Is "milking" medically necessary?

She told me with empathy that of course orgasms “seem important” with all that fun drama. But I don’t have to worry about blue balls. I don’t need a climax. If my wife prefers me to have slow gentle emissions without those big satisfying spurts and clenches... I can stay denied orgasm.

Indefinitely.

I asked another urologist. He was succinct, direct and agreed with the wonderfully talented, supportive, and intelligent woman I saw first. There’s no minimum number of ejaculations I need. I don’t need to worry. There are no health implications from orgasm denial. I can be kept aroused, and I can live with the pressure and discomfort. I may want to orgasm but I don’t need to.

Milking is not necessary. The body will take care of itself. It’s funny that my wife already knew all this, and I was bold enough to ask for corroboration.

I’m positive some of the staff at one office knew what I wrote. I got a vibe when I met them for my examination. And a followup email I sent was fielded by a staff member rather than the good doctors.

The question is whether I go all in about my chastity in the future.

 

it would be fun if we all tried in agreement to try and go as long as possible, like the Seinfeld episode

I wont win, but I would participate

 

No I meant go all in and tell my urologist and her staff about my chastity. Maybe bring it for her to inspect. That triggers my brain pretty hard.

I already had another doctor see it briefly due to my denial addled brain not thinking.

 

I am now trapped by this knowledge. My wife keeps telling me I miscalculated. My wife agrees with me that my orgasms are important, but they are not necessary. And she’s not offering to milk me - to my dismay - but let me pour out spontaneously, at any moment. It might be embarrassing but that’s ok.

 

The origin of the ejaculation ‘need’ seems to be medical research into prostate cancer and a possible link between frequency of orgasms and the likelihood of developing prostate cancer. That said, of the studies conducted that I’ve read about there have been very inconsistent results, problems on reliability (they rely on self reporting, and let’s face it men don’t tend to be honest about sex, and tend to have low sample numbers) and no causation has been proven.

Of those that do suggest a link the impact of a frequent ejaculator vs a low ejaculator seems to be fairly small anyway. And it would make chastity play utterly pointless because frequent ejaculators are classed in most of these studies as 5 or even more ejaculations per week on average. So if you believe the research and are worried about it then chastity maybe isn’t a realistic option.

So why the persistence of this ‘medical need’ in the world of chastity - could it be that some men have run with it because they have a vested interested in being unlocked for an orgasm more frequently than they might otherwise be permitted?

 

My previous keyholder did this with me on a number of occasions. The problem with it for me was that I found it really very pleasurable. It was less than a normal full orgasm but a lot more than a ruined orgasm. But everyone is wired a little differently. Milking to me would be a more mechanical release of fluid without any pleasure or with pleasure absolutely minimised. The vibrator did not work for us in that way.

If you’re new to chastity listen to your body. My balls can be tender particularly after teasing. But pain should be looked at. Could be you have to adjust your device. As for dying to cum that’s the point. The reality of chastity vs the fantasy was markedly different for me and took some adjustment.

I love this. I think that is how I would incorporate milking into my play. Milking, ruined orgasms, denial, lockup extensions, humiliation all do this with me. But even a vibrator release was enough of an orgasm for me to put me back quite a bit. Mind you I’m older now and more aware of my submissive nature so the same might not be true of me today.

 

Mine said recently, discharge on a regular basis. Especially in the 2nd half of life the risk of prostatitis or cancer is higher. Discharging the prostate helps regeneration.

 

Could you describe regular please?

 

Orgasm and ejaculation are not medically necessary.
The risk associated with complete celibacy is to the prostate, and the prostate and surrounding tissue can be manipulated and exercised to make sure blood and body fluids are circulating properly without any fluid being expressed through the penis. Being sedentary in any sense is unhealthy.
Just like any body system, it's best practice to keep things moving. You can accomplish this through an active lifestyle and regular exercise, you don't have to get too specific with it.

 

I will say this simple

SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP

 

I hate getting up to pee every night when my balls and prostate are full!-milking every 2 weeks brings relief apart from the leaking of course!-recently watched a Seinfeld episode where they all bet to refrain from masturbation (including the female character which is cool for many non kinky reasons i.e. acknowledging female desires)-all the characters are shown sleeping much better after some 'relief'!

 

But medically.....nope! But me masturbating to climax....no benefit to my wife at all

 

I am always bemused by this question. Somehow men have been brought to believe that the prostate is the only gland that does anything. Why just empty the prostate? Why don't the seminal vesicles need to be emptied too? How about the Cowper's gland? Don't these also need to be "milked" since each have a role in ejaculation. And let us not forget the testicles. Why do those get a free pass?

If ANY one of you who think prostate milking is medically necessary, please explain why the remaining sexual reproductive glands don't even earn a mention in the debate.

That said, I'd love to be milked. But I can't claim it's medically necessary.

 

So can you have a ruined orgasm through prostate stimulation? I'd prefer not to use the vibrator on my cage but still want the benifits of a ruined O without unlocking.

In other words I want the horniness while avoiding the mood drop.

 

There has been a study linking lack of ejaculations in younger men to an increased risk of prostate cancer later on in life. This I would err on the side of caution.

 

At least once per week. The more the better.
We practice electro stimulation for forced ejaculation. And forced means forced.....

 

Please provide a link to this sturdy

 

Rider J. et al. : Ejaculation Frequency and Risk of Prostate Cancer: Updated Results with an Additional Decade of Follow-up; Eur Urology 2016; DOI: 10.1016/j.eururo.2016.03.027

Medscape: Best Evidence Yet!: Ejaculation Reduces Prostate Cancer Risk; http://www.medscape.com

 

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/844820

 

Do any of the "milking is necessary" crowd realize they are also making the argument that regular orgasms are medically necessary?

If we must manually empty a gland to prevent cancer, then why does this only apply to the prostate? Why wouldn't orgasm denial cause, say, testicular cancer? Yet we never hear that.

Let's admit it: We WANT to believe it's medically necessary. But it simply isn't.

Think of all the glands we have that we have to get busy emptying to avoid cancer: Pituitary, Brunner's, Ebner's, Esophogeal, Kruase's glands, etc.

I suppose I am going to tell my wife that I must help her empty her mammary glands "at least once a month" because it's medically necessary.

"Gee Honey, I know I am not allowed intercourse with you, but you have no choice, I need to empty your mammary glands.....so let's have at 'em!"

 

I think the focus on the prostate gland is because of how common prostate cancer is and how many die from it. If cowper's gland cancer was as big an issue it would be more of a concern.

 

That's a fair statement Homebody. You make a good point.

Although if being milked wasn't so fun, I doubt there'd be such a concern!

Take care.

 

The NHS did an analysis of the research when it started to be widely reported in the UK press (https://www.nhs.uk/news/cancer/frequent-ejaculation-may-decrease-prostate-cancer-risk/).

There is still no proven causation but there may be an association. The study itself has issues in interpretation. Firstly they can’t say for sure that ejaculation frequency is the cause of the lower risk vs other possibilities. Secondly the participants (aged 40+ in the analysis) self-reported ejaculation frequency in their 20s - now if I was asked to guess how often I ejaculated on average per month in my 20s it would be a guess and probably overestimated vs reality. Thirdly cancer was self-reported rather than screened for. So potentially happily ejaculating participants had cancer that had not been detected: ‘It might be that men who are more sexually active are less likely to seek cancer screening and therefore may be unaware of the presence of prostate cancer.’