About a week ago I was talking to Mistress R about Harry and his long periods of chastity locked in his device. She asked me if it was safe from a health point of view and I said that when we first started doing this I had read a bit about it and that the general consensus was that there was no tangible evidence to suggest that it was unsafe, but there was possibly some long term risk.
After last Sunday's session I decided to research this some more and came up with several fairly contradictory reports.
The one with the most credibility is a study which was done into the relationship between frequency of ejaculation and prostate cancer. This study was looking into the possibility that too many ejaculations could cause the disease, there was a very large group and the results were followed up for ten years or so (I think). They eventually took for comparison a group of people who ejaculated between 4-7 times a month (1-2 a week) and those who averaged 21 times a month (about 5 times a week).
I will post a link to the study at the bottom of the page so you can read it if you wish, it's a very long document so I will just say that the outcome was that they found no definite link between the two, albeit there was seemingly a very slightly reduced risk for those men who ejaculated 21 times a month over those who had the lower figure.
There's a lot of other information in this study actually and it's an interesting read, the problem is that any report of this kind is circumstantial. It doesn't prove anything. It could be that those men who ejaculate more often could be fitter (age was considered but not health and fitness as far as I could see) or have a better diet, so there could be many underlying factors which mean that while the ejaculation rate could be a barometer of the likelihood of developing prostate cancer they might not actually be connected.
It seems the (unproven) theory is that prostate cancer is caused by decaying fluid in the prostate gland. So I guess cleaning out the prostate more frequently could account for the slightly reduced risk. However, on another website I read that when urinating, the prostate gland is squeezed to expel unused fluid, which accounts for the somewhat cloudy last dregs.
On a related note, apparently cum is made from three different liquids, one from the prostate, one from the testes and one from another gland the name of which escapes me. The others seemingly have no bearing (since men who are sterilized do not have a problem it's fair to assume that the body reabsorbs sperm which cannot be expelled since the tubes are cut and sealed).
There is another theory that maybe it's not actually the prostate liquid itself which causes the cancer, but it could be that it somehow inhibits the body from fighting the cancer when it occurs. Again this is all unproven and could just as equally be wrong.
While the study points out that men who ejaculate an unusually high amount have a slightly reduced risk of developing prostate cancer, they did not mention the effect of very low occurrences, even though they mention a section of the study group who came 0-3 times a month. Since they have made mention of the high-rate ejaculators having a slightly diminished risk I would have thought it reasonable to assume that they would have reported if they had found a heightened risk of prostate cancer in men who came very low numbers of times.
Still even if we assume that one day there is a proven link between the prostate fluid decaying and the risk of prostate cancer, there my be other personal factors which are relevant, perhaps one man's prostate is more efficient at expelling the liquid more completely? I am a bit confused about this actually because most men can cum two or three times in succession (they may not be able to maintain a solid erection but they could still cum) so the prostate is obviously not completely emptying itself each time.
Most shockingly, but also oddly reassuring, is that I also discovered that 1 in 3 men who are 50 already have prostate cancer, and this rises to 1 in 2 by the time you get to 70! This has been established though autopsy reports on men who died from other causes. There are 24 odd types of prostate cancer it seems but they fall into two basic categories, very slow and aggressive. Most men who have the slow variety will never even know because they will die of other causes before even showing the first symptoms.
Furthermore, I read about PSA testing, which is a test to ascertain the level of a protein in the blood which is an indicator of prostate cancer. Strangely the level rises when you ejaculate or have a prostate milking (which seems the wrong way round to me...), but on the NHS website it says:
Pro's of having the test:
It may reassure you if the test result is normal
It may give you an indication of cancer before the symptoms develop
It may find cancer at an early stage, when treatment could stop the cancer becoming more advanced
If treatment is successful you will avoid the risks of advanced cancer
In cases of advanced cancer, treatment will usually extend life.
Cons of having the test;
It can miss cancer and provide false reassurance
It may lead to unnecessary medical tests and worry when there is no cancer
It cannot tell the difference between fast and slow growing cancer
It may make you worry by finding slow growing cancer which may never cause you any problems during your life.
To save one life from prostate cancer 48 men would have to be treated.
If your PSA level is raised a biopsy may be needed to check if you have cancer.
About two thirds of the men who have a biopsy do not have cancer, a biopsy can cause complications and can also miss cancer that is present.
So on the face of it, it's hard to detect, very difficult to treat and they don't really know what causes it, and most people who get it never even know about it!
My other thought was, even if there was any evidence that chastity-play could possibly, maybe lead to or be some kind of contributory factor in contracting prostate cancer (which there currently isn't) the high probability of getting it anyway hardly marks it as something to avoid. In other words, smokers know the risks they are taking but they still smoke, how many smokers would be persuaded to give up if they knew there was a good chance of getting lung cancer whether they smoked or not?
I'm not trying to be flippant about this subject, believe me I know it's no laughing matter, but having actually tried to be proactive and asking my doctor about it and being told that unless you are showing the symptoms or have a history of prostate cancer in your family there really is very little point in taking it further I can't help thinking that it's best not to spend too much time worrying about it.
Even if it was proven that cancer is caused by the decaying fluid in the prostate AND that not ejaculating very regularly was to blame, it could be that that was only responsible for the slow-growing type of cancer. The type that half of all men aged 70 have already got.
I'm sure if I was to talk to a doctor about these findings he would probably tell me I would be far better off (since I don't drink or smoke) worrying about my weight. One post I read on a forum suggested that a guy who asked his doctor about this very subject told him that there was no evidence that orgasm frequency was connected to prostate cancer, but that it wouldn't be a bad idea to clear out the pipes at least every two weeks as a precaution. This of course does not mean that you should have a FULL orgasm at least every two weeks, but it does suggest that regular ruined orgasms would not be a bad thing.
One other unconnected thing that I discovered when doing my research was that there comes a point around 12-14 days when a man reaches the limit of cum production (or perhaps more accurately 'storage'), and that after this point the quantity of cum produced (and therefore to some extent pleasurable 'sensation' as it leaves the body) will stay the same.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/291/13/1578.abstract
No comments:
Post a Comment