BYU Study: Pornography use at any level harms romantic relationships

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

No one said anything about preventing. It reduces the likelihood. You're like one of those people hounding at vaccines because sometimes vaccinated people still get COVID.

There is no evidence it reduces the likelihood either beyond one small study with such a small sample size it is functionally worthless.

There is a reason the idea showed up a decade ago and then vanished. There was nothing to it.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

was also under the impression it only had a cosmetic effect on genitalia. Do you have the studies showing significant effect on sexual orientation?

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/prenatal-drug-therapy-targeted-lesbians-researchers-charge-flna926958

[Hamilton Porter]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

There is a reason the idea showed up a decade ago and then vanished. There was nothing to it.

If the sample size is too small, you replicate it with a larger one. You don't just leave it alone. If they haven't replicated it, something's politically fishy.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

If the sample size is too small, you replicate it with a larger one. You don't just leave it alone. If they haven't replicated it, something's politically fishy.

The medication is not used a lot on pregnant women except in very specific cases and there are all kinds of ethical issues in “testing” it outside of women who actually need it. There is nothing fishy about it at all. The study is very weak and realistically to get results it would have to a be decades long study to determine sexuality of children later on. No one wants to put the resources into such a study since the odds of the initial study having value is virtually nil and it would be an expensive study.

Just because an idiot hyped the supposed results and got it into the news cycle is not a reason to believe it is credible.

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

The medication is not used a lot on pregnant women except in very specific cases and there are all kinds of ethical issues in “testing” it outside of women who actually need it. There is nothing fishy about it at all. The study is very weak and realistically to get results it would have to a be decades long study to determine sexuality of children later on. No one wants to put the resources into such a study since the odds of the initial study having value is virtually nil and it would be an expensive study.

Just because an idiot hyped the supposed results and got it into the news cycle is not a reason to believe it is credible.

Your logic is mind boggling, to say the least. The initial study was enough to show a statistically significant impact of prenatal Dex on sexual orientation. Sure, they can increase the sample size, and it's tentative.

To say the study has no value when there's no contradictory evidence makes it look like you like to hide your head in the sand when faced with facts you don't like.

 

[Hamilton Porter]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Just because an idiot hyped the supposed results and got it into the news cycle is not a reason to believe it is credible.

Is the idiot you're talking about Alice Dreger? She was the one all up in arms against using it.

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Your logic is mind boggling, to say the least. The initial study was enough to show a statistically significant impact of prenatal Dex on sexual orientation. Sure, they can increase the sample size, and it's tentative.

To say the study has no value when there's no contradictory evidence makes it look like you like to hide your head in the sand when faced with facts you don't like.

Because there is no way to test it safely. Dexamethasone is used ‘off label’ for treatment of CAH but this is controversial as only about one in ten pregnancies at risk for CAH develop ambiguous genitalia and there are serious risks for using the drug to treat it. It may cause cognitive damage to the fetus.

So, at best, it can lessen the chance of someone being a lesbian but only to a small subset of babies that have a very specific potential disorder but using that drug is very controversial because the risks of other damage to the fetus are high.

And you are asking why we aren’t studying this more thoroughly? It is because it would be ethically monstrous. Your casual statement that we have a safe drug method to mitigate lesbian births is ludicrous. There is a reason no one is talking seriously about this a decade later or doing larger studies. The risks outweigh any potential rewards.

7 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Is the idiot you're talking about Alice Dreger? She was the one all up in arms against using it.

The idiot is the person who cast this as a way to prevent lesbian births. Probably a journalist. That wasn’t the objective of any of the doctors involved.

[pogi]

16 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Genetics explains about 30% of the variability in sexual orientation.

I'm not sure how anyone could know that without knowing which genes (if any) contribute to variability. 

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

I'm not sure how anyone could know that without knowing which genes (if any) contribute to variability. 

That's not that hard. Just take people's genetic profiles and run ANOVA.

[pogi]

On 3/29/2023 at 3:54 AM, why me said:

The lure in a porn movie is the fantasy that one sees on screen. But when viewing just how one is made, the fantasy disappears and a person just sees individuals working on set. And just like a regular movie there are mistakes with the director yelling CUT. Also, the director is in the background reminding the actors to look aroused even though they are not. It is just a job for them. It becomes too human.

I am pretty sure that filmmakers are movie fans too, despite knowing about all that goes on behind the scenes.  I don't see why this would be any different.

The other problem with this explanation is that it misunderstands the roots of addiction which have nothing to do with sex.  This would be no cure. 

[Hamilton Porter]

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The idiot is the person who cast this as a way to prevent lesbian births. Probably a journalist. That wasn’t the objective of any of the doctors involved.

That would be Alice Dreger. She's a bioethicist at Northwestern.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3416978/

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That's not that hard. Just take people's genetic profiles and run ANOVA.

Ok.  Has it been done?  Or are you just making assumptions ("30%") without actual data?  I am wondering how you got to that number and why.  What is your reference. 

[Hamilton Porter]

3 minutes ago, pogi said:

Ok.  Has it been done?  Or are you just making assumptions ("30%") without actual data?  I am wondering how you got to that number and why.  What is your reference. 

I was going off memory but I just googled and found this:

https://www.science.org/content/article/genetics-may-explain-25-same-sex-behavior-giant-analysis-reveals

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

That would be Alice Dreger. She's a bioethicist at Northwestern.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3416978/

Nope, she wrote a scientific paper refuting the idea. Who publicized in popular media that the drug was safe method of mitigating someone becoming a lesbian? I am guessing an irresponsible journalist.

[Hamilton Porter]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Nope, she wrote a scientific paper refuting the idea. Who publicized in popular media that the drug was safe method of mitigating someone becoming a lesbian? I am guessing an irresponsible journalist.

Can you read? She still thought the drug effectively reduced the likelihood a baby would become a lesbian. Just the idiot you're talking about.

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Can you read? She still thought the drug effectively reduced the likelihood a baby would become a lesbian. Just the idiot you're talking about.

No, she didn’t. She said others were saying that. All she said is that those who have CAH have a tendency towards becoming tomboyish or lesbian. The idea that if you use this medication designed to treat the physical manifestations of CAH it will also make them less likely to be a tomboy or lesbian. This is an unproven theory and she is decrying people who are taking the medication for that unproven reason.

You are the one who Kramered into the thread with the idea that we could mitigate girls being born lesbian. Then it is shown that that is an unproven theory that would only work in limited cases with a specific genetic disorder. Again, there is basically NOTHING supporting this. She wrote the paper so that people prescribing most likely useless medication to prevent lesbianism would stop. Plus the medication isn’t safe. In some cases the potential reward is worth the risk but taking an unproven drug that could harm you or your child because you are worried your daughter might be a lesbian is insanity. She is not on your side.

[pogi]

21 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

But we already have a safe drug, prenatal dexamethasone, that reduces the likelihood a girl becomes a lesbian. 

First, it is merely suspected by some (without good evidence) that it may reduce the likelihood in a very small and specific population of girls affected by CAH.   Very different from what you are claiming. 

Second, how can you say it is safe in pregnancy after reading the paper you linked to?  Researchers in Sweden are showing evidence of long-term "cognitive impairment" among those exposed to prenatal Dex.  A lot of other unknowns and potential harms including:

Quote

The potential harms of prenatal dexamethasone represent a growing source of concern for clinical researchers because emerging research indicates glucocorticoids may alter “fetal programming,” potentially resulting in serious metabolic problems that will not become apparent until adulthood (Hirvikoski et al. 2007; Marciniak et al. 2011). Some animal studies, for example, suggest long-term risk to the cardiovascular system (Lajic, Nordenström, and Hirvikoski 2011).

Without evidence the AAP recommended following the maxim "first do no harm".  Further evidence is needed before they recommend its use for that purpose.  1) they don't know if it really works for that purpose, 2) there are ethical questions of using it for the purpose of preventing lesbianism and tomboyism, and 3) there is no evidence that it is safe long-term. 

1 hour ago, Hamilton Porter said:

Can you read? She still thought the drug effectively reduced the likelihood a baby would become a lesbian. 

Where did she say that?

Quote

Indeed, for lack of quality clinical studies, the 2010 Task Force could not even say with any confidence whether prenatal dexamethasone works to reduce genital virilization.

Quote

Furthermore, this intervention—intended to alter the course of fetal development—has been “studied” in ways so slipshod as to breach professional standards of medical ethics.

 

 

Edited March 30 by pogi

[Hamilton Porter]

6 hours ago, pogi said:

Second, how can you say it is safe in pregnancy after reading the paper you linked to?

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/86/12/5651/2849094

There were no statistical differences in the symptoms during pregnancy between mothers treated with dexamethasone and those not treated with dexamethasone, except for weight gain, edema, and striae, which were greater in the treated group. No significant or enduring side-effects were noted in the fetuses, indicating that dexamethasone treatment is safe. Prenatally treated newborns did not differ in weight from untreated, unaffected newborns. 

Edited March 31 by Hamilton Porter
Hate this format

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Hamilton Porter said:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/86/12/5651/2849094

There were no statistical differences in the symptoms during pregnancy between mothers treated with dexamethasone and those not treated with dexamethasone, except for weight gain, edema, and striae, which were greater in the treated group. No significant or enduring side-effects were noted in the fetuses, indicating that dexamethasone treatment is safe. Prenatally treated newborns did not differ in weight from untreated, unaffected newborns. 

Do you have something later than 2001?  20 years in medical research can end up in a turnaround in opinion. 

[why me]

On 3/29/2023 at 4:50 PM, california boy said:

So you are under the elusion that people who watch porn think it is authentically  showing realistic situations.  And if they knew it was all staged, they wouldn't watch it?????????????????

We are speaking about addiction. Not watching porn for enjoyment. There is a difference. I am saying that if one is 'addicted' to porn maybe watching it being made would help because they would see the reality of it. The ending of the video may address what I am saying. She goes into the production of the scene, The fakeness of it could be a cure.

 

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

On 3/31/2023 at 12:09 AM, Hamilton Porter said:

https://academic.oup.com/jcem/article/86/12/5651/2849094

There were no statistical differences in the symptoms during pregnancy between mothers treated with dexamethasone and those not treated with dexamethasone, except for weight gain, edema, and striae, which were greater in the treated group. No significant or enduring side-effects were noted in the fetuses, indicating that dexamethasone treatment is safe. Prenatally treated newborns did not differ in weight from untreated, unaffected newborns. 

One study of that size is nowhere near enough.

The FDA disagrees. It is a category C medication for use while pregnant meaning there aren’t any well-controlled studies on pregnancy risks in humans but animal studies have shown risks. This category in essence means to use this drug only if the benefit outweighs the risk. Calling it safe because you found one study is not how these things work.

[pogi]

3 hours ago, why me said:

We are speaking about addiction. Not watching porn for enjoyment. There is a difference. I am saying that if one is 'addicted' to porn maybe watching it being made would help because they would see the reality of it. The ending of the video may address what I am saying. She goes into the production of the scene, The fakeness of it could be a cure.

Where in the video did she talk about this as a potential cure to addiction?  She was talking about why it can have a negative impact on really young children who can’t distinguish it from reality.  She was talking about how this might negatively impact sexual performance/self esteem later in life if we compare our bodies and sexual performance against it, or if we try to imitate the more aggressive/abusive forms of porn.  
I know a thing or two about this issue. Addiction is a different beast all together from sexual performance issues.  This is no cure.

Edited April 1 by pogi

[why me]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

Where in the video did she talk about this as a potential cure to addiction?  She was talking about why it can have a negative impact on really young children who can’t distinguish it from reality.  She was talking about how this might negatively impact sexual performance/self esteem later in life if we compare our bodies and sexual performance against it, or if we try to imitate the more aggressive/abusive forms of porn.  
I know a thing or two about this issue. Addiction is a different beast all together from sexual performance issues.  This is no cure.

Toward  the end she speaks about what goes on during the filming and what occurs during the production. She mentions the reality of the set. Not too exciting...just realism. In other words, the finished product on camera is a fake.

[pogi]

22 minutes ago, why me said:

Toward  the end she speaks about what goes on during the filming and what occurs during the production. She mentions the reality of the set. Not too exciting...just realism. In other words, the finished product on camera is a fake.

I know what part you are talking about.

[Hamilton Porter]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

One study of that size is nowhere near enough.

The FDA disagrees. It is a category C medication for use while pregnant meaning there aren’t any well-controlled studies on pregnancy risks in humans but animal studies have shown risks. This category in essence means to use this drug only if the benefit outweighs the risk. Calling it safe because you found one study is not how these things work.

Sorry, that's laughable. The sample size was enough to detect statistically significant differences on some of the variables. They diagnosed 500 pregnancies total.

Your other points aren't as laughable.

Edited April 1 by Hamilton Porter