The M Word

[Free Soviets]

it spills precious bodily fluids, thereby letting the terrorists win.

[Tekania]

it spills precious bodily fluids, thereby letting the terrorists win.

Does it still count as masturbation if you use Osama's skull?

[Unhealthy2]

it spills precious bodily fluids, thereby letting the terrorists win.

Wait, aren't the terrorists even more prudish about sex than us? Oh wait, logic is for commies.

[Threlizdun]

Masturbation is highly addictive and can lead to loss of interest in other activities and possibly losing sleep by staying up late at night to engage in it. I don't view it as wrong at all though, and those problems can certainly be avoided or overcome. Hell, Taoists monks are encouraged to masturbate to avoid temptation. I view it as a completely normal and healthy practice, though like anything, it can become addictive.
EDIT: Oh, and how could I forget Monty Python's explanation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk&feature=related

[The Corparation]

Never saw a problem with it. Don't get why I can't do it in the privacy of my home.

it spills precious bodily fluids, thereby letting the terrorists win.

Does it still count as masturbation if you use Osama's skull?

No, thats necrophilia. I don't recommend it you get some really bad stds from it.

[Unhealthy2]

I guess no one has anything.

[Sunny Marionette]

I have no problem with it, but as a female I don't like to do it. It's just awkward in my opinion. Besides, why be alone when you can make it into a partner activity?

[Cosmopoles]

So long as you aren't addicted to it and don't inisist that other people watch you without their asking to see it.

Probably not a good idea to let it replace sex if you're in a relationship.

[Sunny Marionette]

So long as you aren't addicted to it and don't inisist that other people watch you without their asking to see it.

Probably not a good idea to let it replace sex if you're in a relationship.

I've only met one person that preferred mastrubation to sex, and that was online, so who knows...

Sex is just generally better. Maybe it's the personal connection or something.

[Soheran]

I guess no one has anything.

Try some natural law theorists--Elizabeth Anscombe, John Finnis, Robert George. Don't try NSG for a serious defense of any conservative philosophical position.

I mean, I can give you a very rough outline. The argument goes something like this:

1. Our bodies are not mere instruments, but an essential part of ourselves: hence, we cannot regard them merely as objects to be used for the sake of our mental sensations, because their good is an inseparable part of our good and well-being. (If you smash my car, my property is harmed--but if you break my arm, you have assaulted me.)

2. The bodily good of sex is fulfilled only in penile-vaginal intercourse (within marriage): only this kind of sex grants due respect to the bodily complementarity of men and women, and to the fact that bodily function of sex, procreation, can only be fulfilled together with another person (and specifically one of the opposite sex.)

3. Masturbation, then, is self-objectifying in that it uses the human sexual faculty merely as a means for pleasure, without regard to its innate unitive and procreative nature; as such, it disintegrates the person (by treating a genuine part of ourselves as merely a tool for our pleasure) and amounts to harming oneself.

[Unhealthy2]

Try some natural law theorists--Elizabeth Anscombe, John Finnis, Robert George. Don't try NSG for a serious defense of any conservative philosophical position.

I mean, I can give you a very rough outline. The argument goes something like this:

1. Our bodies are not mere instruments, but an essential part of ourselves: hence, we cannot regard them merely as objects to be used for the sake of our mental sensations, because their good is an inseparable part of our good and well-being. (If you smash my car, my property is harmed--but if you break my arm, you have assaulted me.)

2. The bodily good of sex is fulfilled only in penile-vaginal intercourse (within marriage): only this kind of sex grants due respect to the bodily complementarity of men and women, and to the fact that bodily function of sex, procreation, can only be fulfilled together with another person (and specifically one of the opposite sex.)

3. Masturbation, then, is self-objectifying in that it uses the human sexual faculty merely as a means for pleasure, without regard to its innate unitive and procreative nature; as such, it disintegrates the person (by treating a genuine part of ourselves as merely a tool for our pleasure) and amounts to harming oneself.

I reject 2. entirely. It's trying to prove an assumption with an assumption.

This argument also seems to be saying that using anything in a way different from it's so-called inherent nature (which seems to be something our natural law friends get to conveniently make up on the spot) is wrong. I fail to see why using something in a different way than it's "inherent function," whatever the fuck that means (hint: It doesn't mean ANYTHING.) is bad. I mean, it all hinges on this extremely vague bullshit notion of "innate nature" that the natural law user can change on a whim to mean whatever they want. It's nothing but rhetorical flourish.

[Co Za Asy]

I don't masturbation is wrong. It's completely normal and it's 10 times safer than having sex, even with a condom. What if you needed to get some relief? Would you just ask a random person to have sex?

Every person has a different opinion though... Just stating mine...

[Soheran]

I reject 2. entirely. It's trying to prove an assumption with an assumption.

Me too, but I'm not sure it's as peremptory as you think. The account of the good of sex given by Finnis and George ends up looking a little bizarre, but it's more than just inserting their conclusion at the beginning. (Of course, that may be an accurate psychological account of its origin, but it's not charitable to speculate.)

This argument also seems to be saying that using anything in a way different from it's so-called inherent nature (which seems to be something our natural law friends get to conveniently make up on the spot) is wrong. I fail to see why using something in a different way than it's "inherent function," whatever the fuck that means (hint: It doesn't mean ANYTHING.) is bad. I mean, it all hinges on this extremely vague bullshit notion of "innate nature" that the natural law user can change on a whim to mean whatever they want. It's nothing but rhetorical flourish.

I think this criticism, at least as applied to the "new" natural law theorists like Finnis and George, rests upon a misunderstanding. By "nature" they do not mean "nature" in the sense of the laws of physics; they mean "essence", and they mean it in a normative sense. So: an unjust law fails to appreciate the intrinsic orientation of the law toward the common good--which means nothing more than that the business of legislation, considered normatively, is about securing the common good. Likewise, according to the argument, masturbation (and homosexuality, and other kinds of sexual activity they disapprove of) fails to appreciate the good of marital sex, and that's why it is "unnatural": not because it doesn't happen (empirically) all the time among humans and non-human animals. This is a perfectly coherent (if a bit archaic) usage of the word "natural", and one that can be very useful given an ethical approach that finds the type and character of acts to be an important consideration.

What is necessary to defeat the argument is to contest their normative judgments about bodily goods.They prefer to think that the problem with liberals is their rejection of 1., and that if anyone rejects the instrumentalization of the body they will naturally come to appreciate 2. and 3., but this isn't the case.

[Unhealthy2]

I think this criticism, at least as applied to the "new" natural law theorists like Finnis and George, rests upon a misunderstanding. By "nature" they do not mean "nature" in the sense of the laws of physics; they mean "essence", and they mean it in a normative sense. So: an unjust law fails to appreciate the intrinsic orientation of the law toward the common good--which means nothing more than that the business of legislation, considered normatively, is about securing the common good. Likewise, according to the argument, masturbation (and homosexuality, and other kinds of sexual activity they disapprove of) fails to appreciate the good of marital sex, and that's why it is "unnatural": not because it doesn't happen (empirically) all the time among humans and non-human animals.

What is necessary to defeat the argument is to contest their normative judgments about bodily goods.They prefer to think that the problem with liberals is their rejection of 1., and that if anyone rejects the instrumentalization of the body they will naturally come to appreciate 2. and 3., but this isn't the case.

But where is there argument that marital sex is the only good? Further, why can't someone enjoy both marital sex and masturbation? How does having the one make someone incapable of enjoying the other? The entire thing just strikes me as a list of very bizarre and unfounded axioms used to explain away behaviors that they don't like as being immoral. It strikes me as rationalization, rather than reason.

[Soheran]

But where is there argument that marital sex is the only good?

You should really actually read them: I don't buy this argument, I'm not sure I have all the details right, and I am not going to defend it very far. But it's not that marital sex is the only good in the space of goods, it's that other attempts at sexual goods necessarily fail to appreciate the unitive character of human sexual faculties.

So, there are many ways (factually) to use sex organs, and many of them bring about pleasure, but only a small subset orient the act toward the genuine bodily good of procreative-type sex. The sex organs are not complete unless they are united with the sex organs of a person of the opposite sex; as such, their good cannot be realized except in that context. To use them sexually otherwise is to use them in a kind of counterfeit sex. If there were some bodily function the sex organs (together) could perform by themselves, or with a partner in a different way, matters might be different--but there isn't.

(Of course, you could argue that masturbation is in fact such a function. I think this is reasonable. But I'm also not making this argument, and I'm not sure what the response of the people who do would be--perhaps that pleasure is not a good in itself, so it doesn't count.)

Further, why can't someone enjoy both marital sex and masturbation? How does having the one make someone incapable of enjoying the other?

Lying is contrary to truth even though it does not disable me from truth-telling. Likewise, masturbation (the argument goes) is anti-marital even though it does not disable me from marrying. It's not the consequences of the act, it's the character (hence the nature) of the act.

Leaving aside that point, they might add that our capacity to appreciate the good of marital sex (and marriage generally) is weakened insofar as we accept masturbation as a legitimate activity: it runs the risk of making our attitude toward sex within marriage also essentially masturbatory. (This is similarly their problem with same-sex marriage: it undermines people's capacity to understand what "real" marriage is.)

[EvilDarkMagicians]

Excessive masturbation is insane. Savage Love said even on a really horny day you should max out at 10 TOPS. However as for chafing it depends on the method.

TEN? Jesus Christ, how can anyone masturbate that often?

I guess it can get addictive.
I've probably gone to about seven in one day before.

[Unhealthy2]

You should really actually read them: I don't buy this argument, I'm not sure I have all the details right, and I am not going to defend it very far. But it's not that marital sex is the only good in the space of goods, it's that other attempts at sexual goods necessarily fail to appreciate the unitive character of human sexual faculties.

And the use of language other than Wittgensteinian language fails to appreciate the inherent propositional function of language. Thus, using language in any way other than to communicate tautologies or matters of fact is wrong. This includes literature, poetry, song lyrics, and anything else that doesn't succeed at using language purely for propositional logic.

So, there are many ways (factually) to use sex organs, and many of them bring about pleasure, but only a small subset orient the act toward the genuine bodily good of procreative-type sex. The sex organs are not complete unless they are united with the sex organs of a person of the opposite sex; as such, their good cannot be realized except in that context. To use them sexually otherwise is to use them in a kind of counterfeit sex. If there were some bodily function the sex organs (together) could perform by themselves, or with a partner in a different way, matters might be different--but there isn't.

But this STILL requires the assumption that sex organs have to be used that way. It's just asserting and asserting without much in the way of justification. It also makes the extremely strange and completely ludicrous assumption that all things have exactly one purpose and using them for any other purpose is bad, somehow. I mean, it kinda makes engineering the ultimate sin.

Also, doesn't this make male urination immoral, since the penis is being used for a purpose other than reproduction?

Lying is contrary to truth even though it does not disable me from truth-telling. Likewise, masturbation (the argument goes) is anti-marital even though it does not disable me from marrying. It's not the consequences of the act, it's the character (hence the nature) of the act.

Not every use of something for one purpose instead of another is "against" that other purpose. Is using a capacitor as a filter contrary to using a capacitor to generate uniform electric fields? Does one use inherently degrade the other use?

Leaving aside that point, they might add that our capacity to appreciate the good of marital sex (and marriage generally) is weakened insofar as we accept masturbation as a legitimate activity: it runs the risk of making our attitude toward sex within marriage also essentially masturbatory. (This is similarly their problem with same-sex marriage: it undermines people's capacity to understand what "real" marriage is.)

So it's bad because it leads you to think that marriage isn't the only good place to have sex? That's begging the question.

It's bad because it makes you think of all sex as masturbation?

1. Do they have proof for that?

2. Even if it DID, why would that be bad unless masturbation was bad itself?

Still begging the question.

[Vetalia]

Whenever masturbation's the discussion topic du jour, I think of Mark Twain's speech on the topic.

http://www.textfiles.com/etext/AUTHORS/ ... nanism.txt

[Arkinesia]

Masturbation isn't wrong, however excessive masturbation is wrong, as it can lead to painful chaffing.

Excessive masturbation is insane. Savage Love said even on a really horny day you should max out at 10 TOPS. However as for chafing it depends on the method.

Holy fuck, people bother to do it ten times in a day ever?

Most I've done is four, and that was on a day where I hadn't worked out in about four or five days and my testosterone was through the roof.

Needless to say none of those four times did it hurt.

[Vetalia]

Ten times in one day...shit, I couldn't do that when I was fourteen.

[Grave_n_idle]

I have no problem with it, but as a female I don't like to do it. It's just awkward in my opinion. Besides, why be alone when you can make it into a partner activity?

Many, many reasons leap to mind - not least being that having to find a partner every time you want to orgasm is just insane.

[Lordieth]

If only we could harness all this rapid kinetic energy..not quite an emission free power source though.

[Flameswroth]

Well I can think of a few reasons that it could be seen as 'bad', but not necessarily 'wrong'...

For one, it plays into the instant gratification mentality people have. Cultivating a relationship to intercourse levels takes time and effort, while loading up some hot action on the web and whipping it out is far easier. It's a very self-centered action, and the end result can and sometimes is a complete disinterest in trying to form romantic relationships, which in time erodes your ability to do so, even if you tried. Is that a problem with masturbation or with human nature, however? I guess that's up for debate.

The other problem is one I've experienced myself - your body gets so used to it, you start to 'Jones' for it. I remember visiting my parents for about a week last year. I didn't feel like it was right to do it in their house, in their sheets and whatnot, now that I did not live there. So I held off, and let me tell you...I rolled around at night unable to sleep for HOURS. You get this weird like...I dunno, it's not like a leg being asleep but it spurs the same writhing and attempts to quench the feeling. It's like your underwear gets bunched all up around your junk (even though it's not), and you can't get comfortable. BUT, is that a problem with excessive masturbation or masturbation in general? Again, up for debate.

[Vecherd]

If you masturbate to much your penis might get red and painful.

[Wolny Kraj]

It is harmless if done naturally and only comes with benefits for the person doing it, unless of course they're doing it so much that they hurt themselves. There's no reason to think it's bad. As the bible thumpers can't provide a passage for me that says it's bad, even as a strongly believing Christian, I personally think it's fine.