..and it is not tax deductions. Apparently, we all live longer the more orgasms we have. I suggest we forget the IRS and shift our hobby burden to our insurance carriers as "preventive care". Is it too late to modify Obama-care? Providers can be distinguished health-care providers!

This type of post is typically mrphiser's...err mrfister...err mrfishersmarterbrother

Nothings too late...contact your Congressman

Maybe he's already on it?

And maybe we can get this covered through Obama-care ...or maybe they don't want us living longer; fewer people taking the marital deduction  

-- Modified on 7/21/2013 11:02:58 AM

...yeah, I'll see him at the gym next week. I'll sound it out!

Wouldn't you be surprised?

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

So nope...you still don't have it back.

And you may have to mud wrestle the winner of mrfisher and drjoe to earn it back  

Maybe you can suggest a few gals to carry the round cards?

Is there some type of test to prove this up?

Or is her word going to be the criteria?  

END OF MESSAGE

From Rottencards

MasterBater...err MasterZen was stealing your "patented" threads.

Did you just get up?

Guess the heat wave just broke there too....yea  

Get the most seasoned hobbyist, the one that "knows" women and can detect a fake by just looking at her body and the ensuing orgasmic reactions (the flush, the heavy breathing, the moaning, the sheet grabbing, the arching back, the leg shaking, the head crushing, the "wet spot", etc.etc.)

So no reason to die younger, just take matters into your own hand.

That I won't ever know for sure. lol

Everything you've mentioned can easily be faked, well that little (or not so little) wet spot is usually a dead giveaway, but I suppose even that can be faked if a woman wants to badly enough.  Of course pee does leave a different stain than cum, but I don't really stress over such things.

I am sure some of you women really get a kick out of those guys who claim to "know" women better than they know themselves. lol

I swear to god I actually faked most of my orgasms with on old GF.  Didn't see her often and we weren't exclusive.  But she'd get so wet and sloppy, soaking herself and the sheets, she had no way of telling there was no jizz in there.

...it only works with a partner. Same as the statistics for prostate enlargement... vaginal intercourse reduces risk, masturbation does not.  

I'm beginning to think looking for sex (and being successful) is a genetic survival trait for males.  

Is denial of sex a genetic "Black Widow" motivation for women... just kill off their partners?

END OF MESSAGE

How does the penis know what is wrapped around it, hand, mouth, pussy or ass?  Good lord a warm jar of liver might feel like a pussy and how would a penis know?  

Well then I guess a fleshlite would work just as well as a pussy. What a load of BS

END OF MESSAGE

END OF MESSAGE

Perhaps she was just too smart to call me on my bullshit.  One can dream though.

here's a link to an easy to read article... you have to actually read it. I can go to PubMed, if you'd like to read something a bit more scholarly...

And it isn't just good for the guys, but the gals as well. Not sure if hobbyist/provider "relationships" are a confounding factor, or whether sex is just...well, sex.

Actually, how about a link and a URL...

http://urology.jhu.edu/newsletter/prostate_cancer712.php

and that was my way of agreeing with it.

Still call BS. It read frequent ejaculations (from the Johns Hopkins article), it did not stipulate only sexual intercourse. Ya pipes need cleaning, jack off, fuck but it does not say there has to be a women in sight, just ejaculation.

The other article reflects more on the benefits of partnered intimacy which does not really relate in this field. And the last time I looked that paired bonding etc is not only restricted to PV sex without a condom.  

So what does this doctor have to say about same sex couplings? No sewage  (new word for semen) with FF, and overload with MM. And what about the over 70% of women who don't climax with PV sex alone? I guess we're just shit out of luck.  

Oh and do you believe everything that comes out of a doctors mouth? I certainly don't.

END OF MESSAGE

Yeah, the intimate partners argument may hold water, and I added that qualification in my post.  

The article sticks to hetero sex and doesn't seem to address SS partners. I personally believe the same or similar benefits are conferred for same-sex partners, given the emotional attachment and resultant hormone cascade that accompanies any such coupling. But hell, how am I to claim that is true without data?  

I also believe that this is not an argument for men "getting more" - rather it is an argument for men and women both ENJOYING it more.

And in NO way am I suggesting BB is something to do in this little world... no Udo  here. The no-condom benefit was specifically mentioned as very slight. Kinda goes against the BB arguments we hear... So, are we actually more in agreement than disagreement?

Anyway, to quote:

"In a review by S. Brody in the JSM, he concluded that penile-vaginal intercourse had a wide range of psychological and physiological health benefits, other sexual activities had weaker benefits." (Other sexual activities here = masturbation, specifically solo masturbation so far as I can infer)

"It seems that the frequency of intercourse is a predictor of both men and women’s greatest satisfaction. IF the woman can climax with just intercourse, the benefits are even greater than with clitoral stimulation alone. Masturbation was inversely related and probably reflects the lack of regular partnered activity." (Note the "partnered activity" qualification, and that masturbation [solo, I presume] is not beneficial).

"Painful prostate was associated with not having intercourse and is resolved with having intercourse. Masturbation showed no improvement or a worsening of the pain. Vaginal stimulation has been shown to have substantial analgesic properties far greater than clitoral stimulation, alone."
(Again, solo masturbation is not so good as intercourse, or I can easily agree to "partnered activity" in this case).

And no, I don't believe everything my Doc says. Nor everything I read on the internet. A true skeptic has to look at all sides, n'est-ce pas?

Thanks for a fun and more intelligent discussion