Aspects of Sexuality and opposing World Views (18 and older)

[Leonhard]

Thanks for the post Teal, I have a short amount of time and there's so many small things to argue about and fill out in detail that I won't be able to finish before I'm kicked out by the McD staff.

If the assumption is true, probably none that would satisfy you (at least not at present). If the assumption is false, yes. Energy levels are dependent on the strength of conviction that the practice is harmful.

Minor quibble its not an assumption its a proposition. I don't hold to the sentence 'Masturbation is wrong', I'm proposing that 'There's no good reason that masturbation is wrong', or something to that effect. This doesn't change much of course. However I'm willing to concede the Christian viewpoint in this discussion, since I'm trying to get back into making sense of Christian morality and this is one of the issues close to heart.

Eh, I've seen it constructed similarly, but that's not the best natural law argument I can think of.

This is a funny response. I opened the discussion originally to find out what the good arguments were. I told the story as I was aware of it and wanted feedback, or links (or names of the articles/books or the authors of them) to better defenses. I didn't seriously expect that in the span of a SB discussion and by my own grasping that I had somehow followed the 'natural law' arguments the way the proponents would. So your answer is strange. Its like a person approaching a physicists saying "I don't understand this, the Saturn 5 rocket shouldn't have reached orbit, and here's the equation I used and it doesn't give the right values" and then have the physicists answer "Huh, I've seen better equations".

Well what are those equations?

I don't really see the point to this. Many non-Christians believe the act is unhealthy and there are Christians who do not object to it - seems to me the truth isn't going to lie in how many believe something but how good their argument is.

I wanted a reality-check on how (and what) many Christians believed about this. By reality check I didn't expect the truth of the argument to be decided by popular vote. I wanted to know what the Christians I respect believed, instead of just guessing what they believed. What do you believe Teal? Are you agnostic on the issue, leaning towards it being wrong/right? Ardently convinced that its wrong/right? I'm sure you can respect that someone wants to figure out what his friends think about this, instead of just having what he imagines that his friends think about it. Am I completely alone in these thoughts? Anyone who's had them before? What they find out? Etc... That's what I was getting at, not truth by popular vote.

And if it could be shown to decrease fertility - which it arguably does

By causing certain people to become poor sexual partners or isolating themselves in solitary lives?

If you want to counter natural law you need more than speculation.

But I'm not even sure what I'm 'countering' Teal, that's the point of my original approach to you in the SB. I think you've debated too many hard headed atheists Teal, you're approaching this all wrong. I'm trying to find out how 'you guys' make sense of it, and what your arguments are. Sure I have some objections, but mostly its that I can't make sense of it. Questions I want answered. Where did I mount an argument against the immorality of masturbation?

What is harmed? It can - and has - destroyed relationships. It can - and has - become so addictive that the person chooses the dead end of a 'relationship' with only oneself over healthier, mutual relationships.

And there's plenty of relationships I know of where the partner occasionally masturbates, and without it causing any ills in the relationship. And I know of exactly zero where masturbation was the cause of a break up. Anecdotal counters anecdotal. Its not enough to link me now to a news story about this or that relationship breaking up because one partner focused too much on masturbation. Anomalies aren't normal by definition and its hard to establish anything else by a random news story. You'd have to argue that its a serious problem with relationships.

Is it always so destructive? Maybe not - not all drug users become addicts but that's a pretty weak argument for shooting up heroine and for this.

Masturbation is not as harmful as heroine. Its not even close. If you want to argue that masturbation is so harmful that it should be classed as heroine, or as other extremely addictive drugs I want to know what you want to pull in as evidence. I don't think this much can be shown, I'd be surprised if you could even argue that its as 'dangerous' as weed, or tobacco. The latter being very harmful to the user and to people around them, but which is classed as a sin. I haven't seen any statistics on the leading cause of this or that disease being 'masturbation'. I'm all open for evidence that shows physical harm from masturbation, but at the moment I thought that was pretty much a dead case.

I was looking more to 'spiritual' harm.

Your presumption here is false. It's sufficient that the person believes the act sinful (see Paul) or that the act becomes obsessive - like any other relationship, our relationship with God suffers when we allow ourselves to become obsessed with anything (moderation ain't just for trolls!).

You're right that in Christianity, if someone believes something is a sin, then doing it is a sin. And if other people think its a sin, then it should be refrained from or not talked about. Interestingly Paul argued this about the eating of meat that had been sacrificed to Gods, and didn't he argue that eating this meat wasn't in fact sinful? Perhaps masturbation lies in this area.

Again, false but in the ball park. It doesn't have to interfere with a good action - it's sufficient that it interfere with how well you live your life.

And masturbation does this in what way?

It seems to me you are arguing that something must necessarily be physically harmful in order to be harmful - something I do not believe you ordinarily accept as true. The reasons may not be sufficient to you - which is perfectly valid - but they are to others regardless of how well you understand or accept them.

You're mistaken, how could you have come to this conclusion? If I mentioned a virtue like 'temperance', then I'm not talking about physical harm. I'd also concede arguments that showed that masturbation would cause harm to the way you related to God, since the ultimate goal of a Christian life is that relationship.

I also respect that other people might have arguments and evidence I don't have access to. the purpose of asking you originally, was to check if that was the case, not to mount an assault on a commonly held belief.

[Cerebrum123]

Leon, I personally don't think that there is anything particularly wrong with masturbation. I mean, overdoing it can, and certainly does cause problems(I believe it can lead to sprains, which would be extremely unpleasant), but in and of itself I don't see a problem with it. Now, I know that many people would say that the account of Onan in the Bible would make people say that the activity is sinful, but I don't see the act, but the reason he was doing that act as sinful. Well, Anyway, there's my 2 cents on the matter.

[shunyadragon]

Why would trawling through your posts for sense help?

Well, it would help to respond to my posts with reasonable questions and citations from my posts, instead of throwing air balls, like seer's and this one.

[seer]

Avoided nothing, please read my posts and respond.

Shuny, you said:

The Baha'i Faith has morals laws of monogamy, celibacy before marriage, and does require Baha'is who are homosexuals to be celibate, but defers to science for the knowledge of understanding the nature human behavior.

I'm trying to find out what you mean about the Baha'i Faith defering to science for an understanding of human behavior. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Baha'i Faith no longer considers homosexuality, for instance, wrong? Does it mean that science is in a special position to tell us what is right or wrong? If not, why bring it up in the fist place.

[seer]

Why would trawling through your posts for sense help?

So I'm not the only one!

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you said:

The Baha'i Faith has morals laws of monogamy, celibacy before marriage, and does require Baha'is who are homosexuals to be celibate, but defers to science for the knowledge of understanding the nature human behavior.

I'm trying to find out what you mean about the Baha'i Faith defering to science for an understanding of human behavior. What does that mean? Does it mean that the Baha'i Faith no longer considers homosexuality, for instance, wrong? Does it mean that science is in a special position to tell us what is right or wrong? If not, why bring it up in the fist place.

This is much better than slinging 'air ball' one liners that makes seer cheer and do back flips.

This actually one point out of my previous posts, and does not tell the whole story. God's Law does not represent morals and ethics of humans, nor does it represent right and wrong from the human cultural perspective. As I said before, science is important to understand the foundation nature of human behavior. As i have repeated before science does not determine God's Law nor what is moral and ethical. It helps us to understand the diversity of the nature of what it is to be human.

The problem with seer is he refuses to consider science in the mix of the nature of human history on earth as in natural evolution nor the nature of being human. The dominant view of Christianity is that certain behavior is absolutely right or wrong, or good or evil. This transfers to the view that others who practice homosexuality and masturbation are comiting grave sins against God, and there is no since of acknowledging the natural diversity in the cultures of the world through history, nor is there any tolerance nor compassion for others who believe differently. This absolute black and white view leads to the attempt to promote a theocracy in government where Christian beliefs are imposed on all regardless of belief or culture.

[seer]

This actually one point out of my previous posts, and does not tell the whole story. God's Law does not represent morals and ethics of humans, nor does it represent right and wrong from the human cultural perspective. As I said before, science is important to understand the foundation nature of human behavior. As i have repeated before science does not determine God's Law nor what is moral and ethical. It helps us to understand the diversity of the nature of what it is to be human.

Shuny, we don't need science to know what men do or don't do. So I'm still trying to find out what you mean. Can you give an example of what new information science afforded us about human behavior that we didn't already know?

The problem with seer is he refuses to consider science in the mix of the nature of human history on earth as in natural evolution nor the nature of being human. The dominant view of Christianity is that certain behavior is absolutely right or wrong, or good or evil. This transfers to the view that others who practice homosexuality and masturbation are comiting grave sins against God, and there is no since of acknowledging the natural diversity in the cultures of the world through history, nor is there any tolerance nor compassion for others who believe differently. This absolute black and white view leads to the attempt to promote a theocracy in government where Christian beliefs are imposed on all regardless of belief or culture.

Well first Shuny, my compassion and tolerance comes from the knowledge that we are all sinners - that we are all flawed, and that I have no reason to crow - morally. But second, I still don't see what your point is - both you and I believe that homosexuality is wrong - again, how does science change that or speak to that? I would really like a straingt answer.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, we don't need science to know what men do or don't do. So I'm still trying to find out what you mean. Can you give an example of what new information science afforded us about human behavior that we didn't already know?



Well first Shuny, my compassion and tolerance comes from the knowledge that we are all sinners - that we are all flawed, and that I have no reason to crow - morally. But second, I still don't see what your point is - both you and I believe that homosexuality is wrong - again, how does science change that or speak to that? I would really like a straingt answer.

Your reference to the fact that you believe we are all sinners tells me very little or actually nothing about how you relate to those who believe differently. In the past many have believed this and went around loppng peoples heads off and burning them, because they believed differently.

Straight answer given, not responding to posts. Yes, we need science to understand the diversity and nature of morality in cultures throughout history. No, I do not buy your claim of tolerance and compassion, nor do I buy any claims by the predominant conservative Christians in the world. What I see comes close to ZERO tolerance and 'No Compromise' when dealing with those that believe differently in the world.

Based on your history i do not see much in common concerning the role of science in anything outside engineering and computers.

Considering things right or wrong is very superficial and not consistent in history and between cultures, so actually we do not agree very close on these issues.

[Carrikature]

Ok, Leon, here's my take on the various issues mentioned so far:


Fertility
This looks like a huge red herring to me. I have a hard time believing any serious study has been done regarding masturbation and fertility. From what I understand of the reproductive system, I see no reason why masturbation should be any different than sex when it comes to sperm count and motility. Your general health affects both of these things. Males are continually making sperm, so while masturbation may affect sperm count for a given day (since you've essentially purged a good number of them), it won't affect long term daily count. Until/unless someone can come up with solid evidence either way, dismiss this line of reasoning entirely.

Addiction
For some people, masturbating can become an addiction. Whether or not it is sinful on its own, I think it's safe to say that any addiction is undesirable, at the very least. Of course, some have more addictive personalities naturally, so its hard to make a generalization. My advice to anyone is to know yourself. If this is an addiction, you should seek help.

Lust
This is one of the big ones. I dare say that most males cannot separate the act of masturbation from lust. Rather, they require some sort of visual or mental stimulation, commonly in the form of pornography. I don't really feel a need to expound on lust itself, as that should be pretty obvious why that's a problem from a Christian perspective. I *can* go into more, if you think it's necessary. So, for most Christians, masturbation is synonymous with lust and/or pornography use and should be avoided.

Pleasure
This is a grey area. While similar to lust, it is not as obviously a sin. For many Christians, the fact that something is pleasurable can imply that it's something we ought not be doing. Certainly that's close to how I was raised. Now, it's not really that cut and dried. I don't really think there's anything wrong with doing something that also is pleasurable. Obviously sex would be ruled out if that were the case. However, the 'PC' term for masturbation in many Christian circles is 'self-gratification'. That is to say, people masturbate because they enjoy it and do it solely for the enjoyment. Whether or not this is sinful per se, I don't know. Many Christians believe it is so. A common argument is that it puts ourselves and our desires first, without consideration for anyone/anything else. More importantly, nothing about the act brings glory to God. I think this is the crux of the natural law viewpoint. Sex is pleasurable, yes, but also inherently brings glory to God for whatever reason. Masturbation does not and is therefore a sin.

Sex and Masturbation
Levels of desire for sex vary over time and by the person. Some people want as much as possible as often as possible, while others are content with every few days (or weeks). If a person is one of the former, then masturbation may not have any noticeable impact on sex drive. If they are one of the latter, it could be quite significant. Again, this is a case by case basis. Further, this needs to be considered in context of my next topic.

Masturbation and Marriage
I'm limiting this to marriage because Christians believe that sex should be limited to marriage. While this could extend to any relationship, I think a Christian who is worrying about masturbation and sex outside of marriage has bigger fish to fry. With that said, the opinions of and relationship with a spouse is very important. For many women, male masturbation (especially accompanied with pornography use) can be a huge insult. They will wonder why they aren't good enough for you, for example. Another common reaction is "you're not the man I thought you were." I don't claim to completely understand this last one, but I'm obviously not a woman. Others may not have a problem with it, assuming it doesn't interfere with the sexual relationship within the marriage. Both of these can have a significant impact on the marriage, though. This is a topic that ideally should be discussed with a spouse and the spouse's desires taken into account.

Quality of Life
Frankly, I think this is another red herring. Now, for an individual person, they may notice/decide that (frequent) masturbation has a noticeable impact on their lives. It may or may not have an impact on energy level, though I doubt there really is one unless you are doing it frequently (multiple times a day) or have other health issues. I would suggest, however, that someone who has the time/inclination to masturbate multiple times in a day probably has too much time on their hands and should find something else enjoyable/productive to do. If someone is to the point of wanting/needing to masturbate while at work, I would recommend they consider the addiction section of my post.

Conclusion
I think ultimately each of these points differs for every person. Every Christian must decide for themselves which of these points, if any, is a consideration for them. For many Christians, the Pleasure category is sufficient to push them away. I don't think anyone should be condemned for feeling this way. Even if they're wrong, they should be lauded for recognizing their limitations and doing their best to live a godly lifestyle.

Personally, I find masturbation too closely tied with lust. It certainly affects my sex drive, and it definitely bothers my wife if she stops to think about it. This may be more an issue with pornography than with masturbation, I haven't actually asked, but for me the two are pretty much inextricably linked so the difference is moot. I also find that while my quality of life isn't actually affected, my desire to masturbate tends to be an indicator of my quality of life. That is to say, generally when I get the desire it's because I have too much time on my hands and/or have nothing interesting to do. It's definitely not impacted my fertility, the anecdotal evidence being that our first attempt at pregnancy was a success.


Hope this helps.

[Teallaura]

I'll get back to you, Leo. You misunderstood a couple (not necessarily big) points and I'm too tired to do a good job right now. It may be a few days before I have time to really read it over and do a decent job responding but from the sounds of things, you may not notice.

Best wishes with the computer!

[shunyadragon]

I thought more about the problems of science and human sexuality in relation to ancient world views like Christianity and Islam. These religions basically do not totally reference the Old Testament for their opposition to homosexuality, and in some views masturbation, but consider the foundation of their beliefs in Natural Law during the time frame that their orthodox beliefs developed. They then believe that the Old Testament Laws confirm this view. Science has moved past these ancient concepts of Natural Law in these and many issues concerning the nature of our existence including evolution and its role in the development of human behavior.

[seer]

I thought more about the problems of science and human sexuality in relation to ancient world views like Christianity and Islam. These religions basically do not totally reference the Old Testament for their opposition to homosexuality, and in some views masturbation, but consider the foundation of their beliefs in Natural Law during the time frame that their orthodox beliefs developed. They then believe that the Old Testament Laws confirm this view. Science has moved past these ancient concepts of Natural Law in these and many issues concerning the nature of our existence including evolution and its role in the development of human behavior.

Yet, you will not give me a straight answer. Again, you and I believe that homosexuality is wrong - how does science change that understanding? And if science tells us nothing about what is right/wrong (as you already stated) then why bring it up in the first place? How has science moved us "past" the claim that homosexual behavior is wrong - a belief we both share?

[seer]

Your reference to the fact that you believe we are all sinners tells me very little or actually nothing about how you relate to those who believe differently. In the past many have believed this and went around loppng peoples heads off and burning them, because they believed differently.

And? So were they following the explicit teachings of Christ and the NT about loving one's fellow man?

Straight answer given, not responding to posts. Yes, we need science to understand the diversity and nature of morality in cultures throughout history. No, I do not buy your claim of tolerance and compassion, nor do I buy any claims by the predominant conservative Christians in the world. What I see comes close to ZERO tolerance and 'No Compromise' when dealing with those that believe differently in the world.

But your opinion is immaterial - has nothing to do with how I actually treat people in my daily life. See tolerance to liberals like you means that we should give up our deepest held principles.

[shunyadragon]

Yet, you will not give me a straight answer. Again, you and I believe that homosexuality is wrong - how does science change that understanding? And if science tells us nothing about what is right/wrong (as you already stated) then why bring it up in the first place? How has science moved us "past" the claim that homosexual behavior is wrong - a belief we both share?

Straight answer given, you are not reading my posts and sounding like a broken record. Absolutely NO we are not in agreement.

First, the history of Christianity and Islam has been to be aggressively violent against homosexuality, NO history of compassion and understanding here.which represents a significant change from the view of the Baha'i Faith. What you say concerning supposed 'tolerance' means little compared to the dominant view now and in history.

[seer]

Straight answer given, you are not reading my posts and sounding like a broken record. Absolutely NO we are not in agreement.

First, the history of Christianity and Islam has been to be aggressively violent against homosexuality, NO history of compassion and understanding here.which represents a significant change from the view of the Baha'i Faith. What you say concerning supposed 'tolerance' means little compared to the dominant view now and in history.

Again Shuny, you are clearly avoiding the question - any rational reader will see that. How has science changed the view that homosexual behavior is wrong - a belief we both share - as you said in this very thread. This is not about how we should treat gays or how they were treated in the past, that is a red herring. I mean you are trying to sound enlightened but mostly you are speaking gibberish...