Angelina
Angelina, I love your posts. You are so young but have a real ability to think and express yourself – particularly amazing since I know English is not your first language.
The question of what is science is, is often debated. Many people use the word in attempt to support their arguments and points of view; including times when those arguments are in diametric opposition. You state for instance that “science is proven” when no one can prove the opposite argument. I understand what you are saying, but that isn’t really correct. Often it is impossible to prove an argument incorrect perhaps because the experiment is too difficult to perform (too many variables) or it could be unethical to perform. Medical science often bumps into ethical dilemmas.
Generally, a hypothesis (which is basically a guess about something) is advanced to the status of theory when an experiment confirms the hypothesis and the experiment is repeatable and conducted by others. Stronger confirmation is achieved by performing other experiments that also confirm the original hypothesis. In one sense, however nothing is ever proven to be true. Even the best accepted theories of how things work, or what they are made of etc, should be capable of falsification if a better experiment, or better experimental method is conceived. In a sense, any scientific theory can only be disproved, never ultimately confirmed. There is no ultimate truth. A good theory should thus never be considered to be proven absolutely by those who promote it. To do so confuses science with faith and religion.
But science comes in many flavours depending on the nature of the phenomena being observed. Physics for instance is generally considered the prototype of the scientific method. This is often because the number of phenomena being considered at any one time is relatively small (or even just one – say the speed of light). Sadly, biology and medicine are study phenomena that are made up of gigantic number of separate phenomena that are often exquisitely sensitive to the experimental method being used.
Consider psychology which is the study of what is the most complex mechanism we have ever studied; the brain. It is made up of trillions of neurons, each made of a ginormous number of molecular processes all going on at once. In a real sense there is no way we could ever understand it on a discrete level. Understanding how it all works and interacts can only be viewed on a statistical level. Any experiment is vastly cruder than any experiment performed in physics. And repeatability can only be considered in terms of statistics.
Thus, when it comes to statements like “masturbation can cause harm” – well masturbation is a giant process within a incredibly complex subsystems which chaotically intertwined. Any statement you say about it, like countless other processes is likely to be true (or false) given a fixed set of circumstances.
“Scientifically” speaking no life process (eating, drinking, sleeping, pooping, masturbating etc.) is without risk. If you are masturbating when the lion is coming to eat you, then you will suffer. Just as you would if sleeping. Statistically speaking, the dangers increase the more you masturbate. Also, masturbation is an activity that uses energy (that you might need to use to run away). Thus consider an organism that is able to give its self-pleasure, endlessly, to the exclusion of all other activities. Such an organism would likely die of exhaustion before it could reproduce and thus would tend to evolve itself out of existence. This is probably why continual masturbation ultimately is not something our (or any other) species engages in. After a while we literally become satiated until a down period has expired. Masturbation past a certain point ceases to be pleasurable … for a time.
How long that period is varies and there is likely a large spectrum across humanity. Some indeed will masturbate more than others, possibly to the exclusion of other activities. This may indeed be harmful – after all the more you do it the more likely you are to be eaten by the lion – smiles.
But such people tend to be outliers. Even those people tend to stop when other aspects of their life become fulfilling. The truth seems to be, from what science has been conducted, that people who masturbate chronically have other psychological issues that if resolved, resolves their chronic masturbation. Masturbation itself doesn’t appear to cause psychological issues, more likely it is a result of other issues (or external circumstances). When these issues are resolved the chronic masturbators will stop. In fact, I believe I have read of small studies where chronic masturbators became worse psychologically if they are physically prevented from masturbating – something that has been seen in prisons.
As you point out, it is complicated and I suspect it is like all psychological science. To come up with definitive answers will always be unlikely, since it is nearly always impossible to control for all the other factors that might not even be suspected. For most of us however it does seem that masturbation is harmless, nor is it harmful when the individual chooses not to masturbate. In a way it is something that evolutions has gifted us, and like the sex act with a loving partner, something that can be treasured. But like too much caviar, a surfeit to the exclusion of anything else is likely not good for the psyche. Its just that in my book, it is up to the masturbator when enough is enough and ethically they shouldn’t be subject to the control of others unless (for their own reasons) they desire it.
Sorry if my lecture is boring – smiles.
