|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: eternal damnation for a wank?
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
With respect for Ingo (who IMO has posted masterfully on this subject, and offered his perspective with characteristic assuredness), asking a Catholic for advice on the moral rights and wrongs of masturbation is a bit like asking a child for advice on what makes a good story. They'll say Harry Potter, not Dostoyevski- but you'd expect that wouldn't you? Catholics and sex? It's not really their cup of tea, is it?
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Actually, I think Catholics are fervently pro-sex. They just want it to be reproductive sex within the voluntary bonds of marriage.
Once you're married: The more, the merrier!
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Actually, I think Catholics are fervently pro-sex. They just want it to be reproductive sex within the voluntary bonds of marriage.
Once you're married: The more, the merrier!
Oh, undoubdtedly so! Randy lot! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
But does this make them experts in the field? I rather think not.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bullfrog.
Prophetic Amphibian
# 11014
|
Posted
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?
--------------------
Some say that man is the root of all evil
Others say God's a drunkard for pain
Me, I believe that the Garden of Eden
Was burned to make way for a train. --Josh Ritter, Harrisburg
Posts: 7522 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Father Gregory
Orthodoxy
# 310
|
Posted
I would look for somebody who had a well rounded understanding of human sexuality, the teaching of Scripture and Tradition, the ability to discern between what was of God and what was not.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Fr. Gregory
Find Your Way Around the Plot
TheOrthodoxPlot™
Posts: 15099 | From: Manchester, UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
Is this a realistic expectation father G? I mean, we are only beginning to understand the complex neurobiological basis of human sexuality... And let us not forget that for 2000 years Christianity has been fundamentally anti-sexual...
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
El Greco
Shipmate
# 9313
|
Posted
OK, I want to have all the cards open on the table... Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned... Elder Sophrony (of Essex) sums Tradition up on this issue in his book ascesis and beholding (ascesis kai theoreia). "Experience of centuries showed that the love of God is possible within marriage as well, but only to a mediocre extent". And "Characteristic of the great love for Christ is that it cannot compromise with pleasures of the flesh in general, and with sexual pleasures in particular." etc etc
--------------------
Ξέρω εγώ κάτι που μπορούσε, Καίσαρ, να σας σώσει.
Posts: 11285 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Catholics and sex? It's not really their cup of tea, is it?
The (Dominican friar) Herbert McCabe, whom I have cited on the Purity Ring thread, writes beautifully and thoughtfully about human sexuality. As do many other Roman Catholic authors. And some of the most apparently healthy relationships I am aware of are ones where one, or both, partners are RCs. You don't feel you might be over-generalising slightly, do you?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?
Certainly! If it was expertise on wanking, I would ('though I consider myself something of an amateur exspurt, in all humility).
But if I wanted advice about the modern Catholic position on the Inquisition, I'd go to Ingo, every time.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mirrizin:
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?
Certainly! If it was expertise on wanking, I would ('though I consider myself something of an amateur exspurt, in all humility).
But if I wanted advice about the modern Catholic position on the Inquisition, I'd go to Ingo, every time.
[edit nonsense]
[ 25. June 2007, 19:32: Message edited by: dogwonderer ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Again, masturbation can build up expectations that partner sex cannot possibly meet, and indeed lead to an entirely wrong perspective on "making love".
"I can't get no satisfaction." - because nothing but a sex slave could match the readiness and skill of one's hands?
This seems weird. As if you are assuming that the point of sex is to get to orgasm at your chosen speed (= "satisfaction"). Which is strange coming from a Catholic.
quote:
The essential point about partner sex is that one does not need to fantasize, or perhaps that one fantasizes together (role play etc.).
Also a pretty odd thing to say I think.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
Adultery is immoral, surely, because one simply cannot divide one's intimate attentions between two or more people and still do full justice to either of them. ... If the same elements that make adultery sinful are also present in masturbation, then maybe masturbation is sinful. But my feeling is that, in the majority of instances, they are not.
My feeling is precisely that they are present in principle, although in practice lots of other causes can contribute (i.e., this is a mortal sin which uncommonly often is reduced to venial or nothing concerning culpability).
No, what makes adultery wrong is that it is a breach of faith. A lie. It it was about dividing intimate attentions then polygamy would be wrong for the same reasons, and there is no Scriptural basis for saying that. (It might be wrong for other reasons though). Also the idea that the main point of marriage or sex is "intimate attentions" seems very 19th-century. I doubt if either Moses or Jesus would have looked at it quite that kind of way.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
If I say that I lust after my wife, I think I am using the word properly, and I don't see my lust as a sin.
I disagree. I would in such a case say that you desire your wife, which is not only not sinful but fantastic - may it ever be so. The difference is for me that if I lust after my wife, then I want her for sex, if I desire my wife, then I want sex for her. Lust has sex as end, desire as means.
You still haven't addressed the question of whether the kind of sexuial fantasy that is used in masturbation is, or is always, the same thing as the klind of lust that Jesus condemns as adultery.
quote:
Finally, at the end of this lengthy post I would suggest that part of the problem is that there are two different ideas at work what sex is. One side thinks that every person owns their sex.
Talk of "ownership of sex" sounds like nonsense to me. Its not a thing that can be bought and sold. And you brought it up - no-one opposed to the RC view used such odd phrases here AFAIR. This final paragraph comes over very strongly as "we are right and you benighted Proddies just don't understand".
quote:
But the other side thinks that sex does not properly exist other than in the cooperation of a man and a woman under specific circumstances. Sex is a kind of joint project, it's a special process of interaction with one specific other person.
So what do you say to those for whom there is no "one specific other person"?
And what do you say to those for whom there cannot morally be "one specific other person" in the rukles of your church, such as the Roman Catholic man I mentioned earlier?
quote:
It makes no sense to talk of the "ownership" of sex other than in the context of the partners bringing it about.
It makes no sense to talk of it at all. I'm not sure the phrase means anything and if it does its probably a red herring.
quote:
From this perspective, masturbation clearly misses the point, brings about sexual pleasure but cannot in the essential sense of the word bring about sex.
Hooray! At last!
I think that is certainly true. Which is exactly why I think that this:
quote:
That this is sinful
probably isn't.
quote:
But I think it's important to think about the underlying attitude to what sex really is.
Yes, and thinking about it has led you to a result which shows up the illogicality of your own posuition. Precisely because masturbation is not sex, it is not clear that the rules applying to sex (such as "only in marriage") should apply to it. You still need to show that they do, and you haven't. If anything your arguments tend the opposite way. (of course in a biological sense neither is homosexuality sex, but lets not go there...)
[ 25. June 2007, 19:48: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned...
Gosh!
Can I let you into a little secret Andreas?
No-one here, except for you and just possibly Myrrh, ever imagined that it might have been.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
The (Dominican friar) Herbert McCabe, whom I have cited on the Purity Ring thread, writes beautifully and thoughtfully about human sexuality. As do many other Roman Catholic authors. And some of the most apparently healthy relationships I am aware of are ones where one, or both, partners are RCs. You don't feel you might be over-generalising slightly, do you?
Oh, more than slightly, I'm sure (your understatement is appreciated). But even gross generalisations like 'Catholics are rather conservative when it comes to sex' are sometimes useful indicators of underlying truisms.
Truth is, Ingo himself has admitted to being no Betty Ford sexpert, and I'm sure he realises this masturbation thing is a jolly tricky business. Horses for courses- I think the RCC should stick to religion, and let the rest of us sinners get on with the carnal business of fornication, and so forth. But I know I'm over-generalising again.
[ETA apology for double-post, above- maddeningly caught in edit-flood-control nightmare]
[ 25. June 2007, 20:18: Message edited by: dogwonderer ]
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
I don't even think it's true that, compared to other Christian groups, Catholics are especially conservative when it comes to sex. Catholic theology certainly has a far more positive view of the human body, and inter alia sexuality, than do many other forms of Christian thought.
I think a certain type of conservative Catholic can compete with the most staunch fundamentalist for the trophy of 'most conservative person on sex'. But what I find interesting is that, often as not, such Catholics hail from culturally Protestant countries. I've said before that I think there is an issue with people taking essentially Protestant ideas about approaches to texts, duty, conscience and the relation of human frailty to Christian life, and importing them into Catholic practice.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC says that masturbation is a grave matter. Most RCs, and a good many outside of the RCC, know that. At least a mature RC then usually cannot claim lack of full knowledge.
An incidental point of information: I'm not so sure. I'm a cradle Catholic, catechised by scary nuns, but I only came across the idea of mortal sin when I read Graham Greene. And it was the Ship (surprisingly, the source of most of my patchy knowledge of Christian orthodoxy) which alerted me to Catholic teaching on masturbation and opened that particular possible route to damnation... ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif) (hanging around this place too much may be a bad idea).
quote:
Originally posted by Jahlove:
quote:
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I can just imagine mentioning something like this to my confessor. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif) I know exactly what he'd say: "Why are you bringing this up?"
Or, still more likely: "Well, how nice for you. Can we get back to your confession now?"
Can't imagine mine saying any different
A third of us signing in on this fairly significant point. Catholic teaching isn't applied as a monolithic formula: the fundamentals of the faith and the key struggles for any one believer always move very strongly to the foreground. All I would add is this: I have sometimes confessed to things that I don't really think that grave, because it's easier to do than to really examine my conscience for the ways in which I unambiguously and culpably harm others and go against God's will. I wouldn't be surprised if masturbation is sometimes brought up as such a spiritual displacement activity.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
while sterility is not an impediment to marriage, complete impotence is [followed by quotation from Canon Law]
Have I understood this correctly? If, while cycling into work tomorrow morning, I have an unfortunate accident then I could be barred from marriage? That's quite harsh ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) . Is it ever applied nowadays? I'd say that frowning on masturbation is fairly uncontroversial by comparison -just of more personal interest to a larger number of people. Maybe it's worth another thread sometime. In the meantime, I'll check my brakes ![[Biased]](wink.gif) .
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned...
Gosh!
Can I let you into a little secret Andreas?
No-one here, except for you and just possibly Myrrh, ever imagined that it might have been.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Myrrh
Shipmate
# 11483
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by andreas1984:
Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned...
Gosh!
Can I let you into a little secret Andreas?
No-one here, except for you and just possibly Myrrh, ever imagined that it might have been.
That's just silly. I've had several discussions on the subject with Orthodox, specifically about bishops which brings with it all these kinds of perverse thinking about sexuality. (We managed to win the fight to keep married priests, but when the monastics gained power in later centuries and took over choosing bishops they introduced, or rather went back to the un-Orthodox idea of celibate bishops which we'd fought against.)
I've never heard an Orthodox priest be this blatantly misogynist and, sorry, it does seem to be a Western influence because this is simply not the teaching of the Church which sees both marriage and celibacy as equally valid ways of living, the married state is seen as God's divine organisation and we still remember our women Equal-to-the-Apostles and so on.
In the early centuries when Christ's words were taken out of context and several 'fathers' began promoting the idea of celibacy as a superior spiritual state one of the bishops, Cyril from Alexandria?, said if they, who thought this, felt so strongly about this 'as a higher way of the angels' they should also stop eating and drinking...
Myrrh
--------------------
and thanks for all the fish
Posts: 4467 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Laura:
I'm interested that basically, the argument in favor of masturbation here is mostly not engaging in any way with the argument of the RCC (as put forth by Ingo) but simply issuing pronouncements and personal convictions.
Mea culpa ![[Frown]](frown.gif) I suppose the reason for this, for me at least, is that I find the conclusion so absurd that it's almost impossible to engage with the argument.
It's as if somebody told me that he could make a good case for believing that the Earth was flat. In fact, because I thinking that condemning masturbation is actually psychologically (and maybe clinically) damaging, it's more like expecting me to engage with an argument that it's OK to cross a busy motorway blindfolded.
In any event, I think that the RC case is based on a false premise, and so the argument itself doesn't really matter. That premise is that any sexual activity which does not leave open the possibility of procreation is, by its very nature, sinful.
I can't argue against that premise, simply because it is a premise, not a conclusion. What I can do, as others have done, is to point to the silliness of the conclusions that follow from this premise, and the fancy footwork the RCC has to indulge in to avoid looking completely barmy.
The most obvious example of such fancy footwork, to me, is that it's OK to prevent conception by careful timing of sexual intercourse, but not by using a condom.
Another that it's OK for an infertile heterosexual couple to have sex, even though it can't result in conception, but not for homosexuals to do so, because it's just possible that God will bring about a miracle for the infertile couple.
Apparently silly conclusions don't invalidate a premise, of course; but I hope I have at least explained why I can't engage with the RCC argument against masturbation on its own terms.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Petrified
Ship’s ballast
# 10667
|
Posted
Surely the key is here:-
"2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure"
So if it is done for purely medicinal purposes it must be ok, the purpose not being sexual pleasure (after all women have had sex on that basis for centuries)
--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"
Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
But here is what I don't understand: If you see sex as a sacrament, and your "specific circumstances" are those under which the sacrement takes places, then I still don't really see how it follows that all other forms of sexual activity (and I don't really know what else to all it) are sinful, does it? Or is it sinful to drink wine without any intent to celebrate communion?
I would agree that we are hitting the limits of arguing natural moral law here. While I can argue "objectively" that sex is ordered to procreation, and less "objectively" also that among humans this is intended to happen in a monogamous relationship, the precise moral status of having sex not so ordered is IMHO not arguable. What one needs for that is basically a moral hierarchy assigning importance. This is supposed to be part of the natural moral law, of course. For example, the instinctive reaction to murder is an indication of the natural moral importance we assign to human life.
I think that 1) sex is as important as individual bodily life, because it embodies love, but I also think that 2) nothing else in human life has been hit harder by the fall (human sinfulness) than sex. So I think we should have similarly clear feelings about sex as we have about human life, but in fact we don't. Which leaves natural moral law arguments about sex in a difficult situation. So when all is said and done, I do not think that the full truth about human sexuality is available in this life without recourse to revelation. Thus I can only convince you that my position is not self-contradictory and unreasonable given my premises, but I cannot by the force of argument make you agree with me in this case.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
This seems weird. As if you are assuming that the point of sex is to get to orgasm at your chosen speed (= "satisfaction"). Which is strange coming from a Catholic.
Please read more carefully. My point was that masturbation leads to a sort of precision in obtaining sexual pleasure. And if a habit of masturbation ingrains such precision as expectation for sexual pleasure, then partner sex will most likely disappoint. For normally the partner is not going to do it "perfectly right" as far as stimulating one's genitals is concerned, and indeed this entire way of thinking about sex is wrong from the start.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The essential point about partner sex is that one does not need to fantasize, or perhaps that one fantasizes together (role play etc.).
Also a pretty odd thing to say I think.
Context is key. I was not saying that this is the essential point of sex per se, but rather that it is the essential point in contrast to masturbation. In partner sex I'm not fantasizing about having sex, I am having sex.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It it was about dividing intimate attentions then polygamy would be wrong for the same reasons, and there is no Scriptural basis for saying that.
Are you saying that polygamy is morally licit according to scripture? Are you turning classical Mormon now? And you should know that I consider sola scriptura arguments to be inherently flawed and irrelevant.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You still haven't addressed the question of whether the kind of sexuial fantasy that is used in masturbation is, or is always, the same thing as the klind of lust that Jesus condemns as adultery.
That seems like a rather pointless question, since whether the means are evil or not plays no role if the end is evil anyway. It certainly is possible that one fantasizes in a good way about sex. Whether such a fantasy can be used to drive masturbation? Perhaps, people can keep several contradictory thoughts in their head at the same time. Is this likely? Not in my own experience, but YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Talk of "ownership of sex" sounds like nonsense to me. Its not a thing that can be bought and sold.
That would be news to the oldest profession of the world... Anyway, I was opposing the idea of "owning one's sex". Please read carefully.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
So what do you say to those for whom there is no "one specific other person"? And what do you say to those for whom there cannot morally be "one specific other person" in the rukles of your church, such as the Roman Catholic man I mentioned earlier?
Matthew 10:38-39.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, and thinking about it has led you to a result which shows up the illogicality of your own posuition. Precisely because masturbation is not sex, it is not clear that the rules applying to sex (such as "only in marriage") should apply to it. You still need to show that they do, and you haven't. If anything your arguments tend the opposite way.
Not at all. My genitals (body) and my sexual pleasure (mind) were given to me precisely for having sex in marriage. If I use these means given to me by God for that end in some other way, this is sinful. The question just how sinful such other use is, is more difficult. But that does not change the principle judgment. If I as a marrried man go to a prostitute, assuming I have plenty of money to spend and she is doing that out of her own free will without being exploited by others, what precisely is the problem with that? Neither of us thinks this is about "love", in the sense in which I love my wife. All I do is getting my genitals stimulated for sexual pleasure, and she is getting paid for the service she provides. All fair and square? No, I'm betraying my wife. But how? Am I trying to bond into unity with the prostitute? Hardly. Am I trying to create offspring? Certainly not. So this sexual activity has nothing to do with "proper sex", just like masturbation. The betrayal is rather that God has given me my genitals and my sexual pleasure in order to bond into unity with one woman through sex open to life, and I have promised my wife that she is that very woman. There are of course very good reasons why going to a prostitute has generally worse impact on my married life than masturbation. But my point is that our sex life is supposed to have a "target", and marriage sets that "target". Missing the target is a sin, practically and etymologically...
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Truth is, Ingo himself has admitted to being no Betty Ford sexpert, and I'm sure he realises this masturbation thing is a jolly tricky business. Horses for courses- I think the RCC should stick to religion, and let the rest of us sinners get on with the carnal business of fornication, and so forth. But I know I'm over-generalising again.
Rather, you are completely missing the point of religion, in a characteristically modern way. Religion is not a "hobby", like listening to jazz. It's not optional in that sense. It is supposed to permeate one's entire life, it's a change of the very basis on which one stands in life. Religion that dare not speak about sex is not only castrated, it's cut off at the root (pun sort of intended).
quote:
Originally posted by fisher:
Is it ever applied nowadays?
I would assume so. It's current canon law (CIC'83). Nothing stops you from living in a platonic relationship with a woman, of course.
quote:
Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
What I can do, as others have done, is to point to the silliness of the conclusions that follow from this premise, and the fancy footwork the RCC has to indulge in to avoid looking completely barmy. The most obvious example of such fancy footwork, to me, is that it's OK to prevent conception by careful timing of sexual intercourse, but not by using a condom.Another that it's OK for an infertile heterosexual couple to have sex, even though it can't result in conception, but not for homosexuals to do so, because it's just possible that God will bring about a miracle for the infertile couple. Apparently silly conclusions don't invalidate a premise, of course; but I hope I have at least explained why I can't engage with the RCC argument against masturbation on its own terms.
I have given quite a number of reasons above why one may think masturbation problematic which did not rely on the premise that all sex has to be open to life. So you have no excuse to not engage with those arguments.
As for the supposed silliness and fancy footwork: using to one's advantage what occurs naturally is not the same as changing nature to suit oneself. In the latter case one always assumes moral responsibility for the circumstances of any thereby influenced act, in the former case generally not. That's simple and reasonable enough and is sufficient for the moral argument.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
nothing else in human life has been hit harder by the fall (human sinfulness) than sex.
Why do you think this? It is not clear to me why, say, our economic relations, our capacity for anger etc. aren't at least as affected by the fall. (I don't, of course, deny that sexuality is affected by the fall.)
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
CrookedCucumber
Shipmate
# 10792
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
I have given quite a number of reasons above why one may think masturbation problematic which did not rely on the premise that all sex has to be open to life. So you have no excuse to not engage with those arguments.
No, maybe not. Sorry to sound petulant, but I just don't feel up to it right now
I just can't help thinking that sitting here wasting keystrokes on defending wanking, of all things, is not exactly offering up my life to the glory of God, whether it be moral or not.
quote:
As for the supposed silliness and fancy footwork: using to one's advantage what occurs naturally is not the same as changing nature to suit oneself.
Maybe not. What worries me what I perceive as the somewhat mobile boundary between what constitutes taking advantage of nature, and what constitutes changing nature.
None of the places that the RCC wants to put this boundary strike me as outstanding unreasonable; but many of the alternatives seem no less reasonable. That's the problem.
For example, there's nothing intrinsically unreasonable about claiming that wearing a condom is `changing nature' while timing intercourse on the basis of (yeutch!) vaginal mucous is taking advantage of nature. But, at the same time, there's no reason I can see why this claim is reasonable, beyond the fact that it is convenient and not obviously unreasonable.
Posts: 2718 | From: East Dogpatch | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
Why do you think this? It is not clear to me why, say, our economic relations, our capacity for anger etc. aren't at least as affected by the fall. (I don't, of course, deny that sexuality is affected by the fall.)
We may not be able to stop greed, anger, etc. But we find these easier to judge. I do not think that we are especially sinful concerning sex, but rather, that the faculty of reason is particularly darkened with regards to sex. Of course, we do not simply agree on all judgments concerning other sins. But a consensus concerning basics is more easily found. For example, people will not generally argue that it is just per se to strip the poor of Africa of what little they have to make the rich in the West even richer. They will rather argue about the means of making the African poor less poor. (Some will argue that rather conveniently some stripping is necessary to achieve this, but that's not my point. My point is that they feel the need to justify their actions against this moral instinct.)
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
That's interesting. It might, alternatively, be that (a.) natural law on matters sexual is less restrictive than has been traditionally thought (but, say, social pressures obscured this), or (b.) a lot of Christian sexual ethics falls under revealed, rather than natural, law (and so, one wouldn't expect the general population's consciences to be formed in accordance with it), or (c.) some combination of (a.) and (b.).
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Yes, but if you eat the ticket instead, then you have clearly abused the ticket. So the question really boils down to "What is sex about?" Without a clear answer, you'll not be able to judge whether abuse or just creative "other-use" has occurred in a given situation.
If I eat the ticket, I can no longer show it to the guard.
Masturbation, however, does not prevent procreation within the context of a lifelong monogamous relationship. (Assuming such to be the purpose of sex.)
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Please read more carefully. My point was that masturbation leads to a sort of precision in obtaining sexual pleasure. And if a habit of masturbation ingrains such precision as expectation for sexual pleasure, then partner sex will most likely disappoint. For normally the partner is not going to do it "perfectly right" as far as stimulating one's genitals is concerned, and indeed this entire way of thinking about sex is wrong from the start.
I understood perfectly that that was your point. And is still seems very strange to me that you are arguing as if the point of sex in marriage is sexual pleasure of the orgasm sort. so that masturbation must be banned.
And why are you always talking about men masturbating going off their wives and not applying the same rule to masturbating women not wanting sex with their husbands? That seems perhaps less unlikely to me. It is generally assumed that men are keener on sex (with their wives or anyone else) than women are. It is generally assumed that women find it much more difficult to get sexual pleasure out of penetrative sex then men do, and mostly don't regularly have orgasms during or as a direct result of it. I have no idea if anyone really knows the truth of either of those notions but both seem to be common wisdom.
quote:
Are you saying that polygamy is morally licit according to scripture?
Yes, polygamy is clealy morally licit according to Scripture. It is nowhere condemned and many polygamists are approved of, including Abraham and Moses. That does not mean it is licit for us now of course
I'll stick by Scripture rather than the traditions of your denomination. What you say only seems to make sense if you throw over both Scripture and natural theology for unthinking devotion to teachings of the Roman Catholic church. But its harshness and apparent unnaturallness is making me less likely to want to be a Roman Catholic.
As I said on the other thread, if it really is the tradition of the RC church that masturbation is commiting the sin of adultery with oneself, then may God save us from the Roman Catholics.
quote:
IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You still haven't addressed the question of whether the kind of sexual fantasy that is used in masturbation is, or is always, the same thing as the klnd of lust that Jesus condemns as adultery.
That seems like a rather pointless question, since whether the means are evil or not plays no role if the end is evil anyway.
It is far from pointless because you haven't shown that the end - pleasure - is evil.
I'm afraid that you have not said one word so far that contradicts the very common idea that the RC church is opposed to masturbation because it is opposed to sexual pleasure. And that it is opposed to sexual pleasure because it is controlled by celibate prioests who inevitably have to spend a lot of time and effort controlling their own sexual attractions in ways that don't really apply to the rest of us. It really is a hangover from the anti-sex ant-material-world Gnosticism of the early Middle Ages. Or if it isn't you have shown no reason why not.
If you could show that all sexual fanstasy was the sort of lust that is condemned than that would, I think, establish that Christians should think of masturbation as sinful.
quote:
IngoB: [QUOTE]Originally posted by ken:
[qb]So what do you say to those for whom there is no "one specific other person"? And what do you say to those for whom there cannot morally be "one specific other person" in the rules of your church, such as the Roman Catholic man I mentioned earlier?
Matthew 10:38-39. quote:
"he who does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me."
Are you claiming that refraining from masturbation or from sexual fantasy is part of Jesus's burden for that man? How can you possibly know that? How can you say that someone who masturbates is not "taking up the cross"?
The previous verse, as you know, is "He who loves father or mother above me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter above me is not worthy of me." But you aren't claiming that married people in general should abandon sex with their partners as part of Jesus's burden are you? Or that children should leave their parents or parents desert their children.
I'm sorry, this nonsense makes me angry. And I really do think that growing children and teenagers should be protected from it. Imagine the effect on a teenager who was persuaded that their natural sexual feeligns were sinful in this way, that masturbating was a rejection of Christ, that sexual fantasy was a refusal to "take up the cross". No wonder so many people hate the churches.
[QUOTE][qb]
My genitals (body) and my sexual pleasure (mind) were given to me precisely for having sex in marriage.
Yes, but...
quote:
If I use these means given to me by God for that end in some other way, this is sinful.
Why? That seems utterly illogical and unnatural.
Why should things - any things - have only one purpose?
Why is it sinful to use things for purposes other than their main - or even only - purpose?
Is it sinful to stand on a packing case? To use a spoon to change a bicycle tyre?
This seems such an un-natural idea of what sin is, as well as an un-Biblical one.
quote:
If I as a marrried man go to a prostitute, assuming I have plenty of money to spend and she is doing that out of her own free will without being exploited by others, what precisely is the problem with that? Neither of us thinks this is about "love", in the sense in which I love my wife. All I do is getting my genitals stimulated for sexual pleasure, and she is getting paid for the service she provides.
I can hardly believe you make the comparison. Get real!
How many married men would try to keep the fact that they masturbate secret from their wives? Very few, Effectively none I would guess. How many married men would try to keep the fact that they use prostitutes secret from their wives? Almost all.
How many married men would masturbate in the presence of their wives? At lweast some. Quite a few I suspect (and vice versa of course). How many married men would have sex with a prostitute in the presence of their wives? Probably none. If anyone ever did at all we would think it a great scandal and a perversion.
The two are simply incommensurable.
And the attempt at comparing them is nonsense. Of course you would be betraying your wife in that case. And of course the prostitute really is another human being despite the commercial transaction between you. Surely people don't go to a prostitute just to get their "genitals stimulated for sexual pleasure"? If that was all then they would simply masturbate. Cheaper, safer, easier, quicker. It can't be just for genital stimulation, any more than going to the pub is just for getting alcohol down you - if that was all you wanted you could buy a bottle cheap and drink it quickly. There has to be some element of social interaction in it, even iof it is only some weird pretence. It was you who said masturbation t was a more precise way of getting off. If it, as you seem to believe, is so good it will stop men from goign through the difficult process of having sex with their wives
And I still think its odd that you keep on coming back to genital stimulation as somehow the point of sex, and by implication the point of marriage. That seems very un-catholic to me. And even un-Christian.
[ 26. June 2007, 19:01: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gwai
Shipmate
# 11076
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And why are you always talking about men masturbating going off their wives and not applying the same rule to masturbating women not wanting sex with their husbands? That seems perhaps less unlikely to me. It is generally assumed that men are keener on sex (with their wives or anyone else) than women are. It is generally assumed that women find it much more difficult to get sexual pleasure out of penetrative sex then men do, and mostly don't regularly have orgasms during or as a direct result of it. I have no idea if anyone really knows the truth of either of those notions but both seem to be common wisdom.
Well, common wisdom also says that women do regularly have sex with their husbands. So, if these average women masturbate, it clearly doesn't put them off the mediocre sex they have.
--------------------
A master of men was the Goodly Fere,
A mate of the wind and sea.
If they think they ha’ slain our Goodly Fere
They are fools eternally.
Posts: 11914 | From: Chicago | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
When one gets to my age(80)mutual masturbation is about the nearest thing you can get to sex, its either that or nothing. Is that wrong between husband and wife, I sincerely hope not!!!
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It might, alternatively, be ... (b.) a lot of Christian sexual ethics falls under revealed, rather than natural, law (and so, one wouldn't expect the general population's consciences to be formed in accordance with it)
I made that very point to Papio above, but I do not think that this is an alternative to what I suggested. Rather it is the result, at least effectively if not principally, of the on average strong darkening of our intellect with regards to sex.
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
If I eat the ticket, I can no longer show it to the guard. Masturbation, however, does not prevent procreation within the context of a lifelong monogamous relationship. (Assuming such to be the purpose of sex.)
That's like saying that because you have another ticket in your pocket, eating the first ticket is not abusing it. Which is an "utilitarian" way of viewing things, to which I however do not agree at all concerning morals. That is, in the analogy I would still call eating a ticket abusing its purpose, no matter how many more tickets one may have. The analysis of the function of one ticket merely allows me to determine what is use and what is abuse of a ticket. But it does not follow that maintaining this function otherwise (e.g., with a replacement ticket) makes destroying the proper function of a ticket a less abusive act.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And is still seems very strange to me that you are arguing as if the point of sex in marriage is sexual pleasure of the orgasm sort. so that masturbation must be banned.
I'm not sure what you are reading there, but it certainly is not an argument I wrote.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And why are you always talking about men masturbating going off their wives and not applying the same rule to masturbating women not wanting sex with their husbands?
I have not made a conscious distinction by gender in my arguments about the morality of masturbation. If I tend to write from a male perspective concerning the "psychology" of masturbation, this is merely due to the fact that I'm a man and have masturbated. Generalizing from myself and what I see and hear in public related to male masturbation is enough of a leap.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Yes, polygamy is clealy morally licit according to Scripture. It is nowhere condemned and many polygamists are approved of, including Abraham and Moses. That does not mean it is licit for us now of course. I'll stick by Scripture rather than the traditions of your denomination.
And whatever made polygamy morally illicit for us now, if that is not in scripture and you will stick to scripture rather than to our shared tradition (monogamy is certainly pre-Protestant, indeed pre-Christ in the Jewish tradition)? This makes no sense whatsoever.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
It is far from pointless because you haven't shown that the end - pleasure - is evil.
Pleasure per se is not an evil, but rather a good. That's why we call it pleasure, rather than pain. However, we were talking about fantasizing about sex as means for masturbation, not about masturbation as means for pleasure! My point was that discussing whether fantasizing about sex can be good is sort of pointless if, as I assert, its end masturbation is evil anyhow. As far as masturbation for pleasure is concerned, in that case the end is good, but the means is evil.
And all that guff about celibate priests trying to spread their pain is allowing you to conveniently ignore the question whether mortification of the flesh (Rom 8:13, Coll 3:5, Gal 5:24, 1 Cor 9:27, etc.) could possibly have something to do with not masturbating.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
How can you say that someone who masturbates is not "taking up the cross"?
To say that masturbating itself is picking up a cross is just silly. Not being able to have sex with a woman, OK, that's a cross for most men. And you may wish to argue that masturbation is a licit means to make the load of that cross lighter. But that's lighter, not heavier, irrespective of the morality of this means.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But you aren't claiming that married people in general should abandon sex with their partners as part of Jesus's burden are you? Or that children should leave their parents or parents desert their children.
To the contrary, where this is necessary to follow Christ, I claim just that. It just so happens that it is not usually necessary. (As a personal aside, while I'm no martyr and probably compromise more than I should, my way to Christ was and is seriously risky concerning my closest relationships.)
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Is it sinful to stand on a packing case? To use a spoon to change a bicycle tyre? This seems such an un-natural idea of what sin is, as well as an un-Biblical one.
Your examples seem stupid rather than immoral, but that's precisely because we consider these acts free from any moral context. If the life of a person depended on my arrival, and I chose to change my flat bicycle tire with a spoon in spite of having access to proper tools, would that be immoral? Sure it would be. In this case we had to "add" a moral context. But do actions exist that automatically have a moral context? They sure do, taking a human life is an example. The only question that remains is then whether sex is an act which also automatically has a moral context, or not. I say it has.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Surely people don't go to a prostitute just to get their "genitals stimulated for sexual pleasure"? If that was all then they would simply masturbate. Cheaper, safer, easier, quicker. It can't be just for genital stimulation, any more than going to the pub is just for getting alcohol down you - if that was all you wanted you could buy a bottle cheap and drink it quickly. There has to be some element of social interaction in it, even iof it is only some weird pretence.
Well, yes. In fact people do not go to prostitutes merely for genital stimulation, but rather they seek genital stimulation which pretends in the flesh to be like sex is supposed to be with a partner, without actually having to (or in some cases: being able to) maintain a relationship with that partner. The pay in money and health risk for realizing in the flesh just what watching porn and/or fantasizing typically does in masturbation. Prostitution relates to masturbation a bit like the play relates to the script, but in fact the play is rotten because the script is.
I'm not sure why you find my simple point so hard to understand. Sex is supposed to embody a particular kind of relationship in a particular way. Misusing the faculties we've been given by God for that purposse is sinful. The sins differ according to what one actually does with those faculties, sure, but that does not change the principle reason why this is a sin: that one uses the faculties otherwise.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
And I still think its odd that you keep on coming back to genital stimulation as somehow the point of sex, and by implication the point of marriage. That seems very un-catholic to me. And even un-Christian.
I point out what goes wrong in sexual sin, and you claim that therefore I think that sex is essentially about that which can go wrong. Which is as nonsensical as claiming that a car is essentially about tires, because it can have a flat.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It might, alternatively, be ... (b.) a lot of Christian sexual ethics falls under revealed, rather than natural, law (and so, one wouldn't expect the general population's consciences to be formed in accordance with it)
I made that very point to Papio above, but I do not think that this is an alternative to what I suggested. Rather it is the result, at least effectively if not principally, of the on average strong darkening of our intellect with regards to sex.
It needn't be. It might just be the case that there are some things which would not be inimical to a purely human good, but which cannot be reconciled with being a member of the sacramental community of the Church. I'm thinking here of issues around marriage in particular.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Thus I can only convince you that my position is not self-contradictory and unreasonable given my premises
Don't worry. I didn't think, or intend to suggest, that you were being either unreasonable or stupid but merely advancing an argument that fails to "connect" with me. I am suspicious of natural law arguments concerning sex, masturbation, homosexuality etc because they are usually contrary to what I feel to be right and appropriate, because masturbation and homosexuality do not in the least bit feel immoral or evil to me personally and nor do I, as I am not a Christian, share the same starting blocks as you do.
quote:
but I cannot by the force of argument make you agree with me in this case.
Given, as we have agreed, that we are approaching this with very different and mutually exclusive assumptions, and that neither of our sets of assumption can be proven to a sceptic by logical argument, I think you are right about this.
However, thank you for enlightening me as to what those who believe in Christian revelation and natural law argument have to say concerning masturbation. I have learnt something by that, at least.
So that we can not argue past each other in a fruitless excercise, I agree to disagree.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
It needn't be. It might just be the case that there are some things which would not be inimical to a purely human good, but which cannot be reconciled with being a member of the sacramental community of the Church. I'm thinking here of issues around marriage in particular.
I'm not sure that post-fall one can talk about a "purely human good" which stands apart from the "sacramental community of the Church". Just as I'm not sure that one can talk about a "purely human good" that stands apart from the grace-filled friendship with God pre-fall. But this may be material for a new thread?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Eternal damnation, punishment, oblivion for being human on both sides of the family.
I wouldn't start the debate, young master, from here.
Autoerotic depravity is just one tiny indicator of our total depravity. We're damned by infinite, perfect, holy righteousness. Guilty, condemned for merely breathing. For imperfection.
We're all rebels. Liars. Thieves. Adulterers. Murderers. Why worry about a mere pecadillo, a zit when when you have bone cancer?
And when you appreciate what Jesus has done for you, why wank?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Shadowhund
Shipmate
# 9175
|
Posted
I'm sorry, but OP header sounds like a man selling his wares in a bazaar. "Eternal damnation....for a wank!" "Eternal damnation, anyone?" "Eternal damnation for a wank!"
--------------------
"Had the Dean's daughter worn a bra that afternoon, Norman Shotover might never have found out about the Church of England; still less about how to fly"
A.N. Wilson
Posts: 3788 | From: Your Disquieted Conscience | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
When one gets to my age(80)mutual masturbation is about the nearest thing you can get to sex, its either that or nothing. Is that wrong between husband and wife, I sincerely hope not!!!
If it's mutual, then I wouldn't call it masturbation at all, Barrea. I would just call that making love.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Well, common wisdom also says that women do regularly have sex with their husbands. So, if these average women masturbate, it clearly doesn't put them off the mediocre sex they have.
And you know the average woman has mediocre sex ... how?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
When one gets to my age(80)mutual masturbation is about the nearest thing you can get to sex, its either that or nothing. Is that wrong between husband and wife, I sincerely hope not!!!
If it's mutual, then I wouldn't call it masturbation at all, Barrea. I would just call that making love.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
Yes it sounds better ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... Misusing the faculties we've been given by God for that purposse is sinful. The sins differ according to what one actually does with those faculties, sure, but that does not change the principle reason why this is a sin: that one uses the faculties otherwise.
I'm sure a more philosophically-equipped Shipmate will be along shortly to explain things to me, but I'm still kind of struggling with this idea that faculties (or cutlery) should only be used for their "intended" purpose.
Take skin. What is the purpose of skin? It's our largest organ. It protects us, yet it is soft and flexible. It keeps us in and it keeps stuff out. It helps us sense our environment at the same time as it protects us from the environment. It allows us to interact with our environment at the same time as it separates us from our environment. ETA: There's a lot of contradictory qualities and properties there.
What are feet for? For walking, evidently. Is it sinful to dance or stomp grapes or pop balloons with them? Hands are even more versatile, hence this thread. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
And I think I completely missed the point of the spoon story. I was interpreting it as needing to go somewhere on the bike, having a flat, and having no tire levers. Of course I'd use spoons to change the tire so I could ride off. To me, that's as much a no-brainer as Jesus healing on the Sabbath.
Anyway, as far as the OP goes, surely some wankers will get off the hook because of this (quoted earlier by Manx Taffy)?
quote:
... one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that lessen or even extenuate moral culpability.
OliviaG
PS w/TMI: If I didn't occasionally wank* when supremely stressed, I'd ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif) .
*Can women be said to wank?
[ 28. June 2007, 18:48: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
I'm still kind of struggling with this idea that faculties (or cutlery) should only be used for their "intended" purpose.
I don't get that either.
Besides, if single men don't masturbate, they increase their risk of prostate cancer.
[ 28. June 2007, 19:25: Message edited by: Papio ]
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Clearly the intended purpose of male ejaculation is prostate health. All of this stuff about pleasure and procreation and love-and-relationship is merely a nice by-product.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MouseThief:
Clearly the intended purpose of male ejaculation is prostate health. All of this stuff about pleasure and procreation and love-and-relationship is merely a nice by-product.
What a good way to miss my point.
How does anyone know that the "intended" purpose of ejaculation is pregnancy, and only pregnancy. Seems like horseshit to me if you don't mind my saying so, and even if you do.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
You clearly took my post as sarcasm against your position, rather than against IngoB's, as it was intended. I'm sorry I wasn't clear.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Newman's Own
Shipmate
# 420
|
Posted
Martin, nice to see you - but I honestly think you should read, perhaps, Julian of Norwich, Evelyn Underhill, James Alison... anyone other than whosoever's works gave you such a miserable attitude towards human nature. Nonetheless, I have to agree that people fret much about the peccadilloes and ignore the much more serious matters.
This is general, not directed at Martin: It amazes me that this topic is running to five pages already. I'd love to see the day that we so intensely studied, perhaps, the Eucharist, the Trinity, the parousia...
I doubt there are any female Ship mates aiming for perpetual celibacy, but, if so, a word of warning. Honest, healthy acceptance of one's sexuality is essential. However, wanking is not always a means to the sort of relief which apparently comes to some of the opposite gender. Manual stimulation well may not lead to a release - because, in female terms, it tends to signal "we're just getting started." (Best not to start what one cannot finish - and also to remember that the heights of pleasure celibates can stir up in imagination, where everything is thrills and no one grunts, sweats, and so forth, are self defeating.)
--------------------
Cheers,
Elizabeth
“History as Revelation is seldom very revealing, and histories of holiness are full of holes.” - Dermot Quinn
Posts: 6740 | From: Library or pub | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
Yes it sounds better
Good on you, old boy! Glad to see that the older Shipmates are still keeping their end up
(PS In the interests of furthering my reputation for WTMI, let me just add that you're a lucky fellow too: my wife won't come anywhere near mine without her gardening gloves on - something about wanting to protect herself against "little pricks".)
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Goodfellow
A thoroughly decent chap
# 12121
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
If the statistics are to be believed, 90% of people masturbate regularly.
Who's counting? No-one's ever asked me!
--------------------
Buffer's Yeoman
Posts: 478 | From: The Golden Triangle | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Newman's Own (ay up E). You're right, I do need cheering up! I'm scared to death nearly all the time. But I'm being orthodox, surely? Before the court of heaven, we are all guilty and condemned to death until we appreciate the Judge's self-sacrifice for us. I realise that's a bit PSA Proddy, but I can't not see that. That's the start any way: the realisation of justification. A minimal and sufficient start. The process of sanctification that follows, iterative and cumulative and one step forward and sixteen back as it is, will include the self-justification of all sorts of sin, including the subject ... in-hand. It will include weakness as well as ignorance. Failure. No matter. Acknowledge it and move on in the blood of Christ, under the shadow of the cross. Again. And again. Never give up. Keep taking the failure to the foot of the cross.
I suspect in my tremulous hope, in daring to believe in grace, that even lives that end in failure are redeemable in the resurrection should we still want that.
Where there is darkness there will be light, in our natures, in our beings, I AM with Dame Julian, no matter how hopelessly, terminally tenacious the darkness gets. As long as we don't embrace it and its source.
Martin
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif){kind=icon}
