Is Sex Necessary?

007

Charter Member
May 8, 2004
47,724
19,409
2,290
Podunk, WI
Is Sex Necessary?

Alan Farnham

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.)

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. 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

- 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.

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.

Dr. Claire Bailey of the University of Bristol says there is little or no risk of a woman's overdosing on sex. In fact, she says, regular sessions can not only firm a woman's tummy and buttocks but also improve her posture.

Dr. George Winch Jr., an obstetrician/gynecologist in Elko, Nev., concurs. If a woman is pre-menopausal and otherwise healthy, says Dr. Winch, her having an extraordinary amount of intercourse ought not to pose a problem. "I don't think women can have too much intercourse," he says, "so long as no sexually transmitted disease is introduced and there's not an inadvertent pregnancy. Sometimes you can have a lubrication problem. If you have that, there can be vaginal excoriation--vaginal scrape."

Women who abstain from sex run some risks. In postmenopausal women, these include vaginal atrophy. Dr. Winch has a middle-aged patient of whom he says: "She hasn't had intercourse in three years. Just isn't interested. The opening of her vagina is narrowing from disuse. It's a condition that can lead to dysparenia, or pain associated with intercourse. I told her, 'Look, you'd better buy a vibrator or you're going to lose function there.'"

As for men, urologist Eid says it's definitely possible to get too much of a good thing, now that drugs such as Viagra and Levitra have given men far more staying power than may actually be good for them.

The penis, says Eid, is wonderfully resilient. But everything has its limits. Penile tissues, if given too roistering or prolonged a pummeling, can sustain damage. In cases you'd just as soon not hear about, permanent damage.

"Yes," says Dr. Eid, "It is possible for a young man who is very forceful and who likes rough sex, to damage his erectile tissue." The drugs increase rigidity; moreover, they make it possible for a man to have second and third orgasms without having to wait out intermission.

"I see it in pro football players," says Eid. "They use Viagra because they're so sexually active. What they demand of their body is unreasonable. It's part of playing football: you play through the pain." This type of guy doesn't listen to his body. He takes a shot of cortisone, and keeps on going. And they have sex in similar fashion."

There's a reason the penis, in its natural state, undergoes a period of flaccidity: That's when it takes a breather. The blood within it is replenished with oxygen. "During an erection," explains Eid, "very little blood flows to the penis. During thrusting, pressure can go as high as 200 mil of water. Zero blood flows into penis at that time." To absorb oxygen, the tissue must become relaxed. "If you do not allow the penis to rest, then the muscle tissue does not get enough oxygen. The individual gets prolonged erections, gets decreased oxygen to tissue, and could potentially suffer priapism." (We recommend you get a medical encyclopedia and look it up.) "The muscle becomes so engorged, it's painful. Pressure inside starts to increase. Cells start dying. More pressure and less blood flow. Eventually the muscle dies. Then there's scarring. That's why it's considered an emergency."

http://www.forbes.com/2003/10/08/cz_af_1008health.html
 
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.

"But Honey - If we don't have sex, I can die! Look - I have proof!"

:rotflmao:
 
What a silly question. Of course sex is necessary.

I think there seems to be some confusion over abstinence. No one encouraging abstinence is encouraging it forever...well except to Catholic priests, but abstinence is only encouraged till marriage and then we are encouraged and expected to have lots and lots of sex.

I see no reason why this study would somehow be a problem for abstinence advocates. unless for some reason you think people should remain abstinent after marriage...but then what the heck is the point.
 
padisha emperor said:
the married persons go to see others people to have sex;)

I believe what you're saying loosely translated to english is, "married people go to other people to have sex". In other words, cheat on your spouse. Hmmm... and I'd guess that's the norm in france.
 
Doc Holiday said:
HELL YES IT IS!!

Well it's going on four years since I've had any trim. I guess I'm going to die... :D

Being single, I've just come to a point in my life where I'm NOT going to have "casual sex" with anyone anymore. First off, I've never had any nasty little S.T.D., and I'm not about to catch one now. Second, I want to be "in love" with the next person I "make love" too.

Yeah it sucks not getting any, but when I finaly do, it'll be all the sweeter.
 
Pale Rider said:
Well it's going on four years since I've had any trim. I guess I'm going to die... :D

Being single, I've just come to a point in my life where I'm NOT going to have "casual sex" with anyone anymore. First off, I've never had any nasty little S.T.D., and I'm not about to catch one now.

Yeah it sucks not getting any, but when I finaly do, it'll be all the sweeter.

i feel ya pale rider, my thoughts exactly, with the added tidbit of "i don't want no kid from a mom i don't love"
 
Pale Rider said:
Is Sex Necessary?

The Shakers

The best-known Shaker beliefs are an emphasis on celibacy and simplicity in their daily lives. These beliefs were key to Shaker theology and lifestyle in the sense that they were seen as vital to the building of a truly selfless and spiritual community (Horgan 1982; Humez 1993; Robinson 1975). In fact, celibacy was introduced into the group's belief system when Mother Ann first assumed control of the Shaking Quakers in England (Melton 1992). While the rumor that she turned to celibacy and rejected even marital sex out of torment for the deaths of her four children is probably true (Bainbridge 1997; Horgan 1982; Humez 1993), Mother Ann did help develop a complex theology to support the necessity of this concept. Sexual intercourse was solely given to humans for reproduction and our inability to use it only for this purpose made us base and animal-like. Celibacy was a "cross one elected to bear to aspire to the spirituality forfeited by Adam and Eve" in favor of carnality.

Size of Group in 1992:
There are seven women living in small sections of the Canterbury, New Hampshire and Sabbath Day Lake, ME community. At their peak membership between 1830 and 1840, there were 6,000 Shakers in 19 communities

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/Shakers.html
 
NATO AIR said:
AJ must be sniffing some of Houston's finest right now posting some weird ass shit like that. :cof:

Christmas does that to so many people. The topic of Shakers and the need for sex gives mute evidence to the reality that SEX was intended for the continuation of the homosapien mammal.
 
Avatar4321 said:
the shakers are hardly mainstream is there really a point to this?

Exactly, the Shakers are NO LONGER ANYTHING because of their church dogma that SEX made humans like the beasts. That is the topic isn't it?
 
Pale Rider said:
Well it's going on four years since I've had any trim. I guess I'm going to die... :D

Being single, I've just come to a point in my life where I'm NOT going to have "casual sex" with anyone anymore. First off, I've never had any nasty little S.T.D., and I'm not about to catch one now. Second, I want to be "in love" with the next person I "make love" too.

Yeah it sucks not getting any, but when I finaly do, it'll be all the sweeter.
Well ... I have you beat by a country mile.... I don't even want to say how long I've been celibate. I don't intend to sound like I'm trying to "one up" you, or I'm trying to brag. But, being a single dad, I didn't want to set a poor example for my kids. So they learn by example. Sure... I feel like I'm not even part of the human race sometimes, but what is the alternative? Give up my principals? Sell out? My kids' mother did that, thank you. They don't need more of it. So when I tell my kids, "wait until you're married", they can't say "easy for you to say", they know I am waiting too... so they can't argue with me. I guess my situation gives me a unique opportunity to be an example for my kids that way.

Once a female work associate said to me, "men will do anything for sex"... I told her, no that's not true, not all of us are like that. I didn't tell her why she was wrong, but I think that she was hanging out with the wrong guys.

I think that the argument against abstinence education has just been disproved here on this thread. Those that say "well, kids are going to have sex anyway" are so foolish. To that I answer ... "not if the parents are doing their jobs".

No one has ever gone mad, died, gotten pregnant, contracted a disease from abstaining from sex. And we're living proof.
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: 007

Forum List

Back
Top