It pays to sleep around...

[Guest]

..so says this study http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...mics-find.html.

However, it's either poor journalism or, as I suspect, a poor press release from the science team as a similar rehash was also carried by The Times because the article and/or study seems to raise as man questions as it does answers.

If ejaculations minimise the risk of prostate cancer then there is one alternative method that is not mentioned. A glaring omission IMO. At least, it does mean that GoongGung, Flosh-hilda, Hinton, TeamSaint and Amsy are guaranteed never to get prostate cancer. !

[amateur51]

..so says this study http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...mics-find.html.

However, it's either poor journalism or, as I suspect, a poor press release from the science team as a similar rehash was also carried by The Times because the article and/or study seems to raise as man questions as it does answers.

If ejaculations minimise the risk of prostate cancer then there is one alternative method that is not mentioned. A glaring omission IMO. At least, it does mean that GoongGung, Flosh-hilda, Hinton, TeamSaint and Amsy are guaranteed never to get prostate cancer. !

Oh dear, humour can be such a delicate plant.Welcome back again, btw.


At least two of the people you choose to deride are not candidates for what the article recommends, Resurrection Man.
And have you thought that perhaps some are already living with or are anticipating a prostate cancer diagnosis?

[ahinton]

..so says this study http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...mics-find.html.

However, it's either poor journalism or, as I suspect, a poor press release from the science team as a similar rehash was also carried by The Times because the article and/or study seems to raise as man questions as it does answers.

It seems to me to be both. That the "lead researcher" ("lead in pencil", peut-être?) is a "Dr Parent" might be amusing en passant, I suppose - but perhaps it should all be taken with a large pinch of salt on the grounds that the "research" has been conducted in Québec (although the piece omits to clarify how it was actually carried out). Still, at least for what little it might be worth, it's provided the impetus for some mildly witty responses, including ""Sex with 21 women lowers risk ...." Is this a misprint? Is it supposed to say "Sex with 21-year-old women etc"?
and
"So even if it reduces the risk of prostate cancer, by how much does it INCREASE the risk of dying from:
- heart attack;
- being shot by a cuckolded neighbour;
- being bashed over the head with the frying pan by the wife?"

If ejaculations minimise the risk of prostate cancer then there is one alternative method that is not mentioned. A glaring omission IMO.

Did you mean "omission" or "emission"? Never mind.

I have no idea what "method" you refer to here, not least because no actual "methods" per se of any kind are mentioned in the article.

There is also no information as to why or how sexual activity between a man and more than 20 women (presumably at various times rather than all at once) could impact positively upon susceptibility to prostate cancer when, by implication, such activity on a regular basis with less than that number supposedly could not.

Furthermore, no evidence is presented in support of "ejaculations minimising the risk of prostate cancer" that specifies either the number of female sexual partners or the frequency of the sexual activity required to ensure such minimisation of risk; confining sexual activity to once annually with a different woman on each such occasiononce per year is hardly likely to have bearing on any medical condition, I imagine.

Lastly, it would seem counter-intuitive that "sleeping" with more than 20 women is likely to give rise (sorry!) to those ejaculations in the first place.

At least, it does mean that GoongGung, Flosh-hilda, Hinton, TeamSaint and Amsy are guaranteed never to get prostate cancer. !

What does? And why certain specific members of this forum only? Pleasant as it may seem that you appear to exclaim with implied delight over those particular presumably randomly chosen members never getting prostate cancer, you do nothing to present, let alone justify, any logic behind such an assertion - almost certainly because, sadly, there is none.

In conclusion, the research appears to be at least as suspect as certain of the findings of "feminist musicology", the reportage is at least on a par therewith and your post is considerably less edifying than either, not least in the light of the final sentence of am51's post #2.

The topic accordingly seems hardly worthy of discussion - which is perhaps why Less-erection Man appears to have convinced himself otherwise...

[vinteuil]

..so says this study http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...mics-find.html.

... repeat after me, and write out one hundred times :

"Correlation does not imply causation."

.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27537142

.

http://www.tylervigen.com/

.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

.

[ahinton]

... repeat after me, and write out one hundred times :

"Correlation does not imply causation."

.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27537142

Tell that to the Québecois "researchers" concerned!

The first bit of the article to which you link is interesting, though; spurious as the remainder of the correlations indeed are, the opening one does appear to embrace at least some degree of logic in that the presence of margarine in the particular context concerned might be taken to imply that the married partners spend too little time buttering one another up.

I've been trying long and hard to resist claiming that the one in The Daily Telegraph to which Risorgasmento linked is just so much balls but have finally failed, for which all due apologies.

[Flosshilde]

There is also no information as to why or how sexual activity between a man and more than 20 women (presumably at various times rather than all at once) could impact positively upon susceptibility to prostate cancer when, by implication, such activity on a regular basis with less than that number supposedly could not.

I can't be bothered to read it, so perhaps somebody who has could tell me if it's specifically having sex with women that helps prevent prostate cancer? In which case, despite mento's good wishes Amateur51 & I won't enjoy that protection.

(I wonder if Rissy was attracted to this report because of his name?)

('Risorgimento' of course means 'rise again' - and again, and again, and again ...)

[ahinton]

I can't be bothered to read it, so perhaps somebody who has could tell me if it's specifically having sex with women that helps prevent prostate cancer?

I cannot tell you that with any certainty but I can confirm that this is part of what the article seeks to allege.

In which case, despite mento's good wishes Amateur51 & I won't enjoy that protection.

am51's already pointed this out as well.

(I wonder if Rissy was attracted to this report because of his name?)

('Risorgimento' of course means 'rise again' - and again, and again, and again ...)

Who knows? Who cares? I just wonder why on earth its author was attracted to the idea of writing it...

[Flosshilde]

Is this a record? It's only ten days since Risorgimento bade us goodbye, & here he is, back again

. Goodbye.

[Flosshilde]

am51's already pointed this out as well.

He has - apologies for duplicating it.

[ahinton]

Is this a record? It's only ten days since Risorgimento bade us goodbye, & here he is, back again

Well, as you pointed out earlier in this thread, "'Risorgimento' of course means 'rise again' - and again, and again, and again ...". Ah, well...

[Richard Barrett]

Dftt

[visualnickmos]

I started to read said article; I very quickly came to the conclusion that I was wasting my time.

It was utter and total tosh.

[Flosshilde]

There was an article in the Express (I read it in a chip shop, OK?) that had a large headline, taking up half the front page, saying that sunshine helped prevent diabetes. When one read the article it boiled down to the fact that being in the sun might be a factor in prevention of diabetes, but so might a lot of other things.

[Flosshilde]

Dftt

??

[amateur51]

There was an article in the Express (I read it in a chip shop, OK?) that had a large headline, taking up half the front page, saying that sunshine helped prevent diabetes. When one read the article it boiled down to the fact that being in the sun might be a factor in prevention of diabetes, but so might a lot of other things.

Sadly, scoffing haddock & chips, even when wrapped in the Excess, is definitely not one of those other factors.