General Discussion

snooper2

(30,151 posts)

4. you don't like the research

Reply to Youdontwantthetruth (Reply #3)

Wed Oct 29, 2014, 10:25 AM

Oct 2014

It's all about sex!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

48 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sex with more than 20 women reduces risk of prostate cancer, according to study [View all] snooper2 Oct 2014 OP

See, I was right all along. TreasonousBastard Oct 2014 #1

In another striking study... al_liberal Oct 2014 #2

Can you do 20 all at the same time and achieve the same results? Youdontwantthetruth Oct 2014 #3

you don't like the research snooper2 Oct 2014 #4

I have a feeling it's not the number of women it's the amount of sex. dilby Oct 2014 #5

Is that all at once? Or do you WhiteTara Oct 2014 #6

Sois there a scientific explanation? treestar Oct 2014 #7

bingo, the piece they are still struggling with are gay partners snooper2 Oct 2014 #8

My wife has been telling me I need to be more health conscious. badtoworse Oct 2014 #9

Yeah I was bothered by the Gay study. dilby Oct 2014 #10

I'm 78 years old and have some serious catching up to do! N/T justhanginon Oct 2014 #11

Correspondence is not causality..... brooklynite Oct 2014 #12

O... mg. such maschoism on this thread that by the last one, i snorted.... nt seabeyond Oct 2014 #13

Yeah, I'm guessing there is an underlying reason that has nothing to do with # of partners. stevenleser Oct 2014 #14

Ernest Borgnine on long healthy living safeinOhio Oct 2014 #15

read summary jollyreaper2112 Oct 2014 #16

yes, its not, but most studies on health are cross sectional and not able to prove causation La Lioness Priyanka Oct 2014 #17

But did they study the difference between tops and bottoms. dilby Oct 2014 #18

I just realized that my first wife was actually being altruistic... nt GliderGuider Oct 2014 #19

Well yeah...if by that you meant all 20 would feel disappointed. n/t. Ken Burch Oct 2014 #20

This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Oct 2014 #22

This message was self-deleted by its author seabeyond Oct 2014 #23

Ain't science grand? n/t customerserviceguy Oct 2014 #31

I don't buy that. Erich Bloodaxe BSN Oct 2014 #27

This message was self-deleted by its author Xithras Oct 2014 #33

This message was self-deleted by its author Xithras Oct 2014 #34

I saw that. Eleanors38 Oct 2014 #25

:) The notion that single men "get more" than married was blown a long time ago. Hortensis Oct 2014 #42

I think I need to conduct my own research Youdontwantthetruth Oct 2014 #32

Or, what about 19 ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2014 #30

So will insurance cover this? I'm more than a bit behind the curve. Thor_MN Oct 2014 #21

Not for an erection lasting more than 5 hours. Eleanors38 Oct 2014 #24

If I have an erection lasting more than 5 hours, I'm not calling my doctor. Thor_MN Oct 2014 #26

Is that twenty a hard number? Brother Buzz Oct 2014 #28

Harder for some than others. LostInAnomie Oct 2014 #29

assuming you mean harder to attain... HereSince1628 Oct 2014 #43

I have to wonder whether there may be an immune response at play. Xithras Oct 2014 #35

Thanks for this. Made an otherwise dopey thread worth reading. n/t :-) seaglass Oct 2014 #36

Prostate cancer is a huge killer of men in my family. Xithras Oct 2014 #37

for the 10 millionth time: Correlation is not causation KurtNYC Oct 2014 #38

Yeah. I'm so sick of the way these things are reported. RedCappedBandit Oct 2014 #39

Love those charts. From one of my fave sites. progressoid Oct 2014 #41

Decreases the chance of prostate cancer mmonk Oct 2014 #40

LOL! Now THAT is funny! Sincere hat tip! - nt KingCharlemagne Oct 2014 #47

. mmonk Oct 2014 #48

"Researchers at the University of Montreal..." Let me guess. These researchers are all dudes. Yavin4 Oct 2014 #44

Can it be all 20 at once or spread out over time? zappaman Oct 2014 #45

I'll never get prostrate cancer then Aerows Oct 2014 #46