Masturbation...why?

[Rau]

Hum. How is pedophilia, which is simply another sexual attraction, a direct threat? How is bestiality another attraction, a direct threat? Because it’s politically correct? That’s sexology. Who cares what someone’s sexual attraction is? None of these “attractions” have anything to do with ACTIONS? I happen to be attracted to women. Am I a direct threat? I would hope not. A sexual attraction does not automatically imply an ACTION. Unless your a woman who happens to be on the leftist fence. This is very political.

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children. Now the attraction per se is not a direct threat, but any acting on it is a threat to the child. Sexual attraction may lead to actions unless the person experiencing it is committed to choosing not to act on it. The attraction, combined with only a limited capacity or willingness to say “no” is dangerous if the object of attraction is a child.

 

[billcu1]

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children. Now the attraction per se is not a direct threat, but any acting on it is a threat to the child. Sexual attraction may lead to actions unless the person experiencing it is committed to choosing not to act on it. The attraction, combined with only a limited capacity or willingness to say “no” is dangerous if the object of attraction is a child.

Yes indeed it is an attraction to pre-puberty. Children I do understand. I am glad you understand an attraction in itself does not make someone dangerous. In therapy empathy is taught. The law of course provides penalties to those who decides to do such things.

I remember when the sex craze was going on starting in the 80s or so. many laws and hatreds were based on an article in Psychology Today a lay person’s magazine, where one therapists said if you didn’t go through HIS therapy you had an 80% chance to reoffend which is ridiculous. But if you did go through HIS therapy you had an equal chance not to reoffend. Something fishy going on. But people don’t think they do as they’re told.

 Yes you hit it right on the nose. Someone like that should really stay away from children unless in public and not be alone with them for their own safety as well as others. But if they have a "commitment" like you say...I don't think they will act as if someone lobotomized and having some of their brain scraped away, take a fit and flip out. But then there's people who don't give a d*mn.

 

[Thorolfr]

Psychology has changed much over time. Homosexuality was once considered a disorder. It was removed from the DSM and it was yes quite politically motivated.

You’re right about psychology changing over time. And as for the DSM, a lot of what is in it is subject to considerations that are not always based on science.

There’s a new book about the DSM by Gary Greenberg, The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry (Penguin, 2014). Greenberg starts out (pp. 1-2) by giving a short history of diagnosis with the example of a new disease “discovered” by the New Orleans physician Samuel Cartwright in 1850. Cartwright called his new disease drapetomania from the Greek words drapetes, meaning “runaway slave” and the word mania, i.e. “the disease causing Negroes to run away.” As Dr. Cartwright explained in the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, “In noticing a disease not heretofore classed among the long list of maladies that man is subject to, it was necessary to have a new term to express it.” According to Cartwright, the main diagnostic symptom of drapetomania was “absconding from service.” Some secondary symptoms that appeared just prior to a slave’s flight were"sulkiness" and “dissatisfaction.” Cartwright described the epidemiology of drapetomania thus:

Two classes of persons were apt to lose their Negroes: those who made themselves too familiar with them, treating them as equals; and on the other hand those who treated them cruelly, denied them the common necessaries of life, neglected to protect them, or frightened them by a blustering manner of approach.

But Cartwright explained that evenhanded treatment would not prevent all cases of drapetomania, in which case he recommended “whipping the devil out of them.”

The example of drapetomania certainly doesn’t give one much confidence in psychology.

 

[billcu1]

You’re right about psychology changing over time. And as for the DSM, a lot of what is in it is subject to considerations that are not always based on science.

There’s a new book about the DSM by Gary Greenberg, The Book of Woe: The DSM and the Unmaking of Psychiatry (Penguin, 2014). Greenberg starts out (pp. 1-2) by giving a short history of diagnosis with the example of a new disease “discovered” by the New Orleans physician Samuel Cartwright in 1850. Cartwright called his new disease drapetomania from the Greek words drapetes, meaning “runaway slave” and the word mania, i.e. “the disease causing Negroes to run away.” As Dr. Cartwright explained in the New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal, “In noticing a disease not heretofore classed among the long list of maladies that man is subject to, it was necessary to have a new term to express it.” According to Cartwright, the main diagnostic symptom of drapetomania was “absconding from service.” Some secondary symptoms that appeared just prior to a slave’s flight were"sulkiness" and “dissatisfaction.” Cartwright described the epidemiology of drapetomania thus:

But Cartwright explained that evenhanded treatment would not prevent all cases of drapetomania, in which case he recommended “whipping the devil out of them.”

The example of drapetomania certainly doesn’t give one much confidence in psychology.

Indeed your example doesn’t I stick myself to simple things 3 definitions. Affect, cognition and conation. And that is up in the air.

 

[Wesrock]

Psychology today is far more rigorous than psychology was even forty years ago. The field did start off pretty much as a joke but it is now a respectable field in which the scientific method can be applied. That’s not to say I agree with all moral conclusions made in the field, but I think you are selling it a bit short and there are useful conclusions that can be made scientifically from it.

 

[Thorolfr]

Psychology today is far more rigorous than psychology was even forty years ago. The field did start off pretty much as a joke but it is now a respectable field in which the scientific method can be applied. That’s not to say I agree with all moral conclusions made in the field, but I think you are selling it a bit short and there are useful conclusions that can be made scientifically from it.

Personally, I don’t think that there is a lot about psychology or psychiatry that is scientific. It’s not that long ago that psychology was still based on the work of Sigmund Freud. Greenberg mentions an interview he had with Dr. Robert Spitzer who chaired the task force that put together the DSM-III in the late 1970s:

It was obvious to him [Spitzer] that Freud’s theory of mind was a poor substitute for pathological anatomy, and the complexes and resistances and defense mechanisms - the psychoanalyst’s stock in trade - were far too ungrounded in any kind of empirical reality to be useful. Proving the existence of ego, id, and superego was like proving the existence of the Holy Trinity. These notions were more metaphysics than physics, psychoanalysis more religion than science, and the crises [in psychiatry] of the 1960s and 1970s were the result.

As for the DSM, Greeberg writes:

Spitzer is also honest about the fact that the decisions he made to admit or exclude a diagnosis from the DSM-III was not entirely scientific. “The categories that were added were concepts that clinicians in those days thought were important,” he said, and their criteria consisted of what “clinicians said was a good way of defining them.”

According to a presidential commission in 1978, “documenting the total number of people who have mental health problems…is difficult not only because opinions vary on how mental health and mental illness should be defined, but also because the availability of data are often inadequate or misleading.”

A lot of the problems with psychology and psychiatry come from the fact that it is mostly based on categorizing and treating observable symptoms, not on any scientific knowledge about what causes those symptoms. Even now, there are still no completely good scientific explanations for what causes most things classified as mental disorders or mental illnesses or even consensus on how you can tell for sure whether something is really a mental disorder at all.

 

[NovusFidem]

Personally, I don’t think that there is a lot about psychology or psychiatry that is scientific. It’s not that long ago that psychology was still based on the work of Sigmund Freud.

Was? Still is. Each psychologist decides which line of thought they will follow, and many still see great value in Freud’s psychoanalysis.

One of my Mental Health teachers told us that psychology is never an exact science. A person is considered schizophrenic when poor, and eccentric when rich - if money alone is enough to change one’s diagnosis, then it does not reflect any sort of mental health of the person…

They stopped trying to make people think “straight” (pun, sorry) a long time ago. Now, all they do is take normal individuals and stuff them with medication. NORMAL energetic children are labelled hyperactive and given sedatives; normal children who don’t like school (don’t pay attention, don’t make friends) are labelled autistic (to a variety of a spectrum) and given a sort of medications to treat their “symptoms”.

You know, instead of teaching them to be quiet, or telling them the importance of paying attention and making friends, like any good parent should. Instead of parenting, we give them pills and shape them the way we want - like bonsai!

That is what psychology focuses on today. The few that fight against this medic/biological focus don’t really get much attention…

A lot of the problems with psychology and psychiatry come from the fact that it is mostly based on categorizing and treating observable symptoms, not on any scientific knowledge about what causes those symptoms. Even now, there are still no completely good scientific explanations for what causes most things classified as mental disorders or mental illnesses or even consensus on how you can tell for sure whether something is really a mental disorder at all.

Well said. They treat the symptoms, not the cause.

What causes depression? (personal experience) - bad administration of life in general, time wasted in unimportant things, lack of direction in life, too much concern on people’s opinion of you, lack of family/friends/social support, etc. Plus the chemical imbalances, that could be treated with a healthy eating and sleeping habits (two things most depressed people lack - heck, I didn’t even bath at the worse of it)

But instead of teaching me “How to Life 101”, they wanted to give me antidepressants. The problems would all still be there, but at least I’d have happy pills for the journey…

PS: just remembered one of my patients (schizophrenic). His story was basically: normal teen (19yo), first job. After a lot of bullying, he started hearing voices. He still functioned as normal - worked, helped at home; but he kept hearing voices.

He went to the doctor. The doctor did his thing (examination, etc), and prescribed some medication for him - to treat the symptom of “hearing voices”.

Thing is, psychotropics affect the brain, which is too complex for us to control. Most have terrible adverse effects. In his case, it caused aphasia and ataxia. He couldn’t speak sense, and couldn’t move as a normal person. At least he stopped hearing voices, am I right??

Except he didn’t. Some months in, voices came back, he had to change medication, and everything went downhill from there. Last time I saw him, he kept talking to his voices, moving slowly, and ignoring everything around him. Got depressed, was treated for depression, and tried to kill himself (this is a side-effect of antidepressants; ironic, I know);

Gotta love modern psychiatry…

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Personally, I don’t think that there is a lot about psychology or psychiatry that is scientific. It’s not that long ago that psychology was still based on the work of Sigmund Freud. Greenberg mentions an interview he had with Dr. Robert Spitzer who chaired the task force that put together the DSM-III in the late 1970s:

As for the DSM, Greeberg writes:

According to a presidential commission in 1978, “documenting the total number of people who have mental health problems…is difficult not only because opinions vary on how mental health and mental illness should be defined, but also because the availability of data are often inadequate or misleading.”

A lot of the problems with psychology and psychiatry come from the fact that it is mostly based on categorizing and treating observable symptoms, not on any scientific knowledge about what causes those symptoms. Even now, there are still no completely good scientific explanations for what causes most things classified as mental disorders or mental illnesses or even consensus on how you can tell for sure whether something is really a mental disorder at all.

As far as I’m concerned, psychiatrists and psychologists are in the pockets of drug companies, dispensing pills to people rather than solving any problems. I know of no one who has actually been changed or helped by them.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Was? Still is. Each psychologist decides which line of thought they will follow, and many still see great value in Freud’s psychoanalysis.

One of my Mental Health teachers told us that psychology is never an exact science. A person is considered schizophrenic when poor, and eccentric when rich - if money alone is enough to change one’s diagnosis, then it does not reflect any sort of mental health of the person…

They stopped trying to make people think “straight” (pun, sorry) a long time ago. Now, all they do is take normal individuals and stuff them with medication. NORMAL energetic children are labelled hyperactive and given sedatives; normal children who don’t like school (don’t pay attention, don’t make friends) are labelled autistic (to a variety of a spectrum) and given a sort of medications to treat their “symptoms”.

You know, instead of teaching them to be quiet, or telling them the importance of paying attention and making friends, like any good parent should. Instead of parenting, we give them pills and shape them the way we want - like bonsai!

That is what psychology focuses on today. The few that fight against this medic/biological focus don’t really get much attention…

Well said. They treat the symptoms, not the cause.

What causes depression? (personal experience) - bad administration of life in general, time wasted in unimportant things, lack of direction in life, too much concern on people’s opinion of you, lack of family/friends/social support, etc. Plus the chemical imbalances, that could be treated with a healthy eating and sleeping habits (two things most depressed people lack - heck, I didn’t even bath at the worse of it)

But instead of teaching me “How to Life 101”, they wanted to give me antidepressants. The problems would all still be there, but at least I’d have happy pills for the journey…

PS: just remembered one of my patients (schizophrenic). His story was basically: normal teen (19yo), first job. After a lot of bullying, he started hearing voices. He still functioned as normal - worked, helped at home; but he kept hearing voices.

He went to the doctor. The doctor did his thing (examination, etc), and prescribed some medication for him - to treat the symptom of “hearing voices”.

Thing is, psychotropics affect the brain, which is too complex for us to control. Most have terrible adverse effects. In his case, it caused aphasia and ataxia. He couldn’t speak sense, and couldn’t move as a normal person. At least he stopped hearing voices, am I right??

Except he didn’t. Some months in, voices came back, he had to change medication, and everything went downhill from there. Last time I saw him, he kept talking to his voices, moving slowly, and ignoring everything around him. Got depressed, was treated for depression, and tried to kill himself (this is a side-effect of antidepressants; ironic, I know);

Gotta love modern psychiatry…

Great post. My brother was diagnosed schizophrenic as a young man and all they did for him is lock him up and give him massive doses of drugs like thorazine. He ended up killing himself.

 

[TK421]

I think sexuality is something that needs to be taken on faith (which synthesizes with human reason) and obeyed even if one is emotionally unable to identify with Catholic sexual ethics, which strictly speaking, if you’re a descendant of Adam & Eve, Catholic sexual ethics should be counter-intuitive for you.

The sinfulness of masturbation is difficult to understand until you actually stop doing it, or attempt to stop doing it. Once that happens you quickly realize how powerful of a hold it has over you, and even a certain amount of terror seizes you because you realize that you don’t have control over your own body. This is a frightening revelation to have.

Conforming your body to a state of purity is possibly the most sanctifying experience a person will go through on Earth, because you understand your own helplessness in doing so. You must appeal for Divine Aid in order to accomplish this. God saw fit not to grant man the ability to do this by his own power, in order for him to gain the treasure of humility in the process. Purity and humility are twins. You gain one, you gain the other. You lose one, you lose the other.

 

[billcu1]

I think sexuality is something that needs to be taken on faith (which synthesizes with human reason) and obeyed even if one is emotionally unable to identify with Catholic sexual ethics, which strictly speaking, if you’re a descendant of Adam & Eve, Catholic sexual ethics should be counter-intuitive for you.

The sinfulness of masturbation is difficult to understand until you actually stop doing it, or attempt to stop doing it. Once that happens you quickly realize how powerful of a hold it has over you, and even a certain amount of terror seizes you because you realize that you don’t have control over your own body. This is a frightening revelation to have.

Conforming your body to a state of purity is possibly the most sanctifying experience a person will go through on Earth, because you understand your own helplessness in doing so. You must appeal for Divine Aid in order to accomplish this. God saw fit not to grant man the ability to do this by his own power, in order for him to gain the treasure of humility in the process. Purity and humility are twins. You gain one, you gain the other. You lose one, you lose the other.

I was advised by a priest I happened to run into at a restaurant not to have even “scantily clad” women pics. So I avoid them all. He says that was part of my problem. He took my confession and I told him I hadn’t been to Mass in over a year and he said that was bad. For various reasons. Lack of transportation. Something out of my control comes up. And intending to go and just being slothful. That’s where the sin comes in. I am trying and a car is down now and I can’t get the bus so I want to get there and am still trying

 

[billcu1]

As far as I’m concerned, psychiatrists and psychologists are in the pockets of drug companies, dispensing pills to people rather than solving any problems. I know of no one who has actually been changed or helped by them.

Well I take psychotropics for panic attacks and anxiety. Why I am like that idk. Some say a B complex problem. Stress can do this too. I would be and practically was bed fast and had to crawl and couldn’t hardly breathe for a long time hadn’t I got on meds. And lost a lot of weight. It’s a trade off. What drug helps until it causes side effects. In particular the Benzodiazepines.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Well I take psychotropics for panic attacks and anxiety. Why I am like that idk. Some say a B complex problem. Stress can do this too. I would be and practically was bed fast and had to crawl and couldn’t hardly breathe for a long time hadn’t I got on meds. And lost a lot of weight. It’s a trade off. What drug helps until it causes side effects. In particular the Benzodiazepines.

What is IDK? Yes stress can upset a person and their way of coping. However I do not think that meds are the answer.

 

[billcu1]

What is IDK? Yes stress can upset a person and their way of coping. However I do not think that meds are the answer.

It means “I don’t know” and I agree. Meds aren’t the way. But I can’t find any therapy that teaches cognitive therapy and relaxation. Right now that’s all I’ve got. I am going to try B12 supplements for a little while. That might repair things.

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure why meds can never be the answer. There are chemical reasons in some cases, and meds can also mediate the symptoms while a person gets behavioral treatment. Examples of abuse do not nullify the entire field.

It seems like some people believe mental illnesses (acute and/or chronic) are a fiction. That’s not to deny over prescribing or misdiagnoses, but I’d say that’s driven by profiteering and greed, not bad science, in most cases.

 

[NovusFidem]

What is IDK? Yes stress can upset a person and their way of coping. However I do not think that meds are the answer.

IDK = I don’t know. At least that’s what it usually mean

As a nurse, I am strongly against medication. I work with the elderly; they usually take so much medication, that they need more medication to counter the adverse effects of all the other medication. It’s absurd! It’s one thing to take medication when one decidedly must (strong pain, for example); it’s another to take it religiously, and live a life in mild anesthesia…

My sister (27yo, thin as a stick) has high cholesterol. I am certain it is due to her oral contraceptives, but she won’t take my word for it and stop, for just two months!, to see if I am right. Instead, she’s now taking medication to reduce the cholesterol levels, and another medication to reduce her migraine (and I have studies that show that both cholesterol + migraine are related to birth control pill usage)

Some doctors care about your health. They will suggest behavioral changes (diet, exercise, lifestyle…) alongside medication. Others will simply stuff you with pills. Always look for a second opinion.

 

[billcu1]

IDK = I don’t know. At least that’s what it usually mean

As a nurse, I am strongly against medication. I work with the elderly; they usually take so much medication, that they need more medication to counter the adverse effects of all the other medication. It’s absurd! It’s one thing to take medication when one decidedly must (strong pain, for example); it’s another to take it religiously, and live a life in mild anesthesia…

My sister (27yo, thin as a stick) has high cholesterol. I am certain it is due to her oral contraceptives, but she won’t take my word for it and stop, for just two months!, to see if I am right. Instead, she’s now taking medication to reduce the cholesterol levels, and another medication to reduce her migraine (and I have studies that show that both cholesterol + migraine are related to birth control pill usage)

Some doctors care about your health. They will suggest behavioral changes (diet, exercise, lifestyle…) alongside medication. Others will simply stuff you with pills. Always look for a second opinion.

That’s my situation strong pain and convulsion.

 

[pensmama87]

As far as I’m concerned, psychiatrists and psychologists are in the pockets of drug companies, dispensing pills to people rather than solving any problems. I know of no one who has actually been changed or helped by them.

AFAIK psychologists do not write prescriptions. If one is a clinical psychologist, perhaps, but medication is typically the realm of the psychiatrist.

I do know of people who are helped greatly by psychiatric medications.

Psychologists typically resort to other less invasive therapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy or other talk-based therapies). Of course, the effectiveness of these therapies depends greatly on the cooperation of the patient…but the same goes for medical treatments (and non-medical treatments for physical ailments too…e.g. physical therapy.) Patient non-compliance with treatment plans is a huge problem.

 

[billcu1]

AFAIK psychologists do not write prescriptions. If one is a clinical psychologist, perhaps, but medication is typically the realm of the psychiatrist.

I do know of people who are helped greatly by psychiatric medications.

Psychologists typically resort to other less invasive therapies (such as cognitive behavioral therapy or other talk-based therapies). Of course, the effectiveness of these therapies depends greatly on the cooperation of the patient…but the same goes for medical treatments (and non-medical treatments for physical ailments too…e.g. physical therapy.) Patient non-compliance with treatment plans is a huge problem.

Right Psychologists are not MDs but sometimes have a masters or PhD. Clinical psychologists don’t prescribe either.

I have paid big money to therapists that let me talk about what I did today. Who I talked to. They meanwhile don’t say a word. I’ve been told it’s a different type of therapist I need.

 

[pensmama87]

Right Psychologists are not MDs but sometimes have a masters or PhD. Clinical psychologists don’t prescribe either.

I have paid big money to therapists that let me talk about what I did today. Who I talked to. They meanwhile don’t say a word. I’ve been told it’s a different type of therapist I need.

Thanks for clearing up about clinical psychologists - I knew their field was a little bit different and had the impression it was more “medical” but not familiar with the particulars. I could be way off though.

I have had very bad therapists as well. I’ve also had bad doctors, dentists, teachers, electricians, plumbers, etc…doesn’t mean everything about their respective fields is a load of hooey. (Dare I say it, sometimes this even happens with clergy.)

(Thankfully, the bad experiences are few and far between.)