Benefits and Drawbacks of Sexual Abstinence

[Miser]

Great approach there, champ. You have no idea who I am as a man nor what I do with my life nor all of the beauty and people in it, but none of that matters anyway. Personal insults are the last refuge of the intellectual coward and of those who have no quality arguments to make. It's perhaps no surprise that you began insulting people from the start.

 

Its not an intellectual refuge as you said, but a personal grudge toward your manner of speaking. Let's drop this and go back to the discussion. I'm still waiting for your summary

 

And for the last time, I added that my words were meant as a sweeping generalization. I don't know how people manage to miss that in its entirety.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Miser

[hypervalent_iodine]

Why don't you sum it up for me so I know you read it instead of doing a quick google search. Women don't need orgasms to reproduce successfully. I won't comment further until you do.

 

You are quite a loser. I want you to think about how your life went wrong, get out of your house and do something worthwhile instead of being an anonymous asshole on the science forums

 

!

Moderator Note

Miser, once again I remind you that posts such as these are not acceptable. If you can't respond to people without insulting them, perhaps it's best you don't post. If you continue to ignore the warnings given to you, you will be suspended from posting.

 

[Miser]

!

Moderator Note

Miser, once again I remind you that posts such as these are not acceptable. If you can't respond to people without insulting them, perhaps it's best you don't post. If you continue to ignore the warnings given to you, you will be suspended from posting.

 

 

In my defense, he assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about. Should one not be accountable for how one goes about their way of talking with people? I merely reciprocated his assault with mine. Every comment that he makes is filled with rage and contempt, is it not fair for me to rebut emotionally as well as intellectually?

 

The fact is I've been reading on this subject but he has given me no grounds to respond to the topic. All he did was to assume that I've no understanding, that I'm ignorant and that I don't know what I'm talking about. These are assaults too

 

The point I want to focus on though is that the issue of female orgasm is not so black and white as you think. Give me a point to talk about and I'll show you why it is so.

Edited November 22, 2012 by Miser

[hypervalent_iodine]

In my defense, he assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about. Should one not be accountable for how one goes about their way of talking with people? I merely reciprocated his assault with mine. Every comment that he makes is filled with rage and contempt, is it not fair for me to rebut emotionally as well as intellectually?

 

!

Moderator Note

If you believe that someone has violated the forum rules, you are encouraged to report it. Personally, I don't see anything except maybe a little hostility, but that's neither a breach of forum rules nor is it really unexpected given how this thread has panned out. Regardless, one person's perceived indiscretion does not excuse your own poor behavior.

 

Please do not continue to derail this topic by responding to modnotes in the thread. If you wish to discuss it, please use the report feature or PM a member of staff.

[Miser]

Still waiting for the summary

[zapatos]

It's a shame you are just waiting around with a chip on your shoulder instead of responding to the content in the link. It was a very good article. If you are confident that iNow's comments are wrong it should be easy enough to counter his evidence and arguments.

 

And for the last time, I added that my words were meant as a sweeping generalization. I don't know how people manage to miss that in its entirety.

Acknowledging that what you said is stupid does not excuse it, if you you knew it was stupid before you said it. A simple apology would probably have been more appropriate, and would have gone a long way to keep things civil.

[John Cuthber]

In my defense, he assumed that I didn't know what I was talking about.

That's not an assumption, it's an observation.

 

If there was any doubt about it you removed that by saying "It is a question that evolution gives inadequate explanations because all the claims that's made on the basis of evolution doesn't account for its existence satisfactorily."

[iNow]

Still waiting for the summary

You mean kinda like we've been waiting since the very first page of this thread for you to define "male essence" and explain what device can be used to measure changes to it?

[Moontanman]

Miser I have tried to take your thread seriously, yes i made fun of you at the beginning due to the fact that your assertions were based on old wives tales and urban legends.

 

You are correct in that studies of the effects of ejaculation seem to be few but after i saw you were serious i provided links that gave real information about the content of semen, These links, had you bothered to read them, would have shown you that semen is a trivial drain on the body.

 

As far as mental effects go doing with out sex causes, me at least, to spend more and more time thinking about sex. My best writings have come to me after a couple of hours engaged in sex.

 

your entire premise is based on urban legends, myths, and old wives tales. Our society is immersed in religion that takes a dim view of any sexual activity that doesn't result in a baby. Yes i understand that not all religious sects have this specific problem but our culture as a whole makes fun of any one who masturbates or admits to it.

 

My grandfather told me that when it comes to masturbation there are two groups of people those who masturbate and those who lie about it.

 

So far you have not provided any credible evidence that masturbation is a bad thing, your assertion that is takes up valuable time that could be spent doing something important is simply a gross exaggeration.

 

Masturbation relieves sexual tension, this is true in both men and women, how often you do it is something you are in control of, your hand never has anything better to do and it doesn't get headaches.

 

masturbation has many good side effects, you can use it to control your own sexual urges and teach your self how to control your orgasms which can make you a better lover.

 

So far you have provided nothing to make me think that masturbation is bad for you, so far all you have are rumors and myths against masturbation based on ancient tales that glorify a mans semen.

 

If you want to go about this scientifically I suggest you stop looking to show masturbation is bad and simply research the effects of masturbation. Go into it with a neutral view point, setting out to prove something you want to be true is not science.

 

In just a cursory search i found lots of info on semen, it's content, how it's made, and many other details about semen. If you had bothered to even google this you would have come up with the same info. I personally get the idea that you are doing nothing but trying to support your own phobia against masturbation, possibly ingrained in you from a religious up bringing or shame and guilt from some other outside source.

 

I know it' seems like something I would say because i am atheist, but it leans more toward my views on personal responsibility. As long as you are not hurting someone else then I see no reason why you shouldn't do it but do some research, i was unable to find any credible source that indicated that masturbation was bad for you at all. I found a few interesting entries on how semen is good for women to ingest orally and vaginally but those articles were undoubtedly written by men.

[Miser]

You mean kinda like we've been waiting since the very first page of this thread for you to define "male essence" and explain what device can be used to measure changes to it?

 

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.

 

Miser I have tried to take your thread seriously, yes i made fun of you at the beginning due to the fact that your assertions were based on old wives tales and urban legends.

 

You are correct in that studies of the effects of ejaculation seem to be few but after i saw you were serious i provided links that gave real information about the content of semen, These links, had you bothered to read them, would have shown you that semen is a trivial drain on the body.

 

As far as mental effects go doing with out sex causes, me at least, to spend more and more time thinking about sex. My best writings have come to me after a couple of hours engaged in sex.

 

your entire premise is based on urban legends, myths, and old wives tales. Our society is immersed in religion that takes a dim view of any sexual activity that doesn't result in a baby. Yes i understand that not all religious sects have this specific problem but our culture as a whole makes fun of any one who masturbates or admits to it.

 

My grandfather told me that when it comes to masturbation there are two groups of people those who masturbate and those who lie about it.

 

So far you have not provided any credible evidence that masturbation is a bad thing, your assertion that is takes up valuable time that could be spent doing something important is simply a gross exaggeration.

 

Masturbation relieves sexual tension, this is true in both men and women, how often you do it is something you are in control of, your hand never has anything better to do and it doesn't get headaches.

 

masturbation has many good side effects, you can use it to control your own sexual urges and teach your self how to control your orgasms which can make you a better lover.

 

So far you have provided nothing to make me think that masturbation is bad for you, so far all you have are rumors and myths against masturbation based on ancient tales that glorify a mans semen.

 

If you want to go about this scientifically I suggest you stop looking to show masturbation is bad and simply research the effects of masturbation. Go into it with a neutral view point, setting out to prove something you want to be true is not science.

 

In just a cursory search i found lots of info on semen, it's content, how it's made, and many other details about semen. If you had bothered to even google this you would have come up with the same info. I personally get the idea that you are doing nothing but trying to support your own phobia against masturbation, possibly ingrained in you from a religious up bringing or shame and guilt from some other outside source.

 

I know it' seems like something I would say because i am atheist, but it leans more toward my views on personal responsibility. As long as you are not hurting someone else then I see no reason why you shouldn't do it but do some research, i was unable to find any credible source that indicated that masturbation was bad for you at all. I found a few interesting entries on how semen is good for women to ingest orally and vaginally but those articles were undoubtedly written by men.

 

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"

Edited November 23, 2012 by Miser

[iNow]

There's simply no way to quantify that right now.

But you're the one who asserted that there is a decrease in a "male's essence" when he masturbates. How can it both be unquantifiable (per your claim here just now) and simultaneously be known with a great enough degree of accuracy for you to make claims that it decreases when men masturbate (like you did just a day or two ago)?

[Ringer]

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.

 

AKA there is no reason to bring it up in scientific discussions.

 

 

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.

 

How does it demonstrably reduce aggression against non-consenting females? Rape doesn't tend to be an act of sex, but an act of aggression.

 

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.

 

May I ask what your background in science is? I don't mean this to sound like I'm being demeaning, but you seem to have large misunderstandings of psychology, evolution, pharmacology, neuroscience, etc.

 

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.

 

Can you cite sources that there is a difference in reaction to orgasm when one has one with or without a partner?

 

[quote[

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.

 

No one has disagreed that ejaculation causes those chemicals to be released. As I've said (three times I believe) the argument is meaningless because it extends to virtually everything people do that feels good (including eating).

 

The list you've given isn't an exhaustive list of the content of semen. I've also provided you with a link previously.

 

And that link was riddled with inaccuracies and fallacies.

 

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.

 

Cite your sources to show it is the semen, not the act of sex. Note that having chemicals that have anti-depressant properties doesn't work unless you have an efficient method to absorb those chemicals.

 

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 could point out quite a few errors in that page (spelling hypothylamus as 'hipothylamus' . . . really?) but just from your snippet I could tell you that that 'vagal nerves' is the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X) which is not involved in ejaculation, unless you ejaculate when eating, the hormones mentioned do not interact with those nerves, etc. Actually cite papers, not crap websites that are trying to sell products.

 

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"

 

Again, this is not part of a scientific discussion. Leave the preaching and appeals to authority at the door.

[Miser]

But you're the one who asserted that there is a decrease in a "male's essence" when he masturbates. How can it both be unquantifiable (per your claim here just now) and simultaneously be known with a great enough degree of accuracy for you to make claims that it decreases when men masturbate (like you did just a day or two ago)?

 

Essence can mean a number of things because it is used in the context of philosophical discourse. Essence can be nutritive, or hormonal.

 

AKA there is no reason to bring it up in scientific discussions.

 

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.

 

How does it demonstrably reduce aggression against non-consenting females? Rape doesn't tend to be an act of sex, but an act of aggression.

 

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.

 

May I ask what your background in science is? I don't mean this to sound like I'm being demeaning, but you seem to have large misunderstandings of psychology, evolution, pharmacology, neuroscience, etc.

 

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.

 

Can you cite sources that there is a difference in reaction to orgasm when one has one with or without a partner?

 

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."

 

And that link was riddled with inaccuracies and fallacies.

Fallacies such as...?

 

I could point out quite a few errors in that page (spelling hypothylamus as 'hipothylamus' . . . really?) but just from your snippet I could tell you that that 'vagal nerves' is the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X) which is not involved in ejaculation, unless you ejaculate when eating, the hormones mentioned do not interact with those nerves, etc. Actually cite papers, not crap websites that are trying to sell products.

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.

No one has disagreed that ejaculation causes those chemicals to be released. As I've said (three times I believe) the argument is meaningless because it extends to virtually everything people do that feels good (including eating).

If you think eating gives you an opiate high then I don't know what else to say...

 

Cite your sources to show it is the semen, not the act of sex. Note that having chemicals that have anti-depressant properties doesn't work unless you have an efficient method to absorb those chemicals.

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

Edited November 23, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

Or the word "essence" can be meaningless when it's used to peddle pseudo-religious twaddle.

 

Once you tidy up the format of your last post, I might reply to the rest of it.

[Miser]

Or the word "essence" can be meaningless when it's used to peddle pseudo-religious twaddle.

 

Once you tidy up the format of your last post, I might reply to the rest of it.

 

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

Edited November 23, 2012 by Miser

[PeterJ]

I'm on Miser's side. He has not made any silly claims that I noticed but has sometimes repeated the claims of others. He himself has said there is not enough research. Some people just seem to want to ruin threads for the sake of it. We can't accuse someone of not being able to produce evidence when they're arguing that there isn't enough of it. Why the attacks? Why can't we discuss the issues instead?

 

We do not have to distinguish between real sex and masturbation to address the OPs question. That would be a different discussion. Here they can be lumped together and constrasted with abstinence.

Edited November 23, 2012 by PeterJ

[Miser]

I'm on Miser's side. He has not made any silly claims that I noticed but has sometimes repeated the claims of others. He himself has said there is not enough research. Some people just seem to want to ruin threads for the sake of it. We can't accuse someone of not being able to produce evidence when they're arguing that there isn't enough of it. Why the attacks? Why can't we discuss the issues instead?

 

We do not have to distinguish between real sex and masturbation to address the OPs question. That would be a different discussion. Here they can be lumped together and constrasted with abstinence.

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.

[John Cuthber]

 

We do not have to distinguish between real sex and masturbation to address the OPs question. That would be a different discussion. Here they can be lumped together and constrasted with abstinence.

OK, lets' not distinguish.

In that case evolution can't help but seek to remove any link between sex and anything bad happening to the body. (because it can't select against sex per se)

It's had plenty of time to do this.

You now need to explain why it hasn't.

 

(and, incidentally, he has made plenty of silly claims such as

" These are accepted variants of the spelling" or

"I have provided many sources though much of it are anecdotal and religious, Buddhist to be exact, some are based on science. ")

[Miser]

OK, lets' not distinguish.

In that case evolution can't help but seek to remove any link between sex and anything bad happening to the body. (because it can't select against sex per se)

It's had plenty of time to do this.

You now need to explain why it hasn't.

 

(and, incidentally, he has made plenty of silly claims such as

" These are accepted variants of the spelling" or

"I have provided many sources though much of it are anecdotal and religious, Buddhist to be exact, some are based on science. ")

 

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!

Edited November 23, 2012 by Miser

[Ringer]

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

 

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.

 

 

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."

 

Great, I'm glad they cite their sources. I retract the claim masturbation and intercourse are equal, I was mistaken

 

On the downside, I'm unsure of how the excess release of prolactin has to do with masturbation being bad. All that means is that you will be more sexually satisfied after intercourse in comparison to masturbation. Interestingly enough, excessive prolactin tends to coincide with ED.

 

Fallacies such as...?

 

The false equivalence fallacy of blood and semen for example.

 

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.

 

Not that I've ever seen, hypothalamus means under the thalamus. I have never seen hipo used in it's place. Especially since they spell it correctly two paragraphs later.

 

They're not selling things? What's this then? http://cure-erectile...on.org/products

 

 

If you think eating gives you an opiate high then I don't know what else to say...

Spicy foods,, as well as relaxing after the act of eating, cause the release of endorphines, so you could say, 'You are correct, good sir. I wish you a merry day'.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

[edit] Here's the study if anyone's curious

http://www.beforeyoutakethatpill.com/2011/4/Gordon_2002.pdf [/edit]

Edited November 23, 2012 by Ringer

[PeterJ]

I think maybe Miser is heavy-handed, but he is not claiming much. It would be extraordinary of it made no difference to a person whether he or she indulged moderately, immoderately or not at all in sex. In fact it would beggar belief. There is always a trade-off. I have no idea what the effects might be but it's interesting to wonder. It is a strictly scientific question if we stick to physiological effects.

 

 

OK, lets' not distinguish.

In that case evolution can't help but seek to remove any link between sex and anything bad happening to the body. (because it can't select against sex per se)

It's had plenty of time to do this.

You now need to explain why it hasn't.

Do I? I was pointing out the the question was about abstinence as contrasted with sex of any kind, and so the type of sex was a side issue.

 

But as you ask I think it is not to do with evolution. We have evolved to be efficient at having sex, and seem to be improving all the time. We have also evolved to be good runners. Yet we know that both over-indulgence and under-indulgence in running may cause health problems. It seems sensible to wonder what they are in the case of sex.

 

(and, incidentally, he has made plenty of silly claims such as

" These are accepted variants of the spelling" or

"I have provided many sources though much of it are anecdotal and religious, Buddhist to be exact, some are based on science. ")

Maybe Miser does push his luck sometimes. But what is silly about these two statements? They seem perfectly sensible to me.

[zapatos]

I shouldn't of showed them so much weakness by admitting modestly that there isn't enough science to substantiate my claims.

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..., was but a generalization..., etc.) is also unseemly.

 

Once again, i appreciate your fair-minded comment, everyone including the moderator thinks i'm a religious nit-wit while i'm anything but.

Is this another one of your "underahieving-internet-dweller generalization"'s?

[Miser]

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

Edited November 24, 2012 by Miser

[John Cuthber]

 

Do I?

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

Edited November 24, 2012 by John Cuthber

[Miser]

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

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.