These so-called “medical studies”, or rather, the reporting on them, could not be more absurd. I’ll explain.
According to the National Cancer Institute, between 2007 and 2011 there were 147.8 new cases of prostate cancer per 100,000 men, and 22.3 per 100,000 men died from prostate cancer in those years.
That means, relatively speaking, that among all men in all age groups there is a .14% chance of developing prostate cancer in a particular year. Of course, as men age they are naturally more likely to get it, so that approximately 15% of all men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer sometime in their life.
So, if your “lifetime risk” is 15%, then a particular behavior or action that is meant to reduce your risk only affects the overall percentage. Thus, if you already only have a 15% risk, then doing — or not doing — a particular thing that purportedly lowers risk by “one third”, actually means that your risk is lowered from 15% to 10%, at best.
My point? Studies that point to any activity and say “this reduces x, or increases y” are generally remarking on measurable, but not entirely significant, differences, and most “lifestyle” studies fail to quantify a host of other factors and variables that may or may not also have impact upon the findings. It might be because of that one thing, but then again, it might be something else that was never even considered. It’s very difficult to “isolate variables” when it comes to behavior and lifestyle.
So when ridiculous articles like this one suggest that it is healthy and good for prostate health for a heterosexual man to have more than 20 female sexual partners in his lifetime, it necessarily fails to properly illustrate the actual impact while focusing instead on the “perceived benefit”, and all the while ignores a variety of alternative possibilities.
And, it’s even more irresponsible (to the extent that the study authors are complicit) and moronic (to the extent that the media can’t seem to read such a study properly) to premise the conclusion (“promiscuity good, monogamy bad”) upon the researchers’ belief (as opposed to, oh, I don’t know, factual data?) that “…men who are more promiscuous have more sex than those in monogamous relationships.” What’s the basis for that, other than belief?
I allege that studies that are formulated like this one and the news articles that report on the results are constructed for one purpose: to undermine monogamy and justify immoral choices. “Good health” has become a moral imperative in our secular culture, to the point that it will embrace something like promiscuity. The proof? Here:
…When asked whether public health authorities should recommend men to sleep with many women in their lives Dr Parent added: “We’re not there yet.” [But we hope to be soon, because, that’s what our goal is: to recommend lots and lots of promiscuous sex for heterosexual men with multiple female sexual partners, without regard for illegitimate babies, single motherhood, sexually transmitted disease, emotional and psychological health and well-being. As soon as we can craft the right kind of study, we’ll be excited to share the important results with you, and you’ll be on your way to preventing cancer and enjoying life!]
My advice: pay attention and scrutinize these so-called “medical studies,” and ask yourself, what type of social behaviors do they promote, and why?