Too much sex causes prostate cancer.....

Discussion in 'Health and Fitness' started by headgear, Jan 26, 2009.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:


  1. Im 4kin doomed :omfg:
     
  2. You mean gay sex?
     
  3. Best stay away from my mrs tonight then :wink: :wink:
     
  4. Who...us or you?
     
  5. You could spend a month trapped in a darkened room and she still wouldnt let you mount her.
     
  6. hang on, I thought spaffing reduced the chances of prostate cancer as it flushed out the prostate :?
     
  7. Conflicting results.

    Both studies are flawed although my initial reading of the second one (the one that suggests an increased risk of prostate cancer) makes me think it is a better conducted study than the first one, which relied on people's recollections as to how often they masturbated, etc., when they were younger.

    One study does not necessarily the truth make though.

    Also, it is probably of little importance: what are you going to do with the information? People have enough difficulty giving up smoking and we *know* that causes lung cancer, bladder cancer, etc. Are people going to give up sex (read "wanking" for most of you) because it *might* promote prostate cancer?

    Not likely.

    FF.
    (urologist)
     
  8. I disagree with the bold. From the article saying it is bad.

    Also the other study only referred to wa.nking.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3072021.stm
     

  9. Well my God. Thank **** for that.
     
  10. Damned if you do....damned if you don't.
     
  11. I'm slightly confused by your post. You disagree with my assessment that the recent article is a better designed study?

    I am aware the that the older paper demonstrating a benefit was only looking at masturbation. I don't really see the relevance of this, as the participants in the second paper were analysed by type of sexual behaviour as well.

    Are you disagreeing because you've read the papers, or because of what you've heard from non-professionals about what they think they read?

    FF.
     
  12. Sorry, and to be more clear, by "papers", I mean the actual journal articles (which are on my desk). Not the newpapers.
     
  13. The relevance is that they are looking at different sexual activites and so may not contradict.
    I have not read the papers, did they use large enough samples?
     
  14. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    FFS, we are all going to die at some point. Might as well be while on the job approaching the climax of your life.