Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Daily Sex Helps Improve Fertility

samzenpus posted about 5 years ago | from the use-it-or-lose-it dept.

Medicine 174

mmmscience writes "While fertility studies lately seem to have been exclusively focused on in vitro fertilization [IVF], new data coming out of Australia may help with unaided successful conceptions. The study has found that men who have ejaculate daily produce sperm with less damaged DNA. While such actions decrease sperm concentration, it does increase motility, meaning healthier sperm have a better chance of making it all the way to the egg. Good news, as another report has found severe chromosome abnormalities in over 90% of IVF eggs, meaning artificial insemination is just now discovering a whole new field of problems."

cancel ×

174 comments

Nothing to do with sex... (5, Funny)

0100010001010011 (652467) | about 5 years ago | (#28552811)

Although if 'twice a day' helps, all of slashdot should have near perfect DNA.

Now to just find someone to spread it to..

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (4, Funny)

langelgjm (860756) | about 5 years ago | (#28552845)

Right, because what this world needs is a bunch of Slashdotters reproducing :-P

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (5, Informative)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#28553155)

You can count my DNA will be *great*, as I wank atleast 4 times a day.

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (1)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | about 5 years ago | (#28554017)

What about the decrease in ejaculatory volume? When you shoot the first mega-nut, the next nut after that is 50-25% the volume of the first nut, and then it decreases substantially from there. What I want is the formula which specifies average increases in motility with decreases in volume.

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (1, Flamebait)

Plekto (1018050) | about 5 years ago | (#28554099)

You can count my DNA will be *great*, as I wank at least 4 times a day.

The problem, though, is that guys who don't get any and usually need to resort to those tactics are also less likely to be prime specimens. This would explain why the world seems to be getting dumber - those idiots who don't get any - when they *finally* do by some miracle, they have great chances of having stupid kids.

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (3, Insightful)

sgbett (739519) | about 5 years ago | (#28555269)

If being able to 'get it' is considered an important quality for improving the gene pool then god help us all.

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (4, Funny)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about 5 years ago | (#28554573)

You can count my DNA will be *great*, as I wank atleast 4 times a day.

Hats off to those modding the above "informative"

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553179)

Have you looked at the rest of the world recently? You have to get waaaaaay down there to drag the average down...

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (5, Funny)

sopssa (1498795) | about 5 years ago | (#28553191)

Sorry, I browse the world at +4

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553549)

That's cause the world is pretty redundant at -1

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (5, Insightful)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#28554891)

Actually, yes. Yes it does. As bad as this group is, it's far above the common troll. Consider idiocracy [imdb.com] . Now go read 4chan, MSNBC, CNN and Fark. Then come back and comment about how the people here need to surrender their reproductivity to support the Darwinian selection of those mental giants.

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (4, Funny)

sys.stdout.write (1551563) | about 5 years ago | (#28552929)

Wow, I guess every sprem is sacred, for its death helps others succeed.

Catholicism could learn a lot from this study!

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (5, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 5 years ago | (#28553001)

All those sperm, dying for your sins. That's ironic on so many levels.

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (2, Interesting)

wireloose (759042) | about 5 years ago | (#28553535)

Well, we knew most of this same information in the 60's/70's. Not exactly news now, we knew that sperm "aged" and degraded.

More work happened in the 90's. http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/8/8/1251 [oxfordjournals.org]

Meanwhile, this article pretty well describes the reason that most slashdotters have (or will soon have) pattern baldness: http://www.steadyhealth.com/articles/Consequences_of_over_masturbation_a589_f0.html [steadyhealth.com]

Re:Nothing to do with sex... (1)

AmigaHeretic (991368) | about 5 years ago | (#28553649)

>>Although if 'twice a day' helps, all of slashdot should have near perfect DNA.

Yeah, the Mormons should start recruiting on Slashdot. We could breed like mofos for them if we could just get girls.

Good news (3, Insightful)

Starlon (1492461) | about 5 years ago | (#28552815)

For the porn industry.

Summary misleading (5, Insightful)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 5 years ago | (#28552823)

While the news services have all been reporting that Daily Sex will improve fertility - surely a more accurate description would be that daily ejaculation (via whatever means) improves fertility.

Re:Summary misleading (5, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 5 years ago | (#28552933)

Yes, but the headline "Daily Ejaculation Helps Improve Fertility" would not help convince my wife to have sex with me. It would instead encourage her to send me to the bathroom with the SI Swimsuit issue.

That is no good.

I would prefer the headline to stay as it is, or perhaps to be changed to "Daily Receipt of Fellatio Helps Improve Fertility".

But I think that might be too much to ask for.

Re:Summary misleading (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | about 5 years ago | (#28553007)

I would prefer the headline to stay as it is, or perhaps to be changed to "Daily Receipt of Fellatio Helps Improve Fertility".

News: BILL CLINTON POSTS ON SLASHDOT!

Speaking of receipts - wouldt paying for getting a "Monica" now be tax-deductible as preventative medicine or something?

Re:Summary misleading (1)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 5 years ago | (#28553089)

News: BILL CLINTON POSTS ON SLASHDOT!

[WJC voice] Ah feel your... tongue [/WJC voice]

Something tells me that Hillary would NOT have wanted Bill to be fertile when they were in the White House... I don't think raising another crotch potato would have fit in with her career plans.

Re:Summary misleading (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | about 5 years ago | (#28553013)

"I would prefer the headline to stay as it is, or perhaps to be changed to 'Daily Receipt of Fellatio Helps Improve Fertility'"

Well, if the mechanism they propose is right then it's literally true. You could set up an experiment to prove it.

Re:Summary misleading (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#28554903)

Well, if the mechanism they propose is right then it's literally true. You could set up an experiment to prove it.

Some grant potential here. This is not a bookmark.

Re:Summary misleading (1)

timeOday (582209) | about 5 years ago | (#28553349)

Since the theory is that stale sperm go bad, you might not get to (er, need to) "refresh" every day - only the day before you need some high quality stuff. (If so, the rationale for daily action is undermined.) That is my theory. Please cite me in your next study, thx.

Re:Summary misleading (5, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 5 years ago | (#28553389)

When I sent my wife this article, she suggested we try "annual sex". Sounds pretty kinky to me. But first, I'm going to have to help her with her spelling.

Re:Summary misleading (4, Funny)

rubycodez (864176) | about 5 years ago | (#28553659)

sounds better than aural sex

Re:Summary misleading (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554459)

Come again?

Re:Summary misleading (3, Funny)

ciderVisor (1318765) | about 5 years ago | (#28555141)

Prick up your ears !

Re:Summary misleading (4, Funny)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 5 years ago | (#28553559)

I would prefer the headline to stay as it is, or perhaps to be changed to "Daily Receipt of Fellatio Helps Improve Fertility".

Shush - you're getting my husband all excited with the concept.

Re:Summary misleading (0, Redundant)

aknowles (530992) | about 5 years ago | (#28553627)

More good news: Oral Sex Good for Your Fetus? http://www.momlogic.com/2009/06/is_oral_sex_good_for_your_fetu.php [momlogic.com]

Not entirely (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | about 5 years ago | (#28554171)

There is a small report at the end of this article that seems to mention that the above headline may not be entirely true after all. But ofcourse, we are going to keep it to ourselves.

Re:Summary misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28555035)

You need to wonder what good "improved fertility" will do your wife? It may be that she may want to conceive once every few years, but here's to hoping she looks like a swimsuit model herself by that time....

Re:Summary misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28552943)

Good heavens! All my ejaculations are verbal! I have a ghastly feeling that they're not going to help!

Re:Summary misleading (1)

arekusu_ou (1344373) | about 5 years ago | (#28553003)

Leave it to a slashdotter to take focus away from the benefits of daily sex.

Re:Summary misleading (1)

cbiltcliffe (186293) | about 5 years ago | (#28553213)

Not really surprising, considering that Macgrrl is, well, a girl....

Re:Summary misleading (1)

youn (1516637) | about 5 years ago | (#28553301)

Lol, actually a girl, on slashdot... that is surprising ( although a pleasant surprise :) ),

Re:Summary misleading (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553491)

Pics or it didn't happen.

Re:Summary misleading (4, Funny)

Macgrrl (762836) | about 5 years ago | (#28553583)

don't you mean "Screen Shot or it didn't happen"?

Re:Summary misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553995)

No he got it right the first time.

Re:Summary misleading (1)

ocularDeathRay (760450) | about 5 years ago | (#28554493)

So if I understand this article, your sig alone has already helped my fertility 3 times

Hold on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28552827)

Does masturbation count?

Re:Hold on... (2, Informative)

fiannaFailMan (702447) | about 5 years ago | (#28552859)

Does masturbation count?

Yes

Re:Hold on... (5, Funny)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 5 years ago | (#28552907)

Does masturbation count?

Yes

Oh thank god.

Re:Hold on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554339)

No - don't thank God, cause she's gonna get REALLY IRATE about all this spoof not going to proper use, and she'll probably take drastic action and find some way to chop off all your johnsons, you naughty, naughty boys. Put that thing away, it'll explode if you play with it so much.

Re:Hold on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554997)

Does masturbation count?

Yes

Oh thank god.

If DNA-quality is important to you...

Re:Hold on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554237)

Does it matter?

slashdotters... (4, Funny)

Luyseyal (3154) | about 5 years ago | (#28552841)

Slashdotters would be lucky to get once a month, much less daily...

-l

Re:slashdotters... (3, Funny)

HTH NE1 (675604) | about 5 years ago | (#28553103)

Slashdotters would be lucky to get once a month, much less daily...

Comic Book Guy: Inspired by the most logical race in the galaxy, the Vulcans, breeding will be permitted once every seven years. For many of you, this will be much less breeding. For me, much, much more.

Internet Filter (4, Funny)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | about 5 years ago | (#28552853)

Hmm... does that mean that if Senator Stephen Conroy's internet filter gets built, I can get a medical prescription to download porn?

Re:Internet Filter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553523)

I think the prescription would say something like, "take two candystripers and call me in the morning." Although having seen some of those candystripers - you may decide not to fill the prescription.

Re:Internet Filter (1)

Ocker3 (1232550) | about 5 years ago | (#28554051)

I reject your reality and substitute my own

I got ten bucks (1)

Deagol (323173) | about 5 years ago | (#28552855)

for the first person who applies a "fap" tag!

Re:I got ten bucks (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 5 years ago | (#28552897)

I take Paypal.

Re:I got ten bucks (1)

Deagol (323173) | about 5 years ago | (#28553661)

And I only use cash.

No worries, Slashdotters (1)

Nimey (114278) | about 5 years ago | (#28552891)

Masturbation works too.

90% ??? I call Bull. (4, Interesting)

MMC Monster (602931) | about 5 years ago | (#28552905)

IVF has been around a few years. In fact, it's been around since 1978, if you want to take it back to the first test tube baby.

I'm sure if there were "severe" chromosomal abnormalities we would have noticed by now.

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't any increased risk of chromosomal abnormalities associated with the procedure. But 90% chance of severe chromosomal abnormalities doesn't sound like it makes sense to me.

Are there are molecular geneticists in the house?

Re:90% ??? I call Bull. (5, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | about 5 years ago | (#28552979)

I'm sure if there were "severe" chromosomal abnormalities we would have noticed by now.

We have noticed. It is one of the reasons that multiple eggs are implanted, since so few of them are viable.

This is related to why we have so many multiple births from IVF -- sometimes 2 or more of the implanted eggs are viable.

Also note that IVF is done primarily when people have trouble conceiving normally, so incidence of abnormality should be high anyway... perhaps these abnormalities are part of the infertility issues that brought the patients to the fertility specialist in the first place.

Someone I know very well has tried IVF twice... out of all the eggs that it was tried with (I think 6 or 8 each time), only one egg was viable... and that one miscarried during week 5.

It's really not surprising to anyone who's been through it or has had frank discussions with someone who has.

Re:90% ??? I call Bull. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554917)

As far as I know the multiple IVF egg implants are particular to the USA. My experience (Australia) is that having one egg is implanted each time is normal practice unless there are other significant factors. The success rate varies from clinic to clinic and ranges from 25% to 40% with one egg (from memory).

Also as far as I know the morbidity of sperm in relation to frequency of ejaculation has been know for a considerable period of time. When my partner and I were going through IVF I was told to daily ejaculate for the month preceding the procedure (with a 3 day rest before the sample is taken).

Wikipedia, is a good starting point in regards to sperm morbidity for anyone who is interested.
Sperm [wikipedia.org]
Semen quality [wikipedia.org]
Semen Analysis [wikipedia.org]

Re:90% ??? I call Bull. (1)

tpjunkie (911544) | about 5 years ago | (#28553017)

I guessed, and confirmed upon reading, that the linked article is referring to the fact that human embryos naturally have a high rate of genetic abnormalities, and thus the fact that not every copulation during a woman's fertile period results in a pregnancy. The article explains that newer, more thorough screening mechanisms are flagging embryos that previously went undetected.

Re:90% ??? I call Bull. (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 5 years ago | (#28553107)

so its really good news, and more good news (unless you wanted to use the original good news to wank more) as better screening can help increase the pregnancy rate from IVF without filling people up and risking multiple births.

Re:90% ??? I call Bull. (1)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | about 5 years ago | (#28553081)

They pack plenty of eggs in there and still only get 30%-40%(if you trust numbers from US clinics selling IVF) and of those

In 2008, an analysis of the data of the National Birth Defects Study in the US found that certain birth defects were significantly more common in infants conceived with IVF, notably septal heart defects, cleft lip with or without cleft palate, esophageal atresia, and anorectal atresia; the mechanism of causality is unclear.

time for a back of the napkin calculation to not-really-but-sort-of prove my point:
10%*7(couldn't find a number for how many they fill you up with, so i made one up)*50%(other factors and multiple pregnancies counting as one) ~=30-40%

Re:90% ??? I call Bull. (1)

orngjce223 (1505655) | about 5 years ago | (#28553461)

time for a back of the napkin calculation to not-really-but-sort-of prove my point:
10%*7(couldn't find a number for how many they fill you up with, so i made one up)*50%(other factors and multiple pregnancies counting as one) ~=30-40%

I think they only put in three or four at most. The Octomom had more than twice the usual number implanted.

Re:90% ??? I call Bull. (1)

JuzzFunky (796384) | about 5 years ago | (#28553867)

I'm no molecular geneticist, but I am the proud father of a baby who was conceived through IVF. He shows no sign of chromosomal abnormalities (well, at least compared to his father).
We were lucky. It only took us a couple of cycles - our first miscarried and we were told that it was almost certainly due to severe chromosomal abnormalities.

"Less than 30% of conceptions result in a successful pregnancy" (TFA)

I understand that statistic to mean that more than 70% of natural conceptions have chromosomal abnormalities so severe that the embryo fails to implant. I find it quite plausible that 90% of the embryos from people who are having trouble conceiving are flawed.
Incidentally, It was recommended that we have sex every second day before my appointment with myself in the little room with the magazines.

Re:90% ??? I call Bull. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554523)

Anything for MORE flipper Babies! Yay!

Whoo-hoo! (4, Funny)

IonOtter (629215) | about 5 years ago | (#28552921)

Well, if frequent masturbation prevents cancer [google.com] , then baby, lemme tell ya? I could CURE cancer. And now this?

I just might start selling it, now?

Fresher Sperm (3, Insightful)

corsec67 (627446) | about 5 years ago | (#28552993)

It seems pretty simple to me: fresh sperm are better.

Re:Fresher Sperm (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554003)

Well, at least they taste better...

On autism! (4, Insightful)

tjstork (137384) | about 5 years ago | (#28552999)

I have an autistic son and I think that "causes of autism" are something that is used far too often. My wife and I have thought about this and we see in our son's autism some of our own traits as its forbears. Rather than the litany of plastic bottles, vaccines, carbon monoxide, indoor air pollution and other bogus causes, we now wonder if autism is actually part of a natural evolutionary response to dealing with an increasingly complex human society.

Perhaps we've evolved to deal with the fact that we are increasingly specialized, as our society feeds back into our own natural selection, and, we've reached a sort of a tipping point where autism is the next step.

We've been very fortunate in that our son has responded extremely well to aggressive therapy, all, by the way, provided by the taxpayer... (makes this old Republican rethink some of his own values). And, we wonder if, perhaps, a different sort of society might emerge from autism, that, we see it as a disability because we value our own communication so much. Perhaps autism is something that will never be cured, but, people who are autistic can move onto lead intelligent and productive lives if only there is intervention and ever better education and socialization for them and in a way that makes sense, for them.

Regardless of all of that though, I can say this. I'm proud of my son for who he is. When I first heard of his diagnosis, I almost felt like he had died and I was very angry about it. Sometimes, I admit, I still am. But, overall, if I could do it all over again, and make a choice about having an autistic child, I would gladly keep the son that I have.

I wouldn't trade him for anything in the world.

Re:On autism! (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553181)

not even for a Klondike bar?

Re:On autism! (2, Insightful)

Renraku (518261) | about 5 years ago | (#28553185)

So, the next step in evolution is to be inept-by-default at communication? One of the reasons we're so advanced? I agree that some social customs are way too complex, and that people need to be more forthcoming in general, but those are more personal flaws than flaws with society.

Re:On autism! - Wrong! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553201)

Well, unless your son is like 65 years old, then you and your wife have had a lifetime of exposure to these toxins, and you merely passed it on to him.

Wise up and read the studies about toxic chemicals.

Re:On autism! (4, Informative)

93,000 (150453) | about 5 years ago | (#28553381)

Not to be all Jenny Mcarthy on you, because I don't agree with her opinions on vaccinations, but many autistic kids benefit greatly from a gluten free diet. FWIW, I have no medical background other than that I happen to be celiac (which I know makes me inherently biased towards GF) and am a huge nerd who reads lots of boring research. Not implying that gluten is a 'cause', as you say, but just that the diet seems to work very well for many with autism. You've very likely heard of/explored that option, but thought I'd throw that out there just in case.

I admire you very much for your honesty, particularly about your initial feelings about your situation. I'm very glad you are in a good place. I wish you and yours the best.

Re:On autism! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553429)

There is a very interesting sci-fi book called Speed of Dark by Elizabeth Moon. The main character is autistic and its told from his point of view. He works with a group of other autistic programmers on pattern recognition software.

Re:On autism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554125)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Curious_Incident_of_the_Dog_in_the_Night-time [wikipedia.org]
The story is written in the first-person perspective of Christopher John Francis Boone, a 15-year-old boy living with autism in Swindon, Wiltshire. Although Christopher's condition within the autism spectrum is not stated explicitly within the novel, the summary on the book's inside cover or back cover (depending on the edition) describes it as Asperger syndrome, high-functioning autism or Savant syndrome.

Re:On autism! (3, Insightful)

orngjce223 (1505655) | about 5 years ago | (#28553487)

And I am proud of who I am (officially diagnosed, you insensitive clod!) - and, judging from the growth of forums such as Wrongplanet, the rise in Autism may be perfectly balanced with the rise in the prominence of the Internet. Over textual communication, nobody cares that you flap your hands, or that you can't keep eye contact without getting this weird fidgety feeling, or that you don't quite get anything until the second or third time.

Re:On autism! (1)

JordanL (886154) | about 5 years ago | (#28553539)

I would just appreciate if scientists could explain whether autism is developmental or genetic. I haven't seen anything diffinitive either way.

Re:On autism! (1)

porcupine8 (816071) | about 5 years ago | (#28553655)

I assume you mean environmentally-caused or genetic? Because "developmental" and "genetic" are in no way whatsoever opposites of each other or mutually exclusive in the least. Even if you do mean environmental, it's a false dichotomy. Very little is entirely one or the other. It's completely possible that certain genes give you an increased proclivity towards autism, but environmental factors (which can include those before you're born) decide whether or not you really make it onto the spectrum, and how far.

Disclaimer: I know very little about autism, but have read enough about nature vs nurture in general to know that the odds of it being entirely one or the other are very, very low.

Re:On autism! (1)

Xenna (37238) | about 5 years ago | (#28554613)

This pretty much tells the story:

"The disorder is seen often in identical twins: different studies have shown that if one identical twin has autism then there is a 63-98% chance that the other twin will have it. For non-identical twins (also called fraternal or dizygotic twins), the chance is between 0-10% that both twins will develop autism. The chance that siblings will be affected by autism is about 3%."

It looks partly genetic.

http://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/aut.html [washington.edu]

Re:On autism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28555345)

On the other hand identical twins most often grow up in the same environment.

Re:On autism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554377)

Perhaps, but you still come off as a weird fuck, internet or no.

Re:On autism! (1)

Renraku (518261) | about 5 years ago | (#28555047)

Autism has been around for a long, long time.

It's just that no one really diagnosed it before the 1900s.

Now every time a toddler babbles or talks to themselves, their parents think they have autism and demand that their doctor do something about it. Parents can be very convincing and many have resorted to lawyers to prove that they know more than the medical community.

In contrast, a lot of psychs and doctors are more educated in things like autism, so they're more likely to find and diagnose real cases.

I don't think that autism has gone up disproportionally.

Re:On autism! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553547)

your son is a retard! a fucking retard! you're probably a retard too! i forgot, you openly admit to being a republican. you're definitely a retard!!~!!!!

Re:On autism! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553679)

Sorry AC, you're very special too.

Now go outside and play, in traffic.

Re:On autism! (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28554045)

Yeah use the taxpayers money when it suits you and then turn your back when another child needs YOUR help. You, my friend, may or may not have a wonderful son. I don't know about that, but you are nonetheless a fucking douche. Two faced asshole.

Re:On autism! (1)

complete loony (663508) | about 5 years ago | (#28554725)

My son, our second child, has an austism diagnosis. Personally I think his difficulty with language and resulting early behavioral issues stem from him being too smart, his mum and older sister being too talkative, and me being too lazy.

To clarify a little; as a toddler he didn't need any help with anything he could reach, he'd grunt and point for anything he wanted that he couldn't reach, and we'd play 20 questions to work out what he needed help with. But mostly he didn't seem to need or what our help so he avoided learning to communicate with us.

I see a lot of myself in my son. I can usually guess what he's thinking, because that's what I would be thinking. I'm very strong in maths / spacial problem solving, and very weak in creating writing and communication skills. But when I was growing up I had 2 teachers for parents who encouraged me all the time. My son doesn't have that advantage mainly because me and my wife were always busy with work or entertainment and being so self sufficient he was never very demanding of our time.

I wasn't surprised or angry by his diagnosis as I don't think it changed my understanding of who he is at all. I think his learning difficulties are more my fault for not knowing how to teach him, than the fault of any environmental agent or genetic disorder.

Re:On autism! (1)

tjstork (137384) | about 5 years ago | (#28555395)

I wasn't surprised or angry by his diagnosis as I don't think it changed my understanding of who he is at all. I think his learning difficulties are more my fault for not knowing how to teach him, than the fault of any environmental agent or genetic disorder.

The one thing about an educational diagnosis of autism, that you might have missed, is that your kid had no way to communicate at all. As it was explained to me, if they had given a deaf child or a blind child the same test as was given to my son, they would have seen compensating behavior to make up for the sensory loss. In the case of autism, you don't see that.

There's something else going on besides environmental issues and how you raise your kid. There are so many other kids who have parents that really don't do anything that come out at least capable of communicating.

While it can obviously be beneficial to ask if you are doing enough for your child, affixing blame to yourselves for his autism is something that could actually be more corrosive than it is worth. What good would it do your kid if your marriage fell apart because of finger pointing over his condition? Best to accept him for what he is, say, yeah, maybe you could do better, but, ultimately realize that his autism isn't your fault, but still get the best treatment you can.

So.... (1)

reidiq (1434945) | about 5 years ago | (#28553607)

Don't have sex everyday = less chance to have baby. Take note /.'ers

Hmmmm... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553743)

Could that explain why wankers seem to have more kids?

Artificial insemination is more than just IVF (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 5 years ago | (#28553749)

The summary ends by jumping straight from IVF to artificial insemination; those are two different (though overlapping) procedures. While IVF does essentially require artificial insemination to occur, artificial insemination can happen inside the uterus as well. Artificial insemination is a commonly employed technique for infertile couples who aren't willing, interested, or financially capable of undergoing IVF.

that's what I've been telling my wife for years! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553767)

however, drinking alcohol frequently and smoking damages sperm, no matter how often you "produce" sperm.

Re:that's what I've been telling my wife for years (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#28554949)

however, drinking alcohol frequently and smoking damages sperm, no matter how often you "produce" sperm.

Please pretend I filled this post out with the most ridiculous anecdotal evidence to the contrary, because I have one. Also, please don't give medical advice. Soda pop does not work as a contraceptive, and the medical term for teens who swear abstinence is "parents".

Seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 years ago | (#28553779)

I'm married, you insensitive clod!

All joking aside, all technical reasons aside, I didn't RTFA, but.. did a study really need to show this?
Barring no contraceptive;
Copulation + Occasionally = Possible conception
Copulation + Daily over 28+ (average) days = much higher chance of conception

This took a major study, in which some scientist was paid?

I'd sure love to be part of studies like this.
Where do I sign up, and convince my wife it's necessary for science?

Re:Seriously? (1)

ninjapiratemonkey (968710) | about 5 years ago | (#28554021)

I realize you didn't RTFA, but you could have read the fucking summary at the very least. Your complaints are based solely off of the headline.

International Fertility Week (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | about 5 years ago | (#28553899)

I declare an International Fertility Week. Actually scratch that, it would probably also end up also being International Unintentional Denial of Service Week.

Having sex 9 times a fay also said to increase cha (1)

Biswalt (1273170) | about 5 years ago | (#28554345)

Thank god! This puts to end the argument I'd been having a friend that thought peoplewho have almost no sex would have the highest fertility. I'll file this one under obvious theory ends up being right.

great... (1)

Noctris (591045) | about 5 years ago | (#28554637)

so i am single AND extremly furtile ?

The best guidance for you then... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 5 years ago | (#28554959)

Her place, always, and never give your right name.

sight (1)

peas_n_carrots (1025360) | about 5 years ago | (#28554911)

So it doesn't really make you go blind?

Re:sight (3, Funny)

Chrisq (894406) | about 5 years ago | (#28555175)

I domt thimk sp (why do they make the letters on keyboards so blurry nowadays).

Cruel (5, Funny)

slave_to_coffee (472193) | about 5 years ago | (#28555323)

Posting this on Slashdot is like sending Pizza Hut circulars to Ethiopia

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...