General remarks about prostate health

Marnia's picture
Submitted by Marnia on
Printer-friendly version

One place it would be especially helpful to have definitive research on karezza is in the important area of prostate health. Here scientists have actually measured many separate factors and their relationship to prostate cancer: ejaculation, intercourse frequency, marital status, number of sex partners, and cases of sexually transmitted disease. (Bonding-based sex itself has not been evaluated, of course.)

So far, study results conflict with each other on almost every factor. Yet the popular press has made a lot of noise about isolated aspects of results that make good headlines. For example, in one study men who remembered ejaculating more during their twenties had lower rates of prostate cancer.1 This is touted by the press—not the researchers—as proof that “frequent masturbation will prevent prostate cancer.” Before you go (get?) off to improve your health, check your date of birth. The beneficial correlation was seen in one of the studies, only in relation to frequent masturbation in one’s twenties. Moreover, a newer study (2009) found the reverse correlation: Those who were most active while younger had more chance of developing cancer later.2

It seems likely that any practice that either discourages affectionate intercourse or puts a strain on the prostate gland is unwise. However, karezza is a very gentle form of intercourse—unlike tantra or some Taoist practices, in which forceful breathing and muscle-contraction techniques are often employed to resist orgasm. Trying to stay near the edge of orgasm is risky for lots of reasons.

I once asked a medical doctor—who has practiced sacred sex techniques for years—about prostate trouble and ejaculation. He said: “I don’t know of any research on this, but I have a strong opinion that the big consideration is whether there is a sense of control/frustration/holding back involved. If one is moving energy well, then congestion [stagnant blood flow] does not happen.” With karezza, lovers tend to make love for longer periods of time, and more often (over the long term), without fighting to control themselves or going near the edge of intense arousal. Also, erections come and go, which gently pumps blood throughout the entire prostate region.

A recent study on prostate health suggests that holistic lifestyle changes can turn off disease-promoting genes, and activate beneficial ones. In the study, the prostate health (of patients with prostate cancer) responded dramatically to stress management techniques (participation in a weekly support group, yoga-based stretching, breathing techniques, meditation, and daily guided imagery), walking thirty minutes per day, and dietary supplements.

After three months, researchers repeated a biopsy of normal tissue in the subjects’ prostate. They found that genes associated with cancer, heart disease, and inflammation were down-regulated or “turned off,” while protective, disease-preventing genes were “turned on.”3 Researchers suggest that similar lifestyle changes may benefit all men, as the biopsies were of healthy tissue. Might soothing bonding-based lovemaking someday prove to be one such beneficial lifestyle change?

  • 1. G. G. Giles, et al., “Sexual Factors and Prostate Cancer,” BJU International, 92(3), July 2003: 211–216; and M. D. Leitzmann, “Ejaculation Frequency and Subsequent Risk of Prostate Cancer,” JAMA, 291(13), April 2004: 1578–1586.
  • 2. 'Sex Drive Link to Prostate Cancer,' Jan. 26, 2009, BBC News, [http]:// See also, S. J. Jacobsen, et al., "Frequency of Sexual Activity and Prostatic Health: Fact or Fairy Tale?" Urology, 61(2), Feb. 2003: 348–353.
  • 3. Dean Ornish, “Changing Your Lifestyle Can Change Your Genes,” Newsweek, June 17, 2008,

prostrate propoganda

On the men's sites that I frequent, the number one rationalization for orgasm (or maturbation, these men's main outlet for intimacy) is that masturbation is good for the prostrate. They find the studies or science that give them an excuse to keep going. All you have to do is tell a guy that masturbation is good for his health and he's a lifer.

I know *shakes head*

A few years back a study showed that men who remembered climaxing lots in their 20s had lower rates of prostate cancer (not by much). Orgasm frequency at other ages showed no correlation. Needless to say the headlines about the study were very misleading ("Studies show orgasm protects against prostate cancer" and the like)...and stuck in our mainstream consciousness as "proof that masturbation is great for you."

Then, earlier this year, out came another study that showed the opposite. Men who had been more sexually active in their 20s and 30s had (again, slightly) *higher* rates of prostate cancer.

When something is NOT a risk factor for disease, then the studies are inconclusive and often contradictory, as they are here. By the way, lots of other studies have been done on prostate cancer (#of partners, marital status, STDs, etc), and all of them tend to produce results that slightly contradict each other.

In other words, the sites you're reading are from people who aren't really watching the actual research, or what the medical profession as a whole is saying. Sad. Worse yet, no one is pointing out the risk of addiction from over-stimulation. *sigh*

Marnia wrote: In other

[quote=Marnia] In other words, the sites you're reading are from people who aren't really watching the actual research, or what the medical profession as a whole is saying. Sad. Worse yet, no one is pointing out the risk of addiction from over-stimulation. *sigh*[/quote]

If you try to bring this topic up you get shut down real quick (or laughed at), or accused of being a religious zealot. What's funny is so many guys masturbate but they are so uncomfortable talking about it, because they are ashamed that they do it. But when they do talk about it, prostrate "studies" are usually the first line of attack. What tends to be ignored is that prostrate cancer usually shows up in much older men and it's such a slow disease that even if you got it, chances are you would die of something else first anyway like simple old age. Still even the word "prostrate" is enough to terrify most guys.

I also think they use that rationalization (that it's healthy) because they are embarrased that they masturbate, so if there is a supposed health benefit to it, they don't have to feel so ashamed of themselves.

There are so many contradictory beliefs regarding masturbation (orgasm) that have come up in conversation there such as, masturbation creates more testosterone, if you masturbate you are better with women and won't act so desperate (like in the movie something about mary), if you don't masturbate you will build up excess testosterone which will cause you to lose your hair, and that if you don't do it you'll go crazy because you have such a high sex drive.

And when it comes to orgasm from real sex, well we're told that sex is the best exercise in the world, and that orgasm is mother nature's cure for just about everything under the sun. It's kind of scary that it's so prevalent.

But I found my way to this site and your book like so many others, so clearly the info is getting out there.

I, too, think guilt

is a really bad idea. No one has anything to be ashamed of no matter how much they've been orgasming. It IS natural...just like it's natural to shovel as much high-calorie food down your throat as you can.

The problem is that "natural" does not lead to balance when it comes to "potent sexual stimuli" and "highly palatable foods" to use the official language. Both are so stimulating that they can easily dysregulate dopamine over time.

So for me the question is just, "What actually makes me feel best?" And we all have to determine the answer to that based on experimenting. I've been surprised and very happy for the people who experiment and find that they feel stronger, more able to cope with stress, less social anxiety, more confident, less sexually frustrated, less depressed, etc.

It's a shame that the mainstream doesn't encourage experimenting...and instead resorts to condescending responses and accusations of religious zealotry. As a friend of mine said years ago, "What have you got to lose (to make the experiment) except passing up some orgasms?" You'd think we were proposing that people cut off body parts or something. Wink

PS Sex IS good for you

...but probably not for the reasons most people think. It's good for you because of the affectionate touch, intimacy and close companionship...and the beneficial effects they have on your mood and nervous system. The orgasm(s) itself is probably not a net gain...if you were to take into account the varied effects of the entire passion cycle (which no one is, of course Wink ).

And the idea that it's great exercise is pure BS. The difference in amount of calories you burn between vigorous sex and karezza would be insignificant.

Good points. Yeah it's

Good points. Yeah it's natural, along with gorging on sweet sugary foods because our bodies assume we won't have a chance like that for awhile (I got the audio version of Mean Genes to further my studies on this).

For my own experiments, I went out alone last night and had an absolute blast meeting new people and having conversations and kidding around with people, it appeared that it was much easier for me to just lose myself in the conversation and have fun, and not be so "in my head" like before. I am very used to isolation, but now my body and mind are saying more and more "get out, get out, be around people, talk to people, we're social creatures, you need social contact, go out and have fun, be social" lol. It seems to be taking on a life of its own. Now I'm at the point that if I'm NOT going out regularly, I feel off. Whereas before, I just wanted to be home alone.

So here's another guy not afraid to experiment. I'm also looking forward to trying this with live, breathing women now... the really kinky urges I was having a few days ago seem to be replaced with images of just bonding and all that mushy stuff guys don't like to type out online. Lol.

You're gorgeous

Glad you're feeling more social and loving. It's nothing to be ashamed of...being emotionally healthy! And tends to attract like. Wink

Hope you enjoy Mean Genes. The authors are really funny. Hope you enjoy busting up laughing! Yet what they have to say is extremely important, too. Never hurts to know where your genes are pushing you...just in case you don't actually want to go there.

By the way, you probably noticed that one of the Mean Genes authors endorsed my book (on the front cover). I was really pleased about that, as we respect him so much.

Prostate cancer may be caused by a virus

[Which would let "ejaculation frequency or INfrequency" off the hook as a possible culprit!]

Viral cause for prostate cancer?

Prostate cancer is increasingly looking like an infectious disease, a new study shows, and may be sexually transmitted

[Published 7th September 2009 09:26 PM GMT]

Mounting evidence suggests that prostate cancer is an infectious disease caused by a recently identified virus. The latest report, published today (September 7) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found the virus was associated especially with aggressive prostate cancers and noted that "all individuals may be at risk" for infection.

Human prostate cancer tissue. Brown,
granular staining shows malignant epithelial
cells that express XMRV proteins
Image: R. Schlaberg and H. M. Thaker

The notion that prostate cancer is an infectious disease like cervical cancer would not surprise most cancer experts, said Ila Singh of the University of Utah, the study's senior author. Almost 20% of visceral cancers are now proven infectious diseases, and there is a lot of indirect evidence from epidemiology and genetics that prostate cancer may be one of them.

The suspect is xenotropic murine leukemia-related virus (XMRV), a gammaretrovirus similar to viruses known to cause cancer in animals. Researchers at Columbia University and the University of Utah found the virus in more than a quarter of some 300 prostate cancer tissue samples, especially in malignant cells. That prostate cancer is a viral disease is not yet proven, but this is the third independent confirmation that XMRV infects prostate tissue.

Singh pointed out that clinicians badly need better tools for distinguishing between prostate cancers that are potentially deadly and those that develop so slowly that the affected men die of something else. "We have no idea if this virus is such a marker but it clearly needs to be investigated further," she said.

Research has long hinted that prostate cancer, also like cervical cancer, is a sexually transmitted disease. Eric Klein and colleagues at the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio reported in July that both human semen and one of its major components, acid phosphatase, increase XMRV infectivity for prostate cells 100-fold. They also found the virus in prostatic secretions of men with prostate cancer. "That really strongly suggests that XMRV is sexually transmitted," he said. Klein was part of a group in Cleveland and the University of California, San Francisco, that in 2006 first identified XMRV in prostate tumors. He was not involved in today's paper.

Klein said the July findings suggested a biological mechanism for sexually transmitted XMRV infection. If a man with viral particles in his lower genital tract has intercourse and deposits semen in his partner, acid phosphatase in the semen could increase the virus's ability to infect prostate tissue of the partner's subsequent partners.

Singh cautioned, "We can't really say that it's an STD at this point." Her lab is looking for XMRV in semen and also in women's cervical samples.

Many steps lie ahead for demonstrating conclusively that an infectious agent, in particular XMRV, causes prostate cancer. One approach is to inject lab animals with the virus and follow the results. Researchers have been trying to develop an animal model, but XMRV, although derived from a mouse virus, has since acquired an envelope that prevents it from infecting most strains of lab rodents, according to Singh. Klein's colleagues are working on a monkey model.

Klein and his colleagues showed last year that XMRV integrates into host DNA. So another proof would be to demonstrate that XMRV inserts near a gene that promotes cell growth. "That would be very convincing proof for most people that the retrovirus is involved in causing cancer," said Singh. Her group is working on that possibility with Frederic Bushman, a microbiologist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Establishing an infectious cause for prostate cancer would offer men something they have never had before: potential ways of preventing this common deadly disease. The new paper emphasizes how establishing a viral cause for prostate cancer could affect biomedical research. It would trigger epidemiological studies, vaccine development, and studies on interference with viral replication and antiviral therapies.

Klein noted that the US National Cancer Institute is now encouraging collaboration on XMRV studies among far-flung research groups. Prostate cancer strikes 1 in 6 US men and is second only to skin cancer in causing their deaths from cancer.

Interesting post by forum member

I spoke to a urologist a while back due to some bicycling related prostatitis. I asked him what he thought the ideal ejaculation frequency would be and he replied that in the ABSENCE of local irritations like frequent masturbation, the wet dream interval would be a good guide. (emphasis: he said this is decent advice IF a male was not already stressing himself in some way.)

In my case, once my prostatitis was cleared up and all irritation gone, the doctor recommended that I do just that: wait until I have a wet dream, THEN wait until I have another one without disrupting the cycle by masturbation or sex. The resulting interval would be a good guide for the sake of reproductive health regarding the number of ejaculations.

Since I have not had a wet dream for a decade or more (always masturbated) I have no idea how long this interval is. I asked the doctor "what if I don't have a wet dream?" His reply, "well then you no longer need to ejaculate at all." ..... This makes sense to me. Probably this interval is a good way to calibrate things to age and overall physical health. Young men might have wet dreams once a month, while older men might not have any at all.

The doctor explained that glands are not muscles, and do not need "exercise". Glands secrete fluids all on their own, and our manual intervention is simply not needed. Therefore, avoidance of ejaculation is not a problem whatsoever--whereas, preventing a wet dream would be. The good news is that no one seems to know how to prevent them.

How can that be

When some wet dreams occur during periods of sexual (orgasmic) activity? For some people, wet dreams never happen at all. Sounds like something fun to try for someone who has them, but otherwise, a pretty faulty system for deciding anything practical, especially for everyone.

I have only ever had one wet

I have only ever had one wet dream and i was around 16 and M'ing a lot. I have had none since and not during the time here. now i have woken from dreams of having an O which did effect me but no fluid relese. that has been my experience

No system is going to be

No system is going to be 100% practical and applicable to all people. its best to not get hung up on absolutes and find something that works for you. Plus, what works for you now, might not work for you in the future. A major part of learning to manage our sexuality is learning to be responsive and sensitive to ourselves, our partners, and environment. Not easy, but its a trap to think that any one model can encompass all of our needs in an absolute way and it seems like this just leads to frustration.

Courage is knowing what not to fear.