Prostate Cancer.






Very early in my days as an undergraduate medical student I became aware of the proposition that prostatic cancer may have had an aetiological relationship to the frequency of sexual intercourse.
As the prospect a future career in medical research then seemed like an option, I decided to begin early with a topic which had a simple binary conclusion - viz: “Is prostate cancer the result of too much or not enough sex?” 

Naturally, this dilemma was of crucial importance to a young man in his early twenties.
I hoped fervently, based on my social activity at the time and my fear of developing this formidable cancer (the treatment of which involved doing nasty surgical things down there), that the outcome of my research would indicate that “too much” was the risk factor, rather than “not enough”. 

Then the problematic issue was the definition of “not enough” and “too much”, which of course involves the definition of the sweet spot – the Baby Bear’s Soup of Intercourse Frequency – the mean, the average, the normal. 
And by extension, normal for whom.

The definition of “sexual intercourse” also needs consideration. 
Should it be restricted to interaction with adults of the same species?
Should the responses from Cardinal Pell and his colleagues be accepted? (Or perhaps, for this cohort, the definition be widened to simply “interaction with the same species.”)
And in Coutt’s Crossing, even further simplified to “interaction with living vertebrates”? 
Or in Bundarra, simply “interaction with vertebrates.










I’ll do some further research get back to you.

















Comments

Herajasa said…
I will await your findings.
Ben Clibrig said…
I've always enjoyed research.