quote:

---

Originally posted by DaisyM:
And you can be certain Benedict and his cardinals never indulge because?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaisyM:
And you can be certain Benedict and his cardinals never indulge because?

---

Well I'm assuming that at least the Pope and his advisers follow the catechism faithfully. Thus saith the Catechism

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."137 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."

My advice is that if the Church doesn't want us engaging in mortal sin that it should set up a good match making service so that we can find our suitable spouses in an efficient manner and so obey Catholic teaching on sexuality in a faithful way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jahlove:

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, 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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AffirmingCatholic:
I just watched a show in which a young man was agonizing over making a confession for masterbation. I know the RCC teaches this is a mortal sin, but honestly, does anyone really believe you'll burn in Hell for all eternity for having a wank?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Any non-procreative sexual act, including oral and anal sex between heterosexual married couples, is immoral because it does not lead to procreation.

---

Where does this idea come from?
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
I was at a house church in the Eighties where there was a 'Word' on this subject, and everyone who had sinned in this way was told to come forward for prayer for forgiveness.

And we did!!

My only comfort was, it did seem to be most of us...

ETA I was taught that Onan's sin was related to not wanting his brother's inheritance to pass on to his own detriment, and that the masturbation slant is a total red herring. But then, the Church has always preferred to focus on sexual sin whilst certain people fill their coffers without being challenged.

[ 22. June 2007, 06:55: Message edited by: Vikki Pollard ]
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Any non-procreative sexual act, including oral and anal sex between heterosexual married couples, is immoral because it does not lead to procreation.

---

Where does this idea come from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vikki Pollard:
I was at a house church in the Eighties where there was a 'Word' on this subject, and everyone who had sinned in this way was told to come forward for prayer for forgiveness.

And we did!!

My only comfort was, it did seem to be most of us...

ETA I was taught that Onan's sin was related to not wanting his brother's inheritance to pass on to his own detriment, and that the masturbation slant is a total red herring. But then, the Church has always preferred to focus on sexual sin whilst certain people fill their coffers without being challenged.

---

Wow! I think our restoration house church was teaching (men!!!) that masturbation was an OK act! There was certainly discussion among our men, particularly the elders, but not the women - the "shepherds" must have been unaware that it happens in all genders.

Onan definitely wasn't masturbating according to the story, just trying to make sure he didn't produce a kid for the woman to inherit what he wanted. And what a mess he decided to make.
And it's passed on over centuries.
 

---

Posted by The Wanderer (# 182) on :
 
When the new Catechism came out (in the early 90s?) I remember a newspaper review that picked up on this. It claimed that masturbation was a more serious sin than violent revolution, according to the book. However, when I went to the Library and tried to check the claim, I couldn't find any evidence to back this up. Could anyone who knows their Catechism better than I do comment on this one way or the other?
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
There goes Mudfrog again: since when is women (Our Blessed Lady included) having sex synonymous with enjoying it?

It is salutary to remember that married clergy were the norm until the 11 th century (monks excepted) and that sexual incontinence was up there with all the other sins of self-indulgence.

Blessed is the woman whose male partner is both competent and considerate...

I have to say all that masturbation stuff went straight over my very well-catechised head. I didn't hear the word till I was 15 or so and when I checked out Cassell's New English Dictionary it gave 2 definitions :(1) the practice of self-abuse and (2) onanism. I asked my 16 year old sister ( oracle in residence) what self abuse was and she looked vague and said "Dunno-whipping yourself, maybe?"

I was fnally enlightened at 18 or 19 by a fellow medical student who was far cleverer and more wordly-wise than myself. He offered the suggestion that it all went back to ancient notions f fertility and he used the analogy of God as Great Phallus fertilising all and sundry and that to reject this (by whatever means) was contrary to the Divine Plan..

Well, it sounded good at the time.

m
 

---

Posted by Edward::Green (# 46) on :
 
In my Evangelical days I tried everything. Including helpful scriptures on the ceiling above my bed. Never worked.

I had one friend who did manage to abstain. At a conference he once woke me in the middle of the night to pray with him for the sin on having had a wet dream.

What is the RC position on this?
 

---

Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 
The RCC position on this should be to issue similarly reasonable laws which prevent equally natural and inevitable human activities, such as breathing and eating.
 

---

Posted by Real Ale Methodist (# 7390) on :
 
I'm not sure about the RC position, but many of the church fathers, saints and others agonised over wet dreams, or "Nocturnal emissions".

St Hugh of Lincoln suffered from them and had an understanding with a servant who would discretely and immediately dispose of the incriminating sheets.

I am pretty sure that Theodore's penitential goes pretty easy on them.

St Augustine generally assumed that they are a sign of our fallen nature, and to try and completely master our lust would be futile. I believe there was an understanding that a limited number of NE was unavoidable, but too many was a sign that you encouraged them.
 

---

Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Any non-procreative sexual act, including oral and anal sex between heterosexual married couples, is immoral because it does not lead to procreation.

---

Where does this idea come from?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Real Ale Methodist:
I'm not sure about the RC position, but many of the church fathers, saints and others agonised over wet dreams, or "Nocturnal emissions".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
in the latter case we aren't to pay any attention at all.

---

The idea being that demons want to make you feel distressed and unworthy and prevent you through the uneasiness they create to approach God with a clear conscience. So, when it's not because of unresolved issues we have, we are blameless and we shouldn't get distracted by it.
 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
there is a neighbour of mine, a man of about my own age, whose wife left him and married someone else and had more children (as mine did me, though he isn't me) who says he has at least once been refused absolution by a priest here in England because he could not honestly say that he would not masturbate again and so was not truly penitent. But if ha had said it he'd have been lying because he knows perfetly well that like everybody else he probably will.

Seems specially harsh in that he (like me) is in a class of people the Roman church explicitly denies any morally good hope of sexual activity or normal family life to - because the only way to encompass such a thing would be to either imagine the death of the former spouse, or the break-up of their new family. I'm sure many divorced persons fantasise about both of those possible events, but I would have thought that dwelling on either of them was a much graver occasion of sin than sexual fantasies or masturbation.

Someone seems to be playing Bach on the radio Or is is Mendelsohn channeling JSB....?

Some days you can see the point of Martin Luther.
 

---

Posted by Cod (# 2643) on :
 
I began attending church at fifteen years of age, by which time I'd been *ahem* for about two or three years. I think I tried a couple of times to abstain but I couldn't manage it.

Despite being a very zealous Christian at that age, I honestly thought that the possibility that masturbation was a serious sin was surely ridiculous. I could have subjected myself to a good deal of angst, and I'm very glad that I didn't.
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Funny, isn't it, that all the agonisers on this thread have been male....

m
 

---

Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
Funny, isn't it, that all the agonisers on this thread have been male...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kentishmaid:

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Any non-procreative sexual act... is immoral because it does not lead to procreation.

---

Where does this idea come from?

---

I think... that it comes from Thomas Aquinas and his theory of Natural Law. (He also believed that it wasn't permissible for a woman to be on top during intercourse as some of the sperm might slip out).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Or, maybe, he did have some experience, but his ladylove had a vagina with an industrial-grade vacuum suction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
... thoseof usin possession of vaginae...

---

Exactly how many vaginae do you actually have then?


 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogwonderer:
The RCC position on this should be to issue similarly reasonable laws which prevent equally natural and inevitable human activities, such as breathing and eating.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kentishmaid:
I think (although I can't remember precisely) that it comes from Thomas Aquinas and his theory of Natural Law. (He also believed that it wasn't permissible for a woman to be on top during intercourse as some of the sperm might slip out).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by multipara:
dw; as many as I need.

---

Wow. The mind boggles! What's your max?
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
dw, this is a grey area. No sensible priest would go there; itis generally a case of either "don't ask, don't tell" or "nothing is impossible with God".

Works well for most.

m
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 
I think the teaching is utterly confused. Note that it talks about 'sexual pleasure' not the 'sexual act'. 'Sexual pleasure' is something, presumably, broader than 'orgasm': mastrubating stopping short of orgasm is, we assume, a wicked thing. But people find sexual pleasure in all sorts of things. Uncontroversially, kissing and holding hands. If we believe Freud at any level, in a lot more than that. Do they mean 'genital acts which issue in sexual pleasure'? Why is that not arbitrary?

I also suspect that 'the moral sense of the faithful' might be a little less uniform on this issue than the excerpt quoted suggests. The so-called 'constant tradition' seems to subsist in the fact that most Christians have said very little about it most of the time. And, in any case, given that most of those weren't privy to modern biology or psychology, there seeems to me to be a real question whether they were asking the same question as we would be when they enquired into the moral status of mastrubation.

All of which might sound very liberal. I don't think it is. I think that we do well not to place ill-thought out loads on peoples' backs, lest they turn away from the Church all together. It would, apparently, be better for us to have a millstone hung around our neck...
 

---

Posted by Cardinal Pole Vault (# 4193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogwonderer:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Or, maybe, he did have some experience, but his ladylove had a vagina with an industrial-grade vacuum suction.

---

Nah- I used to know a girl like that, and even she couldn't keep it in.

---

 

---

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Janine:
Ol' Tommy was a virgin, then, was he? Nice.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I think that we do well not to place ill-thought out loads on peoples' backs

---

 

---

Posted by Cardinal Pole Vault (# 4193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I think the teaching is utterly confused. Note that it talks about 'sexual pleasure' not the 'sexual act'. 'Sexual pleasure' is something, presumably, broader than 'orgasm': mastrubating stopping short of orgasm is, we assume, a wicked thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I thought you'd like these

wank

jerk

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Pardon? Where did St Thomas Aquinas discuss sexual positions like that? That would be rather uncharacteristic, it sounds more like a moral manual two to three hundred years down the track. Could you please provide a reference for this claim?

---

I'm so sorry, I can't honestly remember. It came up when I was studying ethics as part of my Theology course and I no longer have the notes. I may well be entirely mistaken, in which case I apologise.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Until recent decades, the common perspective in RC moral theology would have been that, though married couples could use (for example) oral sex as foreplay, 'integrity' demanded that the act be completed by ejaculation into the vagina. In fact, when Paul VI organised the birth control commission, one of the matters under discussion was whether, since "The Pill" did not involve barriers to depositing the sperm properly, it fit into the same category as barrier methods of contraception.

(Irony tag on - but we've all read IngoB's past contributions on the 'natural family planning topic.)
Today, a married couple who get their orgasms in ways other than intercourse on the days of the month when conception is unlikely are practically candidates for beatification. Fifty years ago, intentionally "not completing the act" would have been seen as a violation of natural law and of 'integrity.'

I suppose my main point is that, if there had been the knowledge of biology (and reproduction) and psychology which there is today, masturbation would have rarely, if ever, been a matter for theological discussion. IngoB makes some interesting points here about fantasies and pornography - I could see those as being potential problems, possibly interfering with sexual intimacy and so forth - but I don't know that sexual fantasies are sinful in themselves either. Masturbation, fantasy, and so forth could be elements of a larger problem (and it would be highly individual, where one who was finding them to be major distractions would need assistance from a qualified director), but not necessarily.

It occurs to me that Christian attitudes towards sexual morality (in any sense) essentially centre on esteem for covenant in marriage. I often regret that details of how sperm is spilt (and Augustine's hankering for the use of reason and will we would have had without 'the fall,' for which one example he gives is having total control over one's erections) had not grown so totally out of proportion.

Recently, I saw the film "Kinsey." What Alfred Kinsey's father (a US Methodist) was subjected to because of a problem with masturbation as a boy (something about wearing an apparatus on his penis) tops anything I could possibly imagine in RC practise!

I think many people would not feel an obligation to mention masturbation in sacramental confession in the first place. I'm wondering if the priest who denied ken's friend absolution weren't backed into a corner (probably legalistic types.) If someone confessed something as a mortal sin, he has to illustrate that he intends to give the sin up... and people who (like this friend) tell others details of their confessions might be the ones who'd make sure the whole parish knew that those who enjoy a wank and are troubled better go to Father John's queue because he'll say it's not a sin... and then the ultra traddies will put out a newsletter saying John is a heretic...
 

---

Posted by New Yorker (# 9898) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I think it would be highly unlikely, in the current state of knowledge about biology and psychology, that anyone would be barred from communion because of masturbation. If I may be Thomistic for a moment, mortal sin (that is, sin which would require sacramental confession before one may receive communion) requires full reflection and consent of the will. (The entire concept of mortal sin is based on where one's will is turned - it does not imply that sins not in this category are not to be avoided.) Masturbation may still be considered an objective wrong, but I doubt too many individual cases would meet the criteria for 'mortal sin' in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Does this rule against masturbation apply to women? If a woman has a clitoris by God's design and it has no other purpose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Does this rule against masturbation apply to women? If a woman has a clitoris by God's design and it has no other purpose.

---

I've heard rumours that the clitoris has other purposes than masturbation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:
But Ingo, surely eternal damnation is not the irrevocable punishment for masterbation. Is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
There is no Roman Catholic teaching that sexual acts must be aimed at procreation. A couple who are aged 85 are free to marry, as are people who are unable to bear children at any age.

---

quote:

---

Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1098.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
If I may be Thomistic for a moment, mortal sin (that is, sin which would require sacramental confession before one may receive communion) requires full reflection and consent of the will. (The entire concept of mortal sin is based on where one's will is turned - it does not imply that sins not in this category are not to be avoided.) Masturbation may still be considered an objective wrong, but I doubt too many individual cases would meet the criteria for 'mortal sin' in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogwonderer:
what is the RC position on people achieving sexual satisfaction through masturbation who are incapable of child-bearing (i.e., post-menopausal, or infertile)? Are such people sinners for masturbating to orgasm? The seed wouldn't be wasted if procreation were impossible anyway.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by New Yorker:
Sorry to be slow, but do I understand you correctly? Are you saying that even if one mastubates it does not necessarily signify that his will is turned from God, so it may not be a mortal sin? What if a young man gives in to masturbation after reflecting on the fact that it is a mortal sin? And, if this is what we are saying here, does the same reasoning apply to adultery or homosexuality?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me put it this way: ... While the analysis of morality is based on the general function, individual malfunction does not change morality. In natural moral law, an act is per se moral, neutral, or immoral, it has an objective moral status itself. Analysis of function is a means to find that moral status, it's not a pre-condition for it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
I would put it to you that masturbation simply is such adultery with oneself as partner,

---

As this is clearly and obviously nonsense, all the other stuff you wrote that supposedly depends on it can convenioently be skipped.

And I hope your church doesn't encourage youi to say all this stuff to teenagers or children.


(It was Mendelsohn. They played some proper Bach soon afterwards. The contrast betweent he sweet reason of Reformed religion and this oppressive teaching has rarely felt stronger.)
 

---

Posted by Cardinal Pole Vault (# 4193) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Myrrh:
Does this rule against masturbation apply to women? If a woman has a clitoris by God's design and it has no other purpose.

---

I've heard rumours that the clitoris has other purposes than masturbation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
The best way to find out would be ask the clitoris directly.

The problem is, has anyone found one?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
The best way to find out would be ask the clitoris directly.

The problem is, has anyone found one?

---

I thought I saw one in the back yard once, but it was just a rock.

---

I wonder- is a clitoris like a 'silver ting thing'?
 

---

Posted by Cardinal Pole Vault (# 4193) on :
 
I meant 'silver ring thing'
 

---

Posted by AffirmingCatholic (# 10586) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Masturbation can be a tranquilizer of sorts, a means to relieve strong physical discomfort, a symptom of depression, a desperate action when hormones are through the roof and there is no outlet.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by AffirmingCatholic:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Masturbation can be a tranquilizer of sorts, a means to relieve strong physical discomfort, a symptom of depression, a desperate action when hormones are through the roof and there is no outlet.

---

And also, for men, frequent ejaculation is an important part of prostate health. Men who ejaculate daily are much less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who don't.

---

Ah, that's my excuse, too!
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardinal Pole Vault:
I meant 'silver ring thing'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:

quote:

---

Originally posted by babybear:

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
Any non-procreative sexual act, including oral and anal sex between heterosexual married couples, is immoral because it does not lead to procreation.

---

Where does this idea come from?

---

Frustrated celibate priests who are jealous of the fun other people might be having.

The doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity also comes from this non-Biblical stable. Can't have her enjoying sex can we?

---

That has to be the oldest of chestnuts
 

---

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by AffirmingCatholic:
[snip] Men who ejaculate daily are much less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who don't.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Komensky:

quote:

---

Originally posted by AffirmingCatholic:
[snip] Men who ejaculate daily are much less likely to develop prostate cancer than those who don't.

---

Fantastic! But how can this be achieved with sin?

---

Of goodness sake! I mean 'without sin'!



 

---

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :
 
I enlarged on my relopy to IngoB in this new Hell thread
 

---

Posted by Scot (# 2095) on :
 
Damn you, Komensky, for noticing that before I could reply!
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
Posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

I would put it to you that masturbation simply is such adultery with oneself as partner

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jimmy B:
Woah, Addy! Jackpot!

I dunno how you can get out of bed in the morning*... one wank and you are confined to Hell three times over, unredeemable by any amount of Mass intentions and individual offerings of suffering.


* cof! From depression.

[ETA: That's adultery against future partners, fornication and sodomy!]

---

I know. Life sucks. Now I learn that frequent ejaculation is an essential element of prostate health, so not masturbating is essentially a long, slow, attempted suicide, which the RCC also defines as a grave sin.

Damned if I do, damned if I don't....
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 
Wow.

This entire thread is a discussion in why to be an atheist/nontheist. Or at least minimally a Protestant based on IngoBs posts alone. But I digress.

This Christian fascination with what people do in their own bedrooms is sick IMO. It is also a big fat bunch steaming pile of bullshit. Any psychologist or preist can tell you (if they were allowed to), if we all could see what happens behind our neighbor's/friend's/etc. closed doors there would be NOTHING sexually deviant.

The way you can tell someone is lying about sex, masturbation, adultery, pornography, etc. is that their lips (or keyboard) are moving. There maybe exceptions to that rule. Those exceptions are probably NOT the ones that are so hung up about it. The Christians with the baggage about sex are probably amongst the kinkiest, dirtiest, screw-anything that walks, wank-every-hour buggers on the planet.

I could be wrong.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Now I learn that frequent ejaculation is an essential element of prostate health, so not masturbating is essentially a long, slow, attempted suicide, which the RCC also defines as a grave sin.

---

Even if that would be well established scientific fact, one still may not do evil (masturbation) to achieve good (longer life), as I'm sure you know.

BTW, it's not exactly impossible to have daily sex with one's spouse. Improbable, I will admit, but not impossible.
 

---

Posted by Littlelady (# 9616) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The Christians with the baggage about sex are probably amongst the kinkiest, dirtiest, screw-anything that walks, wank-every-hour buggers on the planet.

---

You wouldn't be giving us a peek into your fantasy life there would you MG?

Having a Christian background and being nominally Christian right now, I am mystified by the whole masturbation is sin debate. It bewilders me that anyone who follows a guy called Jesus who was concerned with the big stuff and didn't speak a word on sex at all (except to comment to a woman who had had a few partners) should be so hung up on what a person does with their hand in the privacy of their own home. Sheesh!

Now wanking in public ... that's another matter altogether!

But seriously. I reckon masturbation is only a problem when it becomes obsessive: when a person finds that it is preferable on a majority of occasions to having sex with another person. But I'd say that about anything, really: drink, drugs, shopping ...
 

---

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Now I learn that frequent ejaculation is an essential element of prostate health, so not masturbating is essentially a long, slow, attempted suicide, which the RCC also defines as a grave sin.

---

Even if that would be well established scientific fact, one still may not do evil (masturbation) to achieve good (longer life), as I'm sure you know.

BTW, it's not exactly impossible to have daily sex with one's spouse. Improbable, I will admit, but not impossible.

---

Well, impossible if one is gay and trying to obey the teachings of the RCC .
 

---

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Coming back from the Hell thread, I think Mechtilde made a good point that it changes from normal human biochemistry into lust when you choose to cultivate it.

Of course, not cultivating this particular weed is one thing.

Destroying the entire garden by endeavoring to uproot the weed with a backhoe is another...
 

---

Posted by ORGANMEISTER (# 6621) on :
 
Honestly, folks, the RCC's pronouncments on jerking off and all other matters sexual reads like the fine print on the credit card application defining the terms and conditions under which the company will issue you the card!

May I refer my shipmates to the now classic episode of Seinfeld in which Jerry, George, Kramer, and Elaine attempt to forego wanking!
 

---

Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:

Of course, not cultivating this particular weed is one thing.

Destroying the entire garden by endeavoring to uproot the weed with a backhoe is another...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:

If i spend a great deal of time and effort constructing an idealized vision of voluptuous womanhood in my head, one that has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on reality, and dream of doing unspeakable things to it every single night...that's somehow better

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Littlelady:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The Christians with the baggage about sex are probably amongst the kinkiest, dirtiest, screw-anything that walks, wank-every-hour buggers on the planet.

---

You wouldn't be giving us a peek into your fantasy life there would you MG?

---

I'm okay talking about my sex life, no hang ups here. Are you really sure you want to know?


 

---

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
If you accept that eternal damnation for this is possible, then third I would put it to you that masturbation simply is such adultery with oneself as partner, and that you've hence already accepted that masturbation can have eternal damnation as consequence.

---

This reasoning reminds me of the frustration I used to feel when, as a univeristy lecturer, I used to watch medical students carefully and mediculously work through a problem in mathematical physiology. No step in the calculation would be evidently defective, and yet somehow students could end up with a bizarrely improbably answer. Like calculating a quantity that should be 20 milligrams as 20 megatons.

If you can reason your way to a justification of masturbation being a mortal sin, you've done the logical equivalent of misplacing a decimal point.

Because a claim that masturbation is gravely sinful is errant nonsense, such an assertion brings the whole of the RCC's pronouncements on sexual ethics into disrepute, which is a very serious consequence indeed.

Why, for example, should anyone be inclined to believe a claim that (say) abortion is unethical, if it comes from the same people who brought you wamking-as-a-mortal-sin? It makes the church look an ass.
 

---

Posted by Mad Geo (# 2939) on :
 


Very well said.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
This reasoning reminds me of the frustration I used to feel when, as a univeristy lecturer, I used to watch medical students carefully and mediculously work through a problem in mathematical physiology. No step in the calculation would be evidently defective, and yet somehow students could end up with a bizarrely improbably answer. Like calculating a quantity that should be 20 milligrams as 20 megatons.

If you can reason your way to a justification of masturbation being a mortal sin, you've done the logical equivalent of misplacing a decimal point.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
For the moral evaluation of masturbation as gravely sinful cannot be dismissed by simply pointing to some known fact (if it can, state that fact).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is not physically harmful, may even be beneficial, and any emotional damage is purely as a result of violating the contested prohibtion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

However, what would happen if you marked down that 20 megatons answer and some medical student challenged that mark? Let's say that refuting the answer it's not as simple as saying "Well, that would exceeds the total body mass, doesn't it?" For the moral evaluation of masturbation as gravely sinful cannot be dismissed by simply pointing to some known fact (if it can, state that fact). I would assume that you would feel obliged to work through the math of the student to find the error.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
It is not physically harmful, may even be beneficial, and any emotional damage is purely as a result of violating the contested prohibtion.

---

I disagree strongly concerning emotional damage, as mentioned above, but even if that were so - so what? If I have a consensual "one night stand" with some other woman besides my wife - with no physical consequences, my wife never finds out, and I feel OK about it - is that adultery moral simply because it caused nobody obvious harm?

---

You would be aware of betraying your wife, thereby impacting on your relationship with her. Potentionally doing emotional damage to your one night stand - if she fell for you for example.

Point about masturbation is that it really doesn't have that impact on another person. Given that I, as a female, can not jepardize any gametes and I have no partner - what exactly is the problem ?

[ 22. June 2007, 21:29: Message edited by: Doublethink ]
 

---

Posted by Vikki Pollard (# 5548) on :
 
Can I just check out that it's still okay to scratch my back even if I enjoy it?
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 
Doubleposting in reply to IngoB, in reaction to your link, to say that the issue of pornography is a different moral issue and certainly not inevitably involved with masturbation.

Also, most people do not fantasis about child birth whilst making love - this is one reason why children actually get born. Cos a woman fantasing about actual childbirth is not letting any object up that opening. (Way to give yourself vaginismus ...)
 

---

Posted by Pearl B4 Swine (# 11451) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Does anybody know what the Anglican, Adventist, Morom, JW, Brethern, etc take is on this subject is?.

---

Could you just clear up for me, whether you mean Mormons, or morons?

Thanks PB4S
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I'm sure you will have seen this before but it's worth a re-airing ...+

"A Timely Warning"

Of course there are benefits ...

"A wank a day ..."

Why are we even having this thread?
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Does anybody know what the Anglican, Adventist, Morom, JW, Brethern, etc take is on this subject is?.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the coiled spring:
Does anybody know what the Anglican, Adventist, Morom, JW, Brethern, etc take is on this subject is?.

---

Anglican? Sin.In the 1960s, standard confirmation books like 'In His Presence' had sections for self-examination before communion or confession with questions lile, 'Have I been impure - on my own? with others?

I felt it was better to be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.
 

---

Posted by Mechtilde (# 12563) on :
 
I can just imagine mentioning something like this to my confessor. 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?"

Does make me appreciate being Anglican -- this from one who's had a good sniff at Rome. I don't mean that to be a criticism of those who've chosen Rome over Canturbury or anything else. There are some excellent reasons to do so. But for me, at least, the whole area of teachings on sexuality are a big reason to stay put.
 

---

Posted by The Bede's American Successor (# 5042) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mechtilde:
"Why are you bringing this up?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mechtilde:
I can just imagine mentioning something like this to my confessor. 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?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manx Taffy:
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."[137] "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here
sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."[138]
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, 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.

---

quote:

---

quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mechtilde:
"Why are you bringing this up?"

-------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Bede's American Successor:
He must have the gift of celebacy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manx Taffy:

One could say that at least the RCC has the balls to make a statement about a fairly common human activity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

The RC position is that the purpose of sex, and hence of orgasm and for men ejaculation of semen, is the unity of flesh of husband and wife (in principle open to new life)

---

quote:

---

While it is true that according to the RCC not every sexual act must be aimed at procreation (that is, being explicitly intended to result in children), every sexual act must be open to procreation (that is, the sexual act must be such that children could result if both partners were fertile, and the partners must not have made themselves infertile by artificial means). And while sterility is not an impediment to marriage, complete impotence is...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:

I felt it was better to be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manx Taffy:

One could say that at least the RCC has the balls to make a statement about a fairly common human activity.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me put it this way: I can find that the purpose of eating is to maintain the energy levels of my body, and that the pleasure I get from eating good food is ordered towards this purpose (by nature I feel this pleasure so that I eat). If I eat and then vomit it all out, so that I can eat some more - as the Romans did - I'm doing something sinful: I'm now ignoring the original purpose of eating - maintaining my life - and only try to maximize the pleasure.

---

quote:

---

Could you just clear up for me, whether you mean Mormons, or morons?

Thanks PB4S

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
Why are we even having this thread?

---

Because it is not officially resolved by the churches in the same way it is often unofficially handled?

I remember talking with a schoolmate of mine. He said, I want to go to confession. What do you wnat to confess, I asked. Masturbation and looking at porn were mentioned, among others. Do you feel you regret doing those things, I asked. No, he said, they are normal. Then why on earth go to confession, I asked. It was like Homer Simpson, when he found a Roman Catholic priest, he made his confession, mentioning, at one point, "and I masturbated six billion times". lol. As if God has a list of sins which He handles in a legalistic way and we can get absolved again in a legalistic way. lol. Even funnier was the fact that my friend wanted to go to confession to a certain Orthodox priest of African origin that is somewhat known for his strictness. Why on earth go to someone that will tell you off for something you have no regrets about?

I remember talking to an Orthodox priest about the way Orthodoxy and Catholicism handle sexual ethics. Don't get confused, he said. We essentially believe the same things, at an official level. But our lack of central governance allows that every priest says whatever he personally thinks on these issues.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
The desire to be "punished" perhaps adds a certain piquancy to the act? It's not an unknown sexual dynamic.
 

---

Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :
 
Genuine question (as in none-rhetorical):

Do those who believe that masturbation does not in any way constitute sin, imagine that it was an activity Jesus probably engaged in?

[ 23. June 2007, 11:13: Message edited by: Trin ]
 

---

Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Why not...

Have you ever seen a little kid playing with itself?

Might have been a bit awkward while he was wrapt in swathing bands, but, hell, the custom in pre-nappy days was for the younger kids to run about pantless until housetrained.

m
 

---

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trin:
Genuine question (as in none-rhetorical):

Do those who believe that masturbation does not in any way constitute sin, imagine that it was an activity Jesus probably engaged in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DaisyM:
Sounds to me like that young man may be (emphasis on "may") afflicted with scrupulosity. Most unpleasant for the sufferer.

---

Not as unpleasant as a bad case of 'Lover's balls!' the only known cure for which is a quick romp under the covers with the wife/girlfriend/boyfriend (depending on ones 'orientation') or a quick Indian hand jive round the scrotum pole.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
In order to examine whether Jesus masturbated or not (or whether this is something He could have done), we first need to examine why people masturbate. Then, after we have shed light in the reasons why people masturbate, we can see whether they applied to Jesus.

So, what do you think? And what about Jesus' sex drive? Did he have one? And what would this mean in the case of Jesus? How would it get expressed?

It's a pity that no satisfying official church positions exist on how sexuality works and what it means. We end up with DIY-like solutions, and I don't know how satisfying that is. I mean, I want solutions that are the result of the church working as a church, I want consensus reached after robust dialogue. I guess, though, that the ways ordinary people live their lives are indicative of what the majority thinks about this issue, even though no official discussions were held.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
My own private and unofficial view on the issue is that masturbation is a non-issue sin-wise for the vast majority of the people that are not interested in reaching theosis anyway. It can be a both positive (a way to deal with frustration, to explore sexuality, to be a more balanced and healthy individual) and negative (when guilt is involved, often imposed by the inidivudal's environment) experience.

Things, imo change when one seeks the conscious union with God. In this case the causes for frustration itself need to be addressed and resolved (not just frustration) and this takes a lot of inner work (both conscious and subconcious). Also, man's specifications get to play a particular role. If man is created with a deep existential centre that feeds on messages of love, then where those messages come from, and what their quality is, play an important role when man seeks God.

Needless to say that if these things are important for us to come into union with God, they do not apply to Him that is God the Son Himself and is in no need to come in union with God because He is and have always been in union with God in His individuality.

I guess the Orthodox tradition has a lot to say on pleasure (and, as far as I know, a relation is drewn between pleasure and pain), but I don't think I have it all cleared out in my mind.

Instinctively, I would say that Jesus Christ did not masturbate. Anyways, do we know anything about whether masturbation was that often practiced by first century Jewish boys that were brought up in their religious environment? Or do we just arbitrarily assume that the percentages we know from studies in our societies can be applied universally?

Hm, now that I think of it, the sex life of the prophets and just men of the Old and the New Testament will be interesting to take into account. I mean, those that did not regret having done something... what they thought was the God-like way to live thir lives as far as their sexuality was concerned. How many got married? How many remained celibate? How many were married to more than one woman? And so on...
 

---

Posted by Scarlett (# 1738) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Newman's Own:
Masturbation can be a tranquilizer of sorts, a means to relieve strong physical discomfort, a symptom of depression, a desperate action when hormones are through the roof and there is no outlet. Personally, I do not think that masturbation would have been considered 'grave matter' in the first place, had it not been for the incorrect suppositions about biology (such as thinking it 'spilt' souls) and lack of knowledge of human psychology and sexuality in the first place.

---

First to say that I am responding as one who does not consider the act of masturbation to be anything I need to mention to my priest in confession. He's a stern legalist converted from Lutheranism...I'd be too embarrassed and I'd much prefer to just stop participating in the sacraments than face him in this conversation.

Moreover, I think God should be much more concerned with how I'm treating my sister...and the fact that I barely pray.

But I think saying that masturbation can be a tranquilzer of sorts...relief of depression and strong physical discomfort...and using that as any justification is a false reassurance. Shooting IV opiates or drinking alcohol to excess meet all these expectations of anxiety relief, mask depression, what all, but the confession of those would assuredly require some priestly attention.

I cannot view God as one who sits around dropping all our sins into little jars; one labled "grave sins", the other labeled "minor infractions". If I did, I'd just have to give up on the faith because this God would be too unloving.

A good priest in my dream world would counsel and advise on more spiritually appropriate and healthy ways to find anxiety and depression relief. (Such as praying, not that that ever worked for me). In actuality, if you dig into the Orthodox faith, depression itself (sloth) is a sin. Which is why I don't read the church fathers...

OK, I've just gone around a perfect circular argument.

[ 23. June 2007, 14:59: Message edited by: Scarlett ]
 

---

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Anyways, do we know anything about whether masturbation was that often practiced by first century Jewish boys that were brought up in their religious environment? Or do we just arbitrarily assume that the percentages we know from studies in our societies can be applied universally?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
It's a pity that no satisfying official church positions exist on how sexuality works and what it means. We end up with DIY-like solutions... and I don't know how satisfying that is.

---

Ha! "Do It Yourself" solutions !!

Schoolboy snigger.


 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Scarlett-
"Sloth" is not depression. In theological terms, it is willful, serious negligence of responsibilities - whether spiritually (such as a neglect of prayer, virtue, worship) or in, for example, such matters as neglect of one's children's care.

I think I can guarantee you that your priest, especially if he previously was RC (where sacramental confession is still mandatory), is not going to hear anything from you (or anyone else) which will make him sit up and whistle.

As I said earlier, I do not believe masturbation would ever have been considered "grave matter" had there been the level of knowledge of biology and psychology which there is today. What I was setting forth, with the example of depression or anxiety (as illustrations of the last paragraph in the quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church), was impediments to use of reason and will, on the Thomistic model. God's mercy is not in question (even if I thought masturbation was 'grave matter,' which I do not, I would think many sins are far more serious than those involving sex). The sort of argument I was expressing (though I'm no longer RC, I was for about 40 years) had to do with what sins had to be confessed before one could return to communion.

I'm a causuist, as was Alfonso Liguori. (His sound approach was considered very lax during the 19th century - especially by Anglo Catholics who were contemplating hearing confessions and saw Alfonso as admitting too many cases where circumstances could reduce culpability. Obsessions with sexual sins, not to mention establishment of male purity societies, was not a Mediterranean - or usually RC - affliction.) If there is grave matter (and someone believes this is), the lack of reflection and consent could still prevent its being classed as a grave sin (that is, one which must be confessed before receiving communion.)

I did not think the day would come when I agreed with Andreas, but he made a good point about theosis. There are many pleasures, thoughts, actions, and so forth which, though not sinful in themselves, can be distractions to those advanced in the spiritual life. Masturbation could be such a distraction. It also could be indicative of immaturity. I'm not recommending that everyone place a daily wank on the schedule - only saying that I do not consider masturbation to be essentially sinful. Trouble is (here showing my weary side), once anything is established as 'grave matter,' it's rather like having a written constitution for a nation (that this is so in Ireland, where Catholicism was very legalistic for over a century, is purely coincidental) - a bit easier for the constitutional lawyers, but a nuisance because it cannot be changed.

Alfonso Liguori (bishop of the diocese next to that of my family's) would have had quite enough to keep him busy in an area where guilt is hardly epidemic, and a defence for murder is 'the bastard had it coming.' It's unlikely he ever heard many worries about such sexual sins as masturbation.
 

---

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trin:
Genuine question (as in none-rhetorical):

Do those who believe that masturbation does not in any way constitute sin, imagine that it was an activity Jesus probably engaged in?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
For the moral evaluation of masturbation as gravely sinful cannot be dismissed by simply pointing to some known fact (if it can, state that fact). I would assume that you would feel obliged to work through the math of the student to find the error.

---

Well, in practice, what usually happens is that one of the steps in the calculation, while appearing superficially reasonable, turns out on closer examination to be erroneous. Because it's maths and not morals, the student can usually be shown why it's erroneous, and the student and the lecturer don't come to fisticuffs.

The assertion that masturbation is `adultery with oneself' seems reasonable enough at first glance. To me, anyway. It doesn't seem glaringly wrong, anyway.

But when one gets into a detailed examination of what adultery is, what its mens rea amounts to, I think the argument fails. And that's quite apart from the fact that, as an argument, it only applies to that segment of the population which are in a position to commit adultery.

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 it were possible for humans to do this -- as it maybe for monkeys and bears -- then we would have no concept of adultery, or marriage for that matter.

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.
 

---

Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on :
 
Can one masturbate without lustful thoughts?
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Isn't lust much wider than lustful thoughts?

[ 23. June 2007, 20:29: Message edited by: andreas1984 ]
 

---

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :
 
What about mutual masturbation between husband and wife, specialy if normal intercourse is not always possible
 

---

Posted by AffirmingCatholic (# 10586) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can one masturbate without lustful thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Isn't lust much wider than lustful thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The key bottom line in Orthodoxy is ... "What counsel will help this person find salvation?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can one masturbate without lustful thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trin:

Do those who believe that masturbation does not in any way constitute sin, imagine that it was an activity Jesus probably engaged in?

---

What Fr Gregory said. (and, , by the way Fr G).
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Manx Taffy:



Thereore it is only very recently that masturbation has come to be seen as amoral and given its prevalence and the speed at which the RCC revises the catechism it is hardly surprising it still has a small statement tackling the matter.

---

quote:

---

Originally Posted by Affirming Catholic:
Ah, how interesting. I don't know why, but I had this notion that the Orthodox were extremely legalistic.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me put it this way: I can find that the purpose of eating is to maintain the energy levels of my body, and that the pleasure I get from eating good food is ordered towards this purpose (by nature I feel this pleasure so that I eat). If I eat and then vomit it all out, so that I can eat some more - as the Romans did - I'm doing something sinful: I'm now ignoring the original purpose of eating - maintaining my life - and only try to maximize the pleasure.

---

One of the problems with this kind of argument, at any rate when applied to masturbation and the like, is that it assumes that any use of a faculty that is not ordered towards a goal is ipso facto ordered against it.

Which is false, at least when it's us doing the "ordering". If on a long train journey I use my ticket as a bookmark, that doesn't harm its function as a ticket, even though the ticket is ordered towards proving to the guard that I've paid and not to finding my place again when I come back from the toilet.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I don't want to put words in IngoB's mouth Ricardus but I suspect that he might be getting at "self-orientated pleasure for pleasure's sake" ... not multifunction. However, if this is the case should not people cease from reading joke books?
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Dear Ricardus

I find middle-ages teleology pretty simplistic... The Universe is even much more complicated than we can imagine, let alone fitting the pious imagination of the Roman Catholic scholastic theologians...

Dear MouseThief

I'm not an expert on lust, but I would think that thoughts, are only one aspect of lust... It seems to me that it's a much wider experience... Impersonal-blind burning due to unresolved issues sounds more like what I have in mind. Heck, one can even lust after his wife, when he sees her as an object for his own satisfaction...

Dear AffirmingCatholic

Some Orthodox can be legalistic... And that's a sign that you should run away from them... Father G. is pretty spot on here. The Church is composed of individuals, and our individuality is to be respected... It is sacred. our freedom, our particular needs, all that SHOULD be taken into account by any religion. I don't agree with father G. that this is how Orthodoxy is though... I think that this is how Orthodoxy SHOULD be. Note that as far as I know, father Gregory's opinion on wanking is a rare public expression of a positive stance on masturbation from an Orthodox point of view.
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I'm a rare kind of Orthodox guy (for a priest anyway) ... and learning to be bolder.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
Yes you are! As far as boldness is concerned, I think that transparency is vital for us Christians. Let us be open with ourselves and each other. Then we will have made a giant leap towards salvation.
 

---

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I don't want to put words in IngoB's mouth Ricardus but I suspect that he might be getting at "self-orientated pleasure for pleasure's sake" ... not multifunction. However, if this is the case should not people cease from reading joke books?

---

quote:

---

Repeatedly posted by Many People:
Masturbation is not sinful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trin:

quote:

---

Repeatedly posted by Many People:
Masturbation is not sinful.

---

So either

A: You claim that masturbation is readily seperable from lust.
B: You do not view lust as sinful.

Which are you going with?

---

Both.

I don't think that lust is a necessary pre-requisite for masturbation, although I concede that it may sometimes be present.

And I don't think it is necessarily sinful to lust, although lust is a weasel word. 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'm sure that lust can amount to a sin in some circumstances. But for the morality of masturbation to reduce to your stark A/B choice, you'd first have to show that (1) the word `lust' is properly applied to what passes for a person's mental state while doing it, and (2) that lust, so defined, is a sin.

[ 25. June 2007, 10:19: Message edited by: CrookedCucumber ]
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
I think that a wife would have every reason to be disappointed if her husband didn't lust after her in a cherishing reciprocal sort of way, (and vice versa). What CrookedCucumber said, .
 

---

Posted by Saint Bertelin (# 5638) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
I'm sure you will have seen this before but it's worth a re-airing ...+

"A Timely Warning"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Can one masturbate without lustful thoughts?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
By convention, the story of Onan in Genesis is generally taken to condemn masturbation, even though most Bible scholars believe that Onan practiced coitus interruptus rather than masturbation.

---

Perhaps the RCC would like to 'withdraw' its objection, then?

Sorry, I'll get me coat.

More seriously, my wife is heavily pregnant (so we did the 'procreative bit' about 7 months ago) currently and has been given medical advice to abstain from making the beast with two backs with me until - well, quite a while after she gives birth. I also have BPH(sp?)/an enlarged prostate and have been given advice that I should pump the handle fairly frequently to avoid it getting any larger (the prostate, that is, not the handle). With my wife's blessing, nay encouragement, I am therefore frequently despatched to the en suite to, in her words, "sort myself out", she often being in the bedroom at the time.

Two questions: in what way is this "committing adultery" and what would the RCC suggest I do as an alternative to prevent the possibility of my prostate having to be surgically removed at a later date and thus scuppering my chances of having further procreative sex?
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
You have to remember that when the Bible was written, almost everyone got married at about 14.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
The young age people got married back then is a very very important thing to remember... Papio
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
Dear Matt

Nice one! I seem to remember from a RC penitential I read centuries ago that soldiers on duty could wank being as their wives were not around. I could be mistaken but why spoil a good story?
 

---

Posted by CrookedCucumber (# 10792) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
More seriously, my wife is heavily pregnant (so we did the 'procreative bit' about 7 months ago) currently and has been given medical advice to abstain from making the beast with two backs with me until - well, quite a while after she gives birth.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
if lust is defined to mean having any thoughts or sensations that are even remotely sexual or focussed on the body [...]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
The booklet did express the sentiment -- in a very prim, English way -- that regular masturbation was advisable for expectant fathers.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Eliab:
1) Anything that tends to depersonalise/objectify someone.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Secondly, I don't like guessing on what might life have been like 2000 (or 1000) years ago, especially when this has significant consequences in our theology...

---

An interesting sidetrack on the topic of lust is to look at classic aphrodisiacs, such as oysters. The fact that the ancients found high-protein and high-calorie foods aphrodisiac indicates but does not prove that most of the time they were pretty marginally nourished; among the symptoms of that are lethargy and lack of libido.

Equally, the old views of Heaven often mention ample food - "nectar and ambrosia", and the Norse heaven has unlimited boiled pork. That again suggests that nutrition was a serious concern.

As late as the 19th century in Canada, a common proverb was that a sign of spring was your teeth getting loose - scurvy was an inevitable consequence of the winter diet of stored root vegetables and salt meat, just like on sailing ships. And when the "spring tonics" of fresh greens and maple sap (not syrup, the straight from the tree sap) came along, feeling better translated to sexual activity.

But I don't know if the subject has been scientifically studied.

So, my point is that the behaviour of well-nourished modern teenage boys might not be exactly that of their ancestors a thousand years ago.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Point taken
 

---

Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
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. I agree that masturbation is usually spiritually harmless, but conveniently, I'm not an RC so it isn't my problem.

Nonetheless, for Catholics, it seems like one has to do logically better in justifying departure from church doctrine than "everyone wants to do it and most everyone does it, so it must be okay", or resting on anecdotal evidence, or personal need stories, however much fun it is to hear WTMI about Mr. Black's private life. Indeed, the very church that discourages birth control or abortion, even to prevent maternal death is hardly going to give you a pass on "I need to wank because my doctor said it will relieve my swollen prostate." Poor you! What about the woman, now an RC saint, who refused an abortion to save her life, and did indeed die, and was canonized? Just think about your cult, should you die of your prostate engorgement! I'd stop immediately, if I were you.

And it seems especially poor form to beat up IngoB for expressing what is pretty non-controversial Catholic teaching on the purposes of sexual activity, though I must say that he seems to be able to cope with it.

[ 25. June 2007, 14:02: Message edited by: Laura ]
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
WTMI?

I was just trying to point out what I see to be the logical inconsistencies in the RC approach to the issue.

[ETA - although I've now shared with the Ship a bit more than I'm comfortable with . And I've ended a sentence with a preposition and started one with a conjunction, so there ]

[ 25. June 2007, 14:12: Message edited by: Matt Black ]
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
You would be aware of betraying your wife, thereby impacting on your relationship with her. Potentionally doing emotional damage to your one night stand - if she fell for you for example. Point about masturbation is that it really doesn't have that impact on another person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Doubleposting in reply to IngoB, in reaction to your link, to say that the issue of pornography is a different moral issue and certainly not inevitably involved with masturbation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doublethink:
Also, most people do not fantasis about child birth whilst making love - this is one reason why children actually get born.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gracious rebel:
quite often my spouse needs to withdraw and have a wank in order to get to his climax, and of course I try to help him along. The alternative would be frustration for both of us (and yes, that's the way it used to be for us, and I can assure you this is MILES better). Are you really condemning all men who suffer with this problem (and I understand its not that uncommon) to hell for trying to have sex with their wives?!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
Sexual intercourse involving an infertile person cannot have the required purpose of being, in principle, open to the possibility of procreation. If a couple know that one of them is infertile they know that they cannot "aim" their act at creating new life. Therefore they should abstain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marsupial1970:
Is chewing gum a mortal sin?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by marsupial1970:
On the "addiction" point--isn't the Catechism basically redefining a natural human urge as an addiction? Their use of "addiction" strikes me as nonstandard, at any rate.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Father Gregory:
The sexuality of Jesus is not something many Christians feel comfortable addressing. It doesn't bother me at all. "What has not been assumed has not been healed" (St. Gregory Nazianzen, my patron).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by CrookedCucumber:
But when one gets into a detailed examination of what adultery is, what its mens rea amounts to, I think the argument fails. And that's quite apart from the fact that, as an argument, it only applies to that segment of the population which are in a position to commit adultery.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ricardus:
If on a long train journey I use my ticket as a bookmark, that doesn't harm its function as a ticket, even though the ticket is ordered towards proving to the guard that I've paid and not to finding my place again when I come back from the toilet.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Two questions: in what way is this "committing adultery" and what would the RCC suggest I do as an alternative to prevent the possibility of my prostate having to be surgically removed at a later date and thus scuppering my chances of having further procreative sex?

---

(First, congratulations to you two and my best wishes for a good birth and a healthy child.) I assume a consciously "mechanical" release separate from sexual activity could fall under "double effect" if necessary for managing a serious medical condition. I assume your wife is in a special situation? Normally there shouldn't be a problem with gentle sex without weight resting on the belly (e.g., spoon position) at 7 months...

Eliab, a splendid post! I think your approach is not so much at odds with "natural moral law" arguments, as rather their confirmation in terms of personal experience. Such personalization of moral law concerning sexuality was precisely JPII's project, whose "Man and Woman He Created Them: A Theology Of The Body" you may well enjoy.

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. Thus every person can dispose of their sex as they wish: as long as the common good is not diminished, and all trade of such sex "property" with a chosen partner is fair and mutually beneficial, then all is well. In the case of masturbation it is almost inevitably so that nobody but the owner of the sex is concerned, and pleases himself, so what ever could be wrong with that? 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. It makes no sense to talk of the "ownership" of sex other than in the context of the partners bringing it about. From this perspective, masturbation clearly misses the point, brings about sexual pleasure but cannot in the essential sense of the word bring about sex. That this is sinful, is an additional step. But I think it's important to think about the underlying attitude to what sex really is.
 

---

Posted by dogwonderer (# 12169) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I was just trying to point out what I see to be the logical inconsistencies in the RC approach to the issue. [ETA - although I've now shared with the Ship a bit more than I'm comfortable with ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogwonderer:
You should feel no discomfort.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
WTMI?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qoheleth.:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
WTMI?

---

Way Too Much Information ?

---

Yup.
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 
Ah again
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
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.

---

quote:

---

Oh. Would that then include sex between man and woman, which Jesus did not in fact assume?

---

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!

But does this make them experts in the field? I rather think not.
 

---

Posted by mirrizin (# 11014) on :
 
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?
 

---

Posted by Father Gregory (# 310) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
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...
 

---

Posted by andreas1984 (# 9313) on :
 
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
 

---

Posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf (# 2252) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by dogwonderer:
Catholics and sex? It's not really their cup of tea, is it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mirrizin:
Would you really want to consult someone whose area of expertise was wanking? The master masturbator?

---

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?

---

quote:

---

The essential point about partner sex is that one does not need to fantasize, or perhaps that one fantasizes together (role play etc.).

---

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).

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

It makes no sense to talk of the "ownership" of sex other than in the context of the partners bringing it about.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

That this is sinful

---

quote:

---

But I think it's important to think about the underlying attitude to what sex really is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by andreas1984:
Orthodoxy is not blameless as far as anti-sexuality is concerned...

---

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?

---

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... (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. 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

---

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 . 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 .
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 

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.

---

 

---

Posted by Myrrh (# 11483) on :
 

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.

---

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 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.
 

---

Posted by Petrified (# 10667) on :
 
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)
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by fisher:
Is it ever applied nowadays?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
nothing else in human life has been hit harder by the fall (human sinfulness) than sex.

---

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.

---

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.)

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that polygamy is morally licit according to scripture?

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

If I use these means given to me by God for that end in some other way, this is sinful.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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)

---

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.)

---

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.

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
It is far from pointless because you haven't shown that the end - pleasure - is evil.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ken:
How can you say that someone who masturbates is not "taking up the cross"?

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Thus I can only convince you that my position is not self-contradictory and unreasonable given my premises

---

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.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

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.

---

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!!!

---

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MouseThief:

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?

---

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.

---

 

---

Posted by barrea (# 3211) on :
 
Yes it sounds better
 

---

Posted by OliviaG (# 9881) on :
 

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.

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 .

*Can women be said to wank?

[ 28. June 2007, 18:48: Message edited by: OliviaG ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by MouseThief (# 953) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 


Sorry about that.
 

---

Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
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.)
 

---

Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on :
 

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".)
 

---

Posted by Jim Goodfellow (# 12121) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by bc_anglican:
If the statistics are to be believed, 90% of people masturbate regularly.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0