Benefits and Drawbacks of Sexual Abstinence

[PeterJ]

yes.

Read what I said . I pointed out that science would laugh at the idea that Miser is putting forward and I explicitly said that all sex was equivalent.

 

And neither gossip not Buddhism or other religions are science.

So why argue with me then? I never said otherwise. Why look for trouble where there needn't be any?

 

So he is "claiming much" and that's what " is silly about these two statements"

There is nothing silly about those two statements. Anybody can see that.

 

Maybe he is claiming too much. I would say so. But I see no need to entangle the discussion in petty nonsense because of it.

[Miser]

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

Edited November 24, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

Never mind the sentence structure, you have missed the point.

Your example of Jimmy the PhD starts by making an observation- not many baldies at the Olympics.

 

You haven't started from an observation.

It has not been observed that masturbation is bad for you.

Some religious groups may have asserted it, but they are known to tell lies to gain control over people.

 

Also your assertion "So far, we can tacitly establish that masturbation has drawbacks." is also essentially unfounded.

[Miser]

Never mind the sentence structure, you have missed the point.

Your example of Jimmy the PhD starts by making an observation- not many baldies at the Olympics.

 

You haven't started from an observation.

It has not been observed that masturbation is bad for you.

Some religious groups may have asserted it, but they are known to tell lies to gain control over people.

 

Also your assertion "So far, we can tacitly establish that masturbation has drawbacks." is also essentially unfounded.

 

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.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

 

For the last time, I'm not religious. All my statements are observations.

I didn't say that you were.

I am saying that your approach is unscientific.

Realistically, you can make observations about the behaviour of 1 person- yourself. You can't exclude the probable selection bias and you certainly can't do blind testing.

The you extrapolate to half the population of the world.

You continue to do so, even when it has been shown to be inconsistent with observation and established theory.

That's not science

 

Which of us is being self righteous?

[Miser]

I didn't say that you were.

I am saying that your approach is unscientific.

Realistically, you can make observations about the behaviour of 1 person- yourself. You can't exclude the probable selection bias and you certainly can't do blind testing.

The you extrapolate to half the population of the world.

You continue to do so, even when it has been shown to be inconsistent with observation and established theory.

That's not science

 

Which of us is being self righteous?

 

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

[John Cuthber]

So, your summary is "Read what I said: I'm not being self righteous"

[PsychGirl]

Hello,

 

This is my first post to this forum. I am a Psychology Doctoral student, currently in dissertation. Master of Science is in Industrial Organizational Psychology.

 

Miser, you mentioned:

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.

 

 

I am familiar with this work. SUNY in Albany, NY has led the way in research studying the correlation of semen upon women -- primarily, semen and its antidepressant properties.

 

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201101/attention-ladies-semen-is-antidepressant

 

 

Of course, the study does not appear to address the other aspects of unprotected sex, such as increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases and the emotional distress of relationships that don't work out. The Beck Depression Inventory showed significantly lower levels of depression for women who were having unprotected sex as compared to women who always used condoms.

 

 

So probably for women, unprotected sex shows some emotional benefit (potentially) that is superior to masturbation.

[Miser]

Hello,

 

This is my first post to this forum. I am a Psychology Doctoral student, currently in dissertation. Master of Science is in Industrial Organizational Psychology.

 

Miser, you mentioned:

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.

 

 

I am familiar with this work. SUNY in Albany, NY has led the way in research studying the correlation of semen upon women -- primarily, semen and its antidepressant properties.

 

http://www.psycholog...-antidepressant

 

 

Of course, the study does not appear to address the other aspects of unprotected sex, such as increased risk for sexually transmitted diseases and the emotional distress of relationships that don't work out. The Beck Depression Inventory showed significantly lower levels of depression for women who were having unprotected sex as compared to women who always used condoms.

 

 

So probably for women, unprotected sex shows some emotional benefit (potentially) that is superior to masturbation.

 

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.

 

So, your summary is "Read what I said: I'm not being self righteous"

 

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.

Edited November 24, 2012 by Miser

[Ringer]

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.

 

Fine, consider this part of the discussion dropped.

 

This was said in agreement to you that masturbation reduces aggression. You seem to have had a difficult time turning in sharp corners.

 

2 things

1.) Please, I thought you would be done with personal attacks by now. It's truly unbecoming if you really want to have progress in a discussion.

2.) You weren't agreeing with me. What you said was in response to Moon's comment and the format made it difficult to follow which parts you were addressing when you posted. In the future when you attempt to insult someone's intelligence, at least make sure your insult has some grain of truth.

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.

 

Please show me where you said that, because I went back through the thread and couldn't find it anywhere.

 

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.

 

Accessibility has a lot to do with your environment. Masturbation in many places is less accessible than the other things due to taboos, religion, privacy, etc. The opiate release from acupuncture is usually associated with the relaxing effects it is said to have, on the same vein placebos release endorphins as well. Massage also releases endorphins, so the extension that relaxation causes release of endorphins is by no means a stretch.

http://www.ncbi.nlm..../pubmed/2526775

 

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.

 

Indeed, I agree I should have been more specific and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But again, these statements weren't only about opiate receptors, but the dopamine reward pathways as well.

 

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.

 

You directly quoted the passage from the site that made the fallacy. Our bodies are incredibly wasteful, only 25% efficient, and we lose minerals and vitamins uselessly all the time through sweating unnecessarily, growing our nails, growing hair, inefficient digestion, etc. It's still not significant enough to cause problems.

 

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."

 

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).

 

It's inaccurate because of a wild variety of reasons. Number of sexual partners is known to be correlated with more happiness (including adult actresses interestingly enough) and self esteem. There are a variety of problems with self reports, Here is a pretty good little blog post about it, because of problems with memory, self-esteem issues, etc. It would not be at all difficult to have directly measured the amount of seminal by products in the blood stream to actually quantify the effects. But until then it's kind of a moot point because there are too many confounding variables.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Insulting people doesn't tend to be the mark of a modest person. We would all be very thankful if you started with the best points and evidence.

 

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.

 

 

Nor do the majority of us care what people on the site think of us. This isn't a popularity contest, it's a science forum. Therefore, we attempt to make our points and use evidence and refrain from extraneous things that don't need to be discussed.

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

 

Even if the stereotypes aren't necessarily wrong a lot of the time doesn't mean you should begin with the assumption it is true for this sample. If I went through life treating all black people as if they're thieves because it's a racial stereotype I probably wouldn't be a very pleasant person.

[PsychGirl]

 

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.

 

 

Allow me to respond to your questions sequentially.

 

 

 

1. In regard to lower numbers of men than women on campus:

 

There actually is some research validating that there are more women graduating from college, and holding graduate degrees, than men.

 

Here is a link to a govenment study, including the statistics on lower percentages of males than females aspiring to college.

 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012046.pdf

 

Here is a scholarly report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, from 2006, discussing this same issue.

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12139

 

 

My own views as to why this is are probably varied across several paradigms of thought. Economically, I believe women are driven more to take care of themselves and their children, and more women/mothers are single -- either through divorce or through postponing marriage -- than previous generations. Rather than viewing men as the providers, I believe today's women view themselves as their own providers. I know I personally would not wish to entrust my financial wellbeing and future blindly to someone else.

 

Sociologically, it might be that with the advent of more rights and more equality for women in the past 40 years or so that women are trying to take advantage of opportunities previous generations did not have.

 

Another thought, then, is that perhaps men are becoming somewhat demotivated since they no longer bear the entire financial burden of raising a family, as per the 1950's and 1960's. Men born in the 1970's and beyond seem to have no problem with women being the primary providers. Some of these men that I have encountered would have no problem with women being their sole provider.

 

2. how aggressive are men sexually? That is a generalization that is not quite fair to men across the board. Some men are very aggressive and presumptive, others are polite and courteous. I think the venue in which you find men can potentially drive how sexually aggressively they behave. For example, I have noticed that at fighting events, it is not uncommon for fights to break out amongst the spectators. There is evidence that watching fights, and scantily clad women, increases the testosterone of the viewer. Thus, perhaps men in that environment might behave more aggressively than they would in, say, a classroom.

 

Here is a Peer Reviewed article about testosterne changing through the vicarious experience of winning or losing at sporting events.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0031938498001474

 

[/size][/size]

 

Number of sexual partners is known to be correlated with more happiness (including adult actresses interestingly enough) and self esteem. There are a variety of problems with self reports, Here is a pretty good little blog post about it, because of problems with memory, self-esteem issues, etc. It would not be at all difficult to have directly measured the amount of seminal by products in the blood stream to actually quantify the effects. But until then it's kind of a moot point because there are too many confounding variables.

 

Ringer, I looked up the abstract about adult porn actresses, and while the abstract reports that "In terms of psychological characteristics, porn actresses had higher levels of self-esteem, positive feelings, social support, sexual satisfaction, and spirituality compared to the matched group," there are some influential factors missing here.

 

My area of expertise is in personality and motivation. Those who are in the performance industry show higher levels of narcissism when tested for Narcissistic Personality Disorder than do those of the general population. Dr. Drew Pinsky collected data on his celebrity subjects and wrote about this in his recent book. Narcissists automatically have high self esteem. They are not plagued with self-doubt or the need to question their decisions, and they are lacking in a normal empathetic response to others that is one of the hallmarks of NPD. I would need to see more of this study and what the aspects of the control group, but it looks to me as though assumptions were made about self-esteem without consideration of some other heavy variables -- such as personality.

 

 

Here is a scholarly article that notes that "High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex. If anything, high self-esteem fosters experimentation, which may increase early sexual activity or drinking, but in general effects of self-esteem are negligible."

 

http://psi.sagepub.com/content/4/1/1.short

 

Here is a non-scholarly article about actors and the ubiquitous NPD:

 

http://theinneractor.com/100/are-performers-raging-narcissists/

[Miser]

2 things

1.) Please, I thought you would be done with personal attacks by now. It's truly unbecoming if you really want to have progress in a discussion.

2.) You weren't agreeing with me. What you said was in response to Moon's comment and the format made it difficult to follow which parts you were addressing when you posted. In the future when you attempt to insult someone's intelligence, at least make sure your insult has some grain of truth.

 

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.

 

Please show me where you said that, because I went back through the thread and couldn't find it anywhere.

 

"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."

 

Accessibility has a lot to do with your environment. Masturbation in many places is less accessible than the other things due to taboos, religion, privacy, etc. The opiate release from acupuncture is usually associated with the relaxing effects it is said to have, on the same vein placebos release endorphins as well. Massage also releases endorphins, so the extension that relaxation causes release of endorphins is by no means a stretch.

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.

Indeed, I agree I should have been more specific and I apologize for the misunderstanding. But again, these statements weren't only about opiate receptors, but the dopamine reward pathways as well

 

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.

 

It's inaccurate because of a wild variety of reasons. Number of sexual partners is known to be correlated with more happiness (including adult actresses interestingly enough) and self esteem. There are a variety of problems with self reports, Here is a pretty good little blog post about it, because of problems with memory, self-esteem issues, etc. It would not be at all difficult to have directly measured the amount of seminal by products in the blood stream to actually quantify the effects. But until then it's kind of a moot point because there are too many confounding variables.

 

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.

 

 

Allow me to respond to your questions sequentially.

 

 

 

1. In regard to lower numbers of men than women on campus:

 

There actually is some research validating that there are more women graduating from college, and holding graduate degrees, than men.

 

Here is a link to a govenment study, including the statistics on lower percentages of males than females aspiring to college.

 

http://nces.ed.gov/p...012/2012046.pdf

 

Here is a scholarly report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, from 2006, discussing this same issue.

 

http://www.nber.org/papers/w12139

 

 

My own views as to why this is are probably varied across several paradigms of thought. Economically, I believe women are driven more to take care of themselves and their children, and more women/mothers are single -- either through divorce or through postponing marriage -- than previous generations. Rather than viewing men as the providers, I believe today's women view themselves as their own providers. I know I personally would not wish to entrust my financial wellbeing and future blindly to someone else.

 

Sociologically, it might be that with the advent of more rights and more equality for women in the past 40 years or so that women are trying to take advantage of opportunities previous generations did not have.

 

Another thought, then, is that perhaps men are becoming somewhat demotivated since they no longer bear the entire financial burden of raising a family, as per the 1950's and 1960's. Men born in the 1970's and beyond seem to have no problem with women being the primary providers. Some of these men that I have encountered would have no problem with women being their sole provider.

 

2. how aggressive are men sexually? That is a generalization that is not quite fair to men across the board. Some men are very aggressive and presumptive, others are polite and courteous. I think the venue in which you find men can potentially drive how sexually aggressively they behave. For example, I have noticed that at fighting events, it is not uncommon for fights to break out amongst the spectators. There is evidence that watching fights, and scantily clad women, increases the testosterone of the viewer. Thus, perhaps men in that environment might behave more aggressively than they would in, say, a classroom.

 

Here is a Peer Reviewed article about testosterne changing through the vicarious experience of winning or losing at sporting events.

http://www.sciencedi...031938498001474

 

God almighty, has science stripped us away of our humanity. Thanks for your response but I wanted more to talk to the woman more than the scientist.

 

Anyways, I agree with you completely. There is a trend of decline in men due to a variety of reasons ranging from video-games, porn to the disposable nature of males (men are encouraged to take on tasks that risks their lives for the sake of the community). Men are facing difficulties and it's important to address the source of these problems. Relevant to this topic is pornography and whether male sexuality has been directed more toward virtual women, leaving real women starved for sexual attention. It has been found that in a context where the ratio of women outweighs that of men, women are more willing to engage in short-term sexual relationship.

 

In the latter part, I wanted to ask of your experience as a woman on campus. Brainy girls are... something else. Men must fall head-over-heels for you. I dream of meeting a nice girl in graduate school who shares the same passion for science as me. I expect her to talk dirty to me in neuroscience-speak...

Edited November 24, 2012 by Miser

[Ringer]

Ringer, I looked up the abstract about adult porn actresses, and while the abstract reports that "In terms of psychological characteristics, porn actresses had higher levels of self-esteem, positive feelings, social support, sexual satisfaction, and spirituality compared to the matched group," there are some influential factors missing here.

 

My area of expertise is in personality and motivation. Those who are in the performance industry show higher levels of narcissism when tested for Narcissistic Personality Disorder than do those of the general population. Dr. Drew Pinsky collected data on his celebrity subjects and wrote about this in his recent book. Narcissists automatically have high self esteem. They are not plagued with self-doubt or the need to question their decisions, and they are lacking in a normal empathetic response to others that is one of the hallmarks of NPD. I would need to see more of this study and what the aspects of the control group, but it looks to me as though assumptions were made about self-esteem without consideration of some other heavy variables -- such as personality.

 

 

I 100% agree. As with any survey there are a large amount of variables that are not taken into account. Since it is a self report, the problems discussed earlier are also a factor in the problem with this study on both the experiment and control groups. The study was just to point out that there are many factors to take into account when assuming it is specifically semen that is causing groups to be less depressed.

 

Here is a scholarly article that notes that "High self-esteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, or engaging in early sex. If anything, high self-esteem fosters experimentation, which may increase early sexual activity or drinking, but in general effects of self-esteem are negligible."

 

http://psi.sagepub.c...ent/4/1/1.short

 

Here is a non-scholarly article about actors and the ubiquitous NPD:

 

http://theinneractor...ng-narcissists/

 

Indeed, again this goes along with what I was saying about semen not necessarily being causally linked with being happier. The adult actress study also points out that the actresses are more likely than the normal population to experiment with drugs even though their proportion of experiences usually associated with drug abuse was no different than the normal population.

 

 

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.

 

It shouldn't. Everyone has a great many misunderstanding in many, if not all, areas of interest to them. To admit this is, in my opinion, on of the most important traits a scientist can have. I apologize if you believe my remark was insulting, but it truly does seem that you have a misunderstanding in those areas. This does not mean you are unintelligent, any number of things can cause a misunderstanding (and scientists don't tend to be very good at communicating science to a lay-man). My question about your scientific experience wasn't meant to be condescending, in was so I, and others, would know if these misunderstandings relate to inexperience in a certain subject, pop-science articles, or something else.

 

I don't want you to think you hurt my feelings, it's just personal attacks don't help the discussion move in any progressive manner.

 

"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."

 

That does not equal that you can replace the 'thrill of masturbation [with] runner's high'. Certain social activities do release endorphins such as gossiping and laughter, but this supports my assertion that endorphin highs aren't to difficult to get.

 

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."

 

Again, it wasn't meant as an insult. It was speculation based on some of the things you have written or linked to. Social activities are very common in life, we are a social animal. Also not that I retracted my statement that orgasms are equivalent after you gave evidence.

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.

 

Acupuncture isn't supposed to cause pain when the needle is inserted, nor does massage. The placebo release of endorphins was in reference to acupuncture causing placebo like effects, though admittedly it was written rather unclearly.

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?

That is not a question of common sense. If I recall correctly cocaine has a higher dependence/use correlation. I don't have time to look up any papers though.

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.

But saying something is too easy does not equate it with being bad for you.

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.

I don't have values either way. It may or may not have an effect, but until there is sufficient evidence it is necessary to go with the null hypothesis (no difference in treatment).

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.

 

 

Yes, but this is a science minded forum. There are places to casually talk about things, but in areas regarding science, especially when one is making a claim, it is important to discuss the topic in a scientific way. It can be very irritating, and often makes people feel as if they are being attacked, but that is the way science works.

[PsychGirl]

Miser, I will respond to your questions from a personal perspective.

 

I was always top of my class (Valedictorian in High School, 4.0 for both Master's and Doctoral work). I have found that most men do not approach based on an admiration for my intellect. I could probably count on one hand the times that has happened. Once was a fellow Mensa member, so that's kind of expected there, I guess.

 

 

I have also been a professional musician, have studied martial arts and modeled. Many men have approached me based upon my appearance -- not my intellect or academic accomplishments. I am also a licensed massage therapist and have studied the essential oils, and have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, I have yet to have a boyfriend based upon my academic accomplishments.

 

 

I think the pervasiveness of pornography has desensitized men and also women to sex and has objectified women -- remember, most porn is created by men FOR men. The emotional element, or the portrayal of a woman as a person with feelings and needs, is absent. This is a huge turn off to me.

[Miser]

Miser, I will respond to your questions from a personal perspective.

 

I was always top of my class (Valedictorian in High School, 4.0 for both Master's and Doctoral work). I have found that most men do not approach based on an admiration for my intellect. I could probably count on one hand the times that has happened. Once was a fellow Mensa member, so that's kind of expected there, I guess.

 

 

I have also been a professional musician, have studied martial arts and modeled. Many men have approached me based upon my appearance -- not my intellect or academic accomplishments. I am also a licensed massage therapist and have studied the essential oils, and have been published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, I have yet to have a boyfriend based upon my academic accomplishments.

 

 

I think the pervasiveness of pornography has desensitized men and also women to sex and has objectified women -- remember, most porn is created by men FOR men. The emotional element, or the portrayal of a woman as a person with feelings and needs, is absent. This is a huge turn off to me.

 

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.

[PsychGirl]

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.

 

 

You are making assumptions, and you don't even know me. If you want to be a clinical psychologist, you need to listen and ask questions. And if it were true that beauty and success (whatever that might be) engendered happiness, the therapists and psychiatrists in Hollywood would be out of business. And that is not the case.

[swansont]

Seems to me that if one wants to investigate the Gen Jack D. Ripper angle of conserving one's essence and the effect that might have, one might look for studies of men having undergone a vasectomy.

 

Peace On Earth

[PsychGirl]

Seems to me that if one wants to investigate the Gen Jack D. Ripper angle of conserving one's essence and the effect that might have, one might look for studies of men having undergone a vasectomy.

 

Peace On Earth

 

 

That is a really great idea. I just performed an EBSCO database search for articles on vasectomy, but did not see literature related to post operative aggression. I don't know if anyone has thought of that. The peer reviewed articles in the database are mostly about population control (understandably). I did a search looking for results of sterilzation proposals on sexual offenders but did not see any definitive literature there, either.

[Miser]

You are making assumptions, and you don't even know me. If you want to be a clinical psychologist, you need to listen and ask questions. And if it were true that beauty and success (whatever that might be) engendered happiness, the therapists and psychiatrists in Hollywood would be out of business. And that is not the case.

 

Hmmm... interesting response. It was meant to elicit a response regardless of how truth my statement is. In any case, wanna talk about it? =)

 

Seems to me that if one wants to investigate the Gen Jack D. Ripper angle of conserving one's essence and the effect that might have, one might look for studies of men having undergone a vasectomy.

 

Peace On Earth

 

Interesting proposition. I have a feeling that this topic's gonna die soon due to a lack of available research

[DemonMaxwella]

I think that Miser's position have some sense.

http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/01_Endocrine_Response.pdf

 

sorry for posting in old topic

[DubCee]

 

Hmmmmmm guess there was more to it than alot of the skeptics thought...my personal thoughts on this is even though an idea is old and spoke in old timey riddle language that might not make sense under today's terms its validity is worth contemplating.

[Google_sent_me]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU

 

Hmmmmmm guess there was more to it than alot of the skeptics thought...my personal thoughts on this is even though an idea is old and spoke in old timey riddle language that might not make sense under today's terms its validity is worth contemplating.

 

Hello, sorry for the necro but I was goggling this topic and Google sent me here.

I've had problems with my mind for quite some years now and I've decided to give total abstinence a go (Only on my 4th day) I've seen that video and I found it motivating.

I registered here because I saw that there were some who practiced abstinence and hoped this thread could be some sort of lodge if thats ok where we could exchange experiences.

So far I'm holding my fingers crossed for better concentration more energy and a better mood as my condition makes me do nothing with my life.

 

kind regards

Edited August 4, 2013 by Google_sent_me

[Moontanman]

It seems to me the main advantage is that you don't reproduce...

 

The main disadvantage is that you don't reproduce...

[Serefan]

Hi, I was interested in this subject and Google sent me here. I was hoping to find some genuine speculation on the subject.

 

Instead I found a bunch of kids arguing about who was right and who was wrong; with little to no actual useful thought processes in between. It is a shame this thread is one of the top links Google returned to me.

[Ringer]

Hi, I was interested in this subject and Google sent me here. I was hoping to find some genuine speculation on the subject.

 

Instead I found a bunch of kids arguing about who was right and who was wrong; with little to no actual useful thought processes in between. It is a shame this thread is one of the top links Google returned to me.

Odd that that's what you found. Since all the participants that I know an approximate age for are over the age considered to be an adult, as well as fairly educated, I'm not sure what you were looking at.

 

Please clarify what you mean by useful thought, because presenting evidence and discussing the faults/merits of that evidence is what most of this thread was and that is very useful. If you mean everyone agreeing to some idea because it sounds nice when you say useful thought processes you are using a very different definition of useful than I've ever heard.