High volume sex in the United States is a first time historic phenomenon. I, very much concerned, extensively cover and wonder about all types of sex patterns and where they are leading us. Not too long ago, I had an intriguing conversation with a mother and her daughter who were open about their sexual experiences with multiple men describing a few scenes in impressive graphic detail. Please don’t ask me how this happened! I was somewhat uncomfortable for it was a first for me, and I decided to just listen and ask a few pointed questions. Curious as hell, I asked the daughter, “Does it bother you to hear your mom talk about her sexcapades with different men particularly the one in which she was sodomized and talked about how she loved it?” She replied, “Doc, you’re in the dark ages. This is normal these days, and mothers and daughters should discuss their experiences. Why not?” The mother agreed. I then asked about whether this also happened with the father-husband. He left town when the daughter was a teenager and was not involved.
A couple of days after, when I was having my martini, I wondered where we’re heading with men and women having large numbers of different sexual partners. Is there a difference if a man beds with fifty women than vice versa? Is it more harmful to men or women? Now I’m going to piss-off some women- and even some men at our universities- with my answer. I concluded it is much more harmful to women!
“Where’s the evidence?” you ask. “According to your posts you’re a big guy on producing evidence by clinical studies. Where are they?” My immediate reaction is that my judgment is based on observation and experiencing human behavior over four generations. As women age their interest is pursuing sex partners significantly diminishes while that of men decreases far less. Menopause tells us that. Now I don’t need a clinical study but only my observation and experience to make that judgment. For example, if an unaccompanied blindfolded man crosses Broadway in Manhattan, he has a greater chance of being hit by a car and killed than a person with normal vision.
Because of its complexity, I decided to write three posts in order to develop a convincing argument to warn women about the negative side of having multiple sex partners. I define the negative side as experiencing stress, instability and unhappiness. I began to write a draft covering many aspects of women’s and men’s sexual revolution ranging from psychology to the menopause. Half-way through my writing, I decided what I had to say was not sufficiently enlightening, let alone convincing, to me. It was also too boiler- plate for women. There was something missing, and it bothered me. I couldn’t figure it out and decided not to continue with the post and move on to another subject.
That night, however, I went to my local bar-restaurant where I sometimes do my writing. It’s a delightful place where both the rich and not- so- rich mingle and dine on tasty, inexpensive Italian food. The waitresses there work hard to make money on the side to support their families. They’re good, upper gals, and I truly enjoy the banter with them.
Then it happened! I decided to ask the waitresses who they thought would experience more harm. It was a busy night, and they were moving to and fro like the wind. As my favorite waitress, Robyn, flew by my table she, almost shouting, said, “It’s women. It’s expectations. Women have greater expectations!”
This hit me like a lightning bolt, and I had an Archimedes’s Eureka moment. Robyn hit it on the nose regarding what was bothering me. In my long life’s sojourn there is little doubt in my mind that this characteristic is biologically integrated in the female mentality much more than in the male’s. As I frequently do, I called others for their opinion, mostly women, including Heidi, a lady of class and intelligent feminist who lives in Zurich, Switzerland. All, including Heidi, and without hesitation, wholeheartedly agreed.
We all like good news. Those of you who read my posts, however, may find it annoying that I periodically mention that a significant percentage of clinical studies are flawed and their conclusions not valid. Unfortunately, that’s the way it is. These studies even include sophisticated clinical ones conducted by medical experts at our prestigious medical institutions.
I’ve been searching the medical-health literature to find out whether orgasms are good for your health. Now you may not want to hear this, but the overwhelming majority of positive clinical reports were very unprofessional and seriously flawed, way more than in other medical studies. That’s not to say that the conclusions aren’t correct, but the data don’t support them.
Why is this so? There are number of reasons, one major one being that sexual benefits of health are not of as much interest to expert research doctors as, for example, the treatment of lung or breast cancer or manic depression. As a result, many of the studies are not designed and conducted by medical experts but usually by less disciplined investigators where the results are questionable. Also, sex is a very “hot” field, and men and women are understandably eager to embrace any type of information which is oftentimes misinformation. Because of this huge market-demand for sex information, there is a constant push and a rush to publish any kind of sex information regardless of the quality. Currently, there aren’t many places to find out the truth about sex and so this pattern, unfortunately, will continue for the foreseeable future.
Let’s take, as an example of exaggerated sex claims, a recent Huffington Post piece, “The 5 Health Benefits of Orgasms” where it is claimed that clinical research studies support that having only one orgasm a week has the following health benefits:
- Reduces the risk of mild depression
- Offers a 36% reduction of heart disease
- Boosts the immune system
- Fights the effects of chronic pain
- Strengthens the pelvic floor to keep everything in place and not leaking*
FYI, almost everything dramatically improves mild depression, including just the passing of time or a placebo. If only a once-a-week orgasm reduces heart disease by 36%, an incredibly dishonest claim, then nymphomaniacs should have the healthiest hearts of all! To my knowledge no one has looked into this possibility.
The Huffington Post writes about Karen Lorre, an actress and former Playmate, who describes her orgasm experience in, “Karen Lorre Has 11 Orgasms in One Day Thanks to ‘Orgasmic Meditation’.” She claims that the latter is a “…source of unlimited energy that’s found in all of us.” FYI, none of us has unlimited energy and few can have 11 orgasms a day- Orgasmic Meditation or no.
There are other orgasm-benefit claims such as prolonging life or longevity. To prove this in a medical study would, let’s say, require studying about 600,000 volunteers from birth to death dividing them into three groups: the first is never permitted to have an orgasm for their entire lives, not even by masturbation; the second once, a week and the third, twice a week. The volunteers must be constantly monitored to make sure they stick to their orgasm program. But maybe that won’t be necessary. The average life span of an American is about 77 years with women living to be about 80. That of Catholic nuns, however, is 86 years. One, therefore, can already make the argument that abstinence from orgasms prolongs life! That’s not farfetched for caloric reduction by the reduction of food intake significantly prolongs life in certain animals.
In conclusion, there are very few solid clinical studies that support the health benefit of orgasms. The good news is that there are reasonable clinical studies which report that sexual intercourse does not increase the risk of heart attacks even in most patients with heart disease. Regarding other significant risks in the pursuit and achievement of orgasms, there’s the economic one- but that’s another story.
*I’m assuming that the male pelvic floor is not included because, to my knowledge, it doesn’t leak.
Polygamous Marriage – Very Common, But Illegal in the U.S. : Homosexual Marriage – Very Rare, But Legal In Most of the U.S. Why/What about the Future?
In my posts I’ll keep reiterating that the Brain Genital Law or BGL holds that all sexual acts are normal, amoral acts of nature. It also holds that all societies have regulated such acts in one way or another including heterosexuality and homosexuality.
Historically, homosexual marriage is a very rare union rejected by virtually all societies while polygamy has been and still is widely accepted throughout the world. Yet in the United States the Supreme Court in 1876 ruled polygamy to be unconstitutional and, in 2013, homosexual marriage constitutional. The clear legal bases of both decisions, like other Court’s decisions, are difficult to find in our Constitution.
So, what’s the story? I really don’t know. One can reasonably assume that the first decision was based on the Christian Protestant values of the time but also on the universal but difficult to pinpoint factor behind the historical worldwide rejection of such marriage. Current values, however, primarily due to the impact of modern technology, have already led to a sweeping deregulation of the BGL rendering many forms of sexual expression, which were wholeheartedly discouraged before, not only increasingly acceptable but enthusiastically embraced.
There is little doubt that the Supreme Court justices are influenced by these social changes. In 1876 there were very few known supporters of polygamy. If the case had involved homosexual marriage, the Court would have also ruled it unconstitutional, one reason being that there were also very few supporters of homosexuality. In the year 2013, however, media coverage of homosexual marriage was 5 to 1 in favor of it, and the Court went along with our changing social values.
Let’s make the assumption that the composition of our Supreme Court won’t change when the polygamy “right” to marriage case inevitably comes before it. If the justices who supported the recent homosexual marriage decision are still seated and remain consistent, they should overturn the 1876 decision. On the other hand, in addition to the social-political factors, there is also the psychological one which affects judgment calls. Three of the justices who ruled in favor of homosexual marriage are women. In their hearts they are probably strongly against men having more than one wife and may find some type of creative legal argument to rule against it*.
There is little doubt that the Supreme Court is, in place of tradition and legislation, becoming the arbiter of controversial, rapidly deregulated sexual behavior in America and will soon decide, for example, who has rights to their sperm, their eggs and to the fertilized IVF embryo in an unimaginable variety of cases. The justices will be challenged on where to draw the lines on increasing deregulated sexual behavior that is being embraced by our culture. No easy task for the justices for their decisions will be far more controversial than dealing with the Second Amendment!
During the next decade we will experience a rollercoaster of tumultuous sexcapades characterized by pervasive social disruption, rampant insecurity and unhappiness. Sex is indeed like fire: It can warm up your home or burn it down. Instead of a national policy to build solar panels to deliver heat, we should, instead, immediately begin to manufacture large quantities of fire extinguishers.
*One wonders how they would rule if the case involved polyandry, the right of women to have more than one husband.
In my previous post, A Brief Summary of DeFelice’s Brain Genital Law or the BGL, the doctor describes why social acceptability of things related to sex is rapidly broadening. The other day a young mother acquaintance asked me what I thought about Miley Cyrus’ betrayal. My first response was, “Who is Miley Cyrus?” She looked at me as if I were an extinct dinosaur, and in a real sense I am! After the passing of Howdy Doody which I knew by name only, never having watched it, I also know virtually nothing about this entertaining type of young folks’ television shows. My current favorite television show, simple as it is, is a series re-runs of Gunsmoke.
She then told me about how Miley was the star in the Hannah Montana TV series where she superbly played the role of a typical sweet, innocent and delightful teen age gal who became the sweetheart and idol of millions of Americans. She was feminine innocence personified and many believe that youngsters bought into that role model. For the record, my 12 year old granddaughter told me that the show is a big time bore.
Anyway, my acquaintance directed me to a website of the recent MTV Video Awards show where she struts back and forth upon the stage scantily dressed making sexual gestures and, if I heard correctly, saying something like, “I want it” and placing an object between her legs which leaves nothing to the imagination about what she wants. Then she did her twerking which raised eyebrows. It shouldn’t have for it was not twanging, which would and should: (More about this in the next post).
She was highly energetic in her performance. I got the message.
Then I went to YouTube and checked out some Hannah Montana scenes and immediately understood why lots of folks were pissed off. What a transition it has been!
I called a couple of savvy mind- analyzing expert friends to give me their reading on this transition. Both agreed her case was similar to Michael Jackson’s who was a child who never had a childhood. Everything he did was controlled by marketing folks from what he wore, said and even how his hair was cut among others controlling factors. When he became a young, not fully matured, independent adult and had lots of money, he rebelled, went wild and did his own thing: So also with Miley.
Whether that’s the way it happened with her will never be known but one thing is fairly certain. Not too long ago, this type of entertainment would not have been permitted for public viewing because of BGL regulations. Miley’s performance is a clear sign of ongoing BGL deregulation in almost every sector of American culture.