abnormalsheep

Hi, This subject has been a curiosity to me for quite some time. Even more curious, is the lack of curiosity & research about the subject. I have little background in science beyond an interest and determined attempts to apply a kind of systematic method of interpretation to my personal perceptions. It is my lament that most musings will only ever be anecdotal. Anyway. The subject came up again tonight, and as usual, it was first received with an open kind of jovial reaction, and then as usual, became a demand of proof before any serious consideration is given. I do give perhaps too much benefit of the doubt to ancient practices, particularly of the Tao. Many practices are meeting validation and I'm pretty sure this particular point will inevitably receive its own validation in due time. It seems, that Miser was also inspired by Taoist suggestion and has since attempted to research any truth within the claims. Taoists actually encouraged regular intercourse and even intermittent ejaculation. Therefore, it is never entirely stated that ejaculation is a bad thing. (I noticed a bit of defensiveness regarding that in the thread) What hasn't been mentioned, and may be relevant in any subsequent studies, is that to thoroughly gain the benefit of retention, there must be the same level of stimulation and arousal - ie, reaching the point of ejaculation and refraining. Of course there is a technique to redistributing all that "energy" elsewhere and must be practiced with caution. The point being, on this basis, it might be easier to conduct comparable studies. So there could be one group who masturbate ejaculating normally, and another who masturbate without ejaculating, measuring their cognitive, emotional and physiological reactions. This could be continued over a matter of days, weeks or months and I'm sure a positive distinction would emerge. How hard is it to conduct studies like these? Even a simple urine or blood test may give illuminating results. There could be preliminary measures, such as fasting, or choosing people of similar stature and lifestyle. Any suggestions of narrowing variables? I am quite tired of "feeling" convinced that if men masturbated less, we would see so many benefits within themselves and society. It feels a bit like how I'd imagine a mother feels trying to get her kids to eat greens. Is there no way to substantiate all the ancedotal reviews? Arrange them so that particular variables are accounted for? It could be that retainers were ex porn-addicts, or they could be people that hardly masturbated or had sex generally, and was exploring a more focused practiced. I feel like clarifying again, that the practice of retention isn't to say that ejaculation is bad - it indeed has its benefits, but I think in this case, less is indeed more. There are actually prescriptions in Taoist texts, that young spritely men can ejaculate once or twice a week, and older men once or twice a month, and elderly men every few months. And to clarify again, it doesn't mean "no sex". Quite the contrary. Any feedback on proceeding with acceptable scientific method would be appreciated. Why it hasn't already been researched explicitly in regards to improving mens wellbeing and health seems bizarre. I'm fed up of the arguments personally. Whilst there are no studies, all the ancedotal reference and suggestion, dating back thousands of years, seems too intriguing to ignore. People on the thread mention evolution a lot. Perhaps the reemergence of this practice is evolutionary in itself, albeit regurgitated, to be processed more thoroughly than it ever has. As much as masturbating to ejaculate is a quick fix for dopamine etc, masturbating without ejaculating is a parallel quick fix for the hypothetical heightened, well, everything. How can we as a species, not be curious about that?? Excuse my writing abilities. Please be kind in picking at my words. The main point, is how can we proceed in proving or disproving this? How to create the data and research that is lacking, since it is apparently firmly established that there isn't any; with a scientific standard. This is why I joined the forum, for some suggestion. (And to clarify the Taoist angle a bit I suppose!)