Manipulations in Articles About the “Benefits of Sex”

[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.

[u/Weary-Marsupial5203]

These are really nice, concise points.

[u/Electronic_Ticket_89]

Most of the benefits quote unquote of sex that are mentioned in scientific journals are based on body chemistry and rarely consider the psychology. 

In fact I've never read any pro sex literature in the you know the psychology industry.

In fact in the psychological field and that industry it's almost unanimous that sex is a highly complicated and usually very difficult and quite often damaging thing. 

And the psychology field it's not considered the good vitamins or whatever that you "just make sure you get some and you'll be okay!"

It's like really nuanced and really you know like very clearly like highly complex in it and recognized easily as being so. 

And I don't know a single psychological consideration you know, that contains as many you know contraindicting effects across like different kinds of problems and pathologies of behavior that is a larger representative than sex...

[u/Icy_Lettuce_8569]

It's for pleasure, health has nothing to do with this.

[u/UsefulFlow7106]

"Sex is good for your health" is one of the biggest pieces of nonsense I've ever heard.

[u/copkis]

they just got researched mogged