-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Masturbation
- Thread starter Misty
- Start date
Ah, blatant male ejaculatory bias. Just get it off your chest and let the healing begin. :meditate:
McBell
Unbound
Thank you for revealing your low level of honesty.
I Keep Unicorns
Member
I'd say it's more "ridiculous" than "bad".
I would feel sorry for someone who never masturbated because they were under the impression it's "not natural". How horrific to be so oppressed by your own beliefs that you can't even pleasure your own body.
Necrophilia doesn't harm anyone? If you're having sex with a corpse, what kind of germs and bacteria could one obtain by having sexual intercourse with a deceased human being? I'm guessing quite a lot.
There will be those who attempt to justify beastiality. I haven't researched beastiality myself, so I don't know what kinds of harm could be done by beastiality specifically, but the fact that it's so unaccepted in society is reason enough to abstain from sexual relations with an animal alone.
In what kind of fantasy world is this, in which two people stay together for life and never have sex with more than one person?
If there's anything unnatural, it is your belief or perception that one should abstain. Nature does not work like that. It would be most impossible to stick to one partner for your entire life. Everybody wants to think they've met "the love of my life" whom they will be with forever; reality is quite different.
How much of your life is made up of things which aren't "natural"? Do you drive a car? Do you visit a dentist? Have you ever taken medication? Do you wear clothes made from factories? Nature would have us live in absolute minimal means, dying in our twenties from some infection or another. If you're going to argue that homosexuality "Isn't natural", what else do you apply this "not natural" logic to? Are some things which aren't natural okay in your eyes, while others not so much? Why is that? Why make allowances for some "unnatural" things and not others which you call unnatural?
Just because homosexuality doesn't result in reproduction doesn't, for one second, equate it to being unnatural. Sexuality and autosexuality is varied in humans and other animals (and birds, and fish) alike. And people will always masturbate, because it's fun and completely harmless.
Can you outline what is so unnatural about autosexuality / masturbation in particular? Why do you feel that way, honestly?
Anger, rage, and the urge for violence are all completely natural. Are they "good"? Imagine a world with absolutely no rage or anger whatsoever. Personally, I think that'd be pretty boring. I like variety in emotion. Above anything: It's natural to have both positive and negative emotions. It's just how we are.
Of course you can have an opinion, but don't expect to be taken entirely seriously.
Last edited:
Jeremiah
Well-Known Member
Well, Smoke, if you need any hands on pointers (from a very experienced hand) let me know.
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Message to horntooth: Are you a Roman Catholic?
Do you promote reparative therapy, abstinence, and celibacy for homosexuals?
I doubt that even the majority of conservative Christians accept your "sex should only be for procreation" argument. There is in fact too much procreation going on in the world, which increases global warming, and increases food and water shortages. It is an absurd notion that a young heterosexual couple who are in their mid-twenties, and have two children, and do not want to have any more children, should never have sex again for the rest of their lives solely for pleasure.
Do you promote reparative therapy, abstinence, and celibacy for homosexuals?
I doubt that even the majority of conservative Christians accept your "sex should only be for procreation" argument. There is in fact too much procreation going on in the world, which increases global warming, and increases food and water shortages. It is an absurd notion that a young heterosexual couple who are in their mid-twenties, and have two children, and do not want to have any more children, should never have sex again for the rest of their lives solely for pleasure.
Last edited:
horntooth
Sextian
horntooth people like you who are prejudiced against gays for instance, are as bad as those who are prejudiced against non white people, imo!
yeah, right, comparing gays with zoophiles is appalling, but comparing heterosexualists with racists is just fine. <_<
Thank you for revealing your low level of honesty.
i gave the example of Peter Singer. the guy has PHDs, and is a university professor (in bioethics, btw), who says that animals should have an inalienable rights to life and liberty.
he also says that zoophilia can be smthn good, and that animal can "give consent" and enjoy such sexual acts.
I would feel sorry for someone who never masturbated because they were under the impression it's "not natural".
i did masturbate (innumerable times), and nevertheless, i now think it's not natural
How horrific to be so oppressed by your own beliefs that you can't even pleasure your own body.
it was me who "imposed" beliefs on myself with no outside help. my parents are an atheist and a formal christian/ practical atheist, and are liberal on pretty much every issue.
Necrophilia doesn't harm anyone? If you're having sex with a corpse, what kind of germs and bacteria could one obtain by having sexual intercourse with a deceased human being? I'm guessing quite a lot.
wasn't it you that mentioned contraception? you find a corpse that doesn't have a family that would object to you having sex with it, you buy a few condoms, and you f* away.. no harm done.
There will be those who attempt to justify beastiality. I haven't researched beastiality myself, so I don't know what kinds of harm could be done by beastiality specifically, but the fact that it's so unaccepted in society is reason enough to abstain from sexual relations with an animal alone.
homosexuality was once unaccepted in society in the same way. it was even punishable by death.
and i will again remind you of peter singer (who lives today, and teaches in universities- today). in support of zoophilia he said:
"If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, does the horse suffer? If not, who cares? If you French kiss your dog and he or she thinks it's great, is it wrong? We believe all exploitation and abuse is wrong. If it isn't exploitation and abuse, [then] it may not be wrong"
as i said- every excuse you find to justify homosexuality, it can also be used to justify zoosexuality and necrosexuality, and there's no way i could ever accept those as natural, or good.
In what kind of fantasy world is this, in which two people stay together for life and never have sex with more than one person?
it's called a religious fundamenalist world, and it's very real across the world. among the sedevacantist catholics, zealot orthodox, fundamentalist mormon, puritan baptists, wahhabi muslims, haredi jews, bibeki sikhs, revival iskcon, and many other ultra-conservative, "dedicated to the extreme" groups. the point is, it can be done. if they can do it, why couldn't i too. they're no better then me.
It would be most impossible to stick to one partner for your entire life.
i just gave examples that prove you wrong.
Everybody wants to think they've met "the love of my life" whom they will be with forever; reality is quite different.
exactly. that's when you merry "out of love", which doesn't exist. when you marry because you have the same world-view to which you are both fanatically committed (like in those religious groups i mentioned) and the same definition of the point of marriage, it's a different situation.
How much of your life is made up of things which aren't "natural"? Do you drive a car? Do you visit a dentist? Have you ever taken medication? Do you wear clothes made from factories? Nature would have us live in absolute minimal means, dying in our twenties from some infection or another.
actually, the opposite. as a rational being, it's natural for humans to be rational- invent new stuff such as car (preferably electrically powered- i drive a hybrid), advanced tooth-brushes and floss (which i use both, and do visit a dentist), more advanced medicines (not just plain medicant herbs), and so on, so on. i also wear factory made clothes, but not clothes with anything of animal origin.
If you're going to argue that homosexuality "Isn't natural", what else do you apply this "not natural" logic to?
concerning sexuality, i enumerated it earlier.
"- dendrophile and zoosexual acts (acts with other species)
- necrophile acts (acts with corpses)
- paedophile acts (acts with children)
- homosexual acts (between the same gender)
- autosexual acts (masturbation)
- sexual acts between male and female that cannot result in reproduction (oral/ anal sex), and
- coitus that is not done for the sake of reproduction (coitus interruptus, coitus with contraception)."
concerning other topics, many things, such as killing and hurting people and animals (except for self-defense), lying, stealing, getting drunk, overeating, wearing cosmetics, wasting money, and similar. read the buddhist "eight precepts", siddhartha got it mostly right.
Are some things which aren't natural okay in your eyes, while others not so much?
nope. if it's clear that it's unnatural, it's bad.
Just because homosexuality doesn't result in reproduction doesn't, for one second, equate it to being unnatural.
it does in my book. god/ nature made us that way so that the natural consequence and the purpose of the sexual act is reproduction, and using it for smthn else in unnatural.
Sexuality and autosexuality is varied in humans and other animals (and birds, and fish) alike. And people will always masturbate, because it's fun and completely harmless. [/quote]
and people will ALWAYS kill each other because of food, land, money and sexuality, also. it's doesn't make murder okay.
Can you outline what is so unnatural about autosexuality / masturbation in particular?
i've already said why i think it's unnatural. the point of the sperm is to inseminate, the point of sex in to reproduce, to use them not for that, but for something else- is unnatural. it's that simple.
Anger, rage, and the urge for violence are all completely natural. Are they "good"? Imagine a world with absolutely no rage or anger whatsoever. Personally, I think that'd be pretty boring.
yeah, there's so much "fun" in physically hurting someone. i just don't see how are not torture or rape legal.
Above anything: It's natural to have both positive and negative emotions. It's just how we are.
if you think that's the good way to stay, okay. i have the right to have the opposite opinion. just like on the subject of sexuality.
Message to horntooth: Are you a Roman Catholic?
nope. i've been raised by secular/ liberal parents in a secular society;
i'm a philosophical theist (smthn similar to deism), and my opinion can be formally classified as "sextian" (a school of quintus sextius).
Do you promote reparative therapy, abstinence, and celibacy for homosexuals?
i think a radical change of thinking (into a rationalists one) and commitment to mindfulness meditation (not yoga or anything with mysticism, but simple mental "askesis" with the purpose of strengthening the will) would suffice. i overcame my "normal" sexual desires (and also the "not so normal") that way.
I doubt that even the majority of conservative Christians accept your "sex should only be for procreation" argument.
don't really care. i think that christianity is an irrational, and thus a false religion.
There is in fact too much procreation going on in the world, which increases global warming, and increases food and water shortages. It is an absurd notion that a young heterosexual couple who are in their mid-twenties, and have two children, and do not want to have any more children, should never have sex again for the rest of their lives
i don't find it absurd.
Last edited:
bain-druie
Tree-Hugger!
One point, Horntooth: if the gods / God / Nature did in fact create human beings with the intent that they only have sex to procreate, please explain the female clitoris. An organ with thousands of nerve endings going to the pleasure centers of the brain, with absolutely no biological function or procreative value.
No. Sex is clearly intended for pleasure as well as procreation, provable by the neurological structure of the reproductive system. :yes:
No. Sex is clearly intended for pleasure as well as procreation, provable by the neurological structure of the reproductive system. :yes:
I Keep Unicorns
Member
Is this in fact much more to do with what you believe God is telling you rather than it being unnatural?
I see. So a sane human (or at least us gay enablers) wouldn't care about anything other than sexual pleasure, right? We wouldn't care about respecting a dead person nor the rights of their family, anything like that? Screwing a corpse is much different to having sex with a living person who gives their consent to engaging in sexual pleasure with another adult.
If a girl gets sexual pleasure from riding a horse, or a "kiss" from a dog and enjoys that, who the hell cares? No harm is done by someone enjoying either of those things. No. Harm. Whatsoever. It doesn't harm the animal; it doesn't harm the person.
Of course it can be done. I don't deny the weight of force some individuals will choose to surpress themselves under by their faith in any god. But it IS a fantasy world they are attempting to live in.
Forcing a relationship with somebody you no longer love or are attracted to because you're under immense pressure by your own belief of a god is a terrible fear to be under, and is completely unnecessary.
And do you think for a moment they are much happier and more stable than those who divorce themselves from unhappy marriages?
When you marry out of love, which doesn't exist? Not sure I get what you mean there.
When you marry because you're both committed to the same world view, that makes no difference to the changes that would occur to any other marriage which can result in ground for divorce. There are strongly religious couples who seperate; there are atheists who have long marriages, and vice versa. Religion makes no couple an immaculate marriage; it just means you're more scared of divorce because it increases your chances of being sent to hell.
Fair enough.
It's masturbation which baffles me the most about your views. Are orgasms by themselves not pleasurable? Why would it be possibly be unnatural to want to pleasure ourselves to orgasm? Reproduction is simply not a good enough answer. If it feels good to touch a certain body part, it's natural to want to touch it. Many health sources will tell you that masturbation is actually healthy. There would be more cause for concern if someone surpressed their feelings of sexuality.
Well he didn't do very much of a good job if orgasms and sexual pleasure is made possibly merely by touch of a hand (or tongue... or even rubbing one's thighs together, or sitting on something which vibrates, or even clenching muscles together...)
Why are you comparing orgasms with murder?
...That is literally outrageous. Initiating yourself to orgasm hurts absolutely no body.
Wow, very nice twist & manipulation of words there! Too godly. Where did I say there was fun in physically hurting someone? Myself stating that negative emotions are natural does, in no way, equate to myself stating that torture and rape should be legal.
I Keep Unicorns
Member
Agree agree agree.
The clitoris has no function aside from pleasure; so if a god created the clitoris, we must assume he/she/it created it for our pleasure as it serves absolutely no other purpose.
horntooth
Sextian
One point, Horntooth: if the gods / God / Nature did in fact create human beings with the intent that they only have sex to procreate, please explain the female clitoris. An organ with thousands of nerve endings going to the pleasure centers of the brain, with absolutely no biological function or procreative value.
pleasure has it's function, e.g. it makes makes the vagina lubricated, so that the process of penetration (which is essential for reproduction) does not inflict pain.
No. Sex is clearly intended for pleasure as well as procreation, provable by the neurological structure of the reproductive system.
i apply the principle from socrates' sentence in my sig. it's good to enjoy food, but only during using food in accordance with it's natural purpose- nutrition. likewise, it's good to enjoy sexuality, but only during using sexual intercourse in accordance with it's natural purpose- reproduction.
I am sorry for horntooth if he never had sex for pleasure, but if that worked for him, fine, most of the rest of us see it differently!
i grew up as an average teen/ guy, with bunch of relationships and sexual intercourses, and my share of STDs. i don't how is your sentence in any way constructive, or has anything to do with the ongoing debate.
maybe if you don't anything smart to say, you should abstain (!) from writing.
unless you think that patronising comments (like your totally uncalled-for assumption about my private life) with the purpose of somehow imaginatively degrading the status of the person you're referring to, in the eyes of those who think like you, is "smart". in which case i would feel sorry for you.
Oh please.
If sex were "naturally" for reproduction, then humans would not have sexually evolved to:
Have multiple orgasms
Have anal orgasms
Have sex at any time during a menstrual cycle
Have sex after menopause (infertility)
Have various erogenous zones all around the body
Have sex face-to-face for more intimate bonding instead of solely where the male enters from the rear
and on and on and on......
Sex IS for pleasure. The only excuse for the sex = reproduction argument is that it is the fastest and most efficient way to procreate. There are many many other ways to reproduce where a sperm fertilizes an egg which has nothing to do with hetersexual sex.
That male ejaculatory bias is showing in full force now.
If sex were "naturally" for reproduction, then humans would not have sexually evolved to:
Have multiple orgasms
Have anal orgasms
Have sex at any time during a menstrual cycle
Have sex after menopause (infertility)
Have various erogenous zones all around the body
Have sex face-to-face for more intimate bonding instead of solely where the male enters from the rear
and on and on and on......
Sex IS for pleasure. The only excuse for the sex = reproduction argument is that it is the fastest and most efficient way to procreate. There are many many other ways to reproduce where a sperm fertilizes an egg which has nothing to do with hetersexual sex.
That male ejaculatory bias is showing in full force now.
jmvizanko
Uber Tool
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:...BaJAjQ&t=1&usg=__FA6kBLQBq2BaSMH0BNf14ltzdIQ=
Since this picture was taken down by staff, I thought perhaps I could get away with linking to it...
Since this picture was taken down by staff, I thought perhaps I could get away with linking to it...
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Is it your position that infertile married couples should abstain from sex?
Or that women past menopause should abstain from sex?
Agnostic75
Well-Known Member
Agnostic75 said:
horntooth said:
You do not have any documented scientific evidence that shows that reparative therapy, abstinence, and celibacy are reasonable alternatives for the majority of homosexuals. Regarding your own personal anecdotal evidence, surely you must know that that would not be considered reliable evidence by any credible expert in psychiatry or psychology.
If you have not been able to abstain from having sex, and from masturbating for decades, you are not in a position to offer personal anecdotal evidence regarding those issues.
Are you married? If so, do you have any children?
By the way, the vast majority of homosexuals do not have sex with animals, and are not pedophiles. In addition, every major medical association in the U.S. says that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.
Horntooth we will have to agree to disagree, thank goodness few see it your way!
horntooth
Sextian
Is this in fact much more to do with what you believe God is telling you rather than it being unnatural?
interestingly, i thing that god tells us what's good and bad trough reason/ rationality, and nature/ naturalness.
So a sane human (or at least us gay enablers) wouldn't care about anything other than sexual pleasure, right? We wouldn't care about respecting a dead person nor the rights of their family, anything like that?
again you could find someone who tells you- i want you to have sex with my corpse, and my family has nothing against it. there's all kinds of people out there.
Screwing a corpse is much different to having sex with a living person who gives their consent to engaging in sexual pleasure with another adult.
and a corpse refuses to have sex with you? is hurt by you having sex with it?
neither animals can give consent by talking to you, yet there are those who think it's okay to screw animals (or let animals screw you) if they're not hurt. type "zoo porn" in google and just see the sites on the first page. obviously there's an wide audience for stuff like that.
No. Harm. Whatsoever. It doesn't harm the animal; it doesn't harm the person.
yep. and when you type that "zoo porn" in google, click on the first site "animal porn tube" and watch one video-clip. no harm there, so it's make it a-ok. yeah right.
Of course it can be done. ; But it IS a fantasy world they are attempting to live in.
these sentences are contradictory.
Forcing a relationship with somebody you no longer love or are attracted to because you're under immense pressure by your own belief of a god is a terrible fear to be under, and is completely unnecessary.
love is the unnecessary concept in a marriage, because the "shekespearian love" is smthng that exists only in "fantasy world", whereas marriages between the people with same opinions and same amount fanaticism that are based utmost respect, unbreakable loyalty, and filled with that buddist-like joy (non-dependent of physical pleasure) are reality all over the world (i already enumerated the groups where such things happen).
And do you think for a moment they are much happier and more stable than those who divorce themselves from unhappy marriages?
an unhappy marriage is the result of basing your marriage on thing that can bring unhappiness by themselves. the peace-of-mind, and the internal intertwined pride and joy of a fanatic zealot is something that fills their lives, and as a consequence, their marriage, also.
There are strongly religious couples who seperate; there are atheists who have long marriages, and vice versa.
the percentages are far from being close (in favor of )
Religion makes no couple an immaculate marriage; it just means you're more scared of divorce because it increases your chances of being sent to hell.
well, it works much better than "love" (of which spouses almost never have the same definition of).
If it feels good to touch a certain body part, it's natural to want to touch it.
that would imply (cyreanic) hedonism, which is plainly- a stupid world-view.
it may also feel good for someone to watch you bleed, but doesn't mean it natural to want to slice you. it also feels good to sniff coce and amphetamines (besides masturbation, i've done those a bunch of time, too) but it doesn't mean that being a junkie is natural or good.
Many health sources will tell you that masturbation is actually healthy.
and even more will tell you the same about meat, but i'm still a vegetarian, because of my ethical beliefs.
Well he didn't do very much of a good job if orgasms and sexual pleasure is made possibly merely by touch of a hand (or tongue... or even rubbing one's thighs together, or sitting on something which vibrates, or even clenching muscles together...)
yep, you know if god did a good job. why not, a little blasphemy is always good. [/irony]
Why are you comparing orgasms with murder?
because both can be justified by your argument. and that was that some action "will ALWAYS happen". if you apply a principle of one issue, it must be also applicable on other issues, if not- that's it's no good principle, and your view are inconsistent, and thus irrational.
Initiating yourself to orgasm hurts absolutely no body.
you were giving a reason why homosexuality is ok, by saying that it will always happen. by comparing homosexuality with murder i showed you that that justification is actually not really a justification. the problem of hurting/ harming is a different reason/ justification for homosexuality than that i addressed. how about grasping the concept of a rational debate before engaging into one.
Where did I say there was fun in physically hurting someone?
yet you're a fighter for the liberty of practicing homosexuality.
you attacked my view that homosexuality is unnatural, also said that homosexuality is natural, and implied that it is thus okay.
so the urge for homosexual acts is natural, and because it's natural, it's okay, and should be practiced.
"urge for violence is completely natural" - your words also. yet, it doesn't make it okay, and it should not be practiced.
if you can't see the inconsistency of that kind of stand, i don't see the point of talking to you, if you can't understand something simple that.
you can of course introduce the issue of hurting, and say that that's why murder isn't okay, but that's introducing a different point into the debate, and has nothing to with the fact that the opinion "if it appears in nature, then it's natural, and thus good" is wrong, because it CAN also justify murder.
horntooth
Sextian
Sex IS for pleasure.
i don't think so. i'll repeat my view:
"i apply the principle from socrates' sentence in my sig. it's good to enjoy food, but only during using food in accordance with it's natural purpose- nutrition. likewise, it's good to enjoy sexuality, but only during using sexual intercourse in accordance with it's natural purpose- reproduction."
Is it your position that infertile married couples should abstain from sex?
Or that women past menopause should abstain from sex?
yes, and yes.
surely you must know that that would not be considered reliable evidence by any credible expert in psychiatry or psychology.
and don't care about it. as i sad, the "credible experts" will also tell you how meat is good for you, and even that you can't be healthy and strong without it, but i'm anyway going to choose to be a vegetarian because of my ethical beliefs.
Regarding your own personal anecdotal evidence, surely you must know that that would not be considered reliable evidence by any credible expert in psychiatry or psychology.
i didn't abstain because i didn't want to and believed that masturbation was okay and good. first time i abstained was when i "converted" to christianity as a young man (i was formally baptised as a baby) and had no problem with abstaining for a long time, even thou i was a huge fornicator before that. when i left christianity, i started having sex again (including autosexuality). after some time i converted to philosophical theism, and i'm abstaining again, almost effortlessly with the help of meditation.
Are you married? If so, do you have any children?
no, and no. i was engaged when i was a christian, but that logically fell apart after my "apostasy".
By the way, the vast majority of homosexuals do not have sex with animals, and are not pedophiles.
really?! had no idea. x) i do know a number of gays, i still keep in touch with a couple of them.
In addition, every major medical association in the U.S. says that homosexuality is not a mental illness, and that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt children.
well i'm convinced. lol
Last edited:
I've seen it all, now. :biglaugh: