My husband and I have been discussing the possibility of a vasectomy (one of those new ‘quick & easy’ $99 no-scalpel vasectomies) and so far there haven’t been any real cons to the procedure. But then my husband remembered hearing something about men who do not have regular sex (i.e. regularly rid themselves of their spermies) being at greater risk for prostate cancer. If he had a vasectomy, he wouldn’t be getting rid of his sperms at all, they would just be reabsorbed into his body. So, does anyone have any more information? I certainly wouldn’t want to put him at a greater risk for cancer!

Ah, well I recall something: One moment while I take a look:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040408090927.htm

Has the whole thing.

here is a snip:

quote:

---

Ejaculation frequency, a measure of sexual activity, is not associated with a higher risk for prostate cancer, according to a study in the April 7 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). However, a high ejaculation frequency may be linked to a decreased risk of prostate cancer.

---

My impression of the article is that a greater amount of ejaculation reduced the nominal risks to cancer - not that not ejaculating causes a higher risk than normal.

Cheers

Thank you, David!! Now, is your impression that it was the regular ejaculation of ejaculate in general or the regular evacuation of sperm that lead to this decreased risk? Would an infertile man who has lots of sex be at the same decreased risk as a regularly sexually-active man who still has sperm to count?

Remember that the prostate has NOTHING to do with sperm; it produces the rest of the fluids in semen. So in fact, the ejaculate from a vasectomized man looks no different from that of a non-vasectomized man, except under the microscope. The physiology of the prostate is separate from that of the testes. Vasectomy occurs upstream from the prostate and has essentially no effect on it.

Right. Thank you.
My husband just remembered hearing about some relationship between sex and prostate cancer, and I wanted to make sure that we were correct in our thinking. Which it doesn't look like we were. Which is good.