Is it "medically necessary" for men to ejaculate?

sangheili90

Superior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2013
Posts
3,504
Media
9
Likes
3,887
Points
208
Location
Arizona (United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Yeah, but I think you're underestimating how important good sleep is for health. If we take it to the extreme, if one consistently got 4 hours of poor sleep every day for their adult life, I wouldn't be surprised if it shaved a couple decades off their lifespan. The gravity of that approaches a justification for medical necessity, IMO.

I agree with you, but like I said there is a difference between optimal for health and necessity for survival. Sleep deprivation has been found to increase risk of many disease and thereby lowering life expectancy, no one talks about this though unfortunately.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdamHenry

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
I know this isnt something that Ann is taking on as her point of view... so I want to first come out and say that Im not bashing Ann, or ANY woman in particular about this... But if the bolded part of my quote is true, that thought really irks me. And heres why:

I recently heard someone say that when it comes to birth control, and things of that nature, women should be the ones in charge of their own bodies. And I, for one, agree with that statement... women SHOULD be in control of their bodies, because they know their bodies better than any man. And I think the reverse should be true as well. Im not saying all women are like this, but when I hear about women who think men dont NEED to ejaculate, it makes me want to rip my hair out. What would a woman know about a mans needs? Women cant possibly understand what its like to go about your day with a raging hardon sticking through your jeans for 6 hours straight, even when you arent thinking about sex.

As a man, who knows my own sexuality and my own experiences, I feel I have a right to say this (and other men, feel free to argue if you feel differently): Men are built for sex. We are simply designed to want to spread our seed as much as we can--or at least sometimes it certainly feels that way. Im sure many women would read that and think "wow, that sounds awfully chauvinistic, and a little rapey, and it makes it sounds like men simply lack self control" but its true... you cant really fight nature.

I guess what it boils down to is this: will a man die if he never ejaculates? Probably not. Is "somewhat frequent" ejaculation necessary for a mans well-being, physical or otherwise? In my experience, yes, it most definitely is.
You are describing psychological need, not physical need, which was the question posed. I believe orgasm is psychologically necessary for most people.
 

Ann_bbw

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Posts
67
Media
0
Likes
194
Points
253
Location
small town farm, midwest
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Female
You are describing psychological need, not physical need, which was the question posed. I believe orgasm is psychologically necessary for most people.
I agree I was not clear on the two "needs", however fascinated with both. I was mostly referring to the physical need for men to release semen.
 

Ann_bbw

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Posts
67
Media
0
Likes
194
Points
253
Location
small town farm, midwest
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Female
In my opinion, I would see the definition of "medical necessity" as something that is required for survival. Sleeping 8 hours per day may be more optimal for your health but you wouldn't die from not getting that. Eating 5+ servings of fruit and vegetables may be necessary for optimal health but is not needed for survival.

However, the logical take home should be to enjoy a healthy, active and regular sex life due to the many benefits associated with it.
I agree fully with a "healthy" lifestyle, which would include orgasms. Was mostly curious about the debate over "medically necessary".
 

svrocks

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 4, 2011
Posts
972
Media
60
Likes
3,312
Points
423
Location
Bangkok (Thailand)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Medically necessary? I don't think so. Otherwise those people who abstain from sex and masturbation wouldn't live very long, would they? In your research into the topic you must've come across a number of articles, or even research papers, that would suggest the health benefits of regular ejaculation but these health benefits aren't going to be life saving, or at least I've not read or heard that they could be in a medical sense.
 
D

deleted464787

Guest
There's so much wrong with this argument it's absurd.
There is NO comparison between a woman being in control of her own body and a man having an opinion on whether or not it's "medically necessary" to ejaculate. Apples and oranges. Having the right to choose whether or not to get pregnant isn't about women "knowing their bodies better than any man". It's about being in control of their own bodies and having the right to not carry a child despite what any other person feels that they should do. No one's religion or opinion should have any say in whether or not I chose to play host to a tiny human being for 9 months. That is not a male/female issue. Personally, I think the fact that so many women play up the male/female angle is stupid. I don't really give a damn if it's a man or a woman writing the laws... Telling me I have no choice in being pregnant is a problem... and there are plenty of women who would write the law that way if they could.

As for knowing your own sexuality and having a "right to say this". You have a right to say whatever you want but your right doesn't make your argument solid. She asked if it was "medically necessary". That's a simple yes or no answer and the answer is no. She didn't ask if you would feel happy. She didn't ask if it would be frustrating for you. She didn't ask if it would be comfortable. She asked if it was a medical necessity. This isn't a woman vs. men question and it isn't a matter of opinion. Science. Period. "Will a man die if he never ejaculates? Probably not.". Ummm.... Nope. He won't die.

As for "you cant really fight nature". Also not true. Again, it may not be easy or comfortable... and on a global level, nature will always win... but person to person... You can fight nature. Technology fights nature every single day. On a smaller scale, you can fight your sexual urges, too. Gay people fought their sexuality and lived in straight marriages for a long long time (I'm sure some probably still do). Priests, nuns, and monks fight their sexuality every day. Hell, I know straight women who would be more accurately classified as asexual... No interest in sex at all... but they still have sex with their husbands because they don't want their husband's need to be neglected or because they feel like it's their obligation. You can't change your sexuality... What turns you on, turns you on... but abstinence is possible. And this... "We are simply designed to want to spread our seed as much as we can--or at least sometimes it certainly feels that way." certainly does sound rapey... but the fact of the matter is... *most* men manage not to rape people. So, you *can* fight nature.


Spoken like a true person who has no idea what its like to walk in a mans shoes...

Clearly you and I have different definitions of "medically necessary." I can guarantee you that, on average, a man who ejaculates on a regular basis will have a greater well-being, and, dare I say, be in greater health then men who do not ejaculate. To me, that would fall under the scope of "medically necessary." Never once did I mention being frustrated, or being happy, or being comfortable. I hate to pull out the "youre not a man, so you couldnt understand" card.... but.... well, youre not a man. So you could never understand :p

As for the rest of the post, you pretty much re-hashed everything I said in my original post. Its funny, you agree with me that women should have the choice when it comes to their bodies, yet youre trying to pick a fight with me about it, bringing religion into it, and all that other garbage. Im not religious, and Im certainly pro choice, so I dont know where the hell that came from... Im assuming our little beef we've had in the past. Im over it, I figured you would be by now too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Uncutpete

mikeramrod

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2006
Posts
54
Media
0
Likes
110
Points
253
Location
Sunshine Coast
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I have a friend who is a doctor he told me it's not a medically necessary but there's no harm to regularly shoot your load... just to be on the safe side.
I'm all for the safe side ;)
 

JudoChop

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 20, 2013
Posts
49
Media
94
Likes
8,566
Points
118
Location
Portland (Oregon, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Old Kung Fu masters and Samurai would not ejaculate for months at a time. When I was younger and involved in the sport and art of Kung Fu this was taught to me.
I'm in my 40's now and still masturbate almost daily and sometimes twice a day although that is more rare now.
When I want to save energy and focus I stop masturbating.
There is a noticeable difference from week one to week two in the amount of energy and strength I feel.
 
D

deleted464787

Guest
In my opinion, I would see the definition of "medical necessity" as something that is required for survival. Sleeping 8 hours per day may be more optimal for your health but you wouldn't die from not getting that. Eating 5+ servings of fruit and vegetables may be necessary for optimal health but is not needed for survival.

However, the logical take home should be to enjoy a healthy, active and regular sex life due to the many benefits associated with it.

Youre entitled to have your own definition of "medical necessity" that works for you. But at the same token, Im assuming you believe it would be medically necessary to treat things like depression, and sleep disorders, or hell, even a broken bone? None of which are particularly life threatening (at least not immediately), so treating them is not required for survival, but at the same time... Im just wondering if you would consider their treatments to be "medically necessary." If so, wouldnt that mean you should consider broadening your definition of what is medically necessary?
 
  • Like
Reactions: malakos

Snarky_succubus

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Posts
959
Media
349
Likes
2,874
Points
488
Location
Atlanta, Georgia, US
Verification
View
Sexuality
Pansexual
Gender
Female
Spoken like a true person who has no idea what its like to walk in a mans shoes...

Clearly you and I have different definitions of "medically necessary." I can guarantee you that, on average, a man who ejaculates on a regular basis will have a greater well-being, and, dare I say, be in greater health then men who do not ejaculate. To me, that would fall under the scope of "medically necessary." Never once did I mention being frustrated, or being happy, or being comfortable. I hate to pull out the "youre not a man, so you couldnt understand" card.... but.... well, youre not a man. So you could never understand :p

As for the rest of the post, you pretty much re-hashed everything I said in my original post. Its funny, you agree with me that women should have the choice when it comes to their bodies, yet youre trying to pick a fight with me about it, bringing religion into it, and all that other garbage. Im not religious, and Im certainly pro choice, so I dont know where the hell that came from... Im assuming our little beef we've had in the past. Im over it, I figured you would be by now too.
Aaacccctually, I didn't even remember you. Socal pointed out to me that we'd interacted before. I still don't remember when, what it was about, or how it went.
As for the rest of your response... Did you even read what I said?
Lol since we've apparently gone rounds before, I think I'm just going to accept that you're a little dim and move on.
 

Ann_bbw

Expert Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Posts
67
Media
0
Likes
194
Points
253
Location
small town farm, midwest
Sexuality
90% Straight, 10% Gay
Gender
Female
I'm not a man hater or ejaculation hater either. Simply wanted to incite some dialog on the different opinions I have read about and heard over the years. I simply hear the term "medically necessary", I don't plan on trying to define it. I do find it erotic and exciting topic to discuss, and thanks to all for joining in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jtwildone05

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,440
Media
2
Likes
10,513
Points
208
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Physiologically necessary, yes. If men don't ejaculate through sexual activity--including masturbation--they will ejaculate in their sleep.
 

Industrialsize

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Dec 23, 2006
Posts
22,254
Media
213
Likes
32,176
Points
618
Location
Kathmandu (Bagmati Province, Nepal)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I know this isnt something that Ann is taking on as her point of view... so I want to first come out and say that Im not bashing Ann, or ANY woman in particular about this... But if the bolded part of my quote is true, that thought really irks me. And heres why:

I recently heard someone say that when it comes to birth control, and things of that nature, women should be the ones in charge of their own bodies. And I, for one, agree with that statement... women SHOULD be in control of their bodies, because they know their bodies better than any man. And I think the reverse should be true as well. Im not saying all women are like this, but when I hear about women who think men dont NEED to ejaculate, it makes me want to rip my hair out. What would a woman know about a mans needs? Women cant possibly understand what its like to go about your day with a raging hardon sticking through your jeans for 6 hours straight, even when you arent thinking about sex.

As a man, who knows my own sexuality and my own experiences, I feel I have a right to say this (and other men, feel free to argue if you feel differently): Men are built for sex. We are simply designed to want to spread our seed as much as we can--or at least sometimes it certainly feels that way. Im sure many women would read that and think "wow, that sounds awfully chauvinistic, and a little rapey, and it makes it sounds like men simply lack self control" but its true... you cant really fight nature.

I guess what it boils down to is this: will a man die if he never ejaculates? Probably not. Is "somewhat frequent" ejaculation necessary for a mans well-being, physical or otherwise? In my experience, yes, it most definitely is.
Get a hobby or some help. There is no medical need for a man to ejaculate to orgasm. That need is in your head. Men are not designed to spread their seed as much as they can. That's also in your head. You are conflating your exaggerated sex drive with the sex drive of all men.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Cum_is_Great

Ohiojohn

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Nov 1, 2016
Posts
753
Media
66
Likes
8,714
Points
413
Location
Northwest (Ohio, United States)
Verification
View
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Not really a medical need to. But the saying use it or lose it is true. It's more of a stress relief for me, I just do it cause I enjoy it. I'm currently not having regular sex and I could actually careless about that. It's my body so I can take care of needs myself if need be.
 

umdoistressilvaquatro

Legendary Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Posts
1,960
Media
0
Likes
1,625
Points
173
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
No, men will not suffer from any medical condition for not ejaculating. However, masturbating and having sex are probably the only cardiovascular exercises people actually enjoy. Most associations of cardiologists sing the highest praises for jerking off.
There is also no evidence that abstaining from ejaculating would have psychological beneficts, no matter how many men swear health benefits on online cults like no-fap and yourbrainonporn. In older days, when doctors did not separated religious beliefs from medical science, masturbation was considered a crime against nature, and defying nature would result in basicaly any pathological condition. Google the book "Le livre sans titre. Les conséquences fatales de la masturbation" to get some examples (this link has the pages in french and subtitles in portuguese: http://literatortura.com/2014/03/te...da-masturbacao-retratadas-em-livro-seculo-xix). I think some of the boys afflicted with the presumed consequences of masturbation actually had leukemia, lymphoma or tuberculosis, but their doctors knew better. Some modern men with access to scientific literature, with all the advancement we had, still insist on the same mistakes.
 

Black_Frost

Loved Member
Joined
Aug 5, 2013
Posts
564
Media
0
Likes
502
Points
98
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Medically necessary? No. It isn't as if it'll fall off or explode if one doesn't orgasm.

That said, it can be a good idea: Many men will get edgier and more short-tempered if they don't get off regularly. And some *Raises hand* will get what feels like a low-grade case of blue-balls if they go too long without ejaculating.

Personally speaking, I'm much more pleasant to be around, if I'm getting-off regularly, either on my own or with a partner.
 
  • Like
Reactions: deleted871301