Sure they do. But why do they hang low? And why don't they hang lower? Why isn't your scrotum bright red? Why doesn't your scrotum have feathers? Science has the answer.

"I think your response to No Figuring Women this week was dead on," writes Slog tipper Jim. "But some recent research by Melissa Burkley of Oklahoma State University in Stillwater may suggest something else is at play."

A new study provides evidence for what many have long suspected: that single women are much keener on pursuing a man who's already taken than a singleton.... They asked 184 heterosexual students at the university to participate in a study on sexual attraction and told the volunteers that a computer program would match them with an ideal partner. Half the participants were single and half attached, with equal numbers of men and women in each group. Unknown to the participants, everyone was offered a fictitious candidate partner who had been tailored to match their interests exactly. The photograph of "Mr Right" was the same for all women participants, as was that of the ideal women presented to the men. Half the participants were told their ideal mate was single, and the other half that he or she was already in a romantic relationship.

"Everything was the same across all participants, except whether their ideal mate was already attached or not," says Burkley.

The most striking result was in the responses of single women. Offered a single man, 59 per cent were interested in pursuing a relationship. But when he was attached, 90 per cent said they were up for the chase.

The researcher theorizes that women are more attracted to attached guys because their current girlfriends—the fact that they have girlfriends at all—essentially "vouches for" the guy. He's relationship material. The fact that he's in a relationship proves it and women want guys who are relationship material... even if they have to destroy a guy's current relationship to get him.

Women are eeeeeeeevil.

The latest column by one of our most beloved freelancers. Enjoy.

Pope Urbane in the comments thread about the 10-year-old who won't recite the pledge of allegiance...

Great kid. I didn't get any sex ed until 7th grade. That'd be around 1978. My freshman year in Highschool we were taught how to put on a condom using a cucumber. I spent the next 6 months thinking I must have the smallest penis in the school.

That made me laugh out loud. On the bus.

Best side effect ever:

A drug that failed tests as an antidepressant is being hailed as "Viagra for women" after surprising but not unpleasant side effects. In three separate trials, the drug flibanserin did wonders for women's flagging sex drive despite doing nothing to lift mood. The accidental discovery is akin to Viagra's—it was originally designed as a heart medicine but failed.

And forgive me if I disagree with "some doctors":

Some doctors are sceptical about the need for pills to boost female sex drive. For some, reduced sexual interest or response may be "normal", says Professor Irwin Nazareth or University College London.

Some sex-advice columnists regard the collapse of the female libido in many LTRs to be a huge problem. Letters from boyfriends/husbands and girlfriends/wives whose marriages are on the rocks due to the seemingly inexplicable cratering of the wife's desire for sex—inexplicable because nothing is "wrong," i.e. he's not being a bastard, there are no kids or the kids aren't toddlers anymore—comprise a huge chunk of the mail around here. Reduced sex drive may be normal but it can also be disastrous—particularly for someone who demands a monogamous commitment from her partner. Want monogamy? You gotta make with the sex. No desire for sex or experiencing a "normal" reduction in sexual interest? Eventually you're going to get cheated on. Many girlfriends/wives—and some boyfriends/husbands—go through the motions and put out just enough to avoid getting cheated on or just enough to be able to claim the moral high-ground after years of passionless, just-going-through-the-motions sex drives a partner to cheat.

A pill that can restore female libido—for the husband or for some other dude—and make sex a pleasure again will be welcomed by those who value monogamy so highly that they're willing medicate themselves to ensure it.

UPDATE: I'm afraid to go look in the comments thread—I'm having computer issues (to put it mildly) and wasn't quite done with this post when it went up and wasn't able to get back on for an hour after posting to add to it. Oy. Anyway, back to the BBC's report: some doctors point out that the drug won't cure "underlying issues," that the drug won't "fix a broken relationship or help with looking after the kids or cleaning the house." For sure: if your partner doesn't want to fuck you because you're an asshole or because your partner is completely exhausted and her exhaustion is frosted with resentment because you're no help whatsoever, no pill is going to make her wanna fuck your ass. She may take the pill and then go fuck someone she isn't furious with, perhaps, but she's not going to medicate herself on your account.

And if this was a pill that restored a man's sex drive or enabled a male to perform we wouldn't even be debating its merits. We'd be stocking the shelves already and making sure it was covered by Medicare.

• Whistling in the Dark / Flickr
• Is he getting fresh with her too?

Slog tipper Jubilation T. Cornball points out that the BBC has the answer. It's funny, I was just telling Dan Savage how the last time I was at Disneyland—as an adult—Winnie the Pooh grabbed my ass. I kind of liked it.

Jessica at Feministing:

While I do believe that virginity is all well and good—my concern is really how women's worth is tied to the concept, not whether or not people have sex—I also think there something to be said for arguing strongly for pre-marital sex.

Because, let's face it—if you're going to commit yourself to someone for (presumably) the rest of your life, it's probably best if you know that you're sexually compatible. I don't think this is particularly radical thing to say; in fact, it seems quite logical to me. But somehow, if you suggest that pre-marital sex is a good and maybe even necessary thing (especially if you say those things while being a feminist) you are an evil, evil whoremaker.

Do I think that people can have perfectly wonderful satisfying relationships without having had sex before making a commitment? Sure, I'm positive that happens often. But considering what a huge role sexuality plays in our lives and relationships... well, I'd rather be super duper positive.

...who give head. Gee, I wonder if these findings are applicable to human beings? More info—including video—at New Scientist.

But I support couples who choose to be monogamous. It's an unnatural lifestyle, and it's definitely choice I wouldn't make, but I don't believe that couples who make the choice to be monogamous should be discriminated against in any way. They should be allowed to have children and adopt, for instance. I'd even go so far as to say that monogamous couples should be allowed to marry—legally marry—even though adultery rates and divorce statistics demonstrate that making sexual exclusivity a defining characteristic of marriage is destabilizing and often leads to divorce. And divorce is bad for children born to monogamous couples, married or not.

These thoughts—concessions, really, to an increasingly visible and politically assertive monogamous community—were prompted by an atypically fair and balanced article on the subject of monogamy that appeared on CNN's website earlier this week. "Is Monogamy Realistic?" The answer, according to the experts quoted, was "NO."

"It's realistic that some people can mate for life in the same sense that some people can play the Beethoven violin concerto or other people can ice-skate beautifully or learn a new language," said psychiatrist Judith Eve Lipton.

Added evolutionary biologist David Barash, "It's within the realm of human potential, but it's not easy."

Lipton and Barash, who have been married 32 years and are the co-authors of "Strange Bedfellows" and "The Myth of Monogamy," said serial monogamy may be more realistic—a model in which people move from one committed long-term relationship to another and choose partners for different reasons at different stages of their life.

I would argue that serial monogamy also has its limitations: a strictly monogamous couple that might be great together and doing a great job raising kids may be prompted by sexual boredom or alienation—a circumstance that could be temporary—to part ways in pursuit of sexual satisfaction. A little leeway, a discreet sumpun on the side now and then, could help countless otherwise solid marriages survive a sexually fallow period.

Those quibbles aside, A. Pawlowki's article was remarkable for its willingness to tell CNN readers—many of whom have succumbed to the PC monogamy police—the truth about monogamy: human beings aren't naturally monogamous and monogamy is a struggle and many marriages crack under the strain of a monogamous commitment. It was a levelheaded, bracing piece of reporting—it was almost brave. I say "almost brave" because Pawlowski chickened out at the last minute and gave the final few graphs of his piece over to the rantings of one of those monoganazis who wants to shove her unnatural lifestyle down all of our throats:

Whatever the temptation, most people still prefer to be in a monogamous relationship, said Nadine Kaslow, a professor at Emory University School of Medicine who specializes in couples and families and who also is chief psychologist at Grady Health System in Atlanta, Georgia. "People feel safer and they feel more trusting. They feel like they can depend on their partner," Kaslow said.

It's sad that monogamists can only defend their unnatural lifestyle choices by tearing down those of us who are in healthy, natural non-monogamous relationships. Monogamy is great, Ms. Kaslow asserts, because people in monogamous relationships feel safe and can trust and depend on their spouses. The implication, of course, is that people in healthy, natural non-monogamous relationships don't feel safe and can't trust or depend on our spouses. Well, Ms. Kaslow, I feel safer in my honestly non-monogamous relationship than Jenny Sanford had a right to feel in her dishonestly "monogamous" relationship; my honest non-monogamous husband is more trustworthy than Elizabeth Edwards' "monogamous" husband; and my non-monogamous husband has certainly proven himself to be more dependable than Suzanne Craig's "monogamous" husband.

Again, I'm all for equal marriage rights for people who make monogamous commitments, despite their terrible track record. But the monogamous have to find a way to discuss their unnatural lifestyle choices that doesn't amount to an attack on those who made a more natural choice.