Current Events > Nofap is making me so irritable

(+) Yeah! (+)

nope, i intend only to speak in terms i can prove. that's the difference between us.

Read above article. Note science.

remember when you said this? yeah, you're out of your depth.

before you goalpost shift any further, i think you owe us some actual science on the subject. it isn't up to me to find studies that support your claim, so get digging.
---

Pancake posted...

nope, i intend only to speak in terms i can prove

Yet you cannot prove it does not help these men but you still speak against it.

it increases their risk of prostate cancer and that isn't helping them.

still waiting on those studies.
---

The_Freecs posted...

Bro idc if its bullshit. All I know is that when I managed to do 6 weeks before I was starting to get morning wood again which I hadnt before I started.

gotta work for something at least.

Morning wood is your body's way of "exercising" the penis to ensure it still works properly. It has nothing to do with actual horniness.

---

Pancake posted...

it increases their risk of prostate cancer and that isn't helping them.

still waiting on those studies.

Here's a link that proves periods of not masturbating increases testosterone levels in males.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11760788/

The funny thing about studies like the one you're using about the 33% reduction in prostate cancer (and any study that talks about disease) is that, the number it used implies that if you're NOT masturbating 21 times a month that your chance of developing Prostate Cancer is a high % in the first place. It doesn't (and cannot) account for lifestyle choices because the amount of data you would need to formulate a concise analysis based on habits is unquantifiable.

When in reality, someone's chance of developing a specific disease before accounting for any genetic history or unhealthy habits may be as low as 5% on average. A 33% reduction for that disease would result in 1.65% reduced chance--which is virtually no difference.


---

Nofap was spread by a religious charlatan and sold it hook line and sinker to lonely guys on the internet who talk about "logic" a lot.

---

Here's a link that proves periods of not masturbating increases testosterone levels in males.

cool. i'm glad you did some research.

here's a link that shows you some ways to elevate your testosterone level without subjecting yourself to higher cancer risk:

https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/8-ways-to-boost-testosterone

do these instead of abstaining from a bodily function, alright?

Morning wood is your body's way of "exercising" the penis to ensure it still works properly.

citation needed.
---

Jacking off 5+ times a week isn't reducing your risk of Prostate Cancer in any meaningful way

---

Why do people think that elevated testosterone is apriori a good thing?

Like, is it because people think testosterone = manliness and therefore more testosterone means more manly?

---

i would argue that any reduction in likelihood is meaningful, assuming you don't want to get cancer.

Why do people think that elevated testosterone is apriori a good thing?

i would hazard a guess and say that they saw lists of low-t symptoms and decided opposite = good, but i base that on nothing. i'm willing to just say '4chan pseudoscience' and leave it at that.

also, i'm tired. i thought this conversation was over 12 hours ago. your dude needs sleep and cov is smarter than i am anyway. this is all yours if you care about it.
---

COVxy posted...

Nofap was spread by a religious charlatan and sold it hook line and sinker to lonely guys on the internet who talk about "logic" a lot.

Wouldn't surprise me. What was the religious charlatan's name?

---

I understand why you want to make a scientific argument. Facts are important, but humans require more than just factual data to live fulfilling lives. If you put a number in front of someone for a number of times they should do something (this time, male ejaculation) then it becomes a chore, and people hate chores. Scientific Studies often lack emotional intelligence, which as our society's views on mental health rapidly evolves, is also being linked to many disorders.

As for testosterone levels being higher being a bad thing; this is most definitely not the case. Lower Testosterone reduces fertility, muscle mass, bone density, wildly effects your metabolism, and increases fatigue.

---

Well I gave in and now Im as emotionless as always lol.

Perascamin posted...

I understand why you want to make a scientific argument. Facts are important, but humans require more than just factual data to live fulfilling lives. If you put a number in front of someone for a number of times they should do something (this time, male ejaculation) then it becomes a chore, and people hate chores. Scientific Studies often lack emotional intelligence, which as our society's views on mental health rapidly evolves, is also being linked to many disorders.

As for testosterone levels being higher being a bad thing; this is most definitely not the case. Lower Testosterone reduces fertility, muscle mass, bone density, wildly effects your metabolism, and increases fatigue.

"Science doesn't matter unless it validates my beliefs!"

---

https://www.europeanurology.com/article/S0302-2838(16)00377- 8/abstract/ejaculation-frequency-and-risk-of-prostate- cancer-updated-results-with-an-additional-decade-of-follow-up

It is interesting to see this study used to support the conclusion that nofap is bad and counter-science.

A few things to note:

1. Frequency of masturbation was measured, not the intensity of it. Whether someone edged for hours vs. let out a quick one, might have an impact. But of course, that was not studied. It might not matter, just that doing it for hours would seem unhealthy.

2. Correlation does not equal causation UNLESS I want to talk down to others is often the motto. This study shows men who masturbate more have reduced cancer but does not prove masturbating more is the underlying cause of less cancer.
That is, they may be masturbating more because they are healthier in the first place. Alternatively, the others may be doing it less because they have an unresolved health issue.

3. This was not a controlled study but a survey. That is, they did not assign masturbation frequency to test a hypothesis. Instead, the men did what they normally did. This highlights the point above.

It is sad to see people who profess to be arbiters of science falling for such easy traps.
You may dislike nofap and think it is a scam made by a religious nutjob, that is fine, your opinion.
But to try to twist the conclusion of a study to act like it supports your opinion with scientific proof when it does not, is something we should all avoid.

All this suggests is there is a link between it and less cancer.

Let's see what the article infact suggests:

Evidence suggests that ejaculation frequency may be inversely related to the risk of prostate cancer

May.

The_Freecs posted...

Well I gave in and now Im as emotionless as always lol.

How long did you go?

Trick is to consider whatever time you went as a win.
Like working out.
You might watch a vid of a dude working out doing 50 pushups but you can only do 10.
Instead o feeling bad about that
You should realize that keep doing 10 and eventually you can do 20.
Then 30. Then 40. Then 50.
And so on.

This study shows men who masturbate more have reduced cancer but does not prove masturbating more is the underlying cause of less cancer.

These findings provide additional evidence of a beneficial role of more frequent ejaculation throughout adult life in the etiology of PCa

nice reading comprehension. but you also quoted the background instead of the conclusion and thought it validated your point, so maybe you're just not into reading in the first place. there are a lot of words in between the start and finish of the article. hint: the background is the impetus (reason) for the study, not the result.

freecs, the only reason these people are defending this bullshit this hard is because they have personal investment in it. they've wasted probably months if not years of their time subscribed to it. if you want to feel better - if you want to not be emotionless, depressed, agitated, what have you - the best thing anyone here can recommend you do is that you exercise regularly, eat right, and get good sleep. don't let people sell the idea of shortcuts to you. there are none. you need to take care of yourself. don't listen to people on the internet. go talk to your primary care physician.

I understand why you want to make a scientific argument.

and no, you don't. you have zero issue with spouting bullshit. it's why you haven't been able to cite a source when it came to your statement about morning wood. you have zero issue with speaking with no knowledge on a subject.
---

Pancake posted...

These findings provide additional evidence of a beneficial role of more frequent ejaculation throughout adult life in the etiology of PCa

nice reading comprehension. but you also quoted the background instead of the conclusion and thought it validated your point, so maybe you're just not into reading in the first place. there are a lot of words in between the start and finish of the article. hint: the background is the impetus (reason) for the study, not the result.

You seem bent on making correlation equal causation.

https://www.webmd.com/prostate-cancer/ejaculation-prostate-cancer-risk

What We Dont Know
While research is promising, theres still a lot scientists need to learn. Some things to consider:

Theres no proof that ejaculating more actually causes lower chances of prostate cancer.
For now, doctors just know theyre connected. It may be that men who do it more tend to have other healthy habits that are lowering their odds.

Ejaculation doesnt seem to protect against the most deadly or advanced types of prostate cancer. Experts dont know why.
Scientists dont know if ejaculation during sex vs. masturbation has the same benefits. Some research has found that the makeup of semen is different for each. For example, semen during sex has higher levels of sperm and some chemicals. Its possible that these could make a difference in a mans odds of having prostate cancer.

Not all studies have found a benefit. The 2016 study got attention because of its size (almost 32,000 men) and length (18 years). But some smaller studies have not shown the same good results. A few even found that some men, specifically younger men, who masturbated more had slightly higher chances of prostate cancer. Some researchers wonder if a mans age may affect whether more ejaculation helps.

Seems you need to brush up your understanding of how scientific studies actually work before you rant about science again @Pancake

i was out of line to suggest that it outright decreases risk of prostate cancer. i acknowledge the weaknesses to the study as well.

it increases their risk of prostate cancer and that isn't helping them.

this part of that post of mine was out of line. i should have always qualified my statements as i did prior.

but we're not trying to say it's unhealthy or that people should abstain, are we? because, again:

These findings provide additional evidence of a beneficial role of more frequent ejaculation
throughout adult life in the etiology of PCa

and for fun here's more:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5312217/

In our study, we found that men with better overall sexual function were at a decreased risk of overall and high-grade prostate cancer diagnosis, though, no association was found with low-grade disease. Importantly, after adjusting for different variables such as age, BMI, race, pack years of cigarettes smoked, history of heart disease and diabetes, sexual function was an independent predictor of overall and high-grade prostate cancer diagnosis.
---

Nofap is probably bunk, but my point is too often people claim they stand on science to belittle others while not realizing the science they are using doesn't support their conclusion and they actually twisted the result to fit their bias.
I thank you for acknowledging it.

I do think that many who start nofap likely are the type who edge for hours, maybe even 8 hours and so quitting that probably does help them.
Has there been a study on it? No, not that I know. So I cannot answer scientifically if that helps or hurts them.
But I do know that would at the very least dehydrate them and mean they spent 8 hours just fapping that could have gone into something productive.

my point is too often people claim they stand on science to belittle others while not realizing the science they are using doesn't support their conclusion and they actually twisted the result to fit their bias.
I thank you for acknowledging it.

thank you for keeping me in line academically. i don't think i'm wrong to suggest that these studies imply masturbation as part of a prostate-healthy lifestyle, but i shouldn't ever have said anything any more definitive than that.

and you know, hey, sorry for being a prick about it. you do good reading comprehension.
---

cymbaline posted...

Wouldn't surprise me. What was the religious charlatan's name?

The brainonporn dude, Gary Wilson.

The issue is that many of the inferences made are just not scientific, they are like secondary and tertiary inferences which have no basis in data, but it's hard for people to identify that.

The form usually follows:
Data shows X (this is supported by data)
And so if we assume y, we can conclude z (secondary, not supported)
and if we assume z, then we can conclude p! (tertiary...etc...)

Then the argumentation is the we have scientifically shown statement p! But this isn't the case, as the only statement that has actual evidence is X in that formulation.

And this is kind of the way all his shit goes. And the reason that people have trouble grasping that this isn't actually scientific is because it does follow a valid deductive sequence.

This dude submitted an academic paper to a more or less blacklisted journal and got blown out of the water by criticism, for both not disclosing competing interests (ethical violations) but for it being a shitty case study to begin with:
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/06/13/journal-corrects-but-will-not-retract-controversial-paper-on-internet-porn/

I'd say, leave the science to the actual experts in the field, not these motivated actors.

---

COVxy posted...

I'd say, leave the science to the actual experts in the field, not these motivated actors.

That hurts the ego of fools who thought they were getting something out of going months/years without playing the magic flute.
---

get out and exercise because that's going to do far more for you than nofap will

that is to say, nofap is nonsense, and actively moving around and staying on a schedule will actually help you

---

Pancake posted...

This study shows men who masturbate more have reduced cancer but does not prove masturbating more is the underlying cause of less cancer.

These findings provide additional evidence of a beneficial role of more frequent ejaculation throughout adult life in the etiology of PCa

nice reading comprehension. but you also quoted the background instead of the conclusion and thought it validated your point, so maybe you're just not into reading in the first place. there are a lot of words in between the start and finish of the article. hint: the background is the impetus (reason) for the study, not the result.

freecs, the only reason these people are defending this bullshit this hard is because they have personal investment in it. they've wasted probably months if not years of their time subscribed to it. if you want to feel better - if you want to not be emotionless, depressed, agitated, what have you - the best thing anyone here can recommend you do is that you exercise regularly, eat right, and get good sleep. don't let people sell the idea of shortcuts to you. there are none. you need to take care of yourself. don't listen to people on the internet. go talk to your primary care physician.

I understand why you want to make a scientific argument.

and no, you don't. you have zero issue with spouting bullshit. it's why you haven't been able to cite a source when it came to your statement about morning wood. you have zero issue with speaking with no knowledge on a subject.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/325305

I didn't realize you were asking for knowledge on something you learn in Sex Ed. This article proves that "morning wood" has nothing do with arousal, and is indeed part of a normal, healthy cycle. I.e, "Exercise".

...and I'm not spouting bullshit.

---

Morning wood is your body's way of "exercising" the penis to ensure it still works properly.

this was the bullshit you spouted.
---

Did you read the article

---

quote the part that supports that claim.
---

nofap is now an altright talking point?

holy shit people have really gone off the fucking deep end
---

Pancake posted...

quote the part that supports that claim.

Nocturnal penile tumescence (NPT) is not a result of sexual arousal or having a dream relating to sex. Instead, it is a normal function of the male reproductive system.

In fact, regular episodes of NPT are a sign that the nerves and blood supply to the penis are healthy.

---

that does not support your claim that it is a function that the body uses to 'exercise itself' to 'ensure it still works properly'.
---

God, this reminds me of No Nut November when all these clowns act like theyre so good and righteous by not masturbating and they act like it builds such a gReAt ChArAcTeR

And they spend the entire time whining about how horny they are, how messed up their thinking is, etc.

Like... jerk it or dont, but shut up about it

---

Pretty sure morning wood happens cause as your bladder fills during the night it presses against your prostate
---

Pancake posted...

that does not support your claim that it is a function that the body uses to 'exercise itself' to 'ensure it still works properly'.

Now you're being intentionally obtuse because you don't want to be wrong for the second time in one topic

---

you spouted bullshit and now you're deflecting. why can't you own up to your mistakes?
---

Because I'm not doing any of that

---

Morning wood is your body's way of "exercising" the penis to ensure it still works properly.

again, here's the bullshit you spouted. there's nothing obtuse there, that's just you making something up.

if you really think you understand why i try to make scientific arguments, i think you should try one someday.
---

Perascamin posted...

Scientific Studies often lack emotional intelligence, which as our society's views on mental health rapidly evolves, is also being linked to many disorders.

Also, just...wat?

---

Pancake posted...

Morning wood is your body's way of "exercising" the penis to ensure it still works properly.

again, here's the bullshit you spouted. there's nothing obtuse there, that's just you making something up.

if you really think you understand why i try to make scientific arguments, i think you should try one someday.

I need you to explain to me why this is specifically wrong. A regular cycle of something can be considered an "exercise".

---

actually, no, you need to cite your source on this claim, now, too:

A regular cycle of something can be considered an "exercise".

i want you to prove to me that you're not okay with making things up as you go. unfortunately, you have this habit of bullshitting first and researching later, so hopefully this conversation will show you the folly to that approach.
---

If I were to start reading the dictionary definitions of exercise off to you, then it's likely that you would start asking for a source on the meanings and definitions of every individual word. That would be entirely unreasonable, as is what you're currently asking me to do.

You seem to have at least some degree of education. You know what exercise means and how it can be used. Quit trying to die on a hill for your apparently fragile internet ego.

---

no, you literally need to go and cite the source of the word exercise, because you're using a definition you just made up. i think you know that, checked the definition, and saw it didn't match with what you claimed it did.

it's a shame you couldn't have read the article you posted the same way.

if my ego were fragile, i wouldn't be able to admit i was wrong. that's you.
---

I already said I'm not going to cite the dictionary for you.

---

actually, no, you didn't say that. jesus christ, dude, the wheels are coming off. it's not the end of the world to be wrong. you can't learn from mistakes if you pretend they never happen.

actually, let me amend this. i don't think it's pedantic at all to get a definitions argument going when you're trying to prevent someone from making them up as they go.

you manufactured an excuse - literally employing a slippery slope fallacy in doing so. i think you think little lies are okay, but none are. i promise you i won't make you look up every definition of every word -- just the ones you lie about.
---

Only on CE would we have a cutthroat argument over boners
---

this is less about dingdongs and more about being accountable for the statements and claims you make. bullshit must be met this way - met the way wings met mine - if your concern is the truth.
---

Pancake posted...

actually, no, you didn't say that. jesus christ, dude, the wheels are coming off. it's not the end of the world to be wrong. you can't learn from mistakes if you pretend they never happen.

actually, let me amend this. i don't think it's pedantic at all to get a definitions argument going when you're trying to prevent someone from making them up as they go.

you manufactured an excuse - literally employing a slippery slope fallacy in doing so. i think you think little lies are okay, but none are. i promise you i won't make you look up every definition of every word -- just the ones you lie about.

Could you provide a study for this statement?

---

you have two statements you are behind on and need to provide literally anything for. get to work.

actually i do have something you should probably check out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandolini%27s_law

"The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it."

this is why you're asking for proof without ever thinking you need to supply any. what was that about you not spouting bullshit again?
---

Wikipedia isn't a valid source, could you provide something else?

---

gonna have to tell me why it isn't a valid source.
---