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.

[SoothingDave]

The West is disappearing because of people who have disconnected sex from its God-given purpose.

How sad that it is considered provocative or insane to report what was once common sense.

SD

[wideawake]

Typo: that's Mark not Mary.

[Warren_Piece]

Above all, sex is the means of propagating the human species!!!

Now, be serious. When my wife gives me "that look" and heads for the bedroom, what I am NOT thinking to myself is "Oh, boy! I get to propogate the species!". As for the title of the thread, I quote Billy Crystal from "City Slickers": "Women need a reason to have sex. Men just need a place."

[RandallFlagg]

Thanks for posting this. I'll hand it to the Wife and see what happens....

[SoothingDave]

"The utter lack of rational responses to the accurate statement I made indicates that you and your cohorts have nothing useful to say."

Getting a just little too overtightened over this subject wouldn't you say?

Do you consider that to be a "rational response?"

SD

[A Texan]

Okay, that makes a little more sense.

As to Steyn's article, I disagree to a point. I have always tended to believe that quanitity does not beat quality.

[Always Right]

So Foley was doing those pages a favor?

[Rudder]

By counting the number of organisms---those who use asexual reproduction vastly outnumber those who rely upon sexual reproduction. And, yes, that would include bacteria and other unicellular organisms.

[AppyPappy]

There is no practical difference between using contraception and converting to Islam.

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[SoothingDave]

How many kids do you have?

Odd question for a man of science to ask. Is "looking for hypocrisy" your first reaction to a logical argument being presented?

Can you refute the premise put forth, that by refusing to reproduce one cedes the future to those who do?

SD

[wideawake]

What's doubly sad is that an obvious truth is considered provocative on FR.

I expect leftists to scream at any criticism of sexual narcissism, but alleged conservatives?

I cultivate the theological virtue of hope, but I have to say this kind of debauched thinking indicates a death spiral for my culture.

[Dracian]

What are the scientific reasons for having sex?

It's kind of an ambiguous question as framed. The article was more about the individual health benefits of "sexual" activity.

The philosophical explanation for sex in general is gathered from observation:

Only animals that reproduced have ancestors living today. Reproduction in the wild confers no real benefit to the parental individual. So reproduction is one of those accidents that perpetuate themselves. There is no more purpose in reproduction than there is in the sea-cloud-rain cycle. Water isn't seeking a purpose and neither is reproduction. But both have consequences.

[EveningStar]

You forgot the sarcasm tags. I hope.

[avacado]

OUCH!!! I was NOT expecting that. I may never ever be able to reproduce again. Thanks! ;-)

[L98Fiero]

Blah, blah, blah. By their standards, sluts, whores and pornstars are the most well-adjusted people on earth. We know the exact opposite is true.

Monogamous marital sex may be a different story.

[najida]

Because it makes me smile (is that a good answer?)

[spunkets]

I don't believe in having babies for purposes of outnumbering my enemies. Whether that purpose amounts to providing voters, or military recruits, it's abhorent. If the all so wonderful folks in charge of Western Civ can't protect freedom by establishing that purpose in law, so that freedom itself doesn't depend on the number of detractors, there's little to be admired in that system.

[Warren_Piece]

I have to ask: are you Catholic? I'm not trying to be rude, it's just important to know if your position is rooted in religious faith, or in scientific demographics (Steyn), or both.

That way, I'll know how to answer you.

[stm]

Is this better mod? Jeesh

[durasell]

I don't believe in having babies for purposes of outnumbering my enemies.




Plus, it's a very lame pick-up line.