Anyone worried about the health risk?

[mattinva]

Hey,
I am definitely on board the Chastity and controlled orgasm bit as far as female control head game leading to constant sexual tension and the femdom/submissive overtures with key holder orgasm/ejaculation denial. It is something I have a MAJOR interest in as I am very much submissive to women. I'm a rope me, bind me, peg me, and make me yours type of boy... That said I've read several studies that have said that your prostate health is DIRECTLY tied to USE and I worry that two and three month, and longer, backup stories I hear about are not healthy in the long term. I suppose if you are BLESSED with a women who does not mind "milking" you it is not that bit of a deal, however, most of us are not so lucky... Anyone concerned and still doing it?

I'd literally buy a pink Holy Trainer Tomorrow if I was not worried about the health issues...

Matt.

[LockedLad]

If you've read "studies", why not post links to them here. I've read opinions, but they've been just that. And they've been on both sides of the fence.

[mattinva]

As far as I know there have been no "studies" that have tackled voluntary chastity and abstention from ejaculation on Prostate function and cancer risks. I suspect that is a little out of the realm of mainstream medicine. A fairly small community with choice based modifier. I'd not expect a JAMA article anytime soon... The information I've read, whether or not it qualifies by the NIH as a "study" I know not, has been on Prostate Health. A topic with a whole lot larger audience. Should you have any real interest in specific sources Google is your friend...

For the purposes of a friendly discussion let's drop "study" and say some medical opinion encourages regular ejaculation for prostate health. Fair enough?

Matt.

[ponylady]

if you look @ wildlife animals only a small amount of the male population have the chance to procastrinate. we are talking about 1-10%, depending on the species.
that means elk or lions or other large animals who live up to 20 years or longer don't ever get to shoot their load.
if chastity or abstinence really would be dentrimental to the male health, it would already have been shown up in studies.

[MuffinMcMuffin]

Ooh, is this the "ejaculation reduces cancer risk" story? I've wanted to look up this thing for a while but forgot! To Google Scholar we go!

I found this article which seems to be where the thing comes from in the first place, and that's not really what the study was about at all (They were concerned with if ejaculation increases risk and didn't necessarily control for factors for the opposite. The Comment section is very much worth reading - the authors were confused by their results. A few quotes:

Nine [4,24,25,27,30-32,35,36] of the aforementioned studies found little or no variation in prostate cancer risk according to sexual activity during different ages. However, 1 study[35] observed a nonsignificant inverse association between sexual activity before the age of 30 years and prostate cancer, and no relationship with sexual activity in later life. In contrast, 2 other studies[38,39] reported a positive association between frequency of sexual intercourse before ages 50 to 60 years and prostate cancer and an inverse relationship for frequency of sexual intercourse after age 60 years. A recent meta-analysis[9] of these studies[1,4,5,23-39] reported RRs for sexual activity at 3 times per week of 1.14 (95% CI, 0.98-1.31) during the third decade of life, 1.24 (95% CI, 1.05-1.46) during the fifth decade, and 0.68 (95% CI, 0.51-0.91) during the seventh decade. That meta-analysis[9] noted the somewhat inconsistent association between frequency of sexual activity and risk of prostate cancer in previous studies.

i.e. the study is one of many and shows different results to other stuff in the literature. Some studies say sex increases risk and others say it decreases it. Just because it's in a paper doesn't mean it's true. False positives are a thing, and science is about showing results and demonstrating that they can be replicated by others (which was not the purpose of this study). Data can just be weird some times

Here's the bit where they're talking about their confusion:

Our finding of no association or a possibly inverse association between high ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer is difficult to reconcile with the commonly proposed concept that androgenic stimulation is related both to enhanced libido and to increased risk of prostate cancer. In some studies, circulating testosterone levels are positively associated with prostate cancer risk.[40] Limited evidence shows that circulating levels of testosterone or its major metabolite dihydrotestosterone correlate positively with sexual desire,41 erectile function,42 and frequency of orgasms.[43]

And some possible other physiological explanations as to why ejaculation may reduce cancer risk:

However, sexual activity is a complex physiological function, which may relate to prostate cancer risk through several nonandrogenic pathways. For example, frequency of ejaculations may modulate prostate carcinogenesis by altering the composition of prostatic fluid. Frequent ejaculations may decrease the intraprostatic concentration of xenobiotic compounds and chemical carcinogens, which readily accumulate in prostatic fluid.[44,45] Frequent ejaculations may also reduce the development of intraluminal prostatic crystalloids,[46] which have been associated with prostate cancer in some,[47,48] but not all pathology studies.[49] Because seminal plasma locally reduces host responsiveness[50-52] (possibly by factors produced by the prostate gland53), retained prostatic fluid may diminish intraprostatic immune surveillance against tumor cells.

The important thing to note here is they're talking about complex, nonlinear systems. It's not just as simple as ejaculation=reduced risk. It could be that some level of ejaculation increases risk but lots of ejaculation reduces risk

Long story short, the answer is we don't know. The authors of the article have no clue why they got the results they did, and they suggest that other physiological factors be considered when looking at cancer risk. Hell, the study itself says you're talking at least 21 ejaculations a month, or 5-6 a week and they were comparing to 3-4 times a month, or roughly once a week. There's nothing about ejaculating less frequently, and there's no reason to assume that you can extrapolate because we don't even know what the underlying physiological mechanism is

[lj]

There are a lot of guys who seem to get trapped into a (inappropriate name ) willy-waving contest about how long they have been in chastity, as though duration is all that matters. If that floats your boat, fair enough. But for most of us who have chastity as part of our D/s, it is imposed for a reason, and for a period of our Domme's choosing. Very few Dommes want total celibacy, most use it as a means of control, reinforcement of the dynamic and the opportunity for some teasing, so the locked period is interspersed by some stimulation and orgasm, with the locked period being days or weeks rather than months.

The science on this seems to be pretty inconclusive - if there was a clear indication one way or the other, no doubt we would have heard of it. Bear in mind there are groups of men who remain permanently celibate for religious reasons, and we have no information that they are prone to any health issue.

I really can't imagine a few months without orgasm is going to do anything to physical health.

As an aside, get a custom stainless steel device like the MatureMetal products, you'll pay less in the long run as most guys seem to try several off-the-shelf devices before coming to that realisation.

[Sir Cumference]

if there was a clear indication one way or the other, no doubt we would have heard of it.

Exactly!

Humans are so complex, that if you are close to the detection limit, you can show anythin with the "right" assumptions.

Bear in mind there are groups of men who remain permanently celibate for religious reasons, and we have no information that they are prone to any health issue.

Not physical health maybe, but when it comes to abusing people, those who praise celibacy for religious reasons, seems to have a nasty track record and culture.

[mattinva]

Very interesting! It would appear that the Doc's opinion I was reading was indeed just his opinion. Might as well mention something about practicing medicine...

Thanks to everyone who contributed...

Regards, Matthew.