Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 16:55:41 GMT -5
www.nbcnewyork.com/news/health/Grooming-Private-Parts-may-Increase-Risk-of-STIs-Study-405274305.htmlThis is pure Optimus bait. . Seriously, though, it pissed me off. I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, and even I can see the trouble with the clickbait theme of this article. For one thing, I can tell you right now that the younger half of this group is WAAAY more likely to be going for the bald look. (Indeed, a lot of older people seem to find it a bit off-putting.) And guess which half of the group is going to be waaaaaay more likely to be engaging in a lot of random sex? I also think people in general are more likely to be engaging in that kind of grooming when there's a little something something in the offing. If Ben & Jerry is your date, why bother? And guess what is certainly correlated with an increased rate of STDs? An increased rate of sex, especially with an increased number of partners. So sure, maybe microtears might possibly maybe make you a tad more vulnerable to an STD, but this "study" sure as hell doesn't prove it to me. Opty? How'm I doing?
|
|
|
Post by Rolling Thunder on Dec 8, 2016 18:29:03 GMT -5
*mows the lawn*
What?
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 8, 2016 19:08:11 GMT -5
I think the link, if there is any, is unlikely to be causality.
People who shave their pubic hair probably do it because their nether regions are going to be seen. If you own a piece of property up in the mountains and nobody ever comes by, you're less likely to mow the lawn or trim the hedges. And sad as it may be, you'll also be more likely to tidy things up if you are going to have company over, as opposed to family who see the mess everyday.
In other words, more sexual partners equals greater risks of STD's.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 8, 2016 19:53:34 GMT -5
The writer of this article should have "Correlation is not causation" tattooed across her face.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2016 20:06:09 GMT -5
backwards, of course, so she can see it in the mirror.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 9, 2016 12:22:06 GMT -5
I got gonorrhea from riding a tractor in my bikini.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 12:26:32 GMT -5
If you hadn't shaved first, you would have been fine.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Dec 9, 2016 13:23:30 GMT -5
Funny story as an aside. I called a doctors officer where my mom worked once, but asked to speak with one of the doctors I was friendly with. I was in High School at the time.
I was working on a short story about a girl who was being sexually abused. It was actually a weird class project where we had to do something sexually related, STDs or abuse or such stuff, and a short story that presented the factual symptoms and such worked. So I was trying to come up with the right disease and symptoms that worked and the doctor was kind enough to help.
My mother heard I was on the phone and went over, and heard what the doctor was talking about for me. Only she'd missed the part where I was doing story research. She rather flipped out.
It was amusing.
Kind of.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 9, 2016 13:43:24 GMT -5
www.nbcnewyork.com/news/health/Grooming-Private-Parts-may-Increase-Risk-of-STIs-Study-405274305.htmlThis is pure Optimus bait. . Seriously, though, it pissed me off. I'm a lawyer, not a scientist, and even I can see the trouble with the clickbait theme of this article. For one thing, I can tell you right now that the younger half of this group is WAAAY more likely to be going for the bald look. (Indeed, a lot of older people seem to find it a bit off-putting.) And guess which half of the group is going to be waaaaaay more likely to be engaging in a lot of random sex? I also think people in general are more likely to be engaging in that kind of grooming when there's a little something something in the offing. If Ben & Jerry is your date, why bother? And guess what is certainly correlated with an increased rate of STDs? An increased rate of sex, especially with an increased number of partners. So sure, maybe microtears might possibly maybe make you a tad more vulnerable to an STD, but this "study" sure as hell doesn't prove it to me. Opty? How'm I doing? Haha, you're doing good as far as I can tell. I saw this headline a day or two ago but haven't had a chance to read it yet. I'll check out the actual study when I get home from work and probably join you in dumping all over this study.* *Given that this study is about sex, I should clarify that I mean "dumping all over [it]" in a purely metaphorical way, and not having anything to do with what's discussed at this link.** **Bwahahaha, you clicked on it, didn't you?*** ***If you didn't, I'm sure you're about to because the curiosity must be overwhelming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 13:59:06 GMT -5
Damn you, Opty.
-- Cass, who clicked.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Dec 9, 2016 16:16:05 GMT -5
All I had to do was mouse-over the link, and see enough not to click.
|
|
|
Post by Optimus on Dec 9, 2016 19:39:03 GMT -5
Alright, I finally had time to track down the actual study (and supplementary materials) and read through it. Overall, the way they reported their results is kind of fishy, if not overtly disingenuous, in my opinion. First, the overwhelming majority of respondents (74%) reported that they have or do groom their "down there hair." However, only 13% of respondents reported ever having contracted an STI. With such a large and obvious disparity, you don't even have to run the data to see that this large inequality alone pretty much disproves their hypothesis that there is a significant connection between grooming and STIs. Undeterred by reality, they then pressed on and looked at the 13% (N=943) who did report STIs and took the "everything but the kitchen sink approach" in asking them about various things including their grooming habits, sexual history, how many people had seen them naked that week (what an odd question), and history of STIs. However, the "but the kitchen sink" part is that they failed to ask even one question about condom use (NSFW: there are crudely-drawn pics of dangly bits in the first few questions). That's right, researchers purportedly conducting a study on sexually-transmitted diseases apparently forgot that prophylactics exist and are one of the strongest predictors of STD risk. That's not just fishy, that's idiotic and really reflects poorly on them as so-called "researchers." So, the obvious question to me is, how do we know that risky sexual behavior isn't the confounding/mediating variable that could best explain the STI rate among this 13%? But, back to the small 13% that did report STIs. Firstly, groomers had roughly twice as many sexual partners per year as non-groomers. Again, another "duh" type of statistic. People who have significantly more sexual partners are at significantly greater risk of being exposed to STIs/STDs. There are a couple of statistical quibbles I have with how they coded their main independent variable, but I'll skip that part. Two of the fishy things that stuck out to me are their reported Ns and the confusing layout of this data table. I'm honestly questioning whether or not these people passed elementary math class. First, they report that their total number of participants (N) is 7580 of which 7470 have actually had sex. They then say that 13% of their sample (N=943) reported having ever had an STI at any point in their lives. 13% of 7580 = 985 Okay, so maybe they meant 13% of the sample who'd actually had sex? 13% of 7470 = 971 Hmm...nope. Not that one, either. So, where the hell did the 943 number come from? I have no idea. Okay, so back to the chart (the other thing making me scratch my head). It's laid out in an incredibly odd, confusing way. That's not necessarily a critique of their analyses, mostly a complaint about the way they're presenting their data. It just seems like it serves not other purpose than to overwhelm (or dazzle, I guess) the reader with so many numbers, p-values, percentages and other statisticy-looking (not a word, but I'm making it one now) things that they don't notice that it really doesn't tell you much of anything useful. Anyway, overall, the study is sloppy and smells fishier than the burps you get from cod-oil pills. They made some really odd choices and I'm left questioning not only their ability to design and execute a competent study, but also their ability to perform basic math. They seemed to want STIs to be connected to pubic-hair-grooming so badly that they tortured and abused their data until it told them what they wanted. tl;dr = It's a pile of crap. Nothing to see here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2016 20:02:21 GMT -5
So it's even stupider than I thought it was. Hurray! Maybe I should be a scientist. Hey, I'd do better than these clowns.
If you go to the gym every day, it might mean that 100+ people see you naked in a week, even if you never exchange so much as a kiss.
And yet they did not ask about condom use.
|
|
|
Post by robeiae on Dec 10, 2016 7:56:59 GMT -5
Wait a minute. Are you guys saying that I can get an STD just from someone seeing me naked!?!?!?!
Huh. That really doesn't impact me at all, now that I think about it. Carry on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2016 13:35:00 GMT -5
I'm thinking maybe it's OK to be naked in front of people as long as you leave your pubic hair uncropped.
Maybe I'll do a study.
|
|