Frequent masturbation in young men is linked to higher risk of early prostate cancer.

[alt]

This guy, and one other poster, seemed to have made the assumption that masturbation and sexual intercourse are identical. This is not the case. There have been studies that have shown certain differences between the two (e.g. different changes in certain hormones, different amount of semen output, different sperm quality, etc). I don't know what the differences is, why it's different, or how our body can even tell the difference, but apparently it can somehow.

I don't know how big of a deal these difference are. But from a purely logical standpoint, any conclusion drawn on the premise that intercourse and masturbate are identical is logically unsound, even if the conclusion drawn is correct (that is, this poster and a previous one had bad logic even if they just happen to get the right answer. So I'm not even saying their conclusions are wrong, I'm saying their logic is wrong (especially Dearly Demented. That was just horrible. His logic isn't even valid, let alone sound). Of course, the study would seem to indicate that their conclusions are also wrong).

Interesting.

It seems according to this study that it would have to be a significantly large difference for it to account for a 79% increase but only during masturbation.

[Uzor]

This guy, and one other poster, seemed to have made the assumption that masturbation and sexual intercourse are identical. This is not the case. There have been studies that have shown certain differences between the two (e.g. different changes in certain hormones, different amount of semen output, different sperm quality, etc). I don't know what the differences is, why it's different, or how our body can even tell the difference, but apparently it can somehow.

I don't know how big of a deal these difference are. But from a purely logical standpoint, any conclusion drawn on the premise that intercourse and masturbate are identical is logically unsound, even if the conclusion drawn is correct (that is, this poster and a previous one had bad logic even if they just happen to get the right answer. So I'm not even saying their conclusions are wrong, I'm saying their logic is wrong (especially Dearly Demented. That was just horrible. His logic isn't even valid, let alone sound). Of course, the study would seem to indicate that their conclusions are also wrong).

But anyways, the conclusion of the researchers is that masturbation is NOT the cause of the increase rate or prostate cancer. Based on his theory, masturbating less or more wouldn't actually change your chances of prostate cancer. If a guy masturbates a lot, it would be because of something in his genetics causing him to, and this same thing in his genetics makes him more likely to develop prostate cancer. So, assuming his theory is correct, a person who masturbates a lot would see no benefit from decreasing the frequency of masturbation. And a person who doesn't masturbate a lot would see no risk in increasing his frequency of masturbate. So in case anyone was worried about that (which I doubt), there's no reason to change masturbation habits if his theory is correct.

Actually, I don't see how there would be a difference either way.

I mean, if a guy has high sex drive, he has high sex drive. If said guy would date a nymphomania and replace his thrice a day masturbation with having sex with said girl thrice a day, how would he not have the same risk of getting prostate cancer by the age of 60, if its not the masturbation itself but the genetics that cause it?

I'm not saying I believe its the masturbation itself, I don't, I think the whole study is rather shady. But I still don't see how sex versus masturbation would make a difference if its the genetics that's behind it.

[Woozie]

Interesting.

It seems according to this study that it would have to be a significantly large difference for it to account for a 79% increase but only during masturbation.

Well, I don't know how big the differences are, I just wanted to point out that people can't say "They are identical. Therefore...". You can't reason by starting with a wrong premise.

But it would seem that, according to the theory of the researchers, that masturbation isn't the cause of the cancer anyways. And in fact, the study did nothing to establish any sort of causality, as Tristam and a few others pointed out. So in the end, it may not even matter whether or not masturbation and intercourse are different anyways since it may not even be what's causing the prostate cancer.

Edit:

Actually, I don't see how there would be a difference either way.

I mean, if a guy has high sex drive, he has high sex drive. If said guy would date a nymphomania and replace his thrice a day masturbation with having sex with said girl thrice a day, how would he not have the same risk of getting prostate cancer by the age of 60, if its not the masturbation itself but the genetics that cause it?

I'm not saying I believe its the masturbation itself, I don't, I think the whole study is rather shady. But I still don't see how sex versus masturbation would make a difference if its the genetics that's behind it.

Maybe it wouldn't make a difference either way, but you can't start an argument with a false premise as others have, even if the argument happens leads to the correct conclusion.

To put another way, one could say "sex and masturbation are the same, therefore the sperm output from masturbation and that from intercourse will be exactly the same". Starting with their same premise, I managed to draw a false conclusion. This is why I have a problem with them starting an argument this way. This shows why you shouldn't start out an argument with something that's not actually right. Your argument doesn't make this flaw, so your argument is fine. Perhaps Alt and Dearly Demented meant the same thing you just said in your argument, and I just misinterpreted. In this case, all I can say is "my bad". But Dearly Demented used an equal sign and used the word identical, so if my interpretation of his post was wrong, then he sure picked a strange way to phrase his argument.

[Firedemon]

At least I'll die feeling good.

[Kuya]

No you won't. It's prostate cancer.

[alt]

Maybe it wouldn't make a difference either way, but you can't start an argument with a false premise as others have, even if the argument happens leads to the correct conclusion.

To put another way, one could say "sex and masturbation are the same, therefore the sperm output from masturbation and that from intercourse will be exactly the same". Starting with their same premise, I managed to draw a false conclusion. This is why I have a problem with them starting an argument this way. This shows why you shouldn't start out an argument with something that's not actually right. Your argument doesn't make this flaw, so your argument is fine. Perhaps Alt and Dearly Demented meant the same thing you just said in your argument, and I just misinterpreted. In this case, all I can say is "my bad". But Dearly Demented used an equal sign and used the word identical, so if my interpretation of his post was wrong, then he sure picked a strange way to phrase his argument.

Sorry, I thought it would have been clear that I would have assumed the person had the same level of hormones/sex drive/whatever, since that is what the study stated. What I couldn't figure out was the study said it was the hormones or whatever that increased the risk, but then stated it was only ejaculation during masturbation that the risk increased.

I could not figure out how, given the same level of hormones (which are the root cause according to the study), masturbation or sex would make any difference. Or if it was the hormones, how either sex or masturbation had anything to do with it at all, and rather just the level of hormones the body was producing.

Anyways, it seems its all moot anyways since they story almost discredited itself.

[Howard Roark]

not gonna stop me

[Faris]

well well well..what have we got here


http://www.bluegartr.com/forum/showt...to+porn&page=3

[Ziero]

I think everyone is missing the real point of this article. This basically says masturbation will kill us, but normal sex is ok. That means that guys should be having more sex if they want to stay healthy, and if that hot chick wants to help save your life she should totally put out. Because if she doesn't do the deed with you, you'll be forced to wank it and totally increase your chances at cancer. And everyone hates cancer, so women out there should be totally willing to do whatever it takes to stop it!

So to all the women out there, help fight prostate cancer by screwing more guys! Especially those shy loner game geeks who post on video game message boards, since they're usually the ones most at risk.

[thestalkmore]

You can pry my penis from my cold, dead hands.

[#686578]

Because we havent already had a thousand studies saying that ejaculating reduces prostate cancer

http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-04-0...-cancer-deaths

[AidenCarby]

That means excessive amounts of sex is bad for you too lol.

[archibaldcrane]

No you won't. It's prostate cancer.

You'll just get your prostate removed and then lose your ability to get an erection.

That'll teach all you filthy fornicators, no more masturbation ever!

[Clerix]

Well I'm glad I don't masturbate.