heh. I thought of you this afternoon. I was reading a "study" a colleague sent me, and it is such obvious fluffy bullshit, entirely subjective and based on answers from whoever wanted to bother filling out a questionnaire. I may never look at another half-assed study again without thinking of you.
A study published Wednesday found that women who practiced "extreme" grooming habits, shaving all or most of their pubic hair on a regular basis, are not at higher risk of contracting certain sexually transmitted infections, contradicting past research.
The study, published in the journal Plos One, found no correlation between pubic hair grooming and chlamydia or gonorrhea risk.
Remember how I said that the 2016 study in the OP was a steaming pile of horse crap for a number of reasons, not the least of which was that they didn't ask crucial questions like prophylactic use (i.e., frequency of high-risk sexual activity), and that was likely why they were getting this false correlation (because people who fuck a lot, especially without protection, are more likely to keep themselves well-groomed on a regular basis)?
Because only 10 percent had chlamydia or gonorrhea but most reported grooming, the researchers concluded there was no link between how often a woman grooms and her risk of contracting the two most common STIs.
Levels of sexual activity, on the other hand, were more closely tied to extreme grooming, the researchers found: Forty percent of the extreme groomers reported having sex on a daily or weekly basis in the past year.
That first point is the exact thing I said in my original response. Most participants (then and now) reported grooming, but only a small % had STDs/STIs. This point alone disproved the hypothesis, which is also what I said on page one. Fuck, I should've just done this freaking study myself, lol.
This new study found that only 10% of the sample had STDs, which is roughly statistically equivalent to the 13% found in the 2016 study in the OP (given the sample sizes of each). The frequency of sexual activity was what was related to STD/STI infection, not their grooming habits.
The difference in interpretation of results is that these researchers actually asked the right questions whereas the 2016 researchers were stupid.
Another researcher in the article underlines this point:
“[Newer forms of birth control] have been fantastic in preventing unintended pregnancies, but they offer no protection against STIs, and people aren’t using condoms as often when they are using these other forms of birth control,” Herbenick said. “We need people to use condoms when they have sex if we want to see a decrease in STIs.”
Last Edit: Sept 8, 2019 22:51:39 GMT -5 by Optimus