More evidence sex is good for you

Ok, so we all know sex is good for us, but here is a link to an article telling about the disease-fighting effects of having sex.

From the article:

But scientists are now beginning to understand that the perceived feel-good effects of sexual intercourse are merely the tip of the iceberg. Sex, they are discovering, can offer protection from depression, colds, heart disease and even cancer.

If you are in a relationship, show this to your "significant other" for a good excuse on why you should be having more sex.

These are the types of studies we should be funding more of... [sfty]

[thumb]

Yeah, but do we really want to put ourselves at risk in this day and age of AIDS?

Yeah, but do we really want to put ourselves at risk in this day and age of AIDS?

So you say no one should marry and no one should have sex???

Who needs a good excuse to have sex .......

Yeah, but do we really want to put ourselves at risk in this day and age of AIDS?

That is easy, you have 3 options 1) Stay in a relationship with one person, 2) Use a condom, or 3) Cure AIDS (I guess that should be "cure all STDs", or at least all of the ones you can't take something to prevent)

Who needs a good excuse to have sex .......

agreed [thumb]

Anything can kill you, might as well enjoy it while it lasts.

I'd still watch out, though. I mean, I'm Pagan so I believe in karma, but no matter what your religion is, even if you're atheist, you have to take into account the fact that every religion and culture since the dawn of time warned against non-reproductive lasciviousness (including the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, et al.). We still don't know everything about the world. Even if you don't believe, there still might be some forces out there that work against rampant sexuality.
Besides, this article only discusses heterosexual sex, which excludes a large amount of people.

I'd still watch out, though. I mean, I'm Pagan so I believe in karma, but no matter what your religion is, even if you're atheist, you have to take into account the fact that every religion and culture since the dawn of time warned against non-reproductive lasciviousness (including the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, et al.).  We still don't know everything about the world. Even if you don't believe, there still might be some forces out there that work against rampant sexuality.
Besides, this article only discusses heterosexual sex, which excludes a large amount of people.

Well I am certainly not going to be trying to reproduce anytime soon, so "non-reproductive lasciviousness" (you make it sound so romantic) is all I have to look forward to. You seem to be of the opinion that you have to be having sex with many different people, and there are definitely risks associated with that apart from what the article discusses. The best way (imo) to cut down on overall risk is to be in a relationship with only one person, which would allow you to use birth control and not have to worry about disease. As for sex apart from heterosexual sex (Which, by that, I assume you mean homosexual sex. Of course there are other options, but they represent an extremely small percentage of the population) I do not see why the benefits discussed in the article would not also apply to them.

but no matter what your religion is, even if you're atheist, you have to take into account the fact that every religion and culture since the dawn of time warned against non-reproductive lasciviousness (including the Greeks, Romans, Hindus, et al.).

I hereby create the Cult of Caligula. We have no problems with rampant fornication.

shapard, may I join?

Yeah, but do we really want to put ourselves at risk in this day and age of AIDS?

You can reduce your risk by using condoms, maintaining an exclusive relationship with a single partner, and if you live in the United States, avoiding sex with african americans, and avoiding sex with other men (the facts aren't politically correct):

In the United States, about half of newly reported infections in recent years have been among African Americans. Although this group represents only 12% of the population, their HIV prevalence is 11 times higher than among whites. African-American women account for an increasing proportion of new infections and AIDS is now the leading cause of death for African-American women aged 25-34. Many of these women do not engage in high-risk behavior, but are contracting HIV through unsafe sex with their male partners--a significant share of whom also have sex with men or inject drugs. Analyzing data from 11 states, a recent U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study found that 34% of HIV-positive African-American men said they had sex with both women and men. However, only a small proportion of HIV-positive African-American women reported knowing that their partners also had sex with men.(1) Sex between men is the most common route of HIV infection in both the United States and Canada.

http://hivinsite.ucs...r07-00-00#S1.1X

You can reduce your risk by using condoms, maintaining an exclusive relationship with a single partner, and if you live in the United States, avoiding sex with african americans, and avoiding sex with other men (the facts aren't politically correct):



http://hivinsite.ucs...r07-00-00#S1.1X

Thanks for the link. Unfortunately few facts of this nature are politically correct, but good advice nonetheless.

There's another way to assure you don't get STDs. Get tested for all of them, and make your potential partner do the same. A pre-coital COA.

There's another way to assure you don't get STDs. Get tested for all of them, and make your potential partner do the same. A pre-coital COA.

I think that is what was meant by staying in a committed relationship with only one person. Of course, going to the length of "forcing" your partner to be tested might be a little extreme for some people.

There's another way to assure you don't get STDs. Get tested for all of them, and make your potential partner do the same. A pre-coital COA.

Of course, going to the length of "forcing" your partner to be tested might be a little extreme for some people.

You might want to look here and here to get an idea of just how prevalant the single STD HPV is.

From the second link:

Approximately 5.5 million new genital HPV transmissions occur in this country every year, representing about one-third of all new STD infections, and an estimated 20 million men and women are thought to have genital HPV at any given time. According to a 1997 American Journal of Medicine article, nearly three in four Americans between the ages of 15 and 49 have been infected with genital HPV at some point in their life.

Even more good news from this story over on New Scientist, "Semen acts as an anti-depressant". Showing women who have sex are less depressed (on average) than women who don't, and those who use condoms during sex are more depressed than those who don't.

So, if you are a guy, you can tell your wife/girlfriend that you were just trying to keep their spirits up!
[lol]

The article seemed so only apply to hetrosexuals. Masturbation is also good for guys apparntly. But as far as depression goes, girls can be the cause of it...

Hey, do you think this means mental heath support groups ought to have orgies?

There's another way to assure you don't get STDs. Get tested for all of them, and make your potential partner do the same. A pre-coital COA.

I think that is what was meant by staying in a committed relationship with only one person. Of course, going to the length of "forcing" your partner to be tested might be a little extreme for some people.

Of course I did not mean that one should physically force one's partner to be tested for STDs (or STIs as is apparently the correct term now). A conscious indididual has free will and I would not force one to do anything. I guess what I should have said is that one could *strongly encourage* one's partner to be tested.

Regarding your first point, I don't know if you understand the nature of some STDs. Being in a committed relationship only works if the other person has no STDs. Unless both partners are virgins there is always a possibility of being infected, and even then there are other ways that viruses can be spread non-sexually.

Of course I did not mean that one should physically force one's partner to be tested for STDs (or STIs as is apparently the correct term now). A conscious indididual has free will and I would not force one to do anything. I guess what I should have said is that one could *strongly encourage* one's partner to be tested.

Totally agree! [thumb]

Regarding your first point, I don't know if you understand the nature of some STDs. Being in a committed relationship only works if the other person has no STDs. Unless both partners are virgins there is always a possibility of being infected, and even then there are other ways that viruses can be spread non-sexually.

Yes, I was naturally assuming both parties were STD free upon entering the relationship, and remain in a committed relationship with one another. Of course if there is any question as to whether one is infected, abstaining or the use of condoms would, of course, be in order.

Edited by liveforever22, 05 May 2006 - 12:21 AM.

Excellent. I am glad we concur.

As for sex apart from heterosexual sex (Which, by that, I assume you mean homosexual sex. Of course there are other options, but they represent an extremely small percentage of the population) I do not see why the benefits discussed in the article would not also apply to them.

BTW that "extremely small percentage" is about 10% of the population.

There was an extensive discussion on this topic in a google forum thread, where plenty of solid references were brought to the table. Various studies put the number between 2-6%, with no referenced study exceeding 6%. That 10% figure is a myth.

http://answers.googl...dview?id=478685

As for sex apart from heterosexual sex (Which, by that, I assume you mean homosexual sex. Of course there are other options, but they represent an extremely small percentage of the population) I do not see why the benefits discussed in the article would not also apply to them.

BTW that "extremely small percentage" is about 10% of the population.

Outside of heterosexual and homosexual sex there are 10% of the population? I respectfully disagree. I can't really think of any other options besides beastiality, but I know there aren't 10% of the population doing that, which is why I said "extremely small percentage". If you thought I was including homosexuals in that 10%, please re-read my posting.

There was an extensive discussion on this topic in a google forum thread, where plenty of solid references were brought to the table.  Various studies put the number between 2-6%, with no referenced study exceeding 6%.  That 10% figure is a myth.

http://answers.googl...dview?id=478685

Interesting, Funk. [thumb] As I stated above, however I was explicitly stating that I did not see why the benefits would not apply to homosexuals as well as heterosexuals, and that there were other options besides those two groups, but they were an extremely small percentage of the population. I think that the percentage would be much lower for individuals that are not heterosexual or homosexual. (imo)

There was an extensive discussion on this topic in a google forum thread, where plenty of solid references were brought to the table. Various studies put the number between 2-6%, with no referenced study exceeding 6%. That 10% figure is a myth.

http://answers.googl...dview?id=478685

Interesting read. I'm not contesting those surveys but...
First, its pretty obvious that a big number of people lie in a survey.
Second, If the figure of 3-6% is true for homosexual (US) popupation, a figure of almost the same size (2-4%?) should be added for bisexual popupation, and still keep out who lies in the surveys.
In conclusion, the total figure of non-heterosexual popupation would be within 5-10% range + the "hidden" ones

I have read other extimations which said 5-15% of the human population is not heterosexual, therefore I averaged 10%.

Edited by syr_, 19 May 2006 - 10:53 PM.

To be honest with you, I could care less wether or not someone enjoys same sex delights. I am all for individual freedom and choice.

If it makes you happy and harms no one what business is it of mine?

Back on the sex topic, I think that the benefits of sex are too numerous too mention. The alleviation of everyday stressors and the mundane is one of the main reasons sex is so awesome. When I have sex there is nothing else but bliss and content....... at least until the dopamine wears off. [cry]

I have seen about 5 trillion studies concluding that optimism is a great health benefit; what better to promote optimism than pleasure?

Hey, do you think this means mental heath support groups ought to have orgies?

indeed, they are a source of delight for all who attend them. [lol]