Overall, participants with higher sexual activity frequency were at a lower risk of all-cause death in a dose-response manner (P for trend = 0.020) during the follow-up period. In addition, the multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios for all-cause mortality, CVD mortality, cancer mortality, and other cause mortality among participants who had sex ≥52 times/year compared with those having sex 0-1 time/year were 0.51 (95% CI, 0.34 to 0.76), 0.79 (95% CI, 0.19 to 3.21), 0.31 (95% CI, 0.11 to 0.84), and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.28 to 0.96), respectively.
Clinical implications: Sexual activity appears to be a health indicator of all-cause and cancer mortality in US middle-aged adults.
Sexual activity is a health indicator that correlates with lower mortality. I think this correlation is an obvious one. Low sexual activity coexists with one or more underlying physical problems we know increase mortality, like Cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, etc. Could there be a causation between sex every week and low mortality? Will increased sexual activity will cause lower mortality? Not sure.
But It is also rather obvious and I agree with observations that sex and happy sex life contributes to better health. Causative through the physical activity itself, the increase in oxytocin, and the general feeling of satisfaction.
I think it is probably more correlative than causal, but to some smaller extent causal as well. Hence we probably agree on this. Quantifying the element that is causal would be really hard.
I feel like there is actually a bit of quantitative data to back this up. It seems as though increased sexual activity could be correlated with a decrease in prostate cancer.
Interesting stuff, and agreed, probably correlative, but might also be causal, because things can be both. (If nothing else, cuddling contributes to health; if you don’t know that, get more of it. )
Not to mention the social connection aspect. If indeed social connection is connected with health and longevity, then having a lot of sex requires at least some social connection. It’s also possible that the opposite direction applies - those who don’t have a lot of sex more frequently might not have someone to have sex with, but also more frequently might be lower on the social desirability pecking order which in turn can have health implications.
As to prostate cancer, it’s about ejaculations as I understand it. You don’t need sex for that, depending on how you define “having sex” - people are famously DIY in that respect😉.
Or those who physically can’t have sex do not live long lives. An old man with ED due to cardiovascular issues will have a heart attack soon while the old women with osteoporosis would break all her bones if she were to engage in sexual behaviour.
I’m with @sol on this, it may be correlative, but with all the social/oxytocin/exercise/relationship benefits most of us should probably be getting a lot more than we do.
And when it all comes down to it, I think it is something that “should” be true. What other options do we have that feel so great, yet are good for us. It seems to me that dark chocolate is a very distant second.
Did somebody already make an RCT joke? Typical nobody wants to be in the control group situation, but it would be illuminating…especially if they included cognitive testing. (Some of you might remember that Seinfeld episode on abstinence where George gets smarter and Elaine gets dumber.)
Clues to increase physical contact and/or sex? There are lots of ways, including simply asking.
Also, touch does not have to be sexual. Think partner dance. (Tango, Blues, Kizomba, Balboa, etc). Cuddle parties. Friend hugs.
Our ancestors and ancestor species touched each other far more than we do today. I think this is one of the sources of many ills, a simple lack of touch.
In college I knew girls who wanted to sleep in the same bed with a guy, not for sex, but for body contact and a sense of safety. Even I had that experience, and I was like “sure, why not”, happened a few times. At the time I didn’t think it especially strange, but it was back in the 70’s. I don’t know if it still happens today, but I can easily see how both parties may not really want sex, just a cuddle session. A “friends with cuddle benefits” - FWCB.
We don’t need to go as far back as to our ancestors… In many European and Latin cultures ppl touch each other (hugging, kissing, dancing) much more often than we do here in the States.
@sol I’m very touchie feelie… so much so that I try to control myself a bit so I don’t freak people out :). Nothing in appropriate but I am very annimated and will touch someone’s knee or arm while talking.
@RapAdmin Thanks for the mention and for including so many photos! I agree with everyone here - sexual activity is correlated to improved longevity. The point of this talk was less “having a lot of sex will make you live forever” and more "we should be talking to patients more about sexual health because a) it’s important for many reasons and b) it’s strongly correlated with longevity so why wouldn’t we want to include such a powerful biomarker in their assessment?
)
any clues how to increase it?