Alright, newfag here(4chan since 2009 but just recently started browsing /fit/). What's nofap and what does it have to offer me? Benefits and detriments are what i'm interested in here.Given my recent interest in becoming fit(healthy food and exercises) I want to know how things work . So nofap guide thread I guess.
The motivation pathway in the brain (dopaminergic pathway) regulates action in response to "need" - so if you're hungry it motivates you to seek food, if you're tired it motivates you to sleep. Addiction is when you artificially stimulate that pathway to the point where it overloads.
>Think of a sound system with a defence mechanism built-in so that when too much sound tries to come through instead of the speaker blowing the whole thing shuts off to save the speakers. The dopamine system is the same.
Unfortunately, you can end up in the position where you "hack your own brain" and use this switch-off mechanism to self-medicate yourself into a state of numbness. That's what addiction is, when you over-stimulate the system either through taking a lot of cocaine, eating a lot of appetite-stimulating food, restricting your intake of food altogether, cutting into your skin with a knife etc. The "reward" of the activity is that it pushes your motivation system into switching off. That temporarily numbs all your appetites, not only hunger, thirst, tiredness but also ones which are more difficult to address like your need for social acceptance or love.
As an example, a girl whose boyfriend has left her - instead of giving into her motivation system which is pushing her to go and stand outside his house crying - she sits with a big tub of ice-cream and eats the whole thing. All the sugar and fat in the ice-cream overload her brain and her system shuts down to protect itself. She's "comforted" which in reality is the numbing of all pain signals. So the stimulation of appetite (fat and sugar are appetite stimulants) is the one shared aspect of all addictions. Gambling addiction uses the dopaminergic effect of "anticipation" - self-harm uses the dopaminergic effect of the self-protective parts of your brain looking on screaming "stop! stop! stop!" as you slice yourself.
Masturbation is addictive because it stimulates your sexual system to respond as though sex is happening, without the satisfying release of full sexual activity happening. Some will say masturbation does satisfy your sexual drive, but I don't think so. It seems more likely only a full sexual encounter with emotional bonding can satisfy the sex drive (hence why casual sex is addictive as well). So if that's right, masturbation is the stimulation of an appetite without satisfying it. In the same way eating something high-sugar/high-salt/high-fat stimulates your appetite without satisfying it and is addictive.
If someone was regulated in their dopamine activity I think they would find masturbating frustrating, like a tease and therefore they'd stop. I think some level of teasing is ok but not so much your system shuts off.
If you believe all the above then you could try abstinence to see how it affects your dopaminergic activity. The way to tell if you're recovering is to look for:
>higher sensitivity physically, emotionally, socially
>more clarity of thought
>sense of connection
>more "in the moment"
>resurgence of emotions
there might be more but those are the ones I have heard of from others and noticed myself.
There is absolutely no solid science backing any of this up (aside from general idea of neurochemical reward systems which cannot be applied with such broad strokes).
But by all means, cite your sources and please prove me wrong.
I thought I just liked soda, but considering all of that happened when I gave it up three months ago, I guess I was actually addicted.
It was terrible for me. In the short term it can be nice to feel really horny but suppose you were to go a full 6 or 12 months without sexual stimulus. Personally I felt like I lost touch of my sexuality, stopped being horny and felt really distant from girls the whole notion of having sex.
It's hypothetical but we can't always wait for experiment to confirm something. It fits my experience and I have no other options to deal with my desensitisation/derealisation. I understand it might be wrong, but this is the most successful approach I've taken yet.
>no solid science backing any of this up
when you say any of it which parts do you mean? Desensitisation has been noted in addiction, it's one of the diagnostic criteria. Sugar addiction is accepted, though I think fat and salt haven't been yet they fit the characteristics needed to be addictive (they stimulate appetite, or in salt's case thirst).
I'm pretty sure dopamine uptake is down-regulated when there's an excess, which implies you can engineer an insensitivity through stimulating excess production. It isn't a stretch to think an animal might slip into doing so compulsively.
Neuroscience hasn't started to apply the idea of over-stimulation in practice, but as a hypothesis it's "fruitful", it leads to developing techniques we can test (and I have developed them and tested them and they work for me).
>cannot be applied with such broad strokes
where were the strokes too broad?
This is harder because I have almost nothing without the internet. Not masturbating makes no difference to my life, but not using the internet means I'm in an empty house far away from everyone - which is true even with the internet in a way. It's confusing.
I think it comes down to a personal psychological reaction. Not even having sex during that time probably made me anxious that my dick wouldn't even work right. That and the whole repression of sexual desires in order to eliminate the urge to fap did a number on my mental state.
I should be ashamed of using /fit/ in public?
/fit/ is really the only thing I use these days - I have my twelve tabs of /fit/ and my youtube birdsong and I share information and read information.
I can tell from my behaviour that I'm doing it compulsively, I feel like I look like that caricature of the wolf from the cartoon - eyes bulging, tongue hanging out, heart pounding. I'm way too eager for the next thread.
This might be a translation period as I get off the harder stuff, though.
>repression of sexual desires in order to eliminate the urge
that's something to watch out for, I see it as resisting the urge or redirecting it onto actually having sex, not trying to eliminate it.
I'm not good enough for full internet abstinence, it would just make me relapse into porn as soon as I came back. one thing at a time. Replacing porn addiction with shitposting addiction is still better by far hormonally
but I still see how it would probably benefit
that's because you are a newfag, once you see /fit/ shitposting the same every day you will stop having that dopamine rush
i had the same once i started visited other new boards, but eventually it degenerates into nothing
You know what's more likely? Ejaculation is a static feedback loop (no improvement) of anabolism and catabolism, potentially like trying to lose weight without enough protein -- if you don't get enough protein, you'll burn muscle instead of fat.
The problem with static feedback loops is how repetition causes disassociation. This loop becomes obviously unhelpful if there's no benefit.. no progression. It becomes consciously so as well because of the added mental stress of wondering if it affects gains, nutrition status quo, testosterone, etc., not to mention other effects.
Thus, it would seem to have nothing to do with "it's not *really* sex".. just that you're not improving in any substantial way or enjoying it as much as you subconsciously know you could.
I'm with this.. >>35576566
No, as that would still elicit a refractory.
I think scaling down your addictions is safer than total abstinence - it seems safer to avoid the withdrawal symptoms (shaking, headaches etc.).
>you will stop having that dopamine rush
the ride never ends - I seem not to develop "tolerance" with addictions.
I suspect the reason boards/forums like this one and misc are addictive is that they work as "intermittent reward" - sometimes there's a really interesting thread, but it's unreliable/intermittent - which supposedly creates compulsive interest.
I suspect from what I've read the reason humans and other mammals develop compulsive interest in intermittently rewarding situations is that evolutionarily an animal who invests themselves compulsively in a situation which they aren't as yet able to predict or reliably extract a resource from tended to have more success because sticking with that situation until you understand it yielded more control and reliability and hence more success in terms of making a living.
when it comes to /fit/ and misc, though - we will never make a reliable source of information out of it, unless we write our own programs to filter it according to subject or something like that. In that theory we should aim to do something like that instead of simply returning every day and "putting up" with how unreliable it is.
>I talk a lot when I'm in withdrawal
what benefit is there to ejaculating in sex?
>what's more likely
I don't understand the biology you're talking about so I wouldn't be able to say either way. The reason I think my explanation deserves consideration isn't because it's superficially "the most likely", it's because it fits the experiences of myself and others and produces testable techniques to produce and accelerate the predicted changes. If your theory can explain people's experiences and offer ways of affecting them then I'll definitely consider it as a possible alternative to what I've come up with.
>Addiction is when you artificially stimulate that pathway to the point where it overloads.
>That temporarily numbs all your appetites, not only hunger, thirst, tiredness but also ones which are more difficult to address like your need for social acceptance or love.
Absolute bullshit. Apply this reasoning to drugs for instance, the drugs don't "overload" the brain into being free of all pains, the drugs just make you feel good so that you don't care about your other pains. Masturbation is great you people are just bored.
Places like this and /pol/ especially are more like fear addictions than pleasure. I actually come back to keep seeing as many ideas that make me discomfortable or fearful as possible. It completely kills any sexual thoughts (haven't even bothered with porn or fapping for 8 days now).
>the drugs don't "overload" the brain into being free of all pains, the drugs just make you feel good so that you don't care about your other pains.
Drugs which activate dopamine don't make you feel good, dopamine motivates you to act to change the world, not to lie back in satisfaction that you have changed it. The satisfaction in drugs comes from having all your dissatisaction signals (dopamine activity) shut off so that all your left with is satisfaction signals.
This is only for dopaminergic drugs, though.
I understand /pol/, what's fearful about /fit/?
>what benefit is there to ejaculating in sex?
I'm not saying any exist. Non-ejaculatory orgasms are fine for co-op as well.
>superficially "the most likely"
It doesn't make sense. Pain gate is a thing -- not necessarily feel-good gate as well, though..
Digressing for an example, sugar doesn't necessarily make you feel full at all.. which is the problem. There's no fiber, and there's no nutrient consumption, especially not to equal the blood sugar spike from it being such a simple carb. In more depth for an explanation, the empty feeling from refined sugar comes from it being about 50% fructose, which isn't usable by most cells and initiates resistance of insulin (which would ordinarily increase tryptophan uptake for serotonin synthesis) and resistance of leptin (which would ordinarily signal "enough fat stores" and thus feeling full). In contrast, some fruit sugars have about 50% fructose (cranberries, 20%), but they're also going to be much more complex to digest.
The point with non-ejaculatory orgasms is that it can potentially be a much more satiating and benefiting experience because of multiple, successive orgasms.. and without the extra processes associated with ejaculation, fatigue, and refractory.
This is implying that satiation is just dopamine, or that levels of satiation and dopamine are just "back in satisfaction" or "benefiting what you find a problem with". It's much more than these, especially of note that a lot of mental gains are as beneficial as physical (relevant: studies on lucid or imaginatory practice.. e.g., a basketball study supposedly citing 24% improvement from practice vs. 23% improvement from visualization).
It's an abstinence movement pushed by Christian fundamentalists under the guise of improving people's health. If you are addicted (or, more accurately, habituated) to masturbation, or anything else for that matter, you have deeper issues than the addiction itself.
There is no scientific evidence supporting the claim that masturbation is inherently unhealthy, nor is there any to support the oft-repeated claim that abstinence improves your physiology.
One study, from China, claims to show a ~100% increase in serum testosterone for ~24 hours after 1 week of abstinence. The results have not been replicated nor would said increase have any physiological effect since the increase is too small and too transient; for reference, a moderate steroid cycle will raise serum testosterone levels by at least 5*, 24/7 for several weeks.
Go ahead and do it, your body your business, but don't delude yourself into thinking that any improvement you see is due to anything more than placebo.
>Pain gate/feel-good gate
what are these?
>sugar doesn't make you feel full
No, I've been saying all along it -doesn't- make you feel full, it's high on stimulation of appetite and low on satisfaction. If we originally had a shortage of it this would be adaptive since it would encourage us to eat more.
I'm saying masturbation is analogous, because it stimulates the sexual system without involving the parts of the brain (emotions etc.) which are adapted to come into play when humans have sexual activity - you're tricking your brain into thinking it's time to have sex and then not following through (like holding up the leash to show a dog it's time to go out and then not taking them)
dopamine isn't about satiation at all, it's about the opposite, stimulation of appetite. I think serotonin regulates satiation, not sure though.
I don't understand the relevance of the mental vs. physical. Learning how to do something I can see it doesn't matter whether it's real or imaginary but when it comes to having sex we're not rehearsing we're actually doing something, and I think the difference is signficant between imagining sex and having it - although I'm open to the idea it might not be.
>I'm saying masturbation is analogous
The point is that food/hunger satiation comes from a variety of processes and fulfillments. It's not filling because it doesn't complete any of the checklist that decent nutrition should, while simultaneously having drawbacks.
Masturbation and orgasm does hit the checklist (exercise, practice and competence, creativity, et al.), while providing potentially lasting effects beyond those (feeling great afterwards, and this leading to increased confidence and energy). The only drawbacks seem to come with ejaculation, which is actually unnecessary.
>I don't understand the relevance of the mental vs. physical.
There are plenty of examples where imagination seems real -- enough to react to movies, from jumping, to emotions.. and the practical examples of visualizing instruments and such.
Logically, there's no obvious answer. "The simple answer is probably the best", and if doing a creative exercise where you're held up by your arms.. then feel like you're going through the floor where lowered, it might logically seem there would have to be a system that says "this isn't real", but why would it do that? It's extra resources. It's something in the way of feeling fully immersed, which isn't satisfying.. nor conducive to that whole-existence state which could be called "flow state". Yet, certain systems like mirror neurons only fire for certain states (per mirror neuron location), without any apparent regulator . Here's more information on that:
In other words, "real vs imaginary" probably isn't a determiner, especially not if they give the same educational benefits.
>Masturbation and orgasm does hit the checklist
right, this is the issue - I'm saying it doesn't hit the checklist. Human sex is a complicated emotional bonding experience, it isn't something you're able to replicate with your hand.
>why would we use extra resources to distinguish masturbation from sex
maybe because the males who were unable to do this were significantly less reproductively successful.
I don't think sex is only a learning experience, unlike your basketball example - it isn't a rehearsal.
Less is more. You're trying to establish a higher bar than is necessary for satisfaction / "a checklist".
>>why would we use extra resources to distinguish masturbation from sex
>maybe because the males who were unable to do this were significantly less reproductively successful
Conjecture, and a little absurd.. There's no obvious determiner of reality vs imagination, except perhaps that imagination can seem less real if not happening with accuracy.
The simple take from the discussion is that masturbation provides plenty of benefits, especially equivalent to what's required of it vs. courting and sex. Even more, the checklist has individual fulfillments, including emotional, but the lack of that per masturbation doesn't seem enough to warrant quitting masturbation, especially not as it provides practice, toning (especially if nonejaculatory orgasms are mastered and repeated), and lasting positive states.
>I don't think sex is only a learning experience, unlike your basketball example - it isn't a rehearsal.
Nothing's saying it's "only" a learning experience, but neither is playing basketball, which comes with status and other social benefits as well as fitness and perceived competence.
>Conjecture, and a little absurd
You have to use conjecture when you're looking at human evolution, but I think it's worse to ignore it.
>no obvious determiner of reality vs imagination
There is a very obvious determiner in my view, a sense of reality. The pathological failure of that sense is termed "derealisation". I've noticed this sense increase and decrease in prominence as my behavioural patterns have changed, along with other less acknowledged senses such as the sense of distance.
>benefits relative to what's required of it vs. sex
I don't believe it has benefits compared to sex - real, full sex provides social bonding, affection, much more emotional and mental stimulation. I haven't seen a study comparing the two but I've experienced the difference myself.
>positive lasting states
I don't believe masturbation does provide lasting positive states, in my life there is a very strong negative correlation between masturbation and lasting positive states. There may be other confounding factors, the year I spent not masturbating was also low-technology usage as well.
Now, I believe masturbation produces a short-term positive state, as with any addiction - but I believe and have seen in myself as well as heard about in others that masturbation produces a net negative effect over time, while offering only paltry short-term benefits which are in the end only an escape from life.
>neither is playing basketball
your "reality vs imagination" example was about how well imaginary rehearsal compared to real rehearsal. I'm saying rehearsal isn't a useful way of understanding why we need sex and why masturbation is not a substitute for it - because sex is something we need to do, not only to think about, let alone to simulate with our hand.
>the lack of [emotional fulfilment] per masturbation doesn't seem enough to warrant quitting
This is the key to the whole thing. The lack of emotional fulfilment is what makes masturbation a harmful addictive activity - in the same way a starbucks coffee loaded with fat and sugar stimulates your appetite without satisfying you, masturbation does the same. If you repeat activities or consume substances which have that "high-stimulation/low-satisfaction" ratio over a long period of time you end up with compulsive habits which disrupt the dopamine activity in your brain as I described earlier in the thread.
It's unnecessary to look at evolution at all. We understand most, if not all, of the benefits and drawbacks.. and how these affect other systems.
>There is a very obvious determiner in my view, a sense of reality
If reality was so obvious, many more dreams would probably be lucid.
>in my life there is a very strong negative correlation between masturbation and lasting positive states
You've apparently never orgasmed without ejaculation, without refractory. Girls become more energized when doing so, as is apparent.
>Now, I believe masturbation produces a short-term positive state, as with any addiction - but I believe and have seen in myself as well as heard about in others that masturbation produces a net negative effect over time, while offering only paltry short-term benefits which are in the end only an escape from life.
You might would say that about video games, but you would be factually incorrect. Action games benefit attention allocation, spatial resolution in visual processing, and mental rotation abilities; and they develop a competence identity, positive emotions, and social benefits.
Just so, if you have masturbatory confidence, especially of multi-orgasmic potential like girls, that also increases confidence, positive emotions, and social benefits.. not to mention experience with attention and detail.. and spatial creativity from imagination.
>I'm saying rehearsal isn't a useful way of understanding why we need sex and why masturbation is not a substitute for it.. because sex is something we need to do
Those are both claims for which you probably have no source.
Context. You can't say m'bation is without emotional benefits, as stated above. What that post is implying is that there are potentially fewer benefits (albeit, minimally).. of which, might be what's already fulfilled by standard socialization.
The food analogy was already explained away in another post as hugely irrelevant. Sex isn't nutrition. /char.count
Furthermore, "high stimulation, low satisfaction" seems quite the projection.
Eastern practices actually call masturbation "self cultivation", and if you can't include the activity in your paradigm, that's a problem (that shouldn't exist). They also believe in and practice multiple orgasms like women, which I can attest to. Thereof, you can't overlook that such orgasms increase energy.
>We understand most, if not all, of the benefits and drawbacks..
Neuroscience is in its infancy, you can't speak authoritatively about the benefits and drawbacks of this - we need theory and experiment, and I've been doing both.
>if reality was so obvious, more dreams would be lucid
lucidity of dreams isn't related to the sense of reality, it's more to do with the suspension of memory and context.
>you've never orgasmed without ejaculation
No, I haven't - I can't speak about that but I think most men who are abstaining are abstaining from orgasm as well.
>You might say that about video games
I don't mean an escape from reality into make-believe, I mean an escape from the hard aspects of reality by overloading your brain chemistry through masturbation. I don't think there are any rewards to that which make chronic overload of the dopamine pathway worth it. If you understood the difference between the two states I've observed in myself and which others have observed in themselves I don't think you'd disagree either.
>masturbation increases confidence
any skill increases confidence, if it also comes at the cost of unbalancing the dopamine activity of your brain to shut off your sensitivity to the world then why not take up any of the many other skills? Why not have sex and develop your orgasmic skill through that? I think it would be a lot healthier.
>claims for which you probably have no source
Not every claim needs an officially sanctioned source. In fact, no claim needs one.
Sex isn't a practice for something else, that's not a matter of provable fact it's a matter of principle and values.
>food analogy explained away
nothing was explained away to my satisfaction, where are you referring to?
>Sex isn't nutrition
It's analogous in that the evolved complexity of our system requires that particular pattern of physiological events in order to maintain that complexity.
The reason I use appetite stimulants such as sugar as an analogy is that I think sugar "wakes up" the activity system associated with eating and stimulation to the genitals "wakes up" the activity system associated with sex.
If the sugar "wakes you up" without there being anything else there like a satisfying meal to then "close the loop" and turn the seeking behaviour off - you develop an addictive state long-term
similarly if masturbation "wakes you up" without a satisfying sexual experience to "close off the loop" - you develop an addictive state long-term.
saying they produce happiness, cheerfulness etc. is not an argument in their favour if they do it at the expense of long-term functioning - hence why men who stop masturbating entirely often observe temporary distress receding over the mid-to-long term to reveal a more rich experience of life exactly as we would expect if the dopamine system was no longer being overloaded.
>Furthermore, "high stimulation, low satisfaction" seems quite the projection.
We all have assumptions. I'm not 100% on it but I do believe it to be true.
>Eastern practices actually call masturbation "self cultivation", and if you can't include the activity in your paradigm, that's a problem (that shouldn't exist).
I think a lot of illness masquerades as spiritual experience, such as monks starving themselves or anorexia mirabilis, so Eastern religion incorporating something into itself isn't evidence for me. Yogis attach weights to their penises until the nerves are totally severed. It isn't something to emulate in my view.
>They also believe in and practice multiple orgasms like women, which I can attest to. Thereof, you can't overlook that such orgasms increase energy.
It depends whether they're in the context of a full sexual experience, which I'm 100% ok with - and even if it increases energy it might also be disrupting the dopamine pathway. If there are other ways to raise energy then there's no need.
>lucidity of dreams isn't related to the sense of reality, it's more to do with the suspension of memory and context
..Which could apply to every single process and experience. Note: delayed mirror neuron firing.
>>you've never orgasmed without ejaculation
>No, I haven't - I can't speak about that but I think most men who are abstaining are abstaining from orgasm as well.
"Most men" is irrelevant to the physiology.
>I don't mean an escape from reality into make-believe, I mean an escape from the hard aspects of reality by overloading your brain chemistry through masturbation.
The same could be said about sex for that hypothesis. Yet, "overload" is not only absurd, but still based on that masturbation shares that same "dopamine" problem as sugar, getting lost in a tub of ice cream (also sugar), and physical pain -- none of which have lasting effects as confidence or mood, and all of which have negative drawbacks (which there's yet to be any evidenced for orgasm).
Even so, these ideas are explained as problematic *because of dopamine overload*, which is also absolutely unsourced and ludicrous. Dopamine receptors are protected by antioxidants, so at best it could be said to make sure to stay on top of decent ORAC foods (with a warning about cinnamon type and toxicity).
>If you understood the difference between the two states I've observed in myself and which others have observed in themselves I don't think you'd disagree either
>>masturbation increases confidence
>any skill increases confidence, if it also comes at the cost of unbalancing the dopamine activity of your brain to shut off your sensitivity to the world then why not take up any of the many other skills?
Why not just eat vitamins and shake supplements to further lighten the load? Because it's ludicrous, and there's no evidence of "reduced sensitivity", especially not of dopamine activity, from practice.
Also, other skills don't necessarily improve sexual skillfulness. /char
You'd benefit more from just lifting some fucking weights.
Do noporn, that may actually have some benefits to your sex life. Nofap is retarded. As long as you aren't pulling yourself round the room every fucking day you're fine. A wank every other day or every few days is all you need.
Beating any addiction is hard, try thinking about why you want to do this, what it will take to keep abstaining and if you're willing to do what it takes (spoiler: quit porn alltogether.
Halfassing a recovery is "harder" to do than going 100 percent and winning.
A guy who studied Evolutionary Biology here.
Humans were always able to fap to ejaculation and we've made it this far. If those who fap did not reproduce, you would not be able to fap right now. Ejaculating regularly gets rid of excess, old sperm so that when you bone for real you'll have healthy new sperm with a higher chance for impregnation.
Nofap is a broscience. The only way it can benefit you is if you're a wizard shut-in and blackmail yourself so that you only fap as a reward for doing something good. For example, refraining from fapping until you go out and talk to at least 10 girls, for example. As anything that feels good, holding back to train your discipline can be good. It's about as good as not eating that slice of pizza until you've stuck to a training routine or whatever.
As always, too much of anything is bad. And studies have shown that porn can re-wire your brain in all the wrong ways.
>Dopamine receptors are protected by antioxidants
dopamine neuro-receptors down-regulate in response to over-production of dopamine. It isn't that the system breaks down entirely, it's that it shifts into "protect itself" mode - who knows what part of the system it's actually trying to protect.
You have to observe the behaviour - I've tried it and it works, I've spoken to others and they say the same. Saying "there is no study" is just being blind to the evidence there is. If you want to say "well it's only anecdotal" then at least accept not everyone considers anecdotal evidence worthless.
What are the specific differences?
in the "Disregulated state"
>Lack of sensitivity to sensory input
>Sense of "cloudiness"
>Inability to focus
>Blunting of affect (emotions)
>Unresponsive to social situations
>Lack of appetite
>Numbing of physical sensations
>I never miss anyone
>Very little motivation
in the "Regulated state"
>No more derealisation
>Increased sensitivity to sensory input
>No more cloudiness, everything is sharp and rich
>Ability to focus and stay present
>No more brain fog
>Overwhelmingly richer emotional life
>More aware of social cues etc.
>Appetite is back
>More physically aware
>I miss people who I like when they're not around
That's a quick list off the top of my head, I may be able to think of more if I spent more time on it. To say there is nothing there is too much to take seriously, and it fits the theory (none of which I have an issue with anyway) as well as the experience of others.
>there is no evidence of reduced dopamine activity from masturbation
I think the above is evidence in my case, it's anecdotal but I still think it should be taken seriously.
>monks starving themselves or anorexia mirabilis, so Eastern religion incorporating something into itself isn't evidence for me. Yogis attach weights to their penises until the nerves are totally severed. It isn't something to emulate in my view
You're appealing to extremes, even with the whole dopamine idea.
There's so much that's completely without science here --
>sugar "wakes up" the activity system associated with eating..
>without there being anything else there like a satisfying meal to then "close the loop" and turn the seeking behaviour off
>you develop an addictive state long-term
That system is blood sugar spiking (and immediately, instead of throughout digestion.. which leads to insulin and leptin resistance, which causes other problems). That's all described here, >>35577019.
What you might should be claiming instead, especially to keep the food analogy, is that ejaculation pulls nutrients and cause the perceived distress and the tired feeling (and obviously enough for a refractory response). You have no other option, unless you'd like an incomplete hypothesis, but to practice ejaculationless orgasm. You'd probably find that the negative feelings which seem like they're coming from masturbation are just a signal that your pelvic floor is out of shape and that you're unnecessarily putting nutrients on a tissue.
>dopamine neuro-receptors down-regulate in response to over-production of dopamine. It isn't that the system breaks down entirely, it's that it shifts into "protect itself" mode - who knows what part of the system it's actually trying to protect.
The majority of the population probably doesn't get enough antioxidants. The correlation remains the same.
>You have to observe the behavior
See above. It's incomplete data.
A lot of those correlate with low nutrition. Zinc et al. for focus and clarity, etc. It's a decent idea to make sure that meals and supplements are nutritionally complete, especially with protein.
i completely disagree
when i nofap i feel like sex is all i can think about and once i blow my load, i feel much less distracted/more focused. On top of that, my energy is not effected because thats definitely more based on the amount of sleep i get and the way i eat rather how much i do or dont wack my dick lol.
With that said i stroke my shit nightly or in the morning before lifting
Humans who are well-adjusted don't masturbate, it's the same with any animal. It's when you trap us in enclosed spaces and we're stressed that we start hurting ourselves.
>If those who fap did not reproduce you would not be able to fap right now
that doesn't make any sense. It isn't an evolved skill.
>Ejaculating regularly gets rid of excess
So do wet dreams, I agree if someone is not having wet dreams after two, maybe three weeks they should "drain it off" - leaving it an open question whether they should try not to orgasm when doing so.
>when you bone for real
Why not bone for real in the first place?
>Nofap is a broscience
nice unsubstantiated name-calling.
>The only way it can benefit you is if you're a wizard shut-in and blackmail yourself so that you only fap as a reward for doing something good
I'm sure that makes sense to you but if you read the neuroscience and read the experiences of those who've tried it you'd realise that doesn't fit the evidence - it increases their emotion not because they reward themselves with it (that defeats the point) it's because it changes the motivation pathways in the brain.
>too much of anything is bad
Why bother with it at all? Working out the non-toxic dosage of masturbation is possible but it's pointless - have sex instead.
>Porn can re-wire your brain
So can masturbation.
>Humans who are well-adjusted don't masturbate, it's the same with any animal. It's when you trap us in enclosed spaces and we're stressed that we start hurting ourselves.
Animals (as far as I know) can't even masturbate to orgasm as they lack the capacity to fantasize (conjure up images). I don't have the paper right now, and obviously this is tentative as fuck, but there is a correlation between number of sexual partners for men and masturbation frequency (granted no number was in the upper tail that I imagine some 4channers are). It makes logical sense in that men with higher testosterone will be hornier and masturbate more, even if higher-T men get laid more.
You might be right with the neuroscience but I wouldn't know.
>You're appealing to extremes
I think using masturbation as a spiritual exercise is as extreme as the monks starving themselves - I think it's the same mechanism at work. It's a matter of whether you see the mechanisms at work as being the way that I think they are.
>so much that's completely without science
That's not an issue for me, I've seen the effects and I don't need science to confirm them. I wouldn't mind if they did but my own experience is enough and the other stories are out there if you look for them.
>that system is blood sugar spiking
the sugar spiking system may have a similar function but it isn't what I'm talking about.
>pulls nutrients and causes the perceived distress
None of this is about perceived distress, it's about observable and objective decline of performance over a long-term period during which masturbating is a regular activity compared with a resurgence in performance (cognitive etc.) when masturbation is abstained from. Maybe it isn't the masturbation but one or two "common-sense" additions to the mainstream model of motivation in the brain fits exactly with the observed effects.
>negative feelings which seem like they're coming from masturbation
I'm not talking about the refractory period, that's nothing to do with my objection to masturbation - I'm talking about negative effects which don't immediately seem like they're coming from masturbation - like long-term desensitising to physical sensation, lowering of cognitive performance, blunting of emotional responses, loss of sensitivity to social cues etc. It took me a long time to connect those things to masturbation, and while I'm not able to say 100% that the two are linked, there is enough evidence for me to take it very seriously.
>The majority of the population probably doesn't get enough antioxidants
I still think you're expecting them to deal with something which is inherently averse to the human system.
>It's incomplete data
What would make it complete?
>A lot of those correlate with low nutrition
I couldn't say for sure, that's one of the things I have to rule out - but you still have to account for the other stories similar to mine.
>Nofap is a broscience
nice unsubstantiated name-calling.
It's not name-calling, it's literally what it is. If you know of any peer-reviewed papers on the relationship between withholding masturbation and motivation/success/getting laid, I'd love to check it out!
>masturbation adds something to your life
A rise in libido might well be distracting but I don't think that remains after the initial switch.
>energy is not affected
I didn't mention energy.
>Humans who are well-adjusted don't masturbate
>>Ejaculating regularly gets rid of excess
It also washes out the tubes.
>>Nofap is a broscience
>nice unsubstantiated name-calling.
If there's an actual study for nofap, you're free to post it. Until then, it's anecdotal fadsci.
> if you read the neuroscience and read the experiences of those who've tried it you'd realise that doesn't fit the evidence - it increases their emotion not because they reward themselves with it (that defeats the point) it's because it changes the motivation pathways in the brain
They obviously have yet to try ejaculationless orgasm. There is data missing.
Even more, you get more of what you practice. That includes feeling great. That is also explained by "traveled pathways"; but hypothesizing about limited performance just because you feel better undermines every other feel-good experience, because it would probably seem that every experience doesn't fulfill its whole checklist.
>Animals can't masturbate to orgasm as they lack the capacity to fantasise
You don't need to fantasise to masturbate to orgasm. Animals do masturbate when they're in zoos, apparently much more so than in the wild if they do there at all (I have heard that dolphins masturbate in the wild). I find the degree to which I'm outside being active reduces my tendency to masturbate.
>higher sexual partners and masturbation frequency
I wouldn't take a high number of sexual partners as a sign of being well-adjusted.
I hope you die of cancer for being so irreversibly stupid.
I'm not just saying that to be rude, either. I genuinely hope you, the person who typed this, is showering one morning and you find a lump and rush to the ER where the doctor tells you that you have testicular cancer and it has spread to both testicles and prostate in a single life changing moment, all because you said some stupid shit on the internet once.
there aren't enough scientists or enough time to sort out all the issues which might arise in your life through scientists researching things for you.
That has nothing to do with this, though.
>If there's an actual study
There doesn't have to be a study for everything - you can take science and extrapolate conclusions from it. You will have to do that with a study anyway.
>you get more out of what you do more of
as Epicurus said - Be moderate to taste the joys of life in abundance.
>that includes feeling great
there are two types of feeling great, one is because you have resolved the issues in your life - the other is if you've overloaded the system in your mind which motivates you to resolve the issues so that it shuts off.
>I've seen the effects and I don't need science to confirm them. I wouldn't mind if they did but my own experience is enough(...)
This is, in all the honesty you can have on the internet, the dumbest thing I've heard all year.
And don't be fooled by the fact that we're only 10 days into the year.
Fapping in it's own world is okay... Fapping to porn can lead to severe ED and addiction problems. Porn induced ED is real; that being said fapping to your imagination is normal.
> on the relationship between withholding masturbation and motivation
I'm shocked that you could possibly think that witholding orgasm wouldn't make you hornier. I don't even have the vocabulary to describe what an idiotic thing that is to say. I'm angry at you for being so stupid that my person, my organic body is physically creating chemicals reacting to how knuckle-draggingly retarded you are.
>I think using masturbation as a spiritual exercise
Projection. The thread's already stated the potential benefits of such "self cultivation" --
>>You might would say that about video games, but you would be factually incorrect. Action games benefit attention allocation, spatial resolution in visual processing, and mental rotation abilities; and they develop a competence identity, positive emotions, and social benefits. Just so, if you have masturbatory confidence, especially of multi-orgasmic and non-refractory potential like girls, that also increases confidence, positive emotions, and social benefits.. not to mention experience with attention and detail, and with spatial creativity from imagination.
>the sugar spiking system may have a similar function but it isn't what I'm talking about
Then, you have no scientific basis for such feelings, appetites, and addictions.. which are already explained.
>None of this is about perceived distress
Semantics. Replace distress as the signal of whatever problems you seem to be finding. The point is that ejaculation causes way more noticeable effects, with more of the population, than your perceived decline in performance. The effects could be correlative.
>I still think you're expecting them to deal with something which is inherently averse to the human system.
Non-ejaculatory orgasm in no manner fits that description.
>What would make it complete?
See previous sentence.
As posted, the majority of the population barely gets antioxidants, not to mention omega oils, minerals, etc.
>That has nothing to do with this, though.
See above paragraphs / girls not ever having reported feeling awful from being multi-orgasmic, or guys of the same if you come upon any.
>there are two types of feeling great, one is because you have resolved the issues in your life - the other is if you've overloaded the system in your mind which motivates you to resolve the issues so that it shuts off
That's reductive to the point of ludicrousy. There are way more systems with feeling great than dopamine, including epinephrine, norepinephrine, serotonin, etc.
all nofap is, is a way to give yourself more stress
if you boil a pot and dont let the steam out, it's going to blow up. if you dont have a girl to fuck and let out that steam, you need a way to release it.
what good does it do? other than discipline, what does it teach?
It's a waste of time espoused by Christian fundies and accepted by robots and redditors who will do anything that allows them to avoid facing the fact tgat they're unattractive and generally horrible people
i'll make ya all fap
its fucking bullshit propagated by lonely losers who think they've finally found that one weird trick that allows them to "make it"
protip: the only thing holding you back is yourself
Men NEED regular orgasm. The benefits to such have been shown in dozens and dozens of health studies.
So... if your motivation is to get sex, then fine. But if you aren't getting sex and you aren't masturbating, then I think you are literally harming your body.
So you're ready to explode with sexual desire but that couldn't possibly motivate you to get laid or put more effort into self cultivation so you can get laid?
What the fuck is wrong with your brain you little faggot?
not fapping isnt going to make girls love you, or find you more attractive.
so what are you going to do if you have no girl to fuck? sit there and be frustrated 24/7? going after girls doesnt mean shit if they dont like you.
>Humans were always able to fap to ejaculation and we've made it this far
Humans have never had access to constant internet porngraphy you shit sucking cunt. Take your degree and shove it up your ass you non thinking fool.
>so what are you going to do if you have no girl to fuck?
Some go out and try, or lift weights, holy fuck you are the dumbest human on the planet. It's not a cure all but it's extra motivation.
>Duh you can do that anyway
Yeah well some can't because we get all the sex we want with porn so we don't have motivation you little retarded dickbag.
>you have no scientific basis for such feelings, appetites, and addictions.. which are already explained.
The way humans react to sugar behaviourally isn't explained by the spiking of blood sugar - they're explained through the way sugar affects the dopamine pathway.
>Semantics. Replace distress
It's perceived which I had an issue with more so than distress. The drop in performance is very noticeable, it isn't a matter of imagining it.
>The point is that ejaculation causes way more noticeable effects, with more of the population, than your perceived decline in performance. The effects could be correlative.
I don't understand, what effects does ejaculation have?
I'm not talking about orgasm or ejaculation - I'm talking about masturbation only. Any sexual stimulation outside the context of a full sexual experience.
>girls not ever feeling awful from being multi-orgasmic
None of my objection to masturbation is based on the refractory period, though. It's not any short-term changes that I'm trying to affect, it's the long-term cognitive deficits which map onto what would be expected from addiction.
Also, one piece of evidence which doesn't fit with your anti-oxidant theory is that once I worked out all this dopamine stuff I could make a noticeable change to my clarity etc. in one day through exercises to regulate my dopamine activity. That wasn't a nutritional change.
>there are way more systems than dopamine
Right, but serotonin is one of the ones I was talking about. There may be others apart from the serotonin/dopamine cycle but that's the one which I think applies to masturbation. Others may as well but I don't think it changes anything.
>he said nothing about porn...
No goddamn fucking shit, did you just graduate from Harvard you fucking bastard? The entire point is that he didn't. That's literally the crux of the statement. What moves the point along, the engine behind the argument, is that he didn't.
These are the people who don't believe not jacking your dick so much might make you hornier, and that being horny might make you want to do something. Way to think that through buddy.
if only it were that easy.
sadly, I cant make girls like me. no matter how fit I get, I don't seem to have what it takes to attract them.
I cant just wave a magic fucking wand and make girls appear, unfortunately.
>ok anon, say you lift weights, get in shape, and girls still dont find you attractive.
What the fuck? Maybe you get a goddamn job or work on conversation skills through repetition, you child of incest. There's millions of things that the human body can achieve if it's motivated, pick one you dumb cunt.
no matter how smart you are, or how well you speak, if you arent physically attractive to someone they wont want to fuck you.
and outside of plastic surgery, you cant drastically change what you have.
>This!!! I lurked for 3-4 years before posting...
It didn't help apparently
my entire point is nofap isnt going to make you a 10/10 stud with tons of girls after your dick.
what if I told you people fap because THEY DONT HAVE A GF TO GET THEM OFF IN THE FIRST PLACE?
makes sense, no? why the fuck would I fap if I had a girl to suck my dick?
>Hi, my name is Chad. I have friends I hang out with regularly, and a girlfriend I have sex with daily to weekly. I can't imagine someone who has to masturbate to feel good because I have everything I want in life. I'm so disconnected from what it's like to be a loser, that I literally cannot imagine someone who is. Therefore, masturbation cannot be an addiction and nofap is broscience because obviously, .
>how am I supposed to know what "my league" is, anyway?
Comparing how you look and looking for someone who's about the same level looks-wise. It doesn't matter much, if you meet new people you should find someone similar to you as long as you aren't a real statistical outlier.
>I understand /pol/, what's fearful about /fit/?
Not OP, but there's pretty high standards to live up to, so one could fear that they are lacking ... the hypercriticism of manlets, DYELs, low test betas, etc ...
>if you meet new people
kinda impossible without friends, really. well, I had friends but they decided that their gfs were more important than their friends who were there for them through thick and thin.
>The way humans react to sugar behaviourally isn't explained by the spiking of blood sugar - they're explained through the way sugar affects the dopamine pathway.
Bullshit. Not feeling full because you can't detect leptin and insulin is plenty of explanation for habituation.
>It's perceived which I had an issue with more so than distress. The drop in performance is very noticeable, it isn't a matter of imagining it.
You're missing the point of the statement. In other words,
>>What you might should be claiming instead, especially to keep the food analogy, is that ejaculation pulls nutrients and cause the perceived problems (if not from emotional and physical stress of "reloading", the inability to perform in the moment because of refractory, et al.) and the tired feeling (and obviously enough signalling of X, whether distress or overload or whatever, for a refractory response -- which isn't relevant for non-ejaculatory orgasms)
>I'm talking about masturbation only. Any sexual stimulation outside the context of a full sexual experience
Again, it's absurd. Maybe it would be a decent idea to masturbate without ejaculation or orgasm at all for a reference. The only potential problem there is doing it as well and entertaining as you would if you were going to orgasm. If the idea seems odd, you could use that pent up energy to lift or whatever, as is recommended about nofap motivation in this very thread.
>>girls not ever feeling awful from being multi-orgasmic
>None of my objection to masturbation is based on the refractory period, though. It's not any short-term changes that I'm trying to affect, it's the long-term cognitive deficits which map onto what would be expected from addiction.
Of course, but the data is both incomplete, and also countered by the fact that girls don't ever report these effects or claim benefits from nofap. The bridge is that most girls are non-ejaculatory and, thereof, multi-orgasmic.
>what would be expected from addiction
Pretty sure that's a list that's nonexistent. "Addiction" side effects ordinarily come from the substance and from low quality personality traits. For reference, there should be control over what you think about and plan. Yes, that's a potential nudge which is relevant for any experience that seems because of addiction; but that's fine because there are studies on what mitigates addiction completely.
>I could make a noticeable change to my clarity etc. in one day through exercises to regulate my dopamine activity
Such as? Dopamine activity is subconscious.
>>there are way more systems..
So, it is odd to describe these systems as being "overloaded". Training makes better at activities -- e.g. control and potential, and it also makes sense that these processes would allow enough room to keep from overloading.
I'm not a robot, but this is literally what happens every single time this thread comes up
>I have a normal life and masturbate once a day, obviously it can't be an addiction. Broscience!
>Really? I masturbate more than ten times a day, and it's the only way I can stay motivated or feel anything, otherwise I become depressed and lethargic for weeks. I also can't get erections anymore without porn. Are you sure it's not an addiction?
Yeah, but the rebuttal to the whole nofap idea is -- beyond the benefits of fapping, especially for orgasm without ejaculation -- that if these chemicals are supposed to fulfill some checklist, then there are alternatives for each chemical.
No, masturbation gives you the payoff of orgasm without having to do any of the work to attract a mate. Porn compounds this problem because you have orgasm payoff from hyperrealistic images --- to get orgasm from those images in real life would require one to attract that mate in the first place. Masturbation short-circuits the need to improve one's position and rewards zero effort.
did no fap for 3 weeks, didnt feel any life changing stuff.
went back to fapping, felt good at first then apathetic.
I don't see the merits of nofap. if you cant land a girlfriend, ultimately fapping is the only sexual pleasure you will get without money.
>The same could be said about sex for that hypothesis. Yet, "overload" is not only absurd, but still based on that masturbation shares that same "dopamine" problem as sugar, getting lost in a tub of ice cream (also sugar), and physical pain -- none of which have lasting effects as confidence or mood, and all of which have negative drawbacks (which there's yet to be any evidenced for orgasm).
>Even so, these ideas are explained as problematic *because of dopamine overload*, which is also absolutely unsourced and ludicrous. Dopamine receptors are protected by antioxidants, so at best it could be said to make sure to stay on top of decent ORAC foods (with a warning about cinnamon type and toxicity).
No way. Gambling hits the same reward pathways as porn does.
Hedonic adaptation is real.
let me ask you this
why do people fap?
do you think they would fap if they could get women easily?
who is most likely to fap? i'd argue it's the people who have no other means of getting off.
>No, masturbation gives you the payoff of orgasm without having to do any of the work to attract a mate.
There's much more to it than that. Beyond the required physical fitness, including kegels, for great orgasms, there are some listed here >>35580306.
>if you masturbate, you won't check around for sex
>>if you masturbate, you won't check around for sex
That's what I'm saying. Is that what you're saying?
And by "not check around for sex", I mean, the porn/masturbation addict will be less likely to perform the actions necessary to attract a desirable mate, because of the zero effort payoff available at home.
>Not feeling full because you can't detect leptin and insulin is plenty of explanation for habituation.
But it isn't the explanation that mainstream neuroscience uses, and habituation isn't the only characteristic we're talking about.
>inability to perform because of refractory and the tired feeling
but I'm not talking about how you immediately feel after masturbating, I never had any issues with that - I'm talking about a lowering of sensitivity, motivation etc. over a long period of time, months and years.
>maybe it would be a decent idea to masturbate without ejaculation or orgasm
If you want to lower dopamine levels you have to remove stimulation - as I understand it, the effect of ejaculation+orgasm is actually to reduce dopamine, so you're worse off if you only masturbate and never ejaculate/orgasm.
>girls don't ever report these effects or claim benefits from nofap.
There are women involved in it - the stories I read were overwhelmingly male, I think there were one or two women in over a hundred accounts.
It's true that if you're right women wouldn't be affected by it - some definitely think they are affected by it. You could say so few are involved because it's about ejaculation. I suspect it will affect women as much as men once you account for lower libido.
>Addiction side effects come from the substance
There is a pattern of addictive behaviour, and I think once you start to interpret the behaviour in light of what I've said about dopamine "overload" then it's even easier to identify addiction through the way it alters behaviour. Even very mild addiction not affecting someone's life in any noticeable way can be identified.
>huffington post article
Right, this is saying it's a response to living in a bad environment - that fits with animals masturbating more in zoos, and my own lack of interest in it when I spend time outdoors being active. I still think that actively resisting the urge to it enables you to make your environment one which is easier to live in. It isn't so simple as a masturbation addict asking to be moved to a new cage, he has to make it happen and they tend to do that when they stop masturbating (or masturbating is a sign they've already started trying to adapt their environment).
>Dopamine activity is subconscious
It can still be affected through behaviour. I did an exercise where I stand still and wait. After a few seconds I start to feel an urge to move and I hold myself still - after a few more seconds the urge gets stronger but I keep resisting. That sped up the changes I expected to see from quitting masturbation, just as it would if those effects were about dopamine regulation. One of the ways I up my own dopamine production is staying constantly stimulated so having to not move at all was a way of bringing it down.
>These processes would allow enough room from overloading
The reason I think that isn't the case is that I think masturbation is only a product of social breakdown - a normal healthy human has sex.
>how do you fix being unattractive? even if you are fit, aesthetics are aesthetics.
Confidence, grooming, fashion, humor, hobbies, skills, money, conversation, shared interests ... jesus christ there are a million ways man
cause this guy would have girls on his dick if he was confident.
not me, but you get the idea.
then instead of making it an abstinence movement make it a movement to have an active sex life. I think that's a lot healthier than having nothing.
the trouble with masturbating is you never apply yourself, and I don't think it's satisfying anyway.
>But it isn't the explanation that mainstream neuroscience uses
Prove it, then.
>but I'm not talking about how you immediately feel after masturbating, I never had any issues with that - I'm talking about a lowering of sensitivity, motivation etc.
There's more correlation there than with "muh dopamine". Losing an erection and feeling tired isn't something that just happens, and it doesn't even happen with orgasm and non-ejaculation.
>>>maybe it would be a decent idea to masturbate without ejaculation or orgasm
>If you want to lower dopamine levels you have to remove stimulation
Missing the point. If you don't feel the same effects from masturbation without ejaculation, then that's more complete data -- without it is less.
>I think there were one or two women in over a hundred accounts
Even allowing for male to female ratios, that's really minimal. It could also be placebo et al.
>It's true that if you're right women wouldn't be affected by it - some definitely think they are affected by it. You could say so few are involved because it's about ejaculation. I suspect it will affect women as much as men once you account for lower libido.
Orgasming makes girls more energetic, and it's probably documented that regular orgasm increases their libido.
Also, masturbation causing decreased libido seems unfounded.
>in light of what I've said about dopamine "overload" then it's even easier to identify addiction through the way it alters behaviour
That can't be extrapolated because of how little nutrition the general diet potentially has.. somewhat specifically, omega 3s, vitamin D, enough protein/calories for even enough dopamine/serotonin production or cellular energy through NAD, et-fucking-cetera.
>Right, this is saying it's a response to living in a bad environment
Negative. It's saying that a social environment completely mitigates addiction, even with drugs as addictive as heroin and cocaine.
I don't masturbate in the normal sense of jacking off and jizzing , i let my arousal get my dick hard for about 4 hours while watching porn and then jizz one time after. so i'm jizzing only one time a day , but watch porn for about 4 hours
This is trying to equate "screwed up pathways" with a simple activity instead of how behavior affects lifestyles.. especially gambling. There's so much potential risk and reward, which is irrelevant with masturbation.
>That's what I'm saying. Is that what you're saying?
No. A lot jobs are shitty, overworked, and underpayed. There's more reason there for not going on about sex than "muh masturbation". Even more, if there's any substance with "denying reward", that demographic should have the *highest* libido / motivation.
If there are any missed points, thread, you're free to mention them.
Learn from the experience.
Even babies understand this on an instinctual level. The first time one tries to stand up on their own, they fall on their ass. But they try again and eventually they're walking and shit.
>There's so much potential risk and reward, which is irrelevant with masturbation.
It's not irrelevant -- masturbation allows you to gain the orgasm reward without the risk of rejection or the pain of taking actions that reduce the risk of rejection
in practice, probably, depends how many lectures you actually bother to attend etc - but really, if you can regularly sit around for 4 hours edging to porn, you're in the ballpark
no judgement, I'm in the same boat
Unless you're literally hideously disfigured, it doesn't matter that much.
If you're actually hideously disfigured, you can probably play it to your advantage if you're willing to lower your standards.
Neet-lite then i guess?
No fucks given though - i would literally kill myself if i had to be cubicle wagecuck.
After University i will have to figure something out , maybe try getting into straight porn , i have facial aesthetics , am well spoken , can act and have 8 inch cock ( like i know porn has bigger , but it's decent for porn )
listen, I could be the biggest optimist in the world, but a positive outlook isn't going to do fuck all, when girls fundamentally don't like how you look.
im superficial, so are girls. everyone is shallow to some extent.
I mainly go out to hit the gym.
I go to malls n stuff for shopping/etc, but I dont really meet anyone.
i've never really got the impression that a girl was interested in me. maybe im just ugly, /shrug.
If you want a relationship then I suggest you start up an active social life. It's hard to put yourself out there as a man, rejection etc. but the only other option is never even trying.
If you are ugly then it might take more time but there are a lot of ugly people out there in relationships.
it's the first stage of training for terrorists and religious extremists
>It's not irrelevant -- masturbation allows you to gain the orgasm reward without the risk of rejection or the pain of taking actions that reduce the risk of rejection
You're in no manner fucking up your life's status quo (e.g., funding) by masturbating. Also, >>35581150
What is the reason for Japan's population decline? I tend to read a lot that a lot of the youthful male population is turning to hentai/porn to satisfy their needs rather than finding a partner. Does this have anything to do with porn? Or is it their culture? I just don't see ever see it mentioned in threads like these.
Japan is the future of the west, minus immigration. Career focused women, financially difficult to start a family, role of men in society being undermined, etc
Also look into Calhoun's rodent overpopulation experiments
It helps to live in a major city, if you are then you can look for social groups on the internet - Meetup.com sometimes has a lot though it depends where you are. Find a social interest and use that to meet people (climbing, guns, photography etc.). Any club or activity with a mix of men and women can work, too. I recommend having at least one activity where people are there to socialise, even if they do something else at the same time. Also, there must be a ton of resources on the internet for how to meet people as a single adult.
Do you find it easy to socialise when you have the opportunity?
well, there are ways to learn that, too - it might help your mindset if you learn the skills and prove to yourself you can do it.
I've never approached anyone, though. I meet everyone through social events like I mentioned.
Except, standard living can be drastically improved by literally whatever converts office jobs as the standard to something more interesting.. or where a limited amount of the population supports the majority. If automated driving (and other tasks) are safest, the population density and other beneficial challenges become what is under critique.
That's as simple as learning rules of improv, realizing that communication only comes out of and stays out of potential disarray by sticking to and guiding to your body language and what you know is best, and realizing that "the greatest love seems most aloof" -- hence, cat and mouse, mystery, etc.
Also, storytelling skills. Ira Glass has a series.
pretty freaky desu
despite all our rage are we all just rats in a cage?
but seriously ... it'd be pretty amazing if a lot of the problems we face are due to overpopulation
if that's the case, then outer space might be the salvation of the west
>Except, standard living can be drastically improved by literally whatever converts office jobs as the standard to something more interesting.. or where a limited amount of the population supports the majority. If automated driving (and other tasks) are safest, the population density and other beneficial challenges become what is under critique.
I think that kind of went over my head sorry
Care to elaborate?
I guess you're saying the west doesn't have to go down the same path Japan has? I agree, just meant Japan is like an exaggeration/projection of current trends in the west
I have checked out very little of Japan's QOL, but their population density is 17% of the top US state, so..
The point is that automated driving is already being done perfectly, and driving jobs can literally be delegated to more interesting and more helpful positions (farming, for example). This trend is true for basically every position that's most popular, and that's because the most common jobs are retail sales, cashiers, general office clerks, food preparation and serving, etc.
For those, better jobs could be found in studying marketing to actually improve sales without the sales position -- even in paid scientific research. Furthermore, there's variety. Clothes quality is really poor for how much some brands cost, and more industrial output benefits the whole country. Australia's minimum wage is $17.29 vs. the US' $7.25; yet they also have lower costs of living according to internet sources. That can obviously exist, with enough value production, anywhere.
What they haven't experimented with is literally anything that would further correlate cause and effect -- masturbating without ejaculation (to rule out the causes of refractory and fatigue, including nutrition depletion), orgasming without ejaculation (as girls who do so never complain about fatigue, and actually have increased energy after orgasming), etc.
I don't know if I can agree with the whole as X jobs are automated it frees people up to move into Y. Realistically, X and Y are employing as many people as are profitable. When X is automated, there are less jobs available.
this is fact
these are not
>I don't know if I can agree with the whole as X jobs are automated it frees people up to move into Y. Realistically, X and Y are employing as many people as are profitable.
Negative, especially if discussing Y as industrialization for outsourcing, research with money from re-appropriated funds (even if from the richest 1% who own 40% of the nation's wealth -- in contrast with the bottom 80% owning 7%), etc. Industiral output potentially includes, food, clothing, whatever is the most efficient for producing housing (cannabis, bamboo, or just nano-crystalline cellulose ..which has a tensile strength 15x that of stainless steel and is literally just reduced plant matter).
this is also wrong
sperm is continuously reabsorbed if not spent, acting as a nutrient/hormone boost for men
take your shit degree, make like a tree, and get outta here
All of this would be terribly interesting if those USA food prices in your pic were even close to accurate.
so something has to change first, right?
ie: as jobs disappear, and automation makes the rich richer, the state is going to need to step in redistribute wealth - raise taxes on the wealthy