How frequently on this board has Love Goddess had to advise guys to use the technique of
"Remember, no mas..., instead do a lass?"

Posts about erection or performance problems are probably more common than any other.

Religious conservatives have been saying for decades that masturbation is bad because the thoughts in your head while doing the act are ultimately unhealthy. Ironically, LG, in a way you are confirming that they may be right.

Knowing how you feel about religion, are you willing to concede that they may be correct in that it may be good to advise young men to be cautious about their participation in wanking?

It would seem to me that if a a adolescent male spends his first post-pubescent years masturbating to fantasy it will likely result in the problems that we frequently read about here.

Doesn't your profession owe it to society to be more public about the dangers of male masturbation? All you ever here in the secular media is that it's okay and healthy, but it would be quite a wake-up call if people could read this board.

-- Modified on 3/14/2010 6:47:33 PM

religious conservatives also preach that sex between any two people other than a man and woman married to each other and then only for procreation is immoral...

I'm not about to try and tell LG what her obligations are (and neither should you by the way)but I'm pretty certain that preaching the religious right's moral code is not part if it.

Dear infomike,
Let's just get one thing straight off the bat here: I NEVER ADVOCATE LESS MASTURBATION FOR RELIGIOUS REASONS, NOR DO I THINK RELIGIOUS REASONS FOR NOT MASTURBATING HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH REALITY.

There, now that's said. I think young men should masturbate all they want, IN ADDITION to banging chicks. But what has happened in recent years is that men are becoming conditioned to masturbating with the help of computerized images to the point that they can no longer get it up with live females. It's as simple as that. It has nothing to do with masturbation being harmful or debilitating per se.

Excuse me, but what are you saying? That the mental health profession owes it to society to be public about the dangers of male masturbation? Are you for real???!!!??? There ARE no DANGERS in male masturbation!!!! If you are a guy who can jack off 10x per day and still get it up when it comes to banging chicks, by all means go right ahead! I am only advocating a reconditioning of the sexual response in cases where men have used masturbation as their main source of sexual arousal and have problems with females!

I can't believe that my advice could be this misconstrued, but I guess there's a first time for everything!

Deep, deep sigh,
The Love Goddess

My apologies if my point wasn't clear. I was merely pointing out that posts here seem to confirm that frequent masturbation with fantasy (with no real sex) CAN cause problems in adjusting to real sex. I am making the observation that for some, the advice that is espoused by religious conservatives to abstain from masturbation could actually benefit guys who are prone to such a problem. I never meant to imply that the REASONS not to masturbate given by religious people are sound or realistic.  I understand that you are saying that "there are NO dangers in male masturbation" as long as you are ALSO "banging chicks." However, a 12-15 year old male is more likely to ONLY masturbate as his main source of sexual arousal for those first few years after puberty. Therefore, isn't it reasonable to assume that this early activity could cause the kind of condtioning that will produce the problems that we have read here for SOME guys ? Is it so unreasonable for your profession to publicize what you have learned about this?

Am I missing someting? lol

Yes, infomike,

You are MOST DEFINITELY missing something. For one, 12-15 year old guys don't have problems banging live females no matter how much they masturbate. And, THERE ARE NO DANGERS IN MASTURBATING. REPEAT AFTER ME - NO DANGERS!

But after masturbating several times a day to porn FOR YEARS and only interacting with a live female once in a blue moon can make for atypical arousal patterns. That's what this is all about, not some inherent danger in masturbation per se. How many times do I need to point this out, I wonder?

NO, IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO ASSUME THAT "EARLY ACTIVITY" could cause conditioning. CONSISTENT, LONG-TERM ACTIVITY can cause conditioning, but that is not the same as "early activity." in general, THE MAJORITY of 12-15 year olds graduate from ONLY MASTURBATION AND BEGIN ADDING ACTIVITY WITH LIVE FEMALES. We are only discussing mature adult men who masturbate frequently without any consistent interaction with a living, breathing woman.

If you continue to infer things about my "profession," you will be moderated. You are using terms and constructs completely out of context. As to what I "have learned," please refrain from more inferences, lest you should make additional inaccurate statements.

We are talking about atypical arousal patterns after years and years of masturbation, not exploratory processes that occur as part of normative sexual development. I really hope that settles the confusion my earlier postings may have caused.

Thank you,
The Love Goddess

"For one, 12-15 year old guys don't have problems banging live females no matter how much they masturbate."

I had an enormous amount of difficulty banging any chicks until I was 16!!!

For most of us there is no confusion...

The op advances a repressive argument that distorts both LG’s advice and concepts regarding sexual function. Preying on fear, substituting exaggerations for reasonable definitions and engaging in smears and implications of character deficits to make a point.

By the third line note how the op combines terms erection and performance problems and then asserts that they are the most common complaint (and implies that they are caused by masturbation).

After that the op states a view of effects of masturbation from religious conservatives and goes on to imply that LG’s presumed disagreement with this view is due to a supposed antipathy towards religion as a whole. Later the op questions the objectivity and honesty of LG’s whole profession.

The argument that the op advances is that because of a relatively minor and correctable problem affecting a small part of the population (older men who want to f**k women that they meet in less than an hour) all of the benefits (none of which are mentioned) should also be avoided.

As to the mental health problems associated with the regimen proposed by the op, it starts with the problems caused by lying about not masturbating and goes from there.

Let's look at the Jewish laws pertaining to food.

When reading through them, it pretty much looks like "Don't eat this because deity said so."

Well, obviously, from a purely scientific perspective, "because deity said so" is a pretty piss-poor reason for a dietary restriction.

But you can look in the Ten Commandments as well. What is the reason for "Thou Shalt not Murder?"

Well, because deity said so, of course. Again, a really piss-poor reason not to murder from a scientific perspective. By rejecting the monotheistic faiths as unscientific does murder then become acceptable?

BUT -- then we discover that pork is more likely to harbor parasites that can harm humans; that swimming things that don't have scales are more likely to concentrate toxic metals, and that murdering the next door neighbor is a really bad way to run a society.

So even though the religiously-based reasons (basically "because I said so") for those restrictions don't carry much water; at certain times and places those restrictions turned out to be worthwhile to those who followed them.

Similar rules -- like drinking from your own cistern -- were again "because I said so" but likely had beneficial effects in preventing spread of disease.

I THINK the original poster's point is that sometimes rules we laugh at because of their religious origin turn out to have OTHER non-religious support as well that makes them worthwhile.

The fact that Jesus enunciated a variant of the Golden Rule doesn't mean the Golden Rule is bad. Quite likely, social sciences would support that benefits are derived from following it in many cases.

As for the no-mas-masturbation thing; the religious rules are severely misunderstood by too many religious folks. INCLUDING the original poster.

Masturbation is not a "sin" in either Christianity or Judaism as I understand it. It simply makes one ritually impure; which is a different and correctable thing unrelated to Sin. "No masturbation" is not one of the 613 commandments and there is NO clear statement of masturbation being sinful in and of itself in Christianity.

Therefore, the no-mas-masturbation thing is NOT an area where the comparison being made by the original poster is appropriate.

Onan, wrongly portrayed as a masturbator, was not.

He was, in fact, having intercourse with his brother's widow but pulled out before he ejaculated so that his children would not be thought of as his brother's children.

This is not what I call masturbation, that is coitius interrumptus, and is also an unreliable form of birth control.  (My father of eight told me.)

This apparently offended the Lord, who then promptly smote Onan, for reasons that aren't made all the crystal clear.

from trying to make any any sense, whatsoever, from your post. How about doing us all a favor and honestly asking yourself, and honestly giving us the answers to; why are you bringing this up, and why to LG, and why now?

I had no idea that my post would unleash such misunderstandings.

Johngaltnh:  You are apparently the only one who got my point when you said:

"I THINK the original poster's point is that sometimes rules we laugh at because of their religious origin turn out to have OTHER non-religious support as well that makes them worthwhile."

BTW, your statement, "Masturbation is not a "sin" in either Christianity or Judaism as I understand it" is NOT true for Roman Catholics, which make up the largest number of Christians. Despite the fact that there is not explicit condemnation of masturbation in the Bible, it is considered a sin by the Vatican.




-- Modified on 3/15/2010 1:35:02 PM

See my response to johngaltnh.

Honestly, no subversive intentions at all.

Exactly. Me, too.

Only the problem persisted WAY past my 16th birthday.

There are 2 important points that I want to make.

First of all, let's be clear that I am very hostile towards religion's influence on sexuality and I believe that it's harm is unmeasurable.

Second of all, I want to apologize to you, LG, for offending you. I meant no disrespect for you or the field of sex therapy. My only motivation is my hope that this VERY important area continues to advance as more knowledge becomes available.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your position. I think that it's great advice.

The sin is LUST. It's manifestation may be in masturbation. An example would be masturbation to porn; in which the masturbation is an outcome of the primary sin of lust.

Masturbation is not a Sin -- it is an offense against chastity; particularly when done IN PREFERENCE to sex with one's wife.

Have you actually read the official Catechism of the Catholic Church?

I quote:
2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices

My reference:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

How can it be any more clear?

I noted it as an "offense" against chastity rather than an actual SIN because I was working from memory. Last time I read that was ... 20 years ago.

But words are important in theological discussions so I grant both you and Cindy the point. In Catholicism, masturbation is a SIN against chastity.

Now -- a question -- with words meaning things, the term "Sin" in that phrase is qualified rather than absolute. Masturbation is not a Sin against deity, but rather against chastity.

Why is that?

Here's an excerpt from what Grace MacKinnon, a syndicated columnist and public speaker on Catholic doctrine, has written on the topic:

"As Christians who are going to be held accountable for our actions, we must strive to unite ourselves to the Lord and, therefore, do all we can to curb or eliminate all habits that detach us from Him. So, if a person is masturbating and knows fully that it is wrong, and does it willingly without doing anything to resist, then he or she is guilty of grave sin."

johngaltnh asked, "Now -- a question -- with words meaning things, the term "Sin" in that phrase is qualified rather than absolute. Masturbation is not a Sin against deity, but rather against chastity. Why is that?"

I have no idea. I'm not a Catholic theologian.

I do want to point out that it gets worse...

Besides fornication, homosexuality and masturbation being sins, any sex with your spouse that does not involve intercourse is ALSO a sin, according to the Catholic Church. That means no handjobs, blowjobs, or anal sex with your own SPOUSE!

Unbelievable.

working and shopping on the Sabbath. So, given that, where are we at in this discussion. I'm certain we can find some study that reports keeping a specific day of the week, just for rest and recuperation, would reduce a person's stress, and improve their overall health. Thus, validating a religious principle. But, the fact is, most of us here don't consider what we do as sins, in the same manner as theologians would.

I love beating my meat. I feel like I just got saved, after busting a load. *Amen*

You mean there are really hairy palms out there?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-Uf8lCJEOs&feature=related