Nobody Taught You This About Sex, Risk, and Health

Sex can be healthy, but the podcast’s most important point is not “have more sex.”

It is this: many people are learning sex from porn, and porn is not evaluated for safety the way most people assume it is. That mismatch, between what looks normal on a screen and what is actually low-risk for a human body, is where a lot of preventable harm can start.

The conversation is candid and, at times, uncomfortable for the guests, which is part of the message. If even clinicians and educated adults feel pressure to avoid the topic, it is easy to see why teenagers and college students end up filling the gap with whatever the internet serves up.

The big takeaway, porn is not a safety manual

A central image from the episode is almost comedic: pausing a porn scene and doing “commentary,” not about performance, but about biology and consequences. What is happening here? What tissue is being stressed? What infections can spread? What are the short-term and long-term risks?

That idea lands because it exposes a common assumption. People often treat porn like it has been vetted, like someone must have checked whether the acts are safe, “the way people assume food is tested.” The discussion argues that this is not how it works. Porn is designed to look intense and novel, not to model consent conversations, hygiene steps, barrier use, or aftermath symptoms.

The emotional core of the episode is the sadness around young people making lifelong decisions based on misinformation, or no information at all. In the hosts’ framing, this is not about shaming desire, it is about closing the knowledge gap.

Did you know? The episode cites that 70% of teens use porn as a major source of sexual information, which helps explain why certain high-risk practices can feel “normal” even when people have never heard the health trade-offs.

If you take only one practical idea from the video, it is this: separate “what looks common” from “what is low-risk.” Those are not the same thing.

Why sex can be good for you, the benefits discussed

The episode starts with good news. Sex is not just recreation, it can be a meaningful health behavior.

For one, sex is physical activity. The clinician in the conversation describes an average burn of about 85 calories per intercourse, roughly comparable to a walk for many people. That matters less as a precise number and more as a reminder that sex engages the cardiovascular system, muscles, breathing patterns, and overall movement.

Sex is also framed as a stress and mood modulator. The discussion highlights lower cortisol, oxytocin release (often nicknamed the “love hormone”), and endorphins. The argument is not that sex replaces mental health care, but that it can be one of several inputs that support resilience.

A striking claim in the episode is that frequent sex is associated with a 20 to 40% reduced risk of depression. It is worth treating this as a correlation, not a guarantee, because mood is influenced by many factors including relationship quality, trauma history, sleep, and overall health.

The conversation also touches immune function, mentioning higher levels of IgA (an antibody involved in mucosal immunity). Research outside the episode has similarly explored links between sexual activity and immune markers, although results vary by study design and population.

Then there is the prostate cancer point. The clinician notes that men who ejaculate 21 times or more per month have been observed to have a 20 to 35% reduction in prostate cancer risk in some research. This idea is consistent with a large observational study in European Urology that found higher ejaculation frequency was associated with lower prostate cancer risk, although observational studies cannot prove causation (Ejaculation Frequency and Prostate CancerTrusted Source).

Finally, the episode frames sex as a longevity-adjacent behavior. People who have regular sex may have lower all-cause mortality risk in some datasets, and sex can support sleep and pain thresholds. The key nuance is that “sex” here is not just mechanics, it includes connection, safety, and consent.

Orgasms, intimacy, and what “counts” for health

A question raised in the conversation is whether orgasms are required for the benefits.

Some effects likely depend on orgasm-related nervous system shifts. Orgasms involve sympathetic activation followed by parasympathetic rebound for many people, which may relate to relaxation and sleepiness afterward. But the episode also emphasizes that some benefits come from movement and intimacy, not orgasm alone.

The discussion makes an important, often-missed point about women’s orgasms. It notes that only 18% of women orgasm from vaginal penetration alone, and that most require clitoral stimulation. This is presented as basic anatomy, not a relationship critique. The clitoris is described as having about 8,000 nerve endings, which helps explain why stimulation patterns matter.

This matters for health framing, too. If someone is pursuing “sex for stress relief” but the experience is consistently uncomfortable, pressured, or pleasureless, the physiological story changes. Stress may rise, not fall.

Pro Tip: If you are trying to use sex as a wellness practice, “more” is not automatically better. Safer, more pleasurable, more consensual tends to be the direction that aligns with the benefits discussed.

Risk is not moral, it is biological and practical

The conversation repeatedly returns to a theme: risk discussions get tangled up with morality.

In the episode’s framing, that tangling blocks education. People may avoid asking questions because they fear judgment. Clinicians may avoid answering because they fear appearing unprofessional. Schools may skip topics like breath play because it is “taboo.”

But bodies do not care what is taboo.

Biology is indifferent. Tissue can tear. Blood flow can be restricted. Bacteria can move from one place to another. Viruses can spread. The practical point is to make informed decisions rather than accidental ones.

A statistic mentioned is sobering: one in two sexually active people will contract an STI by age 25. This aligns with public health messaging that STIs are common among young people, and that routine testing and barrier methods matter. The CDC provides an overview of STI prevalence and prevention strategies, including testing and condom use (CDC, Sexually Transmitted InfectionsTrusted Source).

This is why the episode’s tone is “inform, do not shame.” People will take risks. The goal is to know which risks you are taking.

Choking during sex, what the S100B finding suggests

Choking is one of the episode’s main “nobody taught you this” topics.

The hosts discuss a small study of 32 college-age women, where half reported being choked during sex four or more times in the last month, and half did not. Bloodwork showed increased levels of S100B, a protein that can rise with brain injury and blood-brain barrier disruption.

This is not presented as definitive proof of brain damage. The episode is careful about this. The point is that S100B is often used as a surrogate marker for subclinical brain stress in research, and seeing it elevated in this context is concerning.

One host connects this marker to sleep research. The team had been measuring S100B as a possible indicator of poor sleep quality, finding that sleep deprivation could raise S100B to levels comparable to those seen in traumatic brain injury contexts. This is used to underline a broader message: there are biological readouts for behaviors that people assume are harmless.

Why this matters beyond “choking is risky”

Choking during sex can involve compressing the neck structures. That can reduce oxygen delivery, restrict blood flow, irritate the carotid sinus (which can affect heart rhythm), and increase the risk of injury to the airway, blood vessels, and soft tissues. Even when someone feels “fine,” the episode’s point is that subtle injury signals may exist.

Research on strangulation, even outside sexual contexts, recognizes potential for serious harm, including delayed complications. Medical resources on non-fatal strangulation emphasize that symptoms can appear later and that evaluation can be important after concerning events (Training Institute on Strangulation PreventionTrusted Source).

Important: If someone loses consciousness, has trouble breathing, experiences voice changes, neck swelling, severe headache, confusion, weakness, vision changes, or incontinence after neck compression, that can be a medical emergency. Seeking urgent medical care is a safety step, not an overreaction.

What the research shows

What the research shows: In the small study discussed, women who reported frequent choking during sex had higher S100B levels, a biomarker often studied in relation to brain stress and blood-brain barrier disruption. The episode treats this as a signal worth taking seriously, not a final verdict.

The practical takeaway is not “never do it.” The takeaway is that choking is not risk-free, and people deserve to know that before they decide.

Oral-anal sex and fecal-oral transmission, the overlooked route

Another taboo topic in the episode is oral-anal contact (analingus).

The clinician frames the risk in a way that sticks: fecal-oral transmission is the second most common route of infectious disease transmission worldwide after respiratory spread. That is a big claim, and it immediately shifts the conversation from “sexual preferences” to “pathogen pathways.”

This is the unique lens of the episode. It is not primarily about morality, it is about microbiology.

With oral-anal contact, exposure is not limited to classic STIs. It can also include gastrointestinal pathogens that live in fecal matter, such as E. coli, Salmonella, Shigella, Campylobacter, and parasites like Giardia. Public health resources on foodborne and fecal-oral pathogens describe how easily these organisms can spread when microscopic contamination reaches the mouth (CDC, Foodborne Germs and IllnessesTrusted Source).

It is also possible to transmit viruses like hepatitis A through fecal-oral routes. The CDC explains hepatitis A transmission and prevention, including vaccination, which is relevant for people with higher exposure risk (CDC, Hepatitis ATrusted Source).

The episode’s “if you must” protocol (harm reduction)

The conversation includes a practical, non-judgmental checklist. It is framed as “if you must,” not as an endorsement.

This part of the episode also broadens into a general hygiene message: sex is often spontaneous, and people do not want to “kill the mystery,” but basic hygiene can prevent miserable outcomes.

»MORE: Create a personal “safer sex checklist” in your notes app. Include testing preferences, barrier preferences, and hard no’s. The episode’s theme is that decisions made ahead of arousal are usually better.

UTIs after sex, why timing and anatomy matter

The episode makes a point that surprises many people: the most common cause of UTIs in young women is often related to sexual activity.

The clinician states that 75 to 90% of acute bladder infections in young women happen within 24 hours of intercourse, and that odds can jump dramatically in the 48 hours after sex. The mechanism is not mysterious. Bacteria from the perineal area can be introduced toward the urethra during friction and contact. Because women typically have a shorter urethra, bacteria may reach the bladder more easily.

UTIs are not just annoying. They can become serious if they spread to the kidneys, and they often lead to antibiotic use, which can have side effects and contribute to antibiotic resistance.

If you want a research-grounded overview of UTI symptoms, prevention approaches, and when to seek care, the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases provides a clear guide (NIDDK, Urinary Tract InfectionTrusted Source).

This is where the episode’s hygiene emphasis becomes practical, not prudish. Cleaning hands, trimming nails, and being thoughtful about switching between anal and vaginal contact can reduce bacterial transfer.

A small step can matter.

Quick Tip: If you are prone to UTIs, consider discussing personalized prevention strategies with a clinician before problems recur. What helps can vary, and recurrent symptoms deserve medical attention.

Arousal changes decisions, build guardrails ahead of time

One of the most useful ideas in the episode is psychological, not anatomical.

In heightened arousal, people often agree to things they would reject when calm. The conversation references research popularized by Dan Ariely showing that sexual arousal can shift risk tolerance and stated preferences. Whether or not you remember the exact study details, the lived experience is familiar to many people.

So the episode argues for pre-commitment.

Decide your boundaries, your safer-sex habits, and your “not without X” rules before you are in the moment.

This is where the hosts suggest reframing “testing and conversations kill the vibe.” They can be part of foreplay, part of trust-building, part of care. The deeper claim is that good sex is not just spontaneous, it is also safe enough that your nervous system can relax.

A simple pre-sex decision list

This is not a script, it is a starting point.

The episode’s stance is pragmatic: prevention is usually easier than dealing with consequences later.

Microbiome and sexual practices, a surprising early signal

The conversation then pivots into something that feels almost sci-fi.

A study is described involving 75 HIV-negative men with an average age of 31, categorized by sexual role patterns (insertive, receptive, or both). Researchers found that gut microbiome patterns differed by group. Two microbiome “types” emerged, with differences in dominant bacteria and differences in predicted nutrient metabolism, amino acids versus carbs and fats.

The hosts treat this as fascinating rather than conclusive. It is correlation, and many confounders could exist, including diet, geography, antibiotic exposure, stress, and network effects in communities.

Still, the episode uses the study to make a broader philosophical point: humans are ecosystems. The conversation notes a commonly cited estimate that the body contains roughly similar orders of magnitude of bacterial and human cells, which challenges the idea that we are purely independent decision-makers. Your habits, partners, environment, and microbes all interact.

If you want a grounded overview of what the gut microbiome is and why it matters, the NIH has an accessible primer (NIH Human Microbiome ProjectTrusted Source).

The practical takeaway is not “your microbiome determines your sex life.” It is that sexual practices can be part of a larger biological feedback loop, and we are only beginning to map it.

Before vs after, spontaneous sex vs planned safer sex

The episode keeps returning to trade-offs. You can prioritize spontaneity, novelty, and intensity. You can also prioritize safety, hygiene, and clear consent.

Most people want some of both.

Here is a simple comparison that captures the episode’s harm-reduction vibe.

Option A vs Option B

Option A: Spontaneous, porn-scripted sex

Option B: Planned, informed sex

This is not about being “careful” in a joyless way. It is about being deliberate.

A final note from the episode’s tone: talking about sex can raise heart rate even for adults who feel “fine” consciously. That is a reminder that taboo is real, and it shapes behavior. Naming the taboo is part of reducing its power.

Key Takeaways