The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)  (Read 8869 times)

Offline Farhad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« on: 27/08/2003 13:47:34 »
I know that if a man don't have sex for a long peroid of time, he is at risk of getting Prostate Cancer. Are there any risks of any disease or anything if a woman don't have sex for a long time?



Life is too short to make enemies, so make friends.
« Last Edit: 28/08/2003 20:03:28 by NakedScientist »


 

Offline bezoar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #1 on: 27/08/2003 14:52:13 »
Yes, we get terminally bitchy if we don't get sex.  Mental illness, I would say.  Honestly, I don't know of anything.  Maybe Chris would.

Bezoar
« Last Edit: 28/08/2003 07:06:42 by bezoar »
 

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #2 on: 28/08/2003 00:46:28 »
O_O bezoar I thought you were a guy .... sorry!!!

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

Offline bezoar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #3 on: 28/08/2003 07:05:48 »
No, kitty.  Very much female.  In fact, been that way all my life and glad about it too.  Just enjoying the hell out of my life, maybe that's why you thought I was a man.  Us women usually spend too much time ruminating on negative thoughts and getting depressed.  I gave that up some time in my 20's.

Bezoar
 

Offline genegenie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #4 on: 28/08/2003 09:30:10 »
Are you referring to a recent study carried out by the Victorian Cancer Council in Australia? Here's the link http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030716_369.html
It appears to contradict previous studies, where they found that frequent sexual activity could increase the risk of prostate cancer by 40 percent! Sorry guys, nice try!:D
 

Offline Quantumcat

  • The Kitty Down Under
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 894
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #5 on: 28/08/2003 14:38:38 »
Your name sounded masculine is all :P

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!
 

Offline srinivasan

  • First timers
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #6 on: 28/08/2003 14:50:23 »
newbielink:http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/reuters20030716_369.html [nonactive]
The study mentioned in the above site sounds good and its encouraging to guys and they don't need to have a guilty feeling henceforth.

Dr.Srinivasan M. Rajaram MVSc
Research Associate
Pharmacology
Zydus Research Centre
N.H.No.8A, Moraiya,
Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #7 on: 28/08/2003 15:57:00 »
Disease succumbed-to by women due to sex or lack of :

1) Women who are nulliparous (never had children) are also at increased risk of Breast cancer and ovarian cancer - the mechanism of this pregnancy-related 'protection' is unknown.

2) Depression and anxiety - well sort of. Publication within the last year of study finding that women who are regularly exposed to semen are less likely to be depressed than unexposed women. My own view is that women who are using non-barrier methods of contraception and are hence regularly exposed to semen are more likely to be in loving, trusting relationships and are therefore likely to report fewer depressive symptoms as they are happier on average. Conversely, women who are using barrier methods (condoms) which prevent semen exposure (and exposure to other things) are more likely to be indulging in casual sex and hence less settled and happy over all.

3) In relation to sexually-related diseases it's worth mentioning cervical cancer, which is sexually-transmitted and caused by HPV (human papilloma virus, the culprit responsible for warts, including genital warts). Risk of cervical cancer is proportional to sexual exposure, including number of partners and age of first intercourse (so the condition is rare amongst nuns) and also lack of circumcision in male partners. On that note, women who's partners are circumcised are at a much-reduced risk of cervical cancer (50% if my memory serves correctly - paper in New England Journal within last 12 months), probably due to lower HPV carriage amongst circumcised men.

Can't think of any more...

Chris

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
 

Offline bezoar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #8 on: 28/08/2003 16:44:11 »
Kitty,
Definition of bezoar -- a hard mass of entangled material sometimes found in the stomachs and intestines of animals and man as a hair ball, hair and vegetable fiberball, and foodball.

Just a funny disgusting word I learned in nursing school when we were first learning our medical vocabulary.  It was our medical insult to one another when we went through school, kind of instead of calling each other profanities.  Does sound kind of masculine though.  It works as an internet name, cuase no one else ever has it.  Except once, on a medical site, of course.

Chris,

Guess there isn't much research on what happens to women who don't have sex, huh?  Cause nulliparous women might still be having sex, and as far as the women being exposed to semen, that study sounds like a crock.  What were the controls on that one, I wonder.  There are just too many variables for me to get into that.

I read that the AIDS belt in Africa is also attributed to lack of circumcision.  Guess that extra foreskin gives sanctuary to those nasty little viruses.

I interpreted the study genegenie mentioned as noting that frequent flushing of the prostate with one partner would be just as safe as masturbation.  And by the way guys, want frequent sex with your partner?  It's easy.  Just be nice!

Bezoar
« Last Edit: 28/08/2003 16:53:05 by bezoar »
 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #9 on: 28/08/2003 19:28:26 »
Mmm, I didn't mention HIV directly but it is a good point. The rates of infection with HIV are up to 8 times greater in uncircumcised men compared with men who have been circumcised. These studies were quite well controlled and involved genetically very similar individuals geographically distanced from each other and distinct in that in one group the males were circumcised at a young age, whilst in the other group they were not. Sexual practices were considered 'comparable' between the 2 groups.

In relation to why we see this effect, subsequent research suggests that the foreskin is very permissive for HIV entry, and may be rich in cell types that facilitate successful viral infection.

I also suspect that other factors come into play such as the viruses getting sequestered under the foreskin and therefore hanging around longer in a viable state, the fact that there is more skin and hence surface area for abrasion and subsequent viral entry on an uncircumcised penis, and the fact that the mucosa of a circumcised penis is likely to be slightly thicker owing to being exposed all the time rather than covered up.

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
 

Offline bezoar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #10 on: 29/08/2003 03:38:24 »
Is the skin on the penis considered mucosa?  I stand corrected.  I always thought it was skin.  What about the actual movement of the skin -- mucosa -- of the penis in the uncircumsized male during sex?  Seems that skin/mucosa slides around more, so maybe there's more chance for injury/abrasion. Then, sequestering under that abraded foreskin certainly leaves a point of entry.  I think though, if I remember correctly, that the AIDS belt through Africa also corresponds with a high rate of siphilis, thus the chancres provide the site of entry.

Bezoar
 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #11 on: 29/08/2003 12:27:39 »
you're right, the penis is covered in skin, but the glans and the inner surface of the foreskin are mucous membranes, or a mucosa.

Your point about co-infection with other sexually transmitted diseases is also correct in that if you have one you are much more likely to have others purely because of exposure, but your point about syphilis as an entry point does not account for the eight-fold reduction in HIV infection amongst circumcised versus uncircumcised men.

This is down to what we were discussing above which is that removing the foreskin reduces the surface area presented for viral exposure, including, as some contend, a piece of skin enriched in certain cell types that facilitate viral entry. It probably also reduces the time the virus remains viable on the skin (because there are no damp, warm places for it to hide) and I suspect that the skin of a circumcised penis is more resilient (by virtue of being open to the air all the time) and therefore less susceptible to mechanical injury sustained, shall we say, during sex.

Chris

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
 

Offline bezoar

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 950
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #12 on: 30/08/2003 03:56:42 »
An eight fold reduction?  That's worth losing your foreskin over.  It does make sense that the exposed skin would toughen up somewhat.  The glans is mucosa, but sure doesn't look or feel like it.  Seems more like skin, I guess from exposure.  That would all make sense.

Bezoar
 

Offline genegenie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #13 on: 30/08/2003 07:13:05 »
No Farhad, there are no risks of disease if a woman doesn't have sex for a long time, despite some (ridiculous) attempts to prove otherwise.

Bezoar I couldn't agree more, being nice is the ultimate aphrodisiac.:D
 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #14 on: 01/09/2003 00:35:42 »
Genegenie - you need to have sex to get pregnant, and as we have already discussed there are certain conditions against which pregnancy is protective. Hence I disagree.

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
 

Offline genegenie

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #15 on: 01/09/2003 10:47:38 »
Chris, the question posed by Farhad related to sexual activity and not pregnancy, therefore sexual activity in itself is not protective. The protective effect of pregnancy re:breast cancer is related to age at first term birth. A nulliparous woman has approximately the same risk as a woman with a first term birth around age 30. In addition, pregnancy and sexual activity have risks, as discussed, which should be weighed against any potential benefits. Finally, you can fall pregnant without sexual intercourse, thanks to modern medicine.

So I stand by what I said.
 

Offline Farhad

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 11
    • View Profile
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #16 on: 01/09/2003 13:34:04 »
Thank you very much everyone for your time to reply to the topic and give some useful information.

Peace

Life is too short to make enemies, so make friends.
 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #17 on: 01/09/2003 18:59:56 »
quote:
Originally posted by genegenie

Chris, the question posed by Farhad related to sexual activity and not pregnancy, therefore sexual activity in itself is not protective. The protective effect of pregnancy re:breast cancer is related to age at first term birth. A nulliparous woman has approximately the same risk as a woman with a first term birth around age 30. In addition, pregnancy and sexual activity have risks, as discussed, which should be weighed against any potential benefits. Finally, you can fall pregnant without sexual intercourse, thanks to modern medicine.

So I stand by what I said.



Oh alright then !

C

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
 

Offline chris

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5336
  • Thanked: 65 times
  • The Naked Scientist
    • View Profile
    • The Naked Scientists
Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #18 on: 24/10/2003 00:01:30 »
Earlier on in this thread we were discussing the protective effects of circumcision against a variety of diseases, including HIV. I mentioned that initial trials hd shown an eightfold reduction in risk of HIV infection amongst circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men.

Here's a press release from a more recent study which corroborates my earlier remarks and adds additional information :

Chris


IDSA: Circumcision Produces Eightfold Reduction in HIV Risk

By Maury M. Breecher, PhD, MPH

SAN DIEGO, CA -- October 14, 2003 -- Uncircumcised men have 8 times
the risk of being infected with HIV-1 compared with those who are
circumcised, according to a large study of men from the subcontinent
of India presented here October 11th at the 41st Annual Meeting of the
Infectious Diseases Society of America.

"It's important that we offer measures to help curb the spread of
AIDS, particularly in developing countries, where it continues to grow
at an alarming rate," said study investigator Steven J. Reynolds, MD,
MPH, post-doctoral fellow in the division of infectious diseases,
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland,
United States. "Condoms are protective, but they still are not being
used consistently in some settings. This study suggests that
circumcision, where safe and culturally acceptable, may offer the
developing world another tactic in combating the spread of HIV."

The findings, if replicated, would be a compelling argument for
circumcision of male babies in countries where the practice is not
common," said Thomas Quinn, MD, a professor of medicine at Johns
Hopkins University, who was not one of the study investigators, but
who, as one of 14 members of the IDSA governing council, was familiar
with the research.

"In this particular study circumcision reduced the risk 8-fold, a
finding that has sparked the creation of three randomised, controlled
studies currently being done on this subject," Dr. Quinn continued.
"If those prospective studies show a reduction of HIV acquisition by
50%, then this one surgical procedure could reduce half of all HIV
transmissions to men over subsequent years and that would be a
compelling argument for circumcision of male babies in countries where
the practice is not common."

In North America, 70% of adult men are circumcised.

"That explains why female-to-male transmission of HIV in the Americas
is less efficient than male-to-female transmission," continued Dr.
Quinn. "Because nearly 3 out of 4 men are circumcised, they are less
susceptible.

"In Europe and in Africa it is the reverse -- 75% to 80% of all men
are uncircumcised. So, if this study is replicated, that would be
strong argument that this large body of susceptible men that could
benefit from this procedure"

Dr. Quinn pointed out that in North America there is a movement to ban
circumcision because "some people think it is cruel and unfair to
infants." However, this research, if replicated, would take the wind
from the sails of that movement, Dr. Quinn opined.

The study researchers also evaluated the risk of other STDs -
including syphilis, gonorrhea and genital herpes - among circumcised
and uncircumcised men. Although the incidence of these STDs was
slightly higher among uncircumcised men compared to circumcised men,
the difference was not statistically significant in this study, said
Dr. Reynolds. This was in contrast to the reduced risk of HIV among
circumcised men, which was highly statistically significant.

The research was part of a larger study investigating risk factors for
HIV-1 infection based on men attending one of three STD clinics in
Pune, India. Between 1993 and 2000, 2,298 men who tested negative for
HIV-1 were enrolled in the study. During subsequent visits (an average
of three visits in 11 months), 1.0% of 191 men who were circumcised
and 7.8% of 2,107 who were uncircumcised tested positive for HIV.

Demographics, sexual risk behaviours (including having sex with a
prostitute), and condom use were remarkably similar between both
groups, said Dr. Reynolds. Despite the similarity in risk profiles,
researchers determined the incidence rate of HIV-1 among circumcised
men was 0.7%, whereas among uncircumcised men it was 5.5%, an 8-fold
increase.

The findings suggest the benefit of circumcision may be biological
rather than due to other factors, such as infection with another STD,
or differences in behaviour between circumcised and uncircumcised men,
said Dr. Reynolds.

"The inner surface of the foreskin is not as thickly "keratinised" as
the outside or other surfaces of the penis, meaning it has less of a
protective layer and may be more easily penetrated by HIV, he
explained. Thus, the inner surface of the foreskin has higher numbers
of the cells that HIV can infect, and that possibly contributes to the
reduced risk of HIV infection observed when the foreskin is removed.

Circumcision is not totally protective so regular condom use is still
the best way of protecting against HIV and other sexually transmitted
diseases, said Dr. Reynolds. Condom promotion remains a key strategy
in the current fight against the spread of AIDS, he said.


[Study title: Male Circumcision Is Protective Against HIV-1 But Not
Other Common Sexually Transmitted Infections In India. Abstract LB-10]

"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: Diseases and Sex (or lack of it)
« Reply #18 on: 24/10/2003 00:01:30 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums