Saturday, April 21, 2007
Language and Sex
Language is powerful. Words can elicit strong emotions, can lead or mislead, can control the minds and lives of everyday people. This is why feminists have looked to our language to find gender biases. Without a doubt, language is sexist. There are countless examples that show the preference of men in the English language. From words such as “history”, which contains the male pronoun “his”, to “woman” which is obviously derived from “man.” The former example shows the archaic idea that it is men who change the course of time and women have no independent effect. The latter is most likely derived from the idea that Eve was created from Adam’s rib and hence women are simply a derivative of men. However, does society truly need to change language? Is it not enough that we change the ideas of society (which has not yet fully happened) and not waste time and resources? Are not people rational enough to know that language does not imply truth but that language is simply a reflection of past values in society? In general, people are rational and the sexism in our language should not cause the feminist fight to reverse, however, an important idea should be noted. If language truly is a tool of power, then gender biases only gives misogynists (of which there always will exist) an additional opportunity to rationalize their misguided views and to further propagate their views. So although the general population is rational enough or perhaps apathetic enough not to care about defeating sexist language, it is important that is done, if only to defeat a possible tool for the rationalization of hate.
Masturbation Under Christian Rule
In his 1977 film, Annie Hall, Woody Allen’s character, Alvy Singer, proclaims “Hey, don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone I love.” Woody Allen's quirky observation couldn't be any truer, however, society has not always thought of masturbation in this context. Moreover, large segments of today's society still hold masturbation in a negative light and in almost every segment, masturbation holds at least some degree of stigma. This paper will address the varying current perspectives on this sensitive topic and will demonstrate that the stigmatization of masturbation exists because of archaic religious views on sexuality and the human body. Furthermore, it will show that healthy masturbation can and should be part of the ongoing development and maintenance of a person's sexuality.
Before discussing supporting evidence and reasoning for a positive position on masturbation it will be important to first examine the rich history of society and masturbation. The issue must be examined by some important facets of human knowledge; that is, religious views, medical positions, and other secular traditions, all of which are inherently linked throughout history on this topic. Once this is examined, then one can explore the positions that are held today by religious institutions, medical professionals, and general secular society with an understanding and appreciation of each and only then can a sexual ethic on masturbation be developed.
HISTORY OF MASTUBATION
The practice of masturbation is as old as mankind itself. This, of course, is not supported by any evidence but can be safely assumed, since all primates, most notably the Bonozo chimpanzees whose DNA is 98.4% identical to humans, masturbate. Depictions of masturbation, most prominently that of male masturbation, are found in the earliest of ancient societies. In Egyptian mythology, it is said that the sun god Atum masturbated and brought forth the first two souls and the Sumerians credit the god Enki as the source of the Tigris River, who's ejaculation filled it with flowing water. The ancient Greeks had a more practical view on masturbation, promoting it's use to combat sexual frustration that could be destructive. The Greek philosopher Diogenes jokingly credits the creation of masturbation to Hermes, taking pity on his son Pan, who's failed attempt to seduce Echo left him frustrated, and taught him the trick for relief.1
Within the Judeo-Christian traditions, the first caveat against masturbation can be found in the Old Testament. Genesis 38:7-10 says, "Then Judah said to Onan, 'Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.2"
It can be easily seen that what is being referred to here is not masturbation but coitus interruptus, known as the withdrawal method of contraception. In actuality, there is no biblical passage that has an explicit prohibition of masturbation. Despite this, several passages have been used to justify prohibition and as will be seen later, the story of Onan is the basis for a term describing masturbation, developed in the 18th century. The Jewish Talmud takes the act of Onan and God's subsequent punishment to be a condemnation of masturbation and equates the act to that of murder and idolatry.3 Interestingly enough, only male masturbation is outlawed here, purportedly because of the “spilling of the seed” and female masturbation is not considered because of this. However, upon further consideration, the punishment of Onan could have occurred not because of the fact that he spilled his seed, but because he refused to follow the command of God making the argument against masturbation in this case even less consistent. Despite this, ethicists in early 18th century used the narrative to derive an ethic against masturbation.
At some point between 1708 and 1716 a pamphlet was released anonymously in London, England.4 Its long title was Onania; or, The Heinous Sin of Self Population, and all its Frightful Consequences, in both SEXES Considered, with Spiritual and Physical Advice to those who have already inured themselves by this abodminable practice. And seasonable Admonition to the Youth of the nation of Both SEXES. As is evident in the title, the pamphlet does not place “Onania” in a positive light. This was the first usage of the term derived from the aforementioned story of Onan and subsequently coined a newly defined medical disease. The author defines the sin of self-pollution to be the “unnatural practice, by which persons of either sex, may defile their own bodies, without the assistance of others, whilst yielding to filthy imaginations, they endeavour to imitate and procure to themselves that sensation, which God has ordered to attend the carnal commerce of the two sexes for the continuance of our species.”5 As wordy as it is, the author outlines the rational for immorality of masturbation with this definition. It claims that masturbation is unnatural and defiles because it produces sexual sensations that are reserved by God for procreation. This reasoning was somewhat different than the Jewish position as it was one grounded in Augustinian Christian sexual ethics, holding sexuality in hostility, which is evidenced by the author stating the purpose of the work “is to promote Virtue and Christian Purity.”6 Aside from losing their salvation, those who masturbate are charged, by the author, with the possibility of becoming inflicted with gonorrhea, impotence, epilepsy, and a loss of reason, citing testimonials of chronic masturbation suffers.
The early work of Onania led the Swiss physician Samuel-Auguste Tissot to construct his own description of masturbation in his 1760 work L'Onanisme; ou, Dissertation physique sur les malades produites par la masturbation. Despite the stark similarities in the titles of both works, Tissot maintained that there is no similarity between the two and criticized the 1716 work to have had many factual errors, however considered Onania to be a work that was generally true about masturbation.7
While Onania recommended the purchase of a specific type of medicine to combat masturbation, Tissot's work had no such recommendation; just the caveat to never masturbate. Tissot's cure was cheap and commonsensical and as a result became “an instant literary sensation throughout Europe.”8 With Tissot's already academic prestige and subsequent rise of acclimation, this brought the topic of masturbation into the foreground of mainstream Western society.9 Enlightenment philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire agreed with Tissot's work on the dangers of masturbation and even Jean-Rousseau title character from Emile was considered to be in better condition to fall in love with an inappropriate woman than to succumb to masturbation, which would cause him to “become hopelessly enslaved to himself”10 Tissot's work became the underpinning for over a century of gross misconceptions of masturbation.
Nearing the end of the 19th century, studies in anthropology, animal behavior, sexology, psychiatry, zoology, and other fields showed that masturbation was common among nearly every culture in human history.11 The societal heinousness of masturbation began to weaken as Havelock Ellis released Studies in the Psychology of Sex, first in 1899, and coined the term auto-eroticism, a term that does not have the implied notion of sin, unlike onanism. Aside from correcting misconceptions in the medical community, Ellis also provided an interesting synthesis of religion with auto-eroticism:
"The intimate association between the emotions of love and religion is well known to all those who are habitually brought into close contact with the phenomena of the religious life. Love and religion are the two most volcanic emotions to which the human organism is liable, and it is not surprising that, when there is a disturbance in one of these spheres, the vibrations should readily extend to the other. Nor is it surprising that the two emotions should have a dynamic relation to each other, and that the auto-erotic impulse, being the more primitive and fundamental of the two impulses, should be able to pass its unexpended energy over to the religious emotion, there to find the expansion hitherto denied it, the love of the human becoming the love of the divine.12"
Here, Ellis is suggesting that masturbation is not necessarily in conflict with religious pursuit but can harmonize with it, and that the two are inherently linked.
CURRENT CHRISTIAN POSITIONS ON MASTURBATION
Christianity's position on masturbation is heavily grounded in St. Augustine's restrictive view of sexuality. However, as stated earlier, there is no explicit condemnation of masturbation in either the Old or New Testaments. This has lead to the various Christian traditions to differ greatly on the subject, with conservative denominations regarding it as a sin of the flesh while liberal groups view it as a normal part of an individual's sexuality.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM
The Roman Catholic Church's position on sexuality is not taken from direct biblical references but is traditionally inherent within the church and are is contextually on the Bible.13 This position is grounded in the naturalistic view of the body, in that it was designed for a nuptial and procreative purpose. Roman Catholic morality thus views all non-procreative or non-marital sex as essentially acts against this purpose and that of God. Section 2352 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church outlines the Church's position on masturbation:
"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.' For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of 'the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.'... "
This first part of Section 2352 follows the Church's position that the natural function of the “sexual faculty” is for it to be used only within the context of marriage. The act is deemed a mortal sin, preventing those who have committed it from receiving the Eucharist and possible condemnation to Hell. The section continues as follows:
"To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. "
This second clause, in contrast with the first, allows a person, such as a pubescent youth, who is has not reach a proper level of maturity, that has committed masturbation to continue with sacraments, such as the Eucharist, before receiving the Eucharist and such a sin would not be considered a mortal sin.
PROTESTANTISM
The conservative Protestant position on masturbation is primarily in line with the Catholic tradition, however there are a considerable number of conservative and mainline denominations that do not hold masturbation negatively and many that consider it still a sin but a less serious sin than what Catholics and some conservative Protestants consider it to be.
Dr. John White, in his 1993 book Eros Redeemed,, considers masturbation to be sin a for the same natural law reasons of Catholic theology but also calls it a form of idolatry. He states “Our bodies are to be offered to God. Masturbation is to make a god of my bodily sensations, of relief from the tension that I feel. Again, I know that married lovemaking can itself be a selfish pursuit of bodily sensation. But I repeat: it was not designed to be. At that point it becomes lust.”14 Although he does not approve of masturbation, in his 1996 work The Path of Holiness: A Guide for Sinners, he regrets the guilt caused by past condemnation by religious and at the same time regrets society's permissiveness of it. This concept of guilt will be notably important in developing a sexual ethic on masturbation.
Daniel R. Heimbach, a professor of Christian ethics in North Carolina, reaffirms the natural law perspective of masturbation with the following:
"God made sex to be relational, but solitary, self-stimulated sex is never relational... God made sex to be profound, but solitary self-stimulation is shallow. God made sex to be fruitful, but solitary self-stimulation treats sex like a commodity rather than a capacity for production. God made sex to be selflessly God-centered, but solitary self-stimulation is self-centered and self-satisfying. God made sex to be multidimensional, but solitary self-stimulation separates physical sex from everything else. "
With this, Dr. Heimbach brings up an important point in Christian sexual ethics. That is, the relational purpose of sex. Sexuality is not meant to be a simple physical pleasure but also there exists an opportunity and a moral necessity for humans to connect to their spirituality with God and with other people.
Of those that support masturbation within the Protestant tradition, self-control, moderation, and proper intent is emphasized. Gerald Coates summarizes this position well in 1993's Kingdom Now: "Compulsive masturbation, simply for the purpose of self gratification, with other people in mind is wrong. ...But masturbation for the purpose of self control is something altogether different. The act in and of itself is not wrong. When someone is under pressure to the point of distraction, whether single or married, it is often better that they relieve themselves - for at that point no mental stimulation is necessary.15"
AN ETHIC OF MASTURBATION
The issue of masturbation, as has been shown to a fair degree, is one that is certainly not simple to decipher. But with some understanding of where certain positions developed, this can be accomplished. It appears evident, as would be expected, that masturbation is inherently linked with sexuality. Whatever views one has on sexuality will thus be applied to masturbation; any different would lead to inconsistency of an argument. Thus, many negative views on masturbation both historically and presently are attributed to a conservative view on sexuality. Since sexuality, in these traditions, is something that is restricted because of its inarguable potency and can only be practiced under certain conditions, with a specific person, and under the right pretext, masturbation cannot be allowed since it is the self-expression of sexuality without the unitive and procreative qualities of 'virtuous' sexuality. But the fact remains that the majority of people masturbate or have masturbated at some point in their life and there exists a definite strong argument supporting masturbation as a part of a healthy sexuality.
The religious condemnation of the act only produces guilt in those who masturbate, guilt that is apparently non-deserving. If the guilt of the act is removed allowing for more open discussions on the topic then it can only support a healthy fulfilling sexuality under Christian guidance. The parties against the act, however, do have valid concerns. Masturbation, just like any act, especially those sexual in nature, can have powerful effects on people. Addictions and fixations can develop and masturbation is often coupled with pornography or serious sexual fantasies. But these are not reasons to condemn something completely; associated evils with an act does not make an act wrong and masturbation is something which is hard to convincingly argue is wrong in itself. In all actuality it is the keeping of masturbation as a spiritual and religious taboo that prevents the teaching of a healthy view on masturbation as a normal part of person's sexuality that has many possible benefits, including to help a person remain chaste. At the same time, however, masturbations role in a person's life and spirituality needs to be examined consistently and moderation and discernment need to occur.
Works Cited
1 Dio Crysostom, Discourses, iv.20
2Genesis 38:7-10, New International Version
3 Talmud Niddah 13a
4Laqueur, Thomas W. , Solitary Sex (New York: Zone Books, 2003), 13
5Onania, 1.
6Ibid.
7Laqueur, 38
8Ibid., 39
9Ibid., 40
10Ibid. 43
11Ibid., 66
12Elis, Havelock, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, (1927), General Preface
1318 July 1984 Theology of the Body lecture given by Pope John Paul II
14White, John, Eros Redeemed (Washington: Eagle Publishing, 1994), 125
15Coates, Gerald Kingdom Now, (Eastbourne: Kingsway Communications, 2003)
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Before discussing supporting evidence and reasoning for a positive position on masturbation it will be important to first examine the rich history of society and masturbation. The issue must be examined by some important facets of human knowledge; that is, religious views, medical positions, and other secular traditions, all of which are inherently linked throughout history on this topic. Once this is examined, then one can explore the positions that are held today by religious institutions, medical professionals, and general secular society with an understanding and appreciation of each and only then can a sexual ethic on masturbation be developed.
HISTORY OF MASTUBATION
The practice of masturbation is as old as mankind itself. This, of course, is not supported by any evidence but can be safely assumed, since all primates, most notably the Bonozo chimpanzees whose DNA is 98.4% identical to humans, masturbate. Depictions of masturbation, most prominently that of male masturbation, are found in the earliest of ancient societies. In Egyptian mythology, it is said that the sun god Atum masturbated and brought forth the first two souls and the Sumerians credit the god Enki as the source of the Tigris River, who's ejaculation filled it with flowing water. The ancient Greeks had a more practical view on masturbation, promoting it's use to combat sexual frustration that could be destructive. The Greek philosopher Diogenes jokingly credits the creation of masturbation to Hermes, taking pity on his son Pan, who's failed attempt to seduce Echo left him frustrated, and taught him the trick for relief.1
Within the Judeo-Christian traditions, the first caveat against masturbation can be found in the Old Testament. Genesis 38:7-10 says, "Then Judah said to Onan, 'Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother.' But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the LORD's sight; so he put him to death also.2"
It can be easily seen that what is being referred to here is not masturbation but coitus interruptus, known as the withdrawal method of contraception. In actuality, there is no biblical passage that has an explicit prohibition of masturbation. Despite this, several passages have been used to justify prohibition and as will be seen later, the story of Onan is the basis for a term describing masturbation, developed in the 18th century. The Jewish Talmud takes the act of Onan and God's subsequent punishment to be a condemnation of masturbation and equates the act to that of murder and idolatry.3 Interestingly enough, only male masturbation is outlawed here, purportedly because of the “spilling of the seed” and female masturbation is not considered because of this. However, upon further consideration, the punishment of Onan could have occurred not because of the fact that he spilled his seed, but because he refused to follow the command of God making the argument against masturbation in this case even less consistent. Despite this, ethicists in early 18th century used the narrative to derive an ethic against masturbation.
At some point between 1708 and 1716 a pamphlet was released anonymously in London, England.4 Its long title was Onania; or, The Heinous Sin of Self Population, and all its Frightful Consequences, in both SEXES Considered, with Spiritual and Physical Advice to those who have already inured themselves by this abodminable practice. And seasonable Admonition to the Youth of the nation of Both SEXES. As is evident in the title, the pamphlet does not place “Onania” in a positive light. This was the first usage of the term derived from the aforementioned story of Onan and subsequently coined a newly defined medical disease. The author defines the sin of self-pollution to be the “unnatural practice, by which persons of either sex, may defile their own bodies, without the assistance of others, whilst yielding to filthy imaginations, they endeavour to imitate and procure to themselves that sensation, which God has ordered to attend the carnal commerce of the two sexes for the continuance of our species.”5 As wordy as it is, the author outlines the rational for immorality of masturbation with this definition. It claims that masturbation is unnatural and defiles because it produces sexual sensations that are reserved by God for procreation. This reasoning was somewhat different than the Jewish position as it was one grounded in Augustinian Christian sexual ethics, holding sexuality in hostility, which is evidenced by the author stating the purpose of the work “is to promote Virtue and Christian Purity.”6 Aside from losing their salvation, those who masturbate are charged, by the author, with the possibility of becoming inflicted with gonorrhea, impotence, epilepsy, and a loss of reason, citing testimonials of chronic masturbation suffers.
The early work of Onania led the Swiss physician Samuel-Auguste Tissot to construct his own description of masturbation in his 1760 work L'Onanisme; ou, Dissertation physique sur les malades produites par la masturbation. Despite the stark similarities in the titles of both works, Tissot maintained that there is no similarity between the two and criticized the 1716 work to have had many factual errors, however considered Onania to be a work that was generally true about masturbation.7
While Onania recommended the purchase of a specific type of medicine to combat masturbation, Tissot's work had no such recommendation; just the caveat to never masturbate. Tissot's cure was cheap and commonsensical and as a result became “an instant literary sensation throughout Europe.”8 With Tissot's already academic prestige and subsequent rise of acclimation, this brought the topic of masturbation into the foreground of mainstream Western society.9 Enlightenment philosophers Immanuel Kant and Voltaire agreed with Tissot's work on the dangers of masturbation and even Jean-Rousseau title character from Emile was considered to be in better condition to fall in love with an inappropriate woman than to succumb to masturbation, which would cause him to “become hopelessly enslaved to himself”10 Tissot's work became the underpinning for over a century of gross misconceptions of masturbation.
Nearing the end of the 19th century, studies in anthropology, animal behavior, sexology, psychiatry, zoology, and other fields showed that masturbation was common among nearly every culture in human history.11 The societal heinousness of masturbation began to weaken as Havelock Ellis released Studies in the Psychology of Sex, first in 1899, and coined the term auto-eroticism, a term that does not have the implied notion of sin, unlike onanism. Aside from correcting misconceptions in the medical community, Ellis also provided an interesting synthesis of religion with auto-eroticism:
"The intimate association between the emotions of love and religion is well known to all those who are habitually brought into close contact with the phenomena of the religious life. Love and religion are the two most volcanic emotions to which the human organism is liable, and it is not surprising that, when there is a disturbance in one of these spheres, the vibrations should readily extend to the other. Nor is it surprising that the two emotions should have a dynamic relation to each other, and that the auto-erotic impulse, being the more primitive and fundamental of the two impulses, should be able to pass its unexpended energy over to the religious emotion, there to find the expansion hitherto denied it, the love of the human becoming the love of the divine.12"
Here, Ellis is suggesting that masturbation is not necessarily in conflict with religious pursuit but can harmonize with it, and that the two are inherently linked.
CURRENT CHRISTIAN POSITIONS ON MASTURBATION
Christianity's position on masturbation is heavily grounded in St. Augustine's restrictive view of sexuality. However, as stated earlier, there is no explicit condemnation of masturbation in either the Old or New Testaments. This has lead to the various Christian traditions to differ greatly on the subject, with conservative denominations regarding it as a sin of the flesh while liberal groups view it as a normal part of an individual's sexuality.
ROMAN CATHOLICISM
The Roman Catholic Church's position on sexuality is not taken from direct biblical references but is traditionally inherent within the church and are is contextually on the Bible.13 This position is grounded in the naturalistic view of the body, in that it was designed for a nuptial and procreative purpose. Roman Catholic morality thus views all non-procreative or non-marital sex as essentially acts against this purpose and that of God. Section 2352 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church outlines the Church's position on masturbation:
"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.' For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of 'the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.'... "
This first part of Section 2352 follows the Church's position that the natural function of the “sexual faculty” is for it to be used only within the context of marriage. The act is deemed a mortal sin, preventing those who have committed it from receiving the Eucharist and possible condemnation to Hell. The section continues as follows:
"To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety, or other psychological or social factors that can lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability. "
This second clause, in contrast with the first, allows a person, such as a pubescent youth, who is has not reach a proper level of maturity, that has committed masturbation to continue with sacraments, such as the Eucharist, before receiving the Eucharist and such a sin would not be considered a mortal sin.
PROTESTANTISM
The conservative Protestant position on masturbation is primarily in line with the Catholic tradition, however there are a considerable number of conservative and mainline denominations that do not hold masturbation negatively and many that consider it still a sin but a less serious sin than what Catholics and some conservative Protestants consider it to be.
Dr. John White, in his 1993 book Eros Redeemed,, considers masturbation to be sin a for the same natural law reasons of Catholic theology but also calls it a form of idolatry. He states “Our bodies are to be offered to God. Masturbation is to make a god of my bodily sensations, of relief from the tension that I feel. Again, I know that married lovemaking can itself be a selfish pursuit of bodily sensation. But I repeat: it was not designed to be. At that point it becomes lust.”14 Although he does not approve of masturbation, in his 1996 work The Path of Holiness: A Guide for Sinners, he regrets the guilt caused by past condemnation by religious and at the same time regrets society's permissiveness of it. This concept of guilt will be notably important in developing a sexual ethic on masturbation.
Daniel R. Heimbach, a professor of Christian ethics in North Carolina, reaffirms the natural law perspective of masturbation with the following:
"God made sex to be relational, but solitary, self-stimulated sex is never relational... God made sex to be profound, but solitary self-stimulation is shallow. God made sex to be fruitful, but solitary self-stimulation treats sex like a commodity rather than a capacity for production. God made sex to be selflessly God-centered, but solitary self-stimulation is self-centered and self-satisfying. God made sex to be multidimensional, but solitary self-stimulation separates physical sex from everything else. "
With this, Dr. Heimbach brings up an important point in Christian sexual ethics. That is, the relational purpose of sex. Sexuality is not meant to be a simple physical pleasure but also there exists an opportunity and a moral necessity for humans to connect to their spirituality with God and with other people.
Of those that support masturbation within the Protestant tradition, self-control, moderation, and proper intent is emphasized. Gerald Coates summarizes this position well in 1993's Kingdom Now: "Compulsive masturbation, simply for the purpose of self gratification, with other people in mind is wrong. ...But masturbation for the purpose of self control is something altogether different. The act in and of itself is not wrong. When someone is under pressure to the point of distraction, whether single or married, it is often better that they relieve themselves - for at that point no mental stimulation is necessary.15"
AN ETHIC OF MASTURBATION
The issue of masturbation, as has been shown to a fair degree, is one that is certainly not simple to decipher. But with some understanding of where certain positions developed, this can be accomplished. It appears evident, as would be expected, that masturbation is inherently linked with sexuality. Whatever views one has on sexuality will thus be applied to masturbation; any different would lead to inconsistency of an argument. Thus, many negative views on masturbation both historically and presently are attributed to a conservative view on sexuality. Since sexuality, in these traditions, is something that is restricted because of its inarguable potency and can only be practiced under certain conditions, with a specific person, and under the right pretext, masturbation cannot be allowed since it is the self-expression of sexuality without the unitive and procreative qualities of 'virtuous' sexuality. But the fact remains that the majority of people masturbate or have masturbated at some point in their life and there exists a definite strong argument supporting masturbation as a part of a healthy sexuality.
The religious condemnation of the act only produces guilt in those who masturbate, guilt that is apparently non-deserving. If the guilt of the act is removed allowing for more open discussions on the topic then it can only support a healthy fulfilling sexuality under Christian guidance. The parties against the act, however, do have valid concerns. Masturbation, just like any act, especially those sexual in nature, can have powerful effects on people. Addictions and fixations can develop and masturbation is often coupled with pornography or serious sexual fantasies. But these are not reasons to condemn something completely; associated evils with an act does not make an act wrong and masturbation is something which is hard to convincingly argue is wrong in itself. In all actuality it is the keeping of masturbation as a spiritual and religious taboo that prevents the teaching of a healthy view on masturbation as a normal part of person's sexuality that has many possible benefits, including to help a person remain chaste. At the same time, however, masturbations role in a person's life and spirituality needs to be examined consistently and moderation and discernment need to occur.
Works Cited
1 Dio Crysostom, Discourses, iv.20
2Genesis 38:7-10, New International Version
3 Talmud Niddah 13a
4Laqueur, Thomas W. , Solitary Sex (New York: Zone Books, 2003), 13
5Onania, 1.
6Ibid.
7Laqueur, 38
8Ibid., 39
9Ibid., 40
10Ibid. 43
11Ibid., 66
12Elis, Havelock, Studies in the Psychology of Sex, (1927), General Preface
1318 July 1984 Theology of the Body lecture given by Pope John Paul II
14White, John, Eros Redeemed (Washington: Eagle Publishing, 1994), 125
15Coates, Gerald Kingdom Now, (Eastbourne: Kingsway Communications, 2003)
src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js">
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
