Men who are very sexually active in their twenties and thirties are more likely to develop prostate cancer, especially if they masturbate frequently, according to a study of more than 800 men.

59% of the men in both groups said that they had engaged in sexual activity (intercourse or masturbation) 12 times a month or more in their twenties. This fell steadily as they got older, to 48% in their thirties, 28% in their forties and 13% in their fifties.

39% of the cancer group had had six female partners or more, compared with 31% of the control group.

Men with prostate cancer were more likely to have had a sexually transmitted disease than those without prostate cancer.

More men with prostate cancer fell into the highest frequency groups in each decade when it came to sexual activity (intercourse and masturbation) than men in the control group. 40% of men in the cancer group fell into the highest frequency category in their twenties (20 or more times a month) compared to 32% in the control group. Similar patterns were observed in the men’s thirties and forties. By the fifties it had evened out, with 31% in each group falling into the most frequent category (ten or more times a month).

Men with prostate cancer were also more likely to masturbate frequently than men in the control group, with the greatest difference in the twenties (34% versus 24%) and thirties (41% versus 31%). The differences were less pronounced in their forties (34% versus 28%) and by the fifties the cancer group was slightly lower (25% versus 26%).

Overall we found a significant association between prostate cancer and sexual activity in a man’s twenties and between masturbation and prostate cancer in the twenties and thirties. However there was no significant association between sexual activity and prostate cancer in a man’s forties.

Source: Sexual activity and prostate cancer risk in men diagnosed at a younger age (BJUI) via Science Daily

Advertisements

11 thoughts on “Perils of Frequent Sex And Masturbation

    1. Yes, 800 is a decent sample size, but one study is never enough to make any conclusions. Also we have to keep in mind that this is a correlative retrospective study.

  1. Okay, if you really want me to do the math it comes out to a 20% chance. But your change of getting an STD is zero if you don’t have sex… but no one is going to give it up for that either.

    1. 大神先生,

      Calculating chances given so little information wouldn’t lead to sound results. I wonder if they fit logit model controlling for confounds and used continuous scale. Dichotomization is useful for descriptives, as shown in the report, but calculating significance in such a way may lead to spurious results.

      Although most STDs are acquired through sex, other ways of transmission exist. This study does not suggest that all sexual activity should be stopped, rather the results may suggest that moderation may be beneficial.

      – – –

      Will of the wisp,

      The report does not mention confidence intervals. You could check the original publication.

  2. Assuming your study is sound, my calculations of chances are sound. Are you saying that the study may have had other variables not listed here?

    Moderation may be beneficial in this area, but only if you’re willing to be angry far more often for a decreased risk of cancer… which is likely to be cured within the next twenty years anyway.

    1. What exactly you calculated and what equation you used? The study must have collected other data because what we see in the report are simple descriptive statistics, mentioning that the differences are significant, but this is not a very good journal, so I might be wrong.

      Angry for a decreased risk of cancer? I am not sure about the cure, but early detection will improve substantially.

  3. Hmm… That’s an interesting calculation…

    To do this properly, we can construct a contingency table (Frequency x Status)

    ________________|Control Group | Prostate Cancer Group |
    Other Frequency_|_____68%______|_________60%__________ |
    High Frequency__|_____32%______|_________40%__________ |

    You can treat this as a test with 40% sensitivity, i.e. given that you have prostate cancer, you have 40% probability of having high frequency. Now we can calculate the reverse – positive predictive value (PPV), i.e. what is the probability that you have cancer given high frequency = [40/(32+40)]*100=55.6% However, to calculate PPV properly, we need to know prevalence of each population and use Bayes’ equation.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s