Splitting hairs about masturbation?

[CuriousInIL]

That is not sufficient. What constitutes, “sexual pleasure,” if not orgasm? Does merely getting an erection constitute “sexual pleasure?” Without intention of orgasm, erections can often be annoying and unwelcome, and very far from constituting “sexual pleasure.” That wording is far too vague to generate a conclusion. I’m sorry, but you are going to need more than that quote from the Catechism to convince me that (at least male) masturbation does NOT require orgasm to be masturbation. Well, I am not really trying to convince you. While certainly vague, the CCC wording is the Church teaching and, if you want to conclude that orgasm is required for masturbation then you need to support that with more than just “** I was under the impression that orgasm was required, or at the very least intended.” **It is your impression, where did it come from? Certainly not the CCC. IMO even this vague definition from the CCC trumps your “impression” especially when you cite no source. Yes, in order to apply this section one need to decide what “sexual pleasure” means; as well as “deliberate stimulation.” The need to understand a definition (one that I fully agree is vague) is not a reason to give up and say well that requires some hard thinking so its just not enough.

I’m not debating whether it is sinful or not, as all lustful thoughts are sinful, but it seems as if you are also equating lust, and the natural physical results of lust with masturbation. Again, I must say that they are not synonymous. I agree that they are not the same. But I didn’t equate anything with anything else; and, I quoted the CCC section on masturbation, not the section on lust.

Is “derive sexual pleasure,” synonymous with “achieve orgasm?” I would say “no” to that, too, in that sexual pleasure can be an emotional concept as well. I would also say no they are not the same.

Now, can a man intentionally generate sexual pleasure from his own genitals without desiring or achieving orgasm? Perhaps if he specifically intended to stop immediately before orgasm, then I can maybe see that constituting masturbation, if he is going through the motions, yet deliberately not bringing the act to completion(orgasm.) I can maybe see that, but that isn’t what we seem to be talking about here, at least not as far as the original post is concerned.

What we’re talking about is actions that may cause the genitalia to be stimulated, but that are done for the emotional and physical sexual pleasure of other parts of the anatomy, and will additionally stimulate the genitalia, even though the genitalia stimulation is irrelevant to the intentions of the person, and where the so called “sexual pleasure,” that is being sought is not a result or an ends that centers around the genitalia, but that such stimulation of the genitalia is merely a side-effect, possibly even an unwelcome and unintentional side effect. There is no doubt that this is still sinful. The question at hand, however, is does this constitute “masturbation.” Based on the definition provided in the Catechism, I feel we can not decisively conclude either way.

It seems to me that the issues raised in this last paragraph go more to the “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs” part of the definition and less to the “in order to derive sexual pleasure” part. That’s all for now.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

That is not sufficient. What constitutes, “sexual pleasure,” if not orgasm? Does merely getting an erection constitute “sexual pleasure?” Without intention of orgasm, erections can often be annoying and unwelcome, and very far from constituting “sexual pleasure.” That wording is far too vague to generate a conclusion. I’m sorry, but you are going to need more than that quote from the Catechism to convince me that (at least male) masturbation does NOT require orgasm to be masturbation.

I’m not debating whether it is sinful or not, as all lustful thoughts are sinful, but it seems as if you are also equating lust, and the natural physical results of lust with masturbation. Again, I must say that they are not synonymous.

Is “derive sexual pleasure,” synonymous with “achieve orgasm?” I would say “no” to that, too, in that sexual pleasure can be an emotional concept as well.

Now, can a man intentionally generate sexual pleasure from his own genitals without desiring or achieving orgasm? Perhaps if he specifically intended to stop immediately before orgasm, then I can maybe see that constituting masturbation, if he is going through the motions, yet deliberately not bringing the act to completion(orgasm.) I can maybe see that, but that isn’t what we seem to be talking about here, at least not as far as the original post is concerned.

What we’re talking about is actions that may cause the genitalia to be stimulated, but that are done for the emotional and physical sexual pleasure of other parts of the anatomy, and will additionally stimulate the genitalia, even though the genitalia stimulation is irrelevant to the intentions of the person, and where the so called “sexual pleasure,” that is being sought is not a result or an ends that centers around the genitalia, but that such stimulation of the genitalia is merely a side-effect, possibly even an unwelcome and unintentional side effect. There is no doubt that this is still sinful. The question at hand, however, is does this constitute “masturbation.” Based on the definition provided in the Catechism, I feel we can not decisively conclude either way.

So if I am to follow what you are saying here, if a man starts to stimulate his penis without desiring an orgasm, it is not masturbation, it is like scratching an itch? What would be the intention of that? The purpose? Mind you, I am sure that there could be times that a man could be just mad or frustrated (not sexually) and the only way to relieve that would be to masturbate thereby not bringing about lustful thoughts, however, this is still masturbation. Simply having an orgasm does not make the stimulation masturbation. If there is no orgasm them what is it? I understand the arguement that you are trying to make, but I do not agree with it. You seem to trying to find a loophole that makes this ok. Tell me, what is masturbation without any pleasure? You stopped after the first part of the Catechism and failed to read further"

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” **“The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” **

We know that the male penis has been created by God for 2 reasons. #1 to urinate and #2 to procreate. That is it. Nothing more. The penis was not created to be yours as a toy or as an object for your own pleasure. God created sex and did so in a way that is holy and deliberate. He knew what He was doing. By masturbating, this is a miuse of the gift that was given to you by God. If God created the penis as a means for procreation then it is simply, it is used in the marital embrace in a procreative and unitive act. A selfless act. Masturbation or “stimulating” you penis outside of that act is selfish. Sex is not selfish. Again, you are deliberately taking a gift that God has given to you for a specific purpose and twisting that around for your own selfish benefit.

Let’s call a spade a spade here. I am not sure why this is such a hot topic as to whether or not this is masturbation? There may be some strange circumstances where one does not derive sexual pleasure (or any pleasure for that matter) from masturbation, but they are few and far between. Masturbation is a pleasurable act. It is a sexual act. Is it always derived from lust, no, not always, but the majority of the time yes. However, one cannot simply say that if there is no orgasm, then it is not masturbation. It is still masturbation. It is still selfish. It is still a misuse of a gift from God.

 

[CuriousInIL]

We know that the male penis has been created by God for 2 reasons. #1 to urinate and #2 to procreate. That is it. Nothing more. The penis was not created to be yours as a toy or as an object for your own pleasure. God created sex and did so in a way that is holy and deliberate. He knew what He was doing. By masturbating, this is a miuse of the gift that was given to you by God. If God created the penis as a means for procreation then it is simply, it is used in the marital embrace in a procreative and unitive act. A selfless act.

While overall I think you are on the right track, I think you have misstated #2. I would say “to engage in the marital act” rather than “to procreate” as procreation is not the only point of the marital act and, indeed, if the male is sterile is not possible but that does not require refraining from the marital act.

 

[turtle18]

To the male poster who is claiming this thread is causing him lust in his heart, then I say why did you click on it to begin with? You saw the title of it, surely you knew there might be some frank discussion.
This can be a real problem for some women, and they are completely mortified to bring it up to their priests (I am ONE of those people.) While I don’t do anything to myself, one touch in the wrong place from a guy can cause me to have an orgasm. And the “wrong place” isn’t a sexual part of my body.
So basically what you are saying is we can have all the graphic talk on this forum we want concerning men’s sexual problems, but when it comes to women’s, we can’t because it might get a man aroused?

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

While overall I think you are on the right track, I think you have misstated #2. I would say “to engage in the marital act” rather than “to procreate” as procreation is not the only point of the marital act and, indeed, if the male is sterile is not possible but that does not require refraining from the marital act.

Agreed, my mind was working to fast (for a change). Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[setter]

You are wrongfully equating lust with masturbation. They are not the same thing. Lust is an inward disposition of the mind and heart. It is sin in the area of the thought life. Masturbation is an external action, sin in the area of what we have done. Lust can lead to masturbation, and is almost always a precipitating factor, but lust is not synonymous with masturbation.

Masurbation and lust each are a moral disorder and intrinsically evil. Not all lust leads masturbation, but all masturbation is the direct outcome of lust.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Masurbation and lust each are a moral disorder and intrinsically evil. Not all lust leads masturbation, but all masturbation is the direct outcome of lust.

I don’t think that is true. Why do you believe it is?

 

[larry85704]

Masturbation is a serious matter. The Catechism, 1861, states clearly that God is the only one that can determine if a sin is mortal. If you want to be good Catholics, stop the mortal sin talk. Masturbation may be a mortal sin, may not. Only God knows.

By the way, if masturbation is so much trouble, why did God give us a sex drive?

 

[teachccd]

Masturbation is a serious matter. The Catechism, 1861, states clearly that God is the only one that can determine if a sin is mortal. If you want to be good Catholics, stop the mortal sin talk. Masturbation may be a mortal sin, may not. Only God knows.

By the way, if masturbation is so much trouble, why did God give us a sex drive?

God gave us a sex drive to be shared within a committed relationship. (marriage) So that rules out pre-marital sex, adultery, homosexuality and any other sexual behavior that occurs outside the context of a unitive and procreative union.

Whether or not masturbation is a mortal sin is left up to God and the person committing the seriously disordered act. Mortal sin, by definition, cannot be discerned anywhere other than in the confessional where the absolution takes place. We cannot judge souls. Only God can…teachccd

 

[coleraine]

I don’t think that is true. Why do you believe it is?

if you begin to masterbate, but stop because you dont want to sin, is it still a mortal sin?

 

[teachccd]

if you begin to masterbate, but stop because you dont want to sin, is it still a mortal sin?

Only God can answer this. Your intention as to why you began can be just as serious as if you finished. And if you didn’t stop it may not be a mortal sin due to a number of considerations.( See the Catechism of the Catholic Church) Your question cannot be answered on this forum. Seek the counseling of a priest and stick with his recommendations…teachccd

 

[ChangingHeart]

This is a very fascinating discussion. I think we can all agree, though, that the Catechism’s definition of masturbation is rather vague and open to interpretation.

I’d like to clarify the point I am trying to make(based on replies I’m getting, I can see that I’m not being clear enough, either.)

I think a key word that needs to be added to the definition (in terms of male masturbation) is “friction.” Perhaps if we defined (male) masturbation as, “the deliberate use of friction upon the penis in order to stimulate the penis in order to derive sexual pleasure.” This way, we eliminate lustful thoughts that arouse the penis as a side-effect, from falling under the same category, yet we don’t explicitly require orgasm. It still makes those lustful thoughts sinful, as sin is sin no matter what technical term it is given, but this way at least we distinguish actions that are specifically designed to stimulate the penis from thoughts that inadvertedly arouse the penis as a side-effect. Both are sinful, but only the former falls under the category of “masturbation.” The latter falls under the category of “lust.”

Can a woman arouse a man’s penis by touching him in other parts of his body? Well, duh! A woman can arouse a man’s penis just by talking to the man, so the answer is an obvious, “yes.” This, however, does not make the couple guilty of “masturbation,” unless friction is applied to the penis, itself. That doesn’t excuse such intentionally arousing actions from falling under the category of “sin,” but they are NOT masturbation.

Male orgasm can not be achieved without some degree of external friction upon the penis, whether intentional or unintentional.

This thread was certainly news to me that female orgasm can be achieved without any physical contact with the vagina. I had no idea. As a result, I’m not going to even attempt to define female masturbation. That’s beyond my comprehension. I’ll let my future wife explain all that to me, AFTER we get married.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Masurbation and lust each are a moral disorder and intrinsically evil. Not all lust leads masturbation, but all masturbation is the direct outcome of lust.

I don’t think that is true. Why do you believe it is?

if you begin to masterbate, but stop because you dont want to sin, is it still a mortal sin?

I do not know the answer (and as others pointed out, it is impossible to determine without analyzing other factors as it applies to each of us). I also do not know if that really is or isn’t grave matter. Seems to me that stopping because of the recognition of sin says something about will and perhaps knowledge.
BTW, I do not see how your question fits in the line of my question. Was it intended as some sort of response?

 

[CuriousInIL]

This is a very fascinating discussion. I think we can all agree, though, that the Catechism’s definition of masturbation is rather vague and open to interpretation.
I agree, not sure at all that all will.
I’d like to clarify the point I am trying to make(based on replies I’m getting, I can see that I’m not being clear enough, either.)

I think a key word that needs to be added to the definition (in terms of male masturbation) is “friction.” Perhaps if we defined (male) masturbation as, “the deliberate use of friction upon the penis in order to stimulate the penis in order to derive sexual pleasure.” This way, we eliminate lustful thoughts that arouse the penis as a side-effect, from falling under the same category, yet we don’t explicitly require orgasm.Seems to me that side effects are already out because of the “**deliberate **stimulation of the genital organs” language. It still makes those lustful thoughts sinful, as sin is sin no matter what technical term it is given, but this way at least we distinguish actions that are specifically designed to stimulate the penis from thoughts that inadvertedly arouse the penis as a side-effect. Again, the “deliberate” language already does that, doesn’t it? Both are sinful, but only the former falls under the category of “masturbation.” The latter falls under the category of “lust.”

Can a woman arouse a man’s penis by touching him in other parts of his body? Well, duh! A woman can arouse a man’s penis just by talking to the man, so the answer is an obvious, “yes.” This, however, does not make the couple guilty of “masturbation,” unless friction is applied to the penis, itself. Under your new definition that is true. But, I think the CCC is trying to be more expansive and the talking counts so long as it was “deliberate stimulation of the genital organs” and it seems to me that is rarely going to be the case with just talk. That doesn’t excuse such intentionally arousing actions from falling under the category of “sin,” but they are NOT masturbation.

Male orgasm can not be achieved without some degree of external friction upon the penis, whether intentional or unintentional. Not true.

This thread was certainly news to me that female orgasm can be achieved without any physical contact with the vagina. I had no idea. As a result, I’m not going to even attempt to define female masturbation. That’s beyond my comprehension. I’ll let my future wife explain all that to me, AFTER we get married.

On the discussion goes!

 

[larry85704]

I think it is best to leave the Catechism exactly as is. Some of you are sexually not very knowledgeable. There is lots of behavour that can cause a man, or woman to be aroused. That is not bad, it is part of the normal, moral process of sex. When the Church teaches that purposely deriving pleasure, outside of marriage, is wrong I think they hit the nail on the head.

You know, I respect your right to believe what you want about anything. So does the Church. The Church has the enormous task of writing down some sort of guidelines, as a start toward morality. The Church recognizes that each of us have access to a higher power, God. The Church must live with the idea that God can directly guide each one of us as He sees fit.

Again, God wants us to mate and have kids. That is the moral law. Marriage is the Sacrament associated with the moral law. To support the moral law God gave us a sex drive. He wants us to use it. Marriage is the socially acceptable, and morally acceptable, way to use it.

I remember when my wife wanted to have our second child. Our first was born in August, very hot. She wanted to have Paul in January. Being a smart woman, she figured out when to get pregnant. At that time I was a very happy man. My guess is that women, if motivated, will make questions of masturbation very boring. Wanting to get pregnant is such a motivation.

Now, who is to say that by trusting God, a man and his wife cannot be in the I want to get pregnant mode all the time? Sorry for all those of you that choked on your coffee. You know, it really could be God’s will that some of us have 16 kids. Some couples, again because God wants it that way, would have 0 kids. But everybody would have sex all the time. No masturbation, no energy for it.

 

[ChangingHeart]

Now this discussion goes one step deeper. Is “intentional stimulation” to mean actions that are done intentionally that we know will cause stimulation? Or, does it specifically mean actions that are done intentionally for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of stimulation?

 

[ChangingHeart]

To the male poster who is claiming this thread is causing him lust in his heart, then I say why did you click on it to begin with? You saw the title of it, surely you knew there might be some frank discussion.
This can be a real problem for some women, and they are completely mortified to bring it up to their priests (I am ONE of those people.) While I don’t do anything to myself, one touch in the wrong place from a guy can cause me to have an orgasm. And the “wrong place” isn’t a sexual part of my body.
So basically what you are saying is we can have all the graphic talk on this forum we want concerning men’s sexual problems, but when it comes to women’s, we can’t because it might get a man aroused?

New information was presented to me. I didn’t think I would read anything here that would be “news” to me.

Realize that the intentional omission of a mortal sin invalidates the entire confession. I’m not suggesting that you committed a mortal sin, but if you did, it would be another mortal sin and invalidate your entire confession if you intentionally withhold it.

As for what you said about a touch in the wrong place, I realize that this must be a horrific struggle for you. Keep praying, and seek out only decent Catholic men who are gentlemanly enough to leave ALL aspects of physical foreplay until the wedding night. I know that we are few and far between, but we are out there. Personally, I feel that it is best to leave ALL physical foreplay until the wedding night, because both men and women can easily fall in love with, “making out,” and mistake that for being in love with the person who they are “making out” with. When that aspect is left out of a relationship, however, and people are forced to make a genuine connection with each other’s personalities, and still end up “falling in love” with each other, then you know that in all probability, you have something real and lasting, worthy of taking the next step into marriage. This, of course, flies in the face of the message that young ladies receive from the liberal media, the message of, “Use your body to attract, control, and manipulate a man,” but that message is evil and wrong, and likely to ultimately lead to divorce.

 

[CuriousInIL]

Now this discussion goes one step deeper. Is “intentional stimulation” to mean actions that are done intentionally that we know will cause stimulation? Or, does it specifically mean actions that are done intentionally for the SPECIFIC PURPOSE of stimulation?

Let’s make sure we use the wording from the CCC, it is “deliberate stimulation” not “intentional stimulation.”

 

[ChangingHeart]

Let’s make sure we use the wording from the CCC, it is “deliberate stimulation” not “intentional stimulation.”

I agree that we should stick with the Church’s terminology. Is there, however, a difference in definition between the terms “deliberate,” and “intentional?” If so, what is the difference?

If a football quarterback is charged with “intentional grounding,” it means that he deliberately grounded the ball.

 

[CuriousInIL]

I agree that we should stick with the Church’s terminology. Is there, however, a difference in definition between the terms “deliberate,” and “intentional?” If so, what is the difference?

Perhaps the easiest way to describe the difference is that “voluntary” is a synonym for “intentional” but synonyms for “deliberate” are “considered,” “advised,” and “premeditated.” Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. Merriam-Webster, 2002 indicates “deliberate always indicates full awareness of what one is doing and, used precisely, implies careful and unhurried consideration of procedures or consequences.”