u/UkrainianRationalist

Continuing the theme of my previous post, I also wanted to talk about the manipulations in articles about the alleged "benefits of sex." However, looking through the archives of the old "Antisexual Stronghold" website, this topic was already addressed in the FAQ. Therefore, I decided to simply translate their detailed answer to this question into English. So, here it is:

...

13. Q: But what about the articles that talk about the health benefits of sex?

A: All such articles that we have come across are built on several flawed techniques:

1. Unreliable sources. "Foreign experts have established," "Greek scientists have proven," etc. Neither the names of these scientists, the names of the scientific institutions, nor links to publications in scientific journals are specified (as a rule, no references are provided at all; judging by the texts of these articles, most of them are simply retellings of one another).

2. Incorrect research methodology. The research methodology is either not mentioned at all, or non-representative groups are chosen for analysis. For instance, groups that are too small, have obvious pathologies (this, in particular, is what the foundations of Freud's psychoanalytic theories are built upon, see below), or (the most frequent case) sexophiles are compared with sexophiles, rather than with people who practice celibacy or live an asexual lifestyle (not to mention staunch antisexuals).

3. Presenting effects as causes. This relates to the previous point: several groups of sexophiles are compared, and it is claimed that those who have sex less frequently have more health problems. From this, the conclusion is drawn that the latter is a consequence of the former. However, in reality, it is the other way around—those with poorer health have sex less often (but nevertheless, do it several times a week, so their lifestyle can in no way be called abstinence, let alone voluntary abstinence). Alternatively, they talk about various mental problems (frustrations, depressions, etc.) that arise during forced abstinence, and their disappearance when engaging in sex. Naturally, a drug addict high on drugs feels much better than an addict in withdrawal. But this testifies not to the benefits, but to the harm of drug addiction as such.

4. Presenting the narcotic properties of sex as healing ones. This relates to the previous point. This also includes claims that sex can relieve physical pain. Indeed, it can—just like morphine (the term "endorphins" itself means "endogenous morphines"), but pain relief is symptom management, not curing a disease. "And aspirin helps against cancer" (c) Strugatsky brothers. Besides, there are enough cases where sex does not relieve, but rather causes severe postcoital pain (headaches, in particular).

5. Incorrect comparison with physical exercise. In physical exercise, if practiced in a way that brings benefit rather than harm, the physical loads are metered, controlled, and smoothly increasing. During sex, they are erratic and almost unmanageable (the stronger the arousal—i.e., the "better" the sex is in the view of sexophiles—the more dangerous the picture is, primarily for the cardiovascular system, the load on which increases exponentially).

6. Presenting harm reduction as providing a benefit. This includes claims like "sex boosts immunity," etc. In reality, sex, being a destructive impact on the body, activates defense mechanisms designed to reduce the harm from this impact. It's just that the final balance, even in the best-case scenario, will be zero, and more often negative (i.e., the harm will decrease, but not to zero). Arguments in this category are similar to the thesis: "A stab with a dirty shiv is very beneficial. Blood flow to the affected area increases, and the immune system is activated. Due to blood loss, blood pressure drops, and the hematopoietic function is activated. The rise in temperature in the affected area simultaneously contributes to the death of microbes..."

7. Focusing on factors that are not specific to sex. "A good mood is good for health, sex improves mood -> sex is good for health." Obviously, such "logic" is applicable to any drug, and there are plenty of much more reliable and safer ways to improve one's mood. Particularly remarkable in this series is the thesis that "not just any sex is beneficial, but only with a loved one." That is, it is openly admitted that there is no benefit in sex itself, and it is all about the emotional state. This thesis is completely analogous to the statement, "not just any madness is beneficial, but only megalomania (because it feels nice to feel great)." Alternatively, when talking about the benefits of sex, they actually mean the benefits of a massage.

8. Substituting health benefits with benefits for sex itself. Indeed, for a man to maintain potency in old age, he must have sex regularly—but this is not needed for anything other than the sex itself. This is analogous to the thesis: "scabies is very beneficial—after all, the more you scratch, the more you want to."

...

P.s. It is also recommended to read my previous post, as they are related.

Since I am tired of the fact that in discussions with sexophiles, many of those I have seen cannot answer how sex harms health, I had to make this post. So, this post will analyze some of the sexophiles' claims allegedly "about the benefits of sex" that do not correspond to reality. So, let's begin:

1. "Sex strengthens the immune system and overall health" — is almost a blatant lie; the hormones released after copulation affect enzymes whose purpose is to maintain the functioning of the immune system. Those who engage in sex more often than others are more successful in an evolutionary sense, but by doing so, they shorten their lifespan. But that is not all. When women have sex, the testosterone level in their bodies increases, whereas in men, the amount of testosterone significantly decreases after orgasm. Moreover, this leads to the fact that after copulation, male muscles severely weaken in their ability to contract, which leads to a sharp decrease in the efficiency of any physical activity. Also, during sex and especially orgasm, heart rate and blood pressure temporarily increase, which increases the strain on the cardiovascular system.

2. "Sex reduces stress and strengthens connection" — is also a lie. Generally, this varies from person to person, but it can in no way be called a definite fact, only a subjective assessment. In general, sex is the cause of many interpersonal conflicts, and engaging in it during burnout, depression, etc., on the contrary, worsens an already terrible situation. Not to mention the insignificance of the temporary effect even according to the estimates of sexophiles, and the fact that sex not aimed at reproduction is a type of drug addiction.

3. "Abstinence from sex causes even more harm" — this is already a popular manipulation of facts. The widespread myths that abstinence leads to neuroses or prostatitis are based on a substitution: this applies only to forced abstinence (incels), in which a person frequently remains in a state of sexual arousal. Voluntary abstinence, however, is only beneficial.

P.s. For those interested, the harm of sex to the immune system was initially discovered in beetles in the early 2000s.

So, since few people have touched upon this topic on this subreddit and the events are already starting, I would like to share my opinion. But let's start with a brief disclaimer to ensure I am understood correctly:

​

(Disclaimer: I disapprove of any events and organizations that normalize sex and fetishism, regardless of whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. When I use the term "LGBT," I usually mean the organization rather than the individuals. I have no issues with people of any orientation, provided they have consciously renounced sexuality. Regarding rights: I believe marriage should be secular, and while I support the right to same-sex marriage, I believe that same-sex couples should not have the right to a child).

​

Now, let's finally begin. You might already understand my attitude toward this event and "Pride Month" from my disclaimer, which I included to avoid misunderstandings in the comments, but I would like to elaborate on why I oppose it.

​

Let's start with the fact that the organizers of all these campaigns fight first and foremost for the normalization of an almost identical but alternative -in relation to the more widespread heterosexuality-sexuality, rather than for a person to be perceived primarily outside the context of their sexuality.

​

Furthermore, this organization and its activists frequently normalize highly destructive sexual practices and fetishes, such as BDSM.

​

Additionally, these events do not portray the people they are meant to represent in the best light. Even an initially neutral observer might develop a negative opinion. For instance, how can people display their fetishes or erotic outfits when children might be passing by?.

​

Moreover, because asexuals have been grouped into the LGBT community-placing them within a media sphere that is inherently pro-sex due to those who control it-asexuals themselves have become more sex-positive. This trend is visible today among many who identify as asexual.

​

However, asexuality is not a new sexual orientation, just as atheism is not a new religion. If asexuals had their own independent organization, there would be significantly fewer sex-positive asexuals.

​

Finally, simply taking pride in one's sexuality, whatever it may be, makes no sense.

​

That is why I am against Pride. What are your thoughts on this event?