Well, duh: A new study reports that sexual activity declines as people age, and that people over 70 generally retire from sex. From the story:
The average person’s sex life ends by the age of 70, according to a report published today in the British Medical Journal. Men age 30 have an average of 35 years of sexually active life remaining, compared with 31 years for women, researchers at the University of Chicago’s department of obstetrics and gynecology estimated after reviewing a survey of 3,000 people. A separate survey of older people showed that by 55, men have an average sexual life expectancy of 15 years and women can expect 10 more years, the researchers found.
People in very good or excellent health were almost twice as likely to be interested in sex as people in poorer health, according to the study. Men lost more years of sexual activity as a result of poor health than women, the researchers said. That may motivate men to pursue healthier lifestyles, they said.
They needed a study to tell us that? Anyone who pays any attention to the rhythm of life knows that sexual activity declines with age, and more particularly, with ill health. Besides, so what? And here’s the kicker for me:
The study was funded by the University of Chicago and the U.S. National Institutes of Health.
We live in lean times. Shouldn’t we restrict our limited puplic resources to funding scientific inquiries into truly important things? Perhaps they should do a study on how much of the people’s money is wasted on stupid scientific studies.
March 10th, 2010 | 1:04 pm
YES!!!
This is a serious issue within science and medical funding for research that needs to be addressed.
It is not just limited to this trivial lifestyle question, some other issues that have non-stop wasted funding are:
1) teenage alcohol use
2) obesity studies (not looking at the molecular level of metabolism) prepare to be shocked: if you burn more calories than you consume, you will lose weight, but western diets are chalk full of calories
3) diet studies
4) many psychological studies examining issues that have a minor impact on the quality of life
Over the years I have noticed a growing trend in research to continually go after the low-hanging fruit. Accordingly, many of these “scientists” are in the fields of sociology, psychology, and those medical doctors posing as scientists. (by my definition they are not scientists)
We have real issues to address: energy, agriculture, disease resistant bacteria, aging, diabetes,Alzheimer’s, pain management, crop diversity, emerging diseases among humans and livestock, artificial organs for an aging population with limited donor supply, advanced surgical techniques, etc, etc.
Write to congress and demand that the funding at NIH and NSF go to fund basic science in areas related to these more pressing issues. Specifically, high energy and particle physics has been a little flat with funding and that is critical to energy research – it’s a shame, these are some of the very best minds.
US citizens pay for this research; they deserve more and better. Make your money count.
March 10th, 2010 | 3:05 pm
Wesley,
Don’t you see? We now know empirically and “scientifically” what we already knew. Out of this study will come more studies made eligible for grant funding on the basis of this study, therapies eligible for insurance coverage, algorithms for the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio of Cialis prescriptions, perhaps even more embarrassing television advertisements for medications and products meant to address the particular physiological aspects of the sexual act, and new and stranger metaphoric allusions to said act (can’t stay in the bathtub forever, you know.). The real bonus, though, is the neologism “sexual life expectancy”. This term, and its voluminous definitions, could serve as yet another criterion to be added to careful, sensitive and compassionate quality of life assessments by highly trained professionals. It could even make it into the DSMV – whatever number they’re at now. And, of course, this expression will serve to amuse middle school students everywhere. So, I must disagree with you, well worth the government funding.
Nice to see you and David agreeing on something.
March 10th, 2010 | 10:08 pm
The landmark sex study (not Kinsey or Masters & Johnson), The Social Organization of Sexuality: Sexual Practices in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994. (With John H. Gagnon, Robert T. Michael and Stuart Michaels.) found that up to 1/3 of perfectly normal people, quote happily have no interest in sex at any time. ¶ Considering that sex in marriage is the normal context, any word on the effect of death of spouse?
March 10th, 2010 | 11:51 pm
Let’s be generous: maybe the study actually included some pretty interesting findings, and it just had the misfortune of attracting the attention of a really thick science reporter.
March 11th, 2010 | 11:36 am
No doubt, people who aren’t interested in sex will find the study uninteresting as well. In my opinion Wesley’s “so what?” says much more about his view of sexuality than it says about the value of the study.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 11th, 2010 at 12:36 pm
My wife would disagree with your supposition History Writer. But how typical.
March 12th, 2010 | 10:34 am
Wesley:
Your wife might disagree, but then we’re not talking about HER attitude.
Wesley J. Smith Reply:
March 12th, 2010 at 12:05 pm
She would disagree because of MY attitude. But what if someone has lost interest? So what? I am always amazed that it is somehow considered an insult to contend that a person has little interest in sex.
March 12th, 2010 | 3:48 pm
HW-I know you like to rankle are hackles here, but your statement regarding Wesley’s interest in sex is ridiculous. The study is wasteful because WE ALL KNOW that sexual urges tend to be less significant as people age. It’s not that elderly people DON’T have sex, but they certainly aren’t as “on fire” as their younger counterparts.
March 13th, 2010 | 12:36 pm
SafePres:
” … to rankle are (sic) hackles … ”
Interest in sex may wane with old age, but poor grammar and mixed metaphors endure forever.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact