Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by chromas on Thursday April 04 2019, @02:40PM   Printer-friendly
from the eat-me dept.

Submitted via IRC for AndyTheAbsurd

Oral sex is associated with reduced incidence of recurrent miscarriage[$]

In a matched case control study, 97 women with at least three unexplained consecutive miscarriages prior to the 20th week of gestation with the same partner were included. Cases were younger than 36 years at time of the third miscarriage. The control group included 137 matched women with an uneventful pregnancy. The association between oral sex and recurrent miscarriage was assessed with conditional logistic regression, odds ratios (ORs) were estimated. Missing data were imputed using Imputation by Chained Equations.

In the matched analysis, 41 out of 72 women with recurrent miscarriage had have oral sex, whereas 70 out of 96 matched controls answered positive to this question (56.9% vs. 72.9%, OR 0.50 95%CI 0.25-0.97, p = 0.04). After imputation of missing exposure data (51.7%), the association became weaker (OR 0.67, 95%CI 0.36-1.24, p = 0.21).

[EDIT: The paper is referring to females giving oral sex to males. --fyngyrz]


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Snow on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:00PM (11 children)

    by Snow (1601) on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:00PM (#824499) Journal

    Maybe women with vaginas that are -- let's say less than pleasant smelling/tasting -- harbour bacteria or be a result of medical conditions that may cause miscarriages.

    • (Score: 2) by opinionated_science on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:07PM (1 child)

      by opinionated_science (4031) on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:07PM (#824503)

      and there is a *small* testosterone dose , which for females might have an effect.

      Believe it or not , there have been other studies along this line, but of course, the data is hard to collect....

      • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @01:58AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @01:58AM (#824767)

        You can send (female) researchers around to collect my data any time you want.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:35PM (2 children)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:35PM (#824522)

      Alternate possible third factor for this correlation: The pregnant woman's partner.

      A woman who receives oral sex probably has a partner that cares about her well-being more than the woman who doesn't, so that partner will probably be doing a better job of caring for her during pregnancy. Plus, said woman is less likely to have gotten pregnant by accident, and also less likely to be trying to find an excuse not to be tied to this partner for the rest of her life caring for the little twerp (e.g. "miscarriages" caused by a visit to Planned Parenthood).

      --
      "Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:58PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:58PM (#824587)

        And since they're talking about women giving oral, a woman who is willing to give is probably less stressed, and with a happier partner, than one who isn't.

        • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:44PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:44PM (#824609)

          You're right that I, like many others, had the nature of who was giving and who was receiving backwards. In any event, I'm guessing that oral or lack thereof is some kind of indicator of the health of the relationship.

          --
          "Think of how stupid the average person is. Then realize half of 'em are stupider than that." - George Carlin
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:36PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:36PM (#824523)

      Maybe women with vaginas that are -- let's say less than pleasant smelling/tasting -- harbour bacteria or be a result of medical conditions that may cause miscarriages.

      Read TNSFA (The Not So Fine Abstract). That's not what they're talking about. It's in the first paragraph.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Snow on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:46PM (2 children)

        by Snow (1601) on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:46PM (#824530) Journal

        Oh, I see... roles reversed. Women giving, not receiving.

        • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @10:06PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @10:06PM (#824716)

          The way God intended.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @02:00AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @02:00AM (#824768)

            Jesus hates oral sodomy as much as the putting in the dirty place.

      • (Score: 2) by driverless on Friday April 05 2019, @01:58AM

        by driverless (4770) on Friday April 05 2019, @01:58AM (#824766)

        Is there a paper that says the same about threesomes? My wife has this hot friend that I'd like to get it on with. Oh, and we need another paper on A2M. And one on beer afterwards.

        Also, was this amazingly useful paper published in late March, just in time for the start of April?

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by EvilSS on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:47PM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:47PM (#824532)

      Future studies in women with recurrent miscarriage explained by immune abnormalities should reveal whether oral exposure to seminal plasma indeed modifies the maternal immune system, resulting in more live births.

      The study focused on women GIVING oral sex, not receiving.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:07PM (10 children)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:07PM (#824502)

    Giving, or receiving oral sex? Really, nowhere in the article do they make this clear?

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:10PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:10PM (#824505)

      a few months ago it was oral-sex causes increased rates of throat cancer

      one week bad, one week good, etc.

      oral sex is the new coffee

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:33PM (4 children)

      Giving, or receiving oral sex? Really, nowhere in the article do they make this clear?

      From TFA:

      A possible way of immunomodulation of the maternal immune system before pregnancy would be exposure to paternal antigens via seminal fluid to oral mucosa.

      Glossary:
      paternal == relating to fathers
      seminal fluid == semen
      oral mucosa == mucus membranes in the mouth

      --
      No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
      • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:38PM (3 children)

        by Osamabobama (5842) on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:38PM (#824606)

        Two of your glossary items are involved in cunnilingus, but the absence of the third leads me to infer that they are talking about giving oral sex.

        -Mr. Obvious

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
        • (Score: 3, Touché) by NotSanguine on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:45PM (2 children)

          Two of your glossary items are involved in cunnilingus, but the absence of the third leads me to infer that they are talking about giving oral sex.

          -Mr. Obvious

          I hate to break it to you Einstein, but cunnilingus *is* oral sex [wikipedia.org]:

          Oral sex, sometimes referred to as oral intercourse, is sexual activity involving the stimulation of the genitalia of a person by another person using the mouth (including the lips, tongue or teeth) or throat. Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on female genitals, while fellatio is oral sex performed on a penis.[1][2] Anilingus, another form of oral sex, is oral stimulation of a person's anus.

          That I actually have to quote wikipedia to you on this makes me feel sad for any sexual partners you might eventually have.

          --
          No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
          • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Thursday April 04 2019, @11:58PM (1 child)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Thursday April 04 2019, @11:58PM (#824738) Journal

            Is it just me, or do others reading this thread feel like they've entered a twilight zone where no one actually can comprehend anything others write?

            From your post, it's not clear to me that you actually understood GP, nor is it clear to me that GP comprehended your previous post either. What the heck are you two smoking?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @10:04AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @10:04AM (#824838)

              nfi
              I feel like I live in a permanent twilight zone

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:16PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:16PM (#824558)

      The bigger question (not kidding)... Did they spit or swallow?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @02:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @02:02AM (#824770)

        They must have swallowed because they got pregnant, didn't they?

  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:13PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:13PM (#824506)

    Correlation is not causation. Not only does the article not state whether the women were providers or recipients, but there is also no indication of how recent the activity needs to be to be counted in the study.

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by stretch611 on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:08PM (2 children)

      by stretch611 (6199) on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:08PM (#824547)

      Don't question the results... Just go with it and use it as fact in order to encourage more women to give head.

      --
      Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:14PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:14PM (#824592)

        Or get it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:25PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:25PM (#825359)

        For years I gave her oral pleasure with my tongue but she refused to give me head. After years of this I stopped giving her oral pleasure and gave up on foreplay. There's less sex but with the availability of porn that isn't a problem. Now I don't know why I bothered. She recently loudly refused to give me a blow job. Ever. I could only stand there and look at her wondering what the heck she meant because she never did anything like that for me. Again, there's always new porn every day.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by HiThere on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:32PM

      by HiThere (866) on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:32PM (#824576) Journal

      Actually, there's lots of reasons to be dubious about the study, e.g. the sample size is quite small. But it could be a good pointer for future more robust studies. Getting a good study is going to be difficult, though, as we don't even have a good estimate as to the frequency of miscarriages. And one may even wonder about the definition. E.g., does it count in the first month? The sixth week?

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:20PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:20PM (#824507)

    to examine anal sex (its effects on gut biome and its relationship with immune system), bestiality (for same reasons), and foot fetish (for effects of foot bacteria).

    So much potential here. Someone call the Nobel committee.

    • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:05PM (2 children)

      by stretch611 (6199) on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:05PM (#824544)

      Are you volunteering for the Bestiality? (or have you already done that research?)

      --
      Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
      • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:32PM (1 child)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:32PM (#824601) Journal

        I majored in animal husbandry. Until they caught me at it.

        --Tom Lehrer

        --
        LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE HAD A BIT TOO MUCH TO THINK
        Support your local thought police

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by LaminatorX on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:29PM

    by LaminatorX (14) <reversethis-{moc ... ta} {xrotanimal}> on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:29PM (#824512)

    Were the women with three miscarriages having the same amount of sexual relations overall as those in the control group, just less of it oral, or were they also having fewer sexual relations overall?

    Because if they just discovered that couples don't have as much sex when with the anxiety of multiple miscarriages hanging over them, than this falls into the "No shit, Sherlock." research.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:31PM (7 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday April 04 2019, @03:31PM (#824515) Journal

    Neither my girlfriend nor myself have ever had a miscarriage and we do this lots :) Science!

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:16PM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:16PM (#824560) Journal

      gud_data.xls

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:15PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @05:15PM (#824593)

      Oh, the sacrifices made in the name of science...

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday April 05 2019, @01:38AM (2 children)

      by Gaaark (41) on Friday April 05 2019, @01:38AM (#824758) Journal

      Yeah...pics or...
      ;)

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
      • (Score: 2) by chromas on Friday April 05 2019, @09:38PM (1 child)

        by chromas (34) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 05 2019, @09:38PM (#825137) Journal

        >--<-O~>--<-Ö

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:22PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 06 2019, @01:22PM (#825357)

          Which one is Azuma?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @10:07AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @10:07AM (#824839)

      I would like to believe you. Really I would. I just find it within myself to do so.
      Is there any evidence you'd like to publish to back this up? You know, for science, yes, for science

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday April 06 2019, @04:03AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Saturday April 06 2019, @04:03AM (#825274) Journal

        Well...granted we have a sample size of n=2, but we've been running an informal version of this experiment for more than half a decade now. Repeatability counts for something, no?

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 0, Offtopic) by RandomFactor on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:03PM (5 children)

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:03PM (#824543) Journal

    is that oral sex causes less impact trauma in the vicinity of the developing embryo, leading to less miscarriages?

    Doesn't seem like a big stretch (unlike pregnancy)

    --
    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:10PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:10PM (#824549)

    I first have to wonder if there is a substitution effect or not. Might the study really be counting total contact, all holes considered? (more use of one hole is correlated with more use of the other hole)

    Also, it should be clear that oral is ineffective for conception.

    That 56.9% vs. 72.9% is mighty disturbing. Either way, I'm in the minority. You people are sick. Only one hole, the vagina, is correct. Are you trying to increase baby birth weight by supplying protein? We have supermarkets you know.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 04 2019, @08:15PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 04 2019, @08:15PM (#824677) Journal

      You should read more - it can be educational. There is a prefix used with a couple words in the article - immuno. We don't yet seem to understand the immune system really well. But, they've been tossing around evidence, and suggestions, that oral sex can help a woman to conceive, especially if she's a swallower, for years. If the same activity also helps her to carry that baby full term, that wouldn't be surprising at all.

      All I hear you saying is, "Ewwww, I wouldn't try that!" Which is cool. None of us wants to get you pregnant either.

      --
      “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @07:42AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @07:42AM (#824825)

      Are you suggesting we start selling seminal fluid in supermarkets?

  • (Score: 2) by ilPapa on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:20PM (2 children)

    by ilPapa (2366) on Thursday April 04 2019, @04:20PM (#824566) Journal

    In other news, titty jobs have been shown to reduce the incidence of cancer in women.

    --
    You are still welcome on my lawn.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @06:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 04 2019, @06:34PM (#824630)

      Suggested pink-ribbon campaign slogan.

    • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday April 05 2019, @01:40AM

      by Gaaark (41) on Friday April 05 2019, @01:40AM (#824759) Journal

      and facials will stop aging!
      :)

      --
      --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. I have always been here. ---Gaaark 2.0 --
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday April 04 2019, @07:15PM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday April 04 2019, @07:15PM (#824648)

    I heard a paper quoted a long time ago that it also increased conception rates, possibly due to the, er, boys and their kiddie pool contents being considered less of a foreign substance over time. Miscarriages, though? That seems a little distant from the source, but hey, if you impute things using chained equations, I'm sure you could get there.

    Frankly though, people stuck by Wakefield's work but aren't full of righteous indignation over this? Eh, whatever. This is something you can keep on hand to throw in some English during an intelligent design discussion you might find yourself in.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 04 2019, @08:06PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 04 2019, @08:06PM (#824671) Journal

    Girls who like penis a lot are more likely to give birth than girls who don't like penis so much.

    --
    “I have become friends with many school shooters” - Tampon Tim Walz
  • (Score: 2) by DrkShadow on Friday April 05 2019, @12:44AM

    by DrkShadow (1404) on Friday April 05 2019, @12:44AM (#824749)

    If this is anything but as search through groups and other studies with naught on their mind but statistical p-values, I'll eat my shoe.

    They found a statistical likelihood amongst a pile of results and went "Oh look! We can claim something with p=0.04!" ..... shit. Did they even say that they controlled for anything at all?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @01:40AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @01:40AM (#824760)

    No one has a mouth big enough to fit a typwriter in.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @06:16AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 05 2019, @06:16AM (#824814)

    Oral sex, your honor...

(1)