"Is Sex necessary for your health?" - Slavoj Zizek

Hello Ladies, Hello Gents!

I find this article to be noteworthy for discussion


"What's the Big Idea?

Hey, did you know that sex improves your self-esteem? It's also linked to increased bladder control, reduced depression, fewer colds, pain-relief from the rush of oxytocin that precedes orgasm, better teeth (seminal plasma contains zinc; who knew?), and "a happier prostate." Plus, it burns calories.

Today we're advised to orgasm guiltlessly and often, because sex is not just good, it's good for you. One recent study found that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm over a ten year period had half the death rate of those who climaxed less frequently -- leading Forbes to ask eagerly, "Is sex necessary?"

"Who cares?" says Slavoj Žižek. These days, there's nothing less daring or less satisfying than being a hedonist, the Lacanian philosopher told Big Think in a recent interview. Watch the video:"



http://bigthink.com/postcards-from-z...-your-health-2

I agree wholeheartedly ( :

Nice to be held and have that imtimate connection with a man...I agree.
Thanks♥

I also love your "pussy at the end of a long pole" avatar, Nina. (:

all I know is that it sure keeps my coat shiny !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Splooge does the body good.

Good both physically and mentally. I think people whom get laid on a semi regular basis are probably better off than most in both body and spirit, IMHO.

Seduce the mind and the body will follow.......As your mind is your biggest sexual organ you need the whole Mind Fuck experience to achieve total fulfillment through both mental and physical sexual stimuli..................Yum

I like the way you think Ms Athena, and I totally agree.

awesome post!

I agree 100%.......sensual sex is so mind blowing! I crave sex in many forms!

I agree with all you guys said, but there is also an implicit message in that article that has not yet been discussed.

It is about "using" the code of sexual dynamics for purposes of other needs. In our society there is still this implicit code that sex is only "good" when it is "used" in a certain way, which means, there are certain regulations and codes towards how sex shall be perceived, which sex is "good" sex, which sex is "bad" sex, and how often and what "techniques" shall apply.

I think it shows a certain sex negativity there.
I present a research here by one of my most famous portuguese researchers, who will show what I mean.
Sex does not serve as a meaning by itself, it gets "standardised" into set values and only if you "do it right" or - as we see here - for the "right purpose" then it`s good sex.
Which brings me to my most loved word - heteronormative - sexual values, which are per se "sex negative"

research follows- let me know what you guys think - Orgasmic puppeteering: Sex and Sexuality in portuguese womens and men`s magazines:
Although the research is focused on portugal, I think it is not so far away from USA or other parts of westernized culture, so I brought it here for discussion. It questions the dogma of "performance" and "sexual failure" or "sexual purpose" we have in our sex-negative culture. Message seems to be "if you just do it the right way and for the right pour pose then all your relationship problems - or even health problems - are solved and obsolete"
It`s lovely to watch:

http://prezi.com/npbka_ceyaaw/orgasm...ens-magazines/

Nuff said!!

Hello Ladies, Hello Gents!

I find this article to be noteworthy for discussion


"What's the Big Idea?

Hey, did you know that sex improves your self-esteem? It's also linked to increased bladder control, reduced depression, fewer colds, pain-relief from the rush of oxytocin that precedes orgasm, better teeth (seminal plasma contains zinc; who knew?), and "a happier prostate." Plus, it burns calories.

Today we're advised to orgasm guiltlessly and often, because sex is not just good, it's good for you. One recent study found that men who reported the highest frequency of orgasm over a ten year period had half the death rate of those who climaxed less frequently -- leading Forbes to ask eagerly, "Is sex necessary?"

"Who cares?" says Slavoj Žižek. These days, there's nothing less daring or less satisfying than being a hedonist, the Lacanian philosopher told Big Think in a recent interview. Watch the video:"



http://bigthink.com/postcards-from-z...-your-health-2 Originally Posted by ninasastri

Sex is healthy. You can always tell the difference between a woman who is getting laid regularly and a woman who is a prude.

The woman who is having sex often looks younger than the woman has lost interest in sex.

I agree with everything but....

not sure about the causality. I think this is probably another example of poor use of statistics, or invalid statistical methods.

Does sex reduce heart attacks? Does sex make people happier and smile more? Does sex make you look younger? Does sex prevent colds?

Or do attractive, young looking, healthy, fit, happy and contented people have more sex?

It may be an orgasmic virtuous spiral.

The healthier and happier you are the more you have sex, which makes you healthy and happy.

I agree with everything but....

not sure about the causality. I think this is probably another example of poor use of statistics, or invalid statistical methods.

Does sex reduce heart attacks? Does sex make people happier and smile more? Does sex make you look younger? Does sex prevent colds?

Or do attractive, young looking, healthy, fit, happy and contented people have more sex?

It may be an orgasmic virtuous spiral.

The healthier and happier you are the more you have sex, which makes you healthy and happy. Originally Posted by essence

Exactly, did you read my post with the "orgasmic puppeteering" ? a few posts back... I think you`d like it

Zizek actually makes it a theme that these statistics and codes do not portray the status quo but rather a social code and such. Which statistics usually or oftentimes do in sociological contexts, where they are less than accurate. Or the outcome can only be relied on within certain strict and narrow contexts (not in such wide statements posted above)