Monks and ascetics pledge themselves to it for spiritual purity, and of course there’s colloquial advice to athletes not to have sex or masturbate just before big competitions, so as to keep their edge.
But is there any scientific evidence that celibacy actually does help people, either in the short- or long-term? Is there proof that celibacy increases energy or intelligence or anything else? Or is this just a placebo effect?
Against celibacy, we know that regular ejaculation for men does help guard against prostate cancer. But does refraining have proven benefits, or is this just speculation?
I don’t of any way to gather objective evidence concerning spiritual purity.
That doesn’t mean that spiritual purity is imaginary or unreal. It means that – like love and hate – I don’t know how to measure it, or test for its existence.
I don’t of any way to gather objective evidence concerning spiritual purity.
Right. But maybe there are related, scientific measures that are relevant. Meditation is also done by many for reasons of spiritual purity, but it also affects the brain in measurable ways.
I’m not asking for a measurement of spiritual purity, just for any measurements at all of any positive effects of celibacy.
On the other hand, there’s evidence that women who never become pregnant have higher rates of some cancers, including breast cancer. So, nuns MAY have higher levels of some cancers.
But as countless coaches (including Casey Stengel) have told their players, “Sex the night before a game never hurt anybody- it’s the staying out all night LOOKING for it that kills you.”
That’s one reason that Vince Lombardi often made a point of having players’ wives travel with the team. He knew HE couldn’t make sure all players were in bed on time, but their wives could. Vince was fine with Bart Starr having sex the night before the Super Bowl, so long as he was doing it with MRS. Starr.
I recall that Bill Bryson spouts on about this issue in his book “Troublesome Words”. According to him, the proper meaning of “celibate”, thus “celibacy” etc., is still “unmarried”; its use to mean “voluntarily refraining from all sexual activity” is, technically, wrong. It would appear to me that English long lacked, and needed, a word meaning “voluntarily refraining from…etc.,” as above – the co-opting of “celibate” to do that job, strikes me as a good idea. “Chaste” does not fit that exact slot, because it can cover being faithful to – but having sex with – one’s lawfully wedded spouse.
So you’re saying Bill Bryson has no understanding of basic linguistics?
Say it ain’t so! :rolleyes:
The man’s a complete ignoramus when it comes to language. Everything he says on the subject should be taken with a grain of salt and thrown into the ocean.
IMO, the same goes for Bryson on lots of subjects – if I read a statement by him that the sky was blue, I’d go outside to make sure. It’s just that the first mention I remember encountering, of the suggestion / version “celibate = unmarried”, was in his book.