Sleeping with more than 20 women protects men against prostate cancer, a study has suggested. Men who had slept with more than 20 women lowered their risk of developing cancer by almost one third, and were 19 per cent less likely to develop the most aggressive form.... But when asked whether public health authorities should recommend men to sleep with many women in their lives Dr Parent added: "We're not there yet."I'm just a little curious about how sleeping with all these women is supposed to bolster a man's health. I mean, surely one has to have sex with them in order to obtain the purported beneficial effects for one's prostate, right?
Anyhow, I suspect that the effects of female promiscuity will prove to be, as in the case of homosexual men, a net negative. Unless, of course, a specifically targeting proves to be beneficial for breast cancer. And really, a girl can never be too careful.
23 comments:
A similar post on Dr. Helen's blog seemed to imply that it was not a matter of how many women you slept with, but how often you had sex, and the implication was that men who sleep around get more sex. (Which seemed strange to me because I've seen several stories saying that married people get more sex.)
At this point it sounds like further details are required before we can make much of a judgement about it.
Of course we should reject the idea that "if doing X leads to better health then you should do X." It doesn't always follow.
Seems like an obvious case of confusing correlation with causation. Men with better genes are less likely to get cancer, and also attract more women for sex.
After all, if ejaculation prevents cancer, as the article suggests, the gamma jerking it to porn all day in his mom's basement would rank better than either married men or PUAs.
"A similar post on Dr. Helen's blog seemed to imply that it was not a matter of how many women you slept with, but how often you had sex, and the implication was that men who sleep around get more sex. (Which seemed strange to me because I've seen several stories saying that married people get more sex.)" - Crowhill
The study does sound vague in that regard. Without added details about how the added women affect the process it sounds like just a sensational headline grabber that boils down to just an ejaculate count.
Keep the plumbing functional is changed to sleep with lots of women. Yeah, science is reliable.
Of course it could also be that men with better genetics are both more likely to sleep with 20+ women and less likely to develop prostate cancer.
bah, cailcorishev beat me to it.
Correlation is not causation. I wonder if this is because men with 20+ partners have a higher sex drive due to higher testosterone. Prostate cancer usually occurs when you are in your middle ages, somewhere between mid-40s to mid-50s. This is when testosterone levels are prone to decline in men as they age.
So I doubt the sex part is a factor in this. I suspect it has more to do with an above average level of testosterone in men.
But I'm no doctor. Mostly because I don't like to fear-monger.
"It is possible that having many female sexual partners results in a higher frequency of ejaculations, whose protective effect against prostate cancer has been previously observed in cohort studies," said lead researcher Dr Marie-Elise Parent. "
If that were causal relationship, every wanker in the world would have a lowered risk of prostate cancer.
"After all, if ejaculation prevents cancer, as the article suggests, the gamma jerking it to porn all day in his mom's basement would rank better than either married men or PUAs."
Except that alphas still jerk it as well. A guy could get laid 3 times a day. He'll still find time to rub one out.
It's possible that high-SMV men have healthier prostates than low-SMV men quite apart from how often they're being used. Gamma wankers and queers (who are almost always low-SMV) clean the pipes regularly, but it doesn't help them.
Maybe the hormones produced in the prostate are able to leave and circulate around high-SMV men's systems, but in low-SMV men, they stay stuck in the prostate and cause swelling and maybe cancer.
Which seemed strange to me because I've seen several stories saying that married people get more sex.
Same here. I think they sidestepped that question because they're not comparing married to unmarried, but married to promiscuous. Which is a bit of apples and oranges anyway, since a married man could be (or have been) with 20+ women, so which side is he on?
But anyway, it's possible that married men have more sex than unmarried men, but also that men who have been with 20+ women have more sex than married men, because in the second case you're leaving out a whole bunch of guys who couldn't get married or laid (much).
Except that alphas still jerk it as well. A guy could get laid 3 times a day. He'll still find time to rub one out.
He could, but would he? I've seen conversations on game sites about how not masturbating gives you an edge, makes you more aggressive with women (which most men need), and generally improves your outlook. I haven't done a study on it or anything, but my own experience is that I'm a lot less tempted to "rub one out" if there's at least a reasonable potential for sex with a woman later in the day. Seems wasteful.
Obviously it varies a lot from guy to guy, but my point is that the author is assuming that more sex = more ejaculations, which is far from certain and may even be backwards. If they wanted to test the effect of ejaculation on cancer, you'd think they'd ask the guys about that instead of their number of sex partners, which makes me wonder how badly the author is misrepresenting the study. Just not badly enough to go read it for myself.
it's possible that married men have more sex than unmarried men, but also that men who have been with 20+ women have more sex than married men, because in the second case you're leaving out a whole bunch of guys who couldn't get married or laid (much).
Right, cailcorishev. There's simply not enough information to know what's really going on here. But the purpose of research -- or, rather, articles about research -- is to grab headlines, right? :-)
Just posted that link on Facebook. The first reply was from a woman: "What next??? How statistics can be manipulated!"
Likewise on facebook I've read accounts of women who have had their breasts removed because there is a high incidence of cancer in the family, (Not because she had breast cancer, mind.) all you get is 'Go gurl', 'How brave!' drivel.
I am inclined to propose a different theory. One that is rooted in status, which I hope researchers will, at some point, consider. If you have ever read a public health handbook, you will know that social status is a strong determinant of good and long health, it having to do with insidious stress. Power protects you from creating a "helpless hormonal environment". If you wanna say no, you can, whereas your underlings have to suck it up and do it even if they don't want to. Your miserable average routine realy does kill you.
Thus might it be in this case that men (ceteris paribus) with high socio-sexual status experience a lowered biochemical/hormonal sexual stress level. They live it up while guys with less options hormonally feel that they haven't got much worth in the SMP. The guy wancking one in his mom's basement doesn't really feel good about it.
Probably not cause and effect. More likely symptoms of the same cause. Such men are probably natural alphas with healthier sex components and naturally like catnip to women.
Do they account for other health risks from sleeping with many women? Married men are supposed to live longer besides the fact that they could have more sex, which to married men is a surpirse.
Longevity is not about cancer. It could be about diet too and alcohol consumption, plus risky behavior. But still, having more sex is a bonus. Who would stop this?
Thus might it be in this case that men (ceteris paribus) with high socio-sexual status experience a lowered biochemical/hormonal sexual stress level. They live it up while guys with less options hormonally feel that they haven't got much worth in the SMP. The guy wancking one in his mom's basement doesn't really feel good about it.
@Rek
Looks like you're corroborating what I said, pretty much. It'd be interesting to know if Gammas and Omegas have more trouble peeing than Alphas and Sigmas.
Responding to a post at VP on married people living longer (or was it being healthier) due to the more frequent sex they had, someone proposed the basement wankers as having the same benefits. An Ilk with some medical background/training/classes responded with a link that a self induced orgasm produced 20% of the post orgasm brain chemicals that a partner induced orgasm produced.
I have a hunch the linked data is a subset of the health benefits a married (to a woman) man sees.
I've seen several stories saying that married people get more sex.
Not my story, that's for sure. Since I lost my virginity, I've been married twice for a total of 36 years, single for 11. I haven't kept a tally, but I'm pretty sure that I had sex more times during the 11 single years than the 36 married ones. That's raw total count in each case, not frequency.
This correlates with the studies showing that the more often men have sex, the less likelihood of developing prostate cancer.
There are other studies which show that when a man has sex with a new woman he ejaculates 3 times more sperm into her than into a woman he has sex with regularly. This may be a flushing exercise for the prostate and testes which produces different effects than merely having sex often - and could produce the effects noted in this study.
Crowhill,
But the purpose of research -- or, rather, articles about research -- is to grab headlines, right? :-)
Close. The purpose is to grab funding for more research, at least in today's world.
I just want to know if that curve continues in the positive, maybe if it goes exponential. Sure, it was sin. But it was when I was sinful. I've recanted. Might as well profit... twice... Three times? Damn but that was some good... medical.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.