There are body parts we proudly display—jawlines, clavicles, legs—and then there’s the armpit: evolution’s quiet overachiever, hidden under cotton and deodorant and centuries of polite denial.

But biologically, psychologically, and erotically?
The armpit is loud.

It broadcasts information.
It shapes attraction.
It influences bonding.
And yes—it can be erotic in a deeply scientific way.

Let’s walk straight into the research most people pretend doesn’t exist, while keeping this appropriately trauma-informed, and grounded in peer-reviewed human behavior science.

If you want to understand any sexual behavior—why we do it, why we pretend we don’t do it, and why epidemiologists have been nervously clearing their throats about it for forty years—you have to begin with a basic anthropological truth:

Humans will try almost anything once, and twice if nobody panics.

Anal sex has spent decades sitting in the corner wearing a trench coat and sunglasses, treated primarily as a public-health hazard rather than a human behavior with motives, meaning, and (for many) genuinely rewarding sensation.

When researchers finally stopped hyperventilating long enough to ask why people actually do it, an interesting thing happened:

The data told a story far more ordinary—and far more revealing—than anyone expected.

Let’s begin at the beginning: prevalence.

There are moments in a woman’s life when attraction is not a flutter but an audit.

She notices a man—his posture, his easy laugh, the way he performs charm as if it were a language he learned too quickly—and then she does something many men never see: she listens for the world’s opinion of him.

This is not insecurity.

It is the ancient logic of survival, the recognition that some mistakes cost more than others, and that romance—left unverified—can bankrupt a future.

A new study in Evolutionary Psychological Science embedded beside its name confirms the pattern: women who follow slower, more family-oriented life strategies rely more heavily on social information when judging potential partners.

In the language of evolutionary psychology, this is “mate choice copying.” In the language of women with something to lose, it is caution sharpened into intelligence.

Mate choice copying is not new; it’s older than agriculture, documented across species, including humans, in work such as Mate-choice copying in humans: adaptive utility embedded beside its title.

The principle is simple:
If other women found him desirable, he looks better. If other women fled, he looks like the reason they ran.

But this study asks the deeper question:
Who copies the most—and why?

The sound of the dishwasher always struck her as strangely moralistic.

It whirred, clicked, and churned with the same nightly insistence, as if to remind her that predictability had become the head of household.

She held a single wineglass to the light, turning it slowly in her hand as though the angle might reveal something she’d missed.

Her husband wandered in behind her, scrolling his phone with the blank absorption of a man consuming nothing important.

And there in the soft kitchen light, between an appliance humming its mechanical sermon and a glow from a screen that felt more intimate than conversation, she sensed the truth: modern married life rarely collapses in spectacular fashion.

It thins. It dries at the edges. It becomes a room you’ve walked through so many times you no longer see it.

In America, sex is both our national pastime and sometimes, our private shame.

We sell it in every advertisement, moralize it in every sermon, and sanitize it in every therapy session.

So when researchers ask whether our childhood relationships with our parents shape the fantasies that later flicker in our adult bedrooms, it exposes the one subject Americans never quite domesticated—desire itself.

Attachment theory, the backbone of modern relationship science, argues that our first caregivers teach us how safe intimacy feels—a script we keep rehearsing for the rest of our lives.

A 2025 study in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, led by Ellen Zakreski and colleagues, found that adults who reported poorer relationships with their parents were more likely to endorse violent sexual fantasies—those involving coercion, humiliation, or control. This link was mediated by insecure attachment styles, particularly preoccupied and fearful-avoidant.

In plain English: people who learned early that love was unpredictable or unsafe may eroticize that tension later, turning fear itself into arousal.

But it’s not a straight line of causation.

The study is correlational, not causal, and those associations—while statistically solid—are moderate. Still, the message is clear: childhood patterns echo in the most intimate corners of adult life.

She rinsed the same coffee cup for the third time that morning. The handle had a hairline crack she’d never noticed before.

Her husband was upstairs, humming through his electric-toothbrush routine, and in that small domestic hum she heard something irreversible.

Nothing dramatic—no affair, no betrayal. Just a slow, accumulating certainty that she could no longer live the life she had built so meticulously.

That quiet moment—unseen, unannounced—is the true beginning of most breakups.

A new framework published in The Journal of General Psychology—Intending to Break Up: Exploring Romantic Relationship Dissolution from an Integrated Behavioral Intention Framework—explains that pause before leaving.

Psychologists Anna M. Semanko and Verlin B. Hinsz argue that ending a relationship is rarely impulsive.

It’s a deliberate, reasoned act—constructed from beliefs, emotions, and social expectations.

Their model integrates the Reasoned Action Approach (Fishbein & Ajzen, 2011) and Triandis’s Theory of Interpersonal Behavior—frameworks typically used to explain job-quitting or health decisions.

Semanko and Hinsz apply them to heartbreak.

Ask ten people what turns them on, and at least one will hesitate—because their answer sounds like a crime scene. That hesitation is where modern desire lives: between wanting control and wanting to be released from it.

A study published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior found that many pornography viewers—especially women—are aroused by aggression.

Not cruelty, not humiliation.

The draw is that strange current where pleasure and pain meet and start speaking the same language.

Sociologist Eran Shor, who led the research, interviewed 302 adults about how they interpret aggression, pain, and pleasure in pornographic scenes.

Their answers weren’t lurid—they were recognizably human: ambivalent, curious, and conflicted. Desire, it turns out, is rarely tidy, and never purely moral.

Science has finally taken a peek under the covers, and apparently, it found what everyone suspected: sex is about much more than mechanics.

A new trio of studies (Haider, Das, & Ahmed, 2025) examines why men hold their partners’ legs, stimulate breasts, and what these gestures mean for both pleasure and bonding.

One might think this is kinda self-evident.

Yet for centuries, researchers treated sex as if it were an awkward topic best left to poets and pornographers.

The irony is that, while couples have always understood that touch carries meaning, science has only just caught up — proving that much of what happens between two people is written not in words but in nervous systems.

Let’s start with the obvious: sex is not really always about sex.

It’s also often about managing the unbearable lightness of being you.

It’s about getting a brief vacation from your own consciousness — without having to check luggage or talk about your childhood.

According to a study in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy ( one of my favs), your reasons for having sex say a lot about your emotional competence — or lack thereof.

The Hungarian researchers didn’t call it that, of course.

They called it “emotional regulation.”

But what they meant was: some people have sex to connect, others to cope, and a brave few to avoid thinking about their mothers.

Let’s be honest: hobosexual isn’t an identity—it’s a survival strategy with a rom-com veneer.

It’s dating because the lease is due, devotion that spikes with utility bills, pillow talk that sounds like Zillow.

Some people land in it out of crisis; others practice it like an art.

Either way, it corrodes trust. And after 50—when bodies, budgets, and social safety nets get less elastic—the stakes go up.

A hobosexual makes a home out of you—emotionally, logistically, financially. The attraction isn’t fake, it’s simply… instrumentally timed. You’re not a partner so much as a well-located port in an economic storm.

When someone comes out after decades of marriage, it can feel like the ground gives way under both partners’ feet.

The spouse who discloses often experiences relief at finally living authentically. The other may feel blindsided, betrayed, or as though the marriage’s history has been rewritten overnight.

This is not as rare as people think.

Research on mixed-orientation marriages (where one partner identifies as straight and the other as LGBTQ+) suggests late-life coming out is a significant, if under-discussed, phenomenon (Buxton, 2001; Pew Research Center, 2013).

Many older adults delayed disclosure due to stigma, cultural pressures, or religious expectations. Others experienced what psychologist Lisa Diamond (2008) calls sexual fluidity — the natural evolution of identity across the lifespan.

Here are ten signs, drawn from research and lived experience, that may point to a spouse wrestling with identity. These are not smoking guns — there is no neat checklist for human complexity — but they can offer insight into patterns couples often recognize only in hindsight.

For centuries we’ve been told that coupling is the ticket to happiness.

Fairy tales, romantic comedies, your aunt at Thanksgiving—everyone promises that life improves dramatically the moment you find “the one.”

But science, ever the party guest who insists on facts, has a more measured story: yes, relationships help, but mostly in a few predictable areas.

A new study in Social Psychological and Personality Science (Qin, Hoan, Joel, & MacDonald, 2025) suggests that entering a relationship does indeed boost well-being, though not in the miraculous way culture has long promised.