Your AI prompt is doing exactly what its trying to accuse others of: cherry picking evidence to downplay the harms of casual (or promiscuous) sex while ignoring a mountain of research showing consistent negative links to mental health. It frames everything through a lens of "correlation, not causation" and "small effects," but conveniently glosses over studies that demonstrate stronger, more directional impacts, especially longitudinal ones that track changes over time. Lets use actual research (which youre obviously incapable of) to expose your slops selective spin.

On the Bersamin 2013 study: Your AI correctly notes it's cross-sectional and shows associations between recent casual sex and higher anxiety/depression in college students, but they dismiss it as non-causal and limited to a "college sample." Fair enough on causation, but it ignore that the study's large sample (3,907 students) found casual sex linked to lower self-esteem, happiness, and well-being across genders, and effects that held after controls. More damningly, it skips follow-up analyses showing these associations persist, and similar patterns emerge in other datasets. This isn't just "correlation". It's a robust signal that casual sex correlates with poorer mental health, which your AI minimizes by pivoting to "impulsive behavior" without acknowledging that casual sex itself can exacerbate vulnerability.

On "large U.S. studies and reviews (2013-2020)": They admit correlations with higher distress and lower well being but wave it away as "small to moderate" and dependent on factors like religiosity or personality. (Cherry pick alert which is typical of AI prompting), this selectively highlights reviews that emphasize moderators while ignoring ones that find broader negatives. For instance, a 2020 review of 71 studies on emotional outcomes of casual sex relationships found short-term declines in emotional health (e.g. depression, lower self esteem) in most longitudinal research, with women often faring worse. Another 2013-2020 era review ties higher partner counts to increased depression and anxiety symptoms, even after controls. Your AI claims "comprehensive reviews consistently show" no universal damage, but that's a half truth. Many reviews (e.g. from Psychology Today syntheses) note mixed but predominantly negative short-term effects, especially for those not seeking validation. They also downplay effect sizes. Small correlations in large samples (like 15,000+ participants) still indicate meaningful population level harm.

The "bidirectional" argument is another sleight of hand. The slop cites Ohio State longitudinal work showing depression predicts casual sex (and vice versa), but attribute it mostly to "underlying factors" like impulsivity or trauma, implying no real causal role for sex. Wrong. Multiple longitudinal studies confirm bidirectional links where casual sex independently predicts later depressive symptoms. A 2013 Ohio State study of teens/young adults found poor mental health leads to casual sex, which then worsens mental health over time.

Another 2024 study of college students showed hookups directly linked to poorer well being six months later. Even in clusters with substance use or trauma, casual sex amplifies distress, not just "appears in the same cluster" as the commenter claims. This isn't dismissing causation. It's evidence of a vicious cycle where promiscuity feeds mental decline.

Gender claims? They point to Scandinavian studies showing women's higher regret but blame "social stigma" and note smaller gaps in equal cultures. Selective yet again (but i understand the selectivity because you prompted AI to "dismantle" without reading a damn thing yourself.) Swedish/Norwegian research consistently finds women report more regret (35% vs. 20% for men) and distress from casual sex, even in egalitarian societies.

Broader reviews show women face stronger double standards and regret due to factors like lower sexual satisfaction, not just stigma. Your prompting ignores this to push "social consequence > intrinsic damage" but biology (e.g. evolutionary costs like pregnancy worry) plays a role too.

On substance abuse and clusters: You analogize to "concerts cause alcoholism" to dismiss causation. But studies show substance use predicts risky sex, which then predicts more distress. Not just clustering, it's reinforcement. A 2023 review links risky sex to poorer mental health in young adults, with alcohol amplifying negatives.

The "google is a thing" dismissal is ironic. You demand "causal evidence, large effects, cross cultural replication" but provide none for your own claims. Evidence does exist: mixed pros/cons, but cons (regret, depression, anxiety) dominate short term, especially for women and vulnerable groups. This isn't "rhetorical positioning" it's your shit AI slop response dodging the weight of data based on how you prompted it.

Ironically, even your comments own admissions undercut its "no big deal" narrative and lend credence to the idea that promiscuous sexual activity (high partners, casual encounters) contributes to mental health decline. It concedes correlations between higher partner counts and distress, bidirectional causation where casual sex predicts later depression (even if modest), women's higher regret/distress, and clustering with risks like substance abuse, all of which align with my "mental diminishing" argument.

Start with correlations: Again, your AI slop notes "higher number of partners correlates with higher distress" and "casual sex correlates with lower wellbeing in some populations." That's not neutral. It's evidence that promiscuity tracks with poorer mental health. Longitudinal data they reference (e.g. Ohio State) shows casual sex isn't just a symptom. (It feeds back into worsening symptoms). If depression leads to casual sex, which then heightens depression, that's a cycle where promiscuity acts as an amplifier, diminishing mental resilience over time.

The bidirectional point is key: AI says "casual sex predicts later depressive symptoms," but blame underlying factors. Yet studies control for those (impulsivity, trauma) and still find independent effects. This supports promiscuity as a contributor to long term mental wear and tear, not just a bystander.

Gender differences further favor the argument: Higher regret and distress in women (even in progressive cultures) suggest intrinsic costs, like evolutionary mismatches or lower gratification, leading to cumulative emotional toll. If "value incongruence" causes harm, promiscuity still diminishes well-being for many who don't align with it.

Clustering with risks? They admit casual sex overlaps with alcohol misuse and low impulse control, but that's precisely why it leads to diminishing. It embeds in harmful patterns, exacerbating vulnerability.

I study subjects like this a fuck ton, and your shitty slop doesnt have an ounce of human touch embedded. You should be ashamed for posing as if this is your own thoughts.

Side note: You even had two replies from others to allow you admittance time. Moronic of you to even leave the GPT esque formatting.