What are the scientific reasons for having sex?

The Register (UK) ^ | 10 oct 06 | Dr Stephen Juan

[white trash redneck]

What are the scientific reasons for having sex?

Asked by Jill Howard of Alexandria, Virginia, USA

The reasons for not engaging in sex include transmission of diseases, heart attack due to exertion, and many others. The reasons for engaging in sex are numerous. Among these are:

• Sex helps boost the immune system. According to Dr Carl Charnetski of the Department of Psychology at Wilkes University in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, people who reported one or two sexual "episodes" per week enjoyed higher levels of Immunoglobin A. This is an antibody that helps fight disease.

• Sex helps boost longevity. In one study cited by Dr Charnetski, men who had more orgasms over a 10 year period boosted their longevity compared with those who had fewer.

• Sex helps ward off cancer. In another study cited by Dr Charnetski, men who had more ejaculations over a 35 year period had 33 per cent less prostate cancer compared to those with fewer ejaculations.

• Sex results in a more youthful appearance. According to a study by Dr David Weeks, a clinical neuropsychologist at the Royal Edinburgh Hospital in Scotland and co-author of Superyoung (1999), men and women who reported having sex an average of four times per week looked approximately 10 years younger than they really were.

• Sex helps reduce stress. Numerous studies show that it does this through lowering anxiety levels, boosting relaxation, and aiding sleeping.

• Sex helps fight depression. A study by Dr Gordon Gallup of the Department of Psychology at the State University of New York at Albany found that women who regularly engage in heterosexual sex in which they come in contact with semen were significantly less depressed than those women that did not. he causal relationship is unclear. Dr Gallup speculates that "possibly because when absorbed through the vagina, semen may have an effect on mood in women". However, Dr Gallup is quick to point out: "Regardless of the findings, this study does not advocate that people abstain from using condoms. Protecting oneself from an unwanted pregnancy or a sexually transmitted disease is far more important."

• Sex helps coping with middle age. This is the inference drawn from research by Dr GA Bachmann at the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey and published first in 1995 in the International Journal of Fertility and Menopausal Studies and continuing in The Journal of Sexual Medicine in 2006.

• Sex is good exercise. Exercise helps circulation, lowers cholesterol, and releases helpful endorphins.

• Sex helps in losing weight. Well, at least a little. One burns approximately four to five calories per minute or perhaps 300 calories per hour during sex (depending upon how, shall we say, "vigorous" the sex is). About 7,000 to 8,000 excess calories must be burned to lose one kilogram of fat (3,500 to lose one pound). You do the calculations.

Stephen Juan, Ph.D. is an anthropologist at the University of Sydney.

[girlangler]

Billhilly,

With your sense of humor this thread could be even more hilarious, so jump in.

[Pyro7480]

Well, society tells people what to do all the time, through our laws. Not many seem to complain about the ones aganst murder, robbery, and extortion.

[spunkets]

" Ludicrous! Any freedom can be infringed upon by the simple expedient of armed force."

My observation is that it most often takes place at the ballot box. The loss is piecemeal.

There is also no such thing as "a freedom". There are rights. Freedom is a condition where men respect the rights of their fellows. If the opportunity exists for the rights of individuals to be taken away by the majority, then that is the problem, not the fact that those minority individuals haven't multiplied like rabbits, or mice.

The same applies to the idea that freedom is the ability to toss a vote to pick one's ruler(s).

[najida]

True,
but it seems we get all fussy about things that really don't threaten us directly.

It sorta falls into social engineering when you tell folks they are 'bad' for not birthing enougy babies.

[steve-b]

And yet another gaping hole opens in your argument. How is it, pray tell, that those people aren't doing any better after generation after generation of breeding like flies? Why didn't their children and grandchildren do any better by them, hmmmm?

[wideawake]

Regarless of your denial, you're still claiming the purpose of giving life and living life, is to propagate your own concerns.

The West is not merely a personal concern of a solitary little FReeper.

That would be like saying that taking steps to preserve the First Amendment is just a selfish personal concern of some solitary Constitutional law enthusiast.

[Cicero]

Both Darwin and the Church teach that the PRIMARY purpose of sex is procreation.

From the early middle ages until after the Reformation, Christians both Protestant and Catholic taught that sexual relations are only legitimate in marriage, and that marriage has three purposes:

1. Procreation.

2. Companionship, love, and mutual help.

3. Assuagement of lust (from St. Paul's famous saying, "It is better to marry than to burn").

[blackie]

Forget scientific ~ it's extremely enjoyable for all parties involved.

[Red Boots]

"On being asked how he had "discovered" the law of gravitation, Newton replied 'by thinking on it continually" Real scientists think on women constantly, they are such a mystery. ...and while we're on them- thnking, you know- stuff happens

While the theme of the thread went off in another, more sobering direction; your reply really cracked me up. LOL !

[teenyelliott]

I really tried to walk away from this, but I just couldn't.

Your tag: "Give me an army saying the Rosary and I will conquer the world." - Pope Blessed Pius IX

Replace the Rosary with any Islamic prayer, and how is that statement any different from that of the Muslim extremists?

Obviously, I do not want to have a discussion with you, as it will be a waste of time on both our parts.

I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy, which I am sure you will fail to see.

[CzarNicky]

Here is a list of the countries and the number of children per woman that are going to conquer the west 2.10 is considered replacement level for a developed country with low infant mortality.

Albania 2.03
Algeria 1.89
Bosnia 1.22
Iran 1.8
Tunisia 1.74
Turkey 1.92

VS

United States 2.09

What can I say? go us.

Now on a more serious note there are some problems with muslims breeding like rats in Arabia and Pakistan especially but in reality the vast majority of the muslim world is in the range of 2-3 children per woman and declining. Before the end of this century and probably before the midway point the muslim world will be experiencing the same demographic crunch the the west is experiencing now.

[wideawake]

You just proved my case for NOT wanting to bring children into this world.

I prefer to cultivate the virtues of hope and courage as much as it is in my power to do so, and to shun their opposites.

You see, I'm a Christian and a conservative.

[cydcharisse]

okay. I'm going to make a dozen kids to keep the Muslims from taking over.

I can't think of anything more noble than having kids so I can out-procreate my enemy.

[steve-b]

You're projecting again. It was your own argument that was based on the fallacy of the excluded middle; I simply brought it to its reductio ad absurdum.

[CzarNicky]

BTW all stats are from the CIA World Factbook.

[Warren_Piece]

Forget scientific ~ it's extremely enjoyable for all parties involved.

Well, except the hamster...

Did I say that?

[ArrogantBustard]

My observation is that it most often takes place at the ballot box. The loss is piecemeal.

And the ballot box is backed up by armed force. Government is armed force; nothing more, nothing less. Various forms of government are different ways of determining who gets to control that armed force.

There is also no such thing as "a freedom". There are rights.

Fine. There are no rights which cannot be infringed or even completely suppressed by the simple expedient of armed force.

If the opportunity exists for the rights of individuals to be taken away by the majority,

That opportunity always exists, everywhere. To think otherwise is to be ignorant both of history and of human nature.

fact that those minority individuals haven't multiplied like rabbits, or mice.

Nice piece of ZPG propaganda there ... If Civilisation A refuses to procreate at a sufficent rate to maintain its population and Civilisation B procreates at a rate exceeding replacement, Civilisation A will disappear and Civilisation B will replace it. You can duck and weave all day, but the facts of demographic change won't go away.

[najida]

!?!?

[steve-b]

Indeed. This whole "demographic" (in quotes to avoid aspersion to actual demographers who understand real science) argument reminds me of nothing so much as the current global-cooling alarmism circa 1976 or global-warming alarmism circa 2006.

I swear, some of these people fear that an ordinary fever is going to continue to the point of spontaneous human combusion.

[spunkets]

"The West is not merely a personal concern of a solitary little FReeper."

This solitary little FReeper is only concerned about freedom. I'll have no part in promoting the idea that the purpose of the giving the gift of life is staff some communitarian force.

"That would be like saying that taking steps to preserve the First Amendment is just a selfish personal concern of some solitary Constitutional law enthusiast."

No. There's no logical connection between this analogy and what you're claiming the purpose of giving the gift of life should be.