Alan Farnham said:
Fans of abstinence had better be sitting down. "Saving yourself" before the big game, the big business deal, the big hoedown or the big bakeoff may indeed confer some moral benefit. But corporeally it does absolutely zip. There's no evidence it sharpens your competitive edge. The best that modern science can say for sexual abstinence is that it's harmless when practiced in moderation. Having regular and enthusiastic sex, by contrast, confers a host of measurable physiological advantages, be you male or female. (This assumes that you are engaging in sex without contracting a sexually transmitted disease.)
That just says that abstinence doesn't make you healthier, but i never said it did.
Alan Farnham said:
In one of the most credible studies correlating overall health with sexual frequency, Queens University in Belfast tracked the mortality of about 1,000 middle-aged men over the course of a decade. The study was designed to compare persons of comparable circumstances, age and health. Its findings, published in 1997 in the British Medical Journal, were that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm enjoyed a death rate half that of the laggards.
I wonder: Did they ask those people
why they weren't having sex? Also, how did they ask them if they were already dead (or, alternatively, how do you track the mortality of someone who isn't dead and whom you can ask questions to)?
Alan Farnham said:
Other studies (some rigorous, some less so) purport to show that having sex even a few times a week has an associative or causal relationship with the following:
- Improved sense of smell: After sex, production of the hormone prolactin surges. This in turn causes stem cells in the brain to develop new neurons in the brain's olfactory bulb, its smell center.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with health, that's another example of "practice makes perfect" (and, honestly, i think i'd rather be defective in my smell-detection nerve cells and be able to enter a public bathroom without having to breathe through my mouth).
Alan Farnham said:
- Reduced risk of heart disease: In a 2001 follow-on to the Queens University study mentioned above, researchers focused on cardiovascular health. Their finding? That by having sex three or more times a week, men reduced their risk of heart attack or stroke by half. In reporting these results, the co-author of the study, Shah Ebrahim, Ph.D., displayed the well-loved British gift for understatement: "The relationship found between frequency of sexual intercourse and mortality is of considerable public interest."
- Weight loss, overall fitness: Sex, if nothing else, is exercise. A vigorous bout burns some 200 calories--about the same as running 15 minutes on a treadmill or playing a spirited game of squash. The pulse rate, in a person aroused, rises from about 70 beats per minute to 150, the same as that of an athlete putting forth maximum effort. British researchers have determined that the equivalent of six Big Macs can be worked off by having sex three times a week for a year. Muscular contractions during intercourse work the pelvis, thighs, buttocks, arms, neck and thorax. Sex also boosts production of testosterone, which leads to stronger bones and muscles. Men's Health magazine has gone so far as to call the bed the single greatest piece of exercise equipment ever invented.
Of course, but that's just because sex is very rigorous exercise, just like running for a long time or doing many push-ups in a short while. And it's proven that
all exercise helps prevent heart disease.
Alan Farnham said:
- Reduced depression: Such was the implication of a 2002 study of 293 women. American psychologist Gordon Gallup reported that sexually active participants whose male partners did not use condoms were less subject to depression than those whose partners did. One theory of causality: Prostoglandin, a hormone found only in semen, may be absorbed in the female genital tract, thus modulating female hormones.
My theory is: Women whose partners don't use condoms worry about getting pregnant and
that's the cause of their unhappiness. Also, this paragraph is completely irrelevant to the article because it deals with the importance of condoms rather than sex.
Alan Farnham said:
- Pain-relief: Immediately before orgasm, levels of the hormone oxytocin surge to five times their normal level. This in turn releases endorphins, which alleviate the pain of everything from headache to arthritis to even migraine. In women, sex also prompts production of estrogen, which can reduce the pain of PMS.
He doesn't cite any serious article about this, so how do i know he didn't make this up on the spot. And, even supposing it's true, what about men? Why is it healthy for men?
Alan Farnham said:
- Less-frequent colds and flu: Wilkes University in Pennsylvania says individuals who have sex once or twice a week show 30% higher levels of an antibody called immunoglobulin A, which is known to boost the immune system.
For all i know, this Alan Farnham chap could be the Wilkes University "researcher" who says that. Funny how he pretends to be serious but doesn't cite a single article (mentioning "one of the most credible studies" isn't citing, it's giving shitty "proof" for what you're saying).
Alan Farnham said:
- Better bladder control: Heard of Kegel exercises? You do them, whether you know it or not, every time you stem your flow of urine. The same set of muscles is worked during sex.
I go to the bathroom several times a day. I seriously doubt i need sex to have a healthy bladder.
Alan Farnham said:
- Better teeth: Seminal plasma contains zinc, calcium and other minerals shown to retard tooth decay. Since this is a family Web site, we will omit discussion of the mineral delivery system. Suffice it to say that it could be a far richer, more complex and more satisfying experience than squeezing a tube of Crest--even Tartar Control Crest. Researchers have noted, parenthetically, that sexual etiquette usually demands the brushing of one's teeth before and/or after intimacy, which, by itself, would help promote better oral hygiene.
For one, semen never gets even close to the teeth, so any minerals in it would help other bones, if at all. Second, the second half of this paragraph is the biggest joke i've read tonight; i doubt everyone brushes their teeth before having sex (but i haven't asked them; will do, even though it might get me a few weird glances), and brushing your teeth after every meal is enough to have healthy teeth for life.
Alan Farnham said:
- A happier prostate? Some urologists believe they see a relationship between infrequency of ejaculation and cancer of the prostate. The causal argument goes like this: To produce seminal fluid, the prostate and the seminal vesicles take such substances from the blood as zinc, citric acid and potassium, then concentrate them up to 600 times. Any carcinogens present in the blood likewise would be concentrated. Rather than have concentrated carcinogens hanging around causing trouble, it's better to evict them. Regular old sex could do the job. But if the flushing of the prostate were your only objective, masturbation might be a better way to go, especially for the non-monogamous male. Having sex with multiple partners can, all by itself, raise a man's risk of cancer by up to 40%. That's because he runs an increased risk of contracting sexual infections. So, if you want the all the purported benefits of flushing with none of the attendant risk, go digital. A study recently published by the British Journal of Urology International asserts that men in their 20s can reduce by a third their chance of getting prostate cancer by ejaculating more than five times a week.
Sorry to pop your bubble here, but here the man is writing
against sex [with multiple partners] and in favor of the same alternative i mentioned before (masturbation). And could it, perchance, be that
cancer prevents ejaculation rather than
lack of ejaculation increases risk of cancer? Edit: 'Recently' could mean anything, and i'm not going to read all the issues of the British Journal of Urology just to find that publication. Why, oh, why doesn't he ever cite articles to give real validity to his assertions?
Alan Farnham said:
While possession of a robust appetite for sex--and the physical ability to gratify it--may not always be the cynosure of perfect health, a reluctance to engage can be a sign that something is seriously on the fritz, especially where the culprit is an infirm erection.
Dr. J. Francois Eid, a urologist with Weill Medical College of Cornell University and New York Presbyterian Hospital, observes that erectile dysfunction is extension of vascular system. A lethargic member may be telling you that you have diseased blood vessels elsewhere in your body. "It could be a first sign of hypertension or diabetes or increased cholesterol levels. It's a red flag that you should see your doctor." Treatment and exercise, says Dr. Eid, can have things looking up again: "Men who exercise and have a good heart and low heart rate, and who are cardio-fit, have firmer erections. There very definitely is a relationship."
But is there such a thing as too much sex?
The answer, in purely physiological terms, is this: If you're female, probably not. If you're male? You betcha.
[more about how excessive sex is bad]
Erectile dysfunction is another matter, and it's not a consequence of lack of sex, it's a cause of it. This is just filler material.
Now link me to a
real article.
