Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Mononoke · #1 by **Mononoke** » Apr 08, 2010 11:54 pm

this is old news, but i was just too awesome to pass by

Women who perform the act of fellatio and swallow semen on a regular basis, one to two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent, a North Carolina State University study found.

Source

monkeyboy · #2 by **monkeyboy** » Apr 09, 2010 1:02 am

Mononoke wrote:this is old news, but i was just too awesome to pass by

Women who perform the act of fellatio and swallow semen on a regular basis, one to two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent, a North Carolina State University study found.

Source

Unfortunately, it's not true.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... r_cure.htm

I'm With Stupid · #3 by **I'm With Stupid** » Apr 09, 2010 1:03 am

monkeyboy wrote:
Mononoke wrote:this is old news, but i was just too awesome to pass by

Women who perform the act of fellatio and swallow semen on a regular basis, one to two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent, a North Carolina State University study found.

Source

Unfortunately, it's not true.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... r_cure.htm

Ssssshhh!

obscured by clouds · #4 by **obscured by clouds** » Apr 09, 2010 1:03 am

mmmcheezy · #5 by **mmmcheezy** » Apr 09, 2010 1:07 am

DAMMIT.
Looks like I need to go through more traditional means of preventing breast cancer!

I'm With Stupid · #6 by **I'm With Stupid** » Apr 09, 2010 1:11 am

mmmcheezy wrote:DAMMIT.
Looks like I need to go through more traditional means of preventing breast cancer!

Yeah this isn't true, but there is research to suggest that it's the most effective natural facial exfoliant. :shifty:

mmmcheezy · #7 by **mmmcheezy** » Apr 09, 2010 1:13 am

I'm With Stupid wrote:
mmmcheezy wrote:DAMMIT.
Looks like I need to go through more traditional means of preventing breast cancer!

Yeah this isn't true, but there is research to suggest that it's the most effective natural facial exfoliant.

Mac_Guffin · #8 by **Mac_Guffin** » Apr 09, 2010 1:17 am

I read in a medical journal that it's packed with enough protein to meet your daily needs.

Darwinsbulldog · #9 by **Darwinsbulldog** » Apr 09, 2010 4:04 am

Could fellatio be a female damage-limitation strategy to avoid rape? Human testes are in the medium range of the chimp-gorilla-orangutan family, implying some sperm competition in a nominally [if not totally] monogamous species. Extra-pair sexual activity in humans ["sneaky-fucking"], both male and female, is not totally unknown, despite widespread strict taboos and marriage customs in most [if not all] human cultures.

If a female can satisfy a male via fellatio, then that mouthful of sperm gets the "Darwin Award". Although the male has been satisfied sexually, his sperm end up in the wrong place as far as his genes are concerned. The unfertilized female, having neutralized male rape, can then proceed to mate with a male that she finds more desirable.

The evolution of cryptic ovulation in the human female is something of a mystery. Presumably, it is caused by genes mounting a defense against male infanticide. If a male can't know the timing of ovulation [which in primates is by sight-the swelling and/or bright coloration of buttocks in chimps and baboons, for example], then he must guard the female in response, as he can't possibly be sure of whether his kids are all his. [Hence male paranoia over possible female infidelity].

Nevertheless, it appears as if both males and females are trapped into monogamy as a dominant sexual/reproductive strategy due to the long gestation time and parental investment [at least one decade, to 1.5 or even two decades where the child is a dependent] made necessary for child survival to reproductive age.

We might presume that the more gracile head, and large brains were adaptive in many ways to human fitness. The smaller jaws made speech possible, and the larger brains allowed humans to interpret the complex relationships [especially sexual ones] and some intuitive 'game theory" needed to remember altruistic exchanges within the tribe.

The larger brain and gracile form is most probably the result of neoteny [the retention of juvenile characters into adulthood, or a sexually mature juvenile state. We know this was a plus for our future brilliance, but Jarad Diamond and others comment that our "Great Leap Forward" lagged behind our modern human form by many millennia.

Our large heads involve huge costs in energy, and as most women know, a huge cost in terms of a prolonged, difficult and painful birth. Neanderthals had a head [brain] some 10% bigger than ours, and this may have led to their extinction, or at least contributed to it.
Intelligence [per se] does not appear necessary for fitness. After all, plants, and many other organisms, although they sense and respond, get by excellently without what we would call intelligence. The wider response and options available to intelligent being is adaptation, but it does certainly not seem a necessary trait for fitness.

Thus, as Jarad Diamond [in TRAFOTTC] comments, a "man the hunter" hypothesis for human intelligence seems unlikely. Early humans [from archeological evidence in caves etc] does not support any great hunting prowess. Even modern hunter-gatherers get most of their calories from gathering, implying that if there is an ecological explanation for the increased IQ in humans, it may be driven from the feminine side of humanity.

After all, do a pride of lionesses in cooperative hunt need to talk? No, and neither do hunting dogs. The difficulty in raising human kids, and the ability to describe and pass on what fruits, vegetables, grubs, and worms, etc are edible or not, and in what location and season they occur, seem to me to be a more rational explanation for the birth of human language than hunting is. This explanation also seems to jive with the "grandmother effect" hypothesis, where post-menopausal females survive to pass on their wisdom in midwifery, child-care and plant recognition to their pregnant daughters with young children. Thus Natural Selection did not extend human lifetimes because it is kind, but because accumulated wisdom in child-rearing and umwelt reduced child mortality in those female lines where seasonal fertility gave way to the menstrual cycle and menopause.

obscured by clouds · **#10** by **obscured by clouds** » Apr 09, 2010 4:16 am

Um........idk what to say. :shifty:

Darwinsbulldog · **#11** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Apr 09, 2010 4:31 am

obscured by clouds wrote:Um........idk what to say.

Yup, I certainly went off-topic there! :lol:

alienpresence · **#12** by **alienpresence** » Apr 09, 2010 4:46 am

Within a close nit group, such as humans lived in through most of their history, fellatio is a means for a female to determine the 'sociability' of prospective mates? If you consider how even today a 'rough man' will be rejected and talked against amongst the females, then later the males, this activity appears to be a filter for group sociablity. I'm not sure there is anything to do with preserving the 'right line' here since genes don't give a toss about that. And it only became possible to trace lineages with the invention of writing(qute recent). Fellatio is also popular in the gay community which undermines a reductionist genetic role. In a tme of social uncertainty the popularity of this activity should increase if this idea of a sociability filter is correct, someone should look into that?
Also any increase in felatio rates should lead to a decrease in successful copulations and a decrease in birth rates. This might be a useful stategy if a population is living in a uncertain time after a period of 'prosperity and population boom'?

Darwinsbulldog · **#13** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Apr 09, 2010 5:05 am

alienpresence wrote:Within a close nit group, such as humans lived in through most of their history, fellatio is a means for a female to determine the 'sociability' of prospective mates? If you consider how even today a 'rough man' will be rejected and talked against amongst the females, then later the males, this activity appears to be a filter for group sociablity. I'm not sure there is anything to do with preserving the 'right line' here since genes don't give a toss about that. It is also popular in the gay community which undermines a reductionist genetic role. In a tme of social uncertainty the popularity of this activity should increase if this idea is correct, someone should look into that?

Hmmm..., a nice ideas that "sociability" thing, but it assumes that fellatio is a recent phenomena that occurred after language evolved. I was thinking of fellatio more in the distant human past, as some primates use fellatio too, so we can presume that female LUCA [and gay LUCA's ] sucked also. Modern uses for sucking may not explain sucking as an emergent behaviour that was already in place before language. That is why I hypothesized the female strategy of fellatio as a contraceptive device to reduce the possibility of being sired by an unsuitable male, and also as a female strategy for avoiding damage during obligatory/forced sex.

Deprived of females, most hominid males indulge in homosexual behavior when in bachelor groups, as in teenage males expelled by the alphas in a gorilla group. This could be recreational sex, but also would serve to reduce testosterone-driven rivalries in the bachelor group. Thus we would have an ESS for homosexual/bisexuality in hominid/great ape society. And as I said, all this would have probably happened well before language. The novel use you describe for fellatio seems more likely to be a behavior that has co-opted a previous function only after the emergence of language.

obscured by clouds · **#14** by **obscured by clouds** » Apr 09, 2010 5:06 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
obscured by clouds wrote:Um........idk what to say.

Yup, I certainly went off-topic there!

Whew! Thanks man, I thought it was just me!

Wow was that just an epic rant, parody or something? That was truly epic, it left me scared and confused. :shifty:

Can I hire you as a writer if needed? :lol:

Darwinsbulldog · **#15** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Apr 09, 2010 5:09 am

obscured by clouds wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:
obscured by clouds wrote:Um........idk what to say.

Yup, I certainly went off-topic there!

Whew! Thanks man, I thought it was just me!

Wow was that just an epic rant, parody or something? That was truly epic, it left me scared and confused.

Can I hire you as a writer if needed?

Not meant to be a rant, but serious discussion of the evolution of a behavior, namely sucking cock. Well, we all know that some folks might derive pleasure from performing it, and certainly many are pleased at receiving it, but I am more interested on how or why the behaviors might have evolved for a reason. ie An adaptation to solve a survival and fitness problem.

EDIT: Cunnilingus is not unknown in human and primate [even some other mammals], so I suppose we should throw that discussion into the pot also.

alienpresence · **#16** by **alienpresence** » Apr 09, 2010 5:20 am

Saying things like bats do it is all very well but then insects walk but their motives may not be the same as the larger brained hominid here? I do not think developed language is necessary for isolating and outcasting a unwanted individual amongst our early ancestors. In retrospection language can be used to remain in a group even when not wanted, it may propel a linguistic arms race to push the sophistication & diversity seen today to determine what is what?

obscured by clouds · **#17** by **obscured by clouds** » Apr 09, 2010 5:21 am

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Not meant to be a rant, but serious discussion of the evolution of a behavior, namely sucking cock. Well, we all know that some folks might derive pleasure from performing it, and certainly many are pleased at receiving it, but I am more interested on how or why the behaviors might have evolved for a reason. ie An adaptation to solve a survival and fitness problem.

EDIT: Cunnilingus is not unknown in human and primate [even some other mammals], so I suppose we should throw that discussion into the pot also.

I guess it was just they way you presented it that gave me a moment of pause, a WTF moment. In a good way, I read your post a few times to see what the hell was going on. I could not tell if this was over my head or something that balanced on something serious while having fun. It gave me moment of pause.

I don't know what you intended, so take no offense, you have a great writing style. :thumbup:

z8000783 · **#18** by **z8000783** » Apr 09, 2010 6:02 am

monkeyboy wrote:
Mononoke wrote:this is old news, but i was just too awesome to pass by

Women who perform the act of fellatio and swallow semen on a regular basis, one to two times a week, may reduce their risk of breast cancer by up to 40 percent, a North Carolina State University study found.

Source

Unfortunately, it's not true.

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/b ... r_cure.htm

That site is a spoof.

John

Darwinsbulldog · **#19** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Apr 09, 2010 9:19 am

alienpresence wrote:Saying things like bats do it is all very well but then insects walk but their motives may not be the same as the larger brained hominid here? I do not think developed language is necessary for isolating and outcasting a unwanted individual amongst our early ancestors. In retrospection language can be used to remain in a group even when not wanted, it may propel a linguistic arms race to push the sophistication & diversity seen today to determine what is what?

No argument from me here AP. Eusocial insects seem to exhibit [intelligent ] behavior which is emergent from their close interactions, even though they have limited information processing ability as individuals, but we see great architecture in bee hives, termite mounds, and the like.

It is like the discussion on group selection. Some folks seem to think it operates [as in Vampire Bats] but others say it is not the main unit of selection-genes are, via Dawkins selfish gene and extended phenotype idea. So we may see extant group selection, but the mechanism must have started at the lower level of gene teams. In a similar manner, I was trying to work back to explain a cultural/behavioral phenomena in terms of ancestral behaviors in apes and other mammals to try to separate the behavior from its cultural [modern] context, thus maybe exposing its roots in better relief. I am too dumb to try to work out such behavior in contemporary terms until I look for the emergent behavior and possible origins elsewhere. Human culture is too damn complex for me, I end up mentally chasing my tail. :lol:

Darwinsbulldog · **#20** by **Darwinsbulldog** » Apr 09, 2010 9:21 am

obscured by clouds wrote:
Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Not meant to be a rant, but serious discussion of the evolution of a behavior, namely sucking cock. Well, we all know that some folks might derive pleasure from performing it, and certainly many are pleased at receiving it, but I am more interested on how or why the behaviors might have evolved for a reason. ie An adaptation to solve a survival and fitness problem.

EDIT: Cunnilingus is not unknown in human and primate [even some other mammals], so I suppose we should throw that discussion into the pot also.

I guess it was just they way you presented it that gave me a moment of pause, a WTF moment. In a good way, I read your post a few times to see what the hell was going on. I could not tell if this was over my head or something that balanced on something serious while having fun. It gave me moment of pause.

I don't know what you intended, so take no offense, you have a great writing style.

None taken OBC. Thanks for the compliment. If only I could get my bosses to think the same...maybe they may promote me :ask:

I was having fun, BTW, but being serious as well. At least some of the time. :dance:

Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Re: Fellatio may decrease the risk of breast cancer

Who is online