Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Gay men more likely to suffer sexual dysfunction on prostate cancer drugs

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Thats a very small test I think they need to do one with more research participants before they can be so certain. Also gay men are less likely to get prostate cancer so I think it evens out lol

    1. Dan Filson 23 Jun 2011, 6:03pm

      “gay men are less likely to get prostate cancer” – really? Is that because of regular stimulation of the prostate? Does it then follow that the more often you get shafted the less vulnerable you are to cancer. There’s a health education message I’d like to see on posters.

  2. With such a small sample it is statistically so uncertain as to be meaningless. I don’t know why Pink News even bothered with the story – must be a slow news day!

  3. Eddy - from 2007 22 Jun 2011, 1:19pm

    “The men were asked to rate their sexual functioning in six categories, including erectile function, orgasmic function and sexual desire.”

    The results appear to hinge entirely on what the homosexual men and the heterosexual men REPORTED.

    One possibility is that the average gay man is more sensitive to the degree of sexual satisfaction that he experiences, than is the average straight man.

    For example, the average straight man will not declare that he has lost any degree of sexual pleasure whatsoever around, in, or deep inside his rectum!

    Your gay man, however, WILL notice a reduction of pleasure in this area.

  4. “Gay men” in studies like this are necessarily men who identify themselves as gay. This group will be more open about sexuality issues than the general population because they have taken the step of coming out.

    Reporting sexual dysfunction is a notorious taboo and men require a significant amount of that same quality of openness that the group of “gay men” have in order to be honest about it. Considering that the study apparently measured sexual dysfunction solely by asking the subjects about it, this difference in openness between “gay men” and the general population may explain the difference completely.

    1. Sorry, i now see that Eddy – from 2007 has made precisely this same point.

  5. this is a laugh right. So a drug can decide on your sexualiy and how it react to it. What a piss poor test, and should be ignored.

  6. Spanner1960 22 Jun 2011, 2:57pm

    What a bizarre discovery.
    Maybe the survey, or it’s applicants are all a bit skewed, but I find it more interesting that they ever researched this subject in the first place.

  7. Romania doing studies on medicine for gay men? Romania? Why? Its hardly the beacon of hope for gay rights. Suspicious study. Especially when the US scientist involved wrote a book about gender identity disorders and is part of a faith based lutheran university.

  8. A study of 29 individuals is hardly a good basis for any conclusions.
    As a cancer survivor, I do know that individuals with the same variety of a particular cancer can react to drugs in very different ways. Cancer is a very ‘individual’ disease. This study is way too small to prove, or disprove, anything.

  9. Rich (original) 22 Jun 2011, 8:59pm

    Good news, so far, and I hope the suffering will be deeper, Inshallah!

  10. Slow news day?

    1. Slow enough, but fast enough for Rich “the original” to get overly histrionic about the whole thing. Bless.

  11. In the abstract the authors suggested that androgens would work in association with female sexual pheromones in some men while estrogens could work in association with male sexual pheromones in the other men. Sexual orientation is a bio-psycho-social condition. Biological factors (male sexual pheromones) can come from your sexual partner or from your own body. Consequently, men depending on estrogens and on male sexual pheromones could develop either a homosexual or heterosexual behavior. In other words, sexual orientation is a condition that strongly depends by psychological and social context, which can vary among individuals.
    I think that the article regarding psychosexual dualism is by far more important (Ion G. Motofei. A dual physiological character for cerebral mechanisms of sexuality and cognition: common somatic peripheral afferents. BJU International, 2011; DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10116.x); a scientific revolution could perhaps follow.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all