There have been myths on both sides of this questions. Some peoples (e.g., the ancient Greeks) believed that regular sex was necessary for health, or at least, for a man’s health. (Perhaps there might have been an element of playing for female sympathy in this?) And I read in Michael Crichton’s novel The Great Train Robbery that in Victorian Britain, it was believed that syphilis was caused by having sex too often (this was before the germ theory of disease); the Victorians also believed the only way a man could be cured of syphilis was to have sex with a virgin – a myth which must have caused the disease to spread even wider than it would have otherwise.
What’s the straight dope? Discounting sexual release through masturbation, and disregarding obvious sex-related health risks such as pregnancy and STDs, and disregarding other clearly unhealthy vices (drugs, heavy drinking, etc.) that often seem to go hand-in-hand with loose sex, does it really matter to the state of your health whether your sexual behavior is chaste or wanton?
IIRC there was a higher incidence of prostrate cancer in widowers who had been sexually active and then stopped alltogether.
Seems like infrequant ejaculation is not good for John Thomas.
Also recently I saw somewhere that men who went “without” until their wives were ovulating were Less likely to be potent, as staying in the tract too long had a negative impact on the lil spermazoaa.
I was once diagnosed with prostatitis (or something like that) and the doc gave me a fact sheet which recommended I ejaculate regularly for a healthy prostate. Even though I received the doctor’s order 9 years ago, I still follow her instructions faithfully to this day
I also had the order laminated and placed at the entrance to my apartment.
So, let me get this straight. Regular orgasms for men have an important health function, i.e., preventing prostate cancer and prostitis? Why haven’t I ever heard of this. We hear about all other kinds of sexual health things, why not this? I mean, even if the Authorities were all blushy and shy as they tend to be about sexual matters involving sexual activity as opposed to inactivity, you’d figure the men’s magazines and porn sites would be ALL OVER this one.
Is this new data? I must confess to a certain skepticism.
No, Evil Captor, this isn’t new data. The condition has been known for thousands of years. Ever heard of “blue balls”? It isn’t just for rejected teenagers. Priests and monks living in celibate were familiar with it. I was even told once (by my university professor, so I hope there’s some truth behind it) that some opponents of Paul of Tarsos drew him wearing blue trousers (or whatever Paul used to wear) to make fun of his celibacy.
Oh, and men’s magazines and porn sites tend, in my experience, not to purvey much useful information. And I hardly think they need to encourage their customers to have more frequent orgasms, you know?
And besides, the data is disputed, as Cecil writes.
Any man over 50 is likely to have Benign Prostatic Hypertrophy, which means the prostate is swollen and acting up but not cancerous. If a fella goes to a urologist about it, part of the “doctor’s orders” will be two or three orgasms a week, to reduce the swelling in the prostate. How you get them is up to you.
For the sake of easier Googling, please note that “prostate” has only one R.
All right, but is there any non-psychological health benefit to periodic sexual contact that you can’t get through masturbation? – Which serves just as well as intercourse to give a male an orgasm and release his stored-up seminal fluid.
And assuming that sexual contact with another live human being does provide some health benefit to a man – does it make any difference whether his partner is male or female? (Again, disregarding risk of STDs.)
And all the above posts are about men. What about women? Women have no prostate glands. Is there any reason why no sex/lots of sex should be harmful/beneficial to women?
It seems to me that if celibacy were really harmful, most celibate priests, monks and nuns would die young. Which they don’t, so far as I know.
And if too-frequent sex were really harmful, most prostitutes, lechers, and sex addicts generally would die young. Which (barring diseases, drug addiction, abuse by pimps, and other behavior-related risks) they don’t, so far as I know.
On the other hand, I have read as a pretty well-established fact that married men live longer than single men. But, if that is true, it might be purely due to the psychological benefit of having a life companion, and the even more obvious practical benefits of having a person in your life who is devoted to taking care of you.
Sexual intercourse without a condom can be good for women. It seems that sperm contains substances that are natural anti-depressants. They make women cheerier, over and above the natural cheeriness that comes from sweet, sweet lovin’ (which they’d get with condoms.
Of course, there are OTHER considerations to intercourse without a condom which pose health risks.
In any event, I guess there’s a reason so many people call the male sex organ “Mr. Happy.”
Any doctors in the house that could write me a prescription for orgasms? I could just whip it out at the bar (the prescription, I mean - bah dum tsssh!) and hope for the best…
…and I actually meant to post some relevant material along with that joke, but I got distracted. Sorry.
Speaking entirely for myself, when I don’t get laid, I get cranky and make poor decisions. I’m irritable and frustrated with life in general, to the point where it becomes a physical sensation. Maybe that’s just me. My insomnia also gets worse, to the point where these days, I can’t sleep without an orgasm (or pranayamic breathing).
For some odd reason, I also get irritable directly after sex, and I have no idea why that is, but I guess that’d be a WHOLE different thread…
In the interests of science, I would like to volunteer myself to be a “receiver of regular sex” (but not a control group member) should Uncle Cecil decide this is worth further study…
For what its worth, though, I had childhood eczema and asthma (both quite severely)…
The syptoms have essentially subsided, but they return whenever I go long periods without… er… recreation. (And it doesn’t make it any easier to get some, let me tell you…)
Really? Very interesting! One of those persistent myths is that a sexually frustrated teenage male will break out in pimples (this is probably based on a confusion of cause and effect – guys with zits might have a harder time getting laid). But I’ve never heard before of chastity being associated with eczema, or asthma.
Posted by Evil Captor:
Cite? C’mon, cite?! I’m sure a lot of us guys could find good use for a cite on this! In fact, it would be worthwhile for us to pool funds to take out a few full-page ads in major newspapers . . .
Posted by Panzerfaust:
How does that Latin phrase go? Omnium animalium post coitum tristre est. Saying it in Latin makes it sound profound – but why all animals should be sad after coitus has never been clear to me.
You make me think of my upstairs neighbors at my old apartment.
Late at night, they’d have sex, as evidenced by their squeaky bed. Never more than 5 minutes, except for one time. After that, like clockwork, they’d get into a shouting match that lasted about 2-5 minutes.
For at least that one guy, the sex was bad for his relationship. My theory was that the “5 minutes” part of the equation may have had something to do with all the fights.
I just know I read somewhere that women who remain sexually active (including masturbation) through perimenopause and menopause may not experience some of the symptoms as severely. I can’t find a source though, so I don’t know if it was real research or just wishful thinking. Ring any bells for anyone?
