He says the study did control for number of acts of anal sex. And, like Tim says, the association was statistically significant. I would agree that this study doesn’t mean people should stop using lube, but at the least should spur further research. Sex educators used to push nonoxynol 9 too, before both laboratory & human studies found it to be harmful with frequent use.

And so many thanks

I get that the headline “New Research: Using Lube for Anal Sex May Increase STI & HIV Risk” and the opening sentence “The findings of two studies presented this week at the 2010 International Microbicides Conference in Pittsburgh indicate that using lubricants for anal sex may increase the receptive partner’s risk for contracting sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including HIV.” are in the conditional sense. And I agree that they’re factually true.

And yet, from personal experience as a sex educator, I have a strong expectation that many people will interpret this as “lubes cause STIs.” I’ve seen it with this sort of thing before- people will filter what they hear when it comes to any topic, and especially when it comes to sex. While I certainly don’t hold you responsible for the general lack of reading comprehension or critical thinking skills, I think that it’s important to keep that in mind. I’m not surprised to hear that “it never occurred to [you] to question the conventional wisdom of using lubricants to facilitate anal sex”. And I also won’t be surprised to hear that other people who don’t have your level of knowledge will respond differently. For that matter, I expect that some of the many people who argue that anal sex is bad/sinful/dirty/disgusting will see the headline and say, “see! I always knew that was a bad thing to do.” While one purpose of a headline is to grab attention and possibly entice people to read further, a lot of people won’t but they’ll remember the headline and base an opinion on it.

It’s really easy to say that a writer needs to assume a basic level of comprehension and I’m certainly not suggesting that you need to coddle your readers. I do think one needs to see how things like this fit into a larger picture and choose language that reflects that. Given the appalling state of education and the common lack of critical thinking skills, combined with sex-negativity, inaccurate sex information, and myths & fears around anal sex, I would have gone with something like “Using Some Lubes for Anal Sex May Increase STI & HIV Risk” or “The findings of two studies presented this week at the 2010 International Microbicides Conference in Pittsburgh indicate that using some lubricants for anal sex may increase…” Of course, since I’m a sex educator, that’s my lens.

And you’re right- I made a sweeping statement about the various news articles that didn’t fully reflect your careful use of language. I’ve fixed that and I appreciate your pointing it out to me. My frustration with the impact of confusing language on people’s level of knowledge around sex got the better of me. I’ll also fix it on the GV site.

My headline “New Research: Using Lube for Anal Sex May Increase STI & HIV Risk” is entirely factual based on the research as released to the press. The headline is not declarative; rather, it employs the conditional tense to signal the possible correlation between a contributing factor (i.e., use of lube) and an outcome (i.e., increased risk for infection). The press release from the 2010 International Microbicides Conference, which was linked in the body of my article, uses the same tense to describe the findings of the two studies discussed in my article: “Use of lubricants with anal sex could increase risk of HIV.” I note that in your post, you do not make any mention of this headline, which was the basis for all of the headlines that you claim “incite as much fear as possible.”

In your post, you describe both studies (as do I) and offer your own critique of the methodology used by both teams of scientists. Yes, both investigations are limited in their scope, which the authors of both abstracts take pains to elucidate in both the scientific abstracts and the interpretive summaries for the lay public. As a member of the lay public with regard to biology, immunology, physiology, and other scientific disciplines, I am not qualified to criticize research methodology or the significance of research findings. However, having spent nearly a decade successfully writing interpretive summaries and press releases about scientific research funded by the United States Dept. of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institutes of Aging, and other respected scientific agencies and/or bodies, I am confident in my ability to present scientific research in a clear and even-handed manner based on scientists’ presentation of their own data. In order to launch a critique of scientific research in terms of both methodology and results, a critic must elucidate the established parameters of scientific inquiry in order to demonstrate precisely how and where the researchers failed to maintain those parameters. You do not do this. For example, you state “the difference in percentages seems significant” with regard to the study by Gorbach et al., but you do not acknowledge that the given parameters of the study precisely establish those percentages as statistically significant. You do not, in fact, define statistical significance or any other element of accepted scientific inquiry anywhere in your blog post. Furthermore, with regard to the study by Russo et al., you dismiss their findings because the investigation was in vitro and not in vivo. As a scientist, I am sure you are aware that in vitro studies are necessary in order to establish responsible parameters for any in vivo study.

You are absolutely right that anyone who reads this basic research must do so critically and not make preliminary data a rule of thumb. You are also correct that the data presented in both of these studies do not yet have practical application to the “real world,” by which I mean accepted and recommended practice. Nowhere in my presentation of the findings of either study do I editorialize or make any sort of comment about the validity of the methodology or the findings.

What dismays me the most about your post is that you never mention anywhere the actual content of my news item. A headline is not the whole story or even part of it. You never mention the content of ANY of the articles that you cite as having irresponsible, inaccurate, or fear-mongering headlines. Those that read my news item will find that the opening sentence maintains the conditional tense of the headline, which establishes that the findings are inconclusive. This is followed by a declarative statement communicating that both research teams acknowledge, as I would expect them to, that further research is warranted before any conclusions can be drawn. My own conclusion of the summaries of the research repeats this. However, I do acknowledge that I could have taken more care in the body of my news item to emphasize the preliminary aspects of the results from both studies.

Contrary to the assertion in your conclusion (“It’s really easy to panic, especially when news outlets are making false statements”), there is not, based on the presented research, a single false statement in either my headline or in the body of my article.

I’d like to add a personal note to my critique of your argument as well. As an HIV-positive gay man who engages in anal sex, I am extremely interested in any research as well as any polemic that may have an impact on my life and health. I also use this perspective when making editorial decisions for the publication for which I am responsible. I agree with your prescription to your readers that they should “take a deep breath and relax” with regard to news that may, however inconclusively, affect the way they lead their lives, including their sex lives. You and your readers may be interested to know that I discussed the findings of these studies with my doctor, a noted expert in the treatment of HIV, and my nurse, a highly regarded expert in rectal health. Both found these studies intriguing and thought this was research worth reporting AND following.

Despite my academic and professional training, critical faculties, and innate skepticism, it never occurred to me to question the conventional wisdom of using lubricants to facilitate anal sex. The findings of these studies, in my opinion, help us to hone not only our critical skills but also our frames of reference. We need only look back to the early history of the AIDS crisis to ascertain that science sometimes (and necessarily so) takes time to catch up to conventional wisdom, and conventional wisdom really only requires an awareness of prejudices and frames of reference in order to develop. Recall that it was not until 2-3 years into the AIDS crisis before science could definitively establish a connection between AIDS and sexual activity after many, scientists included, intuited it to be so. More time still was required before it was generally accepted, despite the mounting circumstantial evidence and death toll, that the disease was also blood borne. Frankly, as a practicing sodomite, I am pleased to have my perspective broadened by the factual presentation of these preliminary studies, complete with their conditional tenses and caveats, in such a way as to inform, whether positively or negatively, my choices with regard to the products and methods I employ for sex.

In conclusion, your assertions about false claims and irresponsibility are undermined by two significant factors in your post. The first is your failure to read beyond the headline, which, however grammatically and scientifically correct, is not the story. The second is your own statement that “I and my colleagues at Good Vibrations, we’re going to be following this closely so we can make sure we’re offering the best products and the most accurate information available.” We devoted fans of Good Vibes have always expected as much and have not, thus far, been disappointed, except perhaps by an incomplete assessment of the facts and their presentation.