Sexist or not?

[flaxendandelion]

Lazar Greenfield's 'Semengate' Stuns Scientific Community

Lazar Greenfield discovered something interesting:

Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose

Comments

[cognative]

Inappropriate. Seems like a symptom of the overall boysclubishness of surgery. Did it not occur to him that it might rub some people the wrong way.

[chrismsx]

I'd say the punishment is kind of harsh considering the crime. Maybe he should of been suspended but he still prolly should of thought this one over.

[flaxendandelion]

All great points. I found the connection rather suss too, as it didn't go into details whether he factored in such variables.

[cinema_babe]

This would generally make sense except the study involved college aged women who were all full time students. When they adjusted even when adjusted for things such as relationship status and other factors that might affect mood, women who had sex without condoms were less likely to be depressed.

[cinema_babe]

I thought this whole thing was a tempest in a teapot. I thought it was silly but I didn't think it merited the beating this guy took. However, I do have two serous issues with this statement.

1. This finding might be rather spurious. It might not be that mucosal exposure to seamen prevents depression but that exposure to something in condoms (or maybe even the act of using the condom itself) may induce a slight depression.

2. More importantly, any boost or depression mood is minimal when compared to the risk of pregnancy and the transmission of STIs. We aren't talking about euphoria vs suicidal ideation. I think that putting something like that out into the popular media is a bit irresponsible. We all know that there *will* be people who will use this as an excuse to go bareback.

[dyvinesweetness]

"It might not be that mucosal exposure to seamen prevents depression but that exposure to something in condoms (or maybe even the act of using the condom itself) may induce a slight depression."

Perhaps, but that doesn't account for the reason those that reported being abstinent are more likely to report being depressed though. We could argue they were depressed because they are not having sex, but eh... I dunno. I'd be more inclined to argue that those not using protection are more likely to be in love or highly infatuated with their partners. Whereas condom users may tend to be in the beginning stages of the connection or have a more casual relationship with their partners. Those in love are far less likely to report depressed feelings. But honestly, I think it's likely a combo of other factors that were not adequately explored in the study.

Your second point is really the crux of this whole thing. People need very little reason to NOT use condoms. Despite the many good reasons there are to use them.

[legacy]

But honestly, I think it's likely a combo of other factors that were not adequately explored in the study.

+1

[dyvinesweetness]

I agree with misadventurelad. I think it's ignorant, but moreover irresponsible. To tout unprotected sex as some kind of depression cure/prevention method when it puts people at risk for disease is ridiculous. And is it not a basic rule that correlation does not equal causation?