Jump to content

Celibacy and longevity


Ataraxia
 Share

Recommended Posts

Published on Friday 5 July 2002 01:00

 

THE secret of a long life is abstinence from sex, scientists revealed yesterday.

 

A team from the University of Sheffield believes nuns and spinsters who stay away from the pleasures of the flesh outlive sexually active adults.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "no sex" strategy for survival came from results found studying the sex lives of beetles at the university's department of animal and plant sciences. They discovered that mealworm beetles, which mate every day, die young, while those which avoid mating live for much longer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr Michael Siva-Jothey, the leader of the team, said: "Nuns tend to have a longer lifespan than women with children and most people know of someone with a maiden aunt who seems to live forever. The question is, why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The beetles which mate die sooner than the beetles which don't mate. The mechanism is not the same in humans, but the principle is the same.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The assumption then is that if the immune system is downgraded, that leads to a loss of longevity. It is fair to assume that would be the same with other organisms including humans, because mating has a dual effect - a positive one, but then a negative one on the immune system.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"That is important to evolutionary biologists. The goal of evolution is not to live longer but to leave as many offspring as possible so if you produce a lot of offspring and die young then you have done your job in evolutionary terms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"It makes perfect sense if you try to understand how sexually transmitted disease evolved and spread. The best time for a disease to find a host is during sexual activity when the immune system is weakened."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The findings are just one in a long line of evidence that suggest that males live longer if they abstain from sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 1997, Dr David Gems, a geneticist at University College London, found that males who remain celibate are more likely to survive into a ripe old age.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He discovered that males are actually designed to live longer, but any help from nature is wiped out by the pursuit of sex.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dr Gems reached the controversial conclusion while studying nematode worms.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Edited by Ataraxia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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'm pleased to say there is evidence to the contrary - http://longevity-science.blogspot.com/2007/05/sex-and-longevity.html

 

I rather suspect that a celibate life might just seem longer!

post-22702-0-43765100-1326581659_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Yes, but why would you care?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Taoist monks believe that sexual abstinence is the key to longevity. Every time a man ejaculates, he looses 'energy' so eventually he ages and dies (to my knowledge, tha fate of women is not mentioned in relation to this).

 

From the evolutionary point of view it is clear that we age because the allocation of resourcers favours the survival of the DNA rather than our body. So, in theory, the virtual abscence of sex/reproduction must be directly related to longevity.

 

The goal of evolution is not to have as much offspring as possible, but to increase fitness within a certain niche. Modern human's niche is survival within a technological/intelligent society and this does not necessarily fit with having many children, or with having any sex at all. What matters is increase of intelligence, not increase of offspring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This antagonistic or zero sum game idea involving the reproductive and immune systems is interesting at least from the perspective that they are the only systems that produce cells ad infiinitum ... well, at least in men.

Edited by ewmon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

vasectomies and sex for all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

The production of semen or any other liquid in the body (saliva, tears, etc) is hardly taxing - in the longevity sense. What causes ageing is the inability of the body to repair repeated damage. Increased production of semen etc is not going to make any difference either way. Ditto for the production of sperm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The production of semen or any other liquid in the body (saliva, tears, etc) is hardly taxing - in the longevity sense. What causes ageing is the inability of the body to repair repeated damage. Increased production of semen etc is not going to make any difference either way. Ditto for the production of sperm.

 

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?

Edited by Ataraxia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?).

 

I know lots of men like to think their semen is great in many ways for a woman to swallow, I remember the old "it's good for you" or "makes a great facial moisturizer" horse feathers but the fact is that these things are lies made up by egotistical men to convince reluctant women to give fellatio, semen has little real nutritional value, is not a great face cream, it's just a lubricant and the transport fluid of sperm.

 

 

How would you explain the fact that men who have had vasectomies are healthier and live longer

 

Again, the facts do not support this contention, vasectomies do not stop production of semen or sperm, a vasectomy prevents the sperm of ejaculation from getting to the glands that enter sperm into the semen stream, but with each ejaculation the same amount of sperm is released, it just doesn't go into the penis, in fact the sperm are released into the mans body instead of his semen.

 

(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.

 

I would need to see some supporting evidence for this, it's far more likely that such differences in average life spans has more to do with, in the case of women, removing the issue of child birth which even today can kill a woman or removing the huge hormonal fluctuation that pregnancy induces. For both men and women being one of those monks or nuns or what eve can be shown to be due to the eating habits of these people, life style is the main driver of these differences not celibacy. Eat less live longer seems to be a key ingredient to living longer.

 

I am not sure that the connection can be made to the examples of things like worms or fruit flies since many of these creatures are genetically programmed to die after mating, mating is the end all be all of their existence and once mated their is no need for those mated adults to continue to live and compete with others of their kind for food and or other resources.

 

Then there is the issue of just because you, as human male at least, are going to ejaculate whether you are mating or even masturbating or not, if you repress your sexual urges you will dream about sexual things and ejaculate in your sleep, happens regularly to people who do not have sex or masturbate...

 

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?

 

It continues more or less at the same rate or pace regardless... you can ejaculate enough to out pace sperm production quite easily resulting in semen that contains very little sperm... I think you might be thinking that semen and sperm are the same thing, I've had a vasectomy, the volume of my ejaculate is (or was) the same before and after my vasectomy, sperm is a very small part of semen volume wise...

Edited by Moontanman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know lots of men like to think their semen is great in many ways for a woman to swallow, I remember the old "it's good for you" or "makes a great facial moisturizer" horse feathers but the fact is that these things are lies made up by egotistical men to convince reluctant women to give fellatio, semen has little real nutritional value, is not a great face cream, it's just a lubricant and the transport fluid of sperm.

 

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.

 

Again, the facts do not support this contention, vasectomies do not stop production of semen or sperm, a vasectomy prevents the sperm of ejaculation from getting to the glands that enter sperm into the semen stream, but with each ejaculation the same amount of sperm is released, it just doesn't go into the penis, in fact the sperm are released into the mans body instead of his semen.

 

It doesn't prevent sperm production but the sperm produced is reabsorbed by the body (right?).

 

I would need to see some supporting evidence for this, it's far more likely that such differences in average life spans has more to do with, in the case of women, removing the issue of child birth which even today can kill a woman or removing the huge hormonal fluctuation that pregnancy induces. For both men and women being one of those monks or nuns or what eve can be shown to be due to the eating habits of these people, life style is the main driver of these differences not celibacy. Eat less live longer seems to be a key ingredient to living longer.

 

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.

I am not sure that the connection can be made to the examples of things like worms or fruit flies since many of these creatures are genetically programmed to die after mating, mating is the end all be all of their existence and once mated their is no need for those mated adults to continue to live and compete with others of their kind for food and or other resources.

 

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.

Then there is the issue of just because you, as human male at least, are going to ejaculate whether you are mating or even masturbating or not, if you repress your sexual urges you will dream about sexual things and ejaculate in your sleep, happens regularly to people who do not have sex or masturbate...

 

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.

 

 

It continues more or less at the same rate or pace regardless... you can ejaculate enough to out pace sperm production quite easily resulting in semen that contains very little sperm... I think you might be thinking that semen and sperm are the same thing, I've had a vasectomy, the volume of my ejaculate is (or was) the same before and after my vasectomy, sperm is a very small part of semen volume wise...

 

I'm aware that sperm only makes up around 1-2% of the total volume of semen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

This subject is so full of urban legends and myth it's difficult to separate out fact from fantasy, wikii is down today so i am having problems finding a starting point that isn't grossly prejudged in some manner. I do remember many years ago reading in playboy magazine that semen has almost no nutritional value and contains at most 15 calories per "serving" and while it does contain much of the same substances that other human body fluids contain, semen is not a great source of anything but sexual fantasy... I know that playboy is hardly a science magazine but if they had been able to link anything positive to swallowing semen I am quite sure they would have reported it. When wiki comes back up all try again but right now I went through several pages of google and found nothing but contradicting answers, most based in sexual fantasy...

 

 

 

It doesn't prevent sperm production but the sperm produced is reabsorbed by the body (right?).

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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...

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

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.

 

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

 

 

 

I'm aware that sperm only makes up around 1-2% of the total volume of semen.

 

Ok, but the fact remains that semen is not high in nutritional content, that is a sexual myth or in some cases fantasy. I have seen some research that seems to indicate that women who do swallow semen are less likely to have an specific allergic reaction to their partners semen which can result in infertility in some women.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Taoist monks believe that sexual abstinence is the key to longevity. "

Yet they keep on dying.

You are mistaken, they don't die. Those who follow the right path and become chsien (immortal) live forever in inaccessible mountains or distant villages. Yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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'.

 

 

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.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.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Edited by Phi for All
Link removed by moderator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

 

 

 

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • 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.