6 (or more!) Good Reasons to Have More Sex

deleted duplicate post

The Viking wrote: rofllol :rofl OK, those were good. I would say you were quick but it took you over 24 hours to come up with them! But touche'! You can look at my pictures on Facebook. I have been far from depressed!

I was in the middle of my reply last night when friends in Boulder read my FB post about being home alone and called to invite me to their place for dinner - you got a reprieve from my harassment! You've got recent pics posted? I need documentation of this so-called happiness! lol

major bean wrote: SC, come off your high horse. You are not the end-all authority on anything. The stuff you cited is so full of holes that it is almost non existent. Plus posting so much pasted stuff makes the eyes glaze over, but does not convince.

I'm not on a high horse, I have tried to respond respectfully, and rationally provide evidence disputing your opinions - I even asked you for information to support your end. If I was on a high horse, I would've just ridiculed the inane, factless, and flat-out wrong opinions that you posted. I have never said that I am the be-all, end-all authority of anything; actually, I've said quite often that I'm not. But what I do do is find evidence to back up my position - you have yet to cite any of your own evidence or to point out where the supposed holes in my citations are and I invite you to do so.

The ovaries and fallopian tubes are open to the peritoneal cavity. Introduction of substances into the vagina also has the potential of being introduced into the cavity. This is where the immune system is activated to fight foreign substances. Your references related only within the uterus and vagina.

Your point about the peritoneal cavity means that my explanation of the uterus and vagina being more like an external space isn't totally accurate, but the peritoneum isn't a blood-filled space either so it's not completely inaccurate. There's still no direct pathway to the bloodstream (like your example of an immune response in reaction to a splinter breaching the epithelial barrier being like the immune response to multiple sources of semen) so it's still more accurate than your example. Nor does it being open to the peritoneum invalidate the evidence that I cited as to how the female reproductive tract responds to semen. And being open to the peritoneum means women are at increased risk for peritoneal infections and cancer, that's all, not for anything else that has been discussed in this thread already.

Contemporary science will not accept quite a lot (even the most obvious) until the modern culture is politically ready for the news. As I stated the cervical cancer was totally ignored and denied until it was polically correct. (Does social medicine have an agenda? Do you think?)

On the contrary, contemporary science accepts more, and searches for the truth, far more than modern culture is willing to hear or accept, or modern media is willing to portray accurately. Just look at how vaccines and their link to autism has been handled. It's been known for years in the scientific community that there has never been a credible link established, yet there are people who still believe it body and soul and will do so until they die even though it's been debunked in every study for the last 10 years and the original researcher who claimed it was so was found to have committed fraud and his medical license revoked. People are taking more and more drugs than ever, thanks to slick advertising and marketing by pharmaceuticals - they create names for diseases that we don't even know we have or need treatment for. It's not social medicine, it's free-market, for-profit medicine. Cervical cancer was ignored by media until a vaccine was developed by scientists who didn't ignore the information that HPV was a cause, and it became a political firebomb due entirely to society's issues with wanting to ignore and/or marginalize pre-teen sex. If modern science ignored the link, then no vaccine would've ever been developed so your argument holds no merit.

Your dismissal of the psychology of promiscuity is very telling. Close your eyes and wish hard enough and maybe the 600 lb. gorilla will go away.

Dismissal, no: that's what you're doing. I'm checking the research for what's reality; sorry if it doesn't jive with your world view, but feel free to live in denial if you'd like. And don't try to turn this back on me again - I have no problem with my self-esteem or the choices I've made in my love life prior to getting married, of which you have absolutely no knowledge and cannot make an informed judgment.

Keep the women on their backs and on their knees has been the agenda for quite a while. Modern research wants to keep it that way. They deny what has been already researched and proven. Their mantra is :can't hear :can't hear Meanwhile hysterectomies continue and infertility increases.

WTH are you talking about? Research has empowered women to have choices - it provided the pill to allow women to choose when to have children, increased knowledge about STDs to allow women and men to choose to educate and protect themselves properly. Modern research has nothing to do with the increasing societal permissiveness of casual sex. And what the hell do hysterectomies or infertility have to do with anything we've discussed here?

You've posted several previous responses in other threads/forums that were snarky, condescending, and dismissive of what I posted, especially in the Science Odds and Ends thread, yet you've never brought anything to back up your opinions. If you don't like what I have to post or disagree with my position then respond with a logical, evidence-based rebuttal, put me on ignore, or get over it. I can overlook and forgive much, but enough is enough already. Whatever your issues are, I hope you find peace, and know that if you are just trying to get me upset, it's failing miserably - I could care less because you haven't earned my respect, just my sympathy and pity.


CG - yes, I even agreed with major bean that having more partners does put a person at increased risk for STDs and cancers. There's no debating that fact. I'd just like it if he'd come back with evidence and a logical argument for all the rest of his claims rather than calling names or being condescending and dismissive.

Viking - watch out for those smart, informed ones - they'll tell you that ejaculation from masturbation helps improve your prostate cancer risk same as intercourse, and it has the added bonus of completely eliminating your risk of STDs so enjoy your evening solo! rofllol

Sorry CG, what do I need to change?