I’m not writing about a disease this week. I know this, you don’t have to comment and chide on me about it. It’s not because I’ve run out of diseases to write about, but because my brain doesn’t work in a particularly directed kind of way sometimes. This is what it came up with this week.
I was reading my feed the other day and an article called “Having oral sex increases likelihood of intercourse among teens” came up. Naturally, the first thing that came to mind was “No shit”. The second was “How could someone get paid for researching this? With people dying everyday from both curable and incurable diseases, how can you justifiably look at what teenagers do with their private bits, then publish the completely obvious results?”.
The study showed that teenagers who engaged in oral sex by year 10 had a 50% chance of losing their virginity by the end of year 11, compared to 16% of teens who didn’t have oral sex by year 10; an obvious conclusion to anyone who went to high-school.
This study isn’t alone in the obviousness of its results (Thanks to NCBI ROFL for making compilation of this list easier):
“Spouses with identical residential addresses before marriage: an indicator of pre-marital cohabitation.“, showing that the majority of English and Welsh newly-weds live together before marriage;
“Don’t want to show fellow students my naughty bits: medical students’ anxieties about peer examination of intimate body regions at six schools across UK, Australasia and Far-East Asia”, showing that first year med students don’t like their classmates formally examining their genitals and breasts.
“Determinants and consequences of female attractiveness and sexiness: realistic tests with restaurant waitresses.“, showing that more attractive waitresses get more tips.
Scientists usually take their money from taxpayers to do their research. So, do these studies that show ridiculously obvious conclusions deserve your money?