Comments on: Unprotected review on National Review Online

By: ken

ken — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 22:55:04 +0000

“You do realize, of course, that a higher frequency of ejaculations does not necessarily require promiscuity. ”

Yes, I am aware of that, in fact the study specifically spoke about masturbation. However, I was specifically asked about any studies that could support the idea of casual sex being healthy (and the related idea that celibacy could be bad for you). While this study is far from conclusive, I believe it does at least suggest that there can be some benefits from promiscuity.

By: Warren

Warren — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 21:37:38 +0000

Her analysis specifically looked at which came first and given that they survey was done in waves with follow up, I am inclination to accept her suggestions that the sexual involvement came first.

By: Jim Burroway

Jim Burroway — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 17:36:33 +0000

You do realize, of course, that a higher frequency of ejaculations does not necessarily require promiscuity. Ask any teenager.

By: ken

ken — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 15:41:34 +0000

The prostate cancer study is:

GILES, G. G.(et. al), “Sexual factors and prostate cancer.”,

BJU International. 92(3):211-216, August 2003.

They concluded that a higher frequency of ejaculations early in life negatively associated with prostate cancer.

I don’t really see anything in Hallfors study that would contradict what I said. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to find that girls who engage in sexual activity as a means of gaining acceptance or poor self-image are significantly more likely to score highly for depression later in life. Would you?

By: Warren

Warren — Thu, 07 Dec 2006 22:43:24 +0000

Well, that’s a stretch – celibacy and prostrate cancer. I suspect promiscuous women will be glad they are missing out on that one.

Google Denise Hallfors and her work with teens and casual sex. The work is referenced on this blog as well in the archives. The causal link is addressed in her work and it is very compelling.