Masturbation

[I Keep Unicorns]

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.

I said it's harmless for a girl to get an orgasm through riding a horse or pleasure from getting a "kiss" from a dog. NOT sexual intercourse with an animal.

Of course it can be done. ; But it IS a fantasy world they are attempting to live in.
these sentences are contradictory.

It can be done in the sense it can be attempted. It's fantasy because it's entirely unrealistic.

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).

What makes you think that marriage between two non-religious persons would consist of something other than profound respect, unbreakable loyalty and buddhist-like joy?
Nobody is infallible. Both religious and non-religious alike are able to make and break bonds, regardless of the initial intensity of belief in the strength of their marriage. Some make it, some don't. Everyone can try, but some simply don't work out. Some marriages fail. For as long as we are human, some marriages will fail.

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 countless factors which can alter a relationship. People change over time. It's a dreamy illusion that any partnership should last a lifetime no matter what it's based on.

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).

I have no doubt of that whatsoever. Religion is a tougher glue than waining love.

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.

Why are you so anti-pleasure? Why do you constantly compare the pleasure of something as harmless as an orgasm, to torture or inflicting pain upon another person? There is no comparison, but that you continue to compare it with these absurd and disconnected things is quite worrying.
Any action which brings you pleasure can be construed as hedonistic. Enjoying an orgasm does not compare to being a person void of all moral understanding, compassion or empathy. I see your view thus: "The self-induced orgasm is a slippery slope. Climaxes are meant for reproduction ONLY, it's unnatural to use them otherwise. Once you start thinking you can get away pleasuring yourself, you become a hedonist on a selfish path to potential destruction. It could only be a matter of time before you murder someone for pleasure. Afterall, someone who gives themselves orgasms surely only thinks about their selfish pleasures and has little regard for causing suffering to other people."

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]

My point still stands!

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.

I enjoy sexual pleasure. I've had sex with men and women and solo. All consensual. All well and good.
Would I have sex with a corpse? What about an animal? Or a child? Or a mentally handicapped adult?
Your logic says: this girl enjoys sex in the former contexts, therefore she must enjoy sex in the latter contexts also. To enjoy sex, she must therefore enjoy it likewise with every living (or non-living) entity, otherwise she is inconsistent.

Is this correct?

 

[bain-druie]

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.

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.

First: vaginal lubrication is further support for the viewpoint I've stated, that pleasure is part of nature's goal for us in sexuality. It can be construed that increased vaginal moisture aids sperm motility, but it's not a convincing argument. In fact, when cervical mucosa is too thick, it impedes the sperm, making fertilization even more difficult than it naturally already is.

Preventing the infliction of pain has no pragmatic purpose in aiding reproduction, except that it inclines most people to repeat the action that brought pleasure. Often.

The inclusion of pain also does not necessarily impede the process of reproduction.

You have every right to your view, Horntooth. Many have held it in the past, and you are in good company. The old Stoic vs. Epicurean argument, reincarnated on our internet thread! Augustine of Hippo came from the Manicheans, who were a Dualist Greek sect with very much the same ideas about pragmatism and pleasure. My only objection is when you place your view above ours for invalid biological reasons.

Also, if I was your wife, I would have quite a stock of toys in my nightstand, closet, dresser drawers, purse, etc. Not to mention lovers. I don't say that to be insulting, just to make this point: the sex drive itself is a potent thing, and it can be detrimental to your overall health to refuse any provision of relief whatsoever. You ALWAYS have the right to pleasure yourself; which I think is kind of the original point of this thread.

Procreating on this planet is a luxury, given the circumstances. And it's a luxury that should not be abused.

 

[Smoke]

I've seen it all, now. :biglaugh:

God, I hope it doesn't get any stranger than this.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Is it your position that infertile married couples should abstain from sex?
Or that women past menopause should abstain from sex?

yes, and yes.

Pitiful...


And will you have you sperm count checked before engaging in sexual intercourse?
Will you have the fertility of your potential spouse checked as well?
Would you advocate all couples doing so? Just to prevent unnecessary sexual intercourse.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

God, I hope it doesn't get any stranger than this.

And will you have you sperm count checked before engaging in sexual intercourse?
Will you have the fertility of your potential spouse checked as well?
Would you advocate all couples doing so? Just to prevent unnecessary sexual intercourse.

Uh oh....I smell a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[horntooth]

ikeepunicorns

I said it's harmless for a girl to get an orgasm through riding a horse or pleasure from getting a "kiss" from a dog. NOT sexual intercourse with an animal.
why not if there's no harm done?

What makes you think that marriage between two non-religious persons would consist of something other than profound respect, unbreakable loyalty and buddhist-like joy?
the fact that those values are relative to them, whereas to a religious fanatic, they're "god's commandments", and thus not something that can be forgotten about when half-drunk in a party and flirting with a handsome guy/ girl. such a situation is not even possible x)

Both religious and non-religious alike are able to make and break bonds, regardless of the initial intensity of belief in the strength of their marriage.
of course. it's just that the percentages are not even close, and go in favor of the marriage of fanatics.

It's a dreamy illusion that any partnership should last a lifetime no matter what it's based on.
no, it's just called not being educated enough in history and sociology of religion.

I have no doubt of that whatsoever. Religion is a tougher glue than waining love.
that's why percentage of successful marriages will always be much higher with the members of jehovas' witnesses that the members of the "humanists society".

Why are you so anti-pleasure?
actually, for the same reason as epicurus.

Why do you constantly compare the pleasure of something as harmless as an orgasm, to torture or inflicting pain upon another person?
it's called validating an opinion by seeing if it's justification is consistent.
"if something is pleasurable, it's okay" is a bad opinion, because there are people who find it pleasurable to torture other people.
that being said, "if something is pleasurable, it's okay" cannot be used in a serious debate, because it's doesn't cannot prove or justify anything (without justifying also torture).

Your logic says: this girl enjoys sex in the former contexts, therefore she must enjoy sex in the latter contexts also.
no that's not correct.
my logic says: if she enjoys sex in the former contexts, therefore she should not have anything against sex in the latter contexts also, because if she would that would make her views inconsistent.
she does not to have positive opinions about the latter, but if she has positive opinions about the former, having negative opinions of the latter would be inconsistent because she has not given a logical distinction between those two groups of sexual activities.
having inconsistent views on purpose, makes on a hypocrite, if not on purpose, makes one an ignorant. anyways, holding inconsistent opinions is not so good thing. especially for a debate.

baindruie

vaginal lubrication is further support for the viewpoint I've stated, that pleasure is part of nature's goal for us in sexuality.
have i anywhere said that pleasure is not a natural PART of sexuality? no. actually, i said just the opposite.
"it's good to enjoy sexuality"- my words here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2130877-post79.html

Preventing the infliction of pain has no pragmatic purpose in aiding reproduction
well, i say that it has pragmatic purpose in aiding reproduction, and i say that it is its main purpose.

The old Stoic vs. Epicurean argument, reincarnated on our internet thread!
more precisely, it would be stoicism vs. cyreanism, 'couse epicureans were very much in favor of chastity, actually, most of them lived like monks, epicurus' closed garden functioning as their monastery.

My only objection is when you place your view above ours for invalid biological reasons.
yet your putting your views above mine for the reasons you consider to be valid is okay?

Also, if I was your wife, I would have quite a stock of toys in my nightstand, closet, dresser drawers, purse, etc. Not to mention lovers.
which is i would never marry anyone like you.

the sex drive itself is a potent thing, and it can be detrimental to your overall health to refuse any provision of relief whatsoever.
well, i'm doing just fine, thank you.

tumbleweed

Pitiful...
yes, it is. if you meant your comment on my opinion.

And will you have you sperm count checked before engaging in sexual intercourse?
Will you have the fertility of your potential spouse checked as well?
Would you advocate all couples doing so?
no, no, and no.

 

[blackout]

wow.:areyoucra

 

[tumbleweed41]

Is it your position that infertile married couples should abstain from sex?
Or that women past menopause should abstain from sex?

yes, and yes.

And will you have you sperm count checked before engaging in sexual intercourse?
Will you have the fertility of your potential spouse checked as well?
Would you advocate all couples doing so? Just to prevent unnecessary sexual intercourse.

no, no, and no.

Hypocrisy exposed....

Carry on.

 

[horntooth]

Hypocrisy exposed....
i'm so sorry that my religious opinions don't fit the prejudice you hold about how they should look like.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hypocrisy exposed....
i'm so sorry that my religious opinions don't fit the prejudice you hold about how they should look like.

I could not care less about your religious opinions.
The fact remains that your replies expose blatant hypocrisy.

 

[horntooth]

The fact remains that your replies expose blatant hypocrisy.
just because you say so, without even explaining, doesn't make it so. sorry to disappoint you.

 

[Friend of Bill W]

I'm sure God would've stuck our genitals somewhere less handy (excuse the pun) for us to get at; somewhere like in-between our shoulder blades; that place where even when it itches you can't reach, if he didn't want us to masturbate.

And I'm fairly sure He placed them out of range of our own mouths for good reasons (we have to work and function in the outside World don't we).

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that anyone has the will-power to avoid orgasming; that can't be good for your mental health.

 

[bain-druie]

Personally, I find it difficult to believe that anyone has the will-power to avoid orgasming; that can't be good for your mental health.

Exactly - it's not! :no:

 

[McBell]

The fact remains that your replies expose blatant hypocrisy.
just because you say so, without even explaining, doesn't make it so. sorry to disappoint you.

Your ignoring and denying the fact does not in any way diminish said fact.
In fact, you are merely reinforcing the fact.
Way to Go!

 

[I Keep Unicorns]

I said it's harmless for a girl to get an orgasm through riding a horse or pleasure from getting a "kiss" from a dog. NOT sexual intercourse with an animal.
why not if there's no harm done?

Going from this: Zoophilia and health - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'd say much harm can be done, not purely through the plethora of diseases one can contract through sexual intercourse with animals, but also their unpredictable behaviour and the various ways they have sex which does not run in harmony with humans.

What makes you think that marriage between two non-religious persons would consist of something other than profound respect, unbreakable loyalty and buddhist-like joy?
the fact that those values are relative to them, whereas to a religious fanatic, they're "god's commandments", and thus not something that can be forgotten about when half-drunk in a party and flirting with a handsome guy/ girl. such a situation is not even possible x)

If such things as respect, loyalty and joy are prescribed commandments, I would deeply question the sincerity with which they were held. I do not underestimate religious fanaticism as a means of imprisoning two individuals in an unhappy marriage in which were they are bound together by commandments rather than genuine love.
'Forgetting' about respect and loyalty in an alcohol-fuelled flirting endeavour at a bar is something a non-religious individual is capable of, true; the same cannot be said for a devout follower of religion, unless of course, they realise the bleak futility of their perpetual state of slavery and end up binging on intoxicants with more vigour than a heathen due to their state of misery in attempting this twisted idea of perfection and purity. Your statement is loaded with possibility.

Both religious and non-religious alike are able to make and break bonds, regardless of the initial intensity of belief in the strength of their marriage.
of course. it's just that the percentages are not even close, and go in favor of the marriage of fanatics.

I would not be content with statistics telling me two religious fantatics have endured marriage.
I would want statistics regarding emotional stability, strength and mutual happiness within that marriage. Marriage can easily be rendered into a meaningless word when religious slavery is involved.

Why do you constantly compare the pleasure of something as harmless as an orgasm, to torture or inflicting pain upon another person?
it's called validating an opinion by seeing if it's justification is consistent.
"if something is pleasurable, it's okay" is a bad opinion, because there are people who find it pleasurable to torture other people.
that being said, "if something is pleasurable, it's okay" cannot be used in a serious debate, because it's doesn't cannot prove or justify anything (without justifying also torture).

Which is why I keep reiterating that the pleasure of an orgasm is harmless wheras torturing someone is. The acceptability of an orgasm isn't justified by it being pleasurable along; it's acceptable because it's harmless (disagree? tell me exactly why it's harmful) and no negative comes from an orgasm. An orgasm, simply put, is a feeling of extreme pleasure. The debate is not what that pleasure comes from, (doing good or bad), it is the acceptability of extreme pleasure by itself.

Your logic says: this girl enjoys sex in the former contexts, therefore she must enjoy sex in the latter contexts also.
no that's not correct.
my logic says: if she enjoys sex in the former contexts, therefore she should not have anything against sex in the latter contexts also, because if she would that would make her views inconsistent.
she does not to have positive opinions about the latter, but if she has positive opinions about the former, having negative opinions of the latter would be inconsistent because she has not given a logical distinction between those two groups of sexual activities.
having inconsistent views on purpose, makes on a hypocrite, if not on purpose, makes one an ignorant. anyways, holding inconsistent opinions is not so good thing. especially for a debate.

I was correct, then.
A vague example of the sense I make of your argument is this:
I eat fruit, I eat veg. I do not however, eat eggs. Surely, if I eat the former, I should also eat the latter to keep consistent. It doesn't make sense otherwise; it's hypocritical.

 

[Agnostic75]

There is not any credible scientific research that shows that heterosexual couples who sometimes masturbate are not as happy and healthy as heterosexual couples who never masturbate.

 

[horntooth]

I'd say much harm can be done, not purely through the plethora of diseases one can contract through sexual intercourse with animals
you have condoms for that.

but also their unpredictable behaviour and the various ways they have sex which does not run in harmony with humans.
it doesn't? type "zoo porn" in google and watch any clip.

I do not underestimate religious fanaticism as a means of imprisoning two individuals in an unhappy marriage in which were they are bound together by commandments rather than genuine love.
it's your assumption (just a simple guess) that such a marriage would be unhappy, it's my knowledge that it in most cases would not. years of studying about sociology of religion, years of being in contact with such people and being one of them (zealot orthodox christian).

they realise the bleak futility of their perpetual state of slavery and end up binging on intoxicants with more vigour than a heathen due to their state of misery in attempting this twisted idea of perfection and purity. Your statement is loaded with possibility.
yet based on experience and first and second-hand gained knowledge. your sentence here is based just on your imagination.

Marriage can easily be rendered into a meaningless word when religious slavery is involved.
hedonistic slavery would a much worse state. read epictetus for a hint about freedom and peace-of-mind. religious fanaticism is waaay more compatible with those that liberalism.

Which is why I keep reiterating that the pleasure of an orgasm is harmless wheras torturing someone is.
okay, but that's the argument from the resulting harm. that's a separate argument from the one from "pleasurableness". i accept that argument, and can say that is something includes violence, it is bad. but the argument that something is okay if it's pleasurable is not valid. just make sure not to confuse arguments and the things you're talking about during a debate.

it's acceptable because it's harmless
again, that could include necrophilia and zoophilia.

A vague example of the sense I make of your argument is this:
I eat fruit, I eat veg. I do not however, eat eggs. Surely, if I eat the former, I should also eat the latter to keep consistent. It doesn't make sense otherwise; it's hypocritical.
a true analogy would be- i eat fruit, and eat veg (because i think it's wrong to kill animals), and i don't eat eggs. if i were to think that eating eggs is bad, then i would be inconsistent, because "eating eggs" doesn't fall under the category of "killing animals" which is the argument i used to restrict my diet. and btw, that's why eat [unfertilized] eggs, and think that veganism is unnatural ^^

agnostic

There is not any credible scientific research that shows that heterosexual couples who sometimes masturbate are not as happy and healthy as heterosexual couples who never masturbate.
there's no evidence that shows that heterosexuals that don't masturbate are less happy or healthy that those who do. even if there were, i would still not masturbate because of my ethical stand.

 

[Skwim]

I'd say much harm can be done, not purely through the plethora of diseases one can contract through sexual intercourse with animals
you have condoms for that.

I don't believe they make condoms for dogs and other animals.

 

[horntooth]

I don't believe they make condoms for dogs and other animals.
you can't use normal condoms when screwing an animal?

 

[McBell]

you can't use normal condoms when screwing an animal?

You tell me how well it works.