Is Semen Really A Potent Anti-Depressant?

Factual Questions
1

Here’s a study that found that women whose partners didn’t use condoms reported being happier than women whose partners were using condoms-

http://www.albany.edu/news/releases/2002/june2002/gallupstudy0602.html

Are these findings accurate, or could this just be a result of more oxytocin being released when there is actual skin-on-skin contact?

Are there really compounds in semen which act as anti-depressants? If so, in what ways could they be absorbed into the body?? And would they only be effective in women???

Thanks.

2

As a male I would say that the release of semen is a mighty potent anti-depressant. :smiley:

Non-condom wearing seems to mean (to me) that the sex is known to be safe, as in a committed relationship with a non-diseased partner. Sex with condoms implies (IMO) that the relationship isn’t that close or there is concern for disease. I would guess that the participants in the former situation would generraly be a bit happier than the latter group. A stretch, I know…

3

I take my hat off to you, oh querymonger from Gobblers Knob.
I’ll have to move house.
(When I stop laughing)
:smiley:

4

Damn. I’ve got to remember this one. (Yeah, baby-it’s an anti-depressant! And it’ll condition your hair, too!)

5

Yes, but only if taken orally. :wink:

6

If this were true, men would never suffer from depression. They have an endless supply of the stuff.

The release is a perfect example of the logical fallacy “post hoc ergo propter hoc.”

7

I don’t understand what you mean, RealityChuck. How is it fallacious?

8

Don’t forget the nails. It’s good for their nails. I had an ex-GF who was proficient in the oral act of love tell me after a while, “…and my nails have never looked better! Must be all that protein.”

9

According to this New Scientist story it may be due to the following mood altering hormones present in semen:

“testosterone, oestrogen, follicle-stimulating hormone, luteinising hormone, prolactin and several different prostaglandins”

Also from the same source:

“Since the steroids in birth control pills survive the digestion process, I would assume that the same holds true for at least some of the chemicals in semen”

I would try telling this to my girlfriend, but i think she might laugh at me…

10

Wouldn’t that be “fellatious”?

I think RealityChuck’s point is that guys are constantly generating this stuff. If it’s an anti-depressant, guys should be benefiting from it, being the source and all that.

Unless it only works on women… :dubious:

11

No, I think RealityChuck is referring to a specific fallacy: post hoc, ergo propter hoc, from Latin, means “after this, therefore because of this.” In other words, simply because one action comes after another is not sufficient, on its own, to prove a relationship. See: Stephan’s Guide to Logical Fallacies

12

Note that the actual study cited above refers to not using condoms–not whether or not the semen was the chemical stimulus. Perhaps the condoms have a depressant.

13

Let’s not forget that sex just feels better without condoms. :smiley:
Nah, seriously, I’m inclined to agree with RealityChuck.

14

I was making both points: that the chemicals in semen would be constantly present in men, and that to connect the two bits of data to show causation was a logical fallacy.

Dogface indicates a conclusion that has as much validity as that of the study. It could also be true, for instance, that women who suffer from depression are more likely to insist their partner use a condom. Or that women who suffer from depression are more likely to lie about using condoms on a survey. In short, a claim of correlation with this one little fact is sloppy reasoning. More data is needed.

15

Or maybe that euphoric women prefer not to use condoms in the first place–party girls, all.

Maybe it’s the Orbital Mind Control lasers.