hopelesslyInvo
Posts: 522
Joined: 2/10/2008
From: the future
Status: offline
|
despite what the bottom right corner of my post will say, i make this in reply to no one in particular, just to the thread and its contents itself as a whole.
i'd personally imagine such a direct form of stimulation as seen with "milking" would be more pleasant as opposed to discharging it during urination or in a "wet-dream" where you are not even aware of its occurrence and simply waking up feeling like a fool... but my idea of chastity was always defined as denying satisfaction as much as denying the relief and urges as well.
i would however be the last to question this practice as someone's means of control, or question what they would want to control, but i think the words "potential" and "may" often just provokes the belief in people that something is inherent of a necessity. i'd like to see it actually documented by someone with real credentials that "a lack of frequent activity will increase risk", rather than "frequent activity will decrease normal risk", and have that accepted as medical fact. laying down won't increase your risk of heart attack, but running will generally decrease it. there is a difference.
if anyone can find the NCI themselves stating they have "verified potential increase in prostate problems associated with long-term male chastity, especially in younger men", instead them actually saying "the National Cancer Institute discovered that an abundance of orgasms do men no harm, and may even do him some good. It matters not if this release happens during sexual intercourse, as nocturnal emissions, or is discharged by urination" and that problems are "increased with age" rather than in youth, i'll be in utter disbelief. yet even more interesting and to the point, in this study people are taking to heart, i also quote them on saying "Only a handful of men admitted to having fewer than one orgasm a week -- not enough to make up their own category. So those few unfortunates were included with the four-to-seven orgasms a month group.", so as you can see, no conclusive testing has even been done to support extended denial or that "once a week" is an important or standard interval to abide by. also "Men having the most orgasms reduced their prostate cancer risk by a third compared with those men reporting the fewest orgasms." sounds good except they don't seem to offer up much of any real statistics, if you actually think about it, it means of all men in this study (including the less than once a week men), this decrease (which could be 1%, could be 10%, or whatever, as they apparently didn't desire to make the amount widely known) in the people discharging several times a day where higher by 1/3. (or an additional .33%, 3.3% or 1/3 of whatever they claim it helps) so saying we got something as high as 13% decrease of the already "existing" risk a man has, by discharging multiple times a day (no, not once a day/week/month and by any means), it's still only likely to be something that will reduce your total risk by as little as 1%. so once a week is going to have even far less use, and since nocturnal or other means of natural emissions is just as beneficial, anyone holding the standpoint that this is a "necessity" is fooling themselves, especially since they only claim increasing discharges may reduce risk, but never claim a lack of orgasms will increase that risk.
people's natural risk could be 1%, could be 70%, could be 99%; age, weight, and a million other factors will help to provide that information. prostate cancer being the #2 most fatal cancer in men, (but of course not the 2nd most common cause of death of men) surely makes such a proposal sound nice, but it might be helpful in just admitting that while having LOTS of orgasms "may" decrease my risk, it's still pretty slight and basically just a "feel good" reason for men condone to having sex. if anyone is actually sincerely concerned about prostate and health problems and wishes to decrease them by any significant risk, this is among the last concern that should be on their mind.
i'm really surprised that people would do this from the standpoint of it being a necessity rather than desire to, and i'm more surprised that people hold such concerns of these risks, potential or not, but blithely commit other engagements.
rummage around here for yourself, no need to take my word for it.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/understanding-prostate-changes/page1/print?page=&keyword=
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/treatment/prostate/patient/allpages/print
i also won't try to convince anyone else in where to place their trust, but i can say for myself, if i felt like i couldn't trust a doctor's opinion, (which isn't uncommon, "seek a 2nd opinion" shouldn't be a new phrase to anyone) i'm certainly unlikely to then trust people with no credible medical knowledge at all, and even less likely to trust www.treatthatboylikeadog.com or any wiki where absolutely any idiot that registers can write whatever they want on it. i can with no more or less medical knowledge create a site with "facts" like this that people coming across it will believe and find just as convincing as any other listed. sure they have possibility for useful information and experiences, but every time someone pushes a user-written wiki page, or directs me to http://lookma.imadeawebsite.com as if it were fact or undeniable evidence of any truth, i can only bury my face in my palm over how (in some degree) gullible they are to trust just anyone, or anything they see on the web. these people are no more credible or varied in their own opinions than the people on these forums or anywhere else.
feeling eager to call me out on it or disprove my assumptions in the lack of credibility or worth in these sites? (let alone other sites or peoples personal opinions and assumptions they are quick to claim as "truth") why not take a closer look into these sites first.
the first site link in this thread (listed as medical) states "Material at this website must not be construed as medical advice. SEE YOUR DOCTOR. No patient has been examined prior to making these comments. We do not warrant and shall have no liability for information provided in this site regarding recommendations concerning... any and all health purposes." no credible criteria or willingness to stand behind these views? and even, "no patient..."? so not only is it questionable in the first place but they have no actual experience in such practices? and they're really only trying to sell a non FDA approved product, rather than provide any knowledge? well... are you really surprised?
the second link is nothing more than a simple pay-site selling sexual services and in high desire to your credit card, and quite wisely makes no claim what-so-ever to consider its information credible. though, the information and viewpoints on this site is actually quite interesting to read~
the third site also goes on to state "the ideas expressed in this site are the personal view of the author."
sites like this and peoples opinions and experiences offer nothing more and should be treated as nothing more than (possibly) "guidelines and resources", and to ever offer them up as anything more, or to discredit another's views simply because of the disposition of your own beliefs is foolish, and about as impossible to argue about as religion.
in the site i linked to, (the National Cancer Institute) they have their own disclaims, but nothing to construe the value of the information they provide, and rather simply state they do not endorse or recommend any certain commercial products, or services.
the most you can expect of people is to acknowledge that risk is always present in anything we do, and if preservation is an aspect people are concerned with, aside from doing what you can within reason to inform yourself, being aware of your own, and if you have one, your partners body, and taking appropriate measures if something causes concern or seems abnormal, and those things are common sense inherent to basically anything.
it's funny though, that despite people being quick to reply to aneirin's post, and making sure to voice their own decisive viewpoints they hold on the subject and argue with others, as they post mad amounts of links... no one actually answered his question.
it would have been simple enough to in a single sentence say "it is the technique of providing manual stimulation to the prostate, usually with the use of a finger(s) by access through the rectum, to cause it to release the fluids that it would naturally do so during orgasm, but done without climax or stimulation directly to the genetalia", and then proceed to share their views as well as the whens, whys, and hows they have.
|
RE: Milking - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread