Lets face the facts.
Sex = good
No Sex = bad
hey, that would make a great poster
I wish I had saved some e-mails from the health aide in my dorm last year. She was of the opinion sex was very good for both reducing stress and as a source of exercise- it’d be better if I could quote some of her messages.
Here’s a cite about sperm as an antidepressant:
http://www.salon.com/sex/feature/2002/06/19/semen/
The bit about cohabiting lesbians not experiencing menstrual synchronicity is intriguing, too.
That’s because menstrual synchrony is a myth.
Posted by Evil Captor:
All glory to Evil Captor!
Posted by Marley23:
It would be better still, Marley, if you could provide us (that is to say, me) with her current address and phone number.
Here’s an aspect nobody has addressed yet: What about teenagers? Even today, it is generally assumed in America that as a matter of public policy, sexual activity by minors should be, if not forbidden, then very much discouraged. High-school condom-distribution programs exist but they’re alway controversial, and defended as a concession to necessity: The kids are gonna do it anyway, better they don’t get in trouble.
But nobody ever comes out and says: It’s better for teenagers to be fucking than not fucking. It’s unhealthy for them to keep their virginity past a certain age. Is this a defensible position, or not?
You might want to check out a GD thread that’s going on, “A Modest Proposal for Sex Education,” which is about the wisdom of teaching teenagers that it’s all right to masturbate. You can link to it at http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194252 .
There’s an obvious connection between that thread and this one: Leaving aside the risks of pregnancy, disease, etc., what is the healthiest option for teenagers: Fornication, masturbation, or no sexual release at all?
Teenagers should be encouraged to masturbate all they want so long as they keep it discreet. But they should only be allowed to have sex if they demonstrate an ability to practice safe sex and birth control, and also keep their rooms clean and help out around the house.
How do you demonstrate that? :eek:
In GQ? We don’t.
Does there remain a General Question here?
Yes, manhattan, the General Question is whether sexual behavior can affect a person’s health for reasons unconnected with disease or pregnancy. While this is bound to be a focus for controversy, it is at bottom a purely factual, scientific question. And we really haven’t answered this question yet, we’ve just tentatively groped towards an anwer.
You have completely missed the subtlety of my response. Demonstrations will never be necessary, because even the possibility of SEX will not make teenagers keep their rooms clean and help out around the house!
Lack of sex may be symptomatic of a lack of any long term relationships. Lack of such is lonely, frustrating and stressful, especially if those around you have what you don’t 
The effect of no sex/lots of sex on a person’s health would most likely be determined by how the person feels about the situation. What affects the mind in turn effects the body.
If a person likes the idea of celibacy, they’ll be happy and if anything, it would have a positive effect on their health. On the other hand, being forced into celibacy by circumstances rather than by choice, can be very stressful for some people. As with anything that causes too much stress, it’s detrimental to one’s health in the long run.
[Quagmire]
Oh yeah!
[/Quagmire]
One health risk for sexually active women is bacterial vaginosis. That cite doesn’t say so, but I believe it’s more commonly caused by sex without condoms.