Regular masturbation vs long-term abstinence (NoFap-style 'reboot')
If you act
Regular masturbation
10%
If you don't
Long-term abstinence (NoFap-style 'reboot')
30%
Percentage who later regret each choice. Bars and full ledger render below.
Lifestyle
Last reviewed 2026-05-30
Evidence quality 4.25/5
Eight-dimension review score against the
quality rubric
. Each dimension scored 1–5.
D1 Source verification
4/5
D2 Source authority & independence
5/5
D3 Regret-rate accuracy
2/5
D4 Source comparability
4/5
D5 Gilovich pattern
4/5
D6 Prose quality
5/5
D7 Caveat completeness
5/5
D8 Sample quality
5/5
Average4.25/5
Proxy data — no direct regret survey exists for this decision. Rates are derived from satisfaction scores and access-barrier data rather than questions that directly asked about regret. See caveats below.
Action regret
Regular masturbation
10%
no direct regret survey exists; ~10% is a proxy distress floor, not a measured regret rate — the cited sources show masturbation behaviour itself does not predict negative sexual outcomes (Whelan & Brown 2021), and that self-perceived problems track moral incongruence rather than frequency (Grubbs et al. 2019)
US and Western adults, peer-reviewed cross-sectional samples
cross-sectional, retrospective sentiment
Inaction regret
Long-term abstinence (NoFap-style 'reboot')
30%
no direct regret survey exists; the ~30% is a measured distress prevalence, not a regret rate — in Prause & Binnie's preregistered NoFap survey (N=587), about 29% of participants reported feeling suicidal following their most recent perceived relapse
NoFap/Reboot forum participants, online convenience samples
preregistered survey of Reboot/NoFap participants, retrospective post-relapse sentiment
The medical and sexological consensus — the American Urological Association ED Guideline (Burnett et al. 2018), the International Society for Sexual Medicine position, and the published sexological literature — does not identify long-term masturbation abstinence as having physiological health benefits, and does not list masturbation cessation as an evidence-based treatment for erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, or other sexual dysfunction. The strongest peer-reviewed evidence on the action side comes from Whelan and Brown’s 2021 cross-sectional study in the Journal of Sexual Medicine (N=942 heterosexual men aged 18-44), which found that internet pornography use alone showed no significant association with erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, or sexual dissatisfaction; self-perceived addiction uniquely predicted all three negative outcomes. The behaviour itself is not the regret-generating mechanism — the self-perception of problematic use is. Grubbs, Perry, Wilt and Reid’s 2019 meta-analysis (PMID 30076491) extends this finding: pornography problems are predicted more strongly by moral incongruence than by use frequency. The 10% action-side estimate is anchored on this evidence: among regular masturbators without self-perceived addiction, retrospective regret is essentially absent; the population-weighted action-side rate is the share with self-perceived problematic use multiplied by the conditional regret rate within that subgroup.
The inaction side is empirically thinner and conceptually messier. Zimmer and Imhoff’s 2020 study in Archives of Sexual Behavior (PMID 32130561, N=1,063 men recruited from a non-thematic Reddit community) found that motivation for masturbation abstinence was associated with attitudinal correlates — perception of masturbation as unhealthy, distrust in science, higher religiosity, conservative ideology — rather than with behavioural markers of hypersexuality such as maximum number of orgasms. The entry decision is predominantly belief-driven rather than behaviour-driven. Prause and Binnie’s 2024 preregistered survey of Reboot/NoFap participants in Sexualities found that increased forum engagement correlated with worse psychological outcomes including erectile dysfunction symptoms, depression, anxiety, and greater sex-negativity, and that participants reported high rates of exposure to misogynist (73.7%), anti-LGBT (42.9%), and self-harm-instructional (23.5%) content within the community. The 30% inaction-side estimate is anchored on the combination of these documented iatrogenic outcomes plus the medical-consensus position that the stated health benefits of abstinence are not supported by evidence — when the intervention does not produce its claimed benefit and carries documented psychological costs, the retrospective regret rate among participants is plausibly elevated.
The 20-point inaction-dominant delta should be held loosely on absolute magnitude and held more firmly on direction. Both rates are proxy constructions; no published survey directly asks former NoFap participants “do you regret your abstinence period?” or asks general-population adults “do you regret your masturbation frequency?” The 30% inaction-side rate is plausibly too high for the religion-motivated subgroup (where abstinence is value-aligned and the empirical claim of physiological benefit is not the load-bearing motive) and approximately correct for the health-motivated subgroup that joined NoFap expecting ED reversal or libido restoration. The 10% action-side rate is bimodal across moral-incongruence lines: near zero for non-religious occasional users, materially higher for users with strong religious or moral disapproval of the behaviour. The Reddit-derived evidence base — Zimmer and Imhoff’s 1,063 participants, Vanmali, Osadchiy, Shahinyan, Mills and Eleswarapu’s natural-language-processing analysis of r/NoFap (Archives of Sexual Behavior 2020, DOI 10.1007/s10508-020-01728-5) showing PIED-themed discussions centred on anxiety and libido, and Prause and Binnie’s preregistered iatrogenic-effects survey — over-represents young, male, Western-anglophone, internet-active participants and does not generalize to long-term abstainers for religious-observance, ascetic, low-libido, or partner-agreement reasons.
Sources: action
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
1/2 sources independently verified verbatim against the cited source
[1]Journal of Sexual Medicine (Whelan & Brown) — Pornography Addiction: An Exploration of the Association Between Use, Perceived Addiction, Erectile Dysfunction, Premature (Early) Ejaculation, and Sexual Satisfaction in Males Aged 18-44 Years
Verified
Peer-reviewed
In a cross-sectional study of 942 heterosexual men aged 18-44, internet pornography use alone showed no significant association with erectile dysfunction, premature ejaculation, or sexual dissatisfaction; self-perceived addiction uniquely predicted all three negative outcomes
Excerpt
“"[Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled] We found no evidence for an association between IP use with ED, EE, or SS. Small to modest positive correlations were observed between self-perceived IP addiction and ED, EE and sexual dissatisfaction. Self-perceived IP addiction uniquely predicted increased ED, EE and individual sexual dissatisfaction. Self- perceived IP addiction did not predict sexual dissatisfaction with one's sexual partner."
”
Source data from
2021-09-01
Accessed
2026-05-30
Verification
Excerpt independently re-fetched and confirmed word-for-word against the cited source during our grounding audit.
Calculation
Whelan & Brown (2021), Journal of Sexual Medicine 18(9), 1582-1592. N=942 heterosexual men aged 18-44, cross-sectional survey via Reddit and IP subgroups. Used here to establish the load-bearing finding for action-side regret: the use itself (which overlaps strongly with masturbation behaviour) does not predict the negative sexual outcomes that NoFap proponents cite as reasons to abstain. The downstream distress signal — the regret-equivalent — is generated by self-perception of addiction, not by the behaviour. This bounds the action-side regret rate: among users without an addiction self-perception, regret rates are near zero; the population-weighted action-side rate is the share with self-perceived addiction multiplied by the conditional regret rate within that subgroup. The 10% estimate is constructed accordingly: roughly the population prevalence of distressed self-perceived addiction among regular users in Western samples.
[2]Archives of Sexual Behavior (Grubbs, Perry, Wilt & Reid) — Pornography Problems Due to Moral Incongruence: An Integrative Model with a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis↗ 1 other entry
Peer-reviewed
Self-perceived pornography problems — the cluster that includes attempted cessation and distress — are predicted more strongly by moral incongruence (religiosity, moral disapproval) than by use frequency
Excerpt
“"[Paraphrase from abstract — full text paywalled] Pornography- related problems—particularly feelings of addiction to pornography—may be, in many cases, better construed as functions of discrepancies—moral incongruence—between pornography-related beliefs and pornography-related behaviors. Religiousness and moral disapproval of pornography use consistently predict self-reported addiction and distress, while use frequency is a much weaker predictor."
”
Source data from
2019-02-01
Accessed
2026-05-30
Calculation
Grubbs, Perry, Wilt & Reid (2019), Archives of Sexual Behavior 48(2), 397-415. PMID 30076491. Peer-reviewed meta-analysis. Used as the theoretical scaffolding for why action-side regret rates are bimodal: among religiously-conservative users, regret- equivalent distress is substantially higher than among non- religious users. The 10% headline figure is a population-weighted average that conceals this heterogeneity. Same source is also cited in the porn-use entry; here the focus is on the masturbation overlap.
Sources: inaction
Claim ledger
Every number below is what each source reported, with the verbatim quote we relied on and how we arrived at our figure. Click any link to verify directly.
1/3 sources independently verified verbatim against the cited source
[1]Archives of Sexual Behavior (Zimmer & Imhoff) — Abstinence from Masturbation and Hypersexuality
Verified
Peer-reviewed
In a Reddit-recruited sample of 1,063 men, motivation for masturbation abstinence was associated with attitudinal correlates — perception of masturbation as unhealthy, distrust in science, higher religiosity, conservative ideology — rather than with behavioural markers of hypersexuality such as maximum number of orgasms
Excerpt
“"Motivation for abstinence was mostly associated with attitudinal correlates, specifically the perception of masturbation as unhealthy. Thinking that masturbation negatively impacts social and physical health, distrust in science, higher religiosity, and conservative ideology were also strongly linked to motivations to abstain from masturbation... no significant correlation with behavioral markers such as maximum number of orgasms was found."
”
Source data from
2020-03-04
Accessed
2026-05-30
Verification
Excerpt independently re-fetched and confirmed word-for-word against the cited source during our grounding audit.
Calculation
Zimmer & Imhoff (2020), Archives of Sexual Behavior 49, 1333-1343. PMID 32130561. DOI 10.1007/s10508-019-01623-8. N=1,063 male participants recruited from a non-thematic Reddit community to avoid sampling bias. Used here as the empirical anchor for why inaction-side regret is elevated: the motivations driving NoFap participation are based on factual beliefs (masturbation is unhealthy, harms physical health) that the medical and sexological consensus does not support. When the empirical premise of the abstinence decision is contested, the long-term retrospective regret rate among participants is plausibly elevated relative to a regret-equivalent population making decisions on accurate beliefs. The 30% estimate is not a direct regret-of-NoFap rate; it is constructed from the combination of attitudinally-driven entry, contested premise, and the iatrogenic-outcome findings of Prause & Binnie 2024.
[2]Sexualities (Prause & Binnie) — Iatrogenic effects of Reboot/NoFap on public health: A preregistered survey study
Peer-reviewed
In a preregistered survey of 587 men involved with Reboot/NoFap, about 29% (28.9%) reported that their most recent perceived 'relapse' caused them to feel suicidal; increased forum engagement correlated with worse psychological outcomes including erectile dysfunction symptoms, depression, anxiety, and greater sex-negativity
Excerpt
“"[Paraphrase from abstract and study coverage — full text paywalled] 587 adult men responded to the survey. Increased forum engagement correlated with worse psychological outcomes, including erectile dysfunction symptoms, depression, anxiety, and greater sex-negativity attitudes. Following perceived relapses, participants reported feeling shameful, worthless, sad, suicidal, and other negative emotions; 28.9% reported that their most recent failure to maintain the Reboot abstinence goal caused them to feel suicidal."
”
Source data from
2023-02-22
Accessed
2026-05-30
Calculation
Prause & Binnie (2024 print; 2023 online), Sexualities, DOI 10.1177/13634607231157070. Preregistered survey of N=587 Reboot/NoFap participants. The inaction-side display number is NOT a regret rate — no survey asks former NoFap participants whether they regret abstaining. It is anchored directly to this study's measured distress prevalence: 28.9% of participants reported that their most recent perceived 'relapse' caused them to feel suicidal (rounded to ~30% in press coverage). That measured ~29% post-relapse suicidality is the load-bearing distress-prevalence figure standing in for the regret-equivalent signal; it is a documented iatrogenic-harm prevalence, not a retrospective regret-of-NoFap rate. The study also found forum engagement correlated with worsened ED, depression, anxiety, and sex-negativity. This is the closest peer-reviewed measured signal of NoFap-participation harm.
[3]American Urological Association — Erectile Dysfunction Guideline
Reference source
AUA Guideline for ED management does not identify masturbation cessation as a treatment for erectile dysfunction; recommended interventions are pharmacologic (PDE5 inhibitors), mechanical (vacuum devices), or surgical
Excerpt
“"[Paraphrase from AUA 2018 ED Guideline — verbatim guideline text not extracted via WebFetch.] The guideline lists oral phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5) inhibitors as first-line therapy, with vacuum erection devices, intracavernosal injections, and penile prosthesis implantation as alternative or subsequent options. Mental-health referral is recommended to address performance anxiety. The guideline does not list masturbation cessation among recommended interventions for erectile dysfunction; masturbatory erections are mentioned only in the diagnostic context (to assess whether ED has psychogenic components)."
”
Source data from
2018-05-07
Accessed
2026-05-30
Calculation
American Urological Association ED Guideline (Burnett et al. 2018, J Urol). Verbatim guideline text was not extracted; the excerpt is a paraphrase of the AUA position based on the guideline overview. The substantive claim used in this entry — that masturbation cessation is not among the AUA's recommended ED interventions — is an absence-of-mention inference from the guideline rather than a quoted statement. The clinical-guideline authority is invoked as the medical-consensus baseline against which NoFap's headline ED-reversal claim fails. Used as the medical-consensus anchor for the inaction-side regret claim: NoFap participants frequently cite ED reversal as a motive (Vanmali, Osadchiy, Shahinyan, Mills & Eleswarapu 2020, Archives of Sexual Behavior DOI 10.1007/s10508-020-01728-5, found PIED-themed discussions among r/NoFap members focused on anxiety and libido), but the clinical evidence does not support the causal claim. When the intervention is not effective for the stated goal, retrospective regret among participants is plausibly elevated. Not a direct regret measurement; establishes the medical-consensus baseline against which NoFap claims fail.
Caveats
PROXY MEASUREMENTS THROUGHOUT. No published survey directly asks general-population adults "do you regret your masturbation frequency?" or asks former NoFap participants "do you regret your abstinence period?" The 10% action-side rate is constructed from Whelan & Brown (2021, N=942) — finding that use alone does not predict dysfunction, only self-perceived addiction does — plus Grubbs et al. (2019) meta-analytic finding that moral incongruence, not frequency, drives the regret-equivalent distress signal. The 30% inaction-side rate is constructed from Zimmer & Imhoff (2020, N=1,063) on the attitudinal rather than behavioural correlates of NoFap motivation, plus Prause & Binnie (2024) on the iatrogenic effects of NoFap participation, plus the AUA Guideline establishing that the most-cited stated benefit (ED reversal) is not supported by clinical evidence. Neither rate is a direct regret measurement.
THE PREMISE OF NoFap IS CONTESTED BY MAINSTREAM SEXOLOGY AND UROLOGY. The International Society for Sexual Medicine, the American Urological Association, and the published sexological consensus do not identify masturbation abstinence as having physiological health benefits. NoFap participants frequently cite ED reversal, increased testosterone, restored libido, and improved sexual function as motivations — none of these are supported by peer-reviewed clinical evidence. The Vanmali, Osadchiy, Shahinyan, Mills and Eleswarapu (2020) natural-language-processing analysis of r/NoFap posts (Archives of Sexual Behavior, DOI 10.1007/ s10508-020-01728-5) found that PIED-themed discussions focused on anxiety and libido, suggesting the participant population is acting on perceived problems rather than measured ones. When the intervention does not produce its stated benefit, retrospective regret rates are likely elevated; this is the structural mechanism driving the 30% inaction-side estimate.
RELIGIOUS PARTICIPATION CONFOUNDS THE READING. A substantial share of long-term NoFap participants are religiously motivated, for whom the abstinence is a value-aligned choice rather than a health intervention. Within this subgroup, retrospective regret rates may be substantially lower because the goal is moral rather than physiological. The 30% headline rate is a population-weighted estimate across health-motivated and religion-motivated participants; it is plausibly too high for the religion-motivated subgroup and approximately correct for the health-motivated subgroup. Zimmer and Imhoff's finding that higher religiosity is a motivation correlate supports this segmentation but does not separately quantify regret rates by motivation.
REDDIT-DERIVED EVIDENCE BASE. The strongest peer-reviewed data on NoFap participation (Zimmer & Imhoff 2020; Vanmali et al. 2020; Prause & Binnie 2024) is all drawn from Reddit-recruited samples or scraped r/NoFap forum content. The community is self-selected, predominantly young, male, and over-represents Western-anglophone populations. The 30% inaction-side rate should not be transposed to the broader population of adults who abstain from masturbation for non-NoFap reasons (religious observance, ascetic practice, low libido, partner agreement).
GILOVICH PATTERN HOLDS HERE. Unlike the porn-use entry where action-side regret exceeds inaction-side regret, the masturbation-vs-NoFap dilemma follows the standard inaction- dominant pattern because the inaction (long-term abstinence) is the deliberate intervention with documented iatrogenic costs, and the action (regular masturbation) is the physiological default with no documented adverse outcomes in the medical literature beyond the moral-incongruence pathway already captured in the Whelan & Brown and Grubbs analyses.
