Submitted by runlogans on
Printer-friendly version

It has new been over 5 weeks since I last had an orgasm and ejaculated. I thought I would share some of my experiences and thoughts.

For a long time I have been someone who regularly masturbated. This was to an extent that a lot of my free time was taken up by it. It was also probably affecting my work and almost certainly my relationship. As I'm sure has been pointed out on this site – if you masturbate and feel sexually satiated you are going to feel less desire for your partner.
Unfortunately I have been guilty of being blind to that obvious fact for a long time. Adopting the common view (rather unthinkingly) that masturbation was harmless and probably beneficial.

I came across a Tantric site a few weeks ago and after reading it decided to give abstinence (sexual continence) a try. Earlier in my life I thought such a thing was impossible – that the sexual frustration would build up to such an extent that you just had to release semen through masturbation. Perhaps when I was in my 20's I might not have been able to do this I don't know. I did abstain a few times (because it is a nice feeling) when I was younger but never thought it could be on a long term basis. Also when younger I used to have sex without orgasm and learned it was just as satisfying and an orgasm wasn't necessary. Then I seemed to forget this and got into a pattern of aiming to ejaculate.

A few insights, however, have made it easier for me to abstain and understand that it is completely possible to abstain from ejaculating. The most powerful influence on my ease of abstaining was the realisation that semen did not need to be released. That if semen is not released it is reabsorbed and new semen is manufactured. After a few weeks I expect a happy equilibrium is reached between production and reabsorbtion. I simply hadn't understood this before.

A further realisation was that animals do not seem to ejaculate with the same frequency as humans and they do not seem to be immensely sexually frustrated most of the time. Also when animals do masturbate quite a lot do not do it to the point of ejaculation. Perhaps the more natural state is not to ejaculate for long periods of time.

The first two weeks were interesting and I was irritable on one occasion but otherwise fine. Initially I was constantly thinking about having an orgasm. This was a problem because I felt I had replaced one time-consuming obsession (excessive masturbation) with another (sexual frustration).

The next week and a half were remarkably easy, so easy that I began to wonder whether there was something wrong with me. I was busy and perhaps a little low because of some work related issues. But on the whole it was easy to do.

The last week has been a little more difficult. I'm feeling more sexually frustrated but not too bad.

During these weeks I have masturbated but never to ejaculation/orgasm. I found this pleasant and easy to control. Because the point of the masturbation is never to ejaculate/orgasm there is no goal to aim for and after a much shorter time I feel happy to have had some stimulation and not to have ejaculated.

Here are the positive benefits I've experienced so far.
Firstly I've had a better physical relationship with my partner. Sex was slower and because there was no aim to orgasm for myself it felt less pressured. It was for the most part a little too arousing and close to the edge. But it was fun and exciting.

I am very attracted to women. Whether this is a positive benefit or 'too much' I'm not sure. One thing I like very much is feeling whole and no longer feeling as though I had two personalities: one passionate and attracted to women and one satiated, sleepy, uninterested, and a little blue. Now I feel like a single person – focussed and always attracted to women.

Other effects include frequent erections. Pre-cum is also very frequent but I think to be expected.

Other benefits include much less time spent masturbating.
I've also lost weight but that might be due to extra exercise as spring approaches. I feel I've worked more effectively and been more focussed. My concentration seems to be better more directed.

Some negative effects have included a slightly more frequent headache. I've also been waking more frequently in the night, probably due to erections or sex dreams. Luckily I've been going to bed earlier so I don't think I've been more tired.

Overall the effecst have been very positive. I have a family already and I don't see any reason to ejaculate again. Perhaps I'm being rather naïve and idealistic but I feel (and hope) quite strongly that ejaculation is a 'never again' for me. Simply because I feel better in myself, my relationship and my work when I abstain.

Thanks for your thoughtful post

It's very helpful to other explorers.

You may find that some of the restlessness correlates with those "close to the edge" encounters. In any case, it sounds like you're finding a workable balance for you and your partner. That's great to hear. I'll post this in testimonials, too, at some point.


men will show up here and share their experiences like you have, and I will store it in my memory banks for someday in the future, when I'm in the position to share karezza with a partner... I could direct him here for comfort and reassurance that skipping orgasms won't hurt him. Wink Thank you for sharing. I'm glad you are finding success in this approach.

Fact check

I'm curious where you got the info on that. I know we've had one or two people on here report pregnancies happening without ejaculation, but all the studies I've found that actually looked for sperm in pre-ejaculate found either none, or drastically lower counts than contained in regular ejaculate. Also, large numbers of sperm in pre-ejaculate would fail to explain the early low pregnancy rates recorded by early proponents of "male continence," such as the Onieda Community (in the days before they started breeding intentionally). Likewise, current numbers put perfect use (meaning the man withdrew perfectly every time) pregnancy rates after one year for the withdrawal method at as low as 4%, compared to something like 80-85% for no method whatsoever. So some sperm, maybe, but chock-full?

I have a microscope.

I looked. I'm talking about the very first drop. Clear liquid, not the white stuff. It was an important discovery, and I recommend everyone check it out. Before I confirmed this fact with my own eyes, I always had doubts about my philosophy of not having orgasms. Didn't want to spread a philosophy that would mean the extinction of the species.

Thanks for the info. I’d

Thanks for the info. I’d have to look at the journal papers. It’s probably more accurate than using my old microscope. I seem to remember there are a few in pre-cum but not lots (but I would have to check).

Before I had my family we used the withdrawal method and it worked fine. It was also the time I realised having an orgasm during sex didn’t actually add to the pleasure. Obviously having a sample of 1 isn’t a good methodology but I think some studies suggest the withdrawal method is quite effective. Personally I think there is a greater danger of humans being made extinct by over population than by ejaculation prevention.

I've had sex for years

I've had sex for years (about four) with no other method besides withdrawal or no male ejaculation at all and never gotten pregnant, which I cannot say for other methods. Changing PH balance after sex is a nice way to give added peace of mind for any stragglers. Mutual intentionality and stating outoud the desire not to conceive is also important.

It would be fun to look under the microscope, tho!

For the record,

as has previously been mentioned on this forum, it may take only one sperm to fertilize an egg, but it takes many, many sperm to get the job done. Eggs are not easy to penetrate, and a group effort is required. This is why few "sterile" men actually have *no* sperm in their seminal fluid. They just have low sperm count.

So JHN, you may indeed see sperm under your microscope, even what seems like lots, and still not be seeing enough to represent a great risk of pregnancy. Also, it appears that sperm lose "motility" the longer they sit around in the gun barrel with nothing to do, so infrequent ejaculation may help to prevent involuntary conception in two ways.


It is definitely not a group effort! Only one sperm cell penetrates the egg, all by his lonesome. Others may be trying at the same time, but their efforts in no way assist the one who succeeds first. As I've pointed out before, a large volume of seminal fluid is supposed to increase the chance of conception because sperm prefer the alkaline conditions of seminal fluid, and the vagina is usually more acidic than the sperm prefer. A lot of seminal fluid changes the pH of the vgina.

I recall your reference to the motility study, but I totally disagree with whoever claims infrequent ejaculation results in lethargic sperm. I never ejaculate, and I assure you that the sperm in my pre-ejaculate droplets are copious and frisky. If any of my sperm are lethargic, I'd say they are the ones who can't make their way out in the face of my suppression. My idea is that the suppression of ejaculation is a form of eugenics. Besides, if I make new life, I want it to be through Karezza, not through the disgusting act of orgasm.

As for the acidity of the vagina, those who make the pH argument should recall that at ovulation the vagina becomes more alkaline for a day or two, due to cervical mucous, so a few good sperm should be able to do the job just fine. I like to think of my guys as Navy Seals.

As for coitus interruptus, if it works for the average Joe, it's probably for the following reason: Although pre-ejaculate is common in porn, the average Joe probably never excretes it. It reaches the tip of the penis only after suppression of the orgasm for a considerable time, and most guys just don't have the discipline for that. They stay dry right up until the big O, so if they withdraw before that, no insemination by pre-ejaculate occurs.

Fact Check: Sperm do not penetrate

This, from Michael Shea, who has a PHD in Embryology (Biodynamic Craniosacral Therapy, Vol.1, p 149)

"It should be emphasized here that describing the whole process [of fertilization] as the penetration of the sperm cell is inaccurate. If the circumstances and conditions as a given moment and at a given place are appropriate, only then can the fusion of cell membranes take place and the content of the sperm cell be brought into the egg cell. The continuity of the egg cell is never interrupted or broken. The very common and somewhat aggressive image of a sperm cell penetrating the egg cell is not correct! In the pre-conception attraction complex, there is no question of an active partner versus a passive partner, nor of a penetrating versus a penetrated partner, nor fertilizing versus fertilized one. Rather, cell and cell qualities are equivalent, as a subtle equilibrium of exchange and interaction are maintained. The morphodynamic process of fertilization, rather, is like the gesture one may observe so very often in the animal realm when mating rituals are taking place. In a nearly never-ending process of exchange of signals, of attraction and repulsion, a male and female animal can circumambulate each other before copulation happens. Almost literally, this animal image, this gesture, these morphodynamics, become discernible in the phenomenon that the whole pre-conception attraction complex exhibits a tendency to rotate. The linear (radial) movement of the sperm cells turns into a spherical motion!"
(could it be that the extra sperm cells are helping with this radial motion?)

"The same fluid stream by which the egg cell is being transported in the direction of the uterus provides for the sperm cells a kind of directive stream of resistance against which they exhibit their swimming behavior. It is also the large volume of the egg cell that greates a greater opportunity for both cells to meet. Moreover, there exists a kind of chemotaxis (a biochemically induced attraction) between both types of cells: the egg cell, as well as the tubal mucous membrane, excretes substances that attract and activate sperm cells. St the end some tens or hundreds of sperm cells will actually reach the egg cell and organize themselves in a circular or radial orientation with their heads directed toward and concentrating on the egg cell.

"At this moment so-called nutritive cells, teh corona radiata, still surround the egg cell. From he evidence of the invitro fertilization procedure, it is known that in the next phase a so-called preconception attraction complex is generated for several hours. Under the influence of the substances secreted by the egg cells and the nutritive cells, the sperm cells now undergo important changes. For example, they lose their acrosome (outside shell) - a necessary change for a sperm cell to be capable of fertilization. On the other hand, the presence of sperm cells and related substances obviously evokes chemical reactions in the egg call and her coat (zonna pellucida), making her more receptive for the eventual fusion process between the two cells. Both cells seem to settle mutually in the chemical and biological conditions for the eventual decision whether or not a sperm cell will fuse, and if so, where, which one, and when. In a very subtle mutual process of encounter and exchange of signals and substances, both cells are prepared for the actual process of fertilization and conception.

My hypothesis

is that the sperm cells in the pre-cum of a man who practices non-ejaculatory intercourse are of a higher quality than that of the sperm cells in the semen he would otherwise ejaculate, and that the suppression of ejaculation is the process of allowing these superior cells to come to the fore. Ideally, the most fit sperm cell reaches its goal well ahead of the others. Who cares that some feminist biology prof doesn't like the word "penetration?" Ok, so it's a "joining of membranes." Same result.

I had a feeling you'd

I had a feeling you'd respond in that way, citing femi-nazi bias.

If you'll notice, the author is male. He came into the study of embryology after getting a masters in Somatic Psychology. He followed this course of study so as to be better able to function as a human with debilitating post-traumatic stress disorder that came from being in a bomb explosion of great magnitude, and witnessing his closest friend get killed and decapitated. This happened while he was a soldier. He is not a professor, but one of the most cutting-edge healers in a world dissociated by post-traumatic stress of all kinds, including the virtual kind.

To discount peer-reviewed and widely accepted scientific knowledge by dismissing it as feminist is just too easy, and an unfortunate step on your part in this debate. It's as ridiculous as me dismissing that the ph of the vagina becomes more basic during ovulation because some "mysogynistic" male scientist with a hidden agenda discovered it.

And this is not just semantics. Penetration implies force and breaking of tissue. As you see from the description of fertilization I typed out, the continuity of the egg cell is never interrupted or broken. . . . and "under the influence of the substances secreted by the egg cells and the nutritive cells, the sperm cells . . . lose their acrosome (outside shell) - a necessary change for a sperm cell to be capable of fertilization."

Penetration without a shell sounds rather difficult, and if you still want to call that penetration, it was only able to happen thanks to the substance secreted by the egg, ie - the sperm was given permission. The result is the same, but lets please be clear on the means.

So, what's a "superior" sperm cell like? How do his goals and capabilites differ from your good-'ol-average joe-sperm soldier?

excuse me for shooting from the hip...

I did assume it was a woman, but no can be feminists, too. Ha! So the sperm needs "permission" now! At what point is he invited to apologize?

The only obvious attribute of my super-sperm is that he's the strongest swimmer. Why not first come, first serve? Maybe he does a better mating dance. And he may lose his membrane upon entry, but his business part gets through, call it what you like. How being a strong swimmer as a sperm means that the end product is a Michael Phelps, well, that's a good question. One obvious experiment would be to drop a single sperm on an egg in vitro and see if he can get through. If no go, keep trying. Compare the genome of the winner to the genomes of the failures.

By the way, it's also pleasant to believe that non-orgasmic women ovulate better eggs.

I just can't wrap my brain around the way some of you can carry on about the detrimental effects of orgasm, but then make an exception in the case that you might want to make a baby. Seems to me like a bad way to begin fatherhood.

No, John, the sperm doesn't

No, John, the sperm doesn't need permission now. I was simply trying to show that our view of science can easily be colored by bias. In the case of a patriarch, fertilization will be seen as penetration, because that's a worldview he gets off on. But whether its accurate or not is another story. When we look to the facts, a case can be made from another angle as well. A matriarch might use an argument like the one I pulled simply as a counterargument - it looks more likely that sperm do not penetrate, but are given permission, if not outright engulfed. Magnetic pull from mass is a pretty strong force when we consider the size of a sperm compared to the size of an egg. As you know, mass matters, and in this case, the mass of the egg is considerable. Maybe the situation reminds you all too well of your fat wife of years past.

I am only a feminist to the degree that women continue to be treated not as humans, but as objects. Once mysogynistic behavior stops, I'm more than happy to do away with feminism as well. It's an unfortunate occupation, but a natural one. Any organism will do what it can to self-preserve in the face of violence or prejudice. Why is this so hard to fathom?

Feminism is not the same as matriarchy. Feminism simply wants equality and partnership, not absolute dominion. Feminism is birthed from mysogyny. If there are any men out there who hate feminists, one thing they can do to decrease their numbers is stop being mysogynists. Humans are of the same species and mutually-defining.

I prefer the description of fertilization that Shea gives, which describes it as a mutual dance between two highly-attuned and perfectly-matched polar charges.

As for the supersperm, I think that if you want to conceive a Michael Phelps, seems like it might make more sense to choose a woman (or be chosen by one) who has an impressive cormic index. In that regard, I would have probably been a pretty good pick for you, what with your preference for long-bodied, small-breasted, athletic women. Tho with my feminist leanings and super long arms, the baby may have turned into a Michelle Phelps, and I know you already have one daughter. So, no go.

Any luck with the ladies in Saudi Arabia recently?
Wishing you the best.

It is true that the vagina

It is true that the vagina becomes less acidic around ovulation - and that is precisely why I bring up the ph issue, because this more netural ph can easily be changed. This is especially important if there is ejaculation taking place. Without it, it's more for peace of mind than anything else.

But it looks like the evidence points to there being little risk of pregnancy with nonejaculatory sex (see research below) - and change of ph, especially since the window of ovulation is so short, makes pregnancy even less likely.

Add mutual intentionality into the mix, and I think you have the most foolproof form of birth control.

John Humphrey, no matter how well you train your "Navy Seals", the egg is a pretty big contender in breadth, girth, magnetic force, and intelligence. Your time might be better spent in elucidating to them the Buddhist principles of compassion and inherent non-existence before they all perish, which they all will in one form or another. Luckily you can soothe them with thoughts of reincarnation. Hopefully next time around they might be better prepared to confront death or rebirth in the face of the Great Mother. But conquering and penetrating her? Not likely if even possible at all.

Or, another options is, we could just end this war alltogether. In the meantime, thanks for the opportunity for some good jousting!

Fact Check - precum

Doing a NLM search, I discovered that very little research has been done on the precum question. What has been done FINDS NO SPERM IN PRE-EJACULATE.

After abstract #2, the authors of that abstract expand on the origins of the myth.

A note - having taught anatomy and physiology for many years, one of my jobs is dispel myths handed down from one teacher to the next, or one text to the next. Like the ever so silly "we use 10% of our brain" (carve out 90% and see how well it functions), or that lactic acid causes muscle pain (or that massage flushes out toxins..or increases systemic circulation, or the tongue is the strongest muscle - hilarious)

FIRST ABSTRACT: Researchers find no sperm in pre-ejaculate fluid.

PIP: A study in Boston, Massachusetts, and another study in New York City examined samples of pre ejaculate fluid from HIV seropositive and HIV seronegative men to determine whether HIV was or was not present in pre ejaculate fluid. The researchers found macrophages and CD4 lymphocytes in most samples, indicating that HIV was present. The more significant finding, however, was that most pre ejaculate samples did not contain any sperm and those that did had only small clumps of a very small amount of sperm which seemed to be immobile. A larger study is needed to verify these results. If these results are confirmed, they may dispel the myth that pre ejaculate fluid contains sperm. An ongoing WHO/USAID study shows that the pregnancy rate caused by men with 3 million sperm/ml/ejaculation is very low; fertility clinics consider men with a sperm count of no more than 5 million/ml to be infertile, particularly if is there is low motility. The average ejaculation has about 100 million sperm/ml, but about 10 million sperm pass through the cervical mucus, about 1 million make it to the top of the uterine tract, and just about 100,000 sperm reach the fallopian tubes. Thus, only a couple of sperm, assuming motility, would reach the fallopian tubes in the case of the pre ejaculate samples with some sperm, which tended to be immobile (sperm levels only in the 1000s). Thus, the probability of pregnancy is very low if pre-ejaculate fluid enters the vagina. Pre-ejaculate fluid of 6 of the 9 HIV seropositive donors in Boston and 6 of the 14 HIV seropositive donors in New York contained HIV, regardless of symptom status or antiretroviral therapy status. Thus, the risk of HIV transmission may be higher than unplanned pregnancy, so people should use condoms before the penis enters the vagina, mouth, or anus.

SECOND ABSTRACT:Does preejaculatory penile secretion originating from Cowper's gland contain sperm?
Zukerman Z, Weiss DB, Orvieto R.
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003 Apr;20(4):157-9.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Rabin Medical Center, Petah Tikva, Israel.

PURPOSE: To determine if spermatozoa are present in the preejaculatory penile secretion, originating from Cowper's gland. METHODS: DESIGN: Prospective clinical and laboratory study. SETTING: Andrology and Sex Counseling Unit, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Academic Teaching Hospital. PATIENTS: Five patients referred for premature ejaculation, three for excessive fluid secreted during foreplay and four normal healthy volunteers. INTERVENTION: Glass slide smears of preejaculatory Cowper's gland secretion obtained during foreplay from at least two different occasions, and semen samples after masturbation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Microscopic examination of air-dried smears, and routine semen analyses. RESULTS: None of the preejaculatory samples contained sperm. All the patients had sperm in routine sperm analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Preejaculatory fluid secreted at the tip of the urethra from Cowper's gland during sexual stimulation did not contain sperm and therefore cannot be responsible for pregnancies during coitus interruptus.

The literature review amounts to only a sentence or two, however, the authors contend that the notion of sperm in preejaculatory fluid comes from "classic sexology literature" (Francoeur, 1982; Masters & Johnson, 1966; McCary, 1978; Sandler, Myerson, & Kinder, 1980). They specifically reference Masters and Johnson stating that "it appears that since it was first published it has been repeated in all other sexology textbooks without any further scientific investigation. Sex educators and physicians have adopted these findings and conclusions, and they lecture to students on the risk of an unwanted pregnancy from these drops of fluid that may contain sperm ... We feel that the this issue must be reexamined because there is insufficient information to affirm this assumption" (Petah Tikva, 2003, pp. 157-158).

Maybe it's

time to find out what's wiggling around in your pre-ejaculate?
Is it sperm you are seeing - I have a healthy skepticism. What lab performs such a pre-ejaculate test? And for what purpose?
Did the lab count 200 million in pre-ejaculate? Did they check their motilty, morphology, vitality? Where they perform a liquefication test?
Anyhow, normal SEMEN VOLUME is necessary for fertilization. It has many substances vital to the process. Pre-ejaculate (unless you flowing like a geyser) does not contain enough volume.


Standard physiology texts explain:
The volume of semen in a typical ejaculate is 2.5-5 milliliter (mL), with 50-150 million sperm per mL. When the number falls below 20 million/mL the male is likely to be infertile. A very large number is required for successful fertilization because only a tiny fraction ever reaches the secondary oocyte.
Of the 200 million or so sperm, only 200 actually reach the egg (secondary oocyte).

Think WWII - it may have taken only one marine to have killed Hitler (of course he killed himself before we got there), but storming the beaches of Normandy with one grunt in a canoe probably wouldn't have gotten the job done.

That's not all. The egg is covered by two layers of goop (Corona radiata and zona pellucida - the zona pellucida being especially hard to break through). These two layers must be digested for ONE sperm to make it to the surface of the egg. It takes ALL 200 sperm and their acrosomal enzymes to open the space for the chosen one to slide into position.

good try

But egg's Corona radiata and zona pellucida needn't be degraded over the entire surface of the egg, only at the exact point where any one sperm cell is trying to break through. In any case, a drop of pre-ejaculate has more than one sperm cell. I tried to count them, but there were too many and moving too fast. Placement of these "few good men" (actually more like a battalion) right in the cervical opening would also help. That would take a penis of sufficient length.

you may want to

read before replying.

Quote from my previous post:
It takes ALL 200 sperm and their acrosomal enzymes to open the space for the chosen one to slide into position.
That means one opening.

You are not addressing the arguments:
1) The total number of sperm needed for fertilization - at least 50 million - not a few stragglers. (fewer than 1% even reach the cervix, so 200 million is far better)
2) Large semen volume being necessary for the journey
3) The 200 necessary for fertilization only occurs if the top 2 conditions are met

I feel complete


...why would enzymes being secreted by sperm cell B, 360 degrees on the other side of the egg, help open up a hole in front of sperm cell A? You are simply relying on the authority of your quote. I am questioning its logic. Moreover, the egg has good reason to prefer fewer sperm cells attacking it at the same time. As soon as one cell penetrates, it has to rapidly harden its membrane to prevent the penetration of another. With a jillion sperm trying to poke through simultaneously, it is much more likely that two sperm will get through and create genetic monstrosities.

Seriously though...

Why do you care so much? Are you trying to get someone pregnant currently?? Or are you just very attached to the idea that we need to be reproducing but should not do so conventionally because ejaculation is somehow "filthy?"

Isn't it conceivable

that over the course of 20 minutes or even a couple hours (as some have reported) of karezza, that there could be some generation and leakage of prostatic fluid and sperm cells? And that the greater variety and amount of stimulation one gets from intercourse, compared with masturbation, might also cause more generation and leakage? And perhaps a man who doesn't ejaculate frequently might "leak" sperm gradually and continuously during arousal, while one who frequently ejaculates might only expel sperm during ejaculation?

One thing is for sure: people are different. One guy might have sperm in his precum, another might not leak sperm at all. I wouldn't count on karezza as being a reliable birth control method OR as being a reliable way to conceive.

Be careful. Call for research. Maybe YOU can help.

This link might be a bit better:

It may be true that most men don't leak sperm most of the time, but, if conceiving would be a disaster for you, please use some other means of birth control than just withdrawal. I have two reasons for concern:

1. At, Claire says: "I have twice fallen pregnant (nicely spaced 2.5 yrs apart) without orgasm/ejaculation. I am positive no slip-ups or near-misses were responsible as there where none around the time we conceived. So it only reconfirms for me that orgasm is not necessary at all."

2. After I started my no-orgasm experiments almost two years ago, I would sometimes masturbate for several hours, without orgasm (but getting close), while wearing a condom, and fall asleep. The next morning, when I removed the condom, there were two or three times when there was some fluid in the condom - a lot less than what I would get from a normal ejaculation. It was a bit cloudy and had the smell of semen. I didn't recall having any erotic dreams or dream orgasms. So, I think I just leaked some semen in my sleep, after a lot of sexual stimulation.

I haven't read the research papers that found no sperm in precum, but I'll bet they didn't collect their precum samples under such extreme conditions - hours of stimulation followed by sleep, from people who were avoiding ejaculation for weeks at a time. On the other hand, those conditions aren't all that that extreme for a couple that regularly practices karezza.

This question of whether precum can contain enough sperm to cause pregnancy is of interest to a lot of people in both camps, those who want to conceive and those who don't.

So, I call on those who are able to contribute some research to do so. If you are male and you practice karezza or you masturbate without orgasm, try wearing a condom and report your results - duration of stimulation, did you go near the edge, did you go to sleep, amount of fluid, evidence of sperm?

I am building a little lab,

I am building a little lab, looking for a microscope, and have a virile willing young man at hand. What experiments need doing? Can we lay this out more specifically here?

I have heard rumor of electromagnetic pollution, lowered immune systems, and drug use to be linked with lower than usual sperm counts. So we'd have to control for these health factors, or choose a specimen representative of a typical kind of guy, your average cross-section of the male population. And who would that be? A porn-watching, pot smoking, video game playing person? Guess my man don't qualify (I'm happy to report, except for quality number two).

The better thing to do would be to test the impeccability of the spermicide against the most healthy, potent of men. Since we are moving out to the land and will be growing much of our own food, I think my hunk just might be the right one to offer some first-grade jism.

At this point, my idea is simply to mix up some concotions that are yummy and kill sperm (ie, change ph), then douse my cervix with the chosen sublime elixir to zap any stragglers. Navy seals, beware!

How would I even count sperm if they were alive? (As John Humphrey says, they move about like crazy, especially those trained to be macho. Tho my man ain't macho, he IS long-legged, strong, dependable, and agile, so his sperm are also likely so.).

P.S. Along with the lab will come also a little press for 'zines on the subject. I will glean much of the conversation and research from here. Please let me know if you are interested in cooperating with/brainstorming the potential in this project. I will try to give due credit to Reuniting, but I may have to state also a disclaimer on all forthcoming literature: "Warning: learning curve and spiritual bent required. The editor has been accused by some to be overtly feminist, and if this is true, the application of this form of birth control could have the undesired consequences of the most beautiful, humane, and divine lovemaking ever to occur between man and woman. So bewarned."