this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
755 points (94.9% liked)

> Greentext

7522 readers
3 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] lyam23@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

I'm not taking a side, but unless there's some new evidence, virtually every study I've seen is filled with little to no evidence this is true and sums up with something to the effect of 'results uncertain, more research needed'.

Good advice. Doing more research right now! ;-)

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] lyam23@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Still doesn't look like anything definitive. Words like may and could are littered throughout the article. It looks like the main evidence was a questionnaire.

[–] ricecake@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago

You do know that honest science rarely makes definitive statements, right? It may be a spurious correlation, but the next most likely explanation is that all the men lied about their results in a way that perfectly mimicked the expected results, and they did so without any coordination, and over the course of years. Or it's just a massive coincidence that is only true of those men.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/ejaculation_frequency_and_prostate_cancer