To this day doctor probably doesn't understand why I cracked up laughing at his explanation? I had just been cut off from sex with my wife - we were in fact getting a divorce - and I was returning to Vietnam for a second year. But I was returning to Vietnam a much wiser person.

I had, it turned out, made a serious mistake when I originally determined to remain "faithful to my wife, to include even no masturbation." Oh, being "physically faithful" was not a bad decision, but carrying it to point of not even masturbating had been. Once a man becomes accustomed to regular sex he cannot just stop for an extended period of time. As I have learned over years, long-term results can be devastating.

First, I had years and years of bouts of prostatitis, blockage of prostate accompanied usually with an infection that took medication to get rid of. And in my later years it has led to near-total impotence.

Being separated from one's spouse for an extended period of time is a very good reason to remain celibate; but it is not a reason to become stupid about male health and possible adverse results of both no sex and no masturbation.

Disclaimer: This article in no way should be taken as “medical advice” on any product, condition or course of action, nor does it constitute in any way “medical advice” endorsing any specific product, specific result, nor any possible cure for any condition or problem. This article is meant as a source of information upon which you may base your decision as to whether or not you should begin using any vitamin, mineral and/or herbal supplement for better health, or begin using a “greens” product as a dietary supplement.

If in doubt, or if you have questions, you should consult your physician and, if possible, consult a second physician for a possible different opinion. The author does not bear any responsibility for your decisions nor for outcome of your actions based upon those decisions.

Loring Windblad has studied nutrition and exercise for more than 40 years, is a published author and freelance writer.

First, "Investor A" finds a great real estate deal with a lot of equity. Typically, Investor A will have spent a significant amount of time, money and expertise to find deal, negotiate term and get property under contract. By putting property under contract, Investor A now has control of property, and equity in property.

(For this example, imagine that Investor A has found a property worth $200,000 and has set a purchase price of $115,000 and he also knows that there are $15,000 in repairs, which leaves an equity position of $70,000).

Second, "Investor A" finds another party, "Investor B". Investor B recognizes that contract that Investor A has established is worth $70,000 in equity, and so he strikes a deal with Investor A to turn deal over to Investor B in exchange for some amount of cash (we'll use value of $12,000 in this example).

So Investor A is giving up $70,000 in "potential" profit in exchange for $12,000 in current profit. And Investor A is paying $12,000 because he believes he can make more than that on deal, since there's a full $70,000 of equity.

This deal between Investor A and Investor B is called an "Assignment", because Investor A is assigning contract to Investor B.

Third, Investor B does his "due diligence" to confirm that deal is as good as he thinks it is.

Finally, Investor B closes purchase of property, and Investor "A" receives assignment fee from Investor B.

This is, obviously, a simplification of process. But this is essentially how it works - not so difficult, is it?