Is masturbation evil?

http://www.gagirl.com/graphics/graphics22l.gif

0 Replies

In what way did I attack anybody.

Making up silly lines is what some people do when they have nothing to say about the issue.Which is that young people might be reading here and not all their parents are in favour of some of the stuff I've seen.Is reminding people of that the same as attacking the poster.

I don't lack debating skills pal.That's why PS harrumphed me off.She didn't wan't a debate.She wanted to make an exhibition of herself.

I would also like to know what was "subjective" about what I said.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

(cj sneaks away, searching for the Astroglide)

that stuff's the best, isn't it?

it doesn't get all sticky.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

I wouldn't even try to tell you I have never masturbated. Heck, I was born before the years had numbers; I've had plenty of time to live and learn. I speak for men and can only opine about women.

I submit that masturbation is a harmful practice. Think about it: what goes through your mind while beating the chicken? your term paper on the industrial revolution? Hah! Don't tell me; I think I already know. I submit that 99.99% of masturbation fantasies involve adultery or fornication. (Or worse, rape)

So, what's so bad about that? Well, there are few things more pleasurable than orgasm; and here you are rewarding your adulterous thoughts with this powerful climax. Remember what Jesus said about those who even think about adultery? What would he say to those who embellish their thoughts with prestidigitation?

I suggest if you are a habitual masturbator, you should try to find some other outlets for your energy. I'd suggest talking to your priest, but, well, you know. . .

You first need to make the argument that the organism provides reward for the "harmful" fantasy, and is not simply an integrated part of the process itself.

Then you need to make the argument that the fantasy has negative real world implications.

Then you need to make the argument that masturbation exacerbates the real world damage from this fantasy and not (for example) the reverse.

Where are your arguments?

0 Replies

What a very interesting discussion this might turn out to be.

I agree with neologist not only in warning of dangers but showing a part of the route and I think Chumley's questions are worthwhile.I never saw Hannibal Lecter but I had gathered this was the theme.It figured in Mailer's Gilmore book as well.And Germaine Greer mentions it.

I have to go shortly (the pub you know) but it would be helpful if Chumly just words the first question differently.I'm sure it is interesting but I'm not sure what he means.

But there are other routes a fantasy can take than the ones neo suggests and which happen all too often.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

You first need to make the argument that the organism provides reward for the "harmful" fantasy, and is not simply an integrated part of the process itself.

Perhaps this adds clarity:

Where is the argument to show that the orgasmic "reward" reinforces the "harmful" fantasy? It can be argued that the orgasm and fantasy are simply part of the whole process, so the orgasm does not inherently "reward" the fantasy.

Maybe even more clarity:

It can also be argued that the orgasm has the opposite effect in terms of the "harmful" fantasy becoming realty, and in fact lessens the chance for the "harmful" fantasy becoming a harmful realty.

0 Replies

"Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love"

0 Replies

Chumly wrote-

Quote:

Where is the argument to show that the orgasmic "reward" reinforces the "harmful" fantasy? It can be argued that the orgasm and fantasy are simply part of the whole process, so the orgasm does not inherently "reward" the fantasy.

Doesn't Pavlov deal with that?

And-

Quote:

It can also be argued that the orgasm has the opposite effect in terms of the "harmful" fantasy becoming realty, and in fact lessens the chance for the "harmful" fantasy becoming a harmful realty.

Only if there is a fear of the law.

And do the "other routes" I mentioned earlier need deal with that.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Doesn't Pavlov deal with that?

That depends on whether you argue that the fantasy in question is reinforced by the orgasm. You would have to make a case for association. Example: does driving a car make you hungry, or does being away from food make you hungry?

spendius wrote:

Only if there is a fear of the law.

No, because it can be argued that the orgasm moderates the "harmful" fantasy through it's release. Example: you want to beat the crap out of your wife for disagreeing with everything you say, instead you masturbate, go for a run, and have hot bath.

spendius wrote:

And do the "other routes" I mentioned earlier need deal with that.

Clarify kind sire.

0 Replies

To control the masses, the church invented sin. There is no such thing; it was installed to punish those who "sinned".

What a joke. We are here for a short time and might as well seek 'pleasure', another no-no for the faithful.

There are not enough hedonists on this earth. Urban myths about hair on your hands are now laughed at.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote-

Quote:

That depends on whether you argue that the fantasy in question is reinforced by the orgasm. You would have to make a case for association. Example: does driving a car make you hungry, or does being away from food make you hungry?

I understood it was agreed that pleasure sensations stamped in behaviour patterns.Are you suggesting that might depend on socialisation?

I'm not sure about your example but it is a very interesting idea to mull over.Especially if one assumes you have chosen your terms with a certain symbolism in mind.

Your second point involves the above.Why wouldn't the lady's (forget wives here) disagreement be welcomed as potential wisdom from another world.A facet of her charm.

That's enough clarity for one boozer tonight.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

Chumly wrote-

Quote:
That depends on whether you argue that the fantasy in question is reinforced by the orgasm. You would have to make a case for association. Example: does driving a car make you hungry, or does being away from food make you hungry?

I understood it was agreed that pleasure sensations stamped in behaviour patterns.Are you suggesting that might depend on socialisation?

I'm not sure about your example but it is a very interesting idea to mull over.Especially if one assumes you have chosen your terms with a certain symbolism in mind.

Your second point involves the above.Why wouldn't the lady's (forget wives here) disagreement be welcomed as potential wisdom from another world.A facet of her charm.

That's enough clarity for one boozer tonight.

I agree that "pleasure sensations" can get "stamped in behavior patterns". The question I raise is can we be sure that the pleasure derived from the orgasm ensures a Pavlovian style response in terms of the "harmful" fantasy? I don't see why it must be so. Socialization stops it, or other forces? Don't know.

As far as my example, I do not drool when I get in my car, I have to get hungry first from lack of food. I did not mean to chose car terms with a certain symbolism in mind, but it would be fun to think that.

The lady's "disagreement could be welcomed as potential wisdom from another world, and a facet of her charm". It would be a lot healthier to do so. All I am saying is that if your internal response is one of violence, you could masturbate to lessen this violent response.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote-

Quote:

I agree that "pleasure sensations" can get "stamped in behavior patterns". The question I raise is can we be sure that the pleasure derived from the orgasm ensures a Pavlovian style response in terms of the "harmful" fantasy? I don't see why it must be so. Socialization stops it, or other forces? Don't know.

First-I'm not sure anybody can be "sure".But to question it is to question Pavlov and his derivatives.
It is widely accepted that "reward" stamps in behaviour patterns associated with it.The "carrot" side.Love displays,candies,presents,prizes,money,general approval and such things are commonly used to reward what is thought "good" behaviour.

The "stick" is less certain but it also is widely used despite voices raised against it to stamp out bad behavoir.Form of "treatment" are gaining ground for various reasons.

But on the main point I think you may not be taking into account the possibility,some would say near certaintity,that the "fantasy",harmful or not,has a direction.Put a little fancifully one might say that yesterday's limit is tomorrow's start position.The fantasy may get out of control.
But kept indoors that has no social effect unless it has an effect on the fantasiser which is anti-social generally but not criminal.Economically negative moods say.

What holds it in check from actings out in the wider world when it does pass into anti-social behaviour is a shame due to socialisation and also fear of various forms of retribution.And these don't apply to everyone.There are people with little shame or fear of retribution.There are also people who seek to be found out in order to get attention.

I'll leave that one there for now but it does raise other issues of no little importance for anyone seeking an understanding of their society.

Quote:

As far as my example, I do not drool when I get in my car, I have to get hungry first from lack of food. I did not mean to chose car terms with a certain symbolism in mind, but it would be fun to think that.

I was a bit giggly last night but what I was thinking was that if "hunger" was the sex hunger things like cars or clothes or music can,and do if the advertising industry knows what its doing,speed up the drive.That you can get "horny" ahead of where nature would have you by arranging things around you to do that.And paying for them.WOW!That's a big subject eh Chum?It could be great fun.
Would that be intellectual masturbation for real?

Quote:

The lady's "disagreement could be welcomed as potential wisdom from another world, and a facet of her charm". It would be a lot healthier to do so.

To keep this short and sweet suppose one could detect in an artist,a writer say,whether or not he was down that road and detect in other writers that they might be down the other one.If it is a lot healthier,and like you I think it is,then oughtn't one to angle one's reading in the direction of those writers on the road one approves of.Irony can be deceptive here.

Any thoughts?

0 Replies

Pavlov/Skinner etal=ratomorphic psychology.

0 Replies

I think we all agree dys that we don't like it.The thought that we are conditioned automotons.

We are addressing aspects of it all granting behaviourism having some validity rather than simply booing which is very easy to ignore and thus of little or no consequence.

One can be conditioned to boo ya know?

0 Replies

Spendius your points all have merit!

Remember however that my three points were not definitive positions, but hurdles to overcome if trying to show a "harmful" sexual fantasy, as had with masturbation, will manifest itself through overt harmful real world actions.

I think it's safe to say that my three hurdles are not generally overcome. Why? Because we don't have a bunch of wild guys jerking themselves off while they trash the world! Or do we Question

In any event I'll still try and address at least some of your points:

- Do you think you have met all three of my criteria? Because in order for the "harmful" fantasy to have overt harmful real world actions, you would need to meet all three consistently enough to say that masturbation is harmful. That was the (absent) Neologist's premise.

Chumly wrote:

You first need to make the argument that the organism provides reward for the "harmful" fantasy, and is not simply an integrated part of the process itself.

Then you need to make the argument that the fantasy has negative real world implications.

Then you need to make the argument that masturbation exacerbates the real world damage from this fantasy and not (for example) the reverse.

- Given that it is a fantasy, the question still remains: does/will the reward from orgasms reinforce the fantasy, or is fantasy and masturbation simply part and parcel of a single inseparable sexual event?

- I am not sure how well Pavlov/Skinner's experiments relate to a sexual fantasy being reinforced through orgasm. I thought the (oversimplified) general premise of the work was that a physical trigger could manifest itself in a physical response through conditioning? The problem is that fantasies are not physical, per se. I do understand it brings up the issue of free will.

- If we are talking about a fantasy manifesting itself as an overt, harmful, real world action by the reward of an orgasm; I would say that in addition to shame and retribution we have the desire to not do harm (whatever the motivations).

- Again, if we are talking about a fantasy manifesting itself as an overt, harmful, real world action by the reward of an orgasm we also have the argument that masturbation actually *quells* the fantasy from becoming an overt, harmful, real world action. Why? Because if you did not masturbate the "harmful" fantasy would more likely manifest itself as an overt, harmful, real world action. i.e. The sexual frustration from not having the orgasmic release physically manifesting itself in an overt, harmful, real world action. Witness those denied normal sexual release such as priests.

0 Replies

Chum-

I thought I had made a decent effort at answering your points but this is a complex area of human life and it applies to "normal" sex where fantasy is involved.If a fantasy is needed to produce orgasm I don't see any essential difference between masturbation and "normal" sex although the latter does involve demeaning the partner.

I think you ought to consider the dynamic aspect of fantasy.They become more elaborate and more extreme over time.

The thread title involves a value judgement.If a small number of people with little shame or fear of retribution do seek to live out in the world their extreme fantasies then masturbation is bound to be considered evil where the direction of the fantasy is related to the power of the ego having it.
The other direction,of course,being loss of ego which would seem to have no ill effects directly but could have indirectly where the sex partner the fantasy is acted out with gets such a taste for it that they seek it from those who don't volunteer.I would imagine that is rare but might be more common among women such as Roman Empresses.

I think reward from orgasm is a powerful conditioner and will reinforce the fantasy and send it forward.

I don't think the "quelling" process will work on individuals without the fears I've mentioned though it may well do on those with the fears.

Therefore we get condemnations of masturbation in order to hopefully reduce the temptation to bring anti-social fantasies to life in the world at the expense of those whose controls are working satisfactorily.Which seems a shame but likely has to be done.

What did you think about my connecting the subject to reading or viewing choices?And then to knowledge generally.After all,the possibilities of fantasy are limited to the images presented in a culture.

But as you seem to be driving at potential risks from inhibiting orgasms,which are real too,then it comes down to a balance which censorship of media is there to manage and we have to hope it is expert.By which I mean get it right for the general good and thus accept the disasters as a price to be paid which obviously the victims can't be expected to do.

It's a bit of a bind actually.That's why I think choice of image is important but it must be kept in mind that sublimation of ego may not be economically or militarily useful.

As far as priests are concerned the body corrects these things naturally during sleep and again one cannot dream images one hasn't somehow seen or thought previously.

That's enough for you to consider I think.

0 Replies

Your points are well presented!

Some parts I would contend. I'll list some here (it's interesting sometimes to contend).

I do not necessarily agree that *if* a fantasy is needed, it *must* demean the partner. Why?
a) Because if I slept with a girl and she needed to believe that I was a space alien in order for her to be satisfied, I would not feel demeaned, I would quite like it.
b) I'll bet there are lots of guys out there who would not feel demeaned if their partner needed to wear sexy high heels etc. and act out the part of a high class call girl in order to be satisfied.

I am not convinced that a fantasy must (or are even is most often) dynamic, and that fantasies must (or most often) become more elaborate and more extreme over time. Why? Because there are numerous "soft" sexual fantasies that people have, that fade harmlessly in and out over time.

I do not think that condemnation of masturbation reduces the temptation to bring overt harmful real world actions to life. Why? Because I do not see a direct cause and effect between increased masturbation and increased overt harmful real world actions.

As to bringing "anti-social fantasies to life" I would need to know what you mean by "anti-social fantasies" firstly, but at present I would make the same cause and effect posit as discussed.

I do not think, in a healthily mind, that it matters what the subject or viewing choices are.
The healthily mind is able to differentiate / discern. Therefore any and all fantasies are fair game for a healthily mind.

As an aside I don't agree that the possibilities of fantasy are limited to the images presented in a culture. I would argue that the possibilities of fantasy are limited only by the imagination, which may go well beyond images presented in a culture.

I do have concerns about the potential risks from inhibiting sexual self expression through masturbation. Further I don't agree that censorship of media plays a *net* constructive role in reducing the *possible* Pavlovian conditioning orgasm might have in bringing overt harmful real world actions to life. Why? There are many countries/cultures/societies that have extreme censorship of media. There does not appear to be any corresponding decrease in sex crimes.

As to your priest counter-argument, I am not aware of any proof which suggests that wet dreams moderate sexual frustrations, and hence overt harmful real world actions.

- Where is the proof one can moderate an unhealthy mind's fantasies, by reducing masturbation, so that it does not act in an overtly harmful real world manner?

- Where is the proof that a healthy mind needs moderation of sexual fantasies, through reducing masturbation?

0 Replies

Chum-

I'll come back to that later for sure.

In the bath just now I was thinking about this and I remembered from the mists that in Hugh Selby's Last Exit To Brooklyn there's a vignette,if you don't mind such a sweet word being applicable in Mr Selby's case,where a guy pays a prostitute to let him beat her up first.I recall very vaguely that the author discussed the dangers when he could no longer find a prostitute to let him go as far as his fantasy had moved to or the money.

But those are the sort of incidents which the blanket condemnation of masturbation is seeking to reduce and for which the damage from inhibiting it is paid.Thus,I would say,Selby's book has a morality which we would generally approve of.

I'll see you later.Do you know any pubs full of nice ladies all drunk.That's the sort of thing I fantasise about.Being grabbed.Alas my pub is a dead loss apart from New Year's Eve otherwise I wouldn't need to fantasise but that night provides the general tone.

0 Replies

Great talking to you Spend. I agree Selby's book has a morality which we would generally approve of. But man, it would better if he took up boxing!

I wish I did know of pubs full of nice ladies all drunk........

0 Replies

Is masturbation evil?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know