Study: Sex Without Condoms Makes People Happier, Less Depressed
Sex without a condom is good for your mental health. So says controversial research conducted by a leading Scottish psychologist. Professor Stuart Brody claims that unprotected penile-vaginal intercourse (PVI) can significantly boost men and women's mental wellbeing. Brody also cites studies indicating that that using a condom can lead to depression.
Mr Brody, of the University of the West of Scotland (Paisley), argues that mankind is biologically programmed to enjoy unprotected PVI sex because it gives couples an evolutionary advantage and maximises the chances of reproducing. His theory, to be published in the academic journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour, has caused a predictable angry reaction from safer sex groups.
Tony Kerridge of Marie Stopes International, a leading sexual health and reproductive health organisation, said: "I would have thought that the mental health of anyone would be tested if they found out they had a sexually transmitted disease or that there was an unwanted pregnancy."
"Particularly in the case of casual relationships where there is no desire to get pregnant, advice should always be that condoms should be used."
"It really is a no-brainer as far as we are concerned. We are seeing some of the most rapidly increasing rates of HIV among heterosexual couples in Europe."
However Professor Brody said: "Evolution is not politically correct, so of the very broad range of potential sexual behaviour, there is actually only one that is consistently associated with better physical and mental health and that is the one sexual behaviour that would be favoured by evolution. That is not accidental."
The controversial conclusions are based on a study of 111 men and 99 women in Portugal who completed questionnaires about frequency of sexual activity, their rate of orgasms and their condom use. Using a test of psychological health Mr Brody concluded that condom use was associated with members of the sample who exhibited immature psychological defense mechanisms.
Those that had unprotected PVI sex appeared to be able to deal with stress in a more mature way by taking effective action. They also had better mental health. "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. "In contrast, the more often they have [PVI] sex without condoms, the better their mental health and the more mature their mechanisms."
The findings of the underlying study are specific to condoms, not to other forms of contraception, and were not confounded by relationship status, age, cohabitation, or social desirability responding.
[via The Scotsman]
[Updated 2009/8/3 7AM - This article was updated with corrections based on the underlying journal articles and references were added.]
References:
- "Greater Frequency of Penile–Vaginal Intercourse Without Condoms is Associated with Better Mental Health" , Rui Miguel Costa & Stuart Brody
Archive of Sexual Behavior 2009/07/28 DOI 10.1007/s10508-009-9519-1 - "Condom Use for Penile–Vaginal Intercourse is Associated with Immature Psychological Defense Mechanisms", Rui Miguel Costa & Stuart Brody
Journal of Sexual Medicine 2008;52522-2532 DOI: 10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.00987
[Publishers Note: This is a controversial topic and we note that Prof Brody has a strong track record of publications in the field of HIV and sexual health. We don't endorse unsafe sex outside of committed, monogamous, relationships, however science is not politically correct, it just follows the data.]
Print
Comments
How could the data possibly
How could the data possibly support the idea that "sex without condoms *makes* people happier"? At best, it can show a correlation between use of condoms and happiness.
It is entirely possible - even likely - that people who don't use condoms worry less than others. Such people may well be less stressed out than condom users. That does not imply in the least that any particular condom user would be happier if they stopped using condoms.
And the evolutionary explanation makes no sense whatsoever. There was nothing like condoms around at the time when our sexual behavior evolved. So, it makes no sense to assume that there is some "program" built deep into us to make us avoid condoms.
As chat up lines go, this
As chat up lines go, this isn't the best I have ever heard. Bad representation of the study? This was pulled from The Scotsman, hardly a paragon of science reporting.
Added Journal References
While we may agree about The Scotsman the article is accurate. We just updated it with specific references to the Journal articles that underly it so those of you with Journal access can read it for yourselves.
Notice how the title of the
Notice how the title of the actual journal article says that unprotected sex "is associated with" better mental health. Not that it causes it. I don't have access to the journal article, but the title makes a much weaker claim than what will be reported in the press.
This is a pretty accurate depiction of what often seems to happen:
http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174
PS.: And kudos to Carnal
PS.: And kudos to Carnal Nation for referencing the actual journal article and showing more skepticism and concern for real science than what is common in journalism. :-)
Yep, made far worse by the journal publishers.
It's like pulling teeth trying to get journal publishers to let us have access to the original articles to fact check stuff. In this case Dr Brody has been really helpful both getting us copies of the articles and with corrections to the errors in the Scotsman story.
This level of help is, however, not the normal case where most web based media relies on the giant game of telephone in the cartoon you cite.
ha ha
the comments far surpass the article!
btw, WHEN does choosing not to get HIV, or not to become pregnant become a choice of "political correctness"?
That is... WHEN it's in reference to other people's bodies, not your own ( proves that he prefers to influence our opinions, rather than provide useful information).
...no duh!!!, many people who don't use condoms probably are in stable relationships with partners they can totally trust,
yeah maybe that would give you a bit of peace of mind!
add : Evolution, that is
add :
Evolution, that is biological evolution may not be comparably to the evolution of man as a species, though it is confusing, as a lot of human behavior is LOWER than that of the animals (more abusive, torturous, wasteful, etc).
I highly respect the animals and the beauty and skill we observe in them, but humans I believe are designed to evolve beyond animal behavior, that is, humans have the ability to use their sexuality for conscious aims, rather than be slaves to unconscious drives.
In the end I think we need to specify when we are referring to human evolution, or animal evolution. If we simply identify w animal evolution, I am afraid we may be encouraging the de-evolution of the human species.
They thought of that
Responding to "...no duh!!!, many people who don't use condoms probably are in stable relationships with partners they can totally trust,"...
Note the bottom of the article, which says "The findings of the underlying study...were not confounded by relationship status, age, cohabitation, or social desirability responding. "
That's scientist-speak for "We thought of these things but it turns out they don't matter. The numbers work out the same either way". They accounted for relationship status and whether or not they were living together.
There may be confounding
There may be confounding factors that the study didn't take into account. And, even if there is direct causation between the variables, it may go in the opposite direction. Perhaps people who are better at dealing with stress are more likely to choose unprotected sex?
If the study satisfactorily proved causation, why does the title of the peer-reviewed article only reference "association"? And if the peer-reviewed study only suggested association, it would be irresponsible to report a stronger claim (causation) in the media, particularly as some people are going to read it as health advice.
PS.: Unfortunately, I don't have access to the journal article.
I know people who co-habitate
I know people who co-habitate and "cheat", although I suppose it does make cheating more difficult.
But "relationship status" yes, maybe that does refer to whether the relationship is more casual, or how well they know eachother.
yeah thanks for pointing it out.
I'm sure my reading of this article is distorted, as I live in San Francisco and there's a lot of AIDS here. I used to work in a clinic where we treated people w AIDS/HIV and some of them were very sick/dying. I also know people who got AIDS from sex or shooting drugs, including housemates and friends. I love my life and don't want to get this disease.
Regardless I should read more carefully.
Is this really so surprising?
I would just like to ask: Is this really so surprising? On a certain level, we all kind of know this. The question isn't what kind of sex makes us happier, it's what kind of sex makes us safer. If you are having casual sex, use a condom. If you are in an open relationship, use a condom. If you have a tendency to wake up the next morning next to someone you just met, use a condom. If you are in a committed monogomous relationship, and you have an understanding with your partner that you'd rather be safe than blissfully ignorant, consider not using a condom as a perk until either of you think you may have reason to fear exposure, then start using condoms.
This isn't radical, it's simply a matter of your priorities: Are you willing to have a momentary boost in happiness, or the luxury of safer practices that shield you more effectively from harm.
They call this scientific?
Forgive me, but this "study" made me laugh somewhat. The conclusions it draws are completely unscientific in relation to the bounds of the actual study. First, the sampling size is entirely too small, 210 individuals is NOT a large enough sample based on questionnaires to derive the conclusion they did. Second, and perhaps the most significant is that the study is FAR too isolated geographically to be considered conclusive. The study lacks the diversity to make a worldwide judgement. At best, this study can attest to a regional preference based on the local socioeconomic, religious, and ethnic norms of the area.
Broad sweeping claims like this annoy the hell out of me, the Publisher should have known far better than to even publish this horse hockey.
shared juices
There probably is some benefit to the shared juices of juicy sex as well as dangers.