The study later got retracted due to backlash but the fact that it happened at all if fucking baffling.
Don’t forget this study that instead of studying the causes or cures for endo studied the mental effects of the men in a relationship with someone who has endo.
You must log in or # to comment.
I’ve watched my best friend with this go from getting told “We can’t do a hysterectomy, you might want to have kids!” (despite protests to the contrary) to “well, we can’t be sure you have it without invasive surgery” to “you’re almost menopause age, it’ll go away then”.
I’m furious for her, it’s been tough to watch at times.
I can add one to that… My partner has it. Like 100% without a doubt has it. Surgically confirmed, when she had her tubes removed. They said there was so much endo that they couldn’t even remove all of it without a blood transfusion. Again, she cannot get pregnant without donated eggs and in vitro fertilization, because she has no fallopian tubes at all.
They’ve refused to do a full hysterectomy, because “but you might want to do in vitro later…”
Im confused. Can you not just tell them to do it anyways? How can they refuse?
I’m guessing these are USian posters, but you’d perhaps be surprised at the shit that EU doctors spout, too. One does not simply ‘get healthcare’, especially as a woman.
I don’t know how you get them to do what you’re asking but they can refuse by simply saying no. And if you are insufficiently servile in accepting that they will find ways of punishing you.
“How do we find a doctor who will cooperate?” is a great way to find out what kind of secret things doctors and hospitals can do to fuck up your life for threatening to go around them or hurting their feelings.
Reading all the comments in this whole goddamn post infuriates me to no end. I have an elderly friend with bipolar who got chewed up and spit out by the legal/medical system because she wasn’t the most cooperative and they basically did things like put her on a heavy dose of haldol which turned her into a zombie to make her more cooperative and fuck with her heart meds almost like they were trying to give her heart attack. It’s part of the reason I hate doctors.
Hating doctors for the state of healthcare is like hating fast food workers for the state of the fast food industry. Very few of them are actual owners and every franchise is a front for some rent extraction by an inheritor leech. Any remaining quality just means the owner class didn’t extract enough value from it.
Your comparison is stupid. Fast food workers have almost no power over the people they serve. Doctors have an immense amount of power to fuck up your life especially if you’re legally required to do what they say. Not an insignificant number will do so if you hurt their feelings. All you need to do is read some of the comments on this post to be informed of that. It’s a problem with the system and a number of individuals with power in the system. I hate doctors because I can never know beforehand if one that I’m seeing is such an individual.
Curious is this was in progressive state or not. Or was it another country altogether.
You’re watching Healthcare for Women, after the break, a special feature on “your chronic pain and fatigue isn’t real”.
I considered posting this to !mildlyinfuriating@lemmy.world instead but im far more than mildly pissed about this whole thing.
We need a community like hotlyinfuriating, fuckinginfuriating or just infuriating.
“I applied for this grant as a joke, but they actually accepted it. Now I have to work with these creeps. How the fuck do I scientifically evaluate ‘attractiveness’?”
You’d be surprised what the male dominated “academic sphere” will fund and research.
I am most certainly not surprised.
Conclusions of the study:
“Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged to be more attractive than those in the two control groups. Moreover, they had a leaner silhouette, larger breasts, and an earlier coitarche.”.
Coitarche was a new word for me.
It leaves room for terms like coitarche nemesis
Genuinely don’t see the issue with either.
Attractiveness of people suffering from illnesses is not a rare study really.
Quick Google Scholar search revealed for example these three:
Physical attractiveness and mental illness
Physical Attractiveness and Maladjustment Among Psychiatric Inpatients
I don’t see any sociologists ever working on finding a cure or a cause of illnesses.
Similarly, the mental health effects of illnesses on their partner is also not a rare study:
Quality of Life: Impact of Chronic Illness on the Partner
The Impact of Partner Alcohol Problems on Women’s Physical and Mental Health
My Illness or Our Illness? Attending to the Relationship When One Partner Is Ill.
I have not read any of these studies btw because neither sociology or medicine is a field I’m studying.
Still, I don’t see the issue with funding such studies. It doesn’t take away any resources whatsoever from researchers attempting to find cures/causes. (Partially because academia is so underfunded, you’d be hard pressed trying to find something to even take away)
Yes, but, clout and engagement >>>> rational thought.
You quoted a bunch of studies about mental health/addiction and attractiveness. It’s should be self-evident why those two things are related.
You didn’t address the topic and quote any studies about physical health and attractiveness. Furthermore, you didn’t quote any studies about female sexual health and attractiveness. Furthermore, you didn’t quote any sources about Caucasian female sexual health and attractiveness. Most importantly you didn’t give us a reason why this particular study needed to happen more than a different junk science study with dubious motivations.
I picked the first results with meaningful amounts of citations. Not an ideal metric but at least correlated with relevance.
It should be self-evident why those two things are related
But that’s the entire point? Correlations that seem obvious MUST be proven by data. Also, why isn’t it obvious that endometriosis may affect attractiveness? From the retracted study itself:
Multiple studies have contributed a general phenotype associated with the disease (3–12). Intriguingly, such an emerging phenotype appears to be indirectly linked with attractiveness, because several of the physical characteristics studied, including body size, body mass index (BMI), and pigmentary traits (4, 5, 7, 8, 11–13), have an impact on perception of beauty (14, 15).
I haven’t actually read any citations or further. Still, this reasoning seems plausible to me. If endometriosis does actually correlate with a certain phenotype - which I don’t know is true or not, as again I haven’t read the citations - then this relation becomes self-evident just as much as the studies I quoted.
Also, I don’t see why quoted studies must be about the same exact topic. “Caucasian” [why does English even use this outdated term still] female sexual health and its relation to attractiveness sounds like one of these hyperspecific topics where finding relevant studies requires knowledge about which keywords to look for. Knowledge I don’t have.
And I have no clue about what other “junk science” there is in human health research. How would I even be able to point to any other topic there? Besides I am unable to determine whether any study in a field I have zero experience in is junk or not. From Wikipedia:
Junk science has been defined as:
- “science done to establish a preconceived notion—not to test the notion, which is what proper science tries to do, but to establish it regardless of whether or not it would hold up to real testing.”[5]
- “opinion posing as empirical evidence, or through evidence of questionable warrant, based on inadequate scientific methodology.”[6]
- “methodologically sloppy research conducted to advance some extrascientific agenda or to prevail in litigation.”[4]
If you have experience in that general field and can point out why it is junk, please do so.
You picked a bunch of studies where the correlation is obvious.
You have still given no reason why there was a correlation in this study: For example, give me a reason I shouldn’t believe this study wasn’t just a few horny “researchers” trying to get laid. If you read the abstract of the study…they don’t even propose a correlation, or the corresponding reasoning for doing the study in the first place.
You did, however, bloviate and muddy the waters a lot.
correlation is obvious
If a correlation isn’t immediately obvious, should it not be studied?
The abstract - if it can be even called that, seems more like a technical summsry to me - is useless btw, my quote is from the introduction. It’s more readable and goes a bit into the motivation of the research, which is roughly (if the citations are in order):
Women with endometriosis tend to have a certain phentoype. This phenotype shares traits that correlate with attractiveness. The research question follows: Are women with endometriosis more attractive than those without?
And the researchers were split evenly into men and women (assuming their gender from their names). Perhaps the three women happen to be bisexual or lesbian but I’d argue the chances of them trying to get laid are… very low at best. Do researchers even get laid from doing any studies? I couldn’t think of anything less attractive than analyzing someone’s attractiveness on paper.
You didn’t make an argument. You just basically said “we can’t find out if they’re related unless we study them”.
I asked you to tell me why the study was done in the first place: what do we learn from the potential result? What potential scientific value did it serve? I didn’t ask you to filibuster me.
My hypothesis that the study was done to bring the researchers closer to attractive women is just as valid as any defence of the study.
Facts that make you want to slap fifty people at random
;(
I knew as a teenager that periods are worse for some women than for others, but only about a year ago, I got to know a woman - with endometriosis - who regularly passes out from the pain, even after taking pain meds. I feel just so, so sorry for her.
If I were head of the WHO, I would make eradicating this dreadful disease a priority on day 1.I have no love for the attractiveness crew of “researchers”, it is in my eyes lazy work that is actionably useless.
But I do want to stunt on that paper; kings couldn’t even shit out a conclusion? They just discuss then ditch? They end with a paragraph of gibberish then just roll references? These are true clowns
And no abstract, just a shittier intro with no substance? Prob no substance because this line of research is worthless, but still they didn’t even try to fluff it up.
Abs embarrassing to write that shit in 2013 and not have the wherewithal to pen an abstract, conclusion, competent intro, or a line of research that isn’t devoid of value to humanity.
2013 being blissfully free of GenAI, not covering the feckless’ work ethic.
I know exactly one person with endo
She’s pretty hot
Even does modelling
While infuriating, I love Lemmy and actually posting sources.
On topic, I don’t know how to feel because I value academic freedom but at the same time I just ask Why? Didn’t anyone think about it beforehand? Reading their apology was joyful. Can’t imagine how they felt.
And why would they retract it too? Isn’t only an apology correct for their purpose? Sigh.
Fun times that my friend had it so bad she was in bed for a couple of days in pain with her periods and this is what we get instead of studying a cure.
Fucking assholes
“I don’t want to live on this planet anymore”
While I don’t approve of this.
I do want to know.
Are people with endometriosis hotter than those without?
From the studies abstract.
[…] Patient(s): Three hundred nulliparous women. Intervention(s): Assessment of attractiveness by four independent female and male observers. Main Outcome Measure(s): A graded attractiveness rating scale. Result(s): A total of 31 of 100 women in the rectovaginal endometriosis group (cases) were judged as attractive or very attractive, compared with 8 of 100 in the peritoneal and ovarian endometriosis group and 9 of 100 in the group of subjects without endometriosis. A higher proportion of cases first had intercourse before age 18 (53%, 39%, and 30%, respectively). The mean SD body mass index in women with rectovaginal endometriosis, in those with other disease forms, and in those without endometriosis was, respectively, 21.0 2.5, 21.3 3.3, and 22.1 3.6. The median (interquartile range) waist-to-hip ratio and breast-to-underbreast ratio were, respectively, 0.75 (0.71–0.81), 0.76 (0.71–0.81), and 0.78 (0.73–0.83), and 1.15 (1.12–1.20), 1.14 (1.10–1.17), and 1.15 (1.11–1.18). Conclusion(s): Women with rectovaginal endometriosis were judged to be more attractive than those in the two control groups. Moreover, they had a leaner silhouette, larger breasts, and an earlier coitarche. (Fertil Steril 2013;99:212–8. 2013 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.)
This is so fucked up and absolutely hillarious at the same time, in an absurd, kafkaesque way.
What kind of sleepy misogynistic fuck proposes this idea, and how the fuck does it get approved?
I can see this having some utility for evolutionary science - why do so many women have such a horrible disease? Because of mate selection.
There’s a hypothesis that homosexuality evolved because it’s caused by genes that also cause greater attractiveness and/or fertility, so the genes are propagated by straight family of gay people.
And the introduction is rather short. I will post it Here as well.
The observation that subjects with specific phenotypic traits are prone to the development of particular organic or psychiatric disor- ders is an old medical tenet. Nowadays, these relationships tend to be explained based on genotype-phenotype associa- tions, which have been suggested for over one hundred disorders, including diabetes, obesity, Crohn’s disease, and hypertension (1, 2). Along this line, some recent advances in endometriosis research fit this view, as multiple studies have contributed to the definition of a general phenotype associated with the disease (3–12). Intriguingly, such an emerging phenotype appears to be indirectly linked with attractiveness, because several of the physical characteristics studied, including body size, body mass index (BMI), and pigmentary traits (4, 5, 7, 8, 11–13), have an impact on perception of beauty (14, 15). A biological gradient between the degree of expression of these traits and the degree of severity of endometriosis has also emerged. As an example, with regard to body size and figure, an inverse relationship has been observed between BMI and severity of the disease in general (8), and in particular in patients with deep endometriosis (12). Despite this growing body of evidence, studies formally investigating attractiveness in women with endo- metriosis are lacking. To verify the potential relationship between endometriosis and attrac- tiveness, and to substantiate a pos- sible biological gradient between aggressiveness of the disease and de- gree of attractiveness, we designed a case-control study recruiting three groups of subjects, that are, women with deep rectovaginal forms, women with peri- toneal implants and/or ovarian cysts but without rectovaginal lesions, and women without endometriosis. The degree of physical attractiveness, the main study outcome, was assessed by independent female and male observers. Secondary out- comes were definition of selected morphological characteris- tics and sexual habits. Information on pain at intercourse and on sexual functioning in the three study groups is reported elsewhere.
I dont See how this study aides the body of research but I am also not in that field.
