Total denial, yes/no?

It seems from some recent exchanges that the, often talked about  – prostate cancer risk reduction through regular ejaculations, is coming under question by Mistresses who follow this blog. I found an article, dated 7 October 2019 in Medical News Today. I have pasted it below. It seems to me genetics and diet might play the most important role.

Before that though, here  is a very interesting conclusion from The Harvard Medical School

……………The studies from the United States and Australia do little to answer these critical questions — but they do open a new avenue for research. Since both report that a high frequency of ejaculation early in adulthood has the greatest impact on the risk of prostate cancer decades later, they call attention to the role of events early in life, when the prostate is developing and maturing. 

Does anyone have anything more helpful than that above or below? (To be clear, I do not want any links to articles that fail to add something useful to what is presented in this post!)

Frequent ejaculation and prostate cancer risk

from: Medical New Today

The prostate gland that plays an important role in ejaculation. Many people believe that ejaculating frequently can help reduce the risk of prostate cancer.

The prostate gland is a small, walnut shaped gland that produces the fluid in semen and helps push this fluid out during ejaculation.

Excluding skin cancerprostate cancer is the most common cancer among males in the United States. In fact, around 1 in 9 men will receive a diagnosis of prostate cancer at some point in their lives.

Because prostate cancer is so widespread, it is important to know and understand the risk factors.

This article explores whether or not frequent ejaculation can reduce the risk of prostate cancer. It also explains some other risk factors and why screening is important.

Is there a link?
The link between frequent ejaculation and reduced prostate cancer risk is not conclusive.

In recent years, a number of articles have claimed that ejaculating more often can reduce the risk of prostate cancer. Some scientific evidence supports these claims.

For example, according to a 2016 study, males who ejaculate more frequently are less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who ejaculate less frequently.

The research followed a 2004 investigation that came to a similar conclusion. Both studies found that males who ejaculate 21 times or more per month may have a lower risk of developing prostate cancer than males who ejaculated four to seven times per month.

Other studies have produced conflicting results. As a result, many researchers disagree about whether or not ejaculating more often makes males of all ages less likely to develop prostate cancer.

One 2009 study found that frequent masturbation might reduce the risk of prostate cancer in males aged 50 and above. However, the same study also suggested that ejaculating more often might increase the risk among males in their 20s and 30s.

In contrast, a 2003 study from Australia found that males who frequently ejaculated when they were younger appeared to have a reduced rate of prostate cancer later in life.

A literature review from 2016 concludes that masturbation, frequency of ejaculation, and age all affected a male’s risk of prostate cancer. However, its authors also say that there was not enough evidence to confirm how these factors might link together.

Although some evidence seems to suggest a link between ejaculating more often and the risk of prostate cancer, the results overall have been inconsistent and contradictory.

For this reason, scientists need to conduct more research to confirm what impact, if any, frequent ejaculation has on prostate cancer risk.

 

For info on my own BDSM manual, in several formats, click on an image below.

40 thoughts on “Total denial, yes/no?

  1. I think they need to run longer studies on a larger number of males because the result of current studies show randomness which is a result of samples which are not large enough to see the trend.
    The reason they a bigger sample is because ejaculation doesn’t seem to have much effect on risk of prostrate cancer, so it will be impossible to observe a trend in a small sample as others factors like food and lifestyle have much larger impact and they will overshadow it.

      1. Also, from an evolutionary perspective, orgasm is pleasurable because it causes ejaculation which ultimately result in continuation of the species. Most male mammals cum just a few times every year during the mating season or they may not even orgasm once if they couldn’t find a suitable mate.
        In humans we have exploited the pleasure we receive from orgasm by masturbating sometimes a little too often. So, from an evolutionary perspective there is not reason that not ejaculating will cause any health problems since we are ejaculating too much due to masturbation which may not have been the case always.

    1. Quite so. A bigger sample is essential for scientific validity. These sorts of medical effects can be affected by many confounding genetic and environmental conditions, so good experimental design, a large sample size and an adequate experimental duration are essential.

      I haven’t done the statistics but I would suggest as a rule of thumb, that the experimenter (or experimentress) needs to identify a ‘treatment group’ of at least six thousand men, as early as possible in their sexual histories (age 18, say) and place them securely in chastity. A ‘control group’ of about a thousand men should be permited ejaculation at will.

      The large size of the treatment group is to allow the experimentress to create cohorts experiencing chastity of different durations. So: after ten years, 1000 of the chaste control group would be released from their devices while the other 5000 would remain locked up. It is important, of course, that the men do not know in advance which of them might be released, as that would potentially distort the experimental set-up. They just have to wait and see,

      Further cohorts of men would be released at later ten year intervals, so we would have 4000 chaste men after age 38, 3000 after age 48, 2000 after age 58 and 1000 after age 68. We can probably assume that there is no need for release at age 78, so the last cohort of 1000 can simply remain locked until they die of old age. This way, each cohort is of a good statistically valid size.

      Of course, it is important that control group and treatment group males should not differ in other ways. One way to achieve this is to encourage them to socialise across the groups. For example, a chaste male could be paired up with a free one. They could date girls together, even find long-term love, but of course only the free ‘control group’ male would actually be able to engage in sexual congress. The chaste male might watch, for example, and thus have a full and satisfying love life in every respect except that someone else will do any actual sexual intercourse.

      Encouraging the chaste males to hang out with the sexually active free ones will also help motivate them, keeping their spirits up in what might ocasionally be quite a dispiriting process. For example, every ten years they are in with a chance of release but only 1000 will be released and the rest will face at least another ten years of frustration, and possibly life. A few of these males might find this a bit of a downer. As a blog post here once put it: the hope is the hardest part to bear.

      The ‘final’ cohort might be particularly susceptible to gloom. After all, a 68 year-old in this cohort has not only spent 50 years without any sexual release, watching others fuck everything that moves, but on five separate occasions, has hoped for release and had those hopes cruelly (but scientifically) dashed yet again. They need to be encouraged to think of the benefits to future generations, of the life of frustration and envy they have experienced. That should help.

      And then, at the end of it, after more than half a century of imposing chastity on thousands of men for decades at a time, the experimentress (or her daughter, or granddaughters) will have data enabling an initial and tentative reoslution of the question of the efects of long-term chastity on men’s health.

      I say ‘initial and tentative’ of course, because scientific rigour demands that experimental results be replicable,so it will be important immediately to begin another multi-decade study requiring thousands of test subjects in long term and permanent chastity, before any reasonably reliable conclusions can be drawn. But that is a task for future generations of female scientists, some yet unborn. I just hope there are enough such women, willing to make such a sacrifice for this noble cause. Some might be inspired, not least by blogs such as this one, as well as by the sheer joy of scientific discovery.

      There’s grandeur in this vision of generations of brilliant female scientists, selecting, watching, monitoring and repeatedly dashing the hopes of thousands upon thousands of desperate, pleading men. For science!

      I hope this vital project receives the funding it so richly deserves.

      1. It seems highly impractical.
        Men can willingly go into chastity when they are controlled by a dominant female because they feel submissive. Doctors may not be able to do it. It is complete disruption of their normal life.
        And this experiment requires commitment of the highest order which most people will only give to their partner. They just have to ensure that the group of people under study do not lie if they fail to follow their abstainment period. FLR couples can’t be used for this experiment as it will have a huge sampling bias due the males being submissive only who generally have higher libido.

        1. Clearly it is impractical, although a delightful fantasy, but some of your statements are rather loose. You write, …..They just have to ensure that the group of people under study do not lie if they fail to follow their abstainment period……….. Clearly not practical either.

          And there is no evidence at all that submissive males have a higher libido than other males is there?

          1. I am confident that a sufficiently determined group of experimentresses, provided with the right equipment, could make quite sure ‘the group of people under study do not lie’.

            Mistress Scarlet could probably advise them on the most effective techniques.

  2. If frequency of masturbation when young has any protective function then I will be well protected. That would be good since in the past 5 years I’ve only ejaculated maybe 15 times. I’d have to check my journals to know the number for sure. At the moment I’m 332 days since my last orgasm/ejaculation. I try to eat healthy and workout regularly—so with any luck those factors will be a strong protection against cancer.

  3. First, thank you for the informative articles. One of the reasons, beside the obvious, I love your blog is you base your reasoning on scientific evidence.

    I don’t have any other links but a few observations. First I’m not sure how these studies gather their research. Are they going by what men say on how many times they ejaculate? Men lie about sexual matters very easily and all the time. To base a study on that evidence alone I would question.

    Also, if prostate cancer was caused by a lack of men ejaculating, it would be the rarest form of cancer know to humankind. There is an old saying that goes, “Ninety percent of men masturbate and the other 10% are liars”. Men just do not ejaculate unless they have problems or their penis is lock up. Just my opinions.

    1. I think that is the most persuasive issue. 99% of men ejaculate very often but loads of men get prostate cancer; which suggests ejaculating does little or nothing to help. It seems.

  4. Dear Mrs Scarlett,
    My dad is a urologist and was the medical director of a diocese-owned hospital. He told me years ago that most priests over 75 have one illness in common, chronic prostatitis. Very old priests, 85 and older, pretty often developed prostate cancer.

    1. I am not sure that is determinative of anything because about 70% of all men over 75 have prostate problems; a proportion of whom develop cancer. I don’t think it was because they were priests, but just because they were old. What would have been interesting is if he said 50 year old priests had prostate problems.

  5. I wonder with what sentiment your husband is following this inquiry into the possible health detriments of going without ejaculation. If I were him I’d be pretty scared you are setting sail towards a definitive conclusion sometime in the future. One which I am sure he will come to regret as he has probably regretted many of your past conclusions about what you wish to be done.. to him.

    Intriguing, and yet at the same time, I can’t help to also feel a little bit scared and sad for your husband, for the possibility of a bleak and undeniably frustrating future is emerging from the void.

    Undoubtedly if the Greek gods had wished to be any more cruel to Tantalus they would have had his phallus locked up and have Aphrodite be there with him all the time, teasing him with that which he would never have.

    1. In an earlier comment I confirmed I have no plans along these lines for bitch-boy. I published the post because, by coincidence, two wonderful Mistresses with whom I correspond are both thinking of a total denial route for their subs. and neither could find any solid evidence that it is a health risk.

      1. I think that would eliminate “hope.” Isn’t “hope” a necessary ingredient to cruelty?

        1. You are right that I and other Dommes have recently been mentioning the amusing cruelty of raising and dashing hopes. But think for a moment. Obviously zero hope can still be incredibly cruel. For instance:

          bitch-boy has no hope of ever being allowed to penetrate a woman again. Despite how I flaunt my body in front of him. That is not cruelty??

          1. Sure cruelty exists in the absence of hope. But I guess it depends on what you’re looking for from your submissive. I would think the absence of hope would lead to depression and make your sub merely an automaton. The few times I get my buttons pushed I am energized and when i’m completely ignored for long periods I feel depressed inside.

            In your case, you rub his face in the fact you have Lexi. That seems like that still pushes buttons. But having nothing at all, that is depressing in my opinion.

            1. Why have you ignored that each regime can and almost always does include both non hope issues and hope issues.
              Do you seriously think bitch-boy is a depressed automaton?

              1. Not at all. His buttons are pushed quite well AND you have the Lexi factor.

                I’m just saying I would be depressed if there was no hope ever.

                  1. I was going to say hope of orgasm, but now that I think on it I’d probably be disappointed when I did. Submissive minds are so strange. I’ll be quiet now. :)

  6. If the sub adjusts to total denial, their suffering would be reduced. They would also escape the torment of being milked in chastity and ruined orgasms, both excellent techniques for demasculation. Men are more afraid of becoming sexually ineffective than they are of being denied sex. Image if bitch-boy could be retrained as a sub who cums prematurely. Your timed sex-sessions with the shoe may have already achieved this.

    And what of post-orgasm torment? Total denial means the Mistress misses out on her opportunities. A glimpse of freedom only increases a prisoner’s misery.

    1. Thank you. I can totally understand the points you make and there is logic to them, but ALL the subs I know a bit about would absolutely prefer the miseries of the things you list to the de-masculation and finality of never ever ejaculating again. From my current perspective I will not be totally denying bitch-boy because of the things I would miss out on that you list. But I must also say I find the concept of total denial very very hot, especially combined with cuckolding, and I have learned the hard way that wisdom in the DS world means for me, never say never, about anything.

  7. The science isn’t settled, but from what I have read it appears that it is likely that lack of ejaculations leads to a small increase in prostate cancer. As awesome as the idea of forbidding all orgasms is, I personally would not risk it. An alternative is to make him dread orgasms. The next time you discover something new he dreads as much as Linnex, pair his orgasms exclusively with that thing. Every time he gets an orgasm he has to endure the same dreadful thing.

    1. I’m afraid ‘……..from what I have read………..‘ is not good enough for us any more. I have set out science reports that disagree with ‘what you have read’, please can we see ‘what you have read’. Is what you have read more recent than my October 2019 material?

      1. Love your blog. However, I disagree with the 2019 article you cite. The majority of the studies that it references suggest a weak negative correlation between ejaculation and prostate cancer in older males. It does not present any new information. I do not agree with the conclusion that the studies have been contradictory. I would say they have been inconclusive and more studies are needed.

        1. If you prefer inconclusive rather than contradictory, I am OK with that.

          And do you agree that the studies all make reference to the probability that ejaculation frequency after 30 years of age does not benefit prostate health when males are older? That ejaculation frequency only appears to have value up to 30 years of age.

  8. Whilst I have no medical background, my ‘research’ of this topic suggests that extreme chastity is most unlikely to contribute to a higher risk of prostate cancer. Other factors are well documented. From what I read and observe, when a male is kept locked for extended periods, he will have night-time emissions. This is nature’s way of removing the build-up and keeping things healthy. This is what was often called ‘wet dreams’.
    I have often observed this, as I am sure have other ladies, when the time between releases is extended.
    This is of course not only beneficial from the above perspective, it provides a further opportunity to apply the Linnex!

    1. I think wet dreams occur with a hard penis. But I have no idea what will happen if penis is forcefully kept flaccid.

        1. Wow, that is really great. So do they still result in as much ejaculation as normal orgasms or just some little drops?

  9. I sure do love Christine M posts. I wish she would start her own blog or post more on your blog Mistress Scarlet. I laughed where she said, “This is of course not only beneficial from the above perspective, it provides a further opportunity to apply the Linnex!”

    Of course, she is right, wet dreams are natures way of “cleaning the pipes”. So in the unlikely event, not ejaculating could cause cancer, I would think this would take care of that. As I mention in another comment, I recently came off a 3 month hiatus of not ejaculating, and twice I had a wet dream during that time. The thing is, at least for me, is wet dreams are not really pleasurable, do not make me less horny or submissive and makes a mess. If you would add a Linnex application (not yet anyhow) I wouldn’t want any (wet dreams).

  10. I think, as a sub, I should recieve relief, but not obtain it; locked away I will have those wet dreams and thus I think they will be of benefit for me physically. Thus sexually I remain dorment and much of the time frustrated. And that will spur new on!

  11. In answer to your request for information better than “from what I have read” above, I provide the following taken from Up to Date, an authoritative subscription based resource for medical providers. This topic was updated in March 2020.

    Ejaculatory frequency — An association between ejaculatory frequency and a lower risk of prostate cancer has been suggested in two case-control studies:

    ●In a study which compared men under the age of 70 who had prostate cancer with age-matched controls, men who had five or more ejaculations per week while in their 20s (but not their 30s or 40s) had a significantly lower risk of prostate cancer (odds ratio 0.66) than those who had fewer ejaculations [158].

    ●A report from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study compared men who developed prostate cancer (n = 3839) with controls of a similar age group who had similar ejaculatory frequency but no prostate cancer [159]. On multivariable analysis, the incidence of prostate cancer was significantly reduced for men having more than 21 ejaculations per month compared with those with 4 to 7 ejaculations per month between ages 20 and 29 years (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.72-0.92). The HR for those reporting more than 21 versus 4 to 7 ejaculations per month between ages 40 and 49 years was 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.89).

    The validity of this relationship has been called into question because of the lack of association of prostate cancer with ejaculation frequency in older men and the fact that other studies have failed to show a protective effect from being married or having more sexual partners [160]. Moreover, the problem of recall bias also casts doubt on the interpretation of studies that use this methodology.

    1. Two interesting issues.

      1. The last paragraph calls into question the face value findings.

      2. BUT, much more interesting! This research, like the two studies I included in my post, seems to also confirm that after males have passed thirty years old, a restriction of orgasms almost certainly has no adverse effects on the prostate. OVER THIRTIES MALES LOOK OUT!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: