'Semengate' Stuns Scientific Community

[Back]

'Semengate' Stuns Scientific Community (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-smerconish/semengate-stuns-scientifi_b_853164.html)


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 partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).

Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: "So there's a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there's a better gift for that day than chocolates."

The attempt at Jackie Mason-humor apparently didn't sit well in certain quarters. Dr. Greenfield resigned as editor of the Surgery News and gave up his stewardship of ACS after learning that his article had spurred threats of protests from outside women's groups.




I recommend reading the entire article as it is a fascinating read.

And any ladies that need cheering up I would be happy to help. :pirate:

[Ivex]

He resigned because some frigid bitches complained? Maybe he needs some semen in his vagina.

[Tgo01]

He should have mailed some of his semen to these women to make amends.

[Asha]

He resigned because some frigid bitches complained? Maybe he needs some semen in his vagina.

hahahahah!!

[Kaittee]

People need to lighten up.

[Back]

People need to lighten up.

This.

I mean, its not conducive to insemination to NOT lighten up. Right?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

I really have no idea what the feminist movement was going to protest from that article. What was offensive?

[RichardCranium]

This.

I mean, its not conducive to insemination to NOT lighten up. Right?

I don't think you can afford to lighten up.

[Kaittee]

This.

I mean, its not conducive to insemination to NOT lighten up. Right?

so many negatives, so confused. huh?

[4a6c1]

Hahaha. What a fucking idiot. He should have known better.

[Fallen]

I really have no idea what the feminist movement was going to protest from that article. What was offensive?

Maybe that it was giving preference to Male/Female relationships over Female/Female?

[4a6c1]

Or perhaps it was the prepodean device of "cum is good for you!!" encouraging women not to use birth control. Hah! Completely disreputable medical advice considering this is 2011 not 1611.

The article is akin to Steven Hawking writing an article (Tada!) about how aliens are coming for us based on a suspicious shooting star he saw in the sky this one time and at the same time there was a guy in Idaho that got abducted and now FINALLY someone is puting TWO AND TWO TOGETHER.

[Back]

I really have no idea what the feminist movement was going to protest from that article. What was offensive?

Dr. Steven M. Platek, Ph.D, the editor-in-chief of Frontiers in Evolutionary Neuroscience and a co-editor of Evolutionary Psychology, offered this analysis:


The vagina is a very hostile environment for sperm. During human evolutionary history women couldn't afford to conceive as a consequence of being inseminated by just any man, and the presence of semen in the female reproductive tract often triggers an immune reaction that treats the sperm as a pathogen.

Obviously, the feminist movement is similar to the hostile environment of the vagina. Men have to constantly find ways to crack that nut (believe me they will) and everyone will be happy in the end.

[Liagala]

Did he also research women who have oral sex, or was the happiness from semen restricted to vaginal intercourse?

Of course this has nothing at all to do with the likelihood that the women having unprotected sex are doing so because they're not worried about pregnancy/STDs - concerns that make many college students unhappy. The lack of those prominent worries couldn't possibly affect happiness.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Or perhaps it was the prepodean device of "cum is good for you!!" encouraging women not to use birth control. Hah! Completely disreputable medical advice considering this is 2011 not 1611.

The article is akin to Steven Hawking writing an article (Tada!) about how aliens are coming for us based on a suspicious shooting star he saw in the sky this one time and at the same time there was a guy in Idaho that got abducted and now FINALLY someone is puting TWO AND TWO TOGETHER.

That’s quite a leap to say he is advocating not using condoms and that his article was medical advice. I saw absolutely zero reference about him recommending one birth control method over another, just that there was a beneficial effect seen in depressed women who had unprotected sex versus those who’s partners utilized a condom. Also, last I checked there are several methods of contraception that would allow semen to enter the vag.

And WTF is a prepodean device? Do you just get so rage angry when there is an article you can skew to your man hating ways you make up words?

[AnticorRifling]

The real problem with this is why are we questioning if a woman is happy or not like it matters.


See, that's just good, clean sexism.

[Archigeek]

I don't see what the big surprise is. It's just further evidence of our primitive desire to reproduce. Just as all men are happy when they deposit some, all women subconciously want to reproduce, and thus, are happy to be receiving some.

Of course, the subconcious doesn't always sync up with the concious.

[Back]

I don't see what the big surprise is. It's just further evidence of our primitive desire to reproduce. Just as all men are happy when they deposit some, all women subconciously want to reproduce, and thus, are happy to be receiving some.

Of course, the subconcious doesn't always sync up with the concious.

Thats kind of a weird subtext but I get it. Look, if it is up to us men to procreate, then that is how evolution has made us. No apologies.

[Latrinsorm]

I really have no idea what the feminist movement was going to protest from that article. What was offensive?Recommending that women have unprotected sex. Pregnancy isn't the only potential consequence that condoms prevent (to a degree).
I don't see what the big surprise is. It's just further evidence of our primitive desire to reproduce. Just as all men are happy when they deposit some, all women subconciously want to reproduce, and thus, are happy to be receiving some.

Of course, the subconcious doesn't always sync up with the concious.Where does homosexuality fit in your theory?

[Archigeek]

Where does homosexuality fit in your theory?

Sexual orientations other than heterosexual do not eliminate the subconcious desire to reproduce.

[Back]

Where does homosexuality fit in your theory?

If sperm is the happy drug there is a logical conclusion.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Recommending that women have unprotected sex. Pregnancy isn't the only potential consequence that condoms prevent (to a degree).

Where did it recommend women have unprotected sex?

[Liagala]

Where did it recommend women have unprotected sex?
It didn't specifically say, "Ladies, you should have unprotected sex." The conclusion is pretty inescapable though. People want to be happy. This study says that people who have unprotected sex are happier than those who do not. Saying that they're not recommending it is splitting hairs.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

It didn't specifically say, "Ladies, you should have unprotected sex." The conclusion is pretty inescapable though. People want to be happy. This study says that people who have unprotected sex are happier than those who do not. Saying that they're not recommending it is splitting hairs.

This study (http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC-Seminar-260.phtml) shows consuming alcohol prior to sex leads to more unprotected sex.


Multilevel regressions revealed that consuming alcohol before sex increased the proportion of sex events that were unprotected, and increased the number of unprotected sex events that occurred during both daytime and evening hours.

The natural conclusion, using your (flawed) logic, is you should drink alcohol.

[Back]

The natural conclusion, using your (flawed) logic, is you should drink alcohol.

Cheers!

:2beers:

[Bobmuhthol]

Please do not criticize someone's logic when you apply transitivity like that. Are you serious?

[Liagala]

This study (http://www.hsrc.ac.za/HSRC-Seminar-260.phtml) shows consuming alcohol prior to sex leads to more unprotected sex.

The natural conclusion, using your (flawed) logic, is you should drink alcohol.
Alcohol --> unprotected sex --> happiness. I fail to see the problem here. Sounds like a great night.

[Back]

Please do not criticize someone's logic when you apply transitivity like that. Are you serious?

Just roll with it and maybe you’ll get laid one day.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Please do not criticize someone's logic when you apply transitivity like that. Are you serious?

You mean like taking a study that shows semen reduces depression in women and saying the study shows women should have unprotected sex?

[Tgo01]

Where did it recommend women have unprotected sex?

That's what the joke that got him into trouble basically said. Rather than giving chocolates (which also supposedly makes women happier) to your woman for Valentines day you should instead give sperm.

[Kaittee]

That's what the joke that got him into trouble basically said. Rather than giving chocolates (which also supposedly makes women happier) to your woman for Valentines day you should instead give sperm.

I am a woman and I think the joke is pretty funny. Also, if you're smart enough to be reading scientific journals, then I think you are also likely smart enough to make your own decisions about protected or unprotected sex and the various means of birth control.

[Tgo01]

I am a woman and I think the joke is pretty funny. Also, if you're smart enough to be reading scientific journals, then I think you are also likely smart enough to make your own decisions about protected or unprotected sex and the various means of birth control.

Yup, I don't agree with the complaints but I can see what they took offense to.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Yup, I don't agree with the complaints but I can see what they took offense to.

If you are looking for something to take offense too, you'll always find it.

[Some Rogue]

Alcohol --> unprotected sex --> happiness. I fail to see the problem here. Sounds like a great night.


Brb, running to the liquor store...

[Tgo01]

If you are looking for something to take offense too, you'll always find it.

I take offense to that.

[Latrinsorm]

Sexual orientations other than heterosexual do not eliminate the subconcious desire to reproduce.Doesn't this imply that homosexuals (and I suppose abstinents) will have a higher level of stress due to continual subconscious-conscious conflict? If so, is this level of stress observed in populations that are homosexual but otherwise controlled?
Where did it recommend women have unprotected sex?If a study said smoking cigarettes causes cancer, this is functionally equivalent with that study recommending against smoking cigarettes - it is obvious that people do not want cancer.

In the same way, a study's saying that women who have condom-less sex are less prone to depression is functionally equivalent to that study recommending condom-less sex - it is obvious that people do not want depression. This is exacerbated by the inexplicable decision to change "condom-less" to "unprotected", although such things are inevitable consequences for a newspaper quoting an editorial quoting a scientific study. People aren't going to dig up the journal to investigate the methodology and terminology, people are going to remember "unprotected sex = no depression". It is patently obvious to the casual observer that there is already too much unprotected sex going on, there should not be any further encouragement.

[Archigeek]

Doesn't this imply that homosexuals (and I suppose abstinents) will have a higher level of stress due to continual subconscious-conscious conflict? If so, is this level of stress observed in populations that are homosexual but otherwise controlled?

No. It doesn't. You seem to be anxious to assert implications as though the results of this study, (or statements by other people), exist in a vacuum. All my statement DOES imply is that all people, at a subconcious level, want to reproduce. This statement does not exist in a vacuum, devoid of all other factors that affect people's lives.

For example, that subconciously-founded happiness from having just taken the first step towards reproduction does not preclude the CONCIOUS "oh shit" moment of realizing that she and her partner forgot to use protection and might be pregnant when they didn't conciously want to be.

Lesbians and abstinent women are not immune to the desire to reproduce, and therefore would likely have the same results from the study. If we take the act of sex out of it and reduce it to artificial insemination, I bet the results are not much different.

[Latrinsorm]

No. It doesn't. You seem to be anxious to assert implications as though the results of this study, (or statements by other people), exist in a vacuum. All my statement DOES imply is that all people, at a subconcious level, want to reproduce. This statement does not exist in a vacuum, devoid of all other factors that affect people's lives.

For example, that subconciously-founded happiness from having just taken the first step towards reproduction does not preclude the CONCIOUS "oh shit" moment of realizing that she and her partner forgot to use protection and might be pregnant when they didn't conciously want to be.

Lesbians and abstinent women are not immune to the desire to reproduce, and therefore would likely have the same results from the study. If we take the act of sex out of it and reduce it to artificial insemination, I bet the results are not much different.I think it would be more accurate to say that I am anxious to point out that the results or statements do not exist in a vacuum, and that we therefore would expect them to interact with other real world phenomena such as homosexuality. Homosexual people by definition cannot reproduce without engaging another party, so it stands to reason that this inability would conflict with the alleged desire to procreate.

I think it makes a lot more sense for people (especially college students) to biologically have an animal instinct to have sex rather than a cognitive desire to have children. It just seems to cohere better.

I also think it's more reasonable to attribute the study's findings to the physical characteristics of semen (as the authors do) than some kind of selective self-delusion that ignores birth control pills but not condoms and therefore activates a supposed procreation desire.

[Archigeek]

I think it would be more accurate to say that I am anxious to point out that the results or statements do not exist in a vacuum, and that we therefore would expect them to interact with other real world phenomena such as homosexuality. Homosexual people by definition cannot reproduce without engaging another party, so it stands to reason that this inability would conflict with the alleged desire to procreate.

I think it makes a lot more sense for people (especially college students) to biologically have an animal instinct to have sex rather than a cognitive desire to have children. It just seems to cohere better.

I also think it's more reasonable to attribute the study's findings to the physical characteristics of semen (as the authors do) than some kind of selective self-delusion that ignores birth control pills but not condoms and therefore activates a supposed procreation desire.

Really? You honestly think it's the physical characteristics of semen that makes women happy? Artificial sperm here we come then I guess. Apparently what it actually is doesn't matter, it's the feel of it that makes women happy...

I think this hypothesis is suspect.

Two other things: the animal instinct for sex IS an animal instinct to pro-create. And yes, you are correct that homosexuality is in conflict with the animal desire to pro-create, but a lot of things are in conflict with that desire in heterosexuals too, as previously mentioned. That conflict doesn't mean the desire to reproduce doesn't amongst gays and lesbians community.

[Back]

Wow. First, I doubt that wanting to stick it in someone, even if it is a guy, is not part of he reproduction program. Second, according to this study, the chemicals in happy juice that make it what it is can probably be absorbed in any number of ways like in your eyes or up your ass or whatever along with infiltrating hostile vaginas. Remember its evolutionarily changing so if you get preggo its your fault.

[BriarFox]

My only comment to this thread (which raises some intriguing issues) is:

"If it's a gate, you're doing it wrong."

[Latrinsorm]

Really? You honestly think it's the physical characteristics of semen that makes women happy? Artificial sperm here we come then I guess. Apparently what it actually is doesn't matter, it's the feel of it that makes women happy...

I think this hypothesis is suspect.Take it up with the guys who did the study, then. It makes sense to me, considering they only saw the difference in depression rate for condom use specifically, not contraception use in general.
Two other things: the animal instinct for sex IS an animal instinct to pro-create. And yes, you are correct that homosexuality is in conflict with the animal desire to pro-create, but a lot of things are in conflict with that desire in heterosexuals too, as previously mentioned. That conflict doesn't mean the desire to reproduce doesn't amongst gays and lesbians community.I would argue that the desire for sex can be satisfied without engaging in activities that can lead to pregnancy (and vice versa), suggesting that they are distinct drives.

I would also suggest that subhuman animals are not necessarily aware that sex leads to procreation, and instead are motivated chiefly by pleasure. It follows that an explicit procreation urge is a result more of social conditioning than any legacy of our animal past.

[Back]

Latrin has a point. The study could just mean that latex is a depressant. Just saying.