Sometimes they can be silly (and super sexist) but usually, I don’t see it.

I think most people who publish papers in peer-reviewed journals have a bit more shame, and they hedge their bets by including statements about correlation and not causation (“more research needs to be done,” etc.). It’s also implied that anything outside of research control trials can’t give us causation for certain, because causation hasn’t technically been observed.

As they said in the study here that you linked:

“In multivariable analysis, correlates of recent HAI included: less frequent church attendance, younger age at first intercourse, multiple sexual partners, history of oral intercourse, history of unintended pregnancy, and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (all P < 0.05). Correlates of lifetime HAI were similar, with the addition of older age, higher education, higher income, and history of drug use (all P < 0.05).”

So they’re definitely speaking about correlations.

And this isn’t as absurd as it sounds. We could simplify this study and just say, there are correlations suggesting that people who are deeply religious are less likely to have anal sex, especially if they’re poor and uneducated, and are more likely to be having strictly vaginal sex, and thus use condoms more regularly.

That’s a hypothesis that seems plausible.

Thanks for reading and pointing out this piece of research, here.