11 thoughts on “Unprotected review on National Review Online”

  1. “You do realize, of course, that a higher frequency of ejaculations does not necessarily require promiscuity. ”

    Yes, I am aware of that, in fact the study specifically spoke about masturbation. However, I was specifically asked about any studies that could support the idea of casual sex being healthy (and the related idea that celibacy could be bad for you). While this study is far from conclusive, I believe it does at least suggest that there can be some benefits from promiscuity.

  2. Her analysis specifically looked at which came first and given that they survey was done in waves with follow up, I am inclination to accept her suggestions that the sexual involvement came first.

  4. The prostate cancer study is:

    GILES, G. G.(et. al), “Sexual factors and prostate cancer.”,

    BJU International. 92(3):211-216, August 2003.

    They concluded that a higher frequency of ejaculations early in life negatively associated with prostate cancer.

    I don’t really see anything in Hallfors study that would contradict what I said. I certainly wouldn’t be surprised to find that girls who engage in sexual activity as a means of gaining acceptance or poor self-image are significantly more likely to score highly for depression later in life. Would you?

  5. Well, that’s a stretch – celibacy and prostrate cancer. I suspect promiscuous women will be glad they are missing out on that one.

    Google Denise Hallfors and her work with teens and casual sex. The work is referenced on this blog as well in the archives. The causal link is addressed in her work and it is very compelling.

  6. I believe you are confusing correlation with causation (as well as the cause and effect relationship) regarding the unhealthy aspect of casual sex on women. I.e. women who have low self-esteem, history of abuse, etc are much more likely to engage in casual sex. Not that the casual sex caused those things.

    Certainly there are health risks (for men and women) who are promiscuous, but there are risks associated with many enjoyable activities (sky diving, mountain climb etc). I agree health clinics should be informing students of the risks and how to reduce those risks but not to the point of saying they shouldn’t engage in them.

    As to a study that could support the idea of casual sex being healthy (for men at least), there was one published a few years ago correlating celibacy with higher rates of prostate cancer. I don’t have the cite handy, but could dig it up if you like.

  7. It “pushes” the view of casual sex as unhealthy, moreso than immoral. This is mostly true for women. Disagree if you like but I cannot think of a study that would support the idea that casual sex is healthy. Can you?

  8. I disagree with the idea that casual sex is bad. And from your review (I haven’t read the book) it seems this book does want to push this particular moral view about casual sex.

  9. Weak perhaps, but I can understand where they’re coming from. If they had made a response like “BAD BAD BAD!!!” that might be morally correct, but it would probably make the person who wrote in less likely to seek help. It’s a fine line.

  11. You mentioned the askalice site answering questions about bestiality, but I notice you didn’t mention the answer included an admonition to the person to get psychological help and a reminder that such activity is illegal and bad for the animal. That would seem to contradict the author’s claim that university health authorities never counsel people about the risks of unrestrained sexual expression.

    http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1056.html

Comments are closed.