Why the Turk Can’t Get it Up (cont’d)

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


At 82, Alton Ochsner, M.D., is the elder statesman of the anti-smoking movement. One of the first to link smoking with lung disease, he was ridiculed as unscientific when his book Smoking and Cancer first came out in 1954. Ove the next two decades, however, he got the best of most of his fag-puffing critics and outlived the rest. Even today, he puts in a full day’s work as surgeon and senior consultant to the Ochsner Foundation Hospital in New Orleans. One thing he has noticed, after a half-century of comparing men patients who smoke with those who do not, is that abstainers have had betters sex lives and fewer cases of impotence or low sperm count than their nicotine-addicted counterparts.

Dr. Ochsner has not been the only one to notice this. In several recent studies reported in French medical journals, researchers H. Cendron and J. Vallery-Masson found that men between the ages of 25 and 40, who smoked one or more packs a day, showed a marked decline in sexual activity. Nonsmokers of the same age group showed a much smaller decline. Dr. Paul S. Larson and other researchers at the University of Virginia have reported a short-term increase in impotence among young servicemen who smoked a lot. Other studies yielded similar results. Most of these studies prove that when heavy smokers quit they get a sexual second wind.

While the connection between smoking and male sexual troubles is increasingly clear, researchers acknowledge they are not sure of the reasons. Brian Mattes, an officer of New Jersey’s Smok-Enders, a highly acclaimed program to get smokers to quit, reports that the difference is one of fitness: “People who do not smoke, or those who quit, are in better shape. The oxygen level in the blood is higher, the body chemistry is free of all the accumulated poisons, and all parts of the body are in better shape, leadin to the one obvious conclusion that sex is more fulfilling. Also, people who don’t smoke smell better, and this is conducive to sex.”

But ther are other, more complex theories. One, from the Australian physician Dr. M.H. Briggs, is that cigarette smoking produces carbon monoxide in the blood, which in turn inhibits production of the male sex hormone, testosterone. Briggs, writing in the Medical Journal of Australia, cites a comparative study of smokers and nonsmokers matched for height, weight, marital status, etc., which showed that the testosterone levels for nonsmoking men averaged a healthy 7.47 nanograms per milliliter of blood, as opposed to 5.15 ng/ml for men who averaged a pack and a half or more a day. When the smokers abstained for only seven days, their testosterone count increased an aveage of 1.65 ng/ml, almost up to the level of nonsmokers. Additional studies show that cigarettes in combination with alcohol lead to a low testosterone level. Though a relationship between testosterone level and decreased sexual activity has yet to be proven, Briggs does say that “heavy cigarette smoking can contribute to infertility in males.”

Other studies have produced even more alarming results:

  • Carl Schirren, M.D. of the University of Hamburg, Germany, reports cases of “severe disturbances of sperm motility” in men who smoked one-to-two packs of cigarettes a day; he suggests smoking may explain complains of infertility.
  • Tests of animals also show disturbance of sperm motility, with large amounts of nicotine leading to sterility. One study of 3,605 hamsters, reported in the medical journal Toxicology in 1973, shows nicotine leading to atrophy of the sex glands.
  • Two German researchers, as reported in a German medical journal in 1974, go even further. G. Mau and P. Netter indicate that men who smoke may be endangering the lives and health of teir unborn children. This study suggests that smokers are more likely to father premature or stillborn babies than men who did not smoke. Significantly, this holds true even if the mother is a nonsmoker. The smaple of 5,200 infants also showed that children of fathers who smoked heavily had twice the normal rate of severe malformation.

Studies connection smoking with impstence, sterility and birth defects have come in for their share of criticism: some are denounced as lacking controls, relying only on questionnaires or failing to consider such factors as drinking, class and occupation. Though these dritcs admit that the evidence connecting nicotine and male dysfunction is considerable, especially in animal studies, they also claim that this evidence is inconclusive.

Ochsner has little tolerance for these criticisms, even though one, which appeared in the respected publication, Journal of Sex Research, did concede merit to some of the studies connecting smoking and male sexual performance. Although Ochsner admits that much of the data, particularly regarding testosterone levels, is inconclusive, he strongly believes that there is a need for further controlled studies to confirm the mountain of evidence already gathered.

Perhaps the most positive evidence, Ochsner says, comes from the patients he has met during his own 59 years of practice. “I really can’t give any percentage estimate on the men who report improved sex lives after they stop smoking. All I can say is that I have seen literally thousands of patients who invariably tell me that they feel more energetic, healthy and alive after they quit. But many will also say, as an afterthought, that they are better off in the bedroom. And that you really don’t know the difference until you quit smoking.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate