Unsafe sex is good for… your mental health, according to—what else?—a study.
Having sex without a condom is good for your mental health, according to controversial research conducted by a leading Scottish psychologist. Professor Stuart Brody concludes that unprotected heterosexual sex can significantly boost men and women’s mental wellbeing….
Mr Brody based his conclusions on a study of the sexual behaviour of 99 women and 111 men in Portugal. They filled in questionnaires about the pleasure they derived from their sex lives and contraception use. Using a measure of psychological health developed in Canada, Mr Brody concluded that condom use was associated with members of the sample who exhibited problems dealing with stress.
Those that had unprotected sex appeared to be able to deal with stress in a more mature way by taking effective action. They also had better mental health.
I’m not buying it. Small sample, self-reported data, the Portuguese, etc. And there’s this: the straight people likeliest to be having unprotected intercourse—those having sex without condoms—are those in stable, monogamous relationships; couples who are actively trying to get pregnant; couples who no longer have to work to avoid pregnancy (post-fertile straights); or singles who are using other forms of birth control or have reasonably concluded that they at low risk of contracting an STI from their partner/partners.
And I don’t see how the presence of married or stably partnered straight couples in this study could fail to skew the results. LTRs require more maturity to enter into and are less stressful generally. Married or partnered people typically have sex with people whose health, HIV-statuses, general trustworthiness, etc., are known to them. LTRs not only involve less stress and anxiety—at least where sex is concerned—but a person typically has to be in reasonable shape, mentally and emotionally, to forge a successful partner bond in the first place. Toss in the long-term mental health benefits that LTRs have been shown to bring and it’s clear that this study didn’t document the mental-health benefits of unprotected sex, but the mental-health benefits of the sorts of relationships—stable LTRs—that allow for safe “unprotected” sex.
So the conclusion of the study’s author—”sex without a condom is good for you”—seems way off. I’d say being with someone with whom you can safely have sex without using condoms is good for you.
I agree.
@2 There’s a surprise!
Second Dan’s point. Stable LTR are good things. They are surely good things even with condoms.
Correlation is correlation.
And 2, are you talking to yourself?
While I agree with the point, please keep the Science Media Cycle in mind.
Totally agree with you here. Correlation != causation.
Another factor to consider here: semen has been shown to have antidepressant and libido-boosting effects when absorbed through the vaginal wall. But yeah, LTRs and stability are generally good for mental health.
First the author is Scottish and second why is he studing subjects in Portugaul.
INFINITELY REGRESSIVE SLOG POSTS?!?!?!?!?!
NUT FAR, I GOT HURR LAST AND DESERVE IT MORR.
DO PPL IN ORGASM-DENIAL RELATIONSHIPS HAVE EVEN BETTER STRESS LVLS?
So what you’re saying, Dan, is that monogamous relationships are better for your mental health.
You mean sex makes you happier when it doesn’t feel like you’re fucking a trashbag?
This makes sense, though. New Scientist had an article a while back about semen containing small amounts of what equated to an anti-depressant:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24…
@2 is not me
@7 that study had the exact same faults!
@11 same faults in that study too!
@10
You don’t have to be monogamous to have one primary partner that you are condomless with.
@allie,
I agree, more study needs to be done.
I’d be happy to volunteer my services as a spermgiver… For the sake of science.
The majority of these people who didn’t use condoms are probably in committed relationships, of course they deal with stress more maturely, they’re in a committed relationship.
It is surprising that Dan can’t use this same scrutiny for absurd pop science for other topics…
@11 What are these flaws? The article doesn’t state that the women studied are in monogamous relationships or have one partner – it just says “their partners”. The end of the article goes onto explain that the chemicals are found in the blood hours after AND that they controlled for certain aspects of it. In fact, no where in the article does it mention these women are monogamous or just fucking one person.
Besides, you’ll never be able to a fund a study that makes it’s participants fuck random people without condoms because it’s insane.
Total x-factor / confounding variables / correlation-causation bullshit. Science-beat reporters like these should be lined up and shot.
10- you should be. Condoms aren’t 100% effective against all STDs, not to mention other things you can pick up while giving bjs, which if you’re having sex outside of your relationship you’re most likely not using a condom for oral sex.
And if you’re having sex outside of your relationship you’re most likely not as mature and therefore don’t deal with your stress well anyway.
Was the study underwritten by the Roman Catholic Church?
From the article: “The more often people are using condoms independent of age, independent of the nature of their relationship, the greater use of immature defence mechanisms against stress.”
So he obviously did control for relationship status, and protected/unprotected sex was still statistically significant.
Of course, the sample size might be too small or skewed, but we won’t know that until someone replicates it.
considering the untoward effects of throwing off the delicate ph balance in my hoo-hoo with alkaline semen, i will personally never, ever be made happy by unprotected sex with my loving monogamous partner, and i know i am not alone. blech.
I’m gonna guess that the leaping-to-conclusions bit of this is more likely the fault of the reporting on it, and not the study itself. Science journalism, especially the sort done by non-specialist reporters, tends to be quite oblivious to the difference between correlation and causation. Whether that’s deliberate, in order to sensationalize stories, or whether it’s just poor training and bad logic, I don’t know. Maybe some of both.
Anyway, I came to the same conclusions as Dan – there are probably common factors. Since unprotected sex is more fun, I suppose there might be a little added causal boost, but I figure the relationships are more important than the sex, you know? Makes more sense.
@18 – agreed.
The study is laughably skewed.
jmahlon … LTR relationships are the ideal when you come into them naturally. Forced LTR’s are hell on earth. I’m always warry of people who either to judgemental to experience other people for who they are, and are instead passionately in love with their own romantic ideal.
It’s not that the romantic ideal doesn’t exist, buy you might surprised at the person who fills it.
What if the cause and effect are reversed? People who handle stress better are less likely to use condoms because they’re not worried about contracting an STD? It’s not a positive, but it could help explain the correlation.
Another Catholic bullshit campaign!
I agree, actually. Although one wonders about the anxiety levels in women going up.
Remember, there’s a lot of primitive wiring you’re responding to, and it wants to procreate (well, for those of us who are straight, and maybe some that aren’t).
Great, now I can see the teenage and twenty-something guys trying to use this study to get out of wearing condoms.
@21 And where’s YOUR evidence? Not everyone who has sex “outside of their relationship” is cheating or mentally unstable. There is such a thing as ethical nonmonogamy. It works for me.
@33, I don’t discount the idea of ethical nonmonogamy, I just have little faith in peoples ability to successfully practice it.
For me personally, while my standards for going au natural are not textbook, I do have some standards
They controlled for the nature of the relationship, so the LTR thing is not it. However I don’t see any mention of controlling for other contraception use. So that probably does explain it. People who can manage to acquire more long term responsible methods, rather than something as last minute as a condom, probably share emotional maturity in life planning in general.
This scientist is also promoting the laughable notion that condoms have somehow been around throughout mankinds evolutionary history enough to be a selected-on behavior? Um, right.
Technically a study is bullshit until it is confirmed by other independent studies. Don’t sweat it until we have them in hand.
Collin @5, I am completely tickled by and am stealing the Science Media Cycle chart.
I seem to remember another recent bullshit Portuguese study that said that vaginal orgasms were the only ones that existed, or that women who had them were the greatest humans to ever walk the earth or some such nonsense.
Karey … I see no link between emotional maturity and long term relationships.
Especially, when I’m surrounded by people who have crappy, compromised, or nonexistent relationships due to their career choices … independent of their emotional maturity.
I do think people in Long term relationships generally have more sex, more access to sex, more satisfying sex in most respects, and obviously more trusting sex.
Lack of maturity aside … sure the occaisonal random lay, or at best hook up friend, might get you through the lonely nights. But there is a tinge of stress when it comes to … the inherant risks associated with sex.
But to indefinetly deny someone sex and companionship, for most human beings … is denying the soul food.
@ 39 “I do think people in Long term relationships generally have more sex, more access to sex, more satisfying sex in most respects, and obviously more trusting sex.”
Ideally, yes, however in practice I would not be so willing to bet on that! Its surprising how many people experience bed death after the “honeymoon phase” of the relationship is over.
@40 … I was thinking about bed death too …
But I don’t think it’s THAT bad. I just wonder about the frequency of sex, even with element of bed death.
I mean, nobody walks into the office and says … wow, I had above average sex last night and for about 3 out of 5 the last nights. Your friend might say … WOW, I got LAID last night, we did it like 5 times! And that will be all the action he has seen in the past 3 months and perhaps for the future 3 months.
But people will most certainly passive aggressively insert their lack of sex dissatisfaction, especially on the slog.
And of my single peers (and we aren’t dogs!) … we just aren’t getting laid as often as one would think we are …
I can’t put numbers on it, I’m not a sociologist, I don’t have all day to propose a study, get the funding and do the research.
But I wouldn’t be surprised if the frequency of sexual acts is still on average relatively high in stable longish relationships, as is the nonuse of condoms.
Portugal is a very Catholic country and using condoms or other forms of birth control is banned by the church, something which they continuously reiterate day in, day out. Maybe the results could partly be explained by ‘guilt’?