What Are The Effects Of Chronic Masturbation On The Body?

[Constatine]

No-fap is just another discipline fad like intermittent fasting. If you have ueber discipline and suppress your body's urges (to eat or masturbate), then all your physical and mental issues will be resolved.

Young high metabolism human beings masturbate the most.

So hundreds of thousands of people...are suffering from the placebo effect? Experience is the only true knowledge and personal opinion fails to stand up to experiment. People should try such methods out and decide if they work for themselves.

 

[ecstatichamster]

people's brains have changed and wired to fake triggers. That's why real people aren't attractive anymore. You see this really advanced in Japan.

It's all neuroplasticity working against us, because of technology's providing endless sexual triggers that jolt the brain and the body with sex hormones and are not real sex. After awhile you don't feel much with another person.

Having a smart phone makes it worse and worse.

This is REALLY a bad effect and for young people they have never wired their brains differently so they lack the neural pathways even buried deep. So they suffer the most.

This is what makes masturbation so attractive, the wiring in the brain to fake sex cues and not real sex cues.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

So hundreds of thousands of people...are suffering from the placebo effect? Experience is the only true knowledge and personal opinion fails to stand up to experiment. People should try such methods out and decide if they work for themselves.

Not ejaculating for health and spiritual benefits is a tradition that goes back thousands of years and has existed in many different cultures. Not a fad.

 

[Constatine]

Not ejaculating for health and spiritual benefits is a tradition that goes back thousands of years and has existed in many different cultures. Not a fad.

What I said was a loaded question. I am a huge proponent of refraining from ejaculating.

 

[Hitoshi]

www.yourbrainonporn.com

 

[Energizer]

If I were trying to find reasons not to masturbate, all of them would be for my own personal reasons rather than using pseudoscience and religious fundamentalism to impose a moral justification for not masturbating. If it's a testament to the power of groupthink, there are many groups that espouse completely irrational beliefs (such as the flat earthers), they may grow in number, but their numbers mean nothing in regards to how scientifically valid their arguments are. I've looked at yourbrainonporn, and the research looks pretty bad. I question the motives of the people involved on that site as well, since they both seem to be from a religious orientation, not a good sign at all. Neither of them seems to have a strong grasp of science or have any background in it as well. Either they've overgeneralized from the studies they're using, or more likely, they've deliberately sought out research to support their predefined conclusions that porn and masturbation are harmful. This article highlights some issues in the methodology of the yourbrainonporn site: Your Brain on Porn - It's NOT Addictive.

Ultimately, I find jerking off a lot less satisfying than sex, but I don't think there's anything wrong with rubbing one one out, if you feel the need for it. I also doubt porn is harmful, unless it's replacing obligations or used as a means to escape from the real world. To answer your question masturbation raises prolactin, so if you're masturbating every day, it may elevate your prolactin, but if you're eating the right foods, this shouldn't be that big of a deal. As others said, the nofap thing seems to be a new-age fad, and like all fads, I think maybe people will move on to something else to follow when this is no longer in the spotlight. There's still a puritan doctrine permeating US culture that amounts to masochistic punishment, and one of the things we must punish ourselves about, according to this doctrine, besides work (where many of us overwork at meaningless jobs), is "overmasturbating".

 

[Xisca]

"detached" feeling

That's freeze response of the nervous system.

 

[ecstatichamster]

actually this nofap things goes against the grain, where every type of sex is nothing but good.

I think men have found they do better without masturbation. It's really as simple as that.

It's not puritanism, it's practicality.

 

[stressucks]

I find I'm much more prone to masturbating if tired or stressed. I think it's the body seeking dopamine.

 

[sladerunner69]

The other problem is a lot of young people aren't attracted to each other anymore. Health is declining, and it affects tongue posture and facial development. People are getting uglier. Primitive humans had the right life style to support facial development naturally. Everyone was a 10/10 and people were banging each other all the time.

primitive humans didnt eat very much dude. Some days they would go without food at all, and carbs were a luxury. That is part of whyt he average lifespan of primitive man was about 40. A caveman who made it to his 50s was ancient. Yes they boned all the time and there was likely little monogomy, but we have come along way and have evolved into a completed different organism then the men and women who roamed around 30 thousand years ago. As Peat assert, evolution can happen in as little as one generation. But I digress, the most healthy era was not primitive it was likely the classical period.

 

[lvysaur]

That is part of whyt he average lifespan of primitive man was about 40.

Not at all, primitive people lived long lives provided they made it past childhood. But when half your population dies before the age of 3, your "average lifespan" will be around 30.

Carbs were a luxury in northern climates, and common everywhere else.

 

[sladerunner69]

Not at all, primitive people lived long lives provided they made it past childhood. But when half your population dies before the age of 3, your "average lifespan" will be around 30.

Carbs were a luxury in northern climates, and common everywhere else.

The way that anthropologists calculate lifespan doesn't include people who die before age 10.

Carbs were not "abundant" everywhere else, there may have been more wild fruits and starchses like yams, taro, beans etc but they still had to be gatherred and were scarce, which is why skilled hunters were so prized in those cultures. And if those other places were flourishing so well on carbs why did they remain in a primitive state of perpetual warfare and brutalism for many more centuries? (many places still are this way)

 

[Prosper]

The way that anthropologists calculate lifespan doesn't include people who die before age 10.

It's not uncommon to live up to 70 in today's non-civilized tribes. Native Americans reached that age all the time. Of course the definition of "primitive" we're using here is somewhat loose. Were mostly stationarily living Native americans primitive hunter gatherers or a primitive civiliziced people?

Carbs were not "abundant" everywhere else, there may have been more wild fruits and starchses like yams, taro, beans etc but they still had to be gatherred and were scarce, which is why skilled hunters were so prized in those cultures.

That's a broad generalization. Your described scenario fits northern lands where nutrition is scarcer and requires a more creative approach. Near the equator carb sources are naturally plentiful. In many parts of africa and asia carbs have been and still are the main source of energy for thousands of years.

And if those other places were flourishing so well on carbs why did they remain in a primitive state of perpetual warfare and brutalism for many more centuries? (many places still are this way)

Because such is the nature of man no matter what he eats.

 

[Kyle M]

The permanent effects of chronic masturbation (mostly porn watching) is rewiring of the seeking neuronal system in the brain. This has been demonstrated.

 

[Braveheart]

The permanent effects of chronic masturbation (mostly porn watching) is rewiring of the seeking neuronal system in the brain. This has been demonstrated.

permanent?

 

[Ritchie]

Blaming high speed internet or modern porn for ED is like blaming painkillers for the opioid epidemic. Many people are not susceptible to the "addiction," so why even call it that? It just spreads lies and confusion and doesn't tackle the root causes of the problem.

I recommend Danny Roddy and Haidut's podcast on addiction for anyone who hasn't yet heard it. Physician Gabor Mate's research is also relevant here. Most "addictions" aren't what they seem.

If you are taking pain killers with opioids in them everyday longterm, that would most likely lead to an opioid dependence/addiction. Not the best analogy mate. Bare in mind that high speed internet, modern day porn and availability of such a vast array of fetish and other porn in the blink of an eye on multiple tabs etc, is a very new phenomenon in human history. Unprecedented. We are yet to see the longterm results. It is also a multi billion dollar industry that keeps having to get nastier and dirtier and kinkier because people become desensitised and are constantly in need of more intense and aggressive stimulation. Is it worth it to risk your mental and sexual health, your sanity and wellbeing to that? Obsessively watching a vast array of porn and fetish scenarios every day or every other day in front of your computer screen by yourself masturbating is borderline insanity. Think how it would look to someone who came from the 1800s into the future and witnessed like a fly on the wall all these people sitting alone in the privacy of their own homes in front of computer screens jerking away. Scary. It's weird, and just because it has become the norm doesn't subtract from that. Apologies if that offends.

 

[Kyle M]

permanent?

I doubt anything is truly permanent, but lasting for some time yes. I'm not aware of any studies looking at brain activity months or years after stopping.

 

[Hugh Johnson]

What I said was a loaded question. I am a huge proponent of refraining from ejaculating.

My post was in support of your's.

 

[lvysaur]

And if those other places were flourishing so well on carbs why did they remain in a primitive state of perpetual warfare and brutalism for many more centuries?

lol

 

[sladerunner69]

We're talking about primitive man, not modern man. Modern man starts 10 thousand years ago according to official theory.

Your use of "plentiful" is entirely inaccurate, plentiful would implicate agricultural infrastructure which wasn't developed by any civilization in subsuharan africa until the 2nd industrial age. You think you can just walk around the jungle or the Savannah and pick up a few yams and pick a bundle of bananas? Sorry bud, you would be working and looking for hours before you came across that prize. In asia it's even more difficult, because before irrigaiton and cultivaitonw as developed, rice was not abundant and each piece has to be picked by hand. This relative scarcity of food gave asian cultures the impotus to organize and plan out, to develop agriculture, and eventually their early civilizations. In fact the scarcity of wild food in Asia was exactly what led to the first imperial empire which boasted perhaps the most advanced early language and mathetmatics systems.

This idea that primitive men walking around the forest or jungle would have lived long lives and had strong "healthy" features and manly secondary sex characteristics is just laughable. It wasn't until the Roman empire that the average adult would live to about 65, and that was a fairly well developed civilization. Anyone proto-human living pre civilizaiton would have been lucky to eat on any given day during the winter, and probably spent regular periods of time fasting because of lack of food. That is why many fasters claim that after a few days they no longer feel hungry and get a "high", only needing to drink water for weeks, because the stomach adapted to long periods fo starvation, that's what the fat stores are there for. Of course this means they were metabolically screwed and were not very healthy, and died easily from simple diseaases or infections, and lived about as long as gorillas, chimps and other primates.

The undoer of encerent's strange theory is really any look at specimens dug up and now on display at archaeology exhibits, or even was recreations of the bone structures. when these skeletons are reassembled, it's clear these people were NOT ATTRACTIVE AT ALL in modern day standards. Most primitive men didn't make it past 5 foot tall. They had tiny heads, inverted chins, and eyes very close together. They also has a slouch that would make the hunchback of notre dame a bit vain.

All of these features would improve over the millenia, towards what we consider attractive and healthy, on a positive slope 99% of the time. Sure there are examples of communist regimes like Mao or N Korea starving their population leading to a generation of smaller and weaker people, but those are statistical outliers. Most of humanity has grown taller and more attractive, with healthier facial features, through the centuries up until the people being born in about the 1970s started eating massive amounts of pufa and beign affected by environmental toxins which retarded their metabolisms and hence their development. So encerent is correct in the sense that the new generation are becoming progressively less healthy and ugly, but the idea that they are uglier than primitive man is quite laughable.