<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Stanford Sexual Health Peer Resource Center</title>
	<atom:link href="http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:10:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>Comment on Pregnancy &amp; Contraception by CA Vasectomy Reversal</title>
		<link>http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/sex-info/pregnancy-contraception/#comment-1130</link>
		<dc:creator>CA Vasectomy Reversal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jan 2009 07:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/pregnancy-contraception/#comment-1130</guid>
		<description>Lot of information on pregnancy and conception.  Very useful, indeed.  It was worth reading.  Thanks for sharing.

-Martin</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lot of information on pregnancy and conception.  Very useful, indeed.  It was worth reading.  Thanks for sharing.</p>
<p>-Martin</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Pregnancy &amp; Contraception by SHPRC Staff</title>
		<link>http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/sex-info/pregnancy-contraception/#comment-1121</link>
		<dc:creator>SHPRC Staff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 05:51:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/pregnancy-contraception/#comment-1121</guid>
		<description>The chance of catching an sexually transmitted infection in a hot tub is not higher in particular than anywhere else - the same rules for STI protection follow in water as they do on dry land: use protection for any type of intercourse or contact with the genitals. 

That said, there are two big problems with sexual activity in water: 1) condoms can slip off more easily and lubrication gets washed off, so breakage or slippage is more common; 2) there are TONS of microbes living in water, and the motions involved in sex can propel them far up into the vaginal/rectal cavities, meaning there&#039;s a decent chance of getting a nasty infection that is not an &quot;STI&quot; per se. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are also common for the same reason. Showers don&#039;t have problem #2, but they do have another one - the possibility of slipping and falling! Our advice? Hug and kiss all you want in water. But when it comes to sex, move to dry land!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The chance of catching an sexually transmitted infection in a hot tub is not higher in particular than anywhere else &#8211; the same rules for STI protection follow in water as they do on dry land: use protection for any type of intercourse or contact with the genitals. </p>
<p>That said, there are two big problems with sexual activity in water: 1) condoms can slip off more easily and lubrication gets washed off, so breakage or slippage is more common; 2) there are TONS of microbes living in water, and the motions involved in sex can propel them far up into the vaginal/rectal cavities, meaning there&#8217;s a decent chance of getting a nasty infection that is not an &#8220;STI&#8221; per se. Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are also common for the same reason. Showers don&#8217;t have problem #2, but they do have another one &#8211; the possibility of slipping and falling! Our advice? Hug and kiss all you want in water. But when it comes to sex, move to dry land!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Pregnancy &amp; Contraception by Hot Tub</title>
		<link>http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/sex-info/pregnancy-contraception/#comment-1079</link>
		<dc:creator>Hot Tub</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Apr 2008 05:07:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/pregnancy-contraception/#comment-1079</guid>
		<description>Can you get a VD in a hot tub?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you get a VD in a hot tub?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Big Rise in Cost of Birth Control on College Campuses by selenasd</title>
		<link>http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/big-rise-in-cost-of-birth-control-on-college-campuses/#comment-853</link>
		<dc:creator>selenasd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Dec 2007 04:07:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/2007/11/23/big-rise-in-cost-of-birth-control-on-college-campuses/#comment-853</guid>
		<description>I just glanced at the MSNBC article on orgasms and there are a lot of points I take issue with. Take the introduction (which was, significantly, included in our newsletter): &quot;Studies show that about 10 percent of women have never experienced an orgasm, and 50 percent of women have had trouble getting aroused at some point... What can men do to help women reach orgasm?&quot; This little excerpt puts forth the idea that orgasm is the ultimate goal of sex, and that women are less capable of achieving that &quot;success&quot; than men, which is a perspective I find problematic. Also, not only is the idea that women need men to help them reach orgasm heteronormative, but it also makes it seem like women need a partner in order to have an orgasm. 


Generally throughout the article, the points these &quot;experts&quot; make are ridiculous— women are different from each other and from men, some women are more inhibited than others, genetics plays a role in one&#039;s sex life, most women occasionally have difficulty becoming aroused, etc. How are any of these things specific to women? How is it productive to single women out as needing help &quot;defining&quot; what feels good and needing tips in order to learn how to have orgasms?


This article does have some relevant points, but I think that you should include a caveat if it includes (as I believe this article does) perspectives that the SHPRC does not necessarily espouse.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I just glanced at the MSNBC article on orgasms and there are a lot of points I take issue with. Take the introduction (which was, significantly, included in our newsletter): &#8220;Studies show that about 10 percent of women have never experienced an orgasm, and 50 percent of women have had trouble getting aroused at some point&#8230; What can men do to help women reach orgasm?&#8221; This little excerpt puts forth the idea that orgasm is the ultimate goal of sex, and that women are less capable of achieving that &#8220;success&#8221; than men, which is a perspective I find problematic. Also, not only is the idea that women need men to help them reach orgasm heteronormative, but it also makes it seem like women need a partner in order to have an orgasm. </p>
<p>Generally throughout the article, the points these &#8220;experts&#8221; make are ridiculous— women are different from each other and from men, some women are more inhibited than others, genetics plays a role in one&#8217;s sex life, most women occasionally have difficulty becoming aroused, etc. How are any of these things specific to women? How is it productive to single women out as needing help &#8220;defining&#8221; what feels good and needing tips in order to learn how to have orgasms?</p>
<p>This article does have some relevant points, but I think that you should include a caveat if it includes (as I believe this article does) perspectives that the SHPRC does not necessarily espouse.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on LATimes: Old Mike, new Christine by oretBroorry</title>
		<link>http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/latimes-old-mike-new-christine/#comment-517</link>
		<dc:creator>oretBroorry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:06:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/latimes-old-mike-new-christine/#comment-517</guid>
		<description>Two new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others. 
 
The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex. 
 
The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 
 
In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat. 
 
The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different. 
 
It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two new studies show why some people are more attractive for members of the opposite sex than others. </p>
<p>The University of Florida, Florida State University found that physically attractive people almost instantly attract the attention of the interlocutor, sobesednitsy with them, literally, it is difficult to make eye. This conclusion was reached by a series of psychological experiments, which were determined by the people who believe in sending the first seconds after the acquaintance. Here, a curious feature: single, unmarried experimental preferred to look at the guys, beauty opposite sex, and family, people most often by representatives of their sex. </p>
<p>The authors believe that this feature developed a behavior as a result of the evolution: a man trying to find a decent pair to acquire offspring. If this is resolved, he wondered potential rivals. Detailed information about this magazine will be published Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. </p>
<p>In turn, a joint study of the Rockefeller University, Rockefeller University and Duke University, Duke University in North Carolina revealed that women are perceived differently by men smell. During experiments studied the perception of women one of the ingredients of male pheromone-androstenona smell, which is contained in urine or sweat. </p>
<p>The results were startling: women are part of this repugnant odor, and the other part is very attractive, resembling the smell of vanilla, and the third group have not felt any smell. The authors argue that the reason is that the differences in the receptor responsible for the olfactory system, from different people are different. </p>
<p>It has long been proven that mammals (including human) odor is one way of attracting the attention of representatives of the opposite sex. A detailed article about the journal Nature will publish.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on NYT: New Birth Control Pill Approved by Sara</title>
		<link>http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/nyt-new-birth-control-pill-approved/#comment-506</link>
		<dc:creator>Sara</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Nov 2007 07:15:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/nyt-new-birth-control-pill-approved/#comment-506</guid>
		<description>Just a quick thought: my gynecologist at the Stanford Clinic (a very smart woman) told me that historically birth control was created by men to control women&#039;s bodies. She said there is no medical evidence or scientific reason to have a regular period -- regulated by birth control, that is.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Just a quick thought: my gynecologist at the Stanford Clinic (a very smart woman) told me that historically birth control was created by men to control women&#8217;s bodies. She said there is no medical evidence or scientific reason to have a regular period &#8212; regulated by birth control, that is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on NYT: New Birth Control Pill Approved by Selena S-D</title>
		<link>http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/nyt-new-birth-control-pill-approved/#comment-21</link>
		<dc:creator>Selena S-D</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2007 01:15:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://stanfordshprc.wordpress.com/2007/05/23/nyt-new-birth-control-pill-approved/#comment-21</guid>
		<description>I think this is an interesting idea, but I definitely agree with the last point about how menstruation is a part of life, not a medical condition. 

Additionally, women who are sexually active often find comfort in their periods as a confirmation that they have not gotten pregnant. This might be problematic in that unwanted pregnancies are not caught within the first few weeks of gestation.

Just my 2 cents...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think this is an interesting idea, but I definitely agree with the last point about how menstruation is a part of life, not a medical condition. </p>
<p>Additionally, women who are sexually active often find comfort in their periods as a confirmation that they have not gotten pregnant. This might be problematic in that unwanted pregnancies are not caught within the first few weeks of gestation.</p>
<p>Just my 2 cents&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
