Be Excellent To Each Other

But I can't find it. It basically said that blowjobs and bacon gives you cancer, and I concluded that everything fun gives you cancer. Where I think this pretty much confirms it.

Yes it's a BBC LINK



Malc

Higher risk of prostate cancer for 20 years of sex?

Phew!

What does sexually active mean? Does having a wank count? If so, then who the hell are their control group, exactly?

Does it count if it's octopus based?

I think there needs to be more testing, Ill happily volunteer although Im a veggie so I cnat do the bacon part. No doubt Ill tick the wrong box when it comes to filling out the form. Wait did i tick 'give' or 'receive'?

Nope - having a wank cuts cancer.

Cock doners.

is that a nickname for a chicken kebab?

Remind me never to go to a kebab shop near you

So what does 'higher risk' entail? Usually it's something like 0.2% higher—it's sensationalist rubbish, basically.

EDIT: [Not even going there that much]

So an 8% difference.

8% of the sample size of 400 is 32 extra people.

And if you are sexually very active, you are also likely to be more hedonistic, into more drugs alcohol, partying hard, getting less sleep and so on. Anyone of those could be the culprit. If this effect is real.

So - not really a massively conclusive study really.

Or you're Amish, of course.

They always say in the Doctors that sex is basically bad for you and it increases cervical cancer :/ I'm fucked*

*No pun intended

20 times a month, including wanking? Bloody hell! The less than category must have consisted of 5 monks, and a woman.

Yeah, it was your lady

Zing!
Good work, fellow!

Knowing them pair of them well, this is both and


Also, if having sex increases the risk of prostate cancer, and having a wank reduces the risk, one has to ask...

How does the prostate know?

What about anal sex? Does the prostate put on a hat and PAR-TAY?

Depends if it's being prodded or not.

Top tip: Only get bummed by men with small winkies.

No, they don't, Shin. I think you are either misreading or misinterpreting this. In fact sex is very good for you both for exercise and also for releasing feelgood endorphins through both the results of the exercise and when you orgasm. The only negative thing about sex that you see at the doctors leads on from the other half of your sentence:



No, see, lots of sex with various partners can increase your chances of cervical cancer*, they say, because various diseases and viruses that are among the population do increase the risk - things such as HPV. If you sleep around then you are at greater risk simply because you are coming into contact with more people that have the chance of carrying HP and the like. Likewise if you have just one partner but they sleep around a lot then you are again at risk for the same reason. As long as the person you are sleeping with is clean (in both senses of the word) then sex is not a bad thing at all.


As long as just by Gaz and assuming that he isn't a rampant womaniser, you should be OK.

* as well as a multitude of other things

Hmmm, I've had a (very) quick think about this, and what this 8% difference actually means. Bare with me because I think this is quite interesting (if I am right).

So for 400 cancer stricken men 40% had lots of bump & grind. And in 400 cancer free men ~32% had lots of chummy sex wees. So depending on the numbers at maximum 'lots of sex' means that your chance of getting colon cancer increases by a whopping 20% by plunging your oats.

Which sounds scary until you realise that's only a 20% increase over the natural frequency of getting the disease in the first place. Only 66 in every 100,000 men get colon cancer in a year (REF - I chose the largest value I could find.).

Which means that at maximum if everyone had lots and lots of Hows-your-father, then the number getting colon cancer would increase from 66 in every 100,000 to 79 in every 100,000.

Or to put it another way by cutting out lots of hide-the-sausage your chance of catching colon cancer would fall from 0.079% to a absolutely no less reassuring 0.066%. A massive 0.013% saving!

This my friends is how the media turns non-scary medicle research into scary Everything-you-love-kills-you! stories.

(maths hasn't been checked but I think thats right).

Thanks, Lave. That's what I said but a lot better put.

Thanks.

I might skeptobotorize that - but I need to get the time to check the maths first.

I really think that whenever a journalist reports a medicinal risk - but doesn't quite the natural frequency of the disease then they should be sacked.

But that would make it far less sensationalist, which is your point, but being sensationalist is their point. Annoys me greatly, also.

Well, let's face it, men who have more sexual partners tend to be more inclined to risk taking behaviour. Which does involve alcohol and drugs (proper drugs, not weed, as no stoner ever got laid that much, mostly due to long hair and an absence of "prospects"), so environmental factors are going to be huge.

Ergo, study is shit.

Well it's extremely odd then that the woman that gave me the check-up (as is want of them as you hit a certain age...yay) said that it increases cervical cancer*-that's what she said to me. So, her being a consultant/Nurse I kinda listened to her

*Amongst other things

Well don't, she's causing undue concern. Write to the NHS with her name and what she advised you of.

See here for cervical cancer causes (NHS link)

Another link here to put your mind further at ease.

Seriously, Shin, either she was stupid and telling you this through an ignorance she shouldn't have as a member of the medical profession, had other motivations for saying this (being either her own personal bias, religious view, gosh all sorts of things, maybe because she wasn't getting any herself, in which case, again, it is unprofessional), or you perhaps misheard or misremember the part, perhaps due to her not explaining adequately, where she said 'with many partners'. I mean. it is true that if you only sleep with one person in your whole lifetime but he has slept with someone who has the virus it could cause it, but to say that having lots of sex causes cancer of the cervix is just wrong, and a dangerous scary message for someone in the health profession to go spreading around.

So quickly knocked this out

http://www.skeptobot.com/2009/01/media-on-sex-when-young-gives-you-colon.html

because it's annoyed me so.

I'm not sure how you go about having sex, Lave, but the original story and sensationalism was about prostate cancer.

I don't like being lazy or flippant and just putting , but when you're right, you're right, so:

Yeah, I redid the figures for prostate that makes the figures double.

But the comments on the post point out that it's not just per year you have to consider but the lifetime of the raised risk.

So it actually makes quite a difference....

Dr Lave, you have doubled the scariness by saying 'oh look, but the difference is trifling' and then recounting and saying 'actually...oh'.

I think this needs to be pressed upon people:



Basically not enough research, not enough accurate research.

... Not that I think anyone here is going to stop bumping uglies because of the report anyway, mind.

No, as it is rape.

Huh?

Meems - have a look at the firefly thread.

Not when it's added to the list of everything else that 'gives you cancer', certainly.

Living causes cancer. The constant barrage of reports regarding the causes of cancer presumable exist to file empty news schedules, almost as if the only way that you will die is if you ignore this 'medical advice'.

Well, life is fatal. I don't know anybody who's survived it yet.

I'm not sure which is good or bad for you now, so I'm going to have a Night In tonight, and then do Special Exercise with the missus when she gets back from Ireland tomorrow, the lucky lady!

Bloody rapist.