|
Home > Archive > Impotence Support > April 2006 > Another thought on increasing semen volume
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Another thought on increasing semen volume
|
|
| Mungy@HorribleISP.gov 2006-04-01, 10:06 am |
| When we last left the subject I was checking out the theory that maybe
incompetence at the bladder neck was responsible for a diminution of
ejaculate quantity due to some level of retrograde ejaculation. IOW I
was producing more than I saw and the rest was being forced back into
the bladder. Experimenting here I tried imipramine and an
anti-muscarinic (Enablex) and I'd previously tried Sudafed and Flomax.
None of these did any good. (this is all described in my post of
3/9/06 in the thread "increasing semen volume").
Then along came Beach Runner and his assertion of much improved sexual
function after his TURP (prostate surgery to remove obstructive
tissue). The penny dropped. The ejaculatory ducts also run through the
prostate and link up with the prostatic urethra therein. If BPH causes
obstruction of the prostatic urethra why not also the ejaculatory
ducts? BPH doesn't completely eliminate urine flow; at the start it's
just a diminution of the stream and various irritating symptoms. Why
not a similar reduction in the flow of ejaculate?
Moreover (I'm not 100% sure of this) the detrusor muscle which powers
the urine stream and contracts the bladder is a big mother; the
emission of semen into the prostatic urethra depends on the
contraction of the seminal vesicles. These are far smaller and I would
guess far weaker so just a little bit of obstruction equivalent to a
mild diminution of the urine stream could result in significant
reduction in ejaculate quantity. Unlike the bladder where at the
beginning BPH just causes slower urination, the seminal vesicles have
a one-shot chance. They're contracted over a very short space of time.
Anything that doesn't come out will remain in the seminal vesicles and
eventually be absorbed back into the body.
Oh, I really like this hypothesis. It also explains the delay in
ejaculation. (Again with some degree of unsureness; damn medical
industry's lack of information.) According to one source, emission
from the ejaculatory duct into the prostatic urethra will only occur
when the seminal vesicle fluid builds to a certain (unknown) pressure.
If the semen cannot be forced through the obstruction in sufficient
quantity that pressure can only be achieved after considerable time
and effort (by the vesicles).
Where to find out about this and to confirm the theory? You know the
medical industry isn't interested in the pleasure of sex so the only
hope is in the area of fertility and indeed ejaculatory duct
obstruction is noted there as a recognized problem. The easy
diagnostic test is to evaluate ejaculate for the presence of fructose.
No fructose means no seminal vesicle fluid. Unfortunately that means
total absence and not just partial blockage. For that "vasography" is
the diagnostic method of choice. I'm still researching what
"vasography" entails.
Unfortunately even if obstruction is demonstrated there isn't a
non-invasive corrective technique. Surgery in the form of
transurethral resection of ejaculatory duct (TURED) or transurethral
incision of ejaculatory duct (TUIED) is required. They also talk about
unroofing of the ducts in the prostatic urethra. An internal version
of a high wind no doubt.
So, (might as well ask) has anyone had any of these done. Any talk
with urologists about the subject of EjDuct obstruction? Anyone know
how easy a test is the one for fructose? And what's a vasography?
| |
|
| Maybe give L-arginine a try? Doesn't work on everybody but for a
significant number it does increase semen volume. It usually takes
about two weeks to kick in. Start at maybe 1500 mg (500 mg three times
a day on an empty stomach for a week then bump up to 3000 mg (1000 mg
three times a day) if you're not having any gastric problems from it.
Keep in mind in your research that the seminal vessicles produce about
70 % of total semen volume, the thicker, gooey portion; the prostate
produces 30 - 35 % which is the watery/grey part; only about 5 percent
is actual sperm. Average ejaculate volume in the average healthy male
is 2 - 5 ml. Of course, the more you produce, the longer the
ejaculation ia likly to last.
Sudafed is an erection killer.
I don't agree at all that the medical industry (eg, doctors, are you
saying?) isn't interested in the pleasure of sex. If you have the
right urologists and report that orgasms are not pleasureable, most
will try to find out why that is; and very often the reason can be
traced to drugs/medications that one is taking for something or other.
Jim
| |
| Mungy@HorribleISP.gov 2006-04-02, 12:03 am |
| "Jim" <avocet@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>I don't agree at all that the medical industry (eg, doctors, are you
>saying?) isn't interested in the pleasure of sex. If you have the
>right urologists and report that orgasms are not pleasureable, most
>will try to find out why that is; and very often the reason can be
>traced to drugs/medications that one is taking for something or other.
Medical industry includes MD's, researchers, pharma, insurance,...
anyone who has anything to do with medicine. Of course there are
exceptions but at the retail level (your PCP or Urologist) that
doesn't help much. He's not likely to fund a double-blind
multi-thousand person study to find out (say) which Alpha-1 antagonist
is least likely to cause sexual dysfunction nor to investigate how to
manipulate the molecule so that the good aspects are maintained but
the sexual dysfunction parts are eliminated or reduced. The people
that can (pharma, NIH, researchers) are not necessarily being any more
malevolent than the population as a whole, though. It's not even the
anti-pleasure stance that I really object to; it's the lack of
honesty.
| |
| Beach Runner 2006-04-07, 1:04 am |
|
Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:
> "Jim" <avocet@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Medical industry includes MD's, researchers, pharma, insurance,...
> anyone who has anything to do with medicine. Of course there are
> exceptions but at the retail level (your PCP or Urologist) that
> doesn't help much. He's not likely to fund a double-blind
> multi-thousand person study to find out (say) which Alpha-1 antagonist
> is least likely to cause sexual dysfunction nor to investigate how to
> manipulate the molecule so that the good aspects are maintained but
> the sexual dysfunction parts are eliminated or reduced. The people
> that can (pharma, NIH, researchers) are not necessarily being any more
> malevolent than the population as a whole, though. It's not even the
> anti-pleasure stance that I really object to; it's the lack of
> honesty.
>
Excuse me, but can I respectfully ask, other than having children, what
is the purpose of increasing seaman volume?
| |
| Mungy@HorribleISP.gov 2006-04-07, 11:04 am |
| Beach Runner <bob@nospam.com> wrote:
>Excuse me, but can I respectfully ask, other than having children, what
>is the purpose of increasing seaman volume?
I don't know quite what "respectfully" means in this context. You
don't want to get into an argument? Or perhaps you're asserting that
increasing semen volume has no value?
I suppose the most important reason is that I believe that semen
volume is proportional to the length of time before ejaculation. IOW
if you can produce (say) a couple of tablespoons the pressure will
build up in the various ducts to the point that the brain has no
option but to order "Ejaculate (and orgasm) now!" If you only produce
1/8 of a teaspoon it's not enough to cause ejaculation, per se. You
have to work hard to push the brain into action.
As someone whose time to ejaculation has gone from around 10 easy
minutes ten years ago to 40 or more lots-of-work minutes today even
using Cialis and Yohimbine and whose semen volume has decreased from a
respectable one+ tablespoons to a drop (aka "prostate dust") over the
same period I have a very strong interest in increasing the volume. I
also envy guys with premature ejaculation!
I'm not 100% sure of this but I think the duration of orgasm and hence
the pleasure is somewhat related to the quantity of fluid being
ejaculated. The ducts are only of a certain size so a large quantity
will take longer to push out giving you that wonderful feeling all the
time.
There's also a psychological reason. Some guys consider their value as
a man to be proportional to the size of their penis (the reason for
all those penis enlargement scams) but for me it's the size and
distance of the ejaculation. As you point out it's the idea of having
children: I'm a real stud (man) the more kids I can father. Of course
like breast size in females not being a good guide to how well she can
feed her kids, so greater ejaculation quantity (over a certain
minimum) is probably not more likely to result in more kids but I
don't need to think about this. Also my involvement is limited to the
biological act of impregnating the female; raising the children is
someone else's problem.
For the same reason I hate contraception especially the visible kind
but that's another story.
| |
| Beach Runner 2006-04-07, 11:04 am |
|
Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:
> Beach Runner <bob@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't know quite what "respectfully" means in this context. You
> don't want to get into an argument? Or perhaps you're asserting that
> increasing semen volume has no value?
>
> I suppose the most important reason is that I believe that semen
> volume is proportional to the length of time before ejaculation. IOW
> if you can produce (say) a couple of tablespoons the pressure will
> build up in the various ducts to the point that the brain has no
> option but to order "Ejaculate (and orgasm) now!" If you only produce
> 1/8 of a teaspoon it's not enough to cause ejaculation, per se. You
> have to work hard to push the brain into action.
>
> As someone whose time to ejaculation has gone from around 10 easy
> minutes ten years ago to 40 or more lots-of-work minutes today even
> using Cialis and Yohimbine and whose semen volume has decreased from a
> respectable one+ tablespoons to a drop (aka "prostate dust") over the
> same period I have a very strong interest in increasing the volume. I
> also envy guys with premature ejaculation!
>
> I'm not 100% sure of this but I think the duration of orgasm and hence
> the pleasure is somewhat related to the quantity of fluid being
> ejaculated. The ducts are only of a certain size so a large quantity
> will take longer to push out giving you that wonderful feeling all the
> time.
>
> There's also a psychological reason. Some guys consider their value as
> a man to be proportional to the size of their penis (the reason for
> all those penis enlargement scams) but for me it's the size and
> distance of the ejaculation. As you point out it's the idea of having
> children: I'm a real stud (man) the more kids I can father. Of course
> like breast size in females not being a good guide to how well she can
> feed her kids, so greater ejaculation quantity (over a certain
> minimum) is probably not more likely to result in more kids but I
> don't need to think about this. Also my involvement is limited to the
> biological act of impregnating the female; raising the children is
> someone else's problem.
>
> For the same reason I hate contraception especially the visible kind
> but that's another story.
>
Interesting. I miss when I used to hit the headboard...
| |
|
| "Beach Runner" <bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:RErZf.135135$g47.57927@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>
> Mungy@HorribleISP.gov wrote:
>
>
> Interesting. I miss when I used to hit the headboard...
LOL gotta love this ngroup.
:-)
ArA
|
| |
|
|