. How do they run a control in the study if participants think they had sex but really just ate ice cream?
Add "experts" and "science" to the list of words in the English language progressives destroyed the meaning of.
Is it anti-trans for gynecologists to not do pelvic exams and other treatment on transgender women?
Come on guys. Admit that part of the reason that you liked sex with women when you were both smoking pot, was that she was less interested in where your hands were, and what they were doing. Or, at least that is what everyone told me when I was in college back a half century ago.
Some people = the second and third place finisher at the swim meet.
Rep. Omar said that some people did some thing. Was she blaming 9-11 on chest feeders?
both smoking pot, was that she was less interested in where your hands were
Much like the same principle of dating, cleary, mentally unbalanced(crazy) women. The sex is off the charts. But the price paid is substantial, and unsustainable. So furation is limited.
Short article: we asked the question and found there’s no science to answer it. So the rest of this article we will make up what we hope is true. The end.
It's all good when you obey your personal ideal dose and frequency.
From what I hear gilbar, pot is safer than motorcycle riding. Your mileage may vary.
I like pot, sex, and pot and sex, and have indulged in all regularly with my lawful wedded.
(She's more into Scotch, which is fine with me.)
45 years today, and both are on the menu for later or tomorrow. Or both. (It was even a Saturday.)
So, just asking due to total inexperience with pot: is there any symptom for pot-smoking men equivalent to the well-known "whiskey dick" experienced with alcohol?
And my redneck kin told me decades ago that many southern girls found in bars were interested in sex only as a means of obtaining cocaine from the men trying to pick them up. Is there a similar relationship between pot and female sexuality?
Some people… some people can do what they like.
>>Let me suggest that "less motivation" explains all the effects listed above
Seems backwards to me, i.e., all of the effects explain the lesser motivation.
--gpm
"Cannabis for Better Sex? "
Like Twain said, if you don't read the NYT you are uninformed. If you do read the NYT you are miss-informed.
If you smoke pot you become more apathetic as dose increases. if you get really stoned, you say fucit and listen to Willie Nelson play Whiskey River all night, even if in your BFF lap.
“… problems such as less motivation for sex, erectile dysfunction, trouble reaching orgasm or premature ejaculation”
People having a problem achieving premature organism are ok, that’s good. The Oxford comma is needed here.
Ah the never ending search for the magic bullet. It seems to me that the right dose and delivery method of the sex would make a, "positive difference".
And since when is anecdotal experience, "the science"?
Post a Comment