Miser

I was joking. Lol. But srsly, LSD, tis why I love chemists... But going back to the discussion, extreme confirmation bias would be countered when faced with contradictory facts. That's why reading broadly refines this bias. Obviously one needs some confirmation bias so as to find emerging patterns. For example, I hypothesize LSD use is linked to higher intelligence and I observe nature to find patterns. I find many smart people use LSD but many dumb people as well. So inconclusive. Another example, I hypothesize high testosterone is conducive to low concentration, then I find a research that says high testosterone is conducive to selective attention for negative faces. So I realize the operational definition is flawed and I make adjustments. In both of these situations, the confirmation bias is working to find patterns consistent with the hypothesis, but both is subject to modification. Going back to the original claim that feminine men complain more. I hoped that you would talk openly and thoroughly about some of the experiences you had with feminine men. The most pronounced in my experience are gay men, and depending on how masculine they are, their tendency to voice complaints seem to differ. But obviously there are flaws to my experience (notably my brief acquaintance with them). Regardless, it's important to talk about subjective experiences so as to find emerging patterns. Isn't this the epitome of the social sciences? Also, do you hurt people's feelings often? (Optional question)

How do you think psychologists identify who is normal and who is not. It is through observing hundreds or even thousands of people-training one's perception in order to discover patterns and oddities. Confirmation bias is powerful but doesn't cloud our judgments 100 percent. Even being aware of this bias makes the sway of the bias weaker. Once again, you are not aware of the point of the discussion. Only through talking about our experiences can we refine it. Just saying confirmation bias doesn't progress the conversation and makes an unjustified halt to it. No duh. Here's just some of the effects of estrogen found in the paper Estrogen and Cognitive Function (Authors: Maria Clotilde Tavares, Antonella Gasbarri, Assunta Pompili and Carlos Tomaz) "The nuclear receptors ER-[alpha] and ER-[beta] are products of different genes and show tissue- and cell-type-specific expression [28] . Both ERs are widely distributed troughout the body [27] . ERs have been localized in several areas in the CNS, such as the cortex, amygdala, HF, basal forebrain, cerebellum, locus coeruleus, rafe and central gray matter, confirming an involvement of estrogen in controlling cognitive functions in physiological as well as in pathological conditions [23,29] . Within these brain areas, ERs are found in nuclei within both neurons and glia." "Estradiol administration to ovariectomized (OVX) rats decreases anxiety and depressive behavior in laboratory tests [49] . Estrogen effects on cognition are subordinate on the cognitive task and its relation with brain regions. For instance, while estradiol impairs performance on striatum-dependent tasks in female rats [50,51] , it improves performance on prefrontal cortical-dependent learning in female rats [52] , female rhesus monkeys [53,54] , and both young adult and postmenopausal women [55,56] . It also enhances performance on HF-dependent tasks in mice [57,58] , female rats [59-62] and rhesus monkeys [53,63] . Studies showing improved performance with estradiol infusion directly into the HF, but not other cerebral areas [64,65] , provide behavioral evidence that the estradiol enhancement of HF-dependent tasks indeed represents effects on HF function. However, the roles of estrogen on cognitive function most probably result from the sum of interacting influences on numerous cerebral regions, including the striatum, HF, basal forebrain and prefrontal cortex (PFC)." "Estrogen not only modulates memory formation and maintenance processes in some contexts, but also biases the learning strategy utilized to solve a task, thus changing what information is learned and how, and therefore not only how much is learned but also the strength of the memory." "Estrogen replacement enhances spatial WM performance both on water maze and radial-arm maze [91,112] . The results of Fader et al. [91] confirm previous evidence that estrogen selectively improves performance on tasks that depend on WM [59,127] . In fact, estrogen treatment improved WM performance during maze acquisition, without affecting reference memory performance; scopolamine treatment impaired WM, but not reference memory, while estrogen prevented the impairment of WM by scopolamine. " Testosterone is linked with aggression and depression as addressed in Testosterone and Social Behavior "The word most often associated with testosterone in everyday parlance is aggression. Although in some species (e.g., rats) higher testosterone is associated with aggression in everyday encounters (Monaghan and Glickman 1992), in humans (and other primates) higher testosterone is association with the type of dominance that sometimes entails aggression." "The largest study of the link between testosterone and depression revealed an unusual finding. The study, which involved more than 4,000 men ages 32 to 48, found that a parabolic model best fits the data (see Figure 2). Men with above- and below-average testosterone levels reported more symptoms of depression (Booth et al. 1999b). The link between high testosterone men and depression is the inverse for men with below-average testosterone. The relationship disappears for those with above average testosterone when controls for antisocial and risk behaviors and the absence of protective factors such as marriage and steady employment are in the equation. Anti-social and risky behavior brings people into[End Page 175] contact with the criminal justice system and puts individuals at odds with relatives and friends.` Damn chemists, have to have us psychology students explain everything. Why don`t you do us a favor and make us all some LSD. =P

Just because they want to sell books doesn't make their claim more false. This magazine is an forum for those who posses the rare 'tacit knowledge' required for psychology to talk about their interpretation on the available data. It isn't meant to be fully scientific.

Here's one of the sources that talks about the interaction of fat cells on testosterone; "Low testosterone (hypogonadism) can be caused by many factors, all of which play out against the normal steady decline in testosterone levels with age. Tumors on the pituitary gland (which controls testosterone production in the testicles), problems with the testicles themselves, injury, infections, and being overweight can all cause testosterone levels to drop below normal. Excess body fat does this because testosterone is normally broken down in the body's fat cells; hence if you have a lot of fat, your body breaks down testosterone extra-quickly, leading to a deficiency. And abdominal or "belly" fat has a greater capacity to convert testosterone to estrogen than other types of fat." http://www.sharecare...osterone-levels Not the best source, but I'm sure the paper is floating in the inter-webs somewhere. Statistics is the cornerstone of psychology. Everything is distributed on a normal curve. As you already know, most people fall into the middle 68 percent while the exceptions on the two ends. This is useful in looking at populations of people who allegedly possess certain traits. In this case, most men fall in the 68 percent category in terms of masculinity and few men are overly feminine and overly masculine. To address your last claim, the girls you met who were masculine falls on the Z>2-3 portion of the curve while most women remain feminine. Masculine and feminine isn't black and white, but a spectrum thang. By the way, I worry about baldness on a daily basis, but there are many sexy bald men out there. Notably, Paul Feyerabend, whose book The Tyranny of Science I'm reading right now. With the right amount of exercise and diet, I'll prepare sufficiently for the coming of that fateful day. http://www.marxists....ge/feyerabe.htm Damn Feynman and his full head of hair. Anyways, bear with me here because psychology is a little more intuitive and a little less rigid than most sciences (though when research needs to be done, the numbers have to be right just as with all sciences). Again, the ratio is on a spectrum on the basis of population. There is no masculine or feminine but a spectrum of masculinity/femininity. Hence the 1-10. Because much of psychology is based on questionnaires, it should be no surprise that I'm asking you to give me your best subjective judgement. Even though we are highly biased, we only know so many people in our lives. Yes, we are biased, but think about all the people you remember to the best of your ability. And by examining our memory, we can observe whether there is a clear link between liking to complain and femininity. Admittedly, there is not a clear distinction from my experience either. But the most manly men and the most womanly men are clearly different in their approach to life. From my limited sample size of 12, the 3 most feminine men do complain more but highly intelligent while the 2 most masculine are most austere, quiet but practical. The men who like to complain have a reputation of complaining which, to me, is the most accurate gauge to measuring frequency of complaining. Anyways, its an opinion that I want. And I know that each people will be different because everyone's threshold of thinking about an expression as complaining is different. But with enough subjective opinions, there will undoubtedly be an emergent pattern. What I REALLY want to get at is the effect of testosterone and estrogen on our psychology. I believe these two chemicals have fate steering power. Testosterone is linked to muscle, libido and eve attention, among other things. But is estrogen linked to empathy, or even intelligence? The pattern is muddy but that's why I'm here

; I trust that we all have intuitions about people. Fair point. <div><br></div><div>Or perhaps more in tuned with their feelings perhaps? Any underlying commonalities at all?</div>

Fair point, let me elaborate. For many things in psychology, things are seen on a spectrum. Everybody possesses certain characteristics of ADHD, OCD, manic depression, but it's the degree that determines whether one should be medicated. So, to restate feminine; on a spectrum of 1 being indistinguishable from a girl and 10 being Arnold, what are some of the psychological trends as an individual approaches 1 on the said spectrum. Now femininity can be defined roughly as a high deposit of fat to musculature ratio. Because fat has been found to break apart testosterone* No, it wasn't based on evolutionary psychology. It was given to supplement a discussion topic in my developmental psychology class. And that's the reason I've given it here. Fully aware of selection bias, but we are not at the full mercy of it. We've all had social interactions with people (I hope) and we all have opinions. Let's hear it

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/suffer-the-children/201203/why-french-kids-dont-have-adhd

Hmmm... interesting response. It was meant to elicit a response regardless of how truth my statement is. In any case, wanna talk about it? =) Interesting proposition. I have a feeling that this topic's gonna die soon due to a lack of available research

It was Aristotle who, in his discussion of friendship, claims that women and womanish man makes their friends unhappy by seeking sympathy. Leave aside whether this statement is true, which would be a discussion in ethics, do feminine men complain more? Are there research that confirms this? The only psychological fact I am aware of is that women tend to prefer masculine men for short-term relationships and feminine men for long-term relationships. It makes one wonder how much the appearance as well as the conversational styles of both groups of men affect their impression on their mates. Please give me your best answer whether it is objective scientific or subjective experiential.

And to add to that, good discipline in a child can also prevent ADHD. ADHD in France is of a much lower rate than that in America. I don't agree with the use of psychopharamacology personally but their popularity comes naturally with such a shortage of therapists in the world. As the Conservative Commentator William F Buckley once said "Idealism is fine. But when it approaches reality, the cost becomes prohibitive." I just see it as it is. Here's to hoping tomorrow will be better than today. You seem very high-minded and very disciplined, looking at your track record. Talk more about the contributing factors of your success.

You sure have kept busy over the years. Talk about a perfect track record. I'd imagine many guys would be intimated by such calibre but you sure would get the pick of the litter. You must be as happy as can be.

It's not a stretch to say many psychology students would admit to being good judges of character. Any superb psychoanalytic books that you'd recommend? I'm also an INFP, I'm hoping to pursue a career in Clinical Psychology and then begin writing when I have a firm grip on my financial status because that's what the Myers-Briggs recommends. But most importantly, I feel like it's the right thing to do (I wonder if you catch the very unfunny joke). Ever since I had memory, I wanted to tell people what my experiences are and what my feelings are on a subject. That's why I find values and subjective truths, instead of hard-sciences, to be far more interesting and personally relevant. Well who knows why, but here's my attempt at an accurate narrative. Also, is it a far-cry to say that ADHD isn't a disorder according to Jungians? I say this because I believe Jungians consider all personality traits as part of the person. A person with ADHD could focus on certain tasks extremely well, so long as it interests them. So what's your personality type? You seem like one of the thinker types.

To be fair, being accused of having a misunderstanding of psychology, neuroscience and evolution-three fields that I am dearly passionate about-cuts quite deep, among other unjustified personal attacks throughout this discussion. Let me be the first to apologize for any hurt feelings and let's hopefully start anew. "But I must say, in brief, abstaining from masturbation has made me much more productive in that I crave social activity and exercise because they are necessary to fill the void masturbation left." Incidentally, this is in response to your insult; "That is demeaning. Why is it that I have a large misunderstanding? I have given you many claims that you haven't responded to. It is also false that masturbation is just like another recreational activity as it works through opiate pathways. Opiates is not a common reward in life's other activities except for exercise and social activities." Let's establish the context of this argument in North American urban life. In which, the individual masturbates primarily (hopefully) in solitary places. Opiate, an analgesic, is a commonly released in the presence of pain. It is a stretch to say relaxation causes the release of opiates because massages include tactile stimulation to the point of manageable pain. Acupuncture involves the insertion of needles into the flesh which also elicits pain. Placebos works via expectation which has little to do with relaxation. I agree with you that dopamine is much more common than opiates. Dopamine can be released via the exposure to water when one is really thirsty. But let me appeal to your common sense for a minute, which do you think is more addictive, holding still the availability and cost of both, heroin or cocaine? Also, dopamine released from sexual stimulus should be much higher than most things. Again, I'm saying that its way too easy a reward. One should shoot more in the direction of bettering mankind instead of satisfying the self, assuming that we only have so much motivation per day. For this to be true, we would have to find evidence of the possibility of satiation of these chemicals which would lead to a reduction in motivation. A relevant mechanism may be the diminishing return effects of chemicals on the body-the more one is exposed to a chemical the less (s)he is affected by it. But these are personal conjectures. You wouldn't come half way and agree with me that it at least slightly pivots toward the direction that semen has an effect on mood? The researchers, as stated in the quotation, did say that, though slight, the effects of semen is the most profound. I'm inclined to trust their math. The above are major problems, but as a whole it supports the claim that semen potentially has a psycho-pharmacological effect. But nothing more can be said about it but our own values on the issue until more research is done on the topic. And I'll answer the last three quotes together. I've treated this discussion as a casual discourse and I've talked as I would with my real life acquaintances. Though I know I insulted some of you, I don't regret making the generalization; without it I would have held that bias.

The ability for the different disciplines of science to derive laws falls on a spectrum of effectiveness, as addressed by Aristotle that strict laws are found in the heavens only; terrestrial events come and go in a much less regular way. "The sun rises everyday but animals occasionally give birth to monsters. (Feyerabend)" In this respect, psychology is a soft science because it deals with the most complicated, unpredictable matter we know-us. Put simply, there are parts of psychology more scientific than others. The more reductionist the more biological, the more quantifiable and the less interesting (my opinion). When one looks at the practical aspect of psychology, much of it is an art. Notably the art of communicating effectively which involves saying the right words and accurately reading emotional responses. Though Freud's ideas have long been scientifically obsolete, Irvin Yalom, a psychiatrist for more than 20 years (who incidentally looks a bit like Freud), advocates the use of Freud's dream analysis in therapy. Though REM sleep is regarded as the intellectually restoring part of sleep, nuances of dreams is still far out of reach for scientists. And that is what makes psychology one of the most exciting fields in the whole wide world. I define it as both an Art and a Science-if you should pursue a career in therapy-as every experience in life gives us information about how we work. The world of a psychologist is full of intrigue and mystery and science is the candle to illuminate it all.

Oh my oh my! Please give me a research assistant position! I'll buy you flowers! Beauteeful flowers! My intrigue with this topic is the psycho-pharmacological effects of semen. Currently the research is limited to indicating that semen, when absorbed through the vaginal tracts, can induce anti-depressant effects (the emotional benefit goes beyond the additional pleasure from going raw-dog as inferred by the research). What I'm arguing here, which has drawn much contention and dare I say aggression, is that retaining semen may better the man mentally by reserving his 'essence' or energy. The use of essence and energy in particular hasn't been effective on this forum because of science's requirement for accurate operational definition for terms. Nonetheless, right now, I can't think of a better word than essence. The relevant research was posted earlier. None of which directly supports my claim that refraining from masturbation results in nootropic effects of the brain, due to an absence of relevant research, but has targeted mostly on the detriments of masturbation. I'd like to talk more with you if you so desire. Specifically, what are your views on the disproportionately low number of men to women on campus? How aggressive are men sexually and how would you respond to their advances? I know graduate students are usually fairly busy but your knowledge and expertise will be met with only gratitude and admiration. Above all else, it is your subjective experience that I care most for. Women are the closest thing we know of paradise. -forgot who wrote that but it was in one of Woody Allen's movies. Read what I said, I've addressed how my reasoning is appropriate among other concerns you've raised. You on the other hand have seriously derailed this conversation.

I've addressed all that you've said. Learn to read

READ MY PREVIOUS STATEMENTS! For the last time, I'm not religious. All my statements are observations. All the 'non-scientific' claims I've made were observations. You ARE entangling the argument. Stop it Discussions are not a way to justify one's own self-righteousness.

Here's a thought experiment. Little Jimmy the Ph.D. is looking for links of the possible environmental effects of baldness. He notices that athletes in the Olympics has a disproportionately low incidence of male pattern baldness. He thus makes the hypothesis that male pattern baldness is linked to exercise. Though there are not research proving this claim, the thought process said here is still valid. He must then go through the various processes of conducting research to proving it. The gossip and religion that you accuse me of using are mere patterns I see in the world that I find relevant. I am fully aware that this is only in the hypothesis stage. My reasoning, and much of my reasoning in psychology has been based on this quote :"Whenever you find something in nature in great abundance, pay attention. It is critical to the system."-Professor Carl LaPrecht Also, there have been many times when I was successfully able to bring about scientific evidence for my claims. So all-the-better. So far, we can tacitly establish that masturbation has drawbacks. My claim is that abstinence makes you more mentally adept. This latter claim will need some work. Also, be honest to yourselves, for the sake of conversation, are you eliciting a bias because you want to defend this habit or because you want to get to the truth. I want to quote the editor's note of Austrian philosophy of science professor Paul Feyerabend's book the Tyranny of Science which I think is appropriate here :"He (Feyerabend) argues that far from solving the pressing problems of our age, such as war and poverty, scientific theorizing glorifies ephemeral generalities instead of confronting the real particulars that make life worth living. For the objectivity and universality of science are based on abstraction, and as such, they come at a high cost. Abstract drives a wedge between our thoughts and our experience, resulting in the degeneration of both." The sentence structures in the above paragraphs are a bit jumpy but I'm a lazy fk

And i have presented evidence to you that all sex is not different, especially that of solitary sex to intercourse. I was describing emerging patterns of the benefits of abstinence. If this isn't appealing to you, fine, but i stated it alongside other arguments, ones that are scientific. So don't fixate on this one. You've been derailing the discussion.

Quote Yes it does. If something is undefined it is meaningless. I could say blork happens when you masturbate, but since blork doesn't mean anything I'm not saying anything The word itself will always have meaning. I can't believe you're still dwelling on this one detail while I have given you many explanations as to how masturbation detriments the body. It is meant as a metaphor in that expelling one's essence is not productive for the individual. Yes we're on the science forums but no we're not writing papers to be peer-reviewed by a qualified panel right now. I can speak casually if I want to, especially when the emphasis is on later parts of the statement. Quote So how would abstinence cause less aggression? Wouldn't abstinence be part of a more sexually repressed country? Also, I'm only replying to things you introduce, if you believe them to be irrelevant don't introduce them into the discussion. This was said in agreement to you that masturbation reduces aggression. You seem to have had a difficult time turning in sharp corners. Quote I said you have a misunderstanding because you make assumptions that are inaccurate as well as citing sources that have inaccuracies throughout. Endorphins are released when eating spicy foods, and eating in general activates dopamine through the use of leptin. http://www.dana.org/...l.aspx?id=23536 They are also released when running, when relaxed, with acupuncture, excitement, etc. So yes, endorphines are released pretty commonly. You are testing me... I've said that one of the few things you can do to replace the thrill of masturbation is exercise-runner's high. Why do you insist on restating what I've said. None of the above are as easily accessible as your own dick and none of it is as habit forming as masturbating. The study relevant to opiate and relaxation states: "profound relaxation in a float tank triggers the production of endorphins". It is a stretch to say relaxation itself to induce opiate release. Don't misquote studies please. Also, I want to ask you how often you go to an acupuncturist. And also, wouldn't excitement form life be better than sitting at home masturbating? That is a value judgment I want you to make. Masturbation, a solitary activity, isn't as productive as a lot of things. Also, spicy food is a particular kind of food. When you say eating gives you opiates, though you're right, you were being far too general. Spicy food, through the actions of pain receptors, can induce opiate release. But that's a very special kind of food that gives you pain unique to spicy. Quote The false equivalence fallacy of blood and semen for example. I hope I've never said that. I still want to say that it is nutritively significant. The minerals and vitamins wasted seems like such a spoil. Thanks for posting the study. Here's the abstract "In a sample of sexually active college females, condom use, as an indirect measure of the presence of semen in the reproductive tract,was related to scores on the Beck Depression Inventory. Not only were females who were having sex without condoms less depressed, but depressive symptoms and suicide attempts among females who used condoms were proportional to the consistency of condom use. For females who did not use condoms, depression scores went up as the amount of time since their last sexual encounter increased. These data are consistent with the possibility that semen may antagonize depressive symptoms and evidence which shows that the vagina absorbs a number of components of semen that can be detected in the bloodstream within a few hours of administration." Quote You know what you forgot to mention, the amount of semen was measured as a survey of how often women used condoms. This could be wildly inaccurate. Also, the increase in depressive symptoms correlated with the length of time since one's last intercourse. Finally, those who never used condoms and that were less depressed had significantly more sex than those who used condoms often. So it could just as easily be that the amount of sex is what is being measured, not the amount semen. So are you saying that this is inaccurate because of response biases? Random distribution should more or less take care of the problem. The increase in depressive symptoms correlating with the length of time since one's last intercourse doesn't contradict semen's potential anti-depressant qualities. One could look at semen as a dose of anti-depressant chemical that, as time goes on, wanes in effectiveness (common trend in the efficacy of medication). "Although the overall effect was modest (R2 D :076), condom use accounted for more variance in depression than any of the other predictors, and the proportion of variance (.25) due to condom use was greater than that of all of the other predictor variables combined" Condom use, even when frequency of intercourse was considered, was still the best predictor. zapatos, on 24 November 2012 - 12:34 AM, said: This could be part of the issue. Regretting that you told people there isn't enough evidence to substantiate your claims makes you appear underhanded. Does this mean that next time you will continue to claim you are right even if you know you are wrong? If you win the argument by deceit, what is the benefit? Trying to paint yourself in a better light by the liberal use of adjectives and adverbs (admitting modestly..., spelling variants..., you fixate on trivial details..., wasbut a generalization..., etc.) is also unseemly. Is this another one of your "underahieving-internet-dweller generalization"'s? Some of the things I said aren't relevant to the argument but a note on my idiosyncrasies in general-I have a general tendency to be too modest when I do have good evidence in many areas of life and only later do I realize what points I should of brought up. This has nothing to do with deceit, and has everything to do for my own benefit. Next time, I would take the time to find my best points and spearhead them to support the argument instead of starting a discussion willy nilly. I don't care what you think of me, especially on the internet, so I really don't see the validity of that point. I don't regret saying what I've said because it reads exactly as I intend it to. It wasn't meant as an attack though it was understood as one. Shit happens, oh well. Just because its a generalization doesn't mean it hasn't a grain of truth. "The correlations of stereotypes with criteria range from .4 to over .9, and average almost .8 for cultural stereotypes (the correlation of beliefs that are widely shared with criteria) and.5 for personal stereotypes (the correlation of one individual's stereotypes with criteria, averaged over lots of individuals)." http://www.psycholog...type-inaccuracy http://www.psycholog...out-stereotypes

You have a tendency to fixate on trivial details. I have given you an explanation and you have ignored it. READ IT Those are accepted variants of the spelling, you saying its silly doesn't make it so. Again, you saying something is silly doesn't make it so. I have these variants countless times during my short academic career. Be reasonable!

Thanks for the support. I made a misstep when making my claim to include an underahieving-internet-dweller generalization, which i added directly following it that it was but a generalization, that got them a bit riled. Plus, nobody's happy when you're going against the cultural grain on. Also, I shouldn't of showed them so much weakness by admitting modestly that there isn't enough science to substantiate my claims. There isn't to make the claim that abstinence is directly related to mental enhancement, but there is enough to say masturbation is not positive. I refer to the last article I linked; it talks about masturbation leading to prostate dysfunction and is linked to mental pathology. I stand by my claim that the reward from masturbation-opiate and dopamine-is too easy a reward for someone to be sitting in a room to be getting. Finally, semen can cause affective changes; notably in female recipients per the study i cited earlier. Once again, i appreciate your fair-minded comment, everyone including the moderator thinks i'm a religious nit-wit while i'm anything but.

Don't make excuses. If anything, just read the last link.

Essence can mean a number of things because it is used in the context of philosophical discourse. Essence can be nutritive, or hormonal. A scientific discussion doesn't necessarily exclude the use of metaphoric descriptors to better capture the topic at hand. Put aside the inaccuracy of the term, it is an adequate metaphor. However, one should not fixate on this point because the rest will be explained. Why do you intend on fixating on irrelevant points? This is where I agreed with you. Regardless, it is found that the more sexually repressed a country the more the tendency towards aggression. http://en.wikipedia....note-prescott-4 What I mean is that it has the potential to prevent dissatisfied men from aggressing against women. That is demeaning. Why is it that I have a large misunderstanding? I have given you many claims that you haven't responded to. It is also false that masturbation is just like another recreational activity as it works through opiate pathways. Opiates is not a common reward in life's other activities except for exercise and social activities. Yes. Here's a great article written by Gary. It talks about the chemical pathways involved in human bonding in sex. As taken from http://www.yourbrain...lt-masturbation : "As explained in The Lazy Way to Stay in Love, certain behaviors register with a primitive part of the brain as attachment cues. Such cues bond humans because they soothe the brain's defensiveness by releasing oxytocin in the amygdala. They are a natural anti-anxiety mechanism. Regular warm touch, for example, has been shown to reduce blood pressure, especially in men.Does affectionate intercourse register as an attachment cue in a way that solo sex does not? Certainly differences show up even in the hormonal signature of the two activities. For example, intercourse with climax releasesfour times the prolactin of masturbation, helping to put the brakes on sexual desire for a time. In other words, climaxes obtained by different means are not interchangeable in terms of effects." Fallacies such as...? Another unfair attack. These are accepted variants of the spelling nor are they selling products. It is a website to aid men in erectile dysfunction. If you think eating gives you an opiate high then I don't know what else to say... It was found in American female undergrads that those who didn't use condoms as contraception during sex experienced a decreased rate of depression. I think its specific enough for you to find it on google. Finally, for more on the potential detriments of masturbation, be sure to visit http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/Costa.Masturbation.PDF

There's simply no way to quantify that right now. It is meant in all its ambiguities so as to stimulate further discussion. Now, onto the summary. I have provided many sources though much of it are anecdotal and religious, buddhist to be exact, some are based on science. I am undoubtedly a secularist, I have no shame or guilt regarding masturbation only that I have succumbed to the temptation of my animalistic self and dampened my system as a result. You are right in perceiving this from a humanist perspective, it can demonstrably reduce aggression against non-consenting females but my emphasis is self-improvement, and it is that if done right. But please don't say I didn't do my research. I may be slow to come up with good arguments but I have read enough and experienced enough to come to this conclusion. Also understand that I'm under attack from several sources at once. Since we're on the internet, I'll disclose something very personal that may serve as a confound. I have abstained due to reasons of self-improvement. The effects have been dramatic though it may be because of the number of other things I'm doing as well. However, I have a firm background in science and have had many discussions with my room-mate-who's a biology student-who was skeptical at first but have come to see things most my way. I agree that the after-effects of sex introduces inconsistencies to this hypothesis, notably how ejaculation can result in clearer mental thought. So this is one inconsistency that needs to be dealt with seriously. Part of this could be due to the powerful arousal one gets from having a sexual partner (dopamine, opiate, serotonin and so on) and the powerful orgasm that you just had (afterglow). This differs between men however and there are many who report being exhausted afterwards instead of feeling vigilant. As you can see, having a sexual partner for sex introduces many confounds to my claims. It is hard to say how much stimulation you got from sex was and how much mental energy you lost from ejaculation. Also, immediately following sex, one is physiologically aroused so it doesn't surprise me that you would feel more "good". However, the drawbacks are experienced in the following hours. This link is evidence that opiates are released following ejaculation. (Parallels between ejaculation and heroin rush) http://www.jneurosci...3/27/9185.short This is one of the key points I want to stress of the possible reduction in motivation of a person due to the release of opiates. The list you've given isn't an exhaustive list of the content of semen. I've also provided you with a link previously. Also, semen has been found to have anti-depressant effects on women. This is consistent with the Tao claim that sex is a interplay of the male and female to stealing each other's essence. Though female fluids on man hasn't an effect, if the man should refrain from ejaculation then he would feel more alert and powerful. This is a claim, admittedly, not substantiated by science due to a lack of research on the topic of not orgasming during sex. This first came to light for me when I was told of business men having sex only to not orgasm so as to be more driven in their careers. Nevertheless, semen demonstrably has an effect on the affect of individuals. Ejaculation has also found to increase estrogen levels among other things. http://cure-erectile...-of-ejaculation (I should have just posted this at the beginning.) "Androgen hormones, neurotransmitters, oxytocin, free amino acids, and minerals in the semen held by the seminal vesicles are supposed to aid the organism for the post-orgasm recovery by exciting and supporting the parasympathetic and sympathetic vagal and spinal nerves and the hipothalamic-pituitary-adrenal-testicular axis." I do want to say that the sexual tension that results from a lack of sexual release could be a powerful drive to succeed. This energy, if harnessed appropriately and directed toward positive means, would be a powerful force. Again, here's a quote from Immanuel Kant "such an unnatural use of one's sexual attributes' strikes 'everyone upon his thinking of it' as 'a violation of one's duty to himself... it is not so easy to produce a rational demonstration of the inadmissibility of that unnatural use... a man gives up his personality ... when he uses himself merely as a means for the gratification of an animal drive"