The topic came to me after reading a post from the New York Times about the Vatican's reaction to a catholic nun's endorsement of masturbation as an acceptable practice.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/opinion/dowd-is-pleasure-a-sin.html?_r=0
We couldn't help starting the discussion in last evening's meeting when the group got wind of this topic for the next meeting.
Shula did not think there is such a thing as sin. Unless we accept the doctrine from a holy book, we have no set standards for sin which I take to be the result of acting against the doctrine. But is being immoral for an atheist also being sinful?
Temptation, sin, guilt, punishment, repent; what a wealth of ideas to discuss!
Then there seem to be the built in trepidation that may occur when we are having a lot of fun. Do we not have experiences when we were really enjoying ourselves that it was unreal and that we may better be careful that we may be doing something we shouldn't be?
My first experience in driving a convertible was such that when a police car passed by I was struck with concern that I maybe given a ticket. But for what? It was such an unusual experience that the police must be able to interpret "driving with undue care and attention" into this!
So is guilt and pleasure closely associated in our upbringing? That we must "pay" for pleasure in some way?
Raffi offered that it may be our evolutionary response that we start getting ready to prepare for the end of pleasure while we are in the middle of it just so that we are better at surviving afterwards. Of course this takes us away from enjoying the pleasurable moment but perhaps it is the price we pay for being the better survivors of the species.
Yet why does the church have to suppress the pleasurable aspects of sex? That it should only be for procreation and not for recreation? That we should feel sinful if we enjoy it?
Does it serve any purpose?
Can we safely dispense with the guilt without any negative consequences to regret later?
Maybe like "winning" discussed in the last meeting, sex is such a powerful motivator that we need to control it in some way so that it does not take over to become the purpose of our being?
Like winning, perhaps sex is just provides the incentive to achieve procreation and later on to promote stable family to nurture children?
Can we have sex with no guilt if we satisfy the bargain of having children and bringing them up?
Masturbation on its own is also full of complexity. As the traditional opinion of sex being heterosexual give way to acceptance of same gender sexual preferences, is it time to also accept sex as something that can be an individual solitary act?
Is this degeneration of our social norms or liberalization in our thinking?
Narssism is labeled as a mental illness that causes a whole slew of problems. And only such persons, arrording to experts on behavioralism, desire to have sex with themselves. But, Freud never answered the question about HEALTHY EGOS. At least not really, but he developed a complex web of stages that all deal with sexuality and the ego.
ReplyDeletePerhaps its not masturbation or solitary sexuality that's at issue, but the autonomy of the individual in social and political communities and the subsequent need for the Institution of Marriage. Marriage is really the ownership of one person by another, and was not inacted through love but through the sexual act. That's troubling for many people, and should be for any healthy and loving community. And while Marriage is about couples it tends to be FOR the COMMUNITY.
Love and marriage can be changed; So can Ownership. True Love in enduring. Ownership emplies conditions. I'll love you IFF. That's the contract of Marriages. Love SHOULD NOT BE A CONTRACT. IFF it is then SRED IT UP!
Of course I love few things; And I LOVE MYSELF MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE. Gee, maybe I am Narcassistic? However, I don't think it makes me a Sinner. I suppose some would say it does. But in fairness, its good to have relationships with other people. But the Lord giveth and taketh away. Is that 'cause some of us sinners don't deserve joy? Guess so. But who says? I don't want to be owned by anybody. I don't think Jesus wants to own me either. But I imagine him as a hippy guy who likes girls and flowers. That's not what most people think of when you say Jesus. So, I don't know. I just think people should be able to have self control, and self determination with their sexuality. If someone wants to love and have sex with themself, I think there's nothing wrong with it. I also don't believe in the Institution of SEX or LOVE. Having our reproductive parts controlled by the State is Corrupt. So, go a head, have fun! Just don't do it in public is all....
Ownership as compared to commitment. That is an interesting topic for discussion.
DeletePerhaps another take of love and marriage is along the lines of Thomas Hobbes' social contract where he started off with our individual existence being "solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short." without cooperation with others. Therefore we form societies where we give up our liberty to strike out at others in return for them giving up their right to strike us.
With this understanding and cooperation in mind, we can direct our efforts to improving other things instead of eying our neighbor with suspicion.
Is there an element of this in love and marriage?
As far as Narcissism being a reason for masturbation, I wonder if other factors such as unavailability of partners is more of a reason. Maybe unavailability of the understanding from one's partner?
Would one prefer masturbation to sex with a partner under better circumstances?
Hobbes' social contract is under ideal circumstances, where the social and political, and legal constitutions WE presently have would not exist. Although most people praise democracy, there's little room for public debates, and the common good is really a governing body that has little in common with most folks. So, while Hobbes contract could seem appealing, its impractical and although interesting and the like, doesn't really hold much for me.
ReplyDeleteWhen people wed they become legally binded to the State, and are given privliges that single people don't have. I don't know, but that type of Liberty isn't appealing to me. My point, really, wasn't about circumstances for which a partner would be more appealing, although this time of year somewhere warm does make Romance more desirable; but, that Individuals have the Liberty to act on their own, to have the capacity to be responsible for themself.
The acceptance of society is important to most people, and with that understanding, care. But LIBERTY isn't really mine if it can be given and taken away, or if there's nobody ensuring that WE live in a Liberal Society.
Males or Females that undergo genital mutilation in what we think of as liberal societies. It goes on in Canada, and elsewhere. My point is that people need to have a certain amount of true knowledge to make accurate decesions for themselves. And that doesn't happen all the time. Reading the fine print requires reading glassses, which requires a prescription, ect. Life's hardly perfect, but, the ability to be responsible for one's self needs to be a common good, and to be understood accordingly. It takes two to Tango, is the saying. So, I agree that commitment rather than ownership could be valuable in Society. But it's hardly set up that way.
What's that got to do with sexuality? Maybe nothing. But being responsible for what sexuality brings into the world needs to be given a lot of consideration and one way to do so is to allow people be free to be single and happy if that's what they want. And to have the same priviliges and worth in societies eyes as anyone who isn't.
Happy Halloween!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBible never says homosexuality or lust are sin, read the Bible in its original language, atop listening to the secularist(catholic church
ReplyDeletehttp://savedbychrist94.blogspot.com/2013/04/lust-is-not-sin.html?m=1