Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Peter T Chattaway

sex, health, and dogma

Recommended Posts

Oh my. First the scientists told us that women who perform oral sex on their partners -- and swallow! -- are less likely to have miscarriages. Now they're telling us that men who masturbate have a reduced chance of prostate cancer!

New Scientist | Reuters | Sydney Morning Herald

Makes us wonder why God would make our bodies this way if, as the Catholics say, he wouldn't want us to be doing these things. smile.gif


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummmm, Peter, I just had lunch. :? Could you show a little discretion please?


"What matters are movies, not awards; experiences, not celebrations; the subjective power of individual critical points of view, not the declamatory compromises of consensus." - Richard Brody, "Godard's Surprise Win Is a Victory for Independent Cinema," The New Yorker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christian wrote:

: Could you show a little discretion please?

Um, in what way wasn't I? This is no different from what got brought up on the old Philosophy of sexuality thread, is it?


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PRACTICING RESTRAINT... PRACTICING RESTRAINT... :?

In an interstellar burst, I am back to save the Universe.

Filmsweep by Persona. 2013 Film Journal. IlPersona.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh my.  First the scientists told us that women who perform oral sex on their partners -- and swallow! -- are less likely to have miscarriages.  Now they're telling us that men who masturbate have a reduced chance of prostate cancer!

New Scientist | Reuters | Sydney Morning Herald

Makes us wonder why God would make our bodies this way if, as the Catholics say, he wouldn't want us to be doing these things.  :)

Science is just another choice method of justification for what people really want. Biological science really needs to incorporate Anthropological studies. There is a tribe in Africa where all young men are taken out into the bush by a trusted elder male where, as a rite of passage, they engage in homosexual acts. This is because they believe this is how men get the "reproductive" juices into their bodies. Would this aid in miscarriages as well?


...the kind of film criticism we do. We are talking about life, and more than that the possibility of abundant life." -M.Leary

"Dad, how does she move in mysterious ways?"" -- Jude (my 5-year-old, after listening to Mysterious Ways)

[once upon a time known here as asher]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asher wrote:

: Biological science really needs to incorporate Anthropological studies.

What makes you think it doesn't?

: There is a tribe in Africa where all young men are taken out into the bush

: by a trusted elder male where, as a rite of passage, they engage in

: homosexual acts. This is because they believe this is how men get the

: "reproductive" juices into their bodies.

And the ancient Spartans paired off older men with younger boys, and there are tribes in the Pacific islands where the boys are expected to fellate the men, etc., etc., yeah.

: Would this aid in miscarriages as well?

Obviously not, because the boys will never become pregnant.

For more on the miscarriage thing, go to the 'philosophy of sex' thread linked above. The body's immune system tends to reject foreign organic matter, but it is more likely to accept such matter when it comes in through the mouth than when it comes in through any other orifice. This means that women whose immune systems are inclined to reject their fetuses seem to stand a slightly better chance of accepting their husband's DNA, and thus the DNA of their babies, if they have taken in their husband's sperm through the mouth as well as through the vagina.


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asher wrote:

: Biological science really needs to incorporate Anthropological studies.

What makes you think it doesn't?

Well because, more often than not, it doesn't. Hard Science is founded in emperical data based on consistant results of testing a hypothesis. In addition to the fact that everything has such researcher bias (faulty scientific method)it isn't even funny. Interestingly enough it is also an incredibly frequent occurance that these "facts" change to the point where they actually contradict the previous "emperical" facts.


...the kind of film criticism we do. We are talking about life, and more than that the possibility of abundant life." -M.Leary

"Dad, how does she move in mysterious ways?"" -- Jude (my 5-year-old, after listening to Mysterious Ways)

[once upon a time known here as asher]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make some good points, Asher. Consider, for instance, how homosexuality was formerly considered pathological in the mental health professions (even codified as a diagnosis in earlier incarnations of the DSM). Now, from what I understand, there is a definite bias against publishing any research findings that speak negatively of the consequences of homosexuality.

Even in the harder sciences, I see two pressures prejudicing what could otherwise be pure research. First, the intense need to 'publish or perish' can nudge an otherwise ethical researcher to alter 'p values' or 'confidence intervals,' so that findings will appear significant. Second, in clinical research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and the like, there is a clear commercial incentive to skew the positive findings and squelch anything negative.

Nonetheless, I do see reasons for hope. For one thing, I believe that repeated application of the scientific method, with vigorously and vigilantly applied epidemiological/statistical methodology can point us towards truth in the scientific realm. Also, in the 'softer' sciences such as psychology, there has been a dramatic increase in sensitivity to the cultural and spiritual dimensions of life, within the past decade or so.

Please forgive me if I rambled on for too long, or if I put anyone to sleep with this post, but this kind of stuff is of particular interest to me.


To be an artist is never to avert one's eyes.
- Akira Kurosawa

http://secularcinephile.blogspot.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

asher wrote:

: : : Biological science really needs to incorporate Anthropological studies.

: :

: : What makes you think it doesn't?

:

: Well because, more often than not, it doesn't. Hard Science is founded in

: emperical data based on consistant results of testing a hypothesis.

But how does this fit your claim that a 'hard science' like biology should incorporate a 'soft science' like anthropology?

: Interestingly enough it is also an incredibly frequent occurance that these

: "facts" change to the point where they actually contradict the previous

: "emperical" facts.

This sounds like a vague, random accusation that has nothing to do with any of the cases referred to above. In fact, what I'VE been hearing from a few people since passing this story on is that there is nothing new about this study -- the attitude has been one of, "Well duh, we all KNOW that more ejaculations means less cancer!" What "previous" facts have been contradicted by these new ones?


"Sympathy must precede belligerence. First I must understand the other, as it were, from the inside; then I can critique it from the outside. So many people skip right to the latter." -- Steven D. Greydanus
Now blogging at Patheos.com. I can also still be found at Facebook, Twitter and Flickr. See also my film journal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...