Pre-cum / Cowper’s gland secretion

Submitted by freedom on
Printer-friendly version

How is pre-cum / cowper’s gland secretion influenced by abstaining? Some sources say that volume increases. I guess that could be since one is not reducing the available volume as often through m/o. Does pre-cum release have any impact on brain balance or neurochemical levels? Does it matter what thinking, interactions, etc. is causing the pre-cum? Can one control pre-cum too? Could pre-cum release be good because it keeps the pipes clean without orgasm?

Dunno

Feel free to post anything you learn. Remember, scientists in the West haven't been able to study the effects of abstinence because their definitions prevent them from asking anyone to abstain. The only study that shows a cycle after orgasm (of at least seven days at a blood serum level) was done in China.

We have a big blind spot here in the West. You can't know about something you refuse to look at.

I tried doing some web

I tried doing some web research. It seems there is a lot of unscientific information. There is one supposed study, but I can't find a real link to the abstract so I think it is fake. Folks are exploiting guilt about pre-cum and the erroneous connection to pre-ejaculation to sell all kinds of stuff. People here can at least report their experience. It isn't scientific, but it's better than nothing.

Maybe a related issue is does anything other than orgasm delay brain balance? Say there is a lot of bonding or one thinks sexual thoughts or any other situation that affects sexual neurochemistry. Is it neurochemically neutral as long as one doesn't orgasm triggering the dopamine cycle? If not, then where should the line be drawn?

unscientific anecdotal observations

[quote=freedom]How is pre-cum / cowper’s gland secretion influenced by abstaining? Some sources say that volume increases.[/quote]

Yes, I seem to have more if it has been at least a few weeks since the last orgasm. Sometimes I also feel like a secretion is triggered early in the morning while I'm still sleeping (err, is there a technical term for morning wood?). It's like a slight involuntary mini-orgasm. I never experienced that when not abstaining.

[quote=freedom]Maybe a related issue is does anything other than orgasm delay brain balance? Say there is a lot of bonding or one thinks sexual thoughts or any other situation that affects sexual neurochemistry. Is it neurochemically neutral as long as one doesn't orgasm triggering the dopamine cycle? If not, then where should the line be drawn?[/quote]

I've noticed that involuntary sexual flashbacks and projections tend to come up in the week right after an orgasm and then not so much after that. Sometimes it has been so extreme that I hardly get anything done during the day. But there it seems like it is the depleted neurochemistry encouraging sexual thoughts and not the other way around. I don't have to force myself to stop thinking those thoughts, they just sortof go away on their own eventually.

Somewhere on this site is a quote, "When the ching is full one is free of lustful thoughts."

No doubt any kind of social interaction affects our neurochemistry, too. This guy's experience of faces affecting his mood was interesting (related interview).

WRT non-orgasmic physical stimulation, I'd bet there is an effect there. I did some experiments where I abstained for many weeks and then slowly brought myself near orgasm and there were all sorts of false starts, "sparks", and amazing feelings. Even without an actual ejaculation it seemed to make me itchy for more in the days afterwards. So I don't really look at orgasm as an on/off binary event but more like a wave that washes over you as you increase stimulation.

Not sure if that's what you were asking about, exactly. Apologies if not.

Face research is

Face research is fascinating. I'm going to try that in real life since I will have some time this summer where I can eat a group breakfast and be social in the morning.

Any research on more intimate relationship interactions? If TV faces can help depression, then dating and other types of more than friends relationships must have powerful effects even without sex. I'm wondering if those effects can only be positive or also negative in regard to brain balance and abstaining. Some people here report that they relapse badly when relationships go sour.

I've also noticed that abstaining seems to make the orgasm hill a little steeper such that I can experience some of what used to be orgasm without orgasm. That is good because if it were the other way around, I think this cause would be impossible. Maybe with more time I will explore this new found non-orgasm zone more. At the moment I'm trying not to try too many experiments so that I don't lose the progress made.

Yes, there is research

showing that warm affection (hand-holding, hugs...between mates) has physiological benefits. Close, trusted companionship is also protective of health. For example, HIV+ folks progress to AIDS more slowly and survive longer if they have mates. Conversely, loneliness is hard on our health. This is spelled out in my book, and I really need to do a proper post on it.

Can there be too much

Can there be too much affection? What if the affection isn't founded on a healthy, trusting relationships? For example, does hiring a girl for the so called girlfriend experience count? There must be varying levels of benefit depending on the health of the underlying relationship. At some point might the affection be unhealthy in ways similar to porn?

Loneliness being hard on one's health seems relative. What about loaners who enjoy loneliness and loath contact? Does the research that has been done take variations of personality into account or just assume that everyone always needs companionship?

Affection

that is generous (no selfish agenda) seems to be soothing to a primitive part of the brain (reduces cortisol). That's probably why it's beneficial. You may enjoy these articles about oxytocin:

http://www.reuniting.info/science/oxytocin_health_bonding
http://www.reuniting.info/science/oxytocin_revisited

Some people who find contact uncomfortable and isolation appealing discover that they feel differently as they return to balance. Contact and touch become more appealing. In other words, we may be "moving targets" in more ways than we think, and our choices may shape us in ways we don't yet realize. For example, Gary loves women and sex, but couldn't sleep through the night in the same bed as his partner...until he started practicing karezza. He laughs that he thinks he "sprouted more oxytocin receptors." Who knows? Certainly things shifted in profound ways.

So you're right that the situation is complex, but probably also in ways that most of us haven't thought of yet. The research doesn't make assumptions about people's needs for companionship. It just tests levels of neurochemicals after certain activities.

What if

What if there is a selfish agenda?

[quote=Marnia] The research doesn't make assumptions about people's needs for companionship. It just tests levels of neurochemicals after certain activities.[/quote]

We don't know that the research tested a true cross section of society. Does a true hermit and a strong extrovert experience the same neurochemical activity? Maybe, but that seems a little unlikely since they are so different in regard to the need for companionship.

It could be that the hermit experiences the same positive effects of bonding but doesn't crave companionship. I wonder if a person can stay a hermit after experiencing true companionship.

The experiments I'm

thinking of weren't measuring cross-sections. They were measuring groups of couples.

You're certainly right that humanity probably has a "bell curve" in terms of response to affection/companionship. There are probably some true loners...although it would be interesting to know about their childhoods, because kids who weren't bonded with their parents aren't very good at bonding with others. There are probably some people at the other extreme of the curve, too, who thrive on being joined like Siamese twins.

The point is that our culture's current glorification of "self-sufficiency" and "sexual self-sufficiency" may not be suited to the vast majority of us, because we are, at base, tribal, pair-bonding primates. Read "Addiction as an Attachment Disorder" by Flores for a more in depth discussion of how missing attachment can drive addiction. Or, said differently, addiction is an attempt to substitute artificial stimulation for the benefits of attachment.

For more:

http://www.reuniting.info/node/2836
http://www.reuniting.info/cowardly_lion_masturbating_too_much

Can't say,

which is why people have to make their own experiments and watch the results. Frankly, I doubt the fluid is the key. I suspect the key lies in degree of stimulation in the brain. More intense stimulation probably means the brain feels the effects more intensely.

Yet, even then, everyone will be different. Also being on your own is different than having a lot of friendly interaction with others or a caring mate.

Thinking back to my pre-Gary/"Will" days, it seemed that some men just produced more fluid than others, whether or not they ejaculated. I doubt it caused a problem...although getting to close to the edge sometimes seemed to.