quote:

sissy, perhaps I am wrong, but I think that chastity holds a certain appeal for you. Is this something you were and/or are involved with? I think you mentioned that you were in a relationship with a domme but I am not quite sure.

Well, duh, chris ... sissy wouldn't have started this poll thread if he had absolutely no interest in, or affinity with, the topic whatsoever. Similarly, as the single biggest contributor to this thread after sissy you, too, appear to find a certain appeal in this topic. As he has posted elsewhere, sissy Has played around a little with self chastity control for short periods, but the mind control - or what sissy has also called the psychological dynamics - involved in being one's own keyholder, versus actually ceding that freedom and control to another person, are as different as night and day. sissy Appreciates this fact even though he has never, to date, indulged in actual physical chastity play with a partner.

However, sissy has been involved in the past with a D/s partner (although we didn't refer to our relationship at the time in BDSM terminology - we just thought we were having raunchy vanilla sex!) where we used the psychological aspects of chastity and cuckoldry in sissy's submission to Her during intimate sex. There are many areas of BDSM that are pure fantasy but nevertheless highly erotic. For instance, there really aren't that many folk (if any?) out there in the real world that spend ALL of their lives kept collared and stark naked in a cage in the basement, being released only to be used as a sex object by their owner, before being re-confined back in their cage again. If anyone reading this post actually believes that is a real BDSM lifestyle then Y/you might need to seek some psychiatric counseling.

Just as the severe 24/7 caging fantasy is extremely erotic to the kinkster with an interest in bondage and constraint, so too the severe physical emasculation involved with all of the chastity, castration and penectomy options described in the profiles that sissy just posted are equally highly erotic to someone, such as sissy, whose main real kink is self-emasculation (or feminization, or sissification) via sartorial means (viz., crossdressing). sissy Can relate to the BDSM dynamics involved in these scenarios very much, and as he has stated elsewhere on this thread, where sissy's head is at today, even option (a) would really be pushing the envelope for sissy. But who knows, chris, in the world of kink, what is today's edge play may well be tomorrow's: "ho, hum, been there, done that!" One of the most enjoyably scary things about being a submissive is being forced by your Dom/me to face your demons ... or to put that into BDSM terminology, to be pushed through your soft limits, and maybe even to have your hard limits put to the test. Or even to be introduced to new forms of BDSM play that one had never even considered enough before to determine whether you even have a limit against it or not!

When he was younger, sissy did parachute jumps, went mountain climbing, did scuba diving, and he still drives a little too fast for most other's comfort ... so with such a penchant for "safely endangering himself" sissy guesses he is/was a natural for BDSM. Even as a TV going out en femme in public, sissy is/was never one to try and totally blend in, but got much more of a charge being recognized as a "man in a dress." And he never went to a ProDomme looking for "forced feminization" session to force him to cross the threshold into the public's gaze ... once the desire to do it reached critical mass, sissy just flounced right out his front door. Life is to be embraced NOT run away from, and when sissy hears others talking about pushing envelopes and playing on the edge sissy completely relates to that ... even if he cannot always emphasize totally with what they are doing in order to push their own personal envelopes. But the first principle of BDSM is: "People in glass houses ..."

So to return to your question, chris, chastity and castration - as other, more tangible forms of male emasculation than simply wearing petticoats, ruffled panties and big pink bows in his hair - does have a certain alure and erotic intrigue for sissy. Back in the mid to late nineties sissy discovered a great chastity belt site - Altairboy.com ? - where he found a lot of the "chastity-based fiction" quite intriguing. Although not into chastity at all at that time (sissy cannot even remember what caused him to go to that site in the first place) sissy clearly did recognize and empathize with the D/s dynamics that were at play in much of the fiction hosted there, and this clearly was stored away in his subconscious.

Around the same time, a similar type of process led sissy to sites containing erotica on cuckoldry. Again, sissy wasn't particularly into that at the time, either, but once more, sissy recognized and empathized with the D/s dynamics that were at play in much of the cuckolding-related fantasy fiction, and this too was stashed away in the back of his mind. These things all came together for sissy in his D/s relationship where one of his tasks as the sub was to think up new ways in which he could be humiliated and/or have his power taken away from him in some way. Having to come up with new ideas for his own submission all the time, it didn't take too long before sissy had offered up the concepts of being put under permanent chastity control, cuckolded, and being gradually transformed into Her totally obedient shemale sissy maid (amongst many other things) to his Mistress. These were mostly all fantasies that were fed back to him when we made love, and She got off on the various scenarios too, and enhanced them with Her own *evil* ideas.

She also eroticized these fantasies and made them real for sissy. As males, we all come with a "passion barometer" between our legs which doesn't lie. You can tell your lover that something turns you on, but if it really doesn't (i.e., you would only like to think it would turn you on) then your barometer will register zero. Similarly, if you try and deny to your lover that something turns you on, when it really does (i.e., you wish you really weren't turned on by it) then nature's "passion barometer" will once again undermine your attempted subterfuge. sissy Mentions this obvious fact only because it is pertinent to what sissy actually put on the table in these situations. For example, sissy is not into scat and bathroom play, so for him to offer up to his Mistress that he wanted to be the recipient of a golden shower would have been disingenuous ... and would not have monitored on the barometer. It would have been a dishonest waste of both of our times.

That lola, a CD, offered up long term sissification and maid service and training should come as no surprise to anyone reading this. sissy's Lover already knew that sissy was a TV ... sissy now simply gave his Mistress lots of different storybook scenarios in which his crossdressing could be both practically and fantastically incorporated. The suggestion that he be turned into Her mincing shemale sex slave was clearly too far over the other side of the reality envelope and remained simply as erotic fantasy sex play stimulus between us. OTOH, the suggestion that She could send lola to work wearing a bra, frilly panties, garter belt and stockings under his business suit was later acted upon. sissy Is sure that you recognize and understand the basic principles and dynamics at play here, chris.

The well of TV-related fantasies is almost bottomless (no pun intended!) and sissy might possibly have milked it (OK, OK ... these puns ARE intended!) for quite some time if his Mistress hadn't have insisted that he come up with methods of submission and power transfer that were NOT related to crossdressing. So it was with some trepidation that sissy suggested first chastity, then later cuckoldry, to Her. He was more scared that they would be considered disingenuous, like scat play, than anything else, and they certainly didn't register on the old "passion barometer" during the telling like a good juicy CD scenario would have done. But there were two parties to the fantasies in our situation, and if the concepts of chastity control and cuckoldry didn't fully resonate for sissy, they did for his Mistress.

Quite possibly his Mistress had had these ideas in mind all along but was just waiting for sissy to introduce them. You have to understand that one of the most powerful D/s dynamics we had going between us was the rule that sissy had to continually think up new ways and methods by which he could be humiliated and controlled and regularly offer these "gifts" up to his Mistress. It was a bit like the condemned prisoner having to dig his own grave. Or perhaps a modern day equivalent of Sheherazade ... except she ultimately topped from the bottom, didn't she ? <giggles> As he thinks more about this, although She didn't call Herself a Domina - nor did either of us think that what we were doing was anything more than raunchy "pillow talk" to enhance our regular sex - IsHO this process alone demonstrated that his Lover knew much more about true D/s power control over Her submissive than most of the self-declared Dommes brandishing riding crops on this site do.

sissy's Mistress was able to use the few chastity and cuckoldry outlines that sissy initially presented to Her and, in turn, come up with endless fantasy situations and scenario variations of Her own to feed back to sissy and "mess with his head." These two "interests" turned out to be twin fountainheads for Her own erotic imagination and sexual fantasies that were as equally prolific as lola's sissy maid and other TV-related scenarios had proven to be beforehand. She was also able to eroticize these fantasies for sissy by relating them right back to his own CD scenarios - repeatedly telling him, in different ways, that chastity was the perfect state for a sissy to be kept in since as a sissy he was no use to Her as a man anyway, and that cuckoldry was the only option for a Woman with sexual desires that found Herself encumbered with a sissy partner. Needless to say, such talk registered firmly on the "passion barometer" ... and in this manner these two activities fairly quickly became inherent parts of lola's own overall sissy maid fantasies and scenarios. Thus, in this manner, sissy's lover was able to eroticize for him concepts and activities that, until that juncture, had appeared to be relatively uninteresting and mundane to him.

IsHO, one of the basic or core abilities of a real Domina (i.e., a natural, not most of the posturing wannabes and fakes that have profiles on this site), is the ability to eroticize the mundane for Her submissive. Women with TRUE Feminine Power over men intuitively know how to do this ... if a Woman has to be taught how to do it then She probably isn't really Dominant - She just wants to be! But that will have to be the topic of another post because this one is now far too long.

So what is your interest in chastity, penectomy and castration, chris ? As he has stated elsewhere here, sissy simply threw in the chastity scenario in his poll when he first ran it, purely as a tongue-in-cheek comic alternative to the pair of chastity options. He was very surprised when people responded in that version of his poll by posting genuine, rather than flippant, reasons why they would seriously choose that option. This caused sissy to examine closer some of the psychological dynamics that would be involved with being an actual eunuch. One of the things that sissy might still need to develop further for options (d) and (f) are the different effects of being castrated before and after puberty. In bringing the issue of penectomy to the table for this go-around, chris, you have raised the bar a little higher again. Have you put any further thought into understanding the psychological state of mind involved in the "penectomy only" scenario that you advocated ?

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:

So what is your interest in chastity, penectomy and castration, chris ? <snip> Have you put any further thought into understanding the psychological state of mind involved in the "penectomy only" scenario that you advocated ?

quote:

We have combed over the abstract of this study fairly throughly. I think to address all of your questions and concerns will involve taking a trip to a medical library and looking up the actual article.

Well, sissy's interest in the debate on this topic was always more from the semantic and logical perspectives than any particular deep interest in, or concern over, prostate cancer. sissy Did try and access the full AMA study report himself from the drop-down boxes at the bottom of the web page whose URL you initially posted to start this discussion. But the few useful options there appear to only lead back to the report study abstract on the initial web page. As you yourself posted 3 or 4 posts back, this AMA study "needs to be weighed against other studies" on this topic. sissy Would rather invest any further effort he allocated to this subject into tracking down and reading some of those other studies.

But whatever any of these studies establishes on possible causal connectivity, it still appears somewhat intuitive common sense to sissy that keeping one's "prostate pipes regularly flushed" is a much healthier course of action than allowing the prostate to "back up." No one would seriously suggest that doing things to oneself that prevented one from emptying one's bladder for months on end was a healthy urinary regimen, would they ? The debate will no doubt continue for many years yet on whether one orgasm per day, or one orgasm per month, or even only one orgasm per year, is sufficient frequency to avoid a much higher risk of prostate cancer later in life. But does it really matter ?

The causal connectivity between male ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer occurrence later in life may never be adequately established. But if a correlation is firmly determined, it is NOT going to be that total chastity lowers the risk of prostate cancer. There are absolutely NO statistics that point in the direction that the vast majority of males that do not contract prostate cancer are anywhere close to being chaste. The only option that is on the table for being researched (and eventually proven or not) is that a higher frequency of ejaculation lessens the risk of later prostate cancer. No one gives any credence to the idea that no, or an extremely low, frequency of ejaculation lessens the risk of later prostate cancer. That hypothesis, by itself, is not even considered worth researching - although if the research into the other premise is objectively investigated, data that might support the truth of the latter hypothesis also gets gathered by those same studies, as in the AMA study.

Accordingly, sissy would propose a kind of Pascal's Wager as to what the best and most appropriate course of action to be followed should be while the truth of the hypothesis that "a higher frequency of ejaculation lessens the risk of later prostate cancer in males" remains unknown. Given that:

(1) A low frequency of ejaculation probably has no effect on, or MIGHT even increase, the risk of prostate cancer later in life.

(2) A medium frequency of ejaculation probably has no effect on the risk of prostate cancer later in life.

(3) A high frequency of ejaculation probably has no effect on, or MIGHT even reduce, the risk of prostate cancer later in life.

which course of action WRT ejaculation frequency would you follow, chris, if you were concerned about developing prostate cancer when you get older ?

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:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
Given that:
(1) A low frequency of ejaculation probably has no effect on, or MIGHT even increase, the risk of prostate cancer later in life.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
Given that:
(1) A low frequency of ejaculation probably has no effect on, or MIGHT even increase, the risk of prostate cancer later in life.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
The JAMA study does not support this premise.

It is true that the JAMA study does not support premise (1). The study report's conclusion doesn't even support premise (3) ... only its results section does. Without access to the full report study, we can only speculate at why that disparity exists. One explanation for the contradiction might be the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle. IsHO, the study report's conclusion would have had more import if it had been worded something along the lines of ... although the study results supported premise (3) to a certain extent, because [the justifying reasoning that should go here is what is omitted and therefore unknown to the reader of the report abstract] consequently "our results suggest that ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer."

According to good KISS principles, only the unadulterated results (not analysis and reconciliation of them) belong in the results section of the report abstract, and only the overall conclusion (not the justification and rationale for arriving at that conclusion) belongs in the conclusion section of the report abstract. Hence the apparent disconnect. IsHO the JAMA study report abstract should have contained a simple summary of that omitted reasoning somewhere in it simply for the abstract to be consistent and complete in and of itself. Whoever prepared that self-contradictory abstract did a sloppy piece of work and it does a disservice to the underlying body of work that the study represents. OTOH, something more pernicious than incompetence may be going on here. The AMA is a very political organization, and it may simply have wished to de-emphasize the alternative conclusion to be drawn from its own results. Incompetent oversight due to KISS or PC weasel-wording ? It's up to the reader to determine.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
But you have mentioned an Australian study which suggest that ejaculation rate when men are in their twenties (but not older?) might support this premise.

The critical result from the study conducted by The Cancer Council in Victoria, Australia is as follows: "The researched showed that the protective effect of ejaculation is greatest when men in their twenties ejaculated on average seven or more times a week. This group were one-third less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer when compared with men who ejaculated less than three times a week at this age." That result would tend to support both premises (1) and (3), but only for men in their twenties. It is not intuitively clear to sissy why the ejaculation frequency of males in their thirties, forties, fifties, and sixties would not subsequently affect their risk of contracting prostate cancer in their later years, just as their ejaculation frequency during their twenties does.

Once again, the full study text is not available on the web site to which sissy posted the URL, only a "press release" type precis of the study results, which doesn't have quite the same reader-impact as the staid concise matter-of-fact disclosure of the JAMA study report abstract. But it is that latter quality that is so significant about the JAMA study reported results. If the JAMA report had been full of hyperbole one could have possibly taken its statement, "high ejaculation frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer" with a somewhat large grain of salt. That is a very strong affirmative statement for a study report abstract that tries to remain scientifically objective and aloof. To completely ignore such a statement in the conclusion section of the report is, IsHO, bizarre, to say the least.

BTW, while we are discussing the specific wording of the JAMA study report's conclusion, note that only the word "suggest" is used. This is, in fact, quite a weak summary statement. JAMA does not state that "our results demonstrate ..." or "our results indicate ... "or "our results support ..." etc. Absence the reported correlation between prostate low cancer incidence and the high ejaculation frequency group, but based instead solely on the non-correlation of all the other ejaculation frequency groups, the JAMA study report conclusion could quite reasonably have been stated in much stronger terms - e.g., "our results completely support the contention that ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer." Which is why sissy stated in a previous post that the use of the word "suggest" in this context is somewhat self-nullifying. In contrast, the spokesperson announcing the results of the Australian study stated: "The research showed that ..."

Please note, chris, that even if you rewrote what you call premise (1) to drop the "or MIGHT even increase" qualification so that it is as neutral as premise (2), the import of sissy's wager is still valid because of premise (3). In fact, sissy's wager challenge can be reduced to simply premise (3), and sissy will now re-issue it in this more concise form:

Given that a high frequency of ejaculation probably has no effect on, but possibly MIGHT reduce, the risk of prostate cancer later in life, which course of action WRT ejaculation frequency would you choose to follow if you are concerned about developing prostate cancer when you get older ?

The efficacy of this wager is no less potent WRT current medical science's understanding of the causes of male prostate cancer than the potency of the following wager would have been back in the fifties before we knew as much about the causes of lung cancer that we know today:

Given that smoking three packs of cigarettes a day may have no effect on, but possibly MIGHT increase, the risk of lung cancer later in life, what level of smoking would you choose to follow if you are concerned about developing lung cancer when you get older ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
For men who are past the age of, say 35... I don't think premise one is accurate

In choosing three premises for his wager sissy was trying to reflect the findings of the JAMA study report in them, and you are correct to point out that premise (1), with its "MIGHT increase" qualifying clause, does not faithfully capture the findings of the report as sissy's premises (2) and (3) do, and sissy has acknowledged that fact above. Although, as you also acknowledge, premise (1) does capture the findings of the Australian study without the "for males in their twenties" caveat applied.

But removed from being a statement that only summarizes the JAMA report's results for that study's low ejaculation frequency class, the proposition made in premise (1) can indeed stand by itself as being accurate and true. sissy Has adequately demonstrated in his prior posts in this debate that a decision not to put yourself in the one group of males with an identified correlation to a lower incidence of prostate cancer in later life is, in effect, a decision that INCREASES your risk of prostate cancer. By making the decision to become a skydiver instead of an accountant you INCREASE your risk of dying earlier than other males of comparable age. That doesn't mean that you won't necessarily live to the ripe old age of 100 ... it only means that your life insurance premiums will be much higher throughout those 100 years of your life (or, at least, for all those years up until you retire from skydiving!).

If premise (3) of sissy's wager is true - and the JAMA study results do completely support its truth - then premise (1) of sissy's wager is also true - despite the fact that the JAMA study results do not support its "MIGHT increase" clause qualification. It's true because that is how logic and the semantics of the English language work. If sissy tells you that he is shorter than his daughter it follows that his daughter is taller than her father. It's a symmetrical relationship. Accept the truth of one statement you must then accept the truth of the other statement ... or come up with an explanation of how someone can be both taller and shorter than someone else at the same time. It is quite irrelevant whether there has been a national study conducted by the AMA, or anyone else, into the relative heights of fathers and daughters. If sissy tells you that he is shorter than his daughter and you accept the truth of that fact - in fact, are even presented with photographic evidence of that fact - then you must also accept the opposite relationship as being true (viz., his daughter is taller than him) even if it flies in the face of 200 studies all showing that fathers are normally taller than their daughters.

To repeat yet again: IF (A) a higher frequency of ejaculation DECREASES risk of prostate cancer THEN (B) a lower frequency of ejaculation INCREASES risk of prostate cancer. That statement is as indisputable as: IF a father is shorter than his daughter THEN his daughter is taller than her father.

You seem to accept the truth and accuracy of statement (A), chris, because the JAMA study results present statistical evidence that lend support to its truth, yet you appear to reject the truth and accuracy of statement (B) because the JAMA study results presented no statistical evidence that lend support to its truth. Your faith in the results of statistical studies versus indisputable a priori reasoning and logic is exasperating, chris! Have you ever heard the expression: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics" ?

If there is a disconnect between what that JAMA study reports and sound logic then you need to reject those parts of the study that contradict sound logic, chris, and not keep questioning the logic that shows that study to be inconsistent and/or incomplete. That study has a built in contradiction between its results section and its conclusion section. In mathematics, if you start with a falsity you can prove absolutely anything you want. If you accept the truth of the mathematical proposition that 1 = 2 then sissy can give you a rigorous proof, based on that "true" proposition, that he and the Pope are one and the same person! Reductio ad absurdum is a standard method of falsifying propositions in logic.

Premise (3) in sissy's wager came directly from the JAMA study results section. Premise (1) can be derived from premise (3) using the rules of symmetrical relationships, the contrapositive rule, etc. (in fact, it can be derived simply from the semantics of the English language). Yet you question its veracity. In contrast, you make the statement: "Premise (1) is not true for men who are past the age of, say 35" ? That statement comes right out of thin air with no basis in fact at all !

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:

The penectomy scenario was simply raised because castration removes much of a man's libido, whereas removing the penis (several stories of enraged girlfriends or wives spring to mind) removes the ability to act on libido... much like chastity, but a truly permanent chastity.

Hi chris,

WRT your reference to "enraged girlfriends or wives" above, sissy did consider Googling around on the case of Lorena and John Wayne Bobbitt to see if the latter had had anything to say (that got reproduced on the web) about his mental state while he was missing his pecker. But although sissy is sure it seemed like an eternity to John Wayne at the time, it was still a relatively short period before his penis was found, rinsed off <giggles>, and surgically re-attached. And during virtually all of that period he would have been much more pre-occupied with stemming the blood flow, the pain, and getting medical assistance than the psychological trauma caused by not having a member with which to help satisfy his libido.

In fact, sissy is quite curious about the issue of the amount of blood loss involved in the case of a severed penis. Given the number of blood vessels that are inside the male phallus (after all, erection is caused by the pumping of blood into these arteries) sissy would imagine that the blood loss in these cases would be phenomenal. So between the psychological trauma of realizing what has happened to you, the excruciating pain (one would assume), and the vast blood loss, sissy is surprised that most men in this situation don't just pass out and bleed to death. In which case, given the eventual outcome in John Wayne's case, he is one very lucky MF.

Even if sissy is wrong about the pain and the blood loss, just the trauma of waking up and finding Mr. Happy missing would have been enough to make this sissy pass out !! But this whole wang whacking scenario certainly has great public humiliation possibilities, doesn't it ? It must have been very embarrassing and humiliating to have to explain, first to the person on the end of the 911 call, and then again later to the emergency paramedics that turn up at your home, exactly what has happened to you and your missing member. In fact, the embarrassment factor never really goes away, does it ? Everybody you come into contact with afterwards gets to know all about your preDICKament... even way after the event you are going to be known simply as the "severed-penis guy"! Come to think of it, when he heard that John Wayne was going to do the talk show circuit as soon as he was well enough, sissy now remembers that at that time he thought that John Wayne must be one hell of a public humiliation slut to even consider doing that !!

sissy Strongly believes in the aphorism: "The penis mightier than the sword !"

But in the case of the Bobbitts that has to be modified to: "The penis mightier than the sword ... but NOT the butcher knife !"

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:

I think to address all of your questions and concerns will involve taking a trip to a medical library and looking up the actual article.

Hi chris,

sissy Took some time out at the weekend to research some of the basic unknowns WRT to the JAMA study report that were impeding our debate. In the end, he found a number of helpful web resources, URLs for the best of which are included (as pertinent) throughout this post. This further research was perhaps somewhat overdue, although there has been no real disagreement in our discussion to date WRT the validity of the conduct of the study behind the report, or even over the results that were presented in the report ... the focus of the debate has been only on how one can properly interpret the results and conclusion that were presented. That is, granted the assumption that the reported correlation between prostate cancer incidence and higher ejaculation frequency in males are meaningful and valid (and not the results of tainted preconception or biased analysis), our discussion has been focused on what one can logically say and interpolate with accuracy and certainty based on these new findings.

The major unknown that needs clarifying here is the number of ejaculation frequency categories that were used in tabulating (or classifying) the results of the study. sissy's Suspicion that more than the three categories that are actually referenced by the wording of the study report abstract were involved is indeed vindicated ... the study used the following five categoies which sissy has assigned the letters A-E to for easy reference:

Category A (lowest__frequency): avg. ejaculations/month = 0-3
Category B (lower___frequency): avg. ejaculations/month = 4-7
Category C (medium__frequency): avg. ejaculations/month = 8-12
Category D (higher__frequency): avg. ejaculations/month = 13-20
Category E (highest_frequency): avg. ejaculations/month = ≥ 20

So the statement, "most categories of ejaculation frequency were unrelated to risk of prostate cancer," refers specifically to categories A through D above. It is only for category E that correlation to significant statistical deviations that were lower than the national norm (a.k.a. baseline) for prostate cancer incidence were noted.

It is still unclear to sissy what the distribution of these ejaculation frequency values (which have been arbitrarily split into five disjoint categories in order to enable easier results tabulation) actually is ... intuitively one would expect them to have been scattered according to some recognizable distribution of discrete events such as a Gaussian or Poisson distribution. The reason why sissy originally wanted to know this was because it might explain why the Category E results were completely dismissed by the JAMA report conclusion (i.e., they might have been statistically significant within their own category, but statistically insignificant overall). But the more that sissy has researched this JAMA report and read other experts' opinions and interpretations of the JAMA study results, the more convinced sissy has become that his own first impressions were correct, and there is some politically motivated weasel-wording involved in the JAMA presentation of these results.

Some cursory examination of the way the results were presented in the results section of the JAMA study report abstract quickly reveals that it was probably designed more to obfuscate their true import rather than highlight their significance. This Health and Age web page presents a short table of relative risk factors for the five ejaculation frequency categories versus the four sets of statistics collected, which sissy reproduces below. This two-dimensional table ignores a third dimension to the cancer incidence - ejaculation frequency correlation examined by the study, namely the three types of cancer incidence (total, advanced, and organ-confined) that the JAMA results section focuses on instead. But that third dimension is somewhat distracting to what really needs to be reported here (in the same manner that a magician's right hand that is doing something clever and entertaining, and has 100% of his audience focused on it, distracts attention away from his left hand while it performs the real conjuring unobserved), and the following table would have taken up no more space in the JAMA study results section than what was actually written there, but it would have displayed and highlighted the results in a much more useful and comprehensible manner.

The following relative risk (RR) of total prostate cancer, setting the RR for 4-7 ejaculations per month as 1.00, was found to be as follows:

_____________________________________________________

................. Number of Ejaculations Per Month
................ 0-3 ... 4-7 .. 8-12 .. 13-20 .. ≥21
_____________________________________________________

Age 20-29 ..... 1.09 .. 1.00 .. 1.06 .. 0.95 .. 0.89
Age 40-49 ..... 0.83 .. 1.00 .. 0.96 .. 0.98 .. 0.68*
Previous year . 1.06 .. 1.00 .. 1.06 .. 1.07 .. 0.49*
Lifetime ...... 0.89 .. 1.00 .. 0.89 .. 0.86* . 0.67*
_____________________________________________________

* statistically significant (95% confidence intervals don't contain 1.0)


When sissy wrote in his previous post that there may have been some politically correct (PC) motivation behind the downplaying (viz., weasel-wording) of the conclusion as presented in the JAMA study report he could think of no obvious motivation for such a stance, and he was just throwing out that possibility. But the more he has thought about and researched this issue since, the more he realizes how the results of this study (which were published after the Australian study that sissy brought to the debate) actually turns the focus of all prior research in this area on its head. One of the main focuses of all prior studies executed WRT investigating the incidence of prostate cancer and the sexual activities of males was the commonly held hypothesis (i.e., working theory) within the medical research community that prostate cancer occurrence is linked to both promiscuous and/or high sexual activity in men.

Although sissy does not personally morally approve of the promiscuous lifestyle under investigation here (OTOH, high sexual activity with a loving and committed partner - SO or wife - is something else entirely from a moralistic standpoint) that agenda and research focus sounds like something straight from the pens and pulpits of the religious right. Now sissy isn't saying here, at all, that the prior research was driven and/or funded by the so-called "moral majority" - only that it conveniently overlaps their sexual moral purview in the same way that the HIV-AIDS crisis - which initially appeared to only affect those with homosexually deviant and promiscuous lifestyles (and Heroin addicts for good measure!) - also nicely vindicated their self-righteous view that anything but reproductive intercourse in moderation (and only in the missionary position!) is the only approved sexual lifestyle with a fundamentalist Christian God seal of approval. sissy Merely wanted to point out here that he would highly condemn a "moral majority" agenda for this line of prostate cancer research, while at the same time he would not be morally upset should it eventually be established that there is a demonstrable correlation between high promiscuity and resultant prostate cancer - that is, sissy has no vested interest in seeing that connectivity completely disproved.

There was sound scientific rationale backing the hypothesis linking high male sexual activity with higher prostate cancer occurrence ... a high sex drive in males was believed to be the result of high testosterone levels and prostate cancer incidence was thought to be somehow linked to these higher testosterone levels. It was hypothesized that men that were sexually very active (either with the same partner, or promiscuously) would be the same men that had the higher libidos, these libidos in turn being dependent on the higher potentially carcinogenic testosterone production levels. Similar arguments were also proffered for links between higher androgen production levels and the incidence of prostate cancer. This was the scientific paradigm - backed up somewhat by the results of other earlier studies that supported these hypotheses - that was in effect in 1986 when the 14 year long study that culminated in the publication of that JAMA study report. [Note: It is sissy's understanding that JAMA only published the report - neither it, nor the AMA itself, funded this study.]

If sissy has understood this correctly, the overall prostate cancer study was commenced in 1986 and ran through the year 2000. Questionnaires requesting information relating to ejaculation frequency were only initiated in 1992, six years into the study, making the part of the overall research that that JAMA report addresses only an 8 year long study. But this study was commenced in, and conducted during, a period when the accepted paradigm driving this research was the one sissy described above. Even though such studies are usually conducted as objectively as possible, they are frequently created and funded in the first place to justify an agenda ... that agenda may be as pernicious as justifying a political or religious end, or simply as innocent as adding further proof and weight of argument to the currently held academic or scientific paradigm.

It was presumably hoped and expected, when it was commenced, that this study would add some useful import to the then prevalent hypotheses that prostate cancer incidence could at least be correlated to higher levels of testosterone and androgen in males (and the sexual activities related to these male libido-boosting hormone levels). It was probably not very politically correct that the final study report published by the JAMA had to announce that the study could in no way justify the paradigm which it was created to add credence to - hence the conclusion wording: "Our results suggest that ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer."

But that study, like the Australian one just before it, did a lot more than fail to prove the prevalent paradigm - it completely shot the paradigm in its foot. If it was not very PC to have to announce failure to support the paradigm, it was probably totally PI (if not absolute political suicide) to announce results that completely undermined the overall scientific mindset that spawned, and presumably funded, the study in the first place. Anyway, that is sissy's two dollars and 10 cents worth towards explaining the curious contradiction inherent in the JAMA study report's abstract.

sissy Believes that what you see manifested in the wording of that JAMA study report abstract is the consequence of a 180 degree paradigm shift in our medical research's current thinking about the possible causes and preventions for prostate cancer. The published results of the two studies that we have discussed here both contradict most of the prior studies on this topic as well as the prevalent medical research mindset up until this juncture.

The following MSNBC web page article nicely ties together much of what sissy has posted here on this topic, including discussing the Australian study. Alternatively, the following American Family Physician synopsis of this study follows the JAMA study report abstract level of detail. But note that it throws out the JAMA conclusion section and substitutes its own "Bottom line" section which reads: "Ejaculation frequency is not associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer. High ejaculation frequency (i.e., 21 or more episodes per month) may reduce the risk of prostate cancer." That statement, even as conservatively as it is phrased, is exactly the kind of two line conclusion that sissy felt the JAMA report should have ended with instead of totally ignoring the earlier reported evidence. What the AFP did pretty much vindicates sissy's whole argument on this topic.

Finally, the WebMDHealth web page article does a good job of analyzing and better interpreting the JAMA study report results, while it also verbalizes some of the new hypotheses that have been proposed to explain how high ejaculation frequency might lessen, rather than increase, risk of prostate cancer later in life. The concept of flushing out cancer-causing substances (or "flushing the ducts" as the MSNBC article puts it) and promoting rapid turnover of fluids, when taken together, are effectively just sissy's automobile "oil change frequency - engine care" analogy restated in a different guise.

Regards,

sissy maid lola




< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 3/21/2005 6:37:43 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to onceburned)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

There is a body of evidence supporting the concept that the seminal tracts need periodic flushing too.

quote:

lengths of chastity (as measured according to this criterion) that run longer than a few weeks, or a month at the outside, are moving you into dangerous territory where you should, at least, seek to have your chastity play monitored by a medical professional such as an urologist.

quote:


The following web article

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

But the more that sissy has researched this JAMA report and read other experts' opinions and interpretations of the JAMA study results, the more convinced sissy has become that his own first impressions were correct, and there is some politically motivated weasel-wording involved in the JAMA presentation of these results.

quote:

In view of the conflicting studies reported to date, confirmation of the results obtained in the present study would be desirable before they become accepted as gospel. In the meantime, another, accepted, risk factor for prostate cancer that can readily be modified - a high animal fat diet (meat, cheese, high-fat dairy produce) - should receive greater attention. And one should eat more tomatoes!

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned

I think you just want medical permission to cum a lot!

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
There is a body of evidence supporting the concept that the seminal tracts need periodic flushing too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
oops... that is quite a statement. Facts please!

A fair call, chris. Perhaps that statement might be more accurate (and acceptable to you) if sissy had said "suggesting" rather than "supporting" there, and also "frequent flushing" rather than "periodic flushing." sissy Concedes that the choice of his phraseology in that sentence is a little sloppy and consequently overstates - or even misstates - the case somewhat. Interestingly enough, in choosing the phrase "periodic flushing" (and thereby accidentally embracing all the groups of middle and low frequency ejaculation males correlated in the JAMA study discussed on the other sub-thread) rather than "frequent flushing" in that statement sissy was subconsciously trying to avoid overstating his point, which is a tangential point anyway to the main line of thought he was trying to get across in the whole paragraph from which you have plucked that one sentence. But sissy concedes that in trying to avoid hyperbole in what he wrote there, what came out is actually less sustainable by the empirical facts (and consequently possibly more hyperbolic) than what he intended to say. Accordingly, since has gone back into his previous post and made the above editorial changes.

There is also the possibility that sissy used the term "seminal tracts" incorrectly or too generally in that sentence. The male genital organs are fairly complex, and consist of (amongst other bits and bobs) the wolffian ducts (which constitute the epididymis, the seminal vesicles, the ejaculatory ducts and the central part of the prostate), the müllerian ducts (which regress in the male and form occasionally the testicular appendices), and the urogenital sinus (which forms the peripheral and transitional zones of the prostate). What sissy intended by the term "seminal tracts" are whichever of these ducts or tracts that are involved in the complex coordinated process of forcing the seminal fluid from the engorged prostate gland through the penis into the urethral bulb in the head of the penis - the transmission of this fluid along the urethra canal (duct or tract) being what normally triggers the ejaculatory reflex and muscular contractions of male orgasm, the action of which ultimately empties (drains) all of the three main organs of the male reproductive system: the prostate gland, the seminal vessicles, and the ampulla. If the source of your objection to the sentence that you chose to quote is that you interpreted the meaning of the phrase "seminal tracts" other than as just described, then sissy hopes that the foregoing now clarifies matters. If not, then you need to be more specific - sissy cannot second guess everything that you could possibly mean by a general comment such as: "oops... that is quite a statement. Facts please!".

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
... is a nice sensationalistic bit of writing which may or may not be true.

sissy Concurs that the article (post?) to which he provided the URL is not the most objectively neutral piece of writing that he has ever come across, which is why he linked the reader to it, rather than attempt to paraphrase it (and thereby set himself up for the accusation that all of the opinions, nuances and agendas associated with the linked-to post were also all his own). sissy Offered up the link to that article only for the described consequences of one particular case of a male that supposedly denied himself any kind of prostate draining for what was claimed to be approximately nine months. Whether the facts set out in that post are all totally true, what the true agenda behind the writing of that post was, and what professional qualifications the author had for making the statements made in that post, are all pieces of information unknown to sissy.

This is a discussion board NOT a court of law, chris. In the latter case, the contents of that post would almost certainly have to be dismissed as hearsay ... as would most of our own posts in the various forums at CollarMe! sissy Is not "professionally qualified" to have an official opinion or stance on anything that has been discussed on this thread. How about you, chris ? Do not lose your perspective here. We are just two social perverts posting our opinions and beliefs on a public message board WRT an area of kinky play and fantasy that has an appeal for both of us. Hopefully, they are well-argued and intelligent opinions, and something can be learnt by both of us (and others) from the interchange, but they are, at the end of the day, just our own opinions. sissy Offered up the contents of that post purely for its somewhat graphic description of what could possibly happen to someone who indulged in extensive and protracted orgasm denial. Read it with the same skepticism that you would read anything else on these boards. The content of that post wasn't proffered as proof of anything.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
Oh sissy, I have changed my mind about the castration option. Since a common treatment for an enlarged prostate is the use of testosterone blockers (such as Proscar) eliminating the source of the testosterone (the testicles) would have a healthy effect on the prostate, possibly reducing the need to ejaculate.

I have heard that in most male-to-female sex change surgeries the prostate is left in place. Presumably the loss of testosterone and the addition of estrogen is enough to eliminate the need to empty the prostate. (Although older transsexual women are still advised to get annual prostate checks for cancer detection)

sissy Is not at all sure what you are saying here, chris. You changed your mind about the castration option in what sense ? sissy Is not sure that he fully understands what your opinion WRT the castration option was and therefore that statement doesn't really help him understand what your opinion is now. sissy Understands the following from what you have written (and sissy is NOT trying to put words in your mouth here, chris, he's simply feeding back to you his understanding of what you wrote in order to verify that he understands you correctly):

Since Proscar, which blocks testosterone production, is commonly used by doctors to treat (presumably successfully) an enlarged prostate in males suffering from such a condition, then castrating a male - which removes the testicles and source of all testosterone production - would have a similar advantageous effect on a male so castrated. And sissy further understands that you are claiming that the fact that M2F TS womyn do NOT have their prostate glands removed as part of the SRS procedures adds additional support to the concept that castration of the M2F TS male (which IS part of the SRS procedures) is sufficient enough to reduce the risk of prostate cancer (that is normally due to high testosterone production) in the resultant M2F womyn ... because if it didn't, presumably the prostate gland would be removed along with all the other stuff in that region that the old "he" doesn't need as the new "she". Did sissy correctly understand the argument you are trying to make here, chris ?

sissy Further understands from the above that you also believe that the need for male release of prostate fluids (either via "forceful" orgasmic ejaculation or via "unforceful" nocturnal emission or anal prostate "milkings") is significantly driven by a normal male's level of testosterone production ... so reduce that level of testosterone being produced, via either the use of drugs such as Proscar or castration, and the male's need to vacate prostate fluids is significantly reduced, or possibly even completely eliminated ? Has sissy also understood this point correctly, chris ?

If the above isn't a correct interpretation of your posted comments, please spell out your arguments a little more fully if you wish sissy to address them.

On a separate thought - since you raised the issue of your opinion on the "castration option" - sissy did go back and significantly edit the option profile that he initially posted for Castration & Penectomy Options (d) through (f). Did you check out that updated version and do you have any comments on it, chris ?

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)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola

since you raised the issue of your opinion on the "castration option" - sissy did go back and significantly edit the option profile that he initially posted for Castration & Penectomy Options (d) through (f). Did you check out that updated version and do you have any comments on it, chris ?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: sissymaidlola
But the more that sissy has researched this JAMA report and read other experts' opinions and interpretations of the JAMA study results, the more convinced sissy has become that his own first impressions were correct, and there is some politically motivated weasel-wording involved in the JAMA presentation of these results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
Yes, it is a conspiracy of the Religious Right to increase morals (reduced masturbation and sex) and increase revenues for doctors (via increased prostate disease) supporting this agenda. The AMA has clearly tipped its hand!

Now you're twisting sissy's words again and purposely mixing up two completely separate points that he made in his post. The "political weasel-wording" to which sissy referred was, in effect, the AMA's inability to fully represent the full import of the study's findings in the JAMA report's conclusion because it would have been PI to do so since those findings do NOT support the paradigm under which the study was initiated and funded. Yes, that is speculation on sissy's behalf, and sissy does not want to develop the thought any further than he has done. The only reason sissy has restated it here is to establish what it was that sissy ACTUALLY wrote in his previous post. sissy NEVER stated that there was "political weasel-wording" in the JAMA study report because AMA is part of a conspiracy of the Religious Right, and you well know it, chris. Why do you try to pull that kind of stuff ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
The Health and Age article that you found lays out the statistics and explains them nicely. But that article doesn't contradict the JAMA article. Nor do any of the other sources that you mention.

sissy NEVER stated that ANY of those articles and sources contradicted the JAMA study report. The study report contradicts ITSELF because the study conclusion does NOT fairly summarize the earlier stated results in the report! That is the same point sissy has been making since his first post against you on this topic. Those articles and sources that sissy supplied the links for were ALL consistent with the JAMA study results, explaining and enhancing them in various ways, but NONE of them coming to the same conclusion as the JAMA study report that, "ejaculation frequency is not related to increased risk of prostate cancer." The JAMA study results clearly reported a correlation between the higher frequencies of ejaculation and a lower than normal incidence of prostate cancer later in life when compared to the national baseline. For the JAMA study to then conclude that, "ejaculation frequency is not related" is both contradictory and disingenuous.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
And I maintain that it is correct - there is no correlation between frequency of ejaculation and increased risk of prostate cancer. Yes, high frequency of ejaculation seems to have a protective effect.

Grrrr ... how can there possibly be a "protective effect" if "there is no correlation" whatsoever, chris ? The "protective effect" to which you refer IS "the correlation." You are talking out of both sides of your mouth just like the JAMA study report did because you don't want to accept the conclusion that follows from the results.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
And the JAMA article noted that difference. But if you look at data tables you provided - low or moderate ejaculation rates do not increase the risk of prostate cancer. It remains right around 1.0

Yes indeed, chris, "the JAMA article noted that difference" by setting out the statistical deviances in the study report's results section. sissy Has NEVER claimed that the JAMA study report established any correlation for the low and moderate ejaculation rates, NOR that one can make any kind of statement WRT the relative risks of cancer when comparing any of these lower and moderate ejaculation frequencies. But one can definitely make a statement WRT the relative risks of cancer when comparing any of these lower and moderate ejaculation frequencies to the highest ejaculation frequencies. sissy Refers you back to his life insurance analogy. One cannot determine the relative risk to life expectancy when comparing life styles of accountancy to computer programming to other mundane office occupations, but one can most certainly determine the relative risk to life expectancy when comparing any of these mundane life styles to professional sky diving or NASCAR racing.

This is a point that you have continually seemed to miss for our last half-a-dozen exchanges on this topic. It has nothing to do with one's knowledge of prostate cancer risk, or of any kind of medical science, or the history of all the previous studies done on this topic, or even on how much faith one has in the scientific objectivity or ethical purity of the AMA. It is purely a linguistic, semantic or logical point ... and sissy is now done with it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
I think you just want medical permission to cum a lot!

Gosh, sissy has to laugh, chris, because that is exactly what sissy felt about your own postings on this subject four or five exchanges ago. sissy Felt that you just wanted this medical study to justify not cumming a lot! (a.k.a. having a low libido). sissy Is not the person that introduced this topic to this thread ... you were Chris. Initially, sissy didn't really give a fig what the JAMA study said one way or the other WRT relative prostate cancer risk (although sissy's actual interest in this topic has developed as our debate has progressed) ... he merely engaged in the debate for the linguistic reasons stated above. sissy Doesn't need medical permission to cum a lot! He can grant that privilege to himself without the AMA's blessing one way or the other. There is nothing in the JAMA report that is going to make sissy change his current lifestyle in this regard. And there is no hidden agenda that sissy wants to prove here since it was you that introduced this topic to the thread, not sissy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: onceburned
Switching to a more vegetarian diet has a protective effect on the prostate, yet the guys clamoring for release never seem to ask for more veggies, less meat. Go figure!

sissy Has been fighting potentially high cholesterol levels for a number of years now, consequently he follows a diet that is much lower in fat than most Americans - just as his higher ejaculation frequency may well put him more to one end of the bell curve. So the JAMA study report also vindicates that aspect of sissy's lifestyle, too. Or do you also believe that sissy just wants medical permission to eat a lot of salads ?!

Regards,

sissy maid lola




< Message edited by sissymaidlola -- 3/28/2005 10:29:51 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to onceburned)

quote:

Isn't it interesting how people who claim to have such an interest in chastity are always searching for some 'medical' reasons to justify being released?

And isn't it interesting how you NEVER make a positive contribution to anyone's thread, stef, but merely post your one-line passive-aggressive observations wherever you read. In many cases your anal attention to the typos and grammatical gaffs of others, no matter how annoying, are nevertheless correct - and sometimes even amusing (sissy is quite certain that each and every one of your own posts causes you to titter!). But in this particular instance, girlie, you are dead wrong!

First of all, sissy's interest in chastity is mostly at the fantasy level (which you would have realized if you had bothered to read the thread before posting on it) so he doesn't need to "search for some 'medical' reasons to justify being released." Second, it was chris that introduced the topic of the JAMA study report to this thread - and sissy engaged him in debate primarily for linguistic and logical reasons (where were you then, sfgrrl, as chris' initial logical faux pas was right up your alley?) - so you are way off base in trying to suggest that sissy has some kind of hidden agenda in starting this thread in order to espouse the merits of frequent ejaculation.

Finally, even if the conclusion of that JAMA study report had been that there was an established correlation between high ejaculation frequency and prostate cancer incidence (i.e., the complete opposite findings than what it actually reports) sissy would probably still not have modified his lifestyle - in the same way that most smokers ignore the Surgeon General's health warning printed on every packet of cigarettes they smoke. Conversely, sissy would not expect males that have low or medium ejaculation frequencies to modify their current "release regimen" in any way based on that report's findings. This is only the first study (well, the second actually) that has established a correlation between high ejaculation and possible reduced risk of cancer, and given that it also contradicts much research that had been conducted prior to it, most medical doctors would advise that it is far too early yet to say what to make of its results. The report's conclusion (which doesn't follow from its results!) is totally neutral and certainly, taken in isolation from the rest of the study report, doesn't demand any type of action.

sissy maid lola




_____________________________

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

(in reply to stef)