How much ejaculation is healthful?

[White Tiger]

"Most men do not have any idea how much is required from the body to have an orgasm with ejaculation.

For a man over 30, twice a week is generally OK. Over 50 probably once a week. 60 maybe twice a month. Over 70, maybe once a month. Some teenagers (whose hormones are raging in overdrive) do it 2 or 3 times a day and are fine.

You can still enjoy sex and sexual activities. Just do not go to the point of orgasm as frequently. Stop before you cum."

From this website http://bit.ly/91MWFX

I'm 25 and usually have sex 2-3 times per day. Yesterday I had sex twice and withheld the first ejaculation by pressing the Jen Mo Point http://bit.ly/8Bhqbj I didn't feel tired at all after the first intercourse (I usually fancy a nap afterwards) and had a solid boner later on that night. Seems to be a good idea to not cum every time.

What do you think, healthy or not?

[Raw Kyle]

First of all this should probably be in hot topics since it's not paleo related.

Second, I have a book about this and thought it was a cool idea. I still do a little bit, but most of my feelings towards this have changed. I now believe that most of the "anti-sex" or "anti-ejaculation" culture from the East stems from their religions, which frown upon sex or sexual exertion because their primarily vegetarian diets drain their body of the necessary nutrients for healthy sexual activity and sexual drive.

I've heard of problems caused from sex without ejaculating as well. Also another thought, my study of the martial arts has led me to think that most of the far Eastern philosophies and martial arts claims of Godlike people who do this or that is mostly inflated or made up to attract followers. I've seen plenty of videos of "kung fu masters" being demolished by an amateur with a year of boxing training.

Having said that, I'm open to the idea of it, just very skeptical.

[goodsamaritan]

"Most men do not have any idea how much is required from the body to have an orgasm with ejaculation.

For a man over 30, twice a week is generally OK. Over 50 probably once a week. 60 maybe twice a month. Over 70, maybe once a month. Some teenagers (whose hormones are raging in overdrive) do it 2 or 3 times a day and are fine.

You can still enjoy sex and sexual activities. Just do not go to the point of orgasm as frequently. Stop before you cum."

From this website http://bit.ly/91MWFX

I'm 25 and usually have sex 2-3 times per day. Yesterday I had sex twice and withheld the first ejaculation by pressing the Jen Mo Point http://bit.ly/8Bhqbj I didn't feel tired at all after the first intercourse (I usually fancy a nap afterwards) and had a solid boner later on that night. Seems to be a good idea to not cum every time.

What do you think, healthy or not?

IF we are talking paleo times, how often would a paleo woman want to have sex a day with you?  And how many months of trying to conceive sex would it take to make her pregnant?  And if that paleo woman gets pregnant, she may not like having sex until she gives birth and the child is a bit older.  So how many paleo women will be needed to satisfy daily sex with the paleo man 2-3 times a day?

Paleo sex would be trying to conceive sex.

[jessica]

from my experiences with ejaculation!HAHA! i have noticed that if a guy ejaculates a 2-3 times a day over a period of days quantity of ejaculant diminishes and also changes in consistence from super thick to kind of runny, so my guess is less viable sperm.  it should also be noted that it is definitely evident when a male has not ejaculated for a while due to quantity of ejaculation.  i think paleologically speaking you would want to ejaculate in the best quality mate first and hump the lesser specimens later to assure that you get the most sperm into the better mate.  you can probably find out how long it takes for testes to restore sperm and how long they live inside your testicles.  i think it is definitely not healthy to hold in an orgasm though, but maybe practice only having sex once a day or 2 times a day and then a day off if you feel that the absence makes it a more intense experience

[cherimoya_kid]

"Most men do not have any idea how much is required from the body to have an orgasm with ejaculation.

For a man over 30, twice a week is generally OK. Over 50 probably once a week. 60 maybe twice a month. Over 70, maybe once a month. Some teenagers (whose hormones are raging in overdrive) do it 2 or 3 times a day and are fine.

You can still enjoy sex and sexual activities. Just do not go to the point of orgasm as frequently. Stop before you cum."

From this website http://bit.ly/91MWFX

I'm 25 and usually have sex 2-3 times per day. Yesterday I had sex twice and withheld the first ejaculation by pressing the Jen Mo Point http://bit.ly/8Bhqbj I didn't feel tired at all after the first intercourse (I usually fancy a nap afterwards) and had a solid boner later on that night. Seems to be a good idea to not cum every time.

What do you think, healthy or not?

You can definitely cause serious short-term and longer term health problems by not ejaculating.  Overindulgence is foolish too.  I'd say, for a normal man in his 20s, on a good paleo diet, at least once a week is probably the bare minimum, although I'm not saying you're automatically going to get prostate problems if you don't do it that often. 

[William]

1- IF we are talking paleo times, how often would a paleo woman want to have sex a day with you? 

2-  And how many months of trying to conceive sex would it take to make her pregnant? 

3-  And if that paleo woman gets pregnant, she may not like having sex until she gives birth and the child is a bit older.

4-  So how many paleo women will be needed to satisfy daily sex with the paleo man 2-3 times a day?

5- Paleo sex would be trying to conceive sex.

All answers from the book "A Study of Human Sexuality" by Masters and Johnson:

1- 49 times/day
2- 1, or a small fraction thereof, depending on how she felt.
3- Wrong, preggies are hot. They would instinctively keep the men close.
4- 1. See answer #1.
5- Didn't have to try hard; unlike us there was nothing wrong with them.

Curious language note: "woman" is a new word; the oldest word I've found in English for an adult female of the race of Man was spelled "wyf", originally wyf-man. The male was a "wer". Names usually denote function, but this time I have no idea of what they mean, or how they were pronounced.

So there were no paleo women.

[Hannibal]

If you eat a lot of testicles, oysters, kidneys and egg yolks you would probably find it difficult not to ejaculate frequently

[TylerDurden]

I'll put this in hot topics as this is not terribly palaeodiet-oriented etc. I've never heard of this rule re holding in ejaculate being harmful re eastern philosophical (tantric) practices. What exactly are the negative side-effects? Also, it's quite easy to do it 2-3 times a day on a rawpalaeodiet what with all the raw oysters etc.(even on a crappy cooked diet, in some cases - there was a famous case of an Arab sheikh who had 3 wives and had sex with each one of them once a day, every day, for the rest of his life until he died in his 70s(except when he went off to do battle with neighbouring powers).

[cherimoya_kid]

I I've never heard of this rule re holding in ejaculate being harmful re eastern philosophical (tantric) practices. What exactly are the negative side-effects?

Prostate cancer.  There also other problems, including loss of sexual performance/desire.  None of these occur in all cases, but I'd say there are noticeable negative side effects in maybe 20-30% of men who try to avoid it.

[yon yonson]

Prostate cancer.  There also other problems, including loss of sexual performance/desire.  None of these occur in all cases, but I'd say there are noticeable negative side effects in maybe 20-30% of men who try to avoid it.

not to mention blue balls. i had personal experience with this when i had a strict, catholic girlfriend (for all of a month, ha). it's not fun. not sure why you'd hold it in voluntarily...

[William]

not to mention blue balls. i had personal experience with this when i had a strict, catholic girlfriend (for all of a month, ha). it's not fun. not sure why you'd hold it in voluntarily...

AKA lover's nuts. About a month for true love is more than enough.

[White Tiger]

When I used to compete in kick-boxing it was a 'common sense' not to have sex couple of days before the competition. It was supposed to make you soft and lose vital nutrients. Here's an National Geographic article that tries to invalidate that advice - http://bit.ly/5JZSeL

I don't think it's quite true that 'every splooge is equal to ridding yourself of four meals worth of essential vitamins and minerals'. But I guess it's quite a bit of zinc that is lost and it also lowers man's testosterone level.. which in turn lowers your ability to build muscle. Theoretically. And shouldn't be any problem at all on RAF.

Anyway I stopped forcing myself not to cum because the possible damage to my prostate and after the christmas try having sex only once a day (with the focus on lasting longer, an hour or more before letting it go) and see if it makes any difference in terms of weight/muscle gain.

Because of my interest in this topic I'll receive bunch of funny christmas presents this year, including a male g-spot stimulator - http://bit.ly/7iPAMC - that's supposed to keep your prostate healthy by massaging it externally. Sounds very gay indeed but I guess I'll give it a try. I'm sure cavemen had their girlfriends sticking things up their bottoms as well. So off topic.. sorry!

Happy Xmas y'all!

[goodsamaritan]

Cock fighting is very popular in our country.
The worst thing you could do to make your cock lose is to give him a couple of females to mate with the day before the big fight.

[Paleo Donk]

I have a crack-pot theory on masturbation that I've wanted to share. So here goes.  I'm not for one to make conclusions from personal correlations/connections but it seems to be that I perform, on average, much worse when attempting to pick up women on a day that I've masturbated. It's like a curse. It could be that I've just conditioned my mind over time to accept defeat more readily the days that I masturbate since I grew up in a fairly strict religious environment that deemed masturbation sinful.

Or...since I've ejaculated I'm naturally less inclined to pursue a female partner. My body believes I have already continued to spread my seed for the day and no longer will attempt to optimize my abilities to get a woman to want to have intercourse with me. When I approach a woman I will not have the drive and the strategies I use will not work to their full potential.

On the other hand, if I don't masturbate, my body will think that my need to spread my seed is of utmost importance. I will do what it takes to win a female into my bedroom using a better strategy than when I had ejaculated. I will be wittier, more enegetic, more confident, patient when I need to, basically my game will be in top form. This seems to generally hold true for me.

This may seem contrary to conventional thought in that not masturbating would lead to us needing to release even more and more quickly.  I don't think this is true and I feel much calmer when I havent ejaculated in a while, though this feeling takes much longer than 1 or 2 days of holding back arousal.  

It also seems to make sense that the frequency of sex would be greatly reduced during paleo times as being constantly pregnant would not really make much evolutionary sense. Also, how frequently do other animal species (specifically apes) mate? Do any of them mate all year round like humans?

[phatdave]

I do agree with the above.

Masturbating makes you loose your mojo - which for a procreating being, is very important.

If you do, enjoy it - and don't overdo it or make it something mundane. Sex is of the highest importance for your living body, and must be treated with respect.

[phatdave]

http://www.hps-online.com/tsy1.htm

[cherimoya_kid]

I'd be happy to dig up the studies linking lack of ejaculation to prostate cancer, for anyone stupid enough to challenge me.

[William]

Or...since I've ejaculated I'm naturally less inclined to pursue a female partner.

Ha! You became temporarily sane.

It also seems to make sense that the frequency of sex would be greatly reduced during paleo times as being constantly pregnant would not really make much evolutionary sense.

IIRC the paleopopulation was supposed to be stable at ~15 million in the whole earth, that to me means that they knew how to do it without making unwanted babies. Their minds as well as their bodies were healthier than ours, lacking the media to pollute them.
We don't need evolution, please don't drag that stuff in.


 

Also, how frequently do other animal species (specifically apes) mate? Do any of them mate all year round like humans?

Not that I ever heard. They don't have the brains required to avoid pregnancy.

I'd be happy to dig up the studies linking lack of ejaculation to prostate cancer, for anyone stupid enough to challenge me.

Tempting offer - maybe you could share the agression-reducing honey with TD? 
I suppose you mean lack of ejaculation from coitus interruptus, rather than from living like a monk?

[alphagruis]

 Also, how frequently do other animal species (specifically apes) mate? Do any of them mate all year round like humans?
 

Yes bonobos or orang-outangs as well as other species.

http://www.primates.com/bonobos/bonobosexsoc.html

Not that I ever heard. They don't have the brains required to avoid pregnancy.

They (the bonobos for instance) do have the brains or whatever is required to avoid pregnancy, William

One baby every 5 or 6 years as HG's of the homo sapiens species, after all. By no means a specificity of (paleo as opposed to agrarian) homo sapiens !

Homo sapiens is thus just a species among many others, at least in this respect too. Just repeating again and again that we should not drag in or invoke evolution for our species and drag in "devolution" instead won't convince us that we are wrong.    

[William]

Just repeating again and again that we should not drag in or invoke evolution for our species and drag in "devolution" instead won't convince us that we are wrong.  

Nothing can convince those who refuse to consider the evidence; too true.

On rawpaleoforum we try to discover what paleoman ate to achieve health. I don't know of any rawhominid forum, or rawanthropoid forum, probably because hypothetical ancestors' diet is both hypothetical and irrelevant.

[alphagruis]

Nothing can convince those who refuse to consider the evidence; too true.

Absolutely. I do agree William.

[DeadRamones]

It also seems to make sense that the frequency of sex would be greatly reduced during paleo times as being constantly pregnant would not really make much evolutionary sense.

Wasn't infant death a huge problem? So would constantly impregnating females be ideal since it'll raise the odds of giving birth to a healthy baby?

[William]

It also seems to make sense that the frequency of sex would be greatly reduced during paleo times as being constantly pregnant would not really make much evolutionary sense.

Wasn't infant death a huge problem? So would constantly impregnating females be ideal since it'll raise the odds of giving birth to a healthy baby?

No. Sickly or dead babies are produced by malnourished and aged parents; a neolithic problem only.

[TylerDurden]

It also seems to make sense that the frequency of sex would be greatly reduced during paleo times as being constantly pregnant would not really make much evolutionary sense.

Wasn't infant death a huge problem? So would constantly impregnating females be ideal since it'll raise the odds of giving birth to a healthy baby?

  Infant mortality was indeed a huge problem in palaeolithic times(20-30%, I believe)