65 days without ejaculating

The older I get the more I see religion as a weakness of humanity. We kill each other in the name of God. We do/don’t in the the name of God even though it makes no sense whatsoever. Don’t cum because it is against God? WTF???? Why doesn’t God just show up and say this is how it is instead of all this guesswork?

John,

Hit your enter button a couple of times whenever you want a new paragraph.

See?

Pretty easy to do and it makes reading a post a hell of a lot easier.

Jason great point.

I think most people that study religion look at the point at which you considered a fetus/embryo to have a soul. I do not think sperm is really considered? Just think one in two million sperm become a life in a successful copulation? With that reasoning you should never come.

How about we have two commandments and stop everything else…

1. Love god.
2. Love thy neighbor as yourself.

I do not see any reason to kill anyone in those commandments.

What if god loves your neighbour more than you?

I think religion is invented by human beings to explain things that they cannot explain. How can prove the existence of this so-called God, or whatever you call it? It just simply cannot be proven and cannot be seen. If this is not organized superstitution, what is it? It is fine if you want to believe in it, just like some people believe that pigs can fly, but please do not impose it on others.

Thanks thunder.

You know I honestly think this will be a great Porn movie title (maybe alter the numbers a little). Sort of like the non-porn movie 40 days and 40 nights. The plot is forming now :-k

Zane, we’ve been through this. You have no proof for that assertion of damage. It is simply your opinion, and it comes off as alarmist - just as far off as the nuts at the other extreme.

It’s fine and good that you believe men should ejaculate, and often. But his pee-pee won’t shrivel and die, women the world over will not be starved for his pent up sexual energy, and his man goo won’t flow backward to his rectum and make him gay. There’s nothing wrong with abstinence in the least from a physical standpoint.

True. None of those things will happen.

Here, though, are just one link among many reputable studies which suggest other outcomes to prolongued abstinence.

http://www.pros … org/mastur.html

Note that increased frequency of ejaculation corresponds with decreased risk of prostate cancer later in life.

We’ve already been through this as well - the exact article, in fact. The study deals with the "Role of ejaculation in the treatment of chronic non-bacterial prostatitis." A swollen prostate, in other words. This is a treatment for something which normal healthy people do not exhibit, and as such, cannot be taken as proof for outcome in otherwise healthy patients. The very fact that the patient base has a swollen prostate is the issue. If they didn’t, would the doctor have prescribed ejaculation as a treatment for the otherwise healthy population?

Yes, there are things we can take from studies that we can draw the next theory with. But to take it to the extreme and suggest that a person abstaining for two months is doing harm to their body is just stupid. The body has methods to dispose of unused swimmers. To suggest that harm is done is not based in reality or science, though possibly in new-age stuff. And for every "study on ejaculation shows reduced cancer", there’s a "cancer caused by kissing" waiting in the wings. The long and short is that there isn’t much real evidence on the subject, and to present it as such in favor of one’s own opinion is short sighted. Don’t get married to a theory. Doing so sets you up to use evidence rather than follow it. Take what we learn from the article, apply it to the population in question, and benefit. Don’t make it more than it is.

I’m the son of a physics professor. I’m skeptical by nature, and I’ve seen the ins and outs of politics + funding, and I know that the sum of the two is not pure results. I’m really leery of seeing things labelled as fact that are not. Given Zane’s standing as an author on sexual function, she should be careful in what she says. She’s welcome to the opinion she has, but should be prepared to back it up with real evidence rather than conjecture. Warning people that they could be doing harm to themselves by abstinence is pretty far off base.

Note that I’m not saying that ejaculation is not healthy - it very clearly is a healthy pursuit. But the lack of it won’t give you even so much as the cooties.

That would be some cum shot at the end lol