But upon further investigation, it kind of leaves me confused. From the headline, I think the article would go in details about how a new study proves that sex is good for women's self-esteem and health - but instead, most of the article is spent wondering if this could actually be the case.
Of course, the data needs to be scrutinized - and it's fair enough to say that the cause-and-effect here isn't so clear -
...it is impossible to determine if dissatisfied women had lower well-being because they were sexually dissatisfied, or if the reverse is true, such that women who started with lower well-being tended to secondarily have sexual dissatisfaction.Ok. So this is in a journal of medicine - it's going to be critical of data, as it should be. But why can't we focus on the benefits of having a healthy sex life - not the doubts that this claim brings up? I appreciate a good analysis of data, but I'm tired of people not being ready to say "SEX IS GOOD! DO IT!" There's always a caveat, it seems there's never any decisive reporting on these types of issues.
And furthermore, I wonder why this is even a study to begin with. By focusing it just on women, it insinuates that there are certain scientific doubts about women having sex in the first place (has anyone noticed this article that keeps showing on the CCN homepage? jeez). Why are we questioning why women have sex, and whether it is good for women? Nobody seems to be asking these questions about male sexual behaviors...hmmm....
I guess this study is important to dispel beliefs about female pleasure and women being sexually active, but the tone just puts me off, somehow. There has got to be a better way to report on these issues, and a more unambiguous, frank way to present this data.