I was just wondering????

Fozzydog3

I have this new found urge to go freediving and i was just doing some research about barotrauma and pressure effects on capillaries , and as silly as this question seems im gonna fire away



What would happen if you were to dive say 400m whilst "aroused" ,like would it be possible for a haemhorage to happen

by diving 400m i mean with SCUBA gear

locum-motion

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

I have this new found urge to go freediving and i was just doing some research about barotrauma and pressure effects on capillaries , and as silly as this question seems im gonna fire away



What would happen if you were to dive say 400m whilst "aroused" ,like would it be possible for a haemhorage to happen

by diving 400m i mean with SCUBA gear

If you reach 400m on SCUBA, you ain't coming back!

(The world record (set in 2005) is 318.25m, and he was in the water for 12h 20min. According to this [http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=283&fArticleId=2555327], more people have been on the moon than have been below 250m depth)

Fozzydog3

locum-motion wrote: »

If you reach 400m on SCUBA, you ain't coming back!

(The world record (set in 2005) is 318.25m, and he was in the water for 12h 20min. According to this [http://www.themercury.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=283&fArticleId=2555327], more people have been on the moon than have been below 250m depth)

well like 100m , we'll go 100m down while "aroused"

locum-motion

OK, then.
The risks involved in Scuba Diving are more to do with changes in depth (and therefore pressure) than the actual pressure itself. What I mean by that is that simply being at 100m depth (and therefore being subjected to a pressure of about 11 atmospheres) isn't risky. Broadly speaking, your skeleton is solid and therefore incompressible, and most of the rest of you is made up of cells, which are tiny little bags of liquid surrounded by a membrane, and so they too are incompressible.
The risks involved are mostly connected to those parts of your body that are filled with gas, and also gases being dissolved in the liquid bits.

If one was 'aroused' at 100m, there would be a certain amount of blood engorging the corpus cavernosum (part of the penis). That blood would have more gas dissolved in it than it would at the surface. Nevertheless, I don't think that in itself would cause any risk of haemorrhage.
Now, if one were to suddenly start ascending, those dissolved gases might come out of solution, and as you ascend further the bubbles then formed would get bigger. So, therefore it's possible that the corpus cavernosum could burst, but at the same time the same is happening throughout your body and you've got a bad case of the bends, and your exploding mickey is only one of a huge number of problems you're facing!

So, in conclusion, I don't think having an erection underwater is risky in and of itself.
However, if you get sexually aroused by looking at fish and/or shipwrecks, perhaps you have other problems!!

gavkm27

Fozzydog3 wrote: »

I have this new found urge to go freediving and i was just doing some research about barotrauma and pressure effects on capillaries , and as silly as this question seems im gonna fire away



What would happen if you were to dive say 400m whilst "aroused" ,like would it be possible for a haemhorage to happen

by diving 400m i mean with SCUBA gear

Don't worry i have lived to tell the tale,i have been ''aroused'' at 200m in a saturation chamber and dealt with that arousal and it's the same as on surface

locum-motion wrote: »

OK, then.
The risks involved in Scuba Diving are more to do with changes in depth (and therefore pressure) than the actual pressure itself. What I mean by that is that simply being at 100m depth (and therefore being subjected to a pressure of about 11 atmospheres) isn't risky. Broadly speaking, your skeleton is solid and therefore incompressible, and most of the rest of you is made up of cells, which are tiny little bags of liquid surrounded by a membrane, and so they too are incompressible.
The risks involved are mostly connected to those parts of your body that are filled with gas, and also gases being dissolved in the liquid bits.

If one was 'aroused' at 100m, there would be a certain amount of blood engorging the corpus cavernosum (part of the penis). That blood would have more gas dissolved in it than it would at the surface. Nevertheless, I don't think that in itself would cause any risk of haemorrhage.
Now, if one were to suddenly start ascending, those dissolved gases might come out of solution, and as you ascend further the bubbles then formed would get bigger. So, therefore it's possible that the corpus cavernosum could burst, but at the same time the same is happening throughout your body and you've got a bad case of the bends, and your exploding mickey is only one of a huge number of problems you're facing!

So, in conclusion, I don't think having an erection underwater is risky in and of itself.
However, if you get sexually aroused by looking at fish and/or shipwrecks, perhaps you have other problems!!

To simplfy- Pressure is exerted equally through water(physics 101) the body being made up of 90% water,so it can handle the pressure up until a certain point.Bones are denser and therefore absorb and release gases slower,hence bone/joint pain initially at deeper depths.

rahtkennades

Fozzydog are you looking to join the 'mile-deep' club :rolleyes:;):D

As explained by locum-motion, I think I'd be more worried about some of the other parts of my body heamorrhaging than what was happening 'down there'.

Peace

You'd probably end up with a bent knob.....

tedshredsonfire

Fozzy are you interested in freediving or like scuba diving free of clothes etc?

BigDuffman

Anyone joined the "mile deep club"? Can see wet suits being a slight issue and getting a mooch through your reg may be an issue...on the plus side no need for <<snip>>.

Peace

Steady on now lads....

locum-motion

BigDuffman wrote: »

Anyone joined the "mile deep club"? Can see wet suits being a slight issue and getting a mooch through your reg may be an issue...on the plus side no need for <<snip>>.

Awww, I wanted to see what he wrote!