quote:

Castration means no further hope of playing with it. Less you keep it in a pickle jar in the fridge with hopes of attaching it later. LOL.

OMG ... what a concept !! Over here we have Dr. Frankenstein with pickled brains (and possibly other body parts) in laboratory storage jars as maintenance spare parts for his monster; over there we have Jeffrey Dahmer with human body parts wrapped up in foil like cold cuts in his fridge just in case he gets a "little peckish;" and now here we have sissy maid lola with his "little pecker" preserved in a storage jar in the fridge. And every now and then lola gets to fondle and play with his pickled living dildo, not only to fondly reminisce about the good old days, but also to fantasize about the future when it will be re-attached and functional once again. ROTFLMAO. Thanks for sharing that imagery, maid marianne.

Curtsies,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to malemaidsub)

quote:

Castration is too final. Don't do it. You would regret it. Chastity is a far superior option as it always leaves you with a choice.

Castration is indeed too final IsHO, and sissy personally would never consider this option for himself (although, based on the poll voting to date, clearly many others at CollarMe would <giggles>). This option lacks any kind of D/s tension in sissy's mind, although it does have some other mitigating advantages for both the Mistress and Her castrated sub/slave. But sissy would disagree that chastity control by a keyholder that is not oneself (as represented by the first two options in sissy's poll) gives you ANY level of choice ... at least, NOT if the Keyholder is doing Their job! What choice do you now have over your own chastity, sis ?

Which of the two chastity options in the poll do you think best describes your own situation, janice, and which poll option did you vote for ?

Curtsies,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to janicecd)

quote:

One final note WRT submissive health maintenance. There is a medically established connection between the instance of male prostrate cancer and low frequency of ejaculation. It is not the ejaculation that is important, but the fluid (sperm) release. For option (a), where orgasm release is intended to happen fairly frequently, and even a really naughty sissy might only go a maximum of a few weeks without orgasm, finding an alternative method of releasing this fluid is not too important. However, regular anal prostrate milkings become imperative in option (b) in the current poll, as well as the option that describes Your own scenario, Ma'am, where the submissive may go for months on end without orgasm release (i.e., being chaste). You made no mention of prostrate milkings in Your prior posts on this topic, Ma'am, but if You are not doing them You are putting Your submissive's health at some potential risk, and sissy just wanted to make You aware of this situation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
One final note WRT submissive health maintenance. There is a medically established connection between the instance of male prostrate cancer and low frequency of ejaculation.

quote:

CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer.

quote:

To make a long story short, he is very difficult to milk. I have tried everything I have read to no avail. I finally did find one particular dildoe that will do the trick but so far nothing else has worked. Nor even the aneros or digital manipulation. His milkings have been infrequent but not for lack of trying.

Dear Ms Cameron,

sissy Has always wondered how easily anal prostrate milkings were to successfully administer in real life. The descriptions sissy has read of what is involved always seemed to make them sound easier to do than they actually would be. So what You have reported here is what sissy has always suspected. The write up for the Aneros Prostate Stimulator made it all sound like a breeze, so thank You for restoring the balance of authenticity with Your post.

quote:

Depending on what you read and where, so far nothing I have read advises going over 3 months but I have not gone over 2.

4 or 6 fluid releases a year still doesn't sound anywhere near enough to sissy, but he makes that statement based purely on a (male) gut feeling, and it is not based on any medical fact - see onceburned's post below. But if 17 weeks is the max time Your sub has been chaste, it only took one prostate milking around the middle of that total confinement period in order to maintain Your 2 month average, didn't it, Ma'am ?

quote:

In answer to another question you had, I use the CB2000 with him. I do have the curve but I don't like it near as much as the 2000. I also had him pierced a year ago and have been contemplating a Lori Tube for a frenum piercing. I find her chastity devices intriguing to say the least :)

Did You do the frenum piercing, Ma'am, or some other kind of penis piercing ? Although they say the frenum piercing is not painful sissy still shudders when he sees pictures of it done. sissy Gets goose bumps just thinking about it ... oooooooh <shudders>.

Respectfrilly Yours,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to MsCameron)

quote:

sissy Has always wondered how easily anal prostrate milkings were to successfully administer in real life. The descriptions sissy has read of what is involved always seemed to make them sound easier to do than they actually would be. So what You have reported here is what sissy has always suspected. The write up for the Aneros Prostate Stimulator made it all sound like a breeze, so thank You for restoring the balance of authenticity with Your post.

quote:

Did You do the frenum piercing, Ma'am, or some other kind of penis piercing ? Although they say the frenum piercing is not painful sissy still shudders when he sees pictures of it done. sissy Gets goose bumps just thinking about it ... oooooooh

quote:

I am not aware of any evidence of such a connection. In fact, research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded that that low rates or even medium rate of ejaculation did not appear related to prostate cancer.

Thanks for the URL to the AMA study report and for pointing that out, chris. Do you know if that AMA study is the final word on the causal connection between ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer in males, or are there other (e.g., European) studies out there that are a little more definitive in their conclusions (see sissy's comments below) WRT this causal connectivity ?

quote:

It did find however that high rates (more than 20/month) of ejaculation lowered the risk of cancer. But that doesn't mean that the reverse is true.

Well, you are playing with words (and logic) a little here, chris. The fact that higher rates of ejaculation lowers the risk of cancer DOES indeed mean that the reverse of this statement is also true ... viz., lower rates of ejaculation raises the risk of cancer. That is simply saying the same thing in a different manner. However, it does NOT mean or imply that low rates of ejaculation CAUSES cancer. But that's simply because medical science still doesn't know what CAUSES cancer, ONLY which activities and conditions significantly increases the possibility of developing cancer.

Medical research informs us that smoking significantly increases one's probability of developing lung cancer, so we say in the vernacular that smoking CAUSES cancer. But it doesn't in every case ... there are many people that have smoked like chimneys all their lives and lived to a ripe old age and still did not develop lung cancer. For instance, George Burns lived to the age of 100 and, to his physicians' chagrin, smoked cigars until the day he died, and he did NOT die of lung cancer. Similarly, there are people that have died of lung cancer that have never smoked in their life (or worked in a coal mine, or been around asbestos dust, or any of those other activities that are known to significantly increase their risk of developing lung cancer).

If medical science knew exactly what causes cancer it could not only cure it in every instance, it could prevent it from occurring in the first place, in the same way it can prevent and cure many other diseases and conditions once their propensity for occurring have been diagnosed, e.g., gout. It is that lack of established total causal connectivity that makes all forms of cancer such a pernicious condition versus other much more predictable (and consequently curable and preventable) medical conditions and diseases. As an analogue, consider the statement that changing your oil every 3000 miles or every 6 months will preserve the life of your engine. That does also imply that changing your oil less frequently will put more wear and tear on your engine, but it does NOT mean that it will categorically cause your engine to completely fail.

If a male is currently experiencing prostate fluid release via ejaculation once a day (30 times/month) and then opts to be put under chastity control which reduces his prostate fluid release to once a month, he has moved from a regimen that the AMA report claims has a "decreased risk of total prostate cancer" to one that doesn't ... which means he has now RAISED his risk of cancer. But you are correct to point out that this male has not necessarily raised his risk significantly to a critical point where he is now at great risk of developing prostate cancer, or even that he will develop prostate cancer for certain.

Because of the way that AMA study report is written it is not immediately clear what it is saying so sissy had to deconstruct it a little. Most people just want to know is there a correlation between prostate cancer and ejaculation frequency, but that AMA report addresses three levels of prostate cancer incidence, so one has to be very careful which one of these levels it is talking about. sissy Has formatted the AMA's stated results (and added some numbering) in order to make it clearer to follow and reproduces it below, together with the study report's conclusion:

quote:

RESULTS: During 222 426 person-years of follow-up, there were

(1) 1449 new cases of total prostate cancer
(2) 953 organ-confined cases, and
(3) 147 advanced cases of prostate cancer.

Most categories of ejaculation frequency were unrelated to risk of prostate cancer.

(1) However, high ejaculation frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer. The multivariate relative risks for men reporting 21 or more ejaculations per month compared with men reporting 4 to 7 ejaculations per month at

ages 20 to 29 years were 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.10);
ages 40 to 49 years, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.86);
previous year, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.88); and
averaged across a lifetime, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.89).

(2) Similar associations were observed for organ-confined prostate cancer.

(3) Ejaculation frequency was not statistically significantly associated with risk of advanced prostate cancer.

CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer.

The AMA report seems to be talking out of both sides of its mouth in a number of areas on this issue. If, as the report conclusion states, "ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer," then how can the AMA also claim in its results section that "high ejaculation frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer" ? [see the text that sissy numbered as (1)]. That's a direct contradiction. If there is a correlation between "high ejaculation frequency" and "decreased risk of total prostate cancer," even if there is no established correlation for the other two levels of cancer incidence, there is still some kind of established correlation, which flies in the face of the report's stated conclusion.

Furthermore, read what the results section of the report says WRT the correlation between the incidence of "organ-confined prostate cancer" and ejaculation frequency [in the section of text that sissy numbered as (2)]: "Similar associations were observed for organ-confined prostate cancer." That means similar associations as established for "total prostate cancer" in (1). So now there is an established correlation between high ejaculation frequency and decreased risk of total prostate cancer AND organ-confined prostate cancer! This further undermines the simplistic conclusion presented at the end of this study report.

What one must ask when reading that report is if, as the report conclusion states, "ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer," how the hell can a higher ejaculation frequency decrease that non-existent risk ? sissy Would put no store in something that is that confusingly written ... one can interpret that report as saying anything one wants it to justify by selectively quoting from different parts of it just like one can selectively quote from the Bible to support almost any idea one wants to promote. The bottom line is that the conclusion stated at the end of the report does not follow from the earlier results listed in the sections of text identified by sissy as (1) and (2).

The final thought that sissy will leave you with, chris, is do you drive your car 12,000 miles between oil changes on the basis that no one can conclusively prove to you that you will completely screw up your engine by doing that ?

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to onceburned)

quote:

As Onceburned noted, there are different opinions to the validity of prostate cancer relating to low ejaculations. If I find one article that says a man should be able to cum once a day, I will be sure it was written by MY submissive... laughing.

Well, please see sissy's response to chris' post, Ma'am. sissy Doesn't think the AMA study report to which chris posted the URL justifies its own conclusion. Consequently, sissy did some Googling around after posting that response and found this research report put out by The Cancer Council in New South Wales, Australia. It, too, establishes a correlation between frequency of ejaculation and incidence of prostate cancer later in life ... but the correlation is tied only to the frequency of ejaculation of the male during his twenties! sissy Has also read other studies in the past (which he unfortunately didn't bookmark) all of which report some type of tenuous correlation between frequency of ejaculation and a later incidence of prostate cancer.

IsHO, the argument that most plausibly justifies this connectivity is given in the study to which sissy just posted a link above, viz.:

quote:

"For this reason, our explanations are fairly speculative - one possible reason for the protective effects of ejaculation may be that frequent ejaculation prevents carcinogens building up in the prostatic ducts."
"If the ducts are flushed out, there may be less build up and damage to the cells that line them."

Just like one should not let your car sit completely idle for months on end (if, for instance, you are not able to actually drive it for a lengthy period of time), but instead one should turn the engine over and idle the car for a period of time every now and then, males probably should similarly ejaculate on a regular schedule. "Ejaculate" is a misleading term here because it suggests orgasmic release with force, and sissy prefers a more accurate term such as "prostate fluid release." Yet both the AMA study report and the Australian study report did define "ejaculation" to mean orgasmic release during coitus, orgasmic release as a result of masturbation, and non-orgasmic release due to nocturnal "wet dream" emissions. To those should be added non-orgasmic release due to anal prostate milking which wasn't specifically addressed by either study.

There is also a technique for masturbating a restrained male which repeatedly stops short of orgasm so that in the end the male releases (dribbles) in a non-orgasmic fashion. This is a very Sadistic technique and sissy suspects that it probably is as difficult to successfully bring off with certain victims as the anal prostate manipulation technique that is meant to be used with anal dildos such as the Aneros Prostate Massager. If Mistress is interested, sissy will see if he can find something on the web WRT this technique and post it here for You, Ma'am. You never know, it might work much better for Your submissive than the anal prostate manipulation technique that is proving so difficult. Let him know if You are interested in sissy doing that, Ms Cameron.

quote:

Go for it sissy :)

No, no, no ... sissy will pass on pursuing this activity, despite Your kind encouragement, thank You, Ma'am.

sissy maid lola




< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 3/16/2005 3:44:45 PM >

_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to MsCameron)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola?

quote:

It did find however that high rates (more than 20/month) of ejaculation lowered the risk of cancer. But that doesn't mean that the reverse is true.

Well, you are playing with words (and logic) a little here, chris. The fact that higher rates of ejaculation lowers the risk of cancer DOES indeed mean that the reverse of this statement is also true ... viz., lower rates of ejaculation raises the risk of cancer.

quote:

If a male is currently experiencing prostate fluid release via ejaculation once a day (30 times/month) and then opts to be put under chastity control which reduces his prostate fluid release to once a month, he has moved from a regimen that the AMA report claims has a "decreased risk of total prostate cancer" to one that doesn't ... which means he has now RAISED his risk of cancer.

quote:

The final thought that sissy will leave you with, chris, is do you drive your car 12,000 miles between oil changes on the basis that no one can conclusively prove to you that you will completely screw up your engine by doing that ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
sissy was reading all about an established group of modern day eunuchs in India known as Hijra. Their numbers have been estimated at over a million. Yet, somehow, the whole concept of an exclusive eunuch population has sissy ROFLMAO. How does a eunuch population sustain itself ?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

It did find however that high rates (more than 20/month) of ejaculation lowered the risk of cancer. But that doesn't mean that the reverse is true.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

Well, you are playing with words (and logic) a little here, chris. The fact that higher rates of ejaculation lowers the risk of cancer DOES indeed mean that the reverse of this statement is also true ... viz., lower rates of ejaculation raises the risk of cancer. That is simply saying the same thing in a different manner. However, it does NOT mean or imply that low rates of ejaculation CAUSES cancer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

Oh, not at all. The study compared the different sample groups with the baseline incidence of prostate cancer. High rates of ejaculation resulted in lower prostate cancer. But low rates of ejaculation did not differ significantly from baseline. The point being: there does not seem to be a linear relationship between ejaculation frequency and risk of prostate cancer.

chris, sissy fully understands the non-linear relationship between ejaculation frequency and risk of prostate cancer as documented by that AMA report (and most other reports on this topic, too). However, sissy also understands how to use and comprehend the English language. If you read the following statement (A) quoted from the results section of that AMA report (and parenthetically added to by sissy) purely as a propositional statement (i.e., regardless of the empirical evidence supporting its actual truth or falsity) then the statement (B) that sissy has written following it will always take the same truth value as (A), because they are equivalent propositions in both Propositional Logic and the English language:

(A) (a high ejaculation frequency) was related to (viz. implies) (decreased risk of total prostate cancer)

(B) NOT (a decreased risk of total prostate cancer) implies NOT (a high ejaculation frequency)

(C) (an increased risk of total prostate cancer) implies (a low ejaculation frequency)

(D) (an increased risk of total prostate cancer) correlates to (a low ejaculation frequency)

(E) (a low ejaculation frequency) correlates to (an increased risk of total prostate cancer)

The structure of statement (A) is: P => Q. The structure of statement (B) is: ~Q => ~P
In Propositional Logic these two statements are interchangeable according to the Contrapositive Rule.

If you accept that statement (A) is true then statement (B) is also true. If you reject statement (A) as being false, then statement (B) is also false. Statement (C) is just statement (B) reworded in a less cumbersome fashion (with "NOT a decreased" replaced by "an increased" and "NOT a high" replaced by "a low").

sissy Has equated the phrase "was related to" to "implies" so that it maps nicely to the usual meaning of the "=>" symbol in Propositional Logic. "Implies" is a one-way relationship which means that just because P => Q, it does not follow that Q => P. However, the actual phrase "was related to" is a synonym for "correlates to" which is a symmetrical relationship that is much broader than "implies", the structure of the original statement actually being P <=> Q. If P <=> Q then Q <=> P, ~P <=> ~Q, and ~Q <=> ~P. Hence, for the "was related to" relationship in question, statements (D) and (E) are also true.

You are the one that originally paraphrased (see quotes above) statement (A) in the AMA report as follows: "high rates (more than 20/month) of ejaculation lowered the risk of cancer." You paraphrased it because you believed it to be true. sissy Merely applied the Contrapositive Rule to that statement to point out to you that in that case the truth of the statement "low rates (less than 20/month) of ejaculation raises the risk of cancer" also automatically follows. You cannot escape that conclusion if you accept the empirical truth of statement (A) as it appears in the AMA report. But as sissy also pointed out, statement (A) directly contradicts the report conclusion. So which of those two statements in that report do you wish to believe ? You appear to choose the latter while quoting (paraphasing) the former.

All of the foregoing has absolutely nothing to do with the "non-linear relationship between ejaculation frequency and risk of prostate cancer." It relies purely on logic and English comprehension.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

If a male is currently experiencing prostate fluid release via ejaculation once a day (30 times/month) and then opts to be put under chastity control which reduces his prostate fluid release to once a month, he has moved from a regimen that the AMA report claims has a "decreased risk of total prostate cancer" to one that doesn't ... which means he has now RAISED his risk of cancer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

Yes, perhaps considering the circumstances of this individual. But the study does -not- suggest that if a person were having 15 ejaculations per month, and then switched to one per month that his risk would be increased.

That original quote from sissy above is essentially a condensed form of the extended logical reasoning that you just caused sissy to post above. It says pretty much the same thing in four lines and here you AGREE with the logic of it. But to disguise the fact that you actually agreed with the sound reasoning of sissy's statement you added some bunkum (about the study not specifically suggesting that a change of ejaculation frequency will affect someone's risk of prostate cancer) in order to make it seem that sissy's statement applied to some individual's specific situation that was an exception to some kind of rule.

THE REPORT DIDN'T HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY MAKE THE SUGGESTION, chris. Proper logical and semantical analysis of what was written in the results section of that report (the statement that you initially paraphrased right up front in your initial post on this topic) leads one to the unavoidable conclusion that there is SOME EVIDENCE that an increased risk of total prostate cancer correlates to a low ejaculation frequency.

If there is some kind of an established correlation between prostate cancer incidence and high ejaculation frequency (and you accept that correlation, as you did do cuz you quoted it, rather than challenging the veracity of the empirical results supporting that correlation, which you didn't do) then it still logically follows that pursuing a regimen of lower ejaculation frequency RAISES YOUR RISK of developing prostate cancer later in life (no matter how insignificantly) RELATIVE to following a comparable regimen of higher ejaculation frequency. That results from applying proper logic and English comprehension skills to what was written in the report.

The fact that the submitted evidence from the study participants pertaining to a possible correlation between prostate cancer incidence and lower ejaculation frequencies does not empirically support that conclusion, in synchrony with the above logic, is irrelevant. You hung your hat on the veracity of the correlation between cancer and high ejaculation frequency - because you quoted it to sissy in your post - and sissy's conclusion follows logically from it via sound a priori reasoning, regardless of whether that conclusion is also independently supported by it's own set of empirical statistical correlations or not.

If you give sissy two statements as follows:

(1) all swans are white
(2) there is a swan on that lake over there

sissy is perfectly correct to come to the conclusion that:

(3) the swan on that lake over there is white

If you then point out that statement (3) is not empirically true (the swan on the lake is actually black) it does not affect the logical soundness of sissy's reasoning above nor the validity of his conclusion (given the two starting premises) one iota. It just shows that you are a schmuck for injecting the empirically false premise (1) - there are, in fact, black swans in Australia - into the discussion in the first place.

What you have done here is start this conversation with the following two premises from the AMA report:

(1) there's a correlation between reduced incidence of prostate cancer & high ejaculation frequency (HEF)

(2) there's no such correlation between incidence of prostate cancer & lower ejaculation frequency (LEF)

and sissy, based on those two premises, came to the correct conclusion that:

(3) if a man moves from an HEF scenario to an LEF scenario, he moves from a scenario with a correlation to a known decreased incidence of prostate cancer relative to the baseline to a scenario with no established correlation to the baseline either way

Statements (1) and (2) above can also be restated as:

(1') in the HEF scenario, incidence of prostate cancer is less than the baseline

(2') in the LEF scenario, without any correlative evidence to the contrary, the incidence of prostate cancer is equal to the baseline

and statement (3) can also be restated as:

(3') going from the HEF to LEF scenario takes one from a scenario with cancer incidence less than the baseline to a scenario with cancer incidence equal to the baseline

which can be further refined as:

(3'') going from the HEF to LEF scenario takes one to a scenario with an increased level of cancer incidence relative to the baseline

which can be still further refined as:

(3''') going from the HEF to LEF scenario increases the risk of cancer incidence

There is no faulty reasoning involved in deriving conclusion (3) in its final form (3''') from initial premises (1) and (2). For you to point out that conclusion (3) was not specifically derived within the study is irrelevant. For you to point out that conclusion (3) cannot be derived from premise (1) or premise (2) by itself is also irrelevant. For you to reiterate that premise (2) makes no correlation between the incidence of prostate cancer and lower ejaculation frequency IN NO WAY affects the truth of conclusion (3) given the two premises (1) and (2) that you introduced with that AMA report.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

The final thought that sissy will leave you with, chris, is do you drive your car 12,000 miles between oil changes on the basis that no one can conclusively prove to you that you will completely screw up your engine by doing that ?

ORIGINAL: onceburned

Lola, you should know that nothing is ever conclusively proved.

chris, sissy knows that nothing is ever conclusively proved ... it was he that was challenging you for holding that view. You seem to have completely missed the relevance of the oil change analogue to the AMA study discussion. The recommendation to change your oil frequently in order to reduce the risks of bad things happening to your engine later in the car's life is analogous to the AMA report pointing out that frequent ejaculation has a correlation with a reduced risk of bad things happening (i.e., cancer) to your prostate later in life. The oil change advice has the automatic implication that not following it will increase the risks of bad things happening to your engine later in the car's life.

This is analogous to what is implied will happen if you follow a regimen of low ejaculation frequency instead of the (implied) recommended regimen of high ejaculation frequency - it will increase the risks of bad things happening to your prostate later in life. My question to you was just because it doesn't automatically follow that you will get prostate cancer if you follow the low ejaculation regimen, nevertheless, why would anybody do it ? Instead of asking you this directly, sissy asked you the analogue: just because it doesn't automatically follow that you will fry your engine by waiting 12,000 miles between oil changes, why on earth would anyone purposely do it ?

quote:

I am not saying that the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) article I mentioned is *the* final word on the subject

sissy Didn't say that you did say that, chris ... sissy was merely asking if this Was the ONLY study by a major medical association out there on the web that you knew about. If it wasn't, he was then going to request that you post links to the other studies because the AMA study is self-contradictory. And sissy posed that question (i.e., made that whole post) before he went and found that Australian study to which he then posted a link in his response to Ms Cameron.

quote:

I know this study disputes the idea that ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer are correlated. It, of course, needs to be weighed against other studies.

Actually, the AMA study presents ample evidence of a correlation between high ejaculation frequency and incidence of prostate cancer ... it then disputes its own evidence with the final conclusions that it draws. As such, the study is self-nullifying. sissy Isn't blaming you for this, chris ... he is just pointing this out. Thanks for posting something that initially started this conversation and got us to this point.

sissy maid lola




< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 3/16/2005 12:00:04 PM >

_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to onceburned)

quote:

I don't have an answer for you, but apparently India has just changed its online passport application form so that a person can choose male, female or eunuch as their sex marker.

Well, that only gives more weight to sissy's argument here that there should be at least three legal and social human genders. Thanks for the URL.

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to onceburned)

quote:

But you missed my point about the accuracy of the article's conclusion. The baseline incidence of prostate cancer for the U.S. population is known. The study compared this rate to the rate of prostate cancer in three sample groups. One group had lower incidence compared to the national population. The other wo groups did not have lower *nor* did they have higher incidence of prostate cancer compared to the U.S. population.

No, chris, sissy didn't miss your point at all about the accuracy of the article's conclusion. BTW, two of the three groups suffering from prostate cancer - groups (1) and (2) (see below) - had a lower incidence compared to the national population baseline WRT high ejaculation frequency, and not one of the three as you stated. At least that is how sissy interprets the statement, "Similar associations were observed for organ-confined prostate cancer," as it appears in the study results (see below). The three sample prostate cancer groups identified by the study were:

(1) 1449 new cases of total prostate cancer
(2) 953 organ-confined cases, and
(3) 147 advanced cases of prostate cancer.

For all these groups, most categories of ejaculation frequency were unrelated to risk of prostate cancer. The one category that was an exception to all the others is the "high ejaculation frequency" category. For this category, taking each of the three cancer groups in turn, the results were (now sissy is quoting from the results section of the AMA study report, but the formatting and numbering that have been added are his in order to make it a little easier to follow):

quote:

(1) However, high ejaculation frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer. The multivariate relative risks for men reporting 21 or more ejaculations per month compared with men reporting 4 to 7 ejaculations per month at

ages 20 to 29 years were 0.89 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73-1.10);
ages 40 to 49 years, 0.68 (95% CI, 0.53-0.86);
previous year, 0.49 (95% CI, 0.27-0.88); and
averaged across a lifetime, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.51-0.89).

(2) Similar associations were observed for organ-confined prostate cancer.

(3) Ejaculation frequency was not statistically significantly associated with risk of advanced prostate cancer.

What isn't clear to sissy from the AMA report is how many ejaculation frequency categories were used. Did the researchers take a Goldilocks approach (viz., low, medium, and high) or are there more categories involved ? It is a little hard to understand the full import of the statement, "most categories of ejaculation frequency were unrelated to risk of prostate cancer" without knowing this. Most of how many ? ... three, five, twelve, what ? Exactly how small a fraction of ALL the ejaculation frequency categories does the "high ejaculation frequency category" represent for it to be so easily dismissed as anomalous by the study report's conclusion ? Maybe you can clarify this for sissy, chris, because he was unable to determine that ?

Since all of the other ejaculation frequency categories did not show any significant statistical deviation from the mean for the national baseline incidence of prostate cancer for each of the three groups, as you say, no conclusion whatsoever can be made for them as to their correlation to cancer incidence. So if you ask the question: "What will happen to my cancer risk if I change from a low frequency of ejaculation to a medium frequency of ejaculation ?" the answer is a firm, "no idea, cannot say, the results are inconclusive!"

The only category of ejaculation frequency category one can make any useful comment about is the "high ejaculation frequency category." It has a demonstrable correlation to some significant statistical deviation from the mean for the national baseline incidence of prostate cancer for the first two of the three cancer groups (total prostate cancer cases and organ-confined cancer cases - see quoted results above). This category would appear to have a discernable lower risk based on these deviations from the national baseline.

So if you ask the question: "What will happen to my cancer risk if I change from a high frequency of ejaculation to one of the other frequencies of ejaculation ?" the answer now is that it will be higher, because you have moved from the only ejaculation frequency category with a discernable lower risk to one of the (many?) other categories with no discernable risk either way. sissy Feels that he has more than adequately demonstrated in his prior lengthy post to you that one can indeed make meaningful relative risk assessment statements when comparing this category to any of the others.

As an analogy, consider how life insurance works. There are lifestyles that are low risk, some that are medium risk, and some that are high risk. The insurance companies have actuarial tables that covers every major category of risk group which are used to determine your life insurance premiums (the cost of which are merely a reflection of the relative risk you have of dying compared to all the other males in your age group based on the nature of your lifestyle). If you phone the insurance company up and tell them that, although you were an accountant when you took out the policy, you are now a computer programmer, they would probably thank you and simply update your file. But if you told them that you were now a professional NASCAR race driver, a freefall skydiver, or that you had recently taken up smoking and were already up to three packs a day, expect your premiums to soar, or even your life insurance policy to be cancelled!

Moving from low to medium ejaculation frequency categories, or vice versa, has no discernable effect on perceived cancer risk, as does moving between safe middle class lifestyles such as accountancy or computer programming. But moving from one of those ejaculation frequency categories to the high ejaculation frequency category, or vice versa, does have a discernable effect on perceived cancer risk, in the same manner as an accountant becoming a skydiver has discernable effect on perceived expected life span risk.

When you state:

quote:

For this reason it could be concluded that frequency of ejaculation was not related to increased risk of prostate cancer. The incidence of prostate cancer in the samples was *not* higher than that of the U.S. population.

it applies ONLY to all the other ejaculation frequency categories. However, if the "high ejaculation frequency category" represents only 3%, say, of the complete population of statistics extracted from the submitted questionnaires analyzed, then it is probably OK to dismiss this group as anomalous and declare the conclusion that the AMA did declare at the end of its report (but sissy feels that such a rationalization should, nevertheless, have been explained in the conclusion). OTOH, if the "high ejaculation frequency category" represents 53%, say, of the complete population of statistics extracted from the submitted questionnaires analyzed, then no way should such a large sample have been dismissed as an insignificant aberration when writing the study report's conclusion.

Unless you can enlighten sissy otherwise, chris, he is assuming that only three ejaculation frequency categories were examined in this study - viz. 4-7 ejaculations/month (or low), 8-20 ejaculations/month (or medium), and >20 ejaculations/month (or high). Even if this is the case, it is not clear how the submitted questionnaire statistics analyzed are actually distributed amongst these three categories. Taking a gross approach, if the "high ejaculation frequency category" represents at least 33% of the total submitted questionnaire statistics analyzed (i.e., assuming that the three categories were fairly evenly populated), then IsHO such a large sample should not have been completely dismissed or ignored when writing the study's conclusion ... at least not without any kind of justification. Why bother to publish the measured statistical deviations for this category in the results section of the report only to ignore these results in the conclusion ? That, essentially, is the problem sissy has with the AMA study report. Maybe he is missing something here ... please enlighten sissy if he is.

What caused sissy to engage in this conversation, more than anything, chris, was your apparent belief that nothing meaningful can be said about the relative cancer risks of the ejaculation frequency categories referenced by the study, because the study reported that no statistical correlation could be established for "most categories of ejaculation frequency." Whatever the empirical accuracy of the AMA study, or however badly the abstract to the subsequent study report was written (some of which sissy has also documented in his prior posts), hopefully sissy has convinced you with his arguments in both this post, and his previous post, that that is not necessarily the case.

Regards,

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

If i don't seem submissive to You, it may be because i'm NOT submissive to You.

(in reply to onceburned)