Porn, masturbation and the medical profession

exactly what they think: that masturbation isn't harmful at all, but even healthy. They allow just for a handful of exceptions, such as people suffering from OCD or serious mental illness. But for "normal" people it's perfectly ok.

I do not have the specific medical knowledge to counterattack that argument, but I have my empirical experience: and in my opinion, that's bollocks. Masturbation isn't absolutely harmful, at least I don't think it is, but it may become like that under some circumstances. In any case, it should be made clear that it may develop into something worse later and certainly shouldn't be advertised as something healthy. If they don't do it, it is either because they refuse to admit such a thing, or it's too difficult for people to grasp so they won't even try. After all, it's not something deadly and you harm no one but yourself.

And I can understand that, it's a very difficult topic to address. The dangers of smoking are evident, as well as the dangers of alcohol, or hard drugs. And they are easy to explain too: the smoke gets into the lungs, the alcohol and the drugs get into your brain, there is a chemical reaction, bla bla. They are easy-to-blame external, tangible substances.

But the effects of masturbation are much more subtle and extremely hard to detect for most people. Seriously, I couldn't imagine a credible medical pamphlet against masturbation. What would you write on it to make it convincing? At best, it would sound excessively spiritual/new agey. At worst, it would sound utterly ridiculous or excessively complicated.

for decades that orgasm is not only harmless, but so beneficial that it should be induced by sexual enhancement devices and pharmaceuticals. The psychiatry diagnostic manual defines anyone (male or female) who doesn't orgasm at the drop of a hat as "pathological." (This is to be revised in the next manual, at least as to women.)

This type of thinking came into vogue after Kinsey's work. Unfortunately Kinsey didn't have the advantage of (very) recent discoveries about the neurochemistry of the brain. (Kinsey also falsified his data because he was so angry with Victorian attitudes toward sex. He viewed orgasm as "a mere outlet," and practiced what he preached by pursuing it avidly. He ended up a bisexual sex addict who ultimately harmed himself with extreme S&M activities. He just didn't make the connection between his compulsion and his neurochemistry because the knowledge wasn't there yet.)

No doctors are yet thinking about the neurochemistry of sex, except as to how they can manipulate it in the form of lucrative pharmaceuticals. Kinsey-think is too engrained, and all sexologists have been trained by offshoots of Kinsey's institute. (Reich had a similar influence in Germany, and porn addiction in German is also rampant.)

In other words, humanity has had a huge blindspot here, and it has tied the hands of the medical profession.

The good news is that just this week one doctor began to question whether neurochemical changes after orgasm are *always* due to psychological difficulties (the prevailing dogma). I posted his article. http://www.reuniting.info/science/sex_and_depression_in_the_brain_if_not...

I also sent him this letter:

Dear Dr. Friedman,

Thanks for your courage in writing "Sex and Depression: In the Brain, if Not the Mind" for the New York Times. My husband and I have been tracking information and research indirectly related to this phenomenon for many years, and it was refreshing to see an expert step outside of the box.

We believe that in addressing the plight of these outliers, you are on the tip of a very large iceberg. It seems likely that neurochemical shifts after orgasm (which we call "the passion cycle") affect all lovers to varying degrees. We have found medical abstracts supporting the possibility that the full cycle is about two weeks long, and careful observers have noticed the same thing.

In most of us the effects of this passion cycle are so subtle that we don't recognize them as being connected to orgasm. Yet they may be playing a far greater role in our sex lives than we imagine. For example, we believe these unsuspected neurochemical shifts are behind the problem of habituation between mates - a common result even between those who genuinely long to stay in love. We also think this cycle is behind the tendency of orgasm to become compulsive in the case of superstimulation (like today's extreme porn, or Victorian attitudes that make sex unnaturally enticing, or childhood experiences of intense sexual arousal by an older sibling or adult).

We have written a book on this subject, which is due out June 23 of this year. It's called Cupid's Poisoned Arrow: From Habit to Harmony in Sexual Relationships. It is written for lay readers but has over 350 endnotes to all the research on which we based our conclusions. Here's what two readers just said:

I have read many books (and indeed have more than one degree) involving the neurochemistry that you describe and I can honestly say that I have never read a more accessible and well laid out description of it. Without sacrificing detail, you manage to paint very powerful images of how the limbic system works and its chemical substrates. Well done! (Psychiatrist)

[About Chapter Six, "The Road to Excess"] Thank you so much for writing this. It was great to read for many reasons. It is very well written. It is fascinating. It drew me along and I was very disappointed when I got to the end. And most importantly it provides what I think is one of the most important things: reasons to break the addiction. People may say they want to do something but without solid reasons that speak to one's values then there is no reason to change. I think this information would benefit many people. Well done and thanks again. (Man recovering from porn addiction)

I apologize for tooting my own horn here, but I know there is a tendency to discount the work of non-experts, especially when one is very busy, and I thought you might find their informal reviews reassuring. Speaking of reviews, if you would like to review the manuscript, I would be happy to send you a copy. The first chapter is available here: http://www.reuniting.info/cupids_poisoned_arrow_chapter_1

In any event, it was refreshing to see a psychiatrist consider the possibility that neurochemical events after orgasm, not psychological issues, could be behind some unwelcome changes after orgasm. Since the time of Kinsey our culture has been unwilling to consider this possibility. (Kinsey, however, didn't have the benefit of today's understanding of the brain.) I wish you much success with your future investigations into this realm. I warn you that, based on our experience, the "orgasm is God" crowd is every bit as protective of its sacred cow as the Victorians ever were.

Best regards,
Marnia

I sense the time is arriving when the medical profession *will* put two and two together. Then we'll have the best of both worlds...more knowledge about our mating neurochemistry AND psychiatrists/psychologists who are trained to help people with psychological issues relating to sex. Both are needed.

his solution was not necessarily the best one, but hopefully he will now consider other options.

When did those Gamblers' Anonymous commercials start coming on TV? Fairly recently it seems, like in the past few years. Hopefully porn addiction will get similar commercials. Maybe it wasn't such a problem for enough people before the Internet, but now, with high speed becoming more and more ubiquitous, it is.

Unfortunately, I think it'll be a long time before the downsides of masturbation become common knowledge. The days of unhealthy sexual repression for religious/moral reasons are too recent, but at least in the "underground" word can be spread. Just like natural healing and alternative medicine, if it works, it will start to become more and more mainstream.

Take a look at this.

http://www.masturbate-a-thon.com/

So much for sex education.

these links summarize pretty well the current accepted dogmas regarding masturbation.

http://sexuality.about.com/od/masturbation/p/masturbation_fx.htm

http://www.jackinworld.com/library/myths.html

http://www.jackinworld.com/misc/z/healthy.html

that have meetings frequent (several meetings a day). Try this site: http://www.slaaonline.org/

/ Soulsearching

What is it specifically about masturbation that is medically harmful, ethically problematic, spiritually immature or whatever you want to call it?

Is it the porn? If you could do it without the porn or even some mental fantasy, would it be ok? By the way, when women masturbate, do they do the porn thing?
Is it the orgasm? Would masturbation without orgasm be ok?
Is it the excess? If you masturbated just a little, would that be ok? Or is it inherently bad in any amount?

There are Tantric masturbation enthusiasts (see their website) who brag about edging for hours and hours, though like most heterosexual Tantrists, the kind you encounter on the internet at any rate, most of them seem to be in it because they want to have the biggest possible orgasm in the end. But let's say some of this lot is absolutely opposed to orgasm. What's the difference between them and a non-orgasmic heterosexual couple who make love for hours and hours, e.g. the infamous Sting and his wife? (Aren't they non-orgasmic?) Can't heterosexual intercourse be just as excessive as masturbation, even without orgasm?

For me, an essential part of sex seems to be heterosexual pheromone exchange--something you can't get with either masturbation or homosexuality. I agree with those who say masturbation in any amount is a homosexual act, and while I don't oppose either on religious grounds, since I am an atheist, both of them just plain creep me out. There are people you meet who have a certain posture, a certain expression on their face, a certain odor, certain mannerisms and attitude that make you think that while they may be able to pass a physical exam, something just ain't right.

As for excessive heterosexual sex--without orgasm. Is it possible? Sure anything can be taken to excess, right? To play devil's advocate for a moment, is orgasm not a good way to keep us from having too much sex? If not, what is a better mechanism of restraint? Are there chronobiological cues? The syzygian moon, for example, as an environmental cue? (That should be interesting to Marnia, since it occurs every two weeks. Have you noticed that it's more difficult to control orgasm at the new or full moons?) Or ovulation, with its cervical mucous? And in the healthiest women, are ovulation and the new or full moon synchronized? See Dr. Winifred Cutler's work at the Athena Institute on both pheromones and the synchronization of the moon and the menstrual cycle.

First of all, I don't characterize masturbation in any of the ways you have suggested. I think it's a perfectly normal thing to do, and that we all need to find out how our genitals "work," without being made to feel weird about it.

However, I think it would pay to understand better how our reward circuitry works, and why turning orgasmic activity into a superstimulus risks creating compulsive pursuit of orgasm. This potential to fall into an addictive, escalating cycle is a real risk. So is the risk of isolating oneself.

Research suggests that orgasm with masturbation is *different* from orgasm during sex with a partner, although sexologists are still pretty much ignoring this evidence. Two differences are: the sexual satiation neurochemical, prolactin, rises four times as much after intercourse orgasms, compared with solo orgasms. Also, those who had their orgasms during intercourse showed lower stress response to public speaking.

Our theory is that intercourse includes *some* degree of bonding behavior (touch, kissing, eye gazing), and that it is likely that these behaviors (not the orgasm) soothe stress - even though the "crash" after orgasm can temporarily feel very relaxing. (By the same token, solo orgasms leave one more restless and perhaps therefore inclined to seek relief again.)

Couples who master karezza, which is all bonding behaviors, and generally no orgasm, feel even more happy and relaxed. (This also responds to your point that karezza must increase sexual frustration. It doesn't if the emphasis is on gentle intercourse and generous affection. This is the "miracle." It's like the miracle of the men here who find that cutting out masturbation is actually less frustrating than cutting back on masturbation - or pursuing it as frequently as possible. With karezza, too, you can also step *outside* of the cycle of cravings - but still keep intercourse in the picture. )

All this may mean that orgasm with masturbation presents a couple of risks that prolonged intercourse doesn't. One risk is that it's so ease to move to the "next hotter image," when you're solo. You are using an increasingly potent stimulus, and can get drawn into an addictive mode, where you need more and more stimulation to get the same, and eventually *any* effect. You are, in effect, *desensitizing* yourself. (Of course the same thing can happen with "kinky" or risky sex with a partner, but the point is that this escalation *doesn't* occur with gentle, affectionate sex, which relies for its sparkle on the oxytocin-type feelings of deep trust and connectedness, rather than the dopamine feelings of intensity alone.)

Masturbation is not a bonding behavior, and because of the high/low cycle, it can make you feel like isolating. This is not a path to happiness for humans. Like it or not, we're molded to find interaction rewarding. We evolved in bands and then tribes. Isolation is punishing. There's a new book called "Loneliness," which makes this point using recent research.

To use the SLAA phrase someone here just taught us, we can't substitute "intensity for intimacy" without feeling worse over all...even though the intensity feels *very* rewarding for a few seconds at a time (and also intensifies later cravings for more relief).

Some people find that gentle masturbation, not to orgasm, without extreme fantasy, is soothing. Others may not. Others find their ideal "schedule" when without a partner. Each person has to work this out for himself, in his own private laboratory.

To answer one of your questions, back in "the day," when I masturbated I did use fantasy. I was hooked on it, and didn't really like fantasizing because it tended to follow me into loving encounters and distract me from being fully present whenever I grew aroused. Once I stopped making orgasm the goal, the fantasy stuff just evaporated. It was all part of my brain's "pathway to rapid relief," and when I was no longer seeking that type of relief, the whole pathway just dematerialized. I mean, it's probably still there, but it's no longer intrusive. Some of the men here are finding similar phenomena.

I can't believe that "edging" is a healthy practice. It would seem to put undue pressure on the prostate, and keep dopamine high (keep the person in "craving" mode), but, hey, what do I know??? If I were a man, I'm sure I would check it out and make my own conclusions. *grin*

I think that Sting said he had exaggerated, and that they *do* have orgasm.

I agree that pheromones may play a very real role. So may energy exchanges that are too subtle for us to measure...yet. Something is definitely exchanged between partners, and it increases well-being. What's interesting is that, as our musician friend is discovering, that "something" doesn't actually require intercourse. Intercourse is just a particularly satisfying way to make the exchange.

Orgasm is definitely not a way to keep us from having too much sex. Because it is the high of a longer cycle that has lows in it, it can increase horniness in the days following. It is considered an aphrodisiac by some. I would say that is correct...in the short term. It can set up an addictive "need" in new lovers. Eventually, however, it pushes us to exhaust our sexual desire for a partner...and then, often, to find novel partners particularly enticing. (If you want a chuckle, here are Lloyd's thoughts on sexual excess: http://www.reuniting.info/karezza_method_lloyd/danger_of_excess)

Huh?? Why can't women edge? All it is is staying right on the edge of orgasm as long as possible, backing off a few seconds to recover, and then doing it again and again...as many times as possible....for hours, until you're exhausted, hungry, sleepy, whatever, and never having an orgasm. Women should be able to do that. What's a prostate got to do with it?

Yes, women certainly can edge! It's more pleasurable than orgasm in many ways, that's why its common for people first attempting to forego orgasm to just edge instead and think that's what this approach is about. But there's always an edge somewhere, isn't there, unless there is no movement or increasing arousal at all, and I'm still not clear as to whether or not that is really what Marnia practices or proposes.

Previously, my edge was happily hanging out between 90-98 percent towards orgasm. I could stay there for hours, and it felt very energizing. I'd say its at about 80% where the eyes start to glass over and something gets into the bloodstream that literally puts me into an altered state. In a way it allows me to focus more on my lover because I am at the place I want to be. Yet it is still a pulling kind of feeling - energetically. I have reached points where I was able to be in that state of arousal and relax completely into it instead of amping it up to its conclusion, but this is rare - the tendency is to always amp a little more and a little more.

Now I'd say the range of what I consider to be the edge is right up to about that 80% (sorry to speak in such technical terms about making love, I just don't know how else to indicate what I mean about intensity), staying relaxed, open, and focused on my lover the whole time and stopping or slowing down if I start to get too jacked up. For marnia, this is still probably going into the red zone but its significantly lower of a stopping point for me.

The value in this form of lovemaking is that it increases rather than decreases sensitivity. A touch or an act that previously would have been seen as just ho-hum or mediocre compared to other fireworks becomes more significant and profound, and the body responds ecstatically to it. This approach opens up all the many fine nuances of enjoyment to be had that can be mostly forgotten or undervalued when seeking such a strong hit. Perhaps if I am able to find someone to really practice this with over a long period of time, my edge could get lower and lower, to the point where simply being connected for long periods of time with no movement at all would be bliss. I'm certainly not there yet, ie, I haven't opened to my real sensitivity completely yet.

Orgasm is actually very useful for the ego because, being a goal, it is something that both people can focus on rather than on eachother. While to some orgasm may seem like a sign of connection, its pursuit can as easily be an avoidance of intimacy or vulnerability. Just as sex can be used that way. It's so inherently intimate one would think that makes no sense, but I feel I've used sex before as a fun and recreational way to avoid other areas and gaps in the relationship that were so glaring they had to be glossed over by hot sex. In retrospect, it was hot sex that allowed me to stay in many relationships that were simply not very healthy in other ways, and it was hot sex that helped me to avoid looking at that for as long as I did.

The sex sure was fun tho . . . yes, entertaining distractions are the best and most effective ones, and as the Buddhists point out, it is possible to spend one's entire life distracting oneself from looking at the meaning or purpose of one's life. In their view, ignorance is nothing other than distraction.

So Marnia, what's edging for you? Do you really stay still the whole time or do you alternate between gentle movement and stillness? Please explain.

at capturing such experiences as you are. I have experienced feeling increasingly sensitive to nuances...and that "ratcheting up" that happens so easily when you focus on trying to reach for just a bit more pleasure for yourself.

Yet, as best I can tell, I usually experience this approach to lovemaking somewhat differently. First, it's not predictable. Sometimes it's just refreshing lovemaking that's warm and affectionate and satisfying. Sometimes it's deeply moving and feels like we're tapping into some "other" space, which is exhilarating, profound and which I'm not sure how to describe in words. Either way, we just let it be whatever it is.

For me it's not a question of holding my foot down on the accelerator a given percentage. There's really no goal and no fixed recipe, other than putting our attention on each other, exchanging generous affection, and *not* trying to move toward orgasm ( no "ratcheting").

Perhaps it's best if each couple finds their own way, without worrying about a more detailed formula than that. I would hate to discourage experimentation, because every two nervous systems are no doubt slightly different, and as you point out, sensitivity itself changes. Besides, the whole process seems to entail learning to balance, like riding a bike. You can follow a formula only so far. Eventually you just have to get a feel for it. Maybe it's all a matter of intention, or maybe someone else can come up with something closer to a formula. If so I don't want to discourage that effort.

In the new book, I take a more flexible approach than I did in Peace. I explain that we have a "habituation" pedal (our mating program, which pushes us to exhaust our sexual desire for each other) and a "harmony pedal" (bonding behaviors), and that it's up to each of us to find our ideal balance between the two pedals. I finally realized that people learn the most from seeing their own results...just as I did. Just as you have. Sometimes they'll push too hard on one pedal or the other, but eventually they'll find what works for them, because they know what each pedal does, and how to "push" it.

In trying to answer your question, I realize that I have come to judge my experiences even more on how Gary and I feel toward each other the *rest* of the time than I do on how we feel in bed...which probably sounds a bit odd. If I think Gary is just irresistibly adorable and we are laughing a lot and getting a lot done in the areas we care about, then our lovemaking is perfect. When there was tension, it usually meant we were either going too near the edge, or not spending enough time snuggling/making love. Now that we know this, it's usually quite easy to restore balance.

I'm not sure any of this has been helpful, but I'm glad you furthered the discussion.

It seems a bit like you were evading Hotspring's question about how you "do" karezza, in particular how close to the edge you get. I must say I'm Curious, too, from a guy's point of view. Not meaning to pry, but it would be nice to know, just as a starting point for my own experiments, whenever I might get the chance to try it. Others might find that guidance useful, too, for example, Che seems to have gone at it a little too vigorously his first time.

To make a strange sort of analogy, Vegemite and karezza are both quite unfamiliar to most Americans. If someone offered you a jar of Vegemite to put on some bread, it would be natural to wonder, "should I put on just a smidgen, or slather it on thick, or what?"

That was a nice comment, about judging how good the lovemaking was by how you feel about each other the rest of the time. Makes sense.

the answer to that question has shifted over time, as we've learned. These days, we don't try to go "near" the edge at all, although each time we make love, there is a range of feelings, and sometimes we get closer to the edge than others.

I think people have to find their own way. In "Peace" I tried to keep people away from orgasm, and pushed the Exchanges with their many instructions, and it wasn't the best strategy. The fundamentalists felt they had "failed" when they had orgasm, the sensualists thought I was "demonizing orgasm."

In other words, no formula (that I've yet found) will work for everyone. Instead people seem to benefit most from having a few principles and some encouragement to apply them. Experiments, successful or unsuccessful, are *always* valuable. In my experience, we have to *do* things to learn them, and that includes finding the boundaries for ourselves. If people don't go over the boundaries now and then, they will always wonder if they're "real."

Also, if anyone doesn't yet know that I'm not recommending "slathering it on" by now, they just aren't listening. I'm not being snippy, just acknowledging how hard it is to hear the message that this doesn't require effort, and works best when it's effortless. No matter how many times you say it, it can't be heard. It has to be felt.

As people here are noticing, as you leave the habits that desensitize you, you *feel* more. So what offers feelings of bliss to someone who has already "re-sensitized" can be quite different from the intensity desired by someone still in the throes of the fertilization-driven sex model.

This ambiguity was frustrating to me, too, but I don't think that mechanical instructions work. If I find any that do, believe me, I'll share them. I guess it's like snow-boarding, surfing, or skating on ice. You have to feel it, and what you feel changes as your balance changes.