Ejaculation frequency linked to prostate cancer/

[ElizabethAnne]

The whole basis behind Natural Law is that God designed the world to be a certain way, and things that “mess with” that “certian way” and are harmful to us are wrong. Masturbation is wrong because the sexual organs were clearly desgined to fit into a man and woman having sex. But don’t you also need to prove that masturbation, in of itself, is harmful, too, for it to be wrong? I mean, otherwise, a whole number of things that we do that are “not the way God designed us” would be wrong, too, right? (I mean, our necks clearly aren’t designed to wear jewlery, and, yet, a necklace isn’t wrong.)

And can you really prove that masturbation isn’t the way God designed us? I mean, (and I know this is a bit vulgar), the hand does “fit” quite well, almost as if it was designed to be that way.

So you equate masterbation with wearing jewelry? I mean, I know it’s an analogy and no analogy is perfect, but that’s a bit of a stretch.

There are many types of harm. You seem very focused on physical harm. Spiritual harm is much, much more dangerous because its effects are eternal.

 

[fix]

The whole basis behind Natural Law is that God designed the world to be a certain way, and things that “mess with” that “certian way” and are harmful to us are wrong. Masturbation is wrong because the sexual organs were clearly desgined to fit into a man and woman having sex.

I do not thiunk so. I mean Catholics are not mere physicalists. We accept man is a composite of body and soul.

**

But don’t you also need to prove that masturbation, in of itself, is harmful, too, for it to be wrong

**

? I mean, otherwise, a whole number of things that we do that are “not the way God designed us” would be wrong, too, right? (I mean, our necks clearly aren’t designed to wear jewlery, and, yet, a necklace isn’t wrong.)

No again. That immediate physical harm is not evident does not mean the misuse is acceptable. Misusing the sexual powers has lasting moral effects regardless of any known physical effects.

And can you really prove that masturbation isn’t the way God designed us? I mean, (and I know this is a bit vulgar), the hand does “fit” quite well, almost as if it was designed to be that way.

Pleasure is only good if the antecedent action is good. If one takes pleasure, for example, from watching porn that does not make the act good.

The teaching on the gift of sexuality does not include obtaining pleasure from any means we desire. Like all moral acts things must be properly ordered to the good.

 

[DallasCatholic]

The whole basis behind Natural Law is that God designed the world to be a certain way, and things that “mess with” that “certian way” and are harmful to us are wrong. Masturbation is wrong because the sexual organs were clearly desgined to fit into a man and woman having sex. But don’t you also need to prove that masturbation, in of itself, is harmful, too, for it to be wrong? I mean, otherwise, a whole number of things that we do that are “not the way God designed us” would be wrong, too, right? (I mean, our necks clearly aren’t designed to wear jewlery, and, yet, a necklace isn’t wrong.)

And can you really prove that masturbation isn’t the way God designed us? I mean, (and I know this is a bit vulgar), the hand does “fit” quite well, almost as if it was designed to be that way.

By your line of reasoning then homosexuality isn’t wrong either. Why would you need to prove that masturbation is in and of itself harmful in order to be wrong?

On what do you base your observation that our necks “are clearly not designed to wear jewelry”?

Your hands can clearly “fit” around your neck also but don’t you think it would be wrong to choke yourself?

 

[smolderingwick]

As far as your sincere question – the answer is that one of the most basic principles of moral theology is that one cannot do something that is bad in order to obtain something good.

Right… and if a man doesn’t want prostate cancer and wants to have sexual release, he can get married. As Scriptures says, “it is better to marry than to burn…”

I think some men would rather commit the sin of m— than get married… But to be fair, some women don’t wnat to get married either… Well, no matter what route you choose in life, you will have a cross… Being single and having no outlet is a cross, being married and having to live with another person who is not exactly like you is also a cross. People these days always want to avoid the cross… and yet they can’t…

I am preaching to myself here (and whomever else)…
It seems people always want to choose their crosses… when,objectively speaking, it is always best to let God choose your cross (vocation)… :juggle:

 

[smolderingwick]

By your line of reasoning then homosexuality isn’t wrong either. Why would you need to prove that masturbation is in and of itself harmful in order to be wrong?

On what do you base your observation that our necks “are clearly not designed to wear jewelry”?

Your hands can clearly “fit” around your neck also but don’t you think it would be wrong to choke yourself?

Amen. The things people do to rationalize sin…

 

[Exalt]

By your line of reasoning then homosexuality isn’t wrong either.

Rather, that Natural Law is an inadequate system for determining the morality of things.

Why would you need to prove that masturbation is in and of itself harmful in order to be wrong?

Why else would it be wrong? The conservative Christian would say “it deviates from what God originally designed.” Okay, but there are *plenty *of things in the world that deviate from what God originally designed for human beings that are perfectly acceptable. See the next point for a more complete look at the issue:

On what do you base your observation that our necks “are clearly not designed to wear jewelry”?

A penis is designed to … well, we all know what it’s designed to do. A neck is designed to hold up the head and serve as a passageway between the organs of the head and the organs of the body. But a neck* can* be used to hold jewlery, with no harm done to the neck or the person as a whole. Similiarly, the penis *can *be used to derive personal pleasure to one’s self, with no harm done to the penis or the person as a whole (as this study has shown).

It’s not an analogy. It’s an application of Natural Law theory to the idea of masturbation and the idea of wearing jewlry. Natural Law is concerned with the fact that both deviate from the original design of those things. But, for reasons I will describe below, it doesn’t have a problem with wearing jewlry but does have a problem with masturbation.

Religion (in Christianity, mostly thanks to Augustine) has taught that masturbation was wrong. Natural Law is just a way to justify that belief. But it just doesn’t work. It’s okay to believe that masturbation is wrong on faith, but don’t pretend that Natural Law is a sufficient way to come to the conclusion that masturbation (or driving a car, or homosexuality, or wearing a necklace) is wrong using reason alone. As I have illustrated above, it doesn’t work.

Your hands can clearly “fit” around your neck also but don’t you think it would be wrong to choke yourself?

Correct. I don’t subscribe to the notion of Natural Law. I’m pointing out why. What’s the difference bewteen weaing a necklace and choking yourself?

Harm.

Wearing a necklace is NOT harmful. Masturbation is NOT harmful. Choking yourself, however, IS VERY harmful.

Misusing the sexual powers has lasting moral effects regardless of any known physical effects.

“Moral effects” meaning you think God thinks it’s wrong. Why do people think that God thinks it’s wrong? Because they think it deviates from the “original plan” for human beings. But these people fail to realize, I have said above, that there are MANY things that deviate from the “original plan” for human beings that are NOT wrong. See what I have written above for a more thorough look at it.

 

[KCT]

This is sort of a strange question related to the issue of masturbation. I heard today that apes are the only other animals that masturbate. From what I understand, animals are subject to nature and the Natural Law. Now, I know that the Church teaches that masturbation is morally wrong and I agree, but if Natural Law doesn’t stop animals from masturbating, then how can the Church condemn it as wrong if the Magisterium bases its teachings off of Natural Law?

Maybe you’re confusing Natural Law and laws of nature. —KCT

 

[francesco920]

I do not know about the nuns with breast cancer claim; however, I do remember the news reporting that having children (the physical act) decreases women’s risk of breast cancer and long-term lactation further decreases the risk. I just saw a news report that said it appears starting smoking before a full-term pregnancy is more likely to cause breast cancer than starting smoking after pregnancy and birth because of the protective benefits to breast tissue from pregnancy.

What does this have to do with masturbation and prostate cancer?

It appears that it is healthy for the male body to ejaculate and for the female body to be pregnant and give birth. So isn’t it rather selfish to go off in a corner and take care of your own self and deny some woman the health benefits of your ejaculation? The two were made to complement each other. In other words, science is again proving the church correct. Married monogamy is a beautiful thing and proper and fitting for one context. (However, unmarried sex brings a number of verifiable physical and emotional --and spiritual-- health risks such as STDs, early death, related drug and alcohol problems, mental disturbance, etc.) So it appears that your study proves just how important the church’s teachings on monogamous married relationships is!

Excellent post!!!

Well said.

Exalt:

Wearing a necklace is NOT harmful. Masturbation is NOT harmful. Choking yourself, however, IS VERY harmful.

Masturbation isn’t harmful if you don’t consider eternal damnation to be bad. If you do consider living your eternal life apart from God to be harmful, however, then masturbation is harmful.

The Church has spoken on this issue…since when are Catholics allowed to question infallible Church teaching because of a scientific study?

 

[KCT]

I found scientific research that suggests that it may not be healthy to not ejaculate.

In that case, wouldn’t celibate Catholic priests be more likely to get cancer? Anyone know if celibate priests get cancer in greater numbers? —KCT

 

[Jay2]

Sounds like the 'ol “If you don’t use it you lose it” argument has reared up again…

Comparing breasts to testicles is apples & oranges.

A woman only starts to lactate when the chemical triggers of pregnancy & childbirth activate her mammary glands. A woman’s mammary glands can lay dormant for her life… un-used, as they are not connected to a system that is life dependant or needed.

A mans reproductive organs are physically connected to bodily function organs. The “plumbing” that allows him to urinate is shared with the organs that allows him to reproduce.

Women have separate openings/plumbing for elimination & creation.

Since the male plumbling requires a “dual purpose” means of expulsion of either urine or semen, the pathway for urine passes through the prostate gland. When the system is switched over to “semen” mode, the prostate kicks in and produces fluid to convey sperm from the testes.

Sorry for the biology lesson… but if being able to pee when I need to requires my prostate being “exercised” from time to time… I’ll take exercising the prostate.

 

[Dale_M]

This thread is based upon an article in New Scientist magazine, which is based on an article which appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

The conclusion of the JAMA article is:

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

jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/291/13/1578

The JAMA study did seem to correlate high ejaculation rate and lowered prostate cancer risk, but only for men in their 20s. And, it should be noted, that the study depends upon men recalling what their ejaculation rate was like twenty or more years ago. Memory recall, as we know is subject to failure or distortion. And, it should be pointed out, that showing a correlation with lowered risk is not the same as showing causation.

Its an interesting study, but its conclusions are far from conclusive. The New Scientist article even says:

Michael Leitzmann, at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, and colleagues set out to test a long-held theory that suggested the opposite - that a higher ejaculation rate raises the risk of prostate cancer. “The good news is it is not related to an increased risk,” he told New Scientist. In fact, it “may be associated with a lower risk.”

Let’s not read findings into a study which aren’t there.

 

[Dale_M]

In that case, wouldn’t celibate Catholic priests be more likely to get cancer? Anyone know if celibate priests get cancer in greater numbers?

Searching PubMed, the only studies I found are more than 20 years old and are based upon the old hypothesis that celibacy might decrease prostate cancer. The answer to this hypothesis is “no”. But, as with the JAMA/New Scientist article, this doesn’t mean that the opposite is true.

 

[Robert_Bay]

CLOSED

This thread is two years old. Not news