Attention Starved Scientist Promotes Bareback Sex

Posted by Tana Ganeva, AlterNet at 5:00 PM on August 4, 2009.

Drunk guy Science thinks it's better for you to raw dog. At least according to Prof. Stuart Brody, who claims a recent study proves people who use condoms miss out on the "mental health benefits of ... "evolutionarily relevant sex", writes the Telegraph.

By "evolutionary relevant sex", Brody means heterosexual sex. You see, the last time Brody hungered for mainstream media attention, he publicized research allegedly showing that only straight sex improved "psychological and physiological function."

For his most recent headline-grabby study, Brody surveyed 111 Portuguese men and 99 women on their sexual habits and frame of mind.

Those who used them were more likely to suffer from depression, suicidal tendencies and be emotionally immature. The results were the same regardless of whether a person was in a stable relationship or not.

In a letter to the journal Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Prof Brody wrote: "The more often they have sex without condoms, the better their mental health."

He added: "Possible explanations for the interference of condoms with the health benefits of penile-vaginal intercourse include the blocking of antidepressant and immunological agents in semen and genital secretions [and] reduced sexual satisfaction and intimacy."

In spite of Brody's research, family planning professionals point out that condoms are still a pretty good idea. Evolution or no (or, more accurately, trendy evolutionary psych theory or no), people shouldn't be going bareback without taking precautions to avoid STIs or unintended pregnancy.

But the ramifications of his work don't worry Prof. Brody, who can't be bothered with "political correctness or religion" in his lofty pursuit of science.

“I have an interest in the best possible science,” he said. “I don’t want to let anything get in the way, whether its political correctness, or religion." he is quoted as saying in the Independent.

Except that once you get the mainstream media involved, you're no longer in the pristine realm of scientific inquiry. You're in the land of sensationalist headlines and no context and little in the way of scientific understanding. Hence, headlines such as: 'Sex without condoms can keep you sane', courtesy of the Independent.

Certainly Brody should study whatever he likes (or whatever the Institution funding his work decides he should study. I wonder if funding for his projects has anything to do with how high profile his research is ... hmmmm .... ). If his methodology and attendant theorizing hold water (the study is not available online, unfortunately), I'm sure it's a great contribution to science.

But what's with the insanely arrogant stance that science research is entirely devoid of cultural and social complications and consequences? First off, Brody's method involved asking people how they feel, which doesn't strike me as the most objective methodolgy. Isn't it possible that his subjects' cultural preconceptions affected their responses? 

And, once you go out of your way to get massive amounts of publicity for your work, is it really fair to claim that your work has no real-world ramifications?

Tagged as: sex, pregnancy, condoms, stis, protection, raw dog, bareback