Posted on 10/28/2014 12:58:36 PM PDT by BenLurkin
This article did not need to do that. The Supremes and judges have already accomplished that. That’s history. Over. Done deal. This article however does say homos prostate is not as healthy as hetero. So it was negative towards homos from a health standpoint.
Not tonight girls...I got a headache.
A better punch line would be:
I'm so SCREWED!
There are chem/hormonal changes in partners of the opposite sex that are brought about by coitus. It isn’t difficult to imagine that these changes may be beneficial in the one case and harmful in the other...God having a huge sense of humor and all.
Why 21? Why not 42? It’s the universal number.
Would two 21 year olds count?
“I suspect the original message — sex with women over 21 will get you into less trouble — somehow got terribly garbled in transmission.”
That may depend on the jurisdiction. Where I live, 17 will get you 20!
I’m a female, and the only “woman” who’s shared my bed is my toddler daughter, lol. Not an alien, I have my papers.
See you are not giving your hubby that something extra, a lot you I bet know what I mean.
Maybe the causation is that guys who have had sex with 21 or more women are in better shape physically than those guys who haven’t. It is not the act that helps, but the overall health of the men who because they are in good shape can get 21 women to sleep with them.
Does it count if most of them are somewhat imaginary?
I wouldn’t be able to walk for at least a week, if I had sex with 20 women...assuming I could afford enough Viagra to even manage it.
‘course you’ll probably die of syphilis, but at least you’ll have fun on the way.....
“Apparently, men engaging in more than one sexual relationship, have more sex on the average than those in steady relationships”
Not if you’ve got a healthy relationship. Married men tend to get more than single men.
(“I’d rather have two girls at 21 each than one girl at 42.”)
Don't let women see this; they start getting "headaches" soon enough, without putting a lower limit on yesses.
"Sorry, Dear; you've reached your 21 lifetime limit; now go to sleep; I'm tired."
Alright. I just finished the entire article.
This is the dumbest evaluation of data that I’ve ever seen in my life.
If it’s the number of ejaculations that assist men’s health, then why do gay men not have the benefit?
They’re assuming that men with more partners have more sex, but that’s just not true. Married men have more sex than singles.
So, the bottom line is that heterosexual men that have *less* sex actually have the lowest rate of prostate cancer.
> > I’m DOOOOMED!
> A better punch line would be:
> I’m so SCREWED!
If I was, I wouldn’t be doomed.
Thank you. I’ll be in my cabin, writing my will.
If his personal satisfaction requires a male partner, I know a lawyer who will set him free from the constraints of human reproductive dimorphism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.