Ejaculation frequency linked to prostate cancer/

  • Thread starter Thread starter Blackbog
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If it should be found that eating human meat improves one’s health in dramatic fashion, that does not mean it would be right to eat human meat.

Probably spending your entire life lying down with only liquids fed intravenously would be advantageous to your longevity. That does not mean that would be the right course of action.

If ejaculation is correlated with lower risk for prostate cancer, that does not mean it causes it. It’s perfectly possible, for example, that there’s some common cause which causes both higher rates of ejaculation and lower risk of prostate cancer. (For instance, it may be that those who have happier love lifes are more likely than not to have higher rates of ejaculation and that a happier love life makes one less likely to develop prostate cancer – just as happiness in general makes various diseases less likely to occur; masturbation would probably not in that case help you have a happier love life)

That correlation does not entail causation is something very basic anyone would learn when studying something like this. The distinction may not always be apparent in popular, even popular science articles.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
Well, it has been proven that breastfeeding significantly reduces the risk of breast cancer. A nun is unlikely to breast feed any children, while the average woman, especially in times past was likely to breast feed a number of children.

A Google Search yields a lot of results.
Click to expand...
Evidence supporting reduced risk for breast cancer to those who breastfeed is not at all the same as saying nuns, due to never having children, have increased incidents of breast cancer. Hello?! There are many, many women who breastfed and still got breast cancer.

Geez…talk about looking at situations backward. 😛
You’re looking at the situation backwards.
Click to expand...
You’re the one who associated lung cancer with cigarettes as if that were the only way one would get it.
 
Nuns are/were also less likely to die in childbirth, which, up until recently was the big killer among women. So nuns were more likely to live long enough to get breast cancer, while a significant number of married women died young.

Of course, this is over a long period in history. That, coupled with the fact that the fewer menstrual cycles a woman has, the lower her risk of breast cancer (that’s at least one of the reasons breast feeding reduces cancer risk, it delays return of cycles) would
fit with nuns having a higher than average incidence of breast cancer.

cheddar
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Evidence supporting reduced risk for breast cancer to those who breastfeed is not at all the same as saying nuns, due to never having children, have increased incidents of breast cancer. Hello?! There are many, many women who breastfed and still got breast cancer.

Geez…talk about looking at situations backward. 😛
Click to expand...
No, see, you’re just proving that you’re looking at both situations backwards. If group A consists of breastfeeders, group B consists of non-breastfeeders, then a person in group B (like a nun) is more likely to get cancer than a person in group A. Obviously some people in both groups still get cancer.
You’re the one who associated lung cancer with cigarettes as if that were the only way one would get it.
Click to expand...
No, I did not. I was suggesting that I should give myself cancer by taking up smoking. Implying that I want to give myself lung cancer by smoking doesn’t mean that I think that there aren’t other ways of giving myself lung cancer.
 
40.png
tuopaolo:
Probably spending your entire life lying down with only liquids fed intravenously would be advantageous to your longevity.
Click to expand...
I seriously doubt this is true.
 
40.png
Benedictus:
No, see, you’re just proving that you’re looking at both situations backwards. If group A consists of breastfeeders, group B consists of non-breastfeeders, then a person in group B (like a nun) is more likely to get cancer than a person in group A. Obviously some people in both groups still get cancer.
Click to expand...
But that doesn’t tell us about breast cancer itself. There are many, many other groupings susceptible to breast cancer, we just don’t know what the relationships are yet.

The core disease is cancer. The area this particular cancer strikes is in breast tissue. Why? we don’t know. we’re trying to figure it out, and in the process of doing so we’re discovering interesting patterns, but none are conclusive.
No, I did not. I was suggesting that I should give myself cancer by taking up smoking. Implying that I want to give myself lung cancer by smoking doesn’t mean that I think that there aren’t other ways of giving myself lung cancer.
Click to expand...
Yes, but there are many people who smoked 5 packs a day and didn’t die of lung cancer. Again, one does not lead to the other. You can take up smoking in an attempt to develop lung cancer but that doesn’t mean you will.

Cancer is the disease. Where it strikes and why is the mystery we’re trying to solve. We aren’t there yet but we are finding interesting patterns.
 
40.png
urban-hermit:
I think it’s wise not to believe any single website or “study” too quickly. There are a lot of variables and risk factors for cancer.

I found some interesting studies on the web that suggest Catholic priests actually have had a same to lower incidence of prostate cancer than the general male population:
Click to expand...
I read this article on the Courage website.

Pastoral Problem of Masturbation :whistle:
 
40.png
Forest-Pine:
It appears that it is healthy for the male body to ejaculate and for the female body to be pregnant and give birth. So isn’t it rather selfish to go off in a corner and take care of your own self and deny some woman the health benefits of your ejaculation? The two were made to complement each other. In other words, science is again proving the church correct. Married monogamy is a beautiful thing and proper and fitting for one context. (However, unmarried sex brings a number of verifiable physical and emotional --and spiritual-- health risks such as STDs, early death, related drug and alcohol problems, mental disturbance, etc.) So it appears that your study proves just how important the church’s teachings on monogamous married relationships is!
Click to expand...
And the Pope just said we should have more children so the marching orders are in.

Of course, I’m assuming that you mean “one specific woman in marriage” when you say “some woman”.
 
40.png
Brad:
And the Pope just said we should have more children so the marching orders are in.

Of course, I’m assuming that you mean “one specific woman in marriage” when you say “some woman”.
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought my further discussion on monogamy made that clear. However, I believe the OP is single, which means he doesn’t know which specific woman it will be just yet.
 
40.png
YinYangMom:
Cancer is the disease. Where it strikes and why is the mystery we’re trying to solve. We aren’t there yet but we are finding interesting patterns.
Click to expand...
I prefer to think of it as improving the body’s natural ability to ward off the disease or deterring the body’s natural ability to ward of the disease.
Also, I understand that the correlation between breast cancer and pregnancy is more than just a pattern. They have actually identified a physical property of breast tissue in a woman who has achieved a full-term pregnancy that improves the body’s natural ability to fight breast cancer. (Similar studies show the sunburned skin has properties that fight cancer. While getting a bad sunburn increases your risk, being sunburned does not. Weird, no? If you think about it, though, how else would the body deal with a situation where constant sun exposure was unavoidable?) Mind you, I am not arguing that we don’t have a long way to go before finding a cure or even a cause. I am simply putting out evidence that some trends we see are more than just patterns.
 
This is sort of a strange question related to the issue of masturbation. I heard today that apes are the only other animals that masturbate. From what I understand, animals are subject to nature and the Natural Law. Now, I know that the Church teaches that masturbation is morally wrong and I agree, but if Natural Law doesn’t stop animals from masturbating, then how can the Church condemn it as wrong if the Magisterium bases its teachings off of Natural Law?
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
This is sort of a strange question related to the issue of masturbation. I heard today that apes are the only other animals that masturbate. From what I understand, animals are subject to nature and the Natural Law. Now, I know that the Church teaches that masturbation is morally wrong and I agree, but if Natural Law doesn’t stop animals from masturbating, then how can the Church condemn it as wrong if the Magisterium bases its teachings (partially anyways) off of Natural Law?
Click to expand...
Animals also eat their own young. Natural law doesn’t prevent all creatures from disordered actions. Also, the ability to discern good and evil is limited to people, so what is evil for a human has no moral implications for an animal.
 
I don’t understand why masturbation is so “disordered”. Its actually a natural thing to do. Teenager males, for example, will often experience “wet dreams” or will ejaculate in their sleep, this occurs more frequently if they don’t masturbate.

If people’s bodies do it naturally, without stimulation, doesn’t this show its natural?
 
40.png
vluvski:
I am simply putting out evidence that some trends we see are more than just patterns.
Click to expand...
Duly noted.
You are correct.
Thank you for the clarification. 🙂
 
40.png
Gnosis:
I don’t understand why masturbation is so “disordered”. Its actually a natural thing to do. Teenager males, for example, will often experience “wet dreams” or will ejaculate in their sleep, this occurs more frequently if they don’t masturbate.

If people’s bodies do it naturally, without stimulation, doesn’t this show its natural?
Click to expand...
When it happens all by itself it’s natural (within the order of things)
When you or someone else has to do something to you in order to bring about the same result, it is not natural, it’s induced (thus dis-ordered, not within the natural order of things).

Our bodies do a lot of things to keep this amazing machine functioning. When we do things to our body our bodies don’t require we actually bring harm to it, rather than good.

Our bodies need a certain number of calories from a certain balance of nutritional elements in order to remain vital. When we consume too much, and/or too much of the wrong types of foods our body deteriorates at a more rapid rate than it was designed to. Thus overeating, gluttony, is also a disordered behavior.
 
Cancer is exceedingly complex and is rarely centered on a solitary causative factor. It is true that nuns have had a higher incidence of breast cancer quite late in their lives and it is most likely due to their childless state, what is left out is that they rarely die of the disease. Such a cluster of prostate cancer in Catholic priests, Buddist monks, etc has not been reported.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry can pull out and massage data as they see fit. The truth is that living a genuine Catholic life regardess of your state if is living an intergrated, holistic and spiritual existence that is intrinsically healthy and properly arms you to fight off disease.

Just look how long committed religious (nuns, monks, etc.) live and how few fall victim to dementia. This month in Georgia they buried the most senior Trappist Monk in North America if not the world. Was a monk for over 75 years, vigorous to the end.
 
I think it would be interesting to conduct a poll among the male posters here. Who has ever stimulated himself? And how often? But that would strike just a little too close to home. And asking devouts to think about their own sins never gets a good response.
😛
 
40.png
Gnosis:
I don’t understand why masturbation is so “disordered”. Its actually a natural thing to do. Teenager males, for example, will often experience “wet dreams” or will ejaculate in their sleep, this occurs more frequently if they don’t masturbate.
Click to expand...
“Natural” in theology doesn’t mean something biologically driven. Natural means according to how God made human beings to be and human nature means the way that God made nan.

To answer your question though, I would think theologians would say that our bodies weren’t meant to work that way (wet dreams) but they do because of the fall.

[quiote]If people’s bodies do it naturally, without stimulation, doesn’t this show its natural?

It shows it’s “natural” in the secular sense, not in the real sense of being in accord with how human beings were meant to be.

Just so you know, I too share some of your questions but I’m trying to just trust the theologians and the Church teachers … trying 🙂
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
This is sort of a strange question related to the issue of masturbation. I heard today that apes are the only other animals that masturbate.

**Not so, I have seen lots of other types of animals “masturbate” but because they don’t have hands, they will often use an object to stimulate themselves. This activity is definitely not limited to primates.

Also, the church does not base its teachings and laws on what is good and right for human behavior based on general animal behavior. Due to the belief that we have been created in the image of God himself, we are called to a different standard than other beasts.

cheddar**
Click to expand...
I
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top