Why is masturbation considered to be perverted?

[Nathanæl]

Immanuel Kant:

Lust is called unnatural if man is aroused to it, not by its real object, but by his imagination of this object, and so in a way contrary to the purpose of the desire, since he himself creates its object.

(Metaphysics of Ethics, quoted from R. Scruton, Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation, p. 319)

So the perversion is not that it is so much involved in carnal pleasure, but the will. Any masturbatory act involves substituting the real thing with the image, and involves overpowering that image in order to satisfy one's own sexual desire to achieve orgasm. In reality, the crime has already occurred. And if thoughts are things, real things, then an act of rape, against the will of that person who is the object of one's fantasizing has already occurred, as Jesus taught. In truth, what is missing is the will of the other. Only an act of love would lead to lovemaking, and involves the free will of the other... loving oneself.

And finally, any act that does not involve the heart and mind... and which does not seek others, real people, but only tries to gratify the flesh as a substitute for one's loneliness, is only wasting their own time in idleness.

Any "yogic" masturbation, even if it involves yoga, lacks compassion. It lacks the awareness of others. It is purely hinayana, or devoted to the spiritual development only of oneself. Granted that the seminal fluid can be transsubstantiated from raw physical substance to spiritual essence (Shakti), it is still lacking of compassion of a Mahayanic spirituality.

Any great Guru or human being is concerned with agape, as well as eros, of the other. That is what makes a true Guru or human being, who exists as part of a community and of the world, and is not an island to himself. Such an island, anyway, is an illusion... the truth being our interconnectedness, of which love is the currency.

[soham]

I would say that homo-sexuality is superior to masturbation because it involves some love.

[etphon ehome]

Any masturbatory act involves substituting the real thing with the image, and involves overpowering that image in order to satisfy one's own sexual desire to achieve orgasm.

Tell that to all the animals in the animal kingdom that masterbate.

There is nothing perverted with masterbating. Mankind's demented view that sexual pleasure is bad is what is perverted. Sex is one of the only ways we can glimpse the joys of higher realms. Powermongers can't stand that so they try to wreck it for everyone.

[David]

I go along the course of Mantak Chia who honors masterbation but without ejaculation.Nathaniel,you sound archaic in the christian sence,very sad your outdated views,really to bad and what the heck are you doing ,with your puritanical views doing on this forum anyway,you should be on at a christian holier than thou place.Masterbation is no big deal and harms no one,it is not rape in any sence of the word,are you screwed up,badly,and might need some professional counciling.Homosexuality it put down because 2 yangs don't make a right and is a imbalancing act while lesbians are in the clear,because 2 yin's,in sexual congress, don't harm a person.Nathaniel,get help!

[Nathanæl]

Response to David:

I go along the course of Mantak Chia who honors masterbation but without ejaculation.

Ah yes, the legendary "ejaculate up the spine". I wonder how many Tibetan monks, who are taught not to even touch their penis (even while urinating), have accomplished such a feat? Probably some ascetic in a cave somewhere who had way too much time on their hands.

Nathaniel,you sound archaic in the christian sence,very sad your outdated views,really to bad

Thank you!

and what the heck are you doing ,with your puritanical views doing on this forum anyway,you should be on at a christian holier than thou place.

I was (at the time) trying to understand why masturbation was considered to be perverted (hence the recent title edit). It was more a thought-experiment than anything else. I had been reading Scruton's book Sexual Desire: A Philosophical Investigation, where he included masturbation under the chapter entitled "Perversion."

Masterbation is no big deal and harms no one,it is not rape in any sence of the word,are you screwed up,badly,and might need some professional counciling.Homosexuality it put down because 2 yangs don't make a right and is a imbalancing act while lesbians are in the clear,because 2 yin's,in sexual congress, don't harm a person.Nathaniel,get help!

I totally agree, except that I hadn't mentioned homosexuality.

--

response to Etphon:

Tell that to all the animals in the animal kingdom that masterbate.

It's my understanding that the human species is the only species that has sex for fun.

There is nothing perverted with masterbating. Mankind's demented view that sexual pleasure is bad is what is perverted. Sex is one of the only ways we can glimpse the joys of higher realms. Powermongers can't stand that so they try to wreck it for everyone

I do agree, except I don't think a 'higher realm' exists separate from this one. My greatest joy is when I am united with the one I love; this is partly why I started this thread. I was asking myself, why is sex with another person so much more fulfilling than sex with oneself? We project all our most noble values on a lover, a person we have access to.

I would say that homo-sexuality is superior to masturbation because it involves some love.

Indeed. No one knows how to please a woman better than a woman. Likewise for men.

[David]

Nathaniel, I agree with that sexual love should defininatly be with someone you truly love and I don't follow Mantak Chias advice anyway. Love should be prime motive for sexual activity. Thank's for your after thoughts. Peace

[Reliquary Stair]

My apologies if dredging up an old thread is frowned upon here. I read the FAQ and didn't find reference to the practice, so I hope that refraining isn't considered a given.

Re this bit:

Immanuel Kant:

Lust is called unnatural if man is aroused to it, not by its real object, but by his imagination of this object, and so in a way contrary to the purpose of the desire, since he himself creates its object.

So the perversion is not that it is so much involved in carnal pleasure, but the will. Any masturbatory act involves substituting the real thing with the image, and involves overpowering that image in order to satisfy one's own sexual desire to achieve orgasm. In reality, the crime has already occurred.

What gives me pause is the idea that masturbation would be singled out as an imaginative act of will. If one is writing fiction, for example, the entire spectrum of vicarity and will is conjured. Lust is involved even if one experiences it from the point of view of a character.

Couldn't one distinguish between reflexive and selfless masturbation? The first kind could involve self-aggrandizing scenarios bound to the grid of wish-fulfillment; the second, meditations on the nature of an Other, in which lust became the side-effect of empathy.

[Elias]

My apologies if dredging up an old thread is frowned upon here. I read the FAQ and didn't find reference to the practice, so I hope that refraining isn't considered a given.

Re this bit:

Immanuel Kant:

Lust is called unnatural if man is aroused to it, not by its real object, but by his imagination of this object, and so in a way contrary to the purpose of the desire, since he himself creates its object.

So the perversion is not that it is so much involved in carnal pleasure, but the will. Any masturbatory act involves substituting the real thing with the image, and involves overpowering that image in order to satisfy one's own sexual desire to achieve orgasm. In reality, the crime has already occurred.

What gives me pause is the idea that masturbation would be singled out as an imaginative act of will. If one is writing fiction, for example, the entire spectrum of vicarity and will is conjured. Lust is involved even if one experiences it from the point of view of a character.

Couldn't one distinguish between reflexive and selfless masturbation? The first kind could involve self-aggrandizing scenarios bound to the grid of wish-fulfillment; the second, meditations on the nature of an Other, in which lust became the side-effect of empathy.

Raised a Catholic boy, it goes without saying I was indoctrinated in the manifold ills of masturbation.

But after a lifetime of studying masturbation empirically, my conclusions are it's just as natural as breathing -- even with ejaculation. And that includes with real object or imagination.

What brought me to this conclusion was noticing, again and again, that masturbation has no discernible effect on the spiritual or psychological process.

The exception would be that if you are guilt-ridden about sex, or your "inner authorities" are finger-wagging old ladies, you might feel a bit of a setback when you spank the monkey.

The whole Universe is sexual -- even the Creation. If (as a man) you can conjure up Shakti Herself and masturbate to orgasm, I say go for it.

But if you are a raving neurotic who masturbates to pictures of old umbrellas, yes you do have a problem. The problem, however, is not masturbation per se -- it is your sexual cathexis to antique umbrellas.



Elias

[...oneLove]

But if you are a raving neurotic who masturbates to pictures of old umbrellas, yes you do have a problem. The problem, however, is not masturbation per se -- it is your sexual cathexis to antique umbrellas.



Elias

What about expensive paperweights and Disney toys?

[Reliquary Stair]

I love the word cathexis.

But if you are a raving neurotic who masturbates to pictures of old umbrellas, yes you do have a problem. The problem, however, is not masturbation per se -- it is your sexual cathexis to antique umbrellas.

If I understand you correctly, your masturbatory Shakti/old umbrella distinction (try saying that with a straight face) might involve this: Masturbation as a form of impassioned evocation versus masturbation to a fixed and endlessly repeated scenario/object. I wouldn't forbid or condemn the latter, but I'd warn against inattention to the form it takes.

Everyone has fetishes that involve shame, if only the self-imposed kind. This tends to be harmless unless it reaches a point, and elaborate operations have to be concocted to support a habit that is now undermining real life. Then shame, which can provoke and exacerbate cravings, creates a tunnel of Tamas, in which the fetishist struggles to remain as blind as possible -- partly to allow the willed imagination to take over and partly so that s/he doesn't have to reflect on the whole indecorous arc. Then you've got hypocrisy because the fetishist can't allow those worlds to meet. The behavior has become too invested.

Not long ago, a prominent New York chef was arrested after being caught twice exposing his parts on a city subway. Stupid fetish, a friend of mine remarked. But the problem was not the fantasy. It was the chef's unchecked compulsion to reenact it literally, in a real public place with actual strangers.