And the actual numbers suggest the opposite of their claims...
So if you want that paper to be of any use... print if off and put it in your camping kit so you can use it to start a fire.
First off... lets address the 800lb gorilla in the room. This study was done in Brazil.
No offense to any Brazilians here... but your country is kinda insane.
Anyway, lets put that to the side for a moment...
Their Aim: To investigate the behavioral characteristics of sex with animals (SWA) and its associations with penile cancer (PC) in a case-control study.
Their Conclusion: SWA is a risk factor for PC and may be associated with venereal diseases.
The first major point... They did this research all backwards. If they wanted to show a link between PC and SWA, they should have done a study on those that were having SWA... and not just a random sampling of people with a condition.
Putting the condition as the focus will only lead to bad conclusions... want proof.
Lets take this same method and apply it to another detail.
Lets test 492 Men of which 118 have penile cancer. Now lets check to see how many of those men have two hands. Welp... it looks like 100% of the men that have two hands also have penile cancer... thus having two hands is a risk factor to be associated with venereal diseases.
That's literally the scientific rigor and quality of this study.
Strike 1
A true study they'd have made sure all the men being questioned were having SWA.
So lets go ahead and do that from their information and see what we can determine.
In fact we don't even need to leave the abstract. Lets look at the actual numbers we're dealing with... not percentages in carefully framed sentences... lets look at the actual numbers.
374 Healthy Men
118 Penile Cancer
= 492 total men
The reports claims: SWA was reported by 171 (34.8%) subjects, 44.9% of PC patients and 31.6% of controls. So what does that actually mean in real world numbers and not percentages that we can understand.
Out of the 492, 34.8% (171) were having sex with animals... Ok... they state that... but how does that break down into the individual groups.
44.9% of 118 Men is 53 Men
31.6% of 374 Men is 118 Men.
So we're not even out of the abstract and we can already see a major detail they ignore...
There were twice as many healthy men having sex with animals than men with penile cancer.
That simple point pretty much invalidates what they're trying to conclude.
Strike 2
But we don't have to get much further into this shitty paper to find the biggest thing they ignore.
On Page 3...
Of the men in the PC group 73.7% admitted to having sex with prostitutes. In the healthy control group that was only 63.9%.
Brazil... Get your shit together... seriously.
Ok back to the numbers... lets do the math:
73.7% of 118 Men is 87 Men
63.9% of 374 Men is 239 Men.
This means that men with PC had a higher correlation rate of having sex with prostitutes than with SWA Animals... ~61% more.
MAYBE THIS HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT!?!?!?!?!
Maybe don't go sticking your dick in some nasty bitches!
Strike 3
This paper is worthless... except if you have a printed copy and need help starting a fire.
And seriously Brazil... Get your shit together... for real!
Aside from the paper being total shit as I explained... even if it was accurate and valid... This study is about men having penetrative sex with animals.
Nothing in this study could be construed to made any suggestions as to the results of animals having penetrative sex with human men... even less so about animals having penetrative sex with human females.
Like 3 out of 20 or 30 which us already ridiculously high))
