Wednesday, October 29, 2014

Should We Rethink Orgasm Denial

I came across this article today. Actually I caught a news feed that mentioned it and then found this account online.  A study of over 3000 men across four years found that men having more than 20 sex partners had a 28% reduction in prostate cancer. The authors believed the reduction might be due to the prostate being emptied more frequently and in the process remove carcinogens found in the prostate fluid.

My initial thought had to do with 'where does masturbation enter the equation with those men not having much if any sex'?  I wondered but I haven't read the original research study so I don't know if that variable was considered.

Not to muddy the waters, but waters are never crystal clear - well, they are after you flush the commode - but rarely are things black and white.  The study also monitored 3000+ gay males and found that if that population had more than 20 partners their risk of prostate cancer doubled and increased 500% in one type of cancer.

So the answer to the puzzle is not clear - one group has frequent sex and their risk decreases while another group engages in frequent sex and their risk increases. It makes one wonder if one should rethink orgasm denial. But if you live in the US and can't wait to vote for your favorite political candidate in another week - if for no other reason than to finally not have to listen to any more political commercials that distort statistics for the ignorant that listen - then you know that one study proves nothing and that statistics can be interpreted in more than one way.

I'm Hers

PS. 
Here is a link to the scholarly abstract 
And here is a link to an article a bit more academic than the 'askmen.com I want to arouse your curiosity' article above. 

20 comments:

  1. Funny, I was/am intending to write about this too. I don't really see the difference between having lots of sex with one partner and having 20 partners though...sensational headlines aside.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do hope you write on this topic. Please do!

      Delete
  2. And what about priests? And let's put aside the wise cracks we can make here. And of course, what about the Pope? One presumes that he does not even masturbate like us mere mortals. But of course the rate of papal cancer does not a reliable statistics make.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EDAS..... I'm staying away from Religion and Politics in my responses. I'm not into offending any more readers than necessary.

      I'm sure there are a ton of unconsidered variables to solving this puzzle.

      Delete
    2. No, this is not getting into religion. It is just that priests (who are celibate) would constitue a sound study group. There are certainly over 100,000 priests in the whole world. How many die from prostate cancer? Is their rate of prostate cancer higher than in the rest of the population? These are legitimate scientific questions, i.e. such questions have nothing to do with religion or politics -- just plain science.

      So... do more priests die of prostate cancer than non-priests? It is strange that the scientific community has not looked into this kind ready-made study group.

      Delete
    3. EDAS, I like your thought process and I wonder why they are not singled out as such a unique group as well.

      Delete
    4. I was just thinking right now that monks in general, for instance Buddhist monks, though less numerous than Catholic priests, would also constitue an ideal study group. Do more Buddhist monks die of prostate cancer than the average male?

      All one has to do is to ask for the death certificates (presuming that autopsies were performed by trained medical personnel).

      I find the question you raise here very important (Should we rethink chastity?) because I am into chastity too. I have not ejaculated in four weeks and I intend to remain chaste for another several months -- though I do engage in sexual activities with my wife, including penetration (it's just that I refrain from coming when I do penetrate her).

      Thanks ever so much.

      Delete
  3. I think it's a matter of there being another factor that is not accounted for that is linked to both prostate cancer rates and sex partners/ejaculation/etc.

    For example, it could be something like this: men who have more sexual partners have lower chance of prostate cancer. However, men who have more sexual partners take care of their bodies more (eating healthy/exercising/etc.), which makes them more attractive and also lowers their risk st the same time.

    A comment to your readers: careful clicking on the link above. I got a weird "YOU'VE GOT A VIRUS!!!!" message, which I highly doubt is true, but it asks to click to start the virus scanning process (obviously a bad idea).

    You might wanna check that link again, or remove it entirely. I'd hate for someone to get a SBTD (sex blog transmitted disease) from your site!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Monkey in the Cage. I tried the link and it worked fine without getting any 'I've got a Virus' popup.

      Maybe guys that have more sex are better looking, have better personalities, are richer, or, or, or..... I mean, who knows why.
      I think we have no clue as to why they got the results they did - and it seems they don't either.

      Delete
  4. Excellent post my friend. I'm going with the notion that orgasm denial (ejaculation denial more specifically) does not increase one's chance of getting prostate cancer. That being said, if there is evidence that consistently emptying the prostate is beneficial, I'll be sure to get that information to Mistress K. immediately. Better safe than sorry I always say.

    Not to be picky, but don't we all know that emptying the prostate and orgasms are only one in the same if it is the intention of one's Mistress? After all, orgasm denial can still be one of the anchor points of an FLM while the submissive husband's prostate is emptied on a consistent basis. For me, of course, this would be a best case scenario. he he

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sub Hub, you make me smile. Your first sentence..... "I'm going with the notion............" I am glad you went with that notion and not another or I would have had a bad day. I mean, I'm trusting you have infinite wisdom in prostate health and physiology when you say such things. And in that line, I'm going with the notion that the Oakland Raiders will win the Super Bowl LOL. Anyone else got any notions?

      Seriously, who knows why they got the results they got. If you read the bottom links I just added, the researchers have no clue either.

      Delete
    2. You slay me IH! Given the fact that when I am allowed to actually ejaculate, I will always ask for ruined orgasm. Mistress has conditioned me that way. I crave that constant state of arousal. If the research were to actuall conclude that more frequent ejaculations is the healthy way to go, that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world but I doubt very seriously if I'd be able (or be required to) have more orgasms. I could envision a recurring ritual where this sub hub would be required to self milk in order to stay healthy. Oh, what a wonderful world that would be.

      Once question for you my friend, does require that you sometimes or always consume your ejaculate?

      Thanks for being around brother!

      Delete
  5. This is really funny. Someone doing a study on prostate cancer and maybe being caused by not enough climaxes. I feel someone doing a study like that has too much time on their hands and need a real job. I'm not going to worry that if R does not give me a release for a month that I'll get cancer or if she makes me cum three times a day I'll get cancer or if she pegs me three times a day I'll get cancer. This was well written I just don't believe in so many of the study's that are done.
    archedone

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not to down play the humor you see in all this, some answers have been discovered by doing the most odd studies, or looking in places no one would have ever imagined - like stopping infections by eating moldy bread.... the birth of penicillin. And check out this article.... who would have thought of putting a tooth into an eye
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197256/Blind-man-sees-wife-time-having-TOOTH-implanted-eye.html

      Who knows where the next helpful discovery will come from?

      Delete
  6. I agree with monkeyinacage in that there is probably some correlation to some other factor (she suggests healthier lifestyle) that could explain it, from a statistical point of view.

    Intuitively, I think it makes sense that more ejaculations could lead to less prostate cancer risk. Since I have not been ejaculating much lately, perhaps I should do something about it...

    Ha! Certainly when I was younger, I took matters into my own hands as much as the next guy. I probably come 1-2 times per month. I would like to get more into ruined orgasms, as my wife has enjoyed doing that to me, and I think that is what is needed... flush the gland out, not necessarily the pleasure that is needed. We shall see...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hi I'm Hers,
    A very interesting post, personally I have always worried a little about chastity over a long period. I have up to now remained quite on the subject for fear of upsetting folks, I fully understand that it is an emotive issue for some people. My guess, and it is only a guess is that the odds of prostate cancer increase with orgasm denial. But if you think some people will tell you eating red meat will give you cancer, others will tell you eating one portion of red meat a week is fine. Personally I always think everything in moderation. In the end if it works for you and you have done all the research possible, as an adult you can make your own life choices. I don't smoke but if others do and it doesn't imping on my space I'm cool with it. Have a great week.
    m

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I will admit, when I read studies such as this it does make me wonder. It makes me wonder if there might be a grain or lump of truth in the research.

      All I know is that our bodies are complex organisms-far more complex then I understand. I hope that denial does not produce risk factors that we cannot four. Maybe your advice is what should be followed… moderation.

      Delete
  8. The original assertion along the lines that orgasms were necessary kind of fitted into the way society is at the moment. You know we basically legitimise the "need" for men to have sex so that we then tell teenagers its OK to masturbate. We popularise multiple partners and so on.

    I have heard mention in medical news type programs that they do not in fact think that the relationship actually exists. It sounds to me like the cause and effect is so indistinct as to be irrelevant.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'm a bit late to the party, but just saw this post. Since one of my hot button issues is social science and statistics, I can't seem to pass it up.

    The first thing I'd say is that "correlation does not imply causation." Just the fact that two things can be shown to have a statistical correlation does not ever mean that one causes the other. Case in point: The number of civil engineering doctorates awarded in the US correlates with the per capita consumption of mozzerella cheese (http://www.tylervigen.com/). I'd say the idea that multiple partners results in any protection from any sort of cancer is as valid as that one.

    We are looking at self-reported number of sex partners - and we know guys never lie about that, right? Riiiiiiiiight.

    The study author believes that number of partners is a proxy for how often a guy orgasms. That's a good assumption, right? Guys never masturbate, right? A guy who has sex twice a week with the same woman for six months has obviously orgasmed less than the guy who manages to convince six women in six months to have sex with him one time, right?

    I think the study is important to use as a stepping stone for future studies, but by itself it's garbage.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Late is better than never Tomio and I always welcome your input. I do agree that this study doesn't seem to hold water - or as you put it - is pure garbage but I thought it be interesting for others to read. I remember in the past - before chastity or shortly after I became a 'mostly' locked man, that I explored on Google Scholar and found little to nothing on the topic. To me it doesn't make sense that denial harms a man's prostate. Any excess is eliminated via urine, self milking during bowel movements or nocturnal emissions. I'm sure we were designed by our creator to have that one figured out.

      Love to read your thoughts. Enjoy your V-day!

      Delete