Yeah. I used to subscribe to Psychology Today, but I canceled, mostly because of this kind of shit. They'll do anything to sell, I swear.

... and the sample was 2 fantasy women?

ABSOLUTE NONSENSE

So, um, what about lesbians?

What about spitting v. swallowing?

What about the fact Dr. Gallup seems to have entirely too much free time on his hands?

Speaking of hands, what about semen on the hands? Are men who ejaculate on their own hands when masturbating become addicted to semen too? Is that what makes boys gay? Semen addiction? Shit, masturbation will both make you blind and gay now?

Yeah, I'm trying my best to be just as ridiculous as this study is.

Gallup controlled for variables including method of contraception, frequency of sexual intercourse, as well as the women's perception of their relationship. He concedes that women who regularly have sex without condoms might share personality traits that make them less susceptible to depression.

What, exactly, are they suggesting with that?

While the way the article frames it is odd, I'm not surprised that they found that semen can have an effect on women. Apparently semen can help jumpstart labor in pregnant women, I know I personally feel much more satisfied with unprotected sex than I do when using a condom.

AAAAAAAAh ha ha ha ha ha!!!

This is for real? Ha ha ha!

I always used to joke to my boyfriend that he had a "healing wang" but now I know it's scientifically proven!!!

IT gives a whole new meaning to sperm banks, too.

Wow. Someone missed Behavioral Statistics for Dummies... You can't infer causation from correlational research. I mean "research" because this is just laughable.

The scariest thing about this? It's almost an exact duplicate of the Victorian 'scientific' theory that sexually active women used to 'drain' life energy from the unsuspecting (though ejaculating) male...straight from his semen! Hence, they theorized, the more 'masculine' behavior of promiscuous women.

Ah...we've come so far.

Addicted?

More like allergic, for me, but hey, if it helps fulfill some creepy psychologist's fantasy... oh wait. Haha :P

That explains why all lesbians, virgins and pre-pubescent girls are always suicidally depressed!

Oh, wait...they aren't.

Next!

I can't help but picture a crowd of haggard, zombielike women staggering through the streets mumbling, "Must...have...semen!"

Wow, just Wow:

"These women are more vulnerable to the rebound effect, which suggests that there is a chemical dependency," says Gallup.

Semen contains hormones including testosterone, estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone and prostaglandins, and some of these are absorbed through the walls of the vagina and are known to elevate mood.

'Cause as we all know, the walls of the vagina cover the brain.

Sorry, all this is from the article:

"These women are more vulnerable to the rebound effect, which suggests that there is a chemical dependency," says Gallup.

Semen contains hormones including testosterone, estrogen, prolactin, luteinizing hormone and prostaglandins, and some of these are absorbed through the walls of the vagina and are known to elevate mood.

You know, when I first saw this story, my immediate reaction was that the media coverage had distorted the findings.

Then I read the fine piece and was midly annoyed to find out that in fact, the media coverage was pretty good.

lildeen has it right. For my money the more plausible (and simpler) explaination is that women in relationships where the rubber doesn't come between them and their partner are happier for the well known reasons that people with circles of friends (and family) are happier.

Oh well.

As much as I'd love to jump on the bandwagon here and categorically denounce this article just because it can be perceived as an attempt to subsume women to the patriarchy...I'm not going to.
Is it really so ridiculous to think that there may be an evolutionary basis for women having a capacity for semen addiction? Let's not jump to the conclusion that the article must be suggesting lesbians and virgins can't be happy just because they can't be addicted to semen. That would be like saying if there is such a thing as heroin addiction, non-drug users can't be happy, which is obviously ridiculous.
I'm very much a feminist, but I think this type of unthinking, knee-jerk reaction gives us all a bad name.

Ema - if the joke goes that men think with their penises, maybe this research is suggesting we think with our vaginas?

Oh, wait, like others I need to correct myself. "Research." Wow. They're crazy.

Lilaeden gets and "A." The study is arguably quasi-experimental. The conclusion, based on the study's methods,is a premature postulation.

This looks like poor reporting more than anything else. The article above starts with a "conclusion" that is also a premise of the work.

Allytude:

The sample size is 700 women.

ikkin:

The statement you quote is him conceding that there may be a systemic bias coming from an uncontrolled shared psychological trait in the tested population -- but that he thinks it's unlikely, as the only one he can think of is risk-aversion.

Vervain:

What you describe is a straw man that has nothing to do with the article. Virgins and lesbians, presumably, fall into the same category as people who use condoms regularly, i.e. those who are not affected by increased rates of depression since the last date of intercourse.

Paul:

The study goes the other way from what you describe: it is the women with steady partners that are more depressed as they get further away from their last act of intercourse.

I haven't yet read the actual paper, but from the article, I'm not seeing the bad science (mind you, I'm not seeing much *useful* science, either, but I have a known bias against psychologists). He published a correlation, tested with the obvious systemic social biases controlled for, and concluded a likely chemical cause that would need further research.

Science isn't bad because you disagree with its findings. If you want to demonstrate that this is flawed research, you have to actually show the flaw (i.e. the uncontrolled source of bias, or the obvious alternate causative mechanism). Such a flaw may exist, but it hasn't yet been mentioned in this thread, nor is it immediately obvious to me.

I'm also not understanding the outrage here -- it's fairly noncontroversial that even the minimal hormone releases from the Nuvaring can cause substantial psychological effects in users, so why is it controversial that hormonal contributions from semen might do the same?

The study is correlational, so it shows there is a statistical relationship between some psychological things (depression etc.) and having sex without condoms. They are speculating about the semen since it seems obvious.

It could be a whole lot of other things--I haven't used a condom in a long time, but I'm also in a happy monogamous relationship and have a good life--all that probably explains my non-depressive state more than how often I have intercourse.

Oh man. Now I'm faced with a tough decision.

Do I make a Monty Python joke about every sperm being sacred? Or do I go serious point out that the vague allusion to controlling for women's "perception" of their relationships doesn't exactly sweep into its scope things like whether or not one partner has an STD (which couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with depression)?

So torn...

I actually thought this was a joke--seems like somebody's idea of a pornography plot.

"Hmm, how about a clitoris in a woman's throat?... No, no, we did that. I know! Addictive sperm! Just like CRACK! Yeah, that'll work..."

I mean, doesn't it seem like someone's made-up fantasy? It's ludicrous.

Zed, I'm not outraged--I just think the way it's being presented is hilarious.

So, I guess I should just fall into a fit of depression. Heck, I should just kill myself. My life is so worthless, being without semen.

Zed -

Yeah, I saw that. But any social separation has the same effect. And when there's social separation there's usually a co-incident lack of hankey-pankey.

Leave someone you love for a week and you miss them. I would self-report unhappiness too.

TLF:

I think you are misreading the conclusions. If a partner has a known STD that is being avoided, condoms would likely be in use -- which means that this population would be expected to be more depressed than those not having sex at all, which is not what was found.

Also, upon rereading the comments, I think there's some confusion about the baseline here: the article doesn't claim that not having unprotected sex on a regular basis makes you suicidally depressed -- merely that there is a statistically significant difference between those that are and those that are not. If you assume that the not-sexually-active/condom-using samples are dominant in representing the overall population (which I think is probably reasonable), then the correct thing to take away is that the unprotected-sex group is slightly "happier" than average (for a poorly-defined value of "happier"), not that the baseline population is suicidal. If it's a 50-50 split, then one is going to be slightly above, and the other slightly below, not that one or the other is absurdly extreme in one direction or another.

Paul:

That's reasonable, assuming that physical separation is the dominant reason for lack of unprotected sex, and that this effect isn't visible in the protected-sex-but-committed-relationship subpopulation, assuming there are enough out of the 700 to examine that with any significance.

I've since found the paper, but am not willing to shell out the cash to actually read it. If someone else has access, I'd be curious to see exactly what was covered in the controls:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-1839026_ITM

Something else I just noticed: both the article and the paper were published in 2002 -- does anyone know of any contradicting studies published in the last half-decade?

I think it's funny that some guy is so obsessed with his member as to do an entire study on how its fruits are good for women. (Compensating? ;) )

Yeah, this is crappy science. You cannot infer causation from correlation, and, even if you can, you have to ensure that the direction of causation is correct (i.e. X -> Y, not Y-> X). Often, that's easy (ex. hot weather causes people to eat more ice cream, not ice cream consumption increases the temperature); however, with any social "science," it's nearly impossible. Obviously, it's equally likely (or more so, in the absence of a MECHANISM for how this mood elevation happens) that women who don't worry about STDs are in more monogamous relationships, trust their partners more, and are more attached (thus becoming more sad when they don't have sex because the person isn't around). Sigh.

Most likely, women who have regular unprotected sex with their male partners are in long-term relationships with a high level of trust -- which is generally considered to be the most satisfying kind of relationship.

Now, here's the thing: although we don't use a barrier method, there are a few... problems... that often prevent my guy from giving me a full injection of semen. But I still feel really good after we've had sex. Doesn't quite square with the "semen addiction" theory, does it?

Also, did this researcher bother to ascertain whether the women "on the rebound" asked their new partners to wear condoms? 'Cause I'll bet most of them did.

This guy has been on the happy-jizz train for several years now. A slightly different version of this study was published in the journal Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2002. Gallup gathered his research for that one purely anecdotally, and without controls -- instead of, for instance, measuring hormone levels in the blood of a sample group, he just polled 300 undergraduate women on how much sex they had and whether they used condoms.He didn't test for other factors that might influence depression (like relationships, family history, general health), and didn't take into account how the semen was, you know, delivered.

It's crappy science and a dopey hypothesis,but you just can't stop a story like this -- just try to get newspapers not to pick up a story whose headline could be "Bye-bye, Prozac -- hello, semen!"

Ugh.

I haven't read the study, but to me it seems reasonable that the substances found in semen can have a physiologic effect in the human body. It isn't hard to imagine chemicals being absorbed through the thin, highly vascular walls of the vagina. I think the 'semen addiction' that was referred to is more like a runner's high than a heroine addiction (of course, I would also think that the after effects of a good orgasm would do more to elevate mood than exposure to semen). Human physiology being what it is, I wonder if the same correlation with protected/unprotected sex can be found in gay men.

Does a rape victim suffers less psychological trauma if her rapist ejaculates into her, due to the influence of positive mood-altering hormones in her rapist's sperm?

Can lesbians actually be "cured" by a "good fuck from a real man"?

Is global warming caused by an increasing lack of pirates?

Snark aside, I just don't buy it. What's the control factor? How are the findings measured? Testing the hormone levels in the blood of a sample group and a control group and comparing the results, I could get behind. Asking a bunch of women, "How do you feel?" and "Do you use condoms when you have sex?" and applying a correlation based on the two sets of answers -- not so much.

Well I guess the best way to avoid semen addiction is to never get started.

I'll be counting down the days (minutes?) until this study shows up on a rigidly abstinence-only website or in the damn curriculum. It lends a whole new spin on the concept of "just say no" . . . and isn't it kind of a twist on what the no-sex-before-marriage gurus like to claim? That we basically get chemically bonded (addicted to) our partner's bodily fluids?

They say caffeine is the last acceptable drug . . . now I guess we have to add sex to the list ;o).

What about gay men? Are only women affected by happy jizz?

If a partner has a known STD that is being avoided, condoms would likely be in use -- which means that this population would be expected to be more depressed than those not having sex at all

That's a larger assumption than we can make. You'd have to study those two groups specifically to say this, which hasn't been done. Clearly a significant number of people do prefer to have sex with STD-infected partners, than not to have sex at all. Whether or not their depression levels bear this out to be a wise decision has not been discussed in a study here.

My point was simply that their vague control factor about women's "perception" doesn't exactly control the study very well. A study that purports to show that women who have unprotected sex are happier, on average, than women who have protected sex, and purports to explain this by suggesting that semen has mood-altering effects, had better control its results REALLY well. From the description, this hasn't been done. There are lots of reasons, apparently NOT controlled, that women having unprotected sex might be happier, on average, than women have protected sex. One of those is STDs, which I just threw out as a "for instance."

"semen withdrawal" places women at an increased risk for depression.

And it seems like "pussy withdrawal" also puts many [heterosexual] men at risk for depression as well.
Am I right, or am I right?

so....for anyone who has taken any sort of statistics class, especially when it's for your psychology major....the main lesson, which is repeated OVER and OVER and OVER again is that correlation DOES NOT equal causation. Did Gallup sleep through that semester?

Lacking any data on blood/brain chemical or p hysiological changes and the physiological effects of different chemicals in semen, there's no scientific basis for his assertion of addiction.

btw, good point Cara.

There are WAY too many factors not taken into account. The research population is too broad for one.

Most people would assume (and rightfully so) that those in long-term, steady relationships would be less likely to use condoms. So you could also conclude that in these long-term relationships when there is a prolonged period of not having sex, there would be more psychological effects than someone you havent been with as long.

The other problem is that one really obvious variable doesn't seem to be accounted for, and that is not only is there condom vs no condom, but what about oral, fingers and toys? I dunno, it just seems to be more of a 'condition of the relationship' factor instead of 'sperm injection'.

The only research I've seen that has been replicated numerous times (and that I've experienced) when it comes to this 'sperm injection' thing (ok... I feel really wierd saying that, making sex sound clinical is just bleh) is that there is a similar chemical in sperm to the one used to help 'shed' during menstration. It's why some women notice that if they have sex *just* before the start of their cycle, they may bleed very heavily at first but in all end up with a shortened period.

If I ever find out who funds this idiot, I'm going to smack them SO HARD.

I KNEW IT! You women are all just a big bunch of succubi! And I guess that makes a homosexual man and Incubus right? Well you can all just stay away from me, because these nuts aint for crackin!

Seriously though, this is just nuts (......) Im taking the Bill Bailey theory that the people who fund this kind of research are all just stoned lottery winners.

Not to make too find a point about it but the Gallup article appeared in Psychology Today back in 2002!

Follow-up research by other academics since then? Um, zero? Conclusion? Sample size of 700 or no, the research wasn't credible.

I think the problem is stories like this just sound too good to fact check before passing on.

figleaf

kikilala21 is right. This is a Darwinian no-brainer.

Perhaps further study will verify or disprove this hypothesis, but for now I'm saddened at how carried away you all are getting at a mere suggestion that chemicals in our bodies might encourage reproduction.

Remember, evolution takes time. Our bodies haven't read about overpopulation or a woman's right to choose. The whole reason we're here, with these genes, is that our ancestors bred successfully.

Turn that frown upside down with a blowjob

Andi Z, Figleaf – oh, this is clearly his life's work. He's been trying very hard to prove it for a while now. I wonder why.

I'm a psychology student and read his 2002 paper - and am frankly amazed it got through peer review.

As has been mentioned before (and is repeatedly hammered home to me in psych lectures) correlation is not causation. There are too many experimental problems to mention them all but primarily a) the participants are all undergrads. How generalisable is this to the population, really? b) he doesn't really control for relationships properly, and doesn't measure them against anything useful, like, ooh, say condom use. The most obvious reason women don't use condoms is that they're in a committed relationship. This is more likely to effect well being than semen, quite frankly. c) The jump from semen to depression is pretty huge, especially considering he hasn't controlled for a huge number of factors that are quite likely to have an impact, like for example the quality of the sex (if you have an orgasm, you're likely to be happier).

This whole study is embarrassing.

I'm saddened at how carried away you all are getting at a mere suggestion that chemicals in our bodies might encourage reproduction.

Uh, I think it has to do more with the lacking methodology of this study. I'm a biologist and I don't have any problem with the concept of chemicals in semen affecting behavior, but this study doesn't show that. The link is correlational, and no mechanism has been proposed.

And the way it's reported is another thing. Any research (bad or good) that involves reproductive biology invariably gets spun into some sexist crap about traditional gender roles. I've seen it so much.

I'm glad to see that there are several posts listed above that do not give in to the all to predicatable anti-patriarchal, knee-jerk reaction that is so typical of many militant feminists.
Although the majority of posts on this site attempt to poke holes in the theory that semen may contain mood altering chemicals apparently none have succeeded.
Why should it be so hard to imagine that this theory might be true? I can easily believe that the same kind of reaction occurs for men from vaginal fluid.

I'm glad to see that there are several posts listed above that do not give in to the all to predicatable anti-patriarchal, knee-jerk reaction that is so typical of many militant feminists.
Although the majority of posts on this site attempt to poke holes in the theory that semen may contain mood altering chemicals apparently none have succeeded.
Why should it be so hard to imagine that this theory might be true? I can easily believe that the same kind of reaction occurs for men from vaginal fluid.

I'm glad to see that there are several posts listed above that do not give in to the all to predicatable anti-patriarchal, knee-jerk reaction that is so typical of many militant feminists.
Although the majority of posts on this site attempt to poke holes in the theory that semen may contain mood altering chemicals apparently none have succeeded.
Why should it be so hard to imagine that this theory might be true? I can easily believe that the same kind of reaction occurs for men from vaginal fluid.

I'm glad to see that there are several posts listed above that do not give in to the all to predicatable anti-patriarchal, knee-jerk reaction that is so typical of many militant feminists.
Although the majority of posts on this site attempt to poke holes in the theory that semen may contain mood altering chemicals apparently none have succeeded.
Why should it be so hard to imagine that this theory might be true? I can easily believe that the same kind of reaction occurs for men from vaginal fluid.

I'm glad to see that there are several posts listed above that do not give in to the all to predicatable anti-patriarchal, knee-jerk reaction that is so typical of many militant feminists.
Although the majority of posts on this site attempt to poke holes in the theory that semen may contain mood altering chemicals apparently none have succeeded.
Why should it be so hard to imagine that this theory might be true? I can easily believe that the same kind of reaction occurs for men from vaginal fluid.

I'm glad to see that there are several posts listed above that do not give in to the all to predicatable anti-patriarchal, knee-jerk reaction that is so typical of many militant feminists.
Although the majority of posts on this site attempt to poke holes in the theory that semen may contain mood altering chemicals apparently none have succeeded.
Why should it be so hard to imagine that this theory might be true? I can easily believe that the same kind of reaction occurs for men from vaginal fluid.

I'm glad to see that there are several posts listed above that do not give in to the all to predicatable anti-patriarchal, knee-jerk reaction that is so typical of many militant feminists.
Although the majority of posts on this site attempt to poke holes in the theory that semen may contain mood altering chemicals apparently none have succeeded.
Why should it be so hard to imagine that this theory might be true? I can easily believe that the same kind of reaction occurs for men from vaginal fluid.

sorry about all the posts - I have no idea why that happened.

Heh..Well..I see little evidence supporting it and a lot of assuming..Sperm is sperm..I doubt it will ever bee completely proven and.. it also depends on the person..Baka..x.x

Lesbians are awesome

"So, um, what about lesbians?

What about spitting v. swallowing?

What about the fact Dr. Gallup seems to have entirely too much free time on his hands? "
I completely agree..