I apologize in advance that this post is heavy on statistics. They were necessary to illustrate the point. Try to drink some caffeinated beverages before beginning.

Here is a statistical model for a man with a 68% increased risk of a disease due to genetics who also refuses to participate in an activity that reduces risk of the disease in average men by 30%.

If the male patient has a genetic predisposition increasing his disease risk by 68%, his risk compared to an average man increases from a baseline of 1 to 1.68.

Meanwhile, for average males, there’s an activity that can decrease disease risk by 30%, reducing the risk from a baseline of 1 to a level of 0.7.

To compare the patient’s disease risk to a baseline male without the genetic risk, but who engages in the risk-reducing activity, we subtract the latter’s risk from the patient’s risk:

Increased risk = Patient’s risk – Baseline male’s risk

Increased risk = 1.68 – 0.7 = 0.98

So, when a male patient with a 68% genetic risk increase is inhibited from participating in an activity known to reduce disease risk by 30%, he bears an increased statistical risk of 98% against the baseline male with no genetic risk but who does participate in the activity.

So what if the disease was heart failure? How would this model apply?

If a man has lost a brother to heart failure then this genetic predisposition increases his chances of developing the condition by 68% compared to the average man. This raises his likelihood from a baseline of 1, or 100%, to a risk factor of 1.68.

Contrastingly, regular exercise has been shown to reduce the risk of developing heart failure by 30% in the average man. This means that from a baseline risk of 1, this beneficial activity decreases the risk to 0.7.

So, when comparing the man with the genetic risk who does not regularly exercise to an average man who does exercise, the first man sees an 98% increased statistical risk. In particular context, a man with a brother who died of heart failure, and who does not regularly exercise, has an 80% higher risk of developing heart failure compared to the baseline man who exercises regularly and doesn’t have the genetic risk from his brother.

While I think one would be hard pressed to find anyone objecting to this conclusion by telling at-risk men to avoid exercise, those stats aren’t for heart disease. The stats are for prostate cancer and the activity isn’t regular exercise. It’s frequent ejaculation.

How this applies to prostate cancer

If a man has a brother who had prostate cancer, his genetic predisposition increases his chances of developing the disease by 68% in comparison to the average man. This hikes the risk measure from a baseline of 1 (or 100%), to a risk factor of 1.68.

Simultaneously, engaging in frequent ejaculation, either with a spouse or via masturbation, has been evidenced to cut down the risk of developing prostate cancer by 30% in men. If we look at the average man, it means that this action diminishes his risk from a baseline of 1, to a reduced value of 0.7.

When we contrast the man with the genetic risk who does not frequently ejaculate to the baseline man (without the genetic risk) who does frequently ejaculate, the man with the genetic risk ends up with a 98% increased statistical risk. In other words, a man with a brother who had prostate cancer, and who does not frequently ejaculate, is at a 98% higher statistical risk of prostate cancer, as compared to the baseline man who engages in frequent ejaculation and does not have such a genetic risk on hand.

What is the difference between groups of men who all have the genetic risk factor when some do not frequently ejaculate, and some do? Is it just a 30% increase? In short, no.

Statistically, if a man has a brother who had prostate cancer, his risk of developing the disease increases by 68% compared to the average man. Let’s translate this into numbers: if we consider the baseline risk for the average man as 1 (or 100%), for a man with the mentioned genetic predisposition, the risk becomes 1.68.

Frequent ejaculation has been shown to reduce the risk of developing prostate cancer by 30% in men. If we begin from a baseline of 1, this healthy activity reduces the risk down to 0.7 for the average man.

Now if we’re comparing, the man with the genetic risk who does not frequently ejaculate sits at a risk level of 1.68. If a man with the same genetic risk engages in frequent ejaculation, his risk factor becomes 1.68 * (1 – 0.30) = 1.18.

The increased risk for men who have the genetic risk and do not frequently ejaculate compared to men with the same genetic risk who do frequently ejaculate would be:

Increased risk = Males not frequently ejaculating – Males frequently ejaculating

Increased risk = 1.68 – 1.18 = 0.5

So, the men with the genetic risk factor who do not frequently ejaculate have a 50% increased risk of developing prostate cancer compared to men with the same genetic risk factor who do frequently ejaculate.

Conclusions:

Therefore, if you are married, follow the guidance given by Scripture in 1 Corinthians 7 and have frequent sexual activity with your spouse! You are blessed!

But if someone is unmarried, please explain how it is loving to increase their risk of this horrible disease by a whopping 98% by forbidding masturbation. How is that different that those who forbid seeing doctors or refuse to allow taking blood transfusions? 

Oh you’ve always taught that it was disordered? Well medical science proves that this teaching may be killing people! Sorry, but they got this one wrong, especially since the Bible never mentions it. So if you’re unmarried and you have this risk factor, do whatever you need to do, including visual aides if necessary, to reduce your already elevated risk of prostate cancer! It’s not lust if you aren’t wanting to go have sex with that person (especially if they are an Ai creation and not a human being). 

Disclosure sin the interest of transparency: author lost his brother to prostate cancer in 2020 and is single.

Studies referred to in post:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6279573/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27033442/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5040619/

Though the biblical text does not explicitly mention Adam and Eve having children while in the Garden of Eden, there are a few clues that can be inferred from the subsequent events and narratives presented in Genesis:

1. God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply”: In Genesis 1:28, immediately after creating Adam and Eve, God blesses them and commands them to “be fruitful and multiply.” This directive strongly suggests the potential for procreation and the continuation of the human species. While the actual act of childbirth is not explicitly mentioned in relation to Adam and Eve, it implies that they were expected to have offspring.

2. Cain’s departure and concern for his safety: In Genesis 4:14, after Cain kills his brother Abel and is subsequently cursed by God, he expresses concern for his own safety, saying, “Behold, you have driven me today away from the ground, and from your face I shall be hidden.” This utterance implies the existence of other people and communities outside the immediate family of Adam and Eve. The question arises, who would potentially harm Cain if there were no other people?

3. The mention of other people in the land of Nod: Following the account of Cain’s exile in Genesis 4:16-17, it is stated that Cain went to the land of Nod, where he built a city and had children. The presence of other people and a city in Nod indicates the existence of a broader population outwith the immediate family of Adam and Eve.

4. The genealogical record in Genesis 5: The genealogical record found in Genesis 5 provides a list of the descendants of Adam through his son Seth. This record traces the lineages from Adam to Noah, portraying a history of human existence that necessitates the presence of offspring, demonstrating that Adam and Eve did indeed have children who went on to populate the Earth.

5. God’s multiplication of Eve’s pain in childbirth: In Genesis 3:16, as part of the consequences of the Fall, God specifically addresses Eve and says, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain, you shall bring forth children.” This statement implies that Eve had prior experience with childbirth since God references multiplying her pain. The assumption of pre-existing knowledge of childbirth indicates that she and Adam had already undergone the process, reinforcing the idea that they had children before being expelled from the Garden.

It is worth noting that this assumption does not indicate whether all of their children were born within the confines of the Garden or after their expulsion. The mention of increasing pain in childbirth merely implies that it was a familiar experience to Eve, suggesting previous instances of childbirth.

The details surrounding the birth of Adam and Eve’s children are not provided in the biblical text, leaving room for interpretation and speculation. However, the implications of God’s words to Eve regarding multiplying her pain in childbirth strongly suggest that she had already experienced the process firsthand, reinforcing the idea that Adam and Eve had offspring while in the Garden of Eden.

It is important to note that the details regarding the descendants of Adam and Eve while in the Garden of Eden are intentionally omitted or left vague in the biblical narrative. The focus of the biblical text shifts primarily towards the immediate consequences of the Fall, the introduction of sin, and the subsequent narratives of Cain and Abel. The absence of explicit information about childbirth in Eden allows for various interpretations and theological perspectives surrounding this aspect of Adam and Eve’s story.