[Ataraxia]

Quote

Yes, your bodies immune system takes are of it to some extent. but the fact remains that since it's nutritional value is trivial it's loss is not a big deal to the human body.

I don't just mean actual vitamins and minerals but lecithin (this is very important, to neurological health and health in general), phosphorous fluids, cholesterol, enzymes etc. so it must be taxing to some extent. Semen must have enough nutritional value to nourish sperm cells which must have all the material necessary to contribute to a developing zygote. And it does make sense, from an evolutionary perspective, that reproduction would be prioritized over an organism's health.

Quote

My argument would be why would anyone care if celibacy prolonged your life by a couple years, in the long run I would trade a lifetime of good sex for a couple years increase average life expectancy...

I only want to know whether or not celibates are healthier and do live longer, other factors considered. There's no doubt in my mind that even if I'm right, one can still have sex in moderation and be relatively healthy, some people could still have sex often and still be relatively healthy, depending on other factors and a genetic disposition to good or poor health.

Quote

Humans are a bit unusual in that we live a long time after our ability to reproduce has diminished, has to do with having grand parents help with the raising of such helpless infants if I recall correctly.

I think this applies more to women, either way, it still doesn't counter the possibility that sex really is 'bad for your health'.

Quote

Do you have some sort of anti-sex ax to grind or something?

No, I just want to know if this is true. I am considering life-long celibacy but not because of sex-negative attitudes.


I can actually deal with the idea that sexual stimulation is taxing on your health, what I really find depressing is this : http://www.telegraph...our-health.html

Either way, the truth is the truth, whether I like it or not.

[unusualtech]

Hello,
I think there is a co-variable that is being over looked. that became apparent when they compared women with children and nuns. THere was a study done many years back (actually many) on stress and its affect on aging. they looked at the length telomeres of cells of women with children and women with no children and various lifestyles. It showed that women with children had shorter telomere lengths. this was over a period of 5 years. So those of you who are not familiar with telomeres - in short every time a cell divides the telomere length gets shorter. and from this study stress greatly reduces the length thus not as many replications and therefore faster aging.. I would suspect that same thing is happening in this "Celibacy and longevity case"


Cheers



Advertising link removed

This post has been edited by Phi for All: 30 January 2012 - 03:14 PM
Reason for edit: Link removed by moderator

[Mrs Zeta]

Ataraxia, on 19 January 2012 - 11:54 PM, said:

I can actually deal with the idea that sexual stimulation is taxing on your health, what I really find depressing is this : http://www.telegraph...our-health.html

In fact, sexual stimulation can be beneficial (even necessary) for health and longevity. This is based on hormesis. I can send you the relevant text if you are that interested

[Santalum]

Ataraxia, on 14 January 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

[b]



http://www.scotsman....longer_1_611507



What do you make of this? I know the idea of regular ejaculation being necessary for good prostate health has become popular despite there not being any hard, conclusive evidence to support it but I'm almost certain that the most recent studies to support this view are misleading or out of context. For example, isn't it possible that men who ejaculate more frequently do so because they have higher levels of testosterone, the higher one's testosterone levels, the lower their DHT (since testosterone-DHT conversion accelerates in middle age and low testosterone/high DHT is associated with prostate cancer, male pattern baldness, ), and if this is true then there's not necessarily anything about ejaculating that prevents prostate cancer but men who are inclined to do so less often do so because they already have low testosterone and higher levels of DHT and are already more likely to develop prostate cancer. Or there could be other factors that correlate with ejaculation frequency that would increase the likeliness of developing prostate cancer. The most commonly accepted likely explanation for the celibacy=prostate cancer view is that frequent ejaculation flushes out toxins, carcinogenic compounds, cancerous cells etc. but doesn't the sexually mature, male body regulate itself through nocturnal emissions, which are almost analogous to menstruation in women?

It's interesting to note that as far as brain chemistry is concerned, sexual stimulation has the same effect as cocaine, heroine and other stimulants do, there's a 'hangover' after orgasm, depending on how strong or weak someone's refractory period is, in the same way that there is after alcohol or drug use. As the article points out, natural selection is only concerned with the propagation of genes.



I haven't been able to find a lot online to support my suspicions that sexual stimulation and, for men, ejaculation, can lead to an over production of sex hormones and a depletion of bodily resources needed to maintain this (if this is true, would it apply to sexual arousal as well or just stimulation, what about flexing the pc muscles?) but I think it's intellectually dishonest to dismiss this possibility outright for political reasons. Typically, doctors will flat out tell people that there is no such thing as too much masturbation or sex unless it interferes with their daily lives but I find this impractical, why would there be too much of everything else (I mean physiologically and not just in terms of *psychological* addiction) but not sexual stimulation? How can sexual stimulation and ejaculation not have any long-term physiological effects (I've heard it claimed that hormones stabilize soon after orgasm) if the libido of someone who ejaculates regularly is clearly different from the libido of someone whose been celibate for weeks or months, how do you account for that? I'm not coming at this from a philosophical or 'moral' point of view, nothing is intrinsically 'dirty' or inappropriate about sex regardless of it's long-term health consequences, I just want to know if there's any strong scientific evidence or reasoning to support the idea that celibacy (abstaining from all sexual stimulation, masturbation as well as sex) actually does strengthen the immune system or is beneficial for one's physical/mental health.

I seem to remember reading or hearing about studies on nuns etc where by they were found to be more prone to breast cancer because of the continuous exposure of their breast tissue to oestrogen due in turn to them never becoming pregnant nor lactating.

[The Laughing Buddha]

Mrs Zeta, on 27 January 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

In fact, sexual stimulation can be beneficial (even necessary) for health and longevity. This is based on hormesis. I can send you the relevant text if you are that interested

What about masturbation? Because that's the only kind of sex I ever get.

I have tried human females before, but I can't get it up there for them and since no woman wants to be with a man who gets soft before the act of penetration, it's celibacy ftw! Also, did it ever occur to anyone that many supposedly celibate people, such as RC priests, spank their rods like no tomorrow?

[Santalum]

The Laughing Buddha, on 30 January 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

What about masturbation? Because that's the only kind of sex I ever get.

I have tried human females before, but I can't get it up there for them and since no woman wants to be with a man who gets soft before the act of penetration, it's celibacy ftw! Also, did it ever occur to anyone that many supposedly celibate people, such as RC priests, spank their rods like no tomorrow?

I thought they preferred to play hide the sausage with little girls and boys.

[Phi for All]

Appolinaria, on 16 January 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Psh, like any of these blabbering fools would be so lucky

So are you saying that if they'd talk less and stick to business you'd be more likely to have sex with them?

[Ataraxia]

According to some studies I remember reading (too lazy to google), researchers examined three groups : one group that was either abstinent or had sex once a week or less, I can't remember, one group who had sex 3 or more times a week and the last group who had sex twice a week. The group who had sex twice a week had the highest levels of immunoglobulin A, the less than twice a week group came in second and the group who had sex 3 or more times a week had the lowest levels of igA. I wonder if the depressive effect of sex on the immune system could explain this, in moderation it would force the immune system to adapt and become stronger but too often would be more detrimental than beneficial.

[esbo]

"In beetles, mating released hormones needed to produce sperm in a male or eggs in a female and that had a negative effect on the immune system.

Women produce the same number of eggs whether they mate or not, indeed if they mate they produce less eggs. so that theory does not hold up.