Masturbation...why?

[Rau]

Ok so I should disregard this. Would the Catechism answer my question as to marital relations and what is or isn’t sexual sin. This guy says too two people that are married and in the unitive act there, well is no masturbation allowed. Orgasm or not.

The component of Conte’s blog that may raise eyebrows just a touch is this:

All such acts remain intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral, regardless of whether these acts occur in marriage or out of marriage, regardless of whether these acts occur before, during, or after an act of natural marital relations, and regardless of whether or not sexual climax occurs.

An act of masturbation proceeding to orgasm, as one of a set of sexual acts, including coitus, remans an act of masturbation and in my view is wrong and called as such by the Church. A similar act that proceeds, but fails to reach orgasm (not for want of trying…), or which was just a standalone act of “pleasuring”, would also seem to be masturbation. So in fact, I don’t have much objection to the above Conte quote.

But then Conte goes way further, saying:

A sexual act is any deliberate use of the genital sexual faculty. The sin of masturbation includes a person stimulating himself or herself, or a person similarly stimulating another person. Although the Catechism states the usual purpose (intended end) of this sin, the purpose is in the first font, and the definition of every intrinsically evil act, in its inherent moral meaning, is in the second font. So even if a person were to use masturbation for another purpose, such as to obtain a sample for medical testing, or such as to prepare for natural marital relations, the act remains intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral. Intrinsically evil acts are always defined, in their essential moral nature, by their moral object, not by their purpose.

The above is where Conte seems to lose a grip on reality (no pun intended). Sexual intercourse is itself a caressing of the sexual organs. Conte regards every pleasurable touch (presumably with the exception of penis in/touching vagina) as the sexual act of “masturbation”.

Masturbation as a final act in its own right - be that to orgasm, or as a pleasurable act not in the context of sexual relations - is certainly open to moral question - and that is what I understand Church teaching to condemn. But Conte wishes to put the further position that every sexual caress, or touch, or stroke - even in the setting of acts prior to coitus - is masturbation and thus wrong. That makes no sense to me.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

So is it wrong if an animal masturbates? Most animals also don’t practice monogamy. Is that wrong for them to do, too?

In order for it to be "wrong’ to do, it is necessary to have an understanding of right and wrong. Animals lack this understanding, we do not. (Yes, I know, humans are, genetically, a type of animal. For the purposes of this discussion I am referencing the human animal as a separate classification from non-human animals.)

Animal souls are different from Human souls in several ways, the most important of which is Human souls are rational in nature, capable of understanding right and wrong. With this capacity to understand comes the ability to chose to sin. That choice is, essentially, the core ingredient in a sin. If a person lacks the ability to understand that a sin is a sin, and therefore lacks the ability to chose to sin, then that person lacks the ability to sin. Animals don’t do wrong because they act on instinct, not through rational thought. When a monkey masturbates, they don;t contemplate the nature of what they are doing and question if it is right or not, they simply do it. Similarly, when a monkey kills another monkey, it isn’t murder because they lack the rational soul required to understand that the action is wrong.

This is why humans can sin, and animals can’t. humans can understand and therefore chose based on morality, animals cannot.

 

[pensmama87]

In order for it to be "wrong’ to do, it is necessary to have an understanding of right and wrong. Animals lack this understanding, we do not. (Yes, I know, humans are, genetically, a type of animal. For the purposes of this discussion I am referencing the human animal as a separate classification from non-human animals.)

Animal souls are different from Human souls in several ways, the most important of which is Human souls are rational in nature, capable of understanding right and wrong. With this capacity to understand comes the ability to chose to sin. That choice is, essentially, the core ingredient in a sin. If a person lacks the ability to understand that a sin is a sin, and therefore lacks the ability to chose to sin, then that person lacks the ability to sin. Animals don’t do wrong because they act on instinct, not through rational thought. When a monkey masturbates, they don;t contemplate the nature of what they are doing and question if it is right or not, they simply do it. Similarly, when a monkey kills another monkey, it isn’t murder because they lack the rational soul required to understand that the action is wrong.

This is why humans can sin, and animals can’t. humans can understand and therefore chose based on morality, animals cannot.

Animals will also engage in self-destructive behavior, which I’m surprised doesn’t come up more in discussions about this. There are monkeys in popular tourist destinations that will steal drinks and literally drink themselves to death. A friend of mine assisted on an experiment in college where mice would become so dedicated to getting high that they would quit eating and drinking - just doing whatever to get the stimulus for the endorphin rush (and like in humans, more stimulus was needed over time) .

They had no capacity to quit. They lack the rational ability to understand, “If I keep doing this, I will die.” For them, it’s just the sensation. They can’t reason it out and say, “What will keep happening if I keep chasing this?”

When it’s humans who get to this point, it’s pitiable and sad. I don’t know why we look to how animals behave as a sign for how humans should.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

When it’s humans who get to this point, it’s pitiable and sad. I don’t know why we look to how animals behave as a sign for how humans should.

Because many people are hunting any justification for their sinfulness, no matter how irrational that justification is.

 

[billcu1]

Because they want to be like the apes?

Possible. But Kids too young for sexual knowledge can do this too. And not know what they’re doing. No I’m not talking about sexually abused kids. Children under stress with peers or something.

 

[billcu1]

Animals will also engage in self-destructive behavior, which I’m surprised doesn’t come up more in discussions about this. There are monkeys in popular tourist destinations that will steal drinks and literally drink themselves to death. A friend of mine assisted on an experiment in college where mice would become so dedicated to getting high that they would quit eating and drinking - just doing whatever to get the stimulus for the endorphin rush (and like in humans, more stimulus was needed over time) .

They had no capacity to quit. They lack the rational ability to understand, “If I keep doing this, I will die.” For them, it’s just the sensation. They can’t reason it out and say, “What will keep happening if I keep chasing this?”

When it’s humans who get to this point, it’s pitiable and sad. I don’t know why we look to how animals behave as a sign for how humans should.

What do you mean “drinks”? Soda, alcohol, or what.

 

[billcu1]

People suffer from a variety of vices. What is a difficult temptation for one may barely register for another. Why masturbation appeals to some people could really be a variety of reasons, I think: it’s “safe” (no vulnerability required as you would with a spouse), you can tailor it exactly as you want (no sacrifice required as you would with a spouse), and you get a release of endorphins from it (physical pleasure).

Some people achieve the same thing with alcohol, some with drugs, some with food, some with gambling, etc. My personal suspicion is that vulnerability to addiction of any kind is probably partly genetic and partly environmental. Some habits are harder to break than others, especially the longer they’ve gone on. Masturbation may be a trickier one to break these days because it’s been normalized (as has pornography, a related but separate issue), and because it’s easy when one is idle (and modern conveniences give us lots of idle time).

They say “Idle hands are the work of the devil” or something like that.

 

[billcu1]

Is masturbation a harmful “physical” act? God does not want it done. So does he not say “why” or does the magisterium?

 

[pensmama87]

What do you mean “drinks”? Soda, alcohol, or what.

I mean alcohol.

I don’t know that soda would be harmful to a monkey (at least not short term), from what I understand their digestive systems are fairly similar to ours.

But alcohol can cause some serious damage very quickly, especially if you’re small.

I saw a documentary on that specific issue (monkeys stealing cocktails, etc.) The tourist destinations mostly treat them like pests (makes sense), but some tourists just think, “Ah, a drunk monkey, that’s funny” and if drinks are included in the price they don’t care or encourage the “cute little animals” to take them. It was actually really sad to watch - some of the monkey behavior reminded me a LOT of alcoholics I have known.

 

[pensmama87]

Is masturbation a harmful “physical” act? God does not want it done. So does he not say “why” or does the magisterium?

I don’t understand what you are asking.

What makes it wrong can be determined without religion - what is sex for? Solo acts aren’t part of it.

I can tell you that for many men there are physical side effects from masturbation that make sexual intercourse difficult (overstimulation, like Christine77 mentioned, being a big one). I don’t know so much for women (even being one). It’s never been a major temptation of mine (though I have other vices a plenty).

 

[billcu1]

I don’t understand what you are asking.

What makes it wrong can be determined without religion - what is sex for? Solo acts aren’t part of it.

I can tell you that for many men there are physical side effects from masturbation that make sexual intercourse difficult (overstimulation, like Christine77 mentioned, being a big one). I don’t know so much for women (even being one). It’s never been a major temptation of mine (though I have other vices a plenty).

I see. As far as serious spiritual progress too. You can’t be constantly forcing the sex force downward you must allow it to rise to the brain. And no meat. But that’s for the more serious. Not lay people so much.

 

[pensmama87]

I see. As far as serious spiritual progress too. You can’t be constantly forcing the sex force downward you must allow it to rise to the brain. And no meat. But that’s for the more serious. Not lay people so much.

I have no idea what any of this means.

 

[Rau]

Is masturbation a harmful “physical” act? God does not want it done. So does he not say “why” or does the magisterium?

I’m not sure that the why is definitively spelled out. Why can we not do an evil to produce a great good? Regardless, that it is a wrong act is stated clearly through God’s church. And the biblical account of Onan makes clear God’s displeasure “with what Onan did”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Possible. But Kids too young for sexual knowledge can do this too. And not know what they’re doing. No I’m not talking about sexually abused kids. Children under stress with peers or something.

But why would people want to imitate an ape?
Isn’t there something backward and perverse about that?

 

[CHRISTINE77]

They say “Idle hands are the work of the devil” or something like that.

So true.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I don’t understand what you are asking.

What makes it wrong can be determined without religion - what is sex for? Solo acts aren’t part of it.

I can tell you that for many men there are physical side effects from masturbation that make sexual intercourse difficult (overstimulation, like Christine77 mentioned, being a big one). I don’t know so much for women (even being one). It’s never been a major temptation of mine (though I have other vices a plenty).

It’s the same for women. And all those drugs that supposedly enhance sex drive are based on the same dynamics. They get the genitals engorged with blood. It’s really quite gross. As for homosexuals the whole sex act is a form of mutual masturbation, *especially women. *

 

[pensmama87]

It’s the same for women. And all those drugs that supposedly enhance sex drive are based on the same dynamics. They get the genitals engorged with blood. ** It’s really quite gross.** As for homosexuals the whole sex act is a form of mutual masturbation, *especially women. *

Well, that depends on how you look at it. For people with sexual dysfunction, increased blood flow may be necessary so they can be intimate with their spouses. (It’s my understanding that intended use for such drugs is actually to treat dysfunction, though some people do use the drugs “recreationally,” which I would agree is problematic.)

Actually, what I was referring to in particular was different than arousal. The type of stimulation is different, and because it can be so precisely tailored it presents a danger. I’m looking at it from an addiction perspective - over time, what’s needed for the “high” increases and becomes incredibly specific and only works under specific conditions. For masturbation (and pornography), this completely separates sex from its intended meaning between two spouses, where vulnerability and sacrifice are required.

 

[Rau]

Well, that depends on how you look at it. For people with sexual dysfunction, increased blood flow may be necessary so they can be intimate with their spouses. (It’s my understanding that intended use for such drugs is actually to treat dysfunction, though some people do use the drugs “recreationally,” which I would agree is problematic.)

Actually, what I was referring to in particular was different than arousal. The type of stimulation is different, and because it can be so precisely tailored it presents a danger. I’m looking at it from an addiction perspective - over time, what’s needed for the “high” increases and becomes incredibly specific and only works under specific conditions. For masturbation (and pornography), this completely separates sex from its intended meaning between two spouses, where vulnerability and sacrifice are required.

Not sure what drugs you refer to in the “recreational” category. I know therapeutic drugs such as Viagra don’t / can’t substitute for sexual stimulation. That is required a priori, and the drug just facilitates improved blood flow. This may enable sexual intercourse by men otherwise unable to maintain erection. It may also contribute to a curative / re-learning process for men who have suffered an injury or surgical damage to the relevant nerves etc.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Not sure what drugs you refer to in the “recreational” category. I know therapeutic drugs such as Viagra don’t / can’t substitute for sexual stimulation. That is required a priori, and the drug just facilitates improved blood flow. This may enable sexual intercourse by men otherwise unable to maintain erection. It may also contribute to a curative / re-learning process for men who have suffered an injury or surgical damage to the relevant nerves etc.

I’m sorry, but most men who are targeted for using Viagra do not have some penis injury. They simply want to be able to “get it up” in their sex lives. If a man is too old or not really in love and procreative, forget about it. Old men should do other things.

 

[Rau]

I’m sorry, but most men who are targeted for using Viagra do not have some penis injury. They simply want to be able to “get it up” in their sex lives. If a man is too old or not really in love and procreative, forget about it. Old men should do other things.

No need to be sorry. I was describing the operation of the drug and its beneficial, uses in dealing with erection dysfunction. Most men (and women, for their husband) desire a firm erection, because sexual intercourse without that is essentially impossible. Ask any man who has had prostate surgery why it was prescribed.