Is sexual self-abuse missing form psychological definitions of abuse?

[Giants]

“Wholly independent”-- what is it independent of? Are they independent?

Wholly independent of religion, which counts itself as the only objective source of morality we could ever have.

“Objective basis for morality”–what do they take as their moral object? The actions of men? How do they measure harm?

Being able to “measure” well-being or harm is unnecessary. We don’t need a comprehensive measurement of physical health to use the improvement of physical health as an objective basis for the science of medicine. Nor do we need to be able to measure well-being or suffering to do the same for morality. At the level of conscious experience, we know that certain circumstances produce greater suffering in people than do others. In other cases, a reasoned disagreement may occur with no ultimate consensus reached. But any such disagreement would not invalidate well-being as an objective basis for morality.

They say spirit cannot be measured. Yet it is acknowledged as important by nearly all save these god-heads you speak of. If someone says “I feel ashamed and humiliated when I masturbate”. Why is this ignored? I suppose they would say that the only true measurements are in those who claim they are not affected by their self-harm.

AND BESIDES: WHY do they say spirit cannot be measured?

If someone feels ashamed and humiliated when they masturbate, they aren’t ignored. If you talk to a therapist, they will try to help you out. But I guarantee you that no therapist who knows anything will treat the masturbation as the root source of the shame and humiliation. Something else is going on there. In any event, shame and humiliation is the just human brain in a particular state. The “spirit” you’re talking about here nothing but the poetic license people give themselves to discuss straightforward concepts in abstract, metaphorical language,

 

[Michael19682]

Wholly independent of religion, which counts itself as the only objective source of morality we could ever have.

Not religion. The conscience of a person.

Being able to “measure” well-being or harm is unnecessary

. We don’t need a comprehensive measurement of physical health to use the improvement of physical health as an objective basis for the science of medicine. Nor do we need to be able to measure well-being or suffering to do the same for morality. At the level of conscious experience, we know that certain circumstances produce greater suffering in people than do others. In other cases, a reasoned disagreement may occur with no ultimate consensus reached. But any such disagreement would not invalidate well-being as an objective basis for morality.

If we don’t know how to measure well-being, how can we improve it. In your reasoning there is also an ambiguity between physical health and well-being. To be short, all bodies die. A body has a spirit which endures. Well-being is more than the physical body. I can only assume that by “science” of medicine you mean “medical knowing”. And I agree that we definitely can concentrate on specific organs to improve our understanding of physical health. However, as an aside, it has proven a mistake to focus exclusively on one organ system without considering the “comprehensive measurement” of physical health. But is it your point about conscious experience that gets to the heart of the matter. Conscious experience is a part of well being that is not necessarily physical. Disagreements about what is a harmful circumstance affects the very concept of well being. Well being thus losing its ground of concensus, so does morality. Therefore religion, as you call, which has pre-existing codification and tradition is really the best basis for morality.

I’ll continue with more tomorrow…thank you.

,

 

[Giants]

If we don’t know how to measure well-being, how can we improve it.

It’s not complicated. To re-state, one’s physical health is not reducible to a single metric or number (‘My doctor tells me my health is 73. What’s yours?’). Yet, we’ve learned any number of actions that will, for most of us, most of the time, improve our physical health. And if something improves my health, but doesn’t improve yours, that difference is, in principle, also explainable through our understanding of biology, bio-chemistry, etc.

And so it is with well-being. I’m merely stating these are analogous, not that there isn’t something more to well-being than physical health. Physical health is obviously a big part of well-being, but yeah, there’s more to it than just that. (But I don’t think the “spirit” plays into it.) We can often tell the difference between one person’s level of well-being being greater than somebody else’s. And we can do this without assigning a number to it. And we can often suggest ways that someone can improve their level of well-being.

And yes, a disagreement on what would improve someone’s well-being could have negative consequences. We can also be in complete agreement, and still be wrong about whether a particular course of action would improve well-being. But in neither case would this invalidate well-being as objective basis for morality. We would simply need to be able to recognize that we’re wrong, and then correct for it.

 

[Michael19682]

And if something improves my health, but doesn’t improve yours, that difference is, in principle, also explainable through our understanding of biology, bio-chemistry, etc.

If it is relative to any given baseline, then it becomes obvious that masturbation is self abusive for someone if he only says that it is. Since you claim it is pleasure perfectly ok [barring 100 times a day], then you have entered a doctoral role here. I don’t mind you taking that role [though the forum discourages it]; but since you have, consider this: You talk about correcting problems; what if it IS a sin and therefoere detrimental to spiritual health. What have you advised in that case?

The Church, at the very least and even under logical conditions of assumed naivete the Church may be seen to eer on the side of caution. In the final analysis, the Saints tell us that it is between me and God. I.e. My or your conscience.

 

[inocente]

I believe sexual self abuse is real and lacking as a diagnosis in psychology. It may sound like it would be directed to pornography and masturbation, but it can also arise from immoral sexual behavior, such as anal intercourse and homosexuality.

Why can’t psychologists see that sexual self abuse exists and is rampant in society? I believe it’s because a psychologist’s view must conform to the swinging of the pendulum of social conformity and change.

Wearing socks is also rampant in society, so what?

I’m surprised you could be so unscientific. Apart from the judgmental language and the rather bizarre attempt to connect homosexuality with masturbation, you are asking psychologists to play God. Still, if they must enforce your morality then I insist they also enforce mine and forcibly treat anyone who is so obviously disordered as to watch Days of our Lives, believe in intelligent design, or wear beige outdoors.

 

[Giants]

If it is relative to any given baseline, then it becomes obvious that masturbation is self abusive for someone if he only says that it is. Since you claim it is pleasure perfectly ok [barring 100 times a day], then you have entered a doctoral role here. I don’t mind you taking that role [though the forum discourages it]; but since you have, consider this: You talk about correcting problems; what if it IS a sin and therefoere detrimental to spiritual health. What have you advised in that case?

Then I would have advised a poor course of action. But you’re basically asking me to consider ‘What If’ an unjustified and unfalsifiable premise happens to be true? When it comes to these sorts of premises, where does it stop? It would take me all of 5 minutes to invent a religion replete with any number of unjustified, unfalsifiable claims about the nature of reality.

 

[Robert_Sock]

The self abuse isn’t in the actions of acts such as masturbation and homosexuality, but in the fantasies that drive these actions. Again, I consider myself as having undergone great abuse over the years from masturbation.

 

[DarkLight]

The self abuse isn’t in the actions of acts such as masturbation and homosexuality, but in the fantasies that drive these actions. Again, I consider myself as having undergone great abuse over the years from masturbation.

I’m curious what the symptoms of this sort of “abuse” are?

 

[Robert_Sock]

I’m curious what the symptoms of this sort of “abuse” are?

The main symptom would have to be hyper sexuality. It would also reek havoc over the development of the ‘self’ in that the sinful desires get internalized. With me, I feel a true sense of shame and guilt over my sexual past. So much of my life was spent defending these behaviors, then I learned just how self abusive these behavior are. Today I’m very grateful for the antidepressant drug called Paxil, which eliminated my sex drive.

 

[inocente]

The main symptom would have to be hyper sexuality. It would also reek havoc over the development of the ‘self’ in that the sinful desires get internalized. With me, I feel a true sense of shame and guilt over my sexual past. So much of my life was spent defending these behaviors, then I learned just how self abusive these behavior are. Today I’m very grateful for the antidepressant drug called Paxil, which eliminated my sex drive.

See hypersexual disorder, DSM-5, in particular read the Rationale tab.

Note that lack of sexual/erotic thoughts/fantasies is just as much a disorder where it similarly causes distress or impairment (male, female).

 

[Michael19682]

Then I would have advised a poor course of action. But you’re basically asking me to consider ‘What If’ an unjustified and unfalsifiable premise happens to be true? When it comes to these sorts of premises, where does it stop? It would take me all of 5 minutes to invent a religion replete with any number of unjustified, unfalsifiable claims about the nature of reality.

What proof do you have that masturbation is not spiritually harmful to a person? When you yourself claim to be a non-spiritual person? If it affects well being as many on this thread give direct testimony, how can you call this testimony a false and unjustified “What if”? It is not the reality of themselves that proponents of self abuse are disconnected from, but the reality of others.

 

[Giants]

What proof do you have that masturbation is not spiritually harmful to a person? When you yourself claim to be a non-spiritual person? If it affects well being as many on this thread give direct testimony, how can you call this testimony a false and unjustified “What if”? It is not the reality of themselves that proponents of self abuse are disconnected from, but the reality of others.

By definition, an unfalsifiable claim cannot be disproved. This is not because the claim is so compelling that it’s self-evidently true. It’s because the claim is engineered from the very beginning, with its presumptions and suppositions, to be impossible to overthrow. And it takes very little imagination to invent such claims. Carl Sagan used the invisible dragon in his garage. You can’t prove that it’s not there, but that fact doesn’t make the claim more likely to be true.

The people who assert they’ve suffered spiritual harm due to masturbation or other sex acts are Catholic. Catholic dogma asserts, first, that humans have a “spirit,” and second, that it can be harmed by such things. Meanwhile, millions of people who’ve done likewise with no ill effects, are not Catholic, and don’t believe that dogma. How does one square this data?

While we ultimately can’t “prove” anything from it, we can draw certain conclusions from it. To a properly objective mind, the most likely possibility is that masturbation (and assorted sex acts) are typically harmless, blameless activities. The people claiming to have suffered spiritual harm are most likely feeling shame, which is a very common emotion and state of the human brain. This shame most likely stems from the belief that these activities are morally wrong, a claim made by the theology that they organize their lives around.

 

[Michael19682]

By definition, an unfalsifiable claim cannot be disproved. This is not because the claim is so compelling that it’s self-evidently true. It’s because the claim is engineered from the very beginning, with its presumptions and suppositions, to be impossible to overthrow. And it takes very little imagination to invent such claims. Carl Sagan used the invisible dragon in his garage. You can’t prove that it’s not there, but that fact doesn’t make the claim more likely to be true.
The people who assert they’ve suffered spiritual harm due to masturbation or other sex acts are Catholic. Catholic dogma asserts, first, that humans have a “spirit,” and second, that it can be harmed by such things. Meanwhile, millions of people who’ve done likewise with no ill effects, are not Catholic, and don’t believe that dogma. How does one square this data?
While we ultimately can’t “prove” anything from it, we can draw certain conclusions from it. To a properly objective mind, the most likely possibility is that masturbation (and assorted sex acts) are typically harmless, blameless activities. The people claiming to have suffered spiritual harm are most likely feeling shame, which is a very common emotion and state of the human brain. This shame most likely stems from the belief that these activities are morally wrong, a claim made by the theology that they organize their lives around.

For one who has faith, the first principle in the scope of the athiest’s unfalsifiability definition, God, is indisputably true. Therefore, all that he decrees is falsifiable only insofar as He has not decreed it. All argument must proceed with the existence of God as indisputable. Without that agreement, there is no argument, debate, or discussion; but only ad hoc logic and equally wanton attributions of ideas thrown from likemannered falsifiable sources. The invisible dragon is one such example, and I have no doubt that the wise…

Carl Sagan used it as an example with ironic intent; since a fairy tale is just such – figurative in the literal sense, but not real like God, His Son, and the Spirit that proceeds from them. C. Sagan was a genius, as I read his work, he was being literary in that dragons smoke. So did Carl. He was often fond of noting “poof” and its all gone – universe and all. Just as the athiest envisions individual death.

…and the testimony of those who have been harmed by masturbation is not in any event like an invisible dragon. Though it may poof into nothingness with the passage of time and with a persons entrance into God’s paradise, such does not prove its unreality. Sin is a reality. Its consequential death, is, according to God’s words, also real. There is no ‘unreality’ in the way we understand God and his creation…

Sagan’s dragon, taken as a reality, is a figment of the imagination. Just as the smoke from it may damage real lung tissue, so does…

…the pain of self abuse damage the emotions. As for it being only Catholics who assert pain from masturbation? your source of statistics? One squares your ironic (and for me idiosyncratic) citation of statistics with the admitted data on the millions of non catholics who attest to no harm by one possible reasoning: the primary harm is spiritual, so it follows that people who don’t believe in spirit will not acknowledge their habit as the source of their life difficulties, which may include and usually does include relationship disharmony. If that is not accepted then consider Catholic doctrine to be rooted in a view of human nature that may be as genetically grounded and therefore as destined to be expressed as the opposite view its proponents hold as ignorant. Traditionally, this is God’s view of man as given to us out of his love and desire to see us “whole” – something we have been calling “well being” thus far. It is in everyone’s genes, so we hope, just the expression and nurturance that varies. These people who claim no harm have perhaps created an contrived means of sustaining themselves as against their inner promptings because of a presence in the material universe ‘you’, I , and countless temptees would call evil. This evil desires as one scenario the complete extinction of God’s most beloved creation, people. Masturbation if practiced by all would lead as one possible scenario to such an extinction. Coulds and mights aside, the greatest bonding between couples in their bodies would cease and the species would go poof. Additionally, as this happened old age would be a problem, there would be no need for learning, new and innovative technology, etc. Only cockaroaches and vermin would benefit, because they seem to get along fine without the human interference of we everything we can think of. Sorry if this seems biased, I dislike roaches, but some vermin are actually cute

Maybe we can’t prove anthing scientifically, because such proof is notoriously provisional on timely data; as where theology is a logic based on the Timelessness of God’s love for men, as one example.

 

[epan]

What proof do you have that masturbation is not spiritually harmful to a person?

Generally, with proof, the burden goes the other way.

 

[Michael19682]

Generally, with proof, the burden goes the other way.

A man made device to settle the disputes between men. Not between God and man, where authority forms the proof.

 

[DarkLight]

The main symptom would have to be hyper sexuality. It would also reek havoc over the development of the ‘self’ in that the sinful desires get internalized. With me, I feel a true sense of shame and guilt over my sexual past. So much of my life was spent defending these behaviors, then I learned just how self abusive these behavior are. Today I’m very grateful for the antidepressant drug called Paxil, which eliminated my sex drive.

Other than hyper sexuality, I don’t see any mental health symptoms in here. And it would have to be disrupting your ability to function to qualify for a disorder.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Other than hyper sexuality, I don’t see any mental health symptoms in here. And it would have to be disrupting your ability to function to qualify for a disorder.

Improper development of the ‘self’ (e.g., poor self esteem and self identity) would also be symptoms that disrupts one’s ability to function properly.

 

[DarkLight]

Improper development of the ‘self’ (e.g., poor self esteem and self identity) would also be symptoms that disrupts one’s ability to function properly.

I still don’t see any reason to call that a mental disorder. Calling guilt over sin a “mental illness” is a fundamentally anti-Christian statement.

 

[Robert_Sock]

I still don’t see any reason to call that a mental disorder. Calling guilt over sin a “mental illness” is a fundamentally anti-Christian statement.

Where do I call guilt a ‘mental illness?’ I do say the shame and guilt are symptoms of the mental illness, but nowhere do I claim that guilt over sin as a mental illness, but yes, they are symptoms.

 

[Giants]

For one who has faith, the first principle in the scope of the athiest’s unfalsifiability definition, God, is indisputably true.

That’s great - but you’re missing the point. You’re not allowed to hold this position as a matter of intellectual honesty. Because the objective position, the one held by intellectually honest Believers and Non-Believers alike, is that God’s existence is, above all, disputed. Not undeniably false, but certainly not undeniably true.

We can leave it here, if you like. Just so long as you understand that we’re not ending the argument here because we don’t agree on your first principle. We’re ending the argument because you mistakenly believe, first, that your first principle is properly basic, and second, that no debate can feasibly occur without agreement on it.