Today’s ejaculation advice may be wrong for our species
For the last half-century, Western sexologists have advised men to ejaculate as frequently as the urge arises, on a par with nose-blowing. At the same time, doctors assure guys that there’s no risk of excessive ejaculation because they’ll stop when they’ve had enough.
But what if this advice is not supported by the data biologists are turning up? We’ve been fascinated by a debate going on over on Amazon about the realities of primate sex and mating. This debate and the self-reports from young guys on a variety of forums are making us question the standard ejaculation advice.
Personally, we’re not enthused about increasing the world’s population, but it’s hard not to feel sorry for the men we’ve heard from who cannot consummate their marriages, let alone impregnate their wives, as a consequence of their heavy porn use. (Come to think of it, that suggests a strategy for population control. Simply give every guy on the planet an iPhone, and every woman a vibrator.)
Where are we now?
The predictable, though not necessarily intended, result of the standard ejaculation advice is that many younger men believe it is unhealthy not to ejaculate very frequently-at least once a day. (Indeed, authorities in England and Spain have actively campaigned to spread this notion in schools.) Many guys believe that if once is healthy, 2, 3 or 4 times must be even healthier.
In the under-thirty crowd, masturbation and Internet porn use are synonymous, so if 4 ejaculations per day are really healthy…well then, that many Internet-porn sessions are too. Indeed, even after their hormonal rush of puberty and sexual peak have passed, guys can use today’s superstimulating masturbation aids (Internet porn, cam-2-cam, sex toys) to remain veritable geysers of semen…at least until they hit a wall.
Now, many men, as early as age twenty, are complaining of delayed ejaculation, an inability to climax with mates who don’t look/act like their favorite fetish porn star, erectile dysfunction and a host of other symptoms. (Astonishingly, when they stop porn/masturbation for a couple of months, they report dramatic improvements in confidence, mood, concentration, sexual chemistry and sexual performance.)
If you’re noticing unwanted symptoms, and you’re not sure you want to let your genes down, consider the following biological and anthropological information.
‘My sperm production keeps up with my daily ejaculation frequency.’
Even though Western males apparently masturbate to climax more than any other species, humans are not, in fact, built for prolific ejaculation. According to Promiscuity author Tim Birkhead:
The rate of human sperm production is lower than that of any other mammal so far investigated. The numbers of sperm stored in the epididymis are also low. … Men, in contrast [to chimpanzees] have a more limited capacity and six ejaculations in twenty-four hours is enough to deplete the epididymal sperm stores completely. [pp. 82,84]
Sperm collected via daily masturbation dropped from 150 million on day one, to 80 million on day two, and to 47 million on day three. It takes about 64 days for sperm to mature.
While figures vary across studies, and certainly between men, humans have a low sperm production rate, considering that a sperm count of around 100 million is usually considered necessary for a reasonable chance of fertilization. It is simple to see how habitual frequent ejaculation could lead to chronic depletion and decreased fertility.
Sperm production estimates vary, but it appears that ejaculation every third day would not overtax sperm supplies (assuming they have normalized after very frequent ejaculation). Ejaculation every third day is more than enough action to keep a mate “topped up” with viable sperm, so evolution is likely to have equipped us accordingly. Incidentally, too many sperm can increase miscarriages because fertilization by more than one sperm renders a zygote inviable. “Eject!”
‘If I’m horny, it means I need to ejaculate.’
Not necessarily. Even though human sperm production is low relative to other animals, human males still become aroused in response to promising genetic opportunities regardless of semen reserves (the Coolidge Effect). This reality is what makes possible a binge using Internet porn (with its parade of novel “mates”).
Male zeal for sex and the willingness to risk lives to access potential mates are common across species. After all, the male gender more often faces the potential of zero offspring because the struggle for fertilizations is normally demanding and failure common.
In short, you don’t have to have a mammoth libido, or be a pervert, to have trouble saying “no.” Healthy human brains respond to high-value sexual cues or novel mates. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t be here. In fact, you’re the product of those who wanted sex the most.
Yet what happens when limitless simulated and stimulating sex becomes available to these zealous males in the form of virtual sirens begging for semen from cyberspace?
Research shows that animals will prefer a supernormal stimulus to the natural one. Female birds prefer to brood an oversized plaster egg rather than their own real eggs. A male fish prefers to court a wooden oversized female (bigger size = more eggs) than a real female with real eggs. And humans can easily fall for superstimulating online charmers in lieu of real mates with whom they could potentially reproduce. An evolutionary-biologist friend, who specializes in sexual evolution and the sexes, remarked:
Now, we face the prospect that porn sex will make real sex a poor alternative or even impossible. Moreover, women have vibrators that can also make real sex a poor alternative—and even more so if men cannot achieve erections.
I can almost envision a future in which men and women will live separately, masturbating to porn or with sex toys. Reproduction, when desired, will be done with a turkey baster—assuming computer-illiterate donors can be found. We could even be the first species whose sex drive leads it to masturbating itself to extinction. LOL
Laughable, and yet a recent UK survey reported that among men looking at porn for at least 10 hours a week sixty-one per cent agreed it could make you less interested in sex with a partner (compared with 27 per cent of moderate users and 24 per cent of light users).
‘Even if I overdo it, there are no lingering repercussions.’
We were startled to learn that exhausting semen supplies may have surprisingly long lasting repercussions for human-male fertility. In a study where men ejaculated an average of 2.4 times a day over ten days, their sperm output remained below pre-depletion levels for more than five months.
There’s also the risk of long-lasting plastic brain changes in response to super-enticing stimuli. Brain changes can desensitize the individual’s pleasure response and leave him hyper-responsive to sexually explicit material indefinitely…much as an obese person continues to buy chips because his brain’s reward circuitry is shouting, “More!” even as his body is screaming, “Enough!”
Lingering brain changes increase the risk that today’s frequent ejaculators will not, in fact, “stop when they’ve had enough” as the medical profession claims. Bingeing on Internet porn in search of satisfaction is not unusual among users. One possible result is chronic sperm depletion.
‘The suggestion that there can be too much ejaculation is religious moralizing.’
Actually, many sex-positive cultures have taught moderation for millennia. As explained, men have not evolved to be able to have limitless sex without suffering physiological repercussions. Historically, male fervor was held in check by the reality of sexual opportunities with novel mates being rare. Later, when population density rose, male potency was protected by traditions that regulated sexual excess.
In fact, the last half-century’s decision to dismiss the possibility of biological limits represents a sweeping departure. Across the globe and over thousands of years mankind generated a broad array of traditions and taboos to protect male potency and vitality. For example, the ancient Chinese Daoists made a science of sexual health and relationship harmony, without a hint of moralizing.
They were not alone. Almost a century ago, anthropologist A. Ernest Crawley recorded that tribal cultures all over the world believed that temporary abstinence from sex was appropriate in connection with many activities (depending upon the culture). These included hunting, warfare, planting, fishing, harvesting, wine preparation, shamanic deeds, pilgrimage, the first days of marriage, pregnancy, lactation, menstruation, and so forth. Such advice was so widespread that Crawley characterized temporary chastity as an “infallible nostrum for all important undertakings and critical junctures.”
Periodic abstinence was believed to increase male invincibility and vigor. For the same reasons, numerous cultures have also evolved ways of making love that encourage frequent intercourse but infrequent ejaculation (unless conception is desired).
More recently, anthropologists studying cultures in Central Africa reported that the Aka and Ngandu peoples don’t masturbate. (They don’t even have a word for it.) These cultures also traditionally observe a moratorium on sex from the birth of a child until it is able to walk. Despite the fact that adults of both genders obviously relish sex, men’s interludes of frequent ejaculation tend to be limited. (Incidentally, no religious missionary influenced these traditions.)
Is the ejaculation advice of the last half-century suitable for humans?
Perhaps not. In the words of our evolutionary-biologist friend,
Cheering on multiple daily ejaculations as some sort of ‘natural’/ancestral behavior is mistaken. All-in-all the evidence suggests that human sperm production has not evolved for more than a moderate rate of ejaculation, and masturbation is possibly not something that is ‘normal’ on a daily basis, if at all.
It’s likely our false belief in ‘limitless’ human sperm production arose primarily because the brain’s evolved reward mechanism for sex is very strong. Especially for males, reproduction is uncertain. It’s the intensity of sexual pleasure that makes us assume frequent ejaculation is more beneficial than it is.
How could something that feels so great ever be a problem?
Answer: Our sexual expression is occurring in an environment very different from the one in which it evolved.
- Alhthough there is nothing wrong with masturbation, it may not be the health panacea touted by the media. From the Archives of Sexual Behavior – Masturbation is Related to Psychopathology and Prostate Dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012)
- Also see – Men: Does Frequent Ejaculation Cause A Hangover?
- Growing scientific evidence of a lingering post-orgasm cycle (studies)
- Studies on the overlap between sex and drugs in the brain
NOTE: YBOP is not saying that masturbation bad for you. Just making the point that many of the so-called health benefits claimed to be associated with orgasm or masturbation are in fact associated with close contact with another human being, not orgasm/masturbation. More specifically, claimed correlations between a few isolated health indicators and orgasm (if true) are probably just correlations arising from healthier populations that naturally engage in more sex and masturbation. They are not causal. Relevant studies:
The Relative Health Benefits of Different Sexual Activities (2010) found that sexual intercourse was related to positive effects, while masturbation was not. In some cases masturbation was negatively related to health benefits – meaning that more masturbation correlated with poorer health indicators. The conclusion of the review:
“Based upon a broad range of methods, samples, and measures, the research findings are remarkably consistent in demonstrating that one sexual activity (Penile-Vaginal Intercourse and the orgasmic response to it) is associated with, and in some cases, causes processes associated with better psychological and physical functioning.”
“Other sexual behaviors (including when Penile-Vaginal Intercourse is impaired, as with condoms or distraction away from the penile–vaginal sensations) are unassociated, or in some cases (such as masturbation and anal intercourse) inversely associated with better psychological and physical functioning.”
“Sexual medicine, sex education, sex therapy, and sex research should disseminate details of the health benefits of specifically Penile-Vaginal Intercourse, and also become much more specific in their respective assessment and intervention practices.”
Also see this short review of masturbation and health indices: Masturbation is Related to Psychopathology and Prostate Dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012)
It is difficult to reconcile the view that masturbation improves mood with the findings in both sexes that greater masturbation frequency is associated with more depressive symptoms (Cyranowski et al., 2004; Frohlich & Meston, 2002;Husted&Edwards, 1976), less happiness (Das, 2007), and several other indicators of poorer physical and mental health, which include anxious attachment (Costa & Brody, 2011),immature psychological defense mechanisms, greater blood pressure reactivity to stress, and dissatisfaction with one’s mental health and life in general (for a review, see Brody, 2010). It is equally difficult to see how masturbation develops sexual interests, when greater masturbation frequency is so often associated with impaired sexual function in men(Brody& Costa, 2009; Das, Parish, & Laumann, 2009; Gerressu, Mercer, Graham, Wellings, & Johnson, 2008; Lau, Wang, Cheng, & Yang, 2005; Nutter & Condron, 1985) and women (Brody &Costa, 2009;Das et al., 2009;Gerressu et al., 2008;Lau,Cheng, Wang, & Yang, 2006; Shaeer, Shaeer, & Shaeer, 2012;Weiss& Brody, 2009). Greater masturbation frequency is also associated with more dissatisfaction with relationships and less love for partners (Brody, 2010; Brody & Costa, 2009). In contrast, PVI is very consistently related to better health (Brody, 2010; Brody & Costa, 2009; Brody &Weiss, 2011; Costa & Brody, 2011, 2012), better sexual function (Brody & Costa, 2009; Brody & Weiss, 2011; Nutter & Condron, 1983, 1985;Weiss&Brody, 2009), and better intimate relationship quality (Brody, 2010; Brody & Costa, 2009; Brody &Weiss, 2011).
Moreover, although less risk of prostate cancer was associated with greater number of ejaculations (without specification of the sexual behavior) (Giles et al., 2003) [Note conflicting evidence, however: “Prostate cancer may be linked to sex hormones: Men who are more sexually active in their 20s and 30s may run a higher risk of prostate cancer, research suggests.”], it is PVI frequency that is specifically associated with reduced risk, whereas masturbation frequency is more often related to increased risk (for a review on the subject, see Brody,2010). In this regard, it is interesting to note that masturbation is also associated with other problems of the prostate (higher prostate specific antigen levels and swollen or tender prostate) and, compared with the ejaculate obtained from PVI, the ejaculate obtained from masturbation has markers of poorer prostatic function and lesser elimination of waste products (Brody, 2010). The only sexual behavior consistently related to better psychological and physical health is PVI. In contrast, masturbation is frequently associated with indices of poorer health (Brody, 2010; Brody & Costa, 2009; Brody & Weiss, 2011; Costa & Brody, 2011, 2012). There are several possible psychological and physiological mechanisms, which are a likely consequence of natural selection favoring health processes as cause and/or effect of motivation to search for, and capacity to obtain and enjoy, PVI. In contrast, selection of psychobiological mechanisms rewarding motivation to masturbate is unlikely due to the severe fitness costs that would occur if it deterred one from PVI by making it irrelevant for well-being (Brody, 2010). More plausibly, masturbation represents some failure of the mechanisms of sexual drive and intimate relatedness, however common it may be, and even if not uncommonly it coexists with access to PVI. In this regard, it is noteworthy that greater masturbation frequency is associated with dissatisfaction with several aspects of life independently of PVI frequency (Brody& Costa, 2009) and seems to diminish some benefits of PVI (Brody, 2010).
Finally see this PDF – Social, Emotional, and Relational Distinctions in Patterns of Recent Masturbation Among Young Adults (2014)
“So, how happy are respondents who masturbate recently when compared with those who have not? Figure 5 reveals that among those respondents who reported being “very unhappy” with their life these days, 68 percent of women and 84 percent of men said they had masturbated within the past week. The modest association with unhappiness appears linear among men, but not women. Our point is not to suggest that masturbation makes people unhappy. It may, but the cross-sectional nature of the data does not allow us to evaluate this. However, it is empirically accurate to say that men who claim to be happy are somewhat less apt to report masturbating recently than unhappy men.”
“Masturbation is also associated with reporting feelings of inadequacy or fear in relationships and difficulties in navigating interpersonal relationships successfully. Past-day and past-week masturbators exhibit significantly higher relationship anxiety scale scores than do respondents who did not report masturbating in the past day or in the past week. Past-day and past-week masturbators exhibit significantly higher relationship anxiety scale scores than do respondents who did not report masturbating in the past day or in the past week.”
;