Post Orgasmic Illness Syndrome

[Kunstruct]

Have you guys measured your prolactin ever after ejaculation? And after not ejaculating 48hours?
On this forum the most talkative people tend to do the least possible of tests, usually claiming they got no money, yet prolactin is cheap so far and supplements costs more than such test.

 

[lampofred]

Why are the effects of self induced orgasm so awful versus sexually induced orgasm ? I notice a significant difference in me between the 2.....

Because masturbation is selfish, whereas in sex you are giving up your semen as a sacrifice for the female's pleasure...

 

[Kunstruct]

Because masturbation is selfish, whereas in sex you are giving up your semen as a sacrifice for the female's pleasure...

 

[redsun]

I would argue that the short-term negatives of an orgasm are actually longer than the short term benefits of an orgasm: whereas an ejaculation-induced relaxation will diminish in a few hours, prolactin will continue to be released in gradually lessening bursts for the next few days. In addition, various other metabolic processes are called in aid to replace what was lost through the expulsion of semen. The metabolic-hormonal system of someone who is ejaculating several times a week would therefore never be in a fully recovered state.

Complete utter bull****.

It is good to keep in mind that an experience can have an overall anti-metabolic effect regardless of its temporary stress-lowering properties. To give a hyperbolic example, IV'ing heroin has systemic stress lowering benefits. Yet would it be fair to call heroin pro-metabolic due to this fact alone?

Humans are designed for and meant to partake in sexual activity, no one will argue against this. Humans are not meant to take drugs. Where it is a hyperbolic example or not, it is a braindead attempt to equate orgasm to drugs. This is exactly what religious nuts want you to believe of course.

Sounds fair to me: the man with the stronger health would have quicker recovery from any kind of abuse you put him through. However...

avoiding a negative action because your state of health makes it even more negative could not be called "circumventing the problem", because in reality, there would be two separate problems: the negative action in itself, and your heightened response to it. While we agree that exquisite state of health can lower the consequences of harmful actions to seemingly imperceptible levels, it doesn't transform the fundamental nature of the action. "Getting away" with something is not equal to "doing good".


Negativity is contextual. There are contextually proper and improper consequences to an action. Ejaculation relaxes the body and makes you content. I am sure you can come up with many situations in which relaxation and contentment is the opposite of what you want to summon.

Moreover, reproduction is the prime purpose of the body. Your genes want you to reproduce, even at the price of your own health, because the genes are more precious than the individual carrying them. Your body of course does all it can to recover from ejaculation, but viewing a liberal expulsion of energy & nutrients as a net gain to the body is an unscientific and nonsensical point of view.

I think this is more about how you have chosen to perceive me, than what I have chosen to represent in this thread. I have no religious idols, nor do I argue from a religious framework, but an empirical, anecdotal and scientific one.

Again this goes back to your peak religious stupidity that makes you think orgasm, ejaculation is or could be a harmful act. You really believe this deep down too, which makes this ***t even more hilarious.

I think this is more about how you have chosen to perceive me, than what I have chosen to represent in this thread. I have no religious idols, nor do I argue from a religious framework, but an empirical, anecdotal and scientific one.

The first post in this thread you made is a bunch of spiritual vomit. Are you confused? Is your memory that short? Clearly it is, otherwise you would not question why I think you are a religious quack. So much for those purported mental benefits of abstinence. You seem to be developing dementia.

 

[LUH 3417]

What about all the people that are pro athletes and live a lot?

What about the ones that have heart attacks at 50? I don’t believe you are born with a meter for breaths. Was just quoting an ancient Indian religious belief.

 

[TheSir]

Where it is a hyperbolic example or not, it is a braindead attempt to equate orgasm to drugs. This is exactly what religious nuts want you to believe of course.

Redsun is creating strawmen (which redsun is quite adept at!). I am not equating orgasm to drugs. @Homo Consumericus argued that orgasm must be pro-metabolic due to having anti-stress properties. I countered that an action having anti-stress properties does not mean much in itself, since even heroin has anti-stress properties -- as do most pleasurable-yet-not-healthy activities one can partake in. The fundamental reason we partake in anti-stress activities is that we are stressed and seeking relief, not because those activities would fix the source of our stress. So then, who is at a worse starting point: the one who relieves stress by masturbating, or the one who is not stressed in the first place?

Again this goes back to your peak religious stupidity

You are yet again talking to your idea of me, not the me me. Understandably this creates a frustrating dynamic between us. Talk to me baby.

that makes you think orgasm, ejaculation is or could be a harmful act. You really believe this deep down too, which makes this ***t even more hilarious.

Consider that I have offered you plenty of evidence for why ejaculation could be harmful to wellbeing. Though there is no rational basis for you to completely dismiss this evidence, you do, of course, retain the right to maintain a level of ignorance which brings you the largest amount of comfort.

The first post in this thread you made is a bunch of spiritual vomit. Are you confused? Is your memory that short? Clearly it is, otherwise you would not question why I think you are a religious quack. So much for those purported mental benefits of abstinence. You seem to be developing dementia.

Whence all this tension, my friend, my dear redsun? I have talked very little about spirituality, apart from explaining how different traditions and individuals approach celibacy. Most of what I have brought forth in this thread has strong rational basis. Perhaps you just dislike rationality?

 

[redsun]

Redsun is creating strawmen (which redsun is quite adept at!). I am not equating orgasm to drugs. @Homo Consumericus argued that orgasm must be pro-metabolic due to having anti-stress properties. I countered that an action having anti-stress properties does not mean much in itself, since even heroin has anti-stress properties -- as do most pleasurable-yet-not-healthy activities one can partake in. The fundamental reason we partake in anti-stress activities is that we are stressed and seeking relief, not because those activities would fix the source of our stress. So then, who is at a worse starting point: the one who relieves stress by masturbating, or the one who is not stressed in the first place?

You are yet again talking to your idea of me, not the me me. Understandably this creates a frustrating dynamic between us. Talk to me baby.

Consider that I have offered you plenty of evidence for why ejaculation could be harmful to wellbeing. Though there is no rational basis for you to completely dismiss this evidence, you do, of course, retain the right to maintain a level of ignorance that brings you the largest amount of comfort.

Whence all this tension, my friend, my dear redsun? I have talked very little about spirituality, apart from explaining how different traditions and individuals approach celibacy. Most of what I have brought forth in this thread has strong rational basis.

There is no evidence that ejaculation is harmful. You call the studies you posted evidence? You are a joke lmao. Your pre-existing religious beliefs are the issue here. This is why you are so adamant on trying to prove orgasm/masturbation/ejaculation is harmful. You are trying to prove via these jokes you call studies that something humans have been doing since the beginning is harmful.

This is the biggest mistake you could possibly make when having an established belief in your mind and then trying to persuade others to side with you in your delusion. You go against the basic reality of the natural world and you think you could win any sort of argument against someone who is not chained my pre-existing beliefs?

This is not far off from calling breathing, eating and sleeping harmful. Sexual activity of any kind is as human as eating. And yet you are so unbelievably delusional that you think there is truth to your religious belief.

I think you need to lay off all that liver, all that copper will make you religious and/or exacerbate your religious tendencies. It's probably too late as you seem to already have too much copper in the brain.

Let me humor your "studies":

Frequent masturbation lowers testosterone utilization:
https://www.researchgate.net/profil...xual-Satiety-and-Brain-Androgen-Receptors.pdf​

So copulation to satiety reduces androgen receptor density in certain brain regions in rats. Is this supposed to be surprising?

Men who are sexually active in their 20s and 30s are more likely to develop prostate cancer:
Masturbation May Increase Risk of Prostate Cancer | Live Science​

There are men that aren't sexually active in their 20s and 30s? Sorry to hear that.

Three weeks of abstinence increases testostorone levels:
Endocrine response to masturbation-induced orgasm in healthy men following a 3-week sexual abstinence. - PubMed - NCBI
​

Elevation in testosterone from abstinence again is not a surprise. You are really stretching with these trying to say orgasms are harmful. It makes sense you would have higher testosterone which would help drive you to fulfill your sexual needs.

Some men need that extra risk-taking and aggressiveness from abstinence to find a sexual partner. This has nothing to do with orgasm and ejaculation being bad. Your brain is helping you out by making you less of a b**** so you can satisfy your sexual needs. If someone could not both masturbate and find a sex partner(s) then they should deal with that in whatever way helps them personally. Again this study proves nothing about sexual activity being harmful.

Catholic priests have lower prostate cancer mortality due to celibacy:
Prostate cancer mortality among Catholic priests. - PubMed - NCBI
Retrospective cohort mortality study of Roman Catholic priests. - PubMed - NCBI​

I don't know what's more funny, that you think priests are actually celibate, or that you blame this nonexistent celibacy for supposedly less prostate cancer.

Sperm contains compounds that prolong lifespan, fight cancer & heart disease:
Spermidine-rich foods may prevent liver cancer, extend lifespan - Vital Record​

This shows that spermidine-rich foods can be beneficial. Semen is also spermidine rich, so this is great for women who like swallowing. This proves nothing about semen retention being beneficial. Your body makes semen constantly whether you ejaculate or not.

Making sperm shortens lifespan of male worms:
In Worm, at Least, Making Sperm Is Found to Shorten a Male's Life​

Worms? Really? LMFAO. GTFO out of here

 

[Kunstruct]

Most male imago beetles of genus Lucanus die short after copulating or become extremely weak.
This is of course by actual observation.
Certain male imago of genus Dorcus can have their lifespan lengthened across 2 or even 3 years with induced hibernation if you make sure they have not mated, instead of their typical one season life (one summer)

 

[LUH 3417]

Though aptly put, the relevancy of this distinction eludes me. What are you trying to assert?


I would argue that the short-term negatives of an orgasm are actually longer than the short term benefits of an orgasm: whereas an ejaculation-induced relaxation will diminish in a few hours, prolactin will continue to be released in gradually lessening bursts for the next few days. In addition, various other metabolic processes are called in aid to replace what was lost through the expulsion of semen. The metabolic-hormonal system of someone who is ejaculating several times a week would therefore never be in a fully recovered state.


It is good to keep in mind that an experience can have an overall anti-metabolic effect regardless of its temporary stress-lowering properties. To give a hyperbolic example, IV'ing heroin has systemic stress lowering benefits. Yet would it be fair to call heroin pro-metabolic due to this fact alone?

Sounds fair to me: the man with the stronger health would have quicker recovery from any kind of abuse you put him through. However...

avoiding a negative action because your state of health makes it even more negative could not be called "circumventing the problem", because in reality, there would be two separate problems: the negative action in itself, and your heightened response to it. While we agree that exquisite state of health can lower the consequences of harmful actions to seemingly imperceptible levels, it doesn't transform the fundamental nature of the action. "Getting away" with something is not equal to "doing good".

[I hope you didn't mind me cutting your post into so small pieces, there just were so many premises and assumptions that I wanted to address hidden in between the lines.]


Be at ease. I did not intend to use your post as proof of my views. Rather, I tried to acknowledge that others, too, acknowledge the mechanisms I am talking about, even if my interpretation of the consequences of these mechanisms differs.

Negativity is contextual. There are contextually proper and improper consequences to an action. Ejaculation relaxes the body and makes you content. I am sure you can come up with many situations in which relaxation and contentment is the opposite of what you want to summon.

Moreover, reproduction is the prime purpose of the body. Your genes want you to reproduce, even at the price of your own health, because the genes are more precious than the individual carrying them. Your body of course does all it can to recover from ejaculation, but viewing a liberal expulsion of energy & nutrients as a net gain to the body is an unscientific and nonsensical point of view.



I think this is more about how you have chosen to perceive me, than what I have chosen to represent in this thread. I have no religious idols, nor do I argue from a religious framework, but an empirical, anecdotal and scientific one.

That saving money for a house is not analogous to saving energy. The first rule of thermodynamics does not apply to finances. If I sit home from work I get more tired and listless, not more energetic and lively. If I avoid social activities and hide from friends and family in order to conserve energy, I become less sociable. Animals don’t hibernate so that they have more energy in the spring. They hibernate because they have no way of finding enough food to create the immediate energy needed to explore and engage the environment in real time.

 

[TheSir]

There is no evidence that ejaculation is harmful. You call the studies you posted evidence?

Yes, such is the definition of evidence. What I have NOT offered is proof. Evidence is suggestive, proof is conclusive. I hope you understand of the difference.

This is not far off from calling breathing, eating and sleeping harmful. Sexual activity of any kind is as human as eating.

Ah, but breathing, eating and sleeping all do require proper contexts in order not to harm you. Should eating be categorically healthy, you would not be having the pleasure of interacting with me on this peculiar dietary forum.

The biologically proper context for ejaculation is reproduction. Behavior that diverges from this context is harmful to the extent of the divergence. At the most extreme end of such divergence, we have have porn-addicted men, who have masturbated themselves into sickness of mind and body through multiple daily ejaculations. In the shades of the gray in between, we have the occasional masturbators, who experience little to no decrease in the quality of their lives, and possibly even slight increase. And finally, those who live in accordance to the aforementioned context experience anything from mild negatives to life-changing benefits.

I think you need to lay off all that liver, all that copper will make you religious and/or exacerbate your religious tendencies. It's probably too late as you seem to already have too much copper in the brain.

Copperbrain. Lol! I appreciate this banter, redsun. You are not nearly as boring as you pretend to be.

So copulation to satiety reduces androgen receptor density in certain brain regions in rats. Is this supposed to be surprising?

This particular study sheds light on how frequent ejaculations are able to reduce subjectively experienced wellbeing in males, since androgen activity is so deeply tied to quality of life.

There are men that aren't sexually active in their 20s and 30s? Sorry to hear that.

Not a rebuttal.

Some men need that extra risk-taking and aggressiveness from abstinence to find a sexual partner. This has nothing to do with orgasm and ejaculation being bad. Your brain is helping you out by making you less of a b**** so you can satisfy your sexual needs.

This is wild speculation from you. Allow me to offer an equally outrageous idea: instead of abstinence elevating testosterone to supranormal levels, testosterone returns to its ideal, normalized level. It is precisely the constant creation of prolactin surges (which I mentioned earlier) that keeps the levels down.

I don't know what's more funny, that you think priests are actually celibate, or that you blame this nonexistent celibacy for supposedly less prostate cancer.

Not a rebuttal.

This shows that spermidine-rich foods can be beneficial. Semen is also spermidine rich, so this is great for women who like swallowing. This proves nothing about semen retention being beneficial. Your body makes semen constantly whether you ejaculate or not.

Are you aware that the sperm you do not ejaculate is absorbed and the nutrients recycled back into the body? The same compounds, which upon ejaculating into a vagina would result in anti-depressant effects on a woman, are harnessed by your own body. Spermidine, prostaglandins, testosterone and all this excellent stuff your sperm is made of gets put into use (instead of wastefully shot in a sock!).

https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/1297
What happens to sperm that isn't ejaculated?
The intravaginal absorption of male generated hormones and their possible effect on female behaviour. - PubMed - NCBI

Maintaining already full sperm reserves by recycling requires much less from the body than having to create more sperm from new materials all the time. The more you ejaculate, the more you demand from the body, and the better your diet is going to have to be in order to fully recover. This is a simple and undeniable fact.

Worms? Really? LMFAO. GTFO out of here

Not a rebuttal. Of interest, there is not a single male animal whose lifespan is known to lengthen from sex. Many examples of the opposite is known. Feel free to prove me wrong.

That saving money for a house is not analogous to saving energy. The first rule of thermodynamics does not apply to finances. If I sit home from work I get more tired and listless, not more energetic and lively. If I avoid social activities and hide from friends and family in order to conserve energy, I become less sociable.

Though you are using the term "conserving energy", you are not really talking about the same phenomenon. It would be fairer to say that celibacy cultivates energy - to a certain extent at least. Which is exactly what socializing does, too, in your given example.

 

[LUH 3417]

Yes, such is the definition of evidence. What I have NOT offered is proof. Evidence is suggestive, proof is conclusive. I hope you understand of the difference.

Ah, but breathing, eating and sleeping all do require proper contexts in order not to harm you. Should eating be categorically healthy, you would not be having the pleasure of interacting with me on this peculiar dietary forum.

The biologically proper context for ejaculation is reproduction. Behavior that diverges from this context is harmful to the extent of the divergence. At the most extreme end of such divergence, we have have porn-addicted men, who have masturbated themselves into sickness of mind and body through multiple daily ejaculations. In the shades of the gray in between, we have the occasional masturbators, who experience little to no decrease in the quality of their lives, and possibly even slight increase. And finally, those who live in accordance to the aforementioned context experience anything from mild negatives to life-changing benefits.

Copperbrain. Lol! I appreciate this banter, redsun. You are not nearly as boring as you pretend to be.

This particular study sheds light on how frequent ejaculations are able to reduce subjectively experienced wellbeing in males, since androgen activity is so deeply tied to quality of life.

Not a rebuttal.

This is wild speculation from you. Allow me to offer an equally outrageous idea: instead of abstinence elevating testosterone to supranormal levels, testosterone returns to its ideal, normalized level. It is precisely the constant creation of prolactin surges (which I mentioned earlier) that keeps the levels down.

Not a rebuttal.

Are you aware that the sperm you do not ejaculate is absorbed and the nutrients recycled back into the body? The same compounds, which upon ejaculating into a vagina would result in anti-depressant effects on a woman, are harnessed by your own body. Spermidine, prostaglandins, testosterone and all this excellent stuff your sperm is made of gets put into use (instead of wastefully shot in a sock!).

https://www.doh.gov.ph/node/1297
What happens to sperm that isn't ejaculated?
The intravaginal absorption of male generated hormones and their possible effect on female behaviour. - PubMed - NCBI

Maintaining already full sperm reserves by recycling requires much less from the body than having to create more sperm from new materials all the time. The more you ejaculate, the more you demand from the body, and the better your diet is going to have to be in order to fully recover. This is a simple and undeniable fact.

Not a rebuttal. Of interest, there is not a single male animal whose lifespan is known to lengthen from sex. Many examples of the opposite is known. Feel free to prove me wrong.


Though you are using the term "conserving energy", you are not really talking about the same phenomenon. It would be fairer to say that celibacy cultivates energy - to a certain extent at least. Which is exactly what socializing does, too, in your given example.

Interesting that most activities require you to repeat them with increased frequency and greater concentration in order to optimize the energetic quality of said experience, except for, in your opinion, sex.

If I wanted to take up the guitar, would I conserve my manual dexterity and avoid using my fingers in order to cultivate a higher energetic output for when I do actually begin playing the guitar? Cultivating energy and accessing its subtleties is a matter of sensitivity and practice. Why citing examples from history holds any gravity is beyond me. To think that all historical evidence of Leonardo DaVinci’s sex life is completely factual and reliable is naive. Also I doubt anyone was that horny when hot water and daily showers were considered a luxury!

 

[Homo Consumericus]

I would argue that the short-term negatives of an orgasm are actually longer than the short term benefits of an orgasm: whereas an ejaculation-induced relaxation will diminish in a few hours, prolactin will continue to be released in gradually lessening bursts for the next few days. In addition, various other metabolic processes are called in aid to replace what was lost through the expulsion of semen. The metabolic-hormonal system of someone who is ejaculating several times a week would therefore never be in a fully recovered state.

We can argue about this, but you have no model which can prove a net anti-metabolic outcome of orgasm in such a complex system. In liu of a precise model, humans use heuristics to aid decision making. Accordingly, we can consider the history of human sexual activity, consult those in health services, as well as engage anyone who practices consistent consensual coitus, and conclude that orgasm provides a net health benefit.

You examine only select biomarkers over a brief period, and-- like the four blind men who grasped the trunk, tusk, penis, and leg of the elephant respectively-- prefer to draw conclusions about the whole based on a fragment.

It is good to keep in mind that an experience can have an overall anti-metabolic effect regardless of its temporary stress-lowering properties. To give a hyperbolic example, IV'ing heroin has systemic stress lowering benefits. Yet would it be fair to call heroin pro-metabolic due to this fact alone?

Intentionally divisive comparison. And you have gotten distracted with your anti-metabolic sub-argument. I entered this discussion because you implied that ejaculation was generally harmful by posting links allegedly showing lowered testosterone, increased rates of prostate cancer and CVD, and shortened animal lifespan. The testosterone dip is short term, just like with exercise, and rebounds higher in the long term. I highly recommend the missionary position for self-administering a glorious upper body pump while delivering to your missus a lower body pump. Regarding CVD, the outcomes are positive for all demographics except old men in some studies. The shortened animal lifespan is, as you understand, less relevant, but there is one study of males showing a 50% mortality risk reduction in the highest orgasm frequency cohort. Regarding prostate cancer (the issue with the most direct link to ejaculation and therefore potentially the only relevant one along with testosterone level), here's the first search engine hit: Ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer - Harvard Health.

Sounds fair to me: the man with the stronger health would have quicker recovery from any kind of abuse you put him through. However...

Rather disingenuous to say to redsun that you are not equating ejaculation with heroin injection, yet equate recovery from orgasm with recovery from abuse.

avoiding a negative action because your state of health makes it even more negative could not be called "circumventing the problem", because in reality, there would be two separate problems: the negative action in itself, and your heightened response to it. While we agree that exquisite state of health can lower the consequences of harmful actions to seemingly imperceptible levels, it doesn't transform the fundamental nature of the action. "Getting away" with something is not equal to "doing good".

I understand that you want to obfuscate the matter by philosophically creating two problems when there is not even one, but it would behove you to focus. If you experience anything other than a minor dip post-orgasm, ejaculation is not likely the problem, but you may have a problem. When Chris Masterjohn experienced chronic fatigue post-workout, rather than conclude that lifting weights is harmful for humans, he measured his urine ph, found it to be acidic, ate a quarter teaspoon of baking soda, and turned his post-workout fatigue into something negligible. Net present value is calculated with future cash flows generated by debt. There would be no economy if any investments that involved costs were disconsidered. As long as what is received exceeds what is lost, the activity is a net positive.

Looking at how you answered another commenter-- that sex involves exchange of energy between partners and a negation of prolactin in the male with oxytocin-- I'm not even sure you still support your original assertion that ejaculation is harmful since this description can at least be described as a net neutral activity. Then it seems we are arguing past each other-- you against masturbation with ejaculation and I for partnered intercourse with ejaculation.

[I hope you didn't mind me cutting your post into so small pieces, there just were so many premises and assumptions that I wanted to address hidden in between the lines.]

You found material on a public forum. Slice and interpret at will.