Tweet
Haven't seen this particular idea covered so here goes:
Did you know that sex is good for you? Oh, I know you all guessed something that felt so good might be a positive force but we're only individuals with no real ability to generalize.
Naturally, the media take is all on the downside of having sex (bad news sells much better than good). Today's public discourse about sexuality is almost exclusively about risks and dangers: abuse, addiction, dysfunction, infection, pedophilia, teen pregnancy, and the struggle of sexual minorities for their civil rights. Discussions about the physiological and psychosocial health benefits of sexual expression have been almost entirely absent.
But, no fooling, sex is good for you. The subject has had a lot of interest and there are numerous scientific studies. I tend to discount anything anecdotal so I looked around a bit to see what's been done. Here's a good example of what researchers have found:
A study with a 10-year follow-up was conducted in Caerphilly, South Wales, to examine the relationship between frequency of orgasm and mortality. From 1979 to 1983, 918 men aged 45-59 were recruited to the study. The men were given a physical examination, including a medical history, blood pressure, electrocardiogram, and cholesterol screenings. The men were asked about the frequency of sexual intercourse. They were divided into three groups: those who had sex twice or more a week, an intermediate group, and those who reported having sex less than monthly.
At the 10-year follow-up, researchers found that the death rate from all causes for the least sexually active men was twice as high as that of the most active. The death rate in the intermediate group was 1.6 times greater than for the active group.
Of course many questions arise with this type of study. Does the frequency of orgasm cause the improved health? Does poor health cause lower sexual activity? Or does some other factor such as physical activity, alcohol, depressed mood, or "vital exhaustion" cause both poor health and less sexual activity? The researchers found that strength of the results persisted even after adjusting for differences in age, social class, smoking, blood pressure, and evidence of existing coronary heart disease at the initial interview. This suggests a more likely protective role of sexual activity.
To quote the researchers:
"The association between frequency of orgasm and mortality in the present study is at least - if not more - convincing on epidemiological and biological grounds than many of the associations reported in other studies and deserves further investigation to the same extent. Intervention programs could also be considered, perhaps based on the exciting 'At least five a day' campaign aimed at increasing fruit and vegetable consumption - although the numerical imperative may have to be adjusted."
There's a lot more data which seems to corroborate the idea that fucking is good for us. Here are a couple of internet references:
http://www.wholefitness.com/sexprolongslife.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2....ion.pdf
The second one is particularly good (from Planned Parenthood ?!?) and makes a nice summary of the whole situation. Lots of references.
Now, if you've managed to stay with me this far we reach the real meat here:
If one wanted to assure his on-going health and longevity, at least a daily session of intercourse with orgasm would seem reasonable. We all are quite aware of the likelihood of achieving such an admirable goal if we have a steady girlfriend or, heaven forbid, a wife!
Charming creatures that they may be, getting laid once a day is as likely as pigs flying and snowballs existing in hell. Just the "monthlies" will eliminate four or five days in the best of circumstances. Once they get their quota of children the interest in your services will diminish greatly and you will be lucky to fall into the once a week category.
No, the real answer to our health requirements lies not in a long-term relationship but rather in predictable rental sex. When we are paying for the service on a per session basis, we can be assured that there will be always be willing providers. The real problem here becomes the high esteem in which most of the willing providers seem to hold themselves, i.e. the value which they feel they should receive for each time they provide this basic commodity. In my part of the world, every daily session would cost in the neighborhood of US$250, which is well beyond my capability and most of yours, I suspect.
Fortunately, we have an option in the LOS. Here the providers are much more reasonably priced and we can consider daily relief and health care within our reach.
Let's calculate what such good health and longevity might cost:
350 (you'll miss a few days sick) days X 1500 baht ST = 525,000 baht per year
If purchasing in quantity some economy might be likely be obtained so knock off 20%: 420,000 baht per year or 35,000 baht per month.
It might be possible to make extended arrangements for even less than this although one risks growing tired of an extended diet of the same thing. Perhaps a change once a month would be the answer.
In any case, the trick will be to convince your insurance company or the National Health to fund this obviously health promoting activity since they will in the long run be saving themselves money.
(With my tongue planted firmly in (her) cheeks) Cheers!
Did you know that sex is good for you? Oh, I know you all guessed something that felt so good might be a positive force but we're only individuals with no real ability to generalize.
Naturally, the media take is all on the downside of having sex (bad news sells much better than good). Today's public discourse about sexuality is almost exclusively about risks and dangers: abuse, addiction, dysfunction, infection, pedophilia, teen pregnancy, and the struggle of sexual minorities for their civil rights. Discussions about the physiological and psychosocial health benefits of sexual expression have been almost entirely absent.
But, no fooling, sex is good for you. The subject has had a lot of interest and there are numerous scientific studies. I tend to discount anything anecdotal so I looked around a bit to see what's been done. Here's a good example of what researchers have found:
A study with a 10-year follow-up was conducted in Caerphilly, South Wales, to examine the relationship between frequency of orgasm and mortality. From 1979 to 1983, 918 men aged 45-59 were recruited to the study. The men were given a physical examination, including a medical history, blood pressure, electrocardiogram, and cholesterol screenings. The men were asked about the frequency of sexual intercourse. They were divided into three groups: those who had sex twice or more a week, an intermediate group, and those who reported having sex less than monthly.
At the 10-year follow-up, researchers found that the death rate from all causes for the least sexually active men was twice as high as that of the most active. The death rate in the intermediate group was 1.6 times greater than for the active group.
Of course many questions arise with this type of study. Does the frequency of orgasm cause the improved health? Does poor health cause lower sexual activity? Or does some other factor such as physical activity, alcohol, depressed mood, or "vital exhaustion" cause both poor health and less sexual activity? The researchers found that strength of the results persisted even after adjusting for differences in age, social class, smoking, blood pressure, and evidence of existing coronary heart disease at the initial interview. This suggests a more likely protective role of sexual activity.
To quote the researchers:
"The association between frequency of orgasm and mortality in the present study is at least - if not more - convincing on epidemiological and biological grounds than many of the associations reported in other studies and deserves further investigation to the same extent. Intervention programs could also be considered, perhaps based on the exciting 'At least five a day' campaign aimed at increasing fruit and vegetable consumption - although the numerical imperative may have to be adjusted."
There's a lot more data which seems to corroborate the idea that fucking is good for us. Here are a couple of internet references:
http://www.wholefitness.com/sexprolongslife.html
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2....ion.pdf
The second one is particularly good (from Planned Parenthood ?!?) and makes a nice summary of the whole situation. Lots of references.
Now, if you've managed to stay with me this far we reach the real meat here:
If one wanted to assure his on-going health and longevity, at least a daily session of intercourse with orgasm would seem reasonable. We all are quite aware of the likelihood of achieving such an admirable goal if we have a steady girlfriend or, heaven forbid, a wife!
Charming creatures that they may be, getting laid once a day is as likely as pigs flying and snowballs existing in hell. Just the "monthlies" will eliminate four or five days in the best of circumstances. Once they get their quota of children the interest in your services will diminish greatly and you will be lucky to fall into the once a week category.
No, the real answer to our health requirements lies not in a long-term relationship but rather in predictable rental sex. When we are paying for the service on a per session basis, we can be assured that there will be always be willing providers. The real problem here becomes the high esteem in which most of the willing providers seem to hold themselves, i.e. the value which they feel they should receive for each time they provide this basic commodity. In my part of the world, every daily session would cost in the neighborhood of US$250, which is well beyond my capability and most of yours, I suspect.
Fortunately, we have an option in the LOS. Here the providers are much more reasonably priced and we can consider daily relief and health care within our reach.
Let's calculate what such good health and longevity might cost:
350 (you'll miss a few days sick) days X 1500 baht ST = 525,000 baht per year
If purchasing in quantity some economy might be likely be obtained so knock off 20%: 420,000 baht per year or 35,000 baht per month.
It might be possible to make extended arrangements for even less than this although one risks growing tired of an extended diet of the same thing. Perhaps a change once a month would be the answer.
In any case, the trick will be to convince your insurance company or the National Health to fund this obviously health promoting activity since they will in the long run be saving themselves money.
(With my tongue planted firmly in (her) cheeks) Cheers!
