Frequent sex and masturbation in 20s and 30s linked to higher prostate cancer risk

[sduyck_2000 (imported)]

i have known 8 uncles and 10 family friends that all have had prostate cancer in the last 15 years

of this group every type of treatment was done

of these 18 men the castrated men did the best

many of the my uncles refused castration..they had prostetctomy ..and the cancer returned in 2 or 3 years..then they tried chemical castration at 1000$ a shot..it failed ..then chemo...then they died

5 of the castrated men are still alive..3 never had the cancer removed ..just castration..one died 6 months ago after 11 years with cancer at the age of 94

[A-1 (imported)]

Perhaps I can shed some light on this.

Cancer is primarily a disease caused by aging. The EXACT cause is DNA defects. Let me explain. Each time a cell divides, the DNA becomes a little shorter as the ends do not fully regenerate. In addition, certain chromosomes contained in the DNA perform many different functions. If the DNA is defective, a child can also get cancer.

GO and get a copy of the book GENOME and read it.

So yes, upon realizing this, Testosterone is not the problem, just another ingredient to or a symptom of the problem.

Look at it this way. Suppose you start a fire. You can stop it by removing part of the so-called fire triad. That is, fuel, oxygen or ignition (heat).

Cancer of the prostate is a problem that starts within the DNA of the prostate cell that becomes cancerous. If the cell requires testosterone to perform its intended function, and in addition to that, to undergo mytosis, then removing the testosterone will stop it from dividing. IF you start a fire, removing the fuel or the oxygen will stop it.

But if you REALLY want to prevent it from happening, the thing to do is to prevent the ignition.

If you want to cure cancer, find a way to keep the cell from getting old. Or, find a way to either fix the DNA or to block the instructions that make a cancer cell divide. You see, most all cancer cells, like the famous cervical cancer cell culture called HeLa, rebuilds it's DNA ends (Telomeres) perfectly with each mytotic division. It has to, it is cancer. If it did not the DNA would get shorter with each mytosis and according to the mytosis rate the cancer would just burn itself out because the DNA would eventually have so many errors that it would not be able to provide instructions for the cell to keep up its metabolic life functions. Cancer cellls would die of old age because the definiton of aging is mytotic division.

However, once the cancer cells are dormant, they may not be dividing but they may still be alive. OR, they may have all died out from a failure to thrive brought on by the removal of testosterone.

(In other words, Yoli, your guess is as good as anyones.)

I would venture to specualte that castration does other things to the reproductive cell life cycle in addition to just shutting down testosterone production. The shutdown of testosterone is just the obvious result. The rest would be occult mechanisms that are not well understood.

In addition, the sexual function occurs in the brain and nervous system, not in the reproductive system.

So if you want to have sex and you still have a brain left, do not let a minor detail like being ball-Less stop you. And if your penis is missing use another body appendage. You might not orgasm without an electrode into the part of your brain that informs your penis, but it does a body good to see your partner's eyes roll up in their sockets as they reach a spasmously blissful state.

Bodies are wonderful things.

[NaziNuts (imported)]

Master debaters have been masterfully debating masturbation for decades. Sex studies are tough to believe because most lie about getting laid. If they never had to prove it, every man would tell you he has a foot-long between his legs.

Just getting back from Rio, let me say that some of the cutest women there indeed do have foot-longs between their legs. Nice place for the TS-TG crowd to get full body tans on the nude beaches.

I watched a lot of masturbation parties -- tried not to of course -- and the 20s and 30s crowd are still fast and furious. Just MHO, but it seems they are more likely to be affected by phallic skin exposure to the sun than by phallic pumping by their palms.

Personally, I believe Woody Allen said it best: "Don't knock masturbation -- it is having sex with someone you love."

[kantfeelStuff (imported)]

As a future scientist myself (hopefully), I have a pretty good understanding of this kind of stuff. And what it really boils down to is: $$$.

If you are a scientist and you get something published that is controversial, then big companies want to throw money at you because they think you are smart and you will pump out more popular ideas. But this is contrary to what is correct or what is scientific.

Scientists consciously do this and to skew the facts to get more money, sometimes they leave out a tiny bit of crucial information, or ask a poll question in a very vague or ambiguous way to get the answers they want.

And like Ramses said:

I think it's saying that men that have much higher levels of testosterone in their 20's-30's masterbate a lot more BECAUSE they have higer levelss of the hormones that spur prostate problems later in life. I don't think it is saying that spankin the monkey causes cancer. One of those "correlation does not indicate causation" kind of things.

One way that my stat's teacher put it into perspective for me was:

If you ask 100 people if they like to kill babies, then you will get 100 people saying, "No"

And if you ask 100 people if they feel a woman should have the rights to her body, then you will get 100 people saying, "Yes"

Yet either way you look at it, its the same question of abortion, it just depends on the way you go looking for the answers you want.

[A-1 (imported)]

As a future scientist myself (hopefully), I have a pretty good understanding of this kind of stuff. And what it really boils down to is: $$$.

If you are a scientist and you get something published that is controversial, then big companies want to throw money at you because they think you are smart and you will pump out more popular ideas. But this is contrary to what is correct or what is scientific.

Scientists consciously do this and to skew the facts to get more money, sometimes they leave out a tiny bit of crucial information, or ask a poll question in a very vague or ambiguous way to get the answers they want.

And like Ramses said:

One way that my stat's teacher put it into perspective for me was:

If you ask 100 people if they like to kill babies, then you will get 100 people saying, "No"

And if you ask 100 people if they feel a woman should have the rights to her body, then you will get 100 people saying, "Yes"

Yet either way you look at it, its the same question of abortion, it just depends on the way you go looking for the answers you want.

First, I am happy that you want to be a scientist.

However, remember, the scientific method when properly used by a scientist is a tremendous tool for the betterment of life. To be a good scientist, you must fully understand the dance of Aristolean and Platonic philosophy and find the balance between them. Scholasticism is NOT that balance. Furthermore, Modernism, for the most part, while the operating philosophy of science, ignores completely the spiritual side of the human condition.

Always remember, when improperly used, the scientific method can be used to control or to end life also. We no longer have the luxury of 'natural causes' with every death. We must all die, but science has provided the technology to extend life and allows us to choose the death that we must endure in certain circumstances. Take my word for it, some deaths come much harder than others.

As far as the honesty of scientists goes, I think that you will find the majority of them to be honest, noble and trustworthy individuals. I also believe that you are correct that anything, science, religion, guns, or whatever, when in the hands of a ruthless individual or group can do severe damage to common humanity.

Even Schools of Business in colleges and universities all over the world have found that Ethics is more important than making money. The end NEVER justifes the means.

Dear kantfeelStuff, Just be a GOOD SCIENTIST and let JUST the SCIENCE dictate your scientific conclusions, and pray to God for the strength to never abandon this creedo.

[Kortpeel (imported)]

I've been trying to keep out of this discussion but I can't hold out any longer.

I personally believe that the conclusion of the U. Nottingham researchers (that too much wanking gives you prostate cancer in old age) is utter crap.

All through my teens I and the other members of my peer group all jerked off at least daily and several times a day when the fancy took us. Recovery time in those days was under five minutes. We just assumed that every normal kid did so too.

When another kid, not of our group, accused us of being sick perverts practicing self abuse we felt it necessary to convince him he was wrong. Emotional arguments were found to be more persuasive that logic. In particular, fear of actual bodily harm was very persuasive.

Of course, that was in the days when we would take off our pyjama trousers on getting up in the morning and lean then against the wall.

I believe that all human males from 12 onwards should have a release in one form or another at least one a day and a wise wife will see to it that her husband gets that.

If you can no longer be bothered, I'd say you are on the way out and it's just a matter of time.

Kortpeel

[A-1 (imported)]

Kort,

Slow down, there, boy...

You know this IS the E.A. But you know, you are right. What really gets to me about this subject is the masturbation verses sex argument. You know, that sex with a partner is healthy and that masturbation will make you go blind.

(HEY! YOU ARE GONNA SHOOT YOUR EYE OUT WITH THAT THING!)

But seriously. Physiologically, the function is the same if you are have sex with a partner or if you are having sex single-handedly, so to speak.

Think of it as a treadmill verses going outside and running. You can get hurt on a treadmill if you are stupid. But, sometimes NOT being stupid CANNOT save you from getting hurt while jogging outside. (Double negative :shakemitk)

So don't worry about the future. Do what you have to do and let the future take care of itself. Just don't do something stupid. Having sex is NOT stupid, unless you choose a bad partner. IF you are a bad partner to yourself, then the conflict is internal and good luck making heads or tails out of Freud.

[speedvogel (imported)]

The fact that this "study" has not been reported on the Med Page Today web site, makes me think that it probably is not of any real significance as they report virtually all such articles, both from the trade magazines and the popular press.

Speed

[A-1 (imported)]

The fact that this "study" has not been reported on the Med Page Today web site, makes me think that it probably is not of any real significance as they report virtually all such articles, both from the trade magazines and the popular press.

Speed

Ah...

...did you try the "FUNNIES" in the Sunday newspaper?

[-Antino- (imported)]

These scientists are only talking about a correlation, almost a mere observation. They are not establishing a causation, which is extremely difficult to establish in science. Interestingly, they use the word "association" instead of "correlation" as they spell out their findings. This choice of words renders their findings even more suspicious.