Comments

1
I'd rather die having wild monkey sex with the man I love than spend the rest of my life celibate.
2
...especially if the person does those activities infrequently...

Could it be that us hypersexual types are on the right track after all? ;)
3
The answer, of course, is to fuck more often.
4
Wait. You missed the equivalency of exercise and having sex. Elsewhere, you can find articles on what good exercise it is and how it's good for your health as well as weight-loss.

For example:

http://www.webmd.com/sex-relationships/g…
5
Well if you gotta go, you might as well go with a smile on your face.
6
SHOCKING REPORT: Making your heart beat faster can put stress on your heart, particularly if you've let the fucking thing atrophy.
7
I did not need to know this, I already have enough sex-related anxieties to deal with.
8
He died as he lived: covered in the semen of several men.
9
I'll leave this world just a I entered: Naked, screaming, and covered in blood.
10
If you read the report, both sex and unusual physical activity were associated with risk of heart attack, but only unusual physical activity was associated with risk of sudden cardiac death. Sex won't kill you; shoveling the sidewalk will.

Also: In a 2010 study... researchers found that sex served as a trigger in only 2.2 percent of heart attacks. By comparison, indulging in a heavy meal was connected with triggering 2.7 percent of heart attacks.
11
I really dislike the term "asexual" as it is used by Dan here. Asexual, to me (and, I would venture, the entire scientific community) suggests capacity to reproduce without the sharing of genetic material between two organisms. I'm just imagining these people duplicating themselves... Forgive me if this is reading the content of what is meant by the term "asexual" in this context, but wouldn't "nonsexual" or "unsexual" be a more appropriate term?
12
"...it looks like the asexuals will outlive us all."

No, it will just SEEM that way.

*Crickets chirping.*
13
The funniest thing about this article is that they originally posted it with the first sentence as "Exercising or having sex ROUGHLY triples a person's risk..."

Still made sense either way.
14
@11 Good point. Unfortunately, English is an extraordinarily flexible language, and words have frequently picked up additional usages. It's definitely too late to salvage that one back to its scientific usage. It escaped decades ago.

But, if you're looking for an alternative, can I suggest "libidoless"?
15
Lets see, a sudden, fatal heart attack within hours of getting laid? I'm in!
16
Triples your risk, from one in a million to three in a million.
17
An amusing topic, I guess, but sadly misrepresented in the media. The study was on men over 60, so results may not be applicable to women or to younger people. The actual increased risk of heart attack was only seen in people who were not accustomed to energetic activity, and even then the "researchers estimated that the exposures’ overall impact on an individual’s absolute risk of a cardiac event was found to be small, and would be expected to account for only an additional 2 to 3 heart attacks in 10,000 person-years of follow-up."

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2011/03March/Page…
18
@14 - True. Wittgenstein was, after all, correct to note that a word means whatever people understand it to mean. It's just that I cannot help but think of asexual people as amoebas.
19
Why hasn't anyone designed a work-out machine that replicates snow-shovelling so that people can keep fit throughout the summer months?

Dan, from the way the paragraph reads, having sex infrequently, rather than exercising infrequently, seems to be the problem when it comes to heart attacks in the hours immediately after sex.
20
Paging Dr. Obvious. This is almost as good as that study I read about how people tend to form relationships with people who live near them rather than those who live far away. You can do better, JAMA!
21
@20

FTW!
22
@11, 14: I heartily disagree; asexual means "without sexual intercourse" in the biological sense; it is also not the same as mono-sexual/mono-sexed, which refers to sex-linked morphological development. Any non-sexually-dimorphic species must be able to reproduce asexually, but there are of course other species that are sexually dimorphic that can reproduce asexually (e.g. some lizards through parthenogenesis); the reproduction is asexual in that case, but the female lizard is still sexed female, and I doubt most "scientists" would refer to lizards generally as "asexual", despite their "capacity to reproduce without the sharing of genetic material between two organisms". The way "asexual" is used with respect to human sexuality is perfectly consistent with the biological definition; your understanding of the biological definition is just more limited than the 'actual' definition because you tend to use the word in such a narrow set of circumstances (I'm guessing here; maybe there is some other reason).

That said, even if I grant your premise, the separation of sex, gender, and sexuality in fields that study human sexuality allows for more nuanced and useful behavioral and representational models than the conflated and essentialized model that's still in use in biology. If anything, 'scientists' (problematized as a category because your assertion applies only to a number of people in a small range of scientific fields of study) need to adapt to the contemporary usage, as it's a more useful formulation of the word, and science is all about constructing useful models with which we can interpret reality and predict outcomes. The biological models from which the words were taken for use with respect to human sexuality were demonstrably bad models: they conflated and essentialized sex/gender/sexuality in ways that are not as accurately representative of reality (and therefore not as predictively useful), even for non-human species, as we are not the only creatures to engage in non-reproductive sexual behavior and/or sexual behavior with other organisms of the same species or a different species or even inanimate objects with which we are unable to even potentially procreate (I'll lay off the bonobos and use dogs: I've seen male dogs have anal sex and also hump furniture and people - only legs in personal observation, though I assume the existence of dog-focused zoophilia is real and not an elaborate hoax, none of which has anything to do with 'sex' qua morphology nor reproduction).

@18: Speaking of ironic prescriptive essentialism in language, I believe you mean "amoebae".
23
But it looks like the asexuals will outlive us all.

Yay!
24
@11

From a strictly logical point of view, you have a point--but when is language ever strictly logical? "Asexuality" has taken on that meaning when referring to humans, and Dan is using it exactly the way the asexual community does.
25
In other words, EVERYTHING IS BAD FOR YOU
26
@22 Pedant much?
27
Is it the orgasm that kills you, or just the activity leading up to it? Because I've done my share of clicking the mouse, and obviously I'm still here. But hubby and I haven't been as "active" as we'd like, so maybe we should shovel some snow to get back into the swing of things.

And @#26, you actually read that whole thing? If I wanted a lesson in asexual reproduction, I'd Google it.
28
Oh great, so their dating pool will be larger than us! And some other old people will have become a-sexual too, making an even larger dating pool for them!

OMG clearly the answer to bitchy asexuals who whine about the small dating pool and the subsequent lying to entrap sexual people in a relationship with them, is to tell them to go date seniors!

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.