Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Favorite Area of Science

Ataraxia's Achievements


Lepton (1/13)



  1. 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.
  2. Lately I've become interested in mathematics although I have always had (great) difficulty with it and I've always suspected that I have a below average IQ. I'm fascinated with the idea of mathematics being the language of nature and I plan on getting around to working on math problems in my spare time (I don't remember ever having done algebra, calculus or anything beyond basic arithmetic in school). I know that listening to classical music and practicing meditation have been shown to strengthen math/critical thinking skills and I'm sure eating healthy, exercising regularly and taking care of your health in general would also help keep the brain young and healthy, is there any advice beyond this that any of the mathematicians/math fans on here could offer? Is there any point in even attempting to grasp higher mathematics in my late 20s if I do have a below average IQ (since I don't think there's any evidence that IQ can be significantly altered past a certain age or if one doesn't have a genetic disposition toward higher intelligence)? Thanks for the help
  3. 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. 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. I think this applies more to women, either way, it still doesn't counter the possibility that sex really is 'bad for your health'. 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.co.uk/news/yourview/1559672/Does-falling-in-love-damage-your-health.html Either way, the truth is the truth, whether I like it or not.
  4. I once believed similarly but I think it might be a myth that the nutritional value of semen is (completely) a myth. I'm too lazy to support this by providing links but I've read that vitamins, minerals, enzymes, proteins etc. found in semen far outweigh those found in a similar amount of blood and the amount of 'energy' needed to produce a certain amount of semen is far greater that the resources needed to produce a similar amount of blood. It's been shown that properties in semen act as an anti-depressant for women who have sex without condoms. It doesn't prevent sperm production but the sperm produced is reabsorbed by the body (right?). http://www.independe...onk-645518.html I quickly googled this article which claims that diet is not a factor, I thought maybe emotional resilience or optimism that might come with religious beliefs could be a factor but monks, nuns, priests, live longer than their congregations as well. None of this suggests that celibacy is a factor in why they live longer, you're right, it could be any number of reasons. None of the species I've mentioned die soon after mating, as far as I know, and as different as they are from us, basic principles of evolution should remain the same. Natural selection favors those characteristics that help an organism to propagate their genes, whether it's by aiding them in reproducing and living long enough to do so or helping relatives to reproduce and propagate their shared genes. Shouldn't the basics of mating be universal in all sexually reproducing animals, we see similar patterns across species when it comes to male vs. female promiscuity, prostitution, competition etc. Yes, but most men who have nocturnal emissions typically have them once every 15-30 days so there's isn't the same over-stimulation of sex hormones which might explain a link between celibacy and longevity as much as the costliness of sperm production does but I don't know. I honestly do think that sexual stimulation is a drug, that it is literally, by it's nature, physiologically addictive and has the same effects as cocaine, heroine, although to a much lesser extent. I'm aware that sperm only makes up around 1-2% of the total volume of semen.
  5. I find this hard to believe, at least about sperm production (doesn't semen have nutritional value that tears, saliva, sweat, which is just lubrication, do not?). How would you explain the fact that men who have had vasectomies are healthier and live longer (other factors considered), celibate priests, monks and nuns have long been known to live longer than the general population and the studies done with beetles, fruit flies and worms that all show males who are prevented from mating as living longer? I don't think anyone claims that sperm production alone causes aging, only that it might accelerate it or contribute to a less resilient immune system. Also, does ejaculation, trigger increased production of new sperm to make up for sperm lost, does sexual arousal and/or sexual stimulation trigger sperm production, or will sperm production continue at the same pace regardless?
  6. Is semen production as taxing on the body as sperm production is? Does ejaculation or even just masturbation/sex trigger more sperm/semen production? Does sexual arousal itself? Studies with nematode worms and fruit flies also showed that males who were prevented from mating lived longer (although with the worms, males who were altered to no longer produce sperm but allowed to mate lived longer, at about 14 days, than both the normal males who mated, who lived around 8 days, and the normal males who were prevented from mating, who lived around 12 days). There's also some evidence that men who have had vasectomies are healthier, less likely to get heart disease, cancer etc., and live longer. It's well known that celibate nuns, priests and monks live longer than the general population but that isn't necessarily due to their celibacy. Thanks for the replies.
  7. 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.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.