As far as I'm aware "blueballs" was something you introduced to the conversation. Tighty was saying it's not good for the pipes to be backed up, which you may have interpreted to be blueballs. I guess you didn't ask for proof. Maybe I was looking at Aragorn's comment. I think it's a little misleading to say the correlation wa negligible considering the correlations from the study had a 95% confidence interval. That means they are significant, even if the magnitude of the correlations was small. Maybe negligible to you meant the benefits of 'no nut' for a month would outweigh the potential downside. > But there was NO negative effects of not ejaculating frequently. Prostate health was not shown to be negatively affected. If I'm following, I think you were getting that from this: > Most categories of ejaculation frequency were unrelated to risk of prostate cancer. but read on: > However, high ejaculation frequency was related to decreased risk of total prostate cancer. ^ High ejaculation frequency meaning 21 times or more per month (rookie numbers basically) One last thing: > its possible shootin loads is like exercise for your prostate and has benefits. They don't really go into why "high" ejaculation frequency is negatively correlated with prostate health. It could be that it's like exercise for the prostate. Alternatively, it could be that it removes a decaying substance from your body (sperm doesn't have that long of a shelf life). In other words, making sure the pipes aren't backed up, as Tighty put it.