Sex with more than 20 women reduces risk of prostate cancer, according to study

[snooper2]

Canadian researchers found that men with numerous female partners had a 28% lower risk of developing the disease


There’s good news for the Casanovas of the world – sleeping with numerous women could help to protect men from prostate cancer, according to a new study. Researchers at the University of Montreal and INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier found that men who had slept with more than 20 women during their lifetime were 28 per cent less likely to develop the disease.

They were also 19 per cent less likely to develop an aggressive type of cancer, compared to those who had had only one female sexual partner.

However, the same did not apply to gay men, according to the Canadian scientists. They found that having more than 20 male partners doubled the risk of prostate cancer and made an aggressive cancer five times more likely. Sleeping with one male partner did not affect the risk.

Meanwhile, men who were virgins were almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer as those who were sexually experienced.


http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/sex-with-more-than-20-women-reduces-risk-of-prostate-cancer-according-to-study-9824041.html

[TreasonousBastard]

1. See, I was right all along.

[al_liberal]

2. In another striking study...

All of the men surveyed had a 100% rate of death over the course of their lifetimes.

[Youdontwantthetruth]

3. Can you do 20 all at the same time and achieve the same results?

[snooper2]

4. you don't like the research

It's all about sex!

[dilby]

5. I have a feeling it's not the number of women it's the amount of sex.

I am sure if a man had sex with the same woman on a very regular basis they would see the same results. The problem is generally the longer you are with someone the less sex you have. I would like them to do a study to see if married men who have sex regularly 3 times a week show the same results. If that was the case it would be excellent news for married men, now when she says she has a headache just say but I can get cancer.

[WhiteTara]

6. Is that all at once? Or do you

get to spread out the experiences?

[treestar]

7. Sois there a scientific explanation?

Now they won't just feel entitled to sex, 21 of us will be required to ante-up!

[snooper2]

8. bingo, the piece they are still struggling with are gay partners

According to one theory, large numbers of ejaculations may reduce the concentration of cancer-causing substances in prostatic fluid, a constituent of semen.

They may also lead to fewer crystal-like structures in the prostate that have been associated with prostate cancer.

Suggesting why the same did not apply to male partners Professor Parent admitted she could only provide "highly speculative" explanations.

One explanation she said "could be that anal intercourse produces a physical trauma to the prostate".

[badtoworse]

9. My wife has been telling me I need to be more health conscious.

I can't wait to tell her about this.

[dilby]

10. Yeah I was bothered by the Gay study.

Not all gay men are bottoms so I think they need to be very specific with the study and not just label all gay men as to having a higher risk to prostate cancer.

[justhanginon]

11. I'm 78 years old and have some serious catching up to do! N/T

[brooklynite]

12. Correspondence is not causality.....

[seabeyond]

13. O... mg. such maschoism on this thread that by the last one, i snorted.... nt

[stevenleser]

14. Yeah, I'm guessing there is an underlying reason that has nothing to do with # of partners.

This reminds me of a study that talked how women could reduce nausea in pregnancy that seemed to be a little bit too much what the researchers wanted to find---> http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/08/10/study-oral-sex-cures-morning-sickness/

[safeinOhio]

15. Ernest Borgnine on long healthy living

[jollyreaper2112]

16. read summary

Doesn't apply to gay men. I have no idea what the mechanism is. I would have thought it was number of orgasms period.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. yes, its not, but most studies on health are cross sectional and not able to prove causation

smoking studies are similar in this way

i am not saying that this research is right or wrong, but that dismissing correlations is not that easy to do in medicine

[dilby]

18. But did they study the difference between tops and bottoms.

Or gay men who do not have anal sex at all? From the study the indicated that it could be the greater risk of damaging the prostate which would only apply to bottoms.

[GliderGuider]

19. I just realized that my first wife was actually being altruistic... nt

[Ken Burch]

20. Well yeah...if by that you meant all 20 would feel disappointed. n/t.

[customerserviceguy]

31. Ain't science grand? n/t

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

27. I don't buy that.

'Number of ejaculations' isn't going to have anything to do with 'number of partners'.

If #ejac was the link, the study would have reported that chronic masturbators have the lowest chances of having prostate cancer.

[Eleanors38]

25. I saw that.

[Hortensis]

42. :) The notion that single men "get more" than married was blown a long time ago.

[Youdontwantthetruth]

32. I think I need to conduct my own research

I wonder how many volunteers I can get?

I could try Craigslist, but everyone who would responded would expect cash payment, I need non paid volunteers, ok I will pay for the booze it is the least I can do.

This for for science damnit!

So any women interested in furthering the cause of science, PM me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Or, what about 19 ...

between the ages of 14 - 38, and 1 in the subsequent 15 years?

Or what about if one just has LOTs of sex with a single partner over 50+ years?

[Thor_MN]

21. So will insurance cover this? I'm more than a bit behind the curve.

[Eleanors38]

24. Not for an erection lasting more than 5 hours.

[Thor_MN]

26. If I have an erection lasting more than 5 hours, I'm not calling my doctor.

I'm calling everyone I know.

[Brother Buzz]

28. Is that twenty a hard number?

[LostInAnomie]

29. Harder for some than others.

[HereSince1628]

43. assuming you mean harder to attain...

Since the age of 18, I've been unmarried for 23 years. For the past 12 years I've not only been single but I have had erectile dysfunction, probably associated with my diabetes and heart disease. Which has left me less than interested in doing things that require the little soldier to stand at attention.

In the 11 years I wasn't dysfunctional and too ill or too old to be in pursuit of women that wanted a partner, I had 11 different partners.

Based on a sample of one, I don't think it's too hard for a man to find partners...if a man wants a partner he can find one or a dozen.

[Xithras]

35. I have to wonder whether there may be an immune response at play.

The exchange of bodily fluids during sex is mutual...men do absorb female body fluids during unprotected sexual activity. In fact, the vast majority of heterosexual men with HIV acquired it though sex with women. When the vaginal and cervical fluids from the woman come into contact with the urethra, cellular or viral transfer can occur. The prostate, of course, sits at the base of the urethra and would be one of the first body parts to come into contact with these foreign cells.

It's theoretically possible that repeated exposure to many foreign cells from different women could boost immune response around the prostate. The larger the group of women that the man sleeps with, the better adapted the immune system could become to identifying and attacking foreign cells in the prostate region. This adaptation, in turn, could give the immune system a better opportunity to identify and destroy abnormal cells that originate within the prostate itself. Under this theory, sex would act as sort of a "bad cell vaccine", and having sex with more partners would allow a man to "vaccinate" himself against more cell types.

On the flipside, there's another possibility. TOO MUCH sex can actually weaken the immune system in men, and even excessive masturbation has been linked to immune system weakening. This may be relevant because multiple studies have found that prostate cancer rates are much higher in men with diagnosed autoimmune disorders, leading to a theory that prostate cancer itself may be (at least partially) initiated by an autoimmune disorder. If prostate cancer IS caused by the immune system attacking the prostate (or cells in the prostate that it sees as abnormal), then weaking the immune system may reduce prostate cancer risk.

I think I favor the first possibility over the first though. The first would also explain why homosexual men don't see the same benefit, while the second doesn't. The second also disagrees with a number of studies that link weakened immune systems with increases in prostate cancer rates, though the studies on that are still very contradictory.

They're just theories, but they're as valid as any other theories at this point.

[seaglass]

36. Thanks for this. Made an otherwise dopey thread worth reading. n/t :-)

[Xithras]

37. Prostate cancer is a huge killer of men in my family.

And it will probably be what kills me. I was diagnosed with prostatitis at 29, and it typically doesn't start showing up in men until 50 or so. My dad was diagnosed with prostate cancer at 55 and is still alive. His brother died of it. My great uncle died of it. My great grandfather is suspected to have died of it, but lived in a flyspeck town in rural Iowa and wasn't diagnosed until after it had metastasized and tumors started showing up everywhere. One of my cousins was diagnosed a couple of years ago and is still fighting against it.

I can see the humor, but my brain went to the science first.

[KurtNYC]

38. for the 10 millionth time: Correlation is not causation

This was a survey. They proposed the mechanism that more frequent ejaculations reduce the amount of carcinogenic substance in the prostate but... it didn't apply to gay men. So they have nothing.

Possibly the healthiest men were more prone to have more partners.

Possibly the men with the healthiest prostates had higher libido.

...but this study, unlike the headline writers, reached no conclusions.

If you don't believe me then perhaps you would like to know that Nicholas Cage appearing in films causes drownings in swimming pools:

[RedCappedBandit]

39. Yeah. I'm so sick of the way these things are reported.

[progressoid]

41. Love those charts. From one of my fave sites.

http://tylervigen.com/

[mmonk]

40. Decreases the chance of prostate cancer

but increases the risk of gunshot wounds.

[KingCharlemagne]

47. LOL! Now THAT is funny! Sincere hat tip! - nt

[mmonk]

48. .

😉

[Yavin4]

44. "Researchers at the University of Montreal..." Let me guess. These researchers are all dudes.

Nice try, guys. Nice try.

[zappaman]

45. Can it be all 20 at once or spread out over time?

[Aerows]

46. I'll never get prostrate cancer then

Oh wait.