what do I feel?

What am I feeling?  Maybe the table of contents mentions that.

Sex Propaganda Debunked

 Ian Clark

by Ian Clark

 

Sex propaganda is based on "studies"

The word "studies" is still effective in mainstream media to impress viewers, yet corruption in such studies is also widely known [1].  For example, studies on pesticides funded by chemical companies usually find any and every chemical "harmless to humans".  A study funded by aspartame producers found phenylalanine (nutrasweet) to be perfectly safe.  But it's not just important where the funding from these studies is coming from (because there will be competing interests doing studies sometimes) but the analysis they receive in the media is.  If the media just strings disparate study results together, rarely cites or analyzes references, and comes to conclusions questionable from a common sense angle, then we can be sure that we're dealing with propaganda and not serious discussion.

What do I see around me?

What is happening around me?  I'd better look here to find out.


Two types of sex propaganda articles: the Mysterious Survey and the Amalgamized. 

The Mysterious Survey

Kinsey perfected this technique. [2]  The mysterious survey reports the result of one study, the origins and methods of which are either completely secret or buried within lots of text.  Without stating the origins and methods, the report makes unusual claims.  E.g., Coffee has been shown to improve IQ. [several paragraphs down] The study was conducted by the Boy Scouts of America.  The method was interviewing several Boy Scouts what they thought of coffee.  With the given information, coffee industry people could have funded the Boy Scouts and biased the survey.  This technique is propaganda because "science" should involve some degree of measurement and some degree of research into the mechanics of a phenomena without drawing merely statistical connections.

Experts' dressing room Experts getting dressed

Currently, the main source of the mysterious survey is from the field of epidemiology.  Typically the surveys from this school measure broad groups and do not concern themselves with the mechanics of a phenomena.  We've all seen it - French people drink a lot of wine.  They also have less heart disease.  Headline: Wine Prevents Heart disease.  Other surveys will be more scientific, but still be tampered with.  One very famous study had the headline, One Drink a Day is Beneficial.  

Mysterious surveys always break down upon analysis.  In Wine Prevents Heart Disease for French People we find that the French actually have a pretty low life expectancy, and that a main cause of death in France is cirrhosis of the liver (from drinking). Who cares if you don't have heart disease, but instead have liver disease?  

It's better to die of liver disease!

In One Drink a Day is Beneficial, we found that the one drink was what most people would consider to be a quarter or one half of one beer.  In addition, the subjects were not non-drinkers, but random people - many of them drinkers or even heavy drinkers.  So most people studied switched to drinking less for the survey.  And this was interpreted as alcohol being beneficial.

Later a Scientific American study refuted all of this, claiming that only red wine showed any positive effect, and that the beneficial substance must be a part of red wine [3] and not of alcohol itself.  Since Scientific American promotes propopaganda [4], they cannot be trusted.  However, isn't it funny that the mood change from drinking comes from liver toxification and breaking of the brain barrier - and yet alcoholics will still be able to cherrypick studies to prove it's good?  We even have women dinking during pregnancy and using studies to justify it, too. [5]

The reason such surveys get funding is to make us change our common sense in favor of a vested interest - like Rothschild's French wineries or the Bronfman's Seagrams group [6].  

Mysterious Sex Surveys

In the case of sex, our common sense tells us what farmers and biologists have always known - that sex expends the participants.  We have also evolved to be ashamed of masturbation, secretive about sex, punishing toward cheaters and protective of women.  Yet we are faced with a series of  surveys (mislabeled "studies") or heavily tampered-with studies which are designed to lower our highly-evolved and intelligent inhibitions in order to become consumers of compromising products or behaviors.

For example a mysterious survey done by the Australian government, reported by the BBC, saying that excess masturbation helps to prevent prostate cancer.  Who exactly is " the Australian government"?  It doesn't specify which department, headed by whom, upon the urging of whom.  The Australian government could be controlled by various interest groups, one of them being a sex-related industry.  The study could be done to advertise products related to masturbation - namely porn, sex products, and even slaves ("prostitutes") (the number two industry in the world [7] or the first, when dynamics like blackmail and violent threats are figured in [8]) .

After looking further in the article, we realize that the "testing method" is sitting in a room with someone and asking them about their sexual habits.  The study did nothing to analyze the mechanical aspect of orgasm and ejaculation in terms of wear on the prostate and did not use an objective method to determine who was masturbating the most, nor did they test any of the groups against a control group of totally abstinent people.  So often people are using the word "study" (which still has a scientific ring to it) when they should be using the word mysterious survey.

The Amalgamized Article

Another type of propaganda article is the amalgamized article, where someone takes all the mysterious surveys favorable to one view and pieces them together into one, incoherent article.  It often analyzes capriciously and without hard references - just throwing around the word "study" sometimes.  E.g., Coffee is good for you.  Studies show that coffee helps to supplement stomach acid.  It has also been shown in an Amsterdam study to be an effective stimulant for chronic fatigue sufferers and even boost IQ.  [no references, no specific analysis of any one claim].  Many readers may find a "sex is good for you" article to excuse themselves moral wrecklessness and self abuse, as sex is the #1 moral problem today.  But some may be surprised to find that there are even amalgamized articles promoting the drinking of wine during pregnancy [5].

Mysterious surveys are much easier targets than the ever-convoluted, ever-thorny amalgamized articles.  Amalgamations - which is what I've chosen to debunk - have so many fallacies, red herrings, and loaded intimations that it might take the space of a whole book to untangle it.  But I was ambitious here.  And finally, at the end, I appeal to every reader to use their common sense when seeing such things.

 

"Jump in bed -- Sex can help you stay healthy. Having fun in bed is not only good for a relationship, but also good for you"
(article found at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19696794/)
Dr. Gail Saltz
TODAYShow.com contributor 11:34 a.m. ET July 11, 2007

Believe me!  

I'm an expert on lying.  

People are lying when they say things like this....

"Sex is healthy for a relationship. Married couples who are satisfied with their sexual lives report better overall marital satisfaction."
Here's where the problem is: is this type of "satisfaction" good at all? As we will see with this article (and all other articles praising sex), the focus is on immediate gratification, short-term results, and shallow "happiness".

teeth What if we made a version of this statement for children and said: Candy is healthy for childhood. Kids who are satisfied with their candy supply report better overall childhood satisfaction.  

asdf Or how about for perverts? Molestation is healthy for perverts. Perverts who are satisfied with  molestating report better overall satisfaction. 

asdf The problem is with the word "satisfaction" - it's just a short-term idea, doesn't include society, and is basically amoral and selfish.

"But can sex be healthy for you as an individual? Yes! Here‘s how sex can keep you in better shape and put you in a better mood."
Kiddie version: Here's how candy can give you instant energy and make you happier.

"Workout partner: Active sex is a good aerobic exercise, which is good for your heart. Sex also works out your stomach, back and buttock muscles, leading to greater pleasure with body esteem. Exercise on its own is also good for your mind. It relieves stress and elevates your mood, due to the release of endorphins. It is especially a workout for specific muscles, and for women, that means the vagina."
To show how meaningless the above statements are, we could take this kind of selfish, short-term and amoral analysis one step further: 

stab feminazi Active murdering is good aerobic exercise, which is good for your heart. Murdering also works your arms, back and pectoral muscles, leading to greater pleasure and body esteem

Planning out murders is also good for your mind. It relieves stress [9] and elevates your mood [10], due to the release of endorphins [11].

It especially works out the chest, and for women, that means where the breasts are.

Or how about while discussing meat consumption someone says: eating meat requires vigorous mastication, which is excellent exercise for the mandibles, and exercise is necessary for general fitness.  

Slippery slopes + reference dearth + no general grasp + gratuitous Greek + PhD = one very highly credentialed windbag.

"Like other muscles, the vagina is a “use it or lose it” organ. The more you use your pelvic muscles, the more they stay in shape. And if you don’t use them, they will atrophy and sex can become painful. Pelvic muscles also affect bladder control. If your pelvic muscles are in shape, you will have better bladder control later in life or after having babies. Who wants to pee every time they sneeze or cough? Use those muscles, ladies!"
To be logical, we'd have to provide some general evidence first.  Is there any evidence that celibate females like nuns have bladder control problems?  There's no real science with a control group to show this assertion.

And any activity can be said to exercise this or that. The question is weather or not it is moral or conducive to the long-term happiness of people and the society they live in. A whore might pass the above PE exam with flying colors, but is most likely riddled with disease and unhappiness - along with spreading social discord.


Gail Saltz invents a new pick-up line.

"For men, the prostate may benefit by being active in ejaculation. Having sex may also reduce the risk of prostate cancer."

Frank Zappa, known sex fanatic, at 52 years.  He died of prostate cancer one year after this photo was taken.


Theoretically, the prostate gets irritated in sex, the pressure building before ejaculation. If a man gets hot and bothered, but holds it in, the pressure can cause enormous damage to the prostate. The issue here is that celibates don't get stirred up very often or very much, and so there's nothing to relieve.

There's no evidence that celibate males have bad prostates - and on the contrary, anecdotal evidence suggests that they (e.g., swamis, monks and ascetics) NEVER have prostate problems at all. Perhaps what these articles are really trying to say to men is don't get blue-balled, but that's hardly an advertisement for
sex.

May reduce the risk of prostate cancer?  Based on "studies" - interviews done by shrinks with 25-30 year-old men.  The psychologists (referred to as scientists in several articles) surmise that maybe the men were relieving themselves of some kind of carcinogen.  Well, to be valid we would have to establish that the men being interviewed were telling the truth.  This would require eschewing an interview for a medical test.  Second, if they think that there might be some carcinogen being released, why not test for it?  They're scientists aren't they?  "Research" today such a heap of hooey that it doesn't refer to any real tests or any real measurable substances.

What if the prostate is more like other organs (like the pancreas), in which use constitutes
wear?  In that case, people like Frank Zappa - who claim to be very sexually active - get prostate cancer from excess use.  And there's research to show that the procreative function does suffer from wear and that it is not improved through "exercise". [12]


"Mood booster: After sex, hormones that can have beneficial effects are released in the body."
The same is true for drug use. What's the long term effect, please?

I'm smarter because of sex.  We should all have more sex to boost the national IQ!

"Oxytocin causes relaxation and feelings of love and bonding, and endorphins are the body's natural painkillers."
Is oxytocin release a long-term effect? Where's the evidence for this? And the "painkilling" effect of sex is notoriously short. Alcohol and heroin are good painkillers, too. The problem is "coming down", which this article irresponsibly refuses to talk about.

"[1: ] Levels of immunoglobulin A are also elevated after sex. This antibody can help you fight off colds.   [2: ] Many people also find that they have an easier time falling asleep after sex. Getting a good night's sleep has many health benefits."

1. I think any scientific paper on the subject would show that sex increases susceptibility to disease in the long term, as it is oxidizing and socially destructive (as it causes mood swings/hormonal imbalances [c.f. Holstege] and social friction.  Logically it doesn't make sense, because we have no general evidence that heavy sexers (porn stars, whores) have better immunity than celibates (swamis, monks).  


Left: a 50-year-old porn ho.  Above: been in the business maybe five years already.  Healthy? Good immune systems? Look like hags to me.

Marlyin "Chambers" died at 56, Jack Wrangler died at 62, "Sexy Cora (Carolin Ebert) died at 23 (!), Karen Dior at 37....[see the KBH dead porn stars page for more]

We also see no use of sex for immunity on the market, i.e., on farms.  Farms are still using antibiotics and other methods to combat infections in animals, and we don't see farmers frigging their animals, or intentionally having their animals mate more for better immunity or general health. (see details below)

2. There are also sleep benefits to drugs, or anything known to cause dopamine to blast, and prolactin to kick in. A long term effect of these things, unfortunately, is to weaken the nerve system, eventually cause various neuroses, and in the long-term, weaken one's ability to get to sleep. No need to state that sleep is good for you here, but the author is assuming the reader is nearly retarded.  Have you seen this picture of the dopamine blast?  According to Dutch neuroscientist Gert Holstege, the graph is the same for heroin as it is for sex:


The graph describes one orgasm and it's after effects.  Imag
ine what someone who masturbates daily, or a has sex regularly is going through with his brain chemicals. [13]

One hormone not mentioned is testosterone.  In this hooey article, they cite that testosterone builds while having sex, but they failed to mention that it drops below normal after sex.  The testosterone fluctuation indicated by research makes sense - that is, that a man might feel really manly when taking over a woman, yet the experience will ultimately feminize him.  Testosterone in natural ranges makes a man very manly indeed - increasing muscle mass and strength.  Muhammad Ali is a good example - he'd go without ejaculation for at least six weeks before matches.  

Take that Liston, you gay playboy! [14] Now I'll be called Muhammad Ali, praised be Allah!

And there was a study in China - for the benefit of bookish folks - showing that abstention from ejaculation for just seven days increases testosterone levels almost 150% [15,16].  Even Woody Harrelson is trying it, despite his first name.

" [1: ]Confidence builder: Last but not least, having good sexual confidence [2: ] feeds into your overall confidence . [3: ] And confident people who like themselves tend to do well in the world ."
1.  What is "good sexual confidence"?  Is this related to having more sex?

2.  What is the proof for this assertion?  It sounds silly on the face of it.  John Holmes, a porn actor who claims he had 14,000 women, was very confident about his sexual capacity.  But was he confident about other, unrelated things like business, singing, math abilities and others?  Sex consumes peoples' whole lives with relationship issues, emotional rollercoasters, family complexities etc. etc.  It wouldn't be logical that confidence in sex would equal confidence in other things - on the contrary, the more one screws around or jerks off, the less he's getting done, and the less he can actually do.

3.  Actually, one "If A, then B, if B, then C" is already a fallacy known as a slippery slope. But because this author uses it to come to "positive" conclusions, it's less easily identified.
Here's a list of fallacies
.

The critic's bottom line: How does sex make a better world? If it doesn't, then how can it be said to be "healthy"?  That's the question I'd like this author to answer.

"Dr. Gail Saltz's Bottom Line: If you are having sexual problems, I highly recommend you consult a doctor. There are now many methods of treating sexual issues. But perhaps more importantly ... sex (under, of course, the right and safe circumstances) not only makes you feel good, but it is also good for you!"
Do you see the irony of the first line? What if I wrote: Lawyer Ian's bottom line: if you're having a social problem, I recommend you consult a lawyer. No conflict of interest there?
I see no evidence that this doctor did anything in medical school but memorize books. Now she sits around reading newspapers with headlines saying A is good for you today, and A is bad for you tomorrow, then putting all the A is good for you clippings into a collage, signing her name to it without references. So much for science.

She also mentions "the right and safe circumstances".  Considering the emotional baggage that sex brings and the toxicity of condoms and the pill, what exactly is "safe sex"?

"[bio] Dr. Gail Saltz is a psychiatrist with New York Presbyterian Hospital and a regular contributor to 'Today'. Her latest book is 'Anatomy of a Secret Life: The Psychology of Living a Lie', by Dr. Gail Saltz. She is also the author of 'Amazing You! Getting Smart About Your Private Parts', which helps parents deal with preschoolers' questions about sex and reproduction. Her first book, 'Becoming Real: Overcoming the Stories We Tell Ourselves That Hold Us Back', was published in 2004 by Riverhead Books. It is now available in a paperback version. For more information, you can visit her Web site, www.drgailsaltz.com."
She's also a psychiatrist, a peddler of psychoactive drugs. You can bet that this type of person would never consider long-term effects of anything.  It's likely she doesn't have any qualms with promoting brain candy for her own profit. After all, isn't sex just another form of brain candy?

I'm not sure Presbyterian leaders would appreciate their name on her hospital.

The title of her first book suggests infantile morality. Lying is bad. Wow. I figured that out when I was four.

The second book in her bio looks like sex ed for four year olds.

The last book looks like pop psychology.

She's also
Jewish.  Pardon my directness, but I'm unaware of any Jewish traditions of celibacy or chastity - even in their so-called orthodox realms. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach even has a book with advice on giving blow jobs [18]
Effectively 100% of all Jewish men are genitally mutilated just after birth and associate extreme pain with sexual stimulation - and ideally this is performed by their orthodox rabbis.  Their method as dictated by the Talmud is to cut up the baby's penis while screaming or passed out from pain, then suck the blood off the penis -  acts of pedophilia, torture, and eating blood.   There is a history of Jewish dominance in the porn industry, and Jews (Khazars) also seem to be in control in the trafficking of young males and females as sex slaves [19].  So if you're looking for objectivity on the question and not shameless promotion of sex, I wouldn't go barking up the Jewish tree.

General Observations on this Hooey

This is the kind of doctor who gets famous and has a regular TV slot in the US today. Are you comfortable with that? 

Articles like these lead to blogs like this, where the author has moral feelings but suppresses them because he's been told they are "unhealthy".

I'm a Christian, but Christians don't have a healthy attitude toward sex.

Generally, if sex were "good for you", then farmers would be using it to increase livestock production.  They'd go around jerking off their livestock to protect them from prostate cancer.  They'd mate them as often as possible in order to increase their abdomen, back and butt muscle size.   Even small increases in meat volume per animal would mean windfall profits for the meat industry.

Are the farmers doing that for the health of the bull?  To make him happy?  How about to make him meatier?

How about this horse?  Are they doing that to make him run faster?  Learn more about what they're really doing here.

If Gail Saltz's article is true, nuns would have urination problems and monks would get prostate cancer.   Most celibates would die early and porn stars, prostitutes and compulsive wankers would hold the records for longest lives.  

Shoot, there's no smoking here.  How do we act like hookers now?

How much longer do we have to wait for that health and vitality that Dr. Saltz promised us?

Anna Nicole Smith, prostitute and gold digger, died at 39.   Though her case is extreme, I doubt that whores, strippers or nymphomaniacs live long lives.  To them their body is a source of an addictive high and a source of money.  They may be exploited or exploiting themselves, but the effect is the same.

What's the general state of health in this room?  Since they are all celibates, I think it behooves Dr. Saltz to ask.  Knowing the health condition of celibates would greatly improve our understanding of the impact of sex on health.  Yet, every sex study ever conducted has deliberately ignored them - those who would be the most obvious control needed for an objective study.

Do you think that these nuns are anxious to get to a bathroom, as Dr. Saltz would suggest?

Celibate Mother Theresa lived to be 87. [17]  The high monk at our local temple here in Nanjing, Doushuai Temple, is 97 and going.  How about checking out those senior citizen journals that keep records of the oldest people?  Bio after bio reads the same - celibate, nearly celibate, married for short time, then alone, deeply religious and devoted....And how about this article: Centenarians credit longevity to 'Faith' over genes, medical care.  In any case I have yet to see a centenarian credit sex for giving good health.

I've just been hanging out on this mountain without a hospital waiting for someone to ask me about longevity and health.  Will I have to wait until I'm 250 or what?

 

Praise Lord Buddha!


"Get ready to die a slow death!  Very, very slow!"

Seeing that most people have some sort of sex life, then most people would be "generally satisfied" and in good health.  Do we see this?  When I walk out onto the street, I see quite the opposite.

 

An excellent critique of Gail Saltz here.  More pseudo-scientific hooey from highly-credentialed windbags here
here and here - all of them similarly long on "studies say" sound bites and short on common sense.

References:

1 See Eric Hufschmid's analysis of science and scientific studies - a simple piece using stevia and hemp as examples.

2 Kinsey found an overwhelmingly skewed set of subjects for this research in the populations of prisons --not to mention the manipulation of those willing in the mid 20th Century to sit down and answer hundreds of questions about their sexual experiences.  
He even sought out many prostitutes and sex offenders to lump into his research, while secretly trashing three quarters of his data.  - Arlen Williams, Illinoisleader.com

A good dressing down of Kinsey's cherrypicked science for perverts is here.  
Incidentally, academics have gone on to reference Kinsey to support pedophilia.
Kinsey was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation - a front for the Rothschilds.

3 That substance would be tannin - an artery scrubber.  This is also found in black teas.

4 For just one example, Scientific American promoted both man-made global cooling in the 1970's and man-made global warming in the current era - both caused by the same factor (pollution) and needing the same remedy (more taxes and bureaucracy).

5 Israeli Daniel Rogov is a wine critic of substantial fame.  While working to promote Rothschild/Bronfman products, he even wrote this article promoting alcohol consumption during pregnancy.  Thankfully a full and honest debunking was done here.

6 These two groups are notorious criminal gangs.  references: a. The Bronfman Crime Families, b. A Rothschild Timeline.

7 The US Homeland Bureau of Security, 2006. ref video

8 It has been said that gangster Myer Lansky was one of the most powerful people in the world, yet he had almost no money to his name.  This is the aforementioned "blackmail dynamic".  Customers of prostitutes or even strippers can be easily photographed and blackmailed, which in turn is more persuasive than money.  Considering that the slavery industry is already ranked as #2 (without figuring in the effects of blackmail, extortion or racketeering) it might be the most powerful industry in the world (see above, ref. 7).

9 Because you hated person X.

10 Glad X is gone.

11 Sciency Greek for "oh yeah".

12 See "Principal Component Analysis on Semen Quality among Chinese Young Men"  This Chinese study shows that 1) only 42% of (Chinese men) meet standards for fertility and 2) that the central factor in fertility was sperm quality and quantity, which is affected by activity.  The men that waited longer for their first experience and had less sex overall were more likely to be fertile.  This shows that sex is a consuming activity, not a form of exercise.

13 For a clarification of this graph, please see www.mrtao.com/holstege.htm

14  "Liston was not 'a credit to his race.' He was a womanizer...and a rapist." - The Austin Chronicle   This article argues that Sonny Liston threw the match because he was controlled by the mafia.

15 Jiang M. Periodic changes in serum testosterone levels after ejaculation in men. Sheng Li Xue Bao 2002 Dec 25;54(6):535-8  

16  Jiang M, Xin J, Zou Q, Shen JW. A research on the relationship between ejaculation and serum testosterone level in men. J Zhejiang Univ Sci. 2003 Mar-Apr;4(2):236-40.

17 She spent the greater part of her life comforting and touching people with terminal illnesses in places like Calcutta - so 87 seems pretty miraculous.

18 Boteach, Rabbi Shmuley, Kosher Sex, New York, New York, Doubleday, 1999.  From a review: Readers may be surprised by Boteach's tone, with its lack of prudishness; he offers, without graphic details, advice about sexual aids and oral sex. Also interesting is his relation to the late Michael Jackson [source], and that he is an ostentatious smoker [source].  Would you ask him for objective advice on sex?

19 When Holland considered making prostitution (human trafficking) illegal again, parliament was slammed with a cruise missle.  The suspect was Willem "the Nose" Holleeder [source] [source].  Also, Israel is a major hub for trafficking [source], a  strange phenomenon for "the holy land" (I mean, aside from being run by  white-skinned, blue-eyed atheists).

Two Questions from a Roman Catholic Lady

Your Brain on Sex: Holstege's Brain Scans


Srila Prabhupada's
Frank Discussions on Sex
and more
inspirational quotes

We is Unfrozen Caveman: A Note about Modernity

I am Barehanded Vegetable Eater