GENIUS FORUMS

Atum wrote:
A scientific perspective:

http://ktk.ru/~cm/contin.htm

Hmm, try something with citations

Ah, so apparently the tradition is drinking semen, that requires ejaculation. So for best results, jerk-off into a glass then imbibe the magical juice. Although, it's only really good for your teeth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/index.html?curid=17443554

That way you get the health benefits of ejaculation and a nice bright smile!

Ataraxia wrote:

Tomas wrote: It doesn't lead so much to physical blindness, but it is a foolhardy act leading to spiritual blindness.

In Antipodean vernacular, there is no more grievous insult than to be called a wanker. ;)

Thanks.

Animus wrote:If you want, I'm sure we can get you a supply of jizzum to down before breakfast, that is, if you honestly believe absorbing semen will make you smarter...

Maybe... it has the opposite effect which is why you believe this nonsense.

It is not nonsense, and I'm guessing deep down you know it. You defend your existing habits and their attending thoughts likely because you do not have the nature or energy to change them.

Tomas wrote: PS - I could go on and on but life is short, perhaps there are other happily conjoined people who can further aggress on this topic. I've only been with one woman, and she with me, with seven children produced, created if you will .. for over 40 years now :-)

.

While I agree with you, Tomas, about the benefits of re-absorption of semen back into one's system, and about the benefits of "old-fashioned" coupling -- if with a suitable parnter (in casual sex the benefits are largely canceled), I question whether having seven children is something of which to be proud. A 350% procreation rate for you and your mate, in today's world, seems to me indulgent and irresponsible and not at all the example to follow.

To Animus:
People often get repulsive and turn once intelligent conversations into jokes when they feel threatened by information provided to them which might compromise their pleasure-driven lifestyle. It is a common defense method.

I don't believe his later posts are a true reflection of his power of reason. For who doubts that if one loses blood one is weakened, and who contends that by drinking blood one may be strengthened?

You can have the fastest car in the world and the best map you could hope for, but it is all for nothing if there is no fuel at hand. Likewise, you cannot acquire wisdom without the ethic of chastity.

Carl G wrote:

Tomas wrote: PS - I could go on and on but life is short, perhaps there are other happily conjoined people who can further aggress on this topic. I've only been with one woman, and she with me, with seven children produced, created if you will .. for over 40 years now :-)

.

While I agree with you, Tomas, about the benefits of re-absorption of semen back into one's system, and about the benefits of "old-fashioned" coupling -- if with a suitable parnter (in casual sex the benefits are largely canceled), I question whether having seven children is something of which to be proud. A 350% procreation rate for you and your mate, in today's world, seems to me indulgent and irresponsible and not at all the example to follow.

12 years ago (counting the baby time in her oven) we had a 'casual sex' encounter, she was nearing menopause. Killing the child in her womb was a non-starter.

It would have been six children but when one (we) encountered a lifeform in our midst, we turned to ourselves and became one with our future child. We didn't ask the Nanny State for advice, we didn't need Hillary's 'it takes a village' for advice, nor the Pope telling us to keep the child or lay it at the church door for the pedophile priests/nuns to molest.

It simply became our responsibility.

Yes, yes, I know I go on about my family here and yap about this and that but a man's home is his castle, knowing full well that the girlfriend runs the show in the inner confines, but I get to mow the lawn, water the vegetable garden. She lets me out of the yard and go bowling on the appointed night out with the guys.

I'm blessed, no two ways about it.

Oh yeah, Carl, about 'today's world', My dad fathered six children from six different women (the number of women who stepped forward between 1928-1941) before he laid eyes on my mom. And he freely admitted it was probably even more, he was a booze runner during prohibition to make ends meet on his parent's family farm, he dropped out of school after the 8th grade - commonplace during those times (a better educational system was in place, too. He didn't offer to marry any of these pregnant women - they wanted the sex & love as much as the next broad.

While acknowledging your take about the world as it is, "free love" has been around since the Garden of Eden..

HIS dad (my gramps), fathered a few children while in Norway, he was born in 1864, emigrated to Canada, married a woman and fathered three more - got up one morning and said, "See ya.", no divorce. Hopped 'the fence' to the USA and made his way to a Norwegian stopover in Starbuck, Minnesota and eventually made his way to homestead (the american dream) in North Dakota.

Unlike gramps & my dad, I take every part and parcel of this life dead seriously. I have no real regrets concerning the wife or children, our last simply arrived much, much later than our sixth child. There's a few things specific to a couple children I'd have handled differently, though. But, hindsight is always 20-20, one just deals with the matter at hand.

PS - Time flies when you're having fun - what a beautiful choice!

Animus wrote:What happens if you don't ejaculate your semen, what happens to the semen? Does it swim around in your testicles indefinitely? Or is it eventually disolved?

Look, buster .. you asked some very simple questions. I don't know if you are a man or woman. Adult or teenager. I simply answered in a non-descript manner and tried to keep it somewhat, antiseptic. You know?

Perhaps you would be better served to find some decent websites that can tell (show) you what all the different functions of the human body apparatus (anatomy) are and all the different parameters of each entails.

Just because you're not in love, don't throw shit at the moon.

You guys are still making baseless assertions on the biochemistry of semen. You've shifted now into making baseless assertions about my motives.

"A man's home is his castle"

So, masturbation is a form ego-gratification, but priding one's self on their home and family is not?

lol

Tomas wrote:

Animus wrote:What happens if you don't ejaculate your semen, what happens to the semen? Does it swim around in your testicles indefinitely? Or is it eventually disolved?

Look, buster .. you asked some very simple questions. I don't know if you are a man or woman. Adult or teenager. I simply answered in a non-descript manner and tried to keep it somewhat, antiseptic. You know?

Perhaps you would be better served to find some decent websites that can tell (show) you what all the different functions of the human body apparatus (anatomy) are and all the different parameters of each entails.

Just because you're not in love, don't throw shit at the moon.

Wisdom cannot dwell with passion - Siddhartha Gautama

Yea I'm pretty sure the semen just dissolves into basic constituents. It doesn't go into your brain and strengthen your synapses. Synaptic strength is influenced by BDNF, NGF and Neurotrophins like NT-3, not semen...

Semen consists mostly of water and small amounts of zinc. Take a multivitamin, it's better for you.

One of the most blatant forms of ego-gratification is the moral high-ground. An individual might claim abstinence or continence is the only moral way forward. They might even claim some illusory ancient wisdom on the matter. But they don't know for sure, mostly based on a personal desire for that to be true. One feels better being able to say "Ha, you are a wanker, and I'm not".

Ironically such people are probably married, and probably have a decent amount of sex with their mates.

Here is subject A who has hepatitis C, another who has HIV and another who has Syphillis. You can jump to the unfounded conclusion that these people were sex-freaks, but in reality maybe only had sex once, or acquired the disease via inheretence of blood transfusion. You going to tell these people that masturbation is purely ego-gratification, while you parade around in your house full of kids?

Look at me, I'm morally superior!

There is such a thing as a moral high-ground, but that is just a fact and has nothing to do with ego.

Just try a little self-control. All wise men have sworn by chastity. It is not for nothing. You will see.

Atum wrote:There is such a thing as a moral high-ground, but that is just a fact and has nothing to do with ego.

Just try a little self-control. All wise men have sworn by chastity. It is not for nothing. You will see.

I am already there. I'm not arguing with you for some egoic reason, that would after-all be egoic. I'm arguing with you because your claims are not grounded in any fact.

I don't believe you. :D

Also, don't abandon your ego premmaturely. Sometimes impotence is mistaken for egolessness.

Atum wrote:I don't believe you. :D

Also, don't abandon your ego premmaturely. Sometimes impotence is mistaken for egolessness.

Who said anything about impotence? See, that insinuation is egoic itself.

Its like this: I was having a dialog with a few friends over the efficacy of communism and capitalism. It was their assertion that I side with elements of communism because "I want to have what others have and don't want to work for it".

Do you see how this assertion is egoic?

If not, then perhaps you don't know what the ego is.

It comes down to asserting something about the motives of a speaker in order to cast doubt on their statements. This only works for the egoic mind, the rational mind recognizes this as a logical fallacy.

There is nothing wrong with judgement. Ego is in the motivation. A brussel-sprout is egoless but I hardly recommend you take that as your model.

Atum wrote:There is nothing wrong with judgement. Ego is in the motivation. A brussel-sprout is egoless but I hardly recommend you take that as your model.

You missed the point... there is nothing in fact supporting the claim that semen strengthens synapses in the brain, or that loss of semen turns the brain to mush. My motivations for debating these claims with you are completely outside of the fact that you have no supporting evidence. My motivations are irrelevant to the truth or falsity of the claims.

Semen does not do anything for your brain, good or bad. It is the ejaculation or lack-thereof which makes a difference. This difference is in the form of stress/sex hormones. Stress hormones (Cortisol) if you never ejaculate and sex-hormones and adrenaline (Norepinephrine, Phenethylamine, Estrogen, Progestrogen, Testosterone, Oxytocin and Dopamine) when you do ejaculate.

Now, Phenethylamine is akin to methamphetamine/amphetamine and dopamine receptors are the active receptors in reward and addiction. It is these chemical cascades which cloud the mind, and consequently reduce stress.

It has nothing to do with semen, besides the fact that semen is the substance ejaculated.

If you weren't a wanker, you would know the truth by experience.

You are a liar. :)

Edit: I am only giving you advice. Chastity was the best thing that ever happened to me. I have confirmed what the saints have always taught. This will be my last reply to you.

Atum wrote:If you weren't a wanker, you would know the truth by experience.

You are a liar. :)

Edit: I am only giving you advice. Chastity was the best thing that ever happened to me. I have confirmed what the saints have always taught. This will be my last reply to you.

lol, so you confirmed that semen strengthens brain synapses through phenomenal experience?

I'm pretty sure you can prove the existence of a benign, supernatural, personal creator God by the same method. Or at least many have claimed to, and all you are doing now is making a similar claim.

A wise old man once said to me "The best thing to ever happen to me was losing the desire for sex. Now I can concentrate on what is really important."

I agree with his statements, I've never disagreed with those statements. When we lose desire we free ourselves to concentrate on other things. But the claims made herein were of a different nature. The claims made herein were that semen strengthens brain synapses and that loss of semen can turn the brain to mush. This is so far removed from reality...

Animus:
The media tells you it's okay to masturbate and spill your seed sexually (not maternally) with no consequences and you believe it.

http://www.mrtao.com/debunk.htm


And I can also confirm Atum's suspicious of you being a liar; I can tell you're lying by the way you write.

shakti.incarnate wrote:Animus:
The media tells you it's okay to masturbate and spill your seed sexually (not maternally) with no consequences and you believe it.

http://www.mrtao.com/debunk.htm

Mr. Tao tells you the media lies to you and you believe it.

These baseless and irrelevant assertions can go both ways.

As for the opening paragraph, I've actually looked at the research pertaining to aspartame quite at length. None of the studies suggest aspartame is "harmless to humans", what they say is that the cancer-inducing qualities of aspartame are acceptable for the market. Aspartame does cause a 0.04% increase in the chance of developing cancer in rat studies. This is on par with everything else we consume. A sophisticated individual would know that just about everything we consume has the chance of causing cancer. The chances of developing cancer from aspartame consumption is actually lower than the chances of developing cancer from BBQing a steak.

Some of the studies published online float under the radar of academia. For example, a neuroscience paper published in "The Underground Journal of Neuroscience" probably isn't good enough to be published in "Journal Neuroscience" or "Neuron" the two main neuroscience journals. They can still be published in flaky online journals.

You can't get to the truth of the matter by reading random crap on the internet or googling a desired claim.

The site you reference begins by issuing a strawman against the established field. The citations provided by the site are poorly put together, for example " See Eric Hufschmid's analysis of science and scientific studies - a simple piece using stevia and hemp as examples.". This reference points to another analysis which itself does not have any references and just makes a series of claims (http://www.erichufschmid.net/TFC/Stevia_19Oct2005.htm). The author of this site did not do their own research on the matter, they relied on someone else's "study" which itself has no reference to anything.

This is sub-par even for creationists... it certainly doesn't count as academic. Pick up Psychology by Peter Gray and read through the introduction covering methods of analysis and warnings to look out for fraudulent "studies". You'll see that there is no global conspiracy of academics. Its just that unsophisticated and scientifically illiterate folks cherry-pick certain studies, that in all likelihood have been rejected by academia, and then generate a strawman out of it.

shakti.incarnate wrote:

And I can also confirm Atum's suspicious of you being a liar; I can tell you're lying by the way you write.

No, that just makes two baseless assertions.

By the way, I don't have cable and I don't watch television. The last time I turned on the TV was to watch the film Samsara several months ago.

I don't read the newspaper and I don't read the news online.

What I do is, source out actual scientific papers and attempt to acquire a genuine understanding.

If you don't understand the terminology though you aren't going to understand the papers. That's why Gray's Psychology is such a good source. Not only because it teaches you how to understand science, and particularly psychology, but it also teaches you what is known and merely speculated in psychology.

For example, we know that gender-roles are largely culture-specific, we speculate however that there is biological-evolutionary basis for the similarities we do see cross-culture.