Science screwed a lot of People

Although prenatal Jing cannot be replenished, it's depletion can be significally reduced and halt keeping good levels of Adquired Jing, if anything, someone that has gone deep into the rabbithole and has depleted part of their prenatal Jing as a consequence, needs to be more wary of having healthy habits, and keeping good levels of energy and health, is pretty much, you have made your foundations weaker, but that doesn't mean you cannot reinforce the building to prevent it from collapsing.

Also to point out, TCM considers ejaculation as a healthy thing, if anything it prescribes certain periodicity depending on age/health condition of the person and even depending of the season of the year.

Compulsive PMO is another beast, there was not even such a thing back then.
So if by TCM standards, a healthy, 30 years old is allowed to ejaculate once every 2-3weeks, that compared with someone PMOing on a constant basis, yeah...
I'm not saying is ok, to reset every 2-3 weeks, as most people here we already come from a background of excess, and we are not in a healthy condition in that regard.

I'm just saying that is not black or white by TCM standards, and also that even if prenatal Jing as been tapped into and partially depleted, is not a death sentence, as by default you should nurture your Adquired Jing to protect your prenatal Jing, you just made your foundations weaker, and they will require extra care and protection.

 

What's your history with pmo?
Are you a long time addict?

 

This couldn't possibly be further from the truth. You have no clue how the industry that is science works.

These things are products of branches of medicine that have stood that test of time for a reason. They're proven and generally effective.

 

Wow. I guess I'll throw my PhD away. Years of research and following the scientific method for nothing. What have I done with my life?

Please, could you provide evidence of such kind of concepts, proven to be statistically significant?

For example, in this systematic review (systematic reviews allow to sum up the results of many studies) of 30 papers they conclude:

Here's a link to this review.

Note how the authors use words as "suggests" or "data are insufficient to support definitive conclusions". If after years of research that is the conclusion, I guess "losing your sperm through masturbation" is, at least, neither beneficial nor harmful.

I insist, please enlighten us with proven facts according to which prenatal qi has been measured and related to the masturbatory frequency.

 

Things that have essentially been entirely dismissed by Western Rockefeller medicine for a century cannot be "proven to be statistically significant." Not only have they not been (sufficiently) studied – you as someone with a PhD probably know this very well – but oftentimes they aren't exactly measurable in a way that someone like you might find adequate for research purposes. What I meant, as if it wasn't obvious or clear enough the first time, is that branches of medicine such as Ayurveda and Traditional Chinese or Tibetan Medicine, have stood the test of time for a reason: they are tried and tested. Relevant knowledge hasn't been passed on for thousands of years for nothing. You're more than welcome to adopt the viewpoint of owned and controlled Wikipedia and suggest that these are "unproven pseudoscience" but, doing so, you might just be at odds with history.

If you don't mind me asking, why are you here? Is it because you think you have the authority to try to make us believe that we're all crazy?

 

In that particular case, assuming their methodology is sound, they only looked at orgasms in terms of prostate health, not overall health. You can't really draw a broad conclusion like "masturbation is good for you" based on that study alone, which only examined the effects of masturbation as it relates to the chances of developing cancer in one particular organ.

Given the number of papers being pumped out by Harvard recently claiming things like "clouds are racist" and "bicycles are transphobic", that is somewhat suspect at this point.

Bruh, we still have 999 to go...

This is a good description of the ideal that the process of science aims at. There are still flawed studies that end up getting published and accepted though. We're still human and the scientific community unfortunately does not operate in a vacuum where it is completely immune to bias or social/political pressure, etc.

I'm all for science, I think science is important, but there are some unethical and dishonest researchers out there, just being realistic.

 

Of course not. As I stated before, I respect all viewpoints, but I don't see why in order to defend one of them you'd have to attack another.

I choose to believe (although accept would be a better term) in objective truths, so I need evidence of something to accept it. That's all. If other people's belief systems follow other paths, it's okay with me, but don't undervalue mine. And if you want to "convince" me of something, bring me facts, please. Things that aren't measurable are not provable.

No hard feelings though, it's just that I get a bit annoyed when years and years of research in every possible field of life are flushed down the toilet with sentences such as "How can we take any thing that science says seriously, when it has ruined our lives through Pmo". As if science were just PMO recommendations.

And for the record, scientific studies about masturbation can deal with lots of fields: psychological, physiological, etc. One paper entitled "Masturbation is healthy" doesn't mean anything. Open it, read it and understand in what is healthy.

 

I can't agree more, unfortunately. But I prefer to think these immoral researchers are the least.

 

Do you realize this applies to most scientific facts until the tools to measure them were developed and the focus on researching those areas were carried out, right?

I'm before everything a man of science, and as such, I believe in empirical evidence, is it obvious and empirically observable that excess ejaculation, weakens the body, TCM have their own terms, and theories, to explain such empirically observable phenoma, western science, simply hasn't go deep enough into research of such thing.

As I'm confident, if proper research were to be carried out, we would end up with a vastly more detailed explanation for it, on western scientific terms, and it would be likely a compounding of different elements.

And then, it would just become another nearly unarguable biological scientific fact, until then....
TCM has the closest better explanation for it within their own paradigma, how that paradigma translates to our science and terminology, that's the interesting part about it.

 

I don't know if science told us that. People told us that and claimed it was from science

 

I can't help but imagine people applying Mario's logic to smoking back when doctors were endorsing Camel's or, more recently, hyping low fat foods or dissing Cholesterol.

 

That's probably because the established fundamentals of sexual health in the West are based on the absolute pseudoscience and psychopathy of Freud and Kinsey.

 

There is still hope to recover. Do moderate exercise, eat healthy, get enough sleep, don’t stay up late at night, don’t fantasize throughout the day, and don’t masturbate or look at porn even once. Your body can recover at least a little bit, enough to have a good life still

 

So much to dissect here. I hardly know where to begin.

1. Considering astrology and circumcision to be part of an admittedly extensive list of ("safe and effective") medical practices that have stood the test of time – especially ones relevant to this discussion – seems all but completely baseless or a reach at best. I'm at a loss even trying to comprehend how in the living hell you could have come up with this. You couldn't have possibly selected two practices more controversial and objectionable.
2. I singled out TCM and Ayurveda because among their teachings are ones very applicable when it comes to overall sexual health and wellbeing.
3. Before the advent of modern Western medicine, which, before the Rockefellers ultimately hijacked and corrupted it, had plenty of upsides of its own, people in the West had similar lifespans and were generally far more disease-ridden, primarily due to poor hygiene and a widespread lack of sanitation.
4. Discussing life expectancy here, as relates to potential detrimental effects of frequent ejaculation, is beyond ridiculous. Even if the scientific community took it upon itself to finally get serious about research, high speed internet porn has only been around for so long. Never before have there been presumed masses of people who masturbate for hours on end, a not insignificant portion of whom are ejaculating several times a day. Do you think it's a wild coincidence that the vast majority of users on this website are currently 20-40 years old? Regardless, I still think we can safely go back to at least the 1700s to realize the ill effects of excessive (P)MO as documented by Samuel August Tissot, a Westerner, and countless other honest and well-meaning physicians.
5. The "modern men" you are referring to are masturbators; they cannot and should not be compared to men in centuries or millennia past by any means. Many have been conditioned by the societies in which they live to avoid personal interaction, dating and marriage. They are shy, awkward, nonassertive; there are tons of beta males. I've read through copious surveys and studies like the one many are already aware of out of Japan. The sad irony and reality is that we have the ability and accessibility to see and "fuck" more beautiful women in 10 minutes than many men of the past would have seen and copulated with in a lifetime. Thus, I think I'd give them the W in this completely unrealistic comparison. Also, porn+masturbation≠sex; the two are entirely different and the brain recognizes that fact. This is something that has been scientifically proven.
6. In my opinion, much of the art of Eastern medicine has been lost in it having been somehow merged with its Western counterpart. Starting in the 1930s, if memory serves me – which, shockingly enough, was not long after J.D. Rockefeller took over American medicine via the AMA – was where traditional Ayurveda seems to have met a demise of sorts. To claim that "they all adapt themselves to Western science," as if willingly or because it's the better of the two modalities, is blatantly incorrect.

 

How could anyone even take side of this corrupted science specially on this very sensitive topic of M... You are something more than a brainwashed person. The only reason why you are here on nofap.com is only bcz you experienced a bad history regrading M in the past and therefore to recover, u r coming on here. This science thing is never ever 100% correct, it fails to reason what was before big bang, bcz, according to its ritual line "Everything has a cause" but its statement fails here, it becomes contradictory when it says atoms don't have life, but aren't we made of atoms only? yaya??? And I am damn sure its impossible to ever give its explanation through scientific principle. Thatswhy just don't be blind believer man, its the only reason as I said early bcz of which now I am performing worst in academics when it said M is completely safe and healthy. Just sometimes trust your own logic and your own experience rather than observing others or by reading a article.

 

The main argument posed by NF members who take this approach of seeking only objective medical truths by way of scientific confirmation is that they seem to think that those of us with opposing viewpoints are the exception, not the rule. It gets to be a little comical when you consider how many times science got it "right" and then ultimately embarrassingly wrong. A few examples from recent history: cigarettes, high fat foods, cholesterol and of course the claim that depression is a "chemical imbalance" in the brain caused by a drug deficiency. Imagine how much harm some of those have done. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Is there a reason you refer to Astrology as if it's a popular religion? And the fact that circumcision is practiced across the East and the West doesn't make it healthy or beneficial, much less harmless or natural. Plenty of things happen across the world, not nearly all of them are positive. That's no argument to justify or promote them.

That's one way to put it, yeah. Among their contributions, the rulers called quackery on holistic and natural modes of healing. There are people who believe that if the body is given the proper care and fuel, it has the ability to practically heal itself. The US and most European countries are among those who have gotten further and further away from this way of thinking since the Rockefeller takeover of medicine. If you want to argue that, entertain me.

Allow me to learn from you for a second and take my turn to urge you to cite some studies or research or even just surveys. Where the hell are you getting these ridiculous numbers? Are you coming up with this shit because you think it'll suit your argument or... ? We're discussing addicts, right? Considering this site is a great place to find them, why don't you make a new post and add a poll: How long is your average session? While you're at it, make another: How many times a day do you fap? Prove it to yourself.

Please enlighten me. If I'm a little stupid and can't correlate the points you're making properly, why did you bring up life expectancy? Are you trying to fully transition this from being about modern Western medicine as relates to PMO to modern Western medicine in general? If so, I still stand by my point. Life expectancy increased as personal hygiene and sanitation improved. Feel free to counter.

I have. Have you? Or did you read half a paragraph on Wikipedia or a review mocking his work on Amazon and think that was enough? The kind of conditions that were being documented in many of his patients weren't exactly common or widespread in that day and age, much in the same way that Autism was practically nonexistent several decades ago, especially compared to this day and age. Also, there were patients whose health he and other physicians who did similar work were able to restore magically when they were able to get them to refrain from indulging in masturbating and having excessive orgasms.

"It is not at all surprising that those who are less moderate sexually turn out to be weaker, since the whole body loses the purest part of both substances, and there is besides an accession of pleasure, which by itself is enough to dissolve the vital tone, so that before now some persons have died from excess of pleasure." - Galen

Also, enjoy: http://www.semenloss.info.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/index.html

By all means, you're free to disagree. I must admit, though, that I'm at a loss as to why you're here. You seem to be championing PMO and vouching for what you seem to want to claim are its many benefits. It naturally makes me wonder why you're here. Are you an extension of WebMD intended to cross over into the NF arena?

Despite the fact that I wholeheartedly believe it, I never stated that ejaculation by masturbation was more harmful than that by sex. I'll track down the study for you. If you want to expedite the process, though, I'm pretty sure it's written about in that book by Gary Wilson.