Masturbation

Fran has a bone wrote: »

I'm struggling with NoFap while working from home in my small bedroom. I'm rarely outside either atm with weather and work.

Where there is a will there is a way. Weather is rarely a good excuse for not going out in the world. Rather it is just something we blame as the reason for our own lack of motivation for doing so. Cold? Dress warmer. Rain? It's only water.

Fran has a bone wrote: »

I feel so awful physically and mentally after fapping.

There may be some underlying medical or mental issue in play for you then that does not exist for the vast majority of "normal" people. You could explore this with your doctor. I have seen _no evidence ever_ that masturbation causes such issues in anyone. I have however seen evidence that it can exacerbate already underlying existing conditions.

Fran has a bone wrote: »

I don't believe **** is in healthy at all, there would be no NoFap movement if it was.

There is nothing wrong with 5G either that I can find - yet there are movements of people against that. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality - yet there are movements against that. There is nothing wrong with vaccines - yet there are massive movements against that. I could go on for hours.

There are plenty of perfectly fine things in our world - yet people line up to oppose them anyway. Your argument is - at best - circular and at worst deluded.

If there is evidence something is bad - let's find it. The existence of people pretending it is bad is not that evidence. At best it's what is known as "argumentum ad populum"

Fran has a bone wrote: »

Sex is different and natural. I believe masterbation reduces testosterone.

You can believe it - but belief is not evidence. One issue is that people seem to think that "testosterone" is some thing that should be constantly level and anything that changes it is bad. The reality is that testosterone levels change constantly throughout the day anyway. Increases and decreases in it are natural. Secondly high levels are not to be revered. Saying "ohhhh it reduces" seems to automatically imply a reduction is a bad thing. It is not. It goes up and down all the time. Third - on what basis or evidence are you suggesting any reduction caused by masturbation is different or more significant to that caused by sex? And finally - you throw out the word "natural" here rather arbitrarily. What makes you assume "sex" is any more "natural" than masturbation?

Fran has a bone wrote: »

Many boxers abstain in the lead up to fights, it gives them an extra advantage

Thought in sports is divided on that actually. In my combat training I have had trainers suggest abstaining from sex and masturbation before a fight. I have had trainers suggest the exact opposite. This is _opinion_ only and not backed up by evidence.

What sports people can and should do is work out what works best for _them_ and keep doing that. As should you. If an individual finds it gives them an advantage - real or placebo - then they should definitely do that. But no one else should take this as evidence of any actual benefit.

But working out what works for you then merely selecting the sports people who do the same as you while ignoring the ones that do not - is just what is known as "confirmation bias".

Fran has a bone wrote: »

Back decades ago people thought smoking was great and everyone of a certain age did it. People even believed it was healthy and benefited from it.

It was the total opposite. Eventually the act of masterbation and pornography will go the same way. People are slowly walking up.

This is a very poor argument. Deflection at best. Conspiracy theory thinking at worst.

Are there things that we once thought harmless or beneficial - but which we now thing harmful? Yes - absolutely.

Is that evidence that any particular _other_ thing that seems harmless or beneficial is going to turn out to be harmful? No - not even a little.

This nonsense is like going into a court room to prove someone guilty of murder and instead of offering any evidence at all that the accused is guilty - you merely mention someone entirely different and say "well he was thought innocent but then turned out to be guilty!".

Conspiracy Theorists use the same deflection you used here. If they have no evidence at all for their own pet conspiracy theory - they will instead point to the tiny handful of other conspiracy theories that actually did turn out to be true. And then declare "See - no one believed those ones - so you should believe mine!".