Masturbation is a Sin?

46 Comments »

1. Mosa A says:

   November 13, 2009 at 9:38 am

   masturbate without being sinful if :-
   + without lusts thought in the others not sin .
   + without bad dream around sex ,not sin .
   + it come by it self in the night sleep ,not sin .
   + while in the toilet without use any things ,not sin .
   + come by the envy of devil because your purity ,not sin.
   other wise it need confession and repent and ask God help through the prayers.and the Church sacraments.
2. James S says:

   November 13, 2009 at 9:38 am

   u kno masturbading is healthy?
   dats wat i hurd
   and it makes you look a lot younger if u do it often

source

by Dan Savage

Every now and then I must succumb to temptation and report on "popular" issues.

In this case, I will console myself with the fact that this is a very important issue outlining the hypocrisy of the religious right:

Carrie Prejean, former Miss California who was fired under scandal, has dropped her lawsuit against pageant officials. Both parties have withdrawn their lawsuits and in an official settlement statement reads, “ Carrie Prejean, Keith Lewis, and K2 productions have dropped their claim against each other and wish each other the best in their future endeavors.” Carrie gets no money other than her attorney fees. The reason, as reported by TMZ, Carrie settled the suit is that the pageant officials were going to release a tape of the lovely Miss California masturbating. Yes it looks like the good Miss Prejean had made a little home movie that got into the hands of pageant officials and she did not want it to go public. On a lighter note, Carrie Prejean will get to keep the money she was given for breast implants and her book will hit the stores soon.

I wonder will the National Organization for Marriage call this a case of persecution against Christians?

Really though, while people are most likely tired of the Carrie Prejean saga, it's important to remember just how quickly the religious right embraced Prejean, making it seem that she was the victim of lgbt persecution rather than the words of just one, albeit highly annoying, lgbt blogger and "personality."

They even went as far as to call her a latter-day Queen Esther.

One wonders what the spin will be on this one?

I think I know: "Carrie Prejean didn't commit a sin because Jesus never said a word about masturbation."

source

By John Amato

source

In 1568 Montgomery Highway v. City of Hoover, the Supreme Court of Alabama this week upheld the constitutionality of an Alabama statute prohibiting the sale of "any device designed ... primarily for the stimulation of human genital organs." The law was targeted primarily at the sale of such objects as vibrators and dildos.

In a thoughtful opinion, the Alabama court concluded that because the United States Supreme Court has not yet expressly recognized a constitutional right to sexual freedom, analogous to the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, or the freedom to use contraceptives, the law must be upheld as long as it has a rational justification. And, applying that test, the court held that the statute could rationally be justified as an effort to enforce the "public morality."

The Alabama court's understanding of the governing precedents of the United States Supreme Court is reasonable. Although the Supreme Court has held that the government cannot constitutionally prohibit the sale of contraceptives, it grounded that doctrine in the fundamental right of individuals to decide for themselves whether to "bear or beget" a child. That doctrine concerns reproductive rather than sexual freedom.

And although the Supreme Court has held that the government cannot constitutionally prohibit private homosexual conduct, it arguably grounded that doctrine in part on concerns about discrimination against homosexuals, rather than on a doctrine of sexual freedom.

Thus, it was reasonable for the Alabama Supreme Court to conclude that the United States Supreme Court has not yet expressly recognized a right of sexual freedom.

At the same time, though, the Alabama Supreme Court acknowledged that a more aggressive version of the anti-sex aid statute might well be unconstitutional. For example, if the law prohibited not only the sale of such devices, but also their use, it might so intrude on the individual's right of personal privacy as to violate the Constitution.

Or, to take the point even a step further, suppose the state made it a crime to masturbate. It is difficult to believe that a nation dedicated to "the pursuit of happiness" and the freedom, autonomy and privacy of the individual could possibly allow such a law. But is there really a difference?

The fear of masturbation, by the way, is nothing new. In the 1830s and '40s, a masturbation panic hit the United States, as Christian evangelicals and medical quacks warned that those who fell victim to the practice would be reduced to a state of utter degradation. Parents were cautioned to be on the lookout for early signs of self-abuse in their children. If they were not attentive, their sons would face lives of failure, debility, violence, and confinement in an asylum, and their daughters would suffer terrible illness, rampant fornication, and ultimately a life of prostitution. Sylvester Graham, who believed that masturbation was both sinful and dangerous, invented the Graham Cracker as a food designed to dampen sexual desire. (Think of that the next time you eat one.)

The more interesting question to me, though, is whether the invocation of the "public morality" can constitutionally justify even the law at issue in the 1568 Montgomery Highway case. What, precisely, is the "public morality" that is being promoted by a law forbidding the sale of sex aids? It cannot be sufficient merely to invoke the "public morality" to sustain a law, because virtually every law can be said to promote the "public morality."

So, we should ask more precisely: Why does the sale of vibrators and dildos undermine the "public morality"? It is worth noting that sex aids have been commonplace throughout human history. In classical Greece, for example, the literature often described women playfully masturbating with the assistance of a device adapted to the purpose, which the Greeks called olisbos. In Herondas's The Two Friends, or Confidential Talk, two young women converse excitedly about these olisboi. At the end of the conversation, the girl without one hurries off to acquire such a "treasure" for herself. In Aristophanes' Lysistrata, the women grieve the loss of the special leather olisboi that used to be made to perfection by the women of Miletus. Greek vases depict the use of olisboi in every possible manner, position, and combination.

In what sense, then, is the sale of such devices an affront to "the public morality"? Do they cause "bad" behavior, such as adultery or fornication? If anything, they would seem to cut in the opposite direction.

In any event, the invocation of "the public morality" is more basic than that. It asserts not that the use of these devices might cause bad behavior, but that their use is itself "immoral."

So, what is it about the use of a vibrator or a dildo that affronts the "public morality"? Why is a person who uses such a device "immoral"? The answer, I submit, turns entirely on religion. The pivotal shift from the world of the classical Greeks to our contemporary world, in this respect, was the advent of Christianity, with its emphasis on sexual pleasure as sinful.

Much of this can be traced to Augustine, who reasoned in the fifth century that sexual pleasure was integrally related to Adam's Fall from Grace. Adam's original sin, he argued, had not been one of pride or disobedience, but of sex. Thus, sexual pleasure was born out of evil, and man's best hope for redemption lay in repudiating the sexual impulse and, with it, the burden of guilt inherited from Adam. Sexual pleasure was therefore deemed defiling and shameful.

Of course, Christian doctrine has evolved in many ways since then, but it is this core attitude about sex that underlies the claim the sale of sex aids undermines the "public morality." Indeed, if we ask why the use of a sex aid is immoral, the only really plausible answer must be rooted in this set of religious beliefs.

Of course, people have a right to believe whatever their religion commands. If they wish not to use a sex aid, or to be celibate, that's their own business. But can this set of beliefs serve as a constitutionally permissible definition of the "public morality" in a nation dedicated to the separation of church and state?


This Blogger's Books from
War and Liberty: An American Dilemma: 1790 to the Present
by Geoffrey R. Stone

Perilous Times: Free Speech in Wartime: From the Sedition Act of 1798 to the War on Terrorism
by Geoffrey R. Stone

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/sex-and-sin_b_308732.html

Homosexuals and Notre Dame: Frankly, half of the opinions printed on this issue have been absurd. Let me focus on the "Fair Compromise?" letter .The author is dismayed at the responses to Sean Mullen's letter. One reason: "Others sought to justify homosexual sex by referring to the fact that pre-marital heterosexual sex is common on campus - as if Mullen, or anyone else, for that matter thinks such sex is okay from the Church's perspective. Two wrongs don't make a right." No. This comparison was not made to "justify" homosexual sex. Rather, it was meant to illustrate the hypocrisy of criticizing someone for not practicing homosexual chastity while very few of us are successful at practicing heterosexual chastity.

When it comes to premarital sex and masturbation, we think "kids will be kids" but when it comes to unchaste homosexuals, we take up arms and flood the Viewpoint with letters. Remember, Jesus tells us not to point out the splinter in our neighbor's eye when there is a log in our own. It sounds rather arrogant to tell people to prayerfully encourage their homosexual friends to change their ways (assuming out of hand that they are not chaste) when we do not also talk about prayerfully encouraging heterosexuals to live chastely. When we do not live chastely we are all, homosexual or heterosexual, failing to respond positively to the same call to live chaste lives. Also, let us not forget that homosexuality is not chosen, but genetically determined.

As far as the compromise of adding the phrase "non-practicing homosexuals" to the nondiscrimination clause, I'm ashamed that I have to dignify this with a response. Please, think about the implications of the proposed phrasing. Essentially it means we will not discriminate against anyone based on gender, race, religion, etc., regardless of sin level, but when it comes to homosexuals only the chaste are protected. It implies that if they are unchaste, then we can discriminate away! This phrasing is guilty of the same hypocrisy described above. It qualifies the nondiscrimination of one group while leaving the others unqualified.

Sex sells. And in Jerusalem, with its large religious population, a session on if Jewish Orthodoxy can come to terms with sexual activity – both in and out of marriage – drew an overflow crowd at the recent Gateways Festival of Jewish Learning and Culture.

The festival is a remarkable event: two days of pluralistic learning throughout the city, with sessions ranging from “The Mystery of the Mikveh” to analyzing how Israelis relate to God through pop music.

The session on “Sexuality and Orthodoxy” was led by two women – Beverley Damelin, a secular sex educator, and Dr. Jennie Rosenfeld, a religious woman who wrote her doctorate or sexuality in the Orthodox world and was named one of the “36 under 36” by the Jewish Week in 2008. They were remarkably open, pulling no punches and eschewing the kind of uncomfortable euphemisms one might expect from such an explosive topic.

The talk was divided into four sections: thoughts and feelings about sexuality; premarital sex as a response to the lengthy period of abstinence mandated for modern religious singles who often don’t get married until their 30s, 40s or later; masturbation; and sexual practices within marriage.

The two worked like a tag team: Damelin would describe sexuality from a health education perspective, then Rosenfeld would relate it back to halacha (Jewish law).

The bottom line: there’s a lot more permissible along the fringes of Orthodoxy than you might imagine…if you’re willing to think beyond that boxed set of Talmud on the shelf.

For example, when speaking about masturbation (probably the touchiest subject covered in the hour and a half seminar), Rosenfeld referenced the medieval Jewish commentary the Rambam who describes it as “worse than murder.” The book of Jewish law, the Shulchan Aruch, calls it the “gravest sin possible.”

But in the 12th century text, the Sefer Hasidim, author Judah ben Shmuel of Regensburg Germany writes that if a man is given the unenviable choice of having to commit adultery, have sex with his wife while she is menstruating, or to masturbate, the latter is the best choice. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but it’s at least an acknowledgment that it’s not 100% taboo.

Jewish texts are filled with these sorts of contradictions. The Shulchan Aruch includes a section that lays out exactly what is (or isn’t) permissible sexually within a marriage. No sex during the day or at night with the lights on; do it as fast as you can; missionary position only; try not to enjoy yourself too much.

But it turns out that this is actually a minority opinion in the Talmud; the majority ruling is that everything is permissible within the framework of marriage. Even modern poskim (commentators) like Rav Soleveitchik agreed, calling such asceticsim only for a few “very righteous.”

The problem, Rosenfeld said, is that more extreme “all or nothing” readings are being increasingly adopted by young people coming out of religious schools and yeshivas (both in Israel and overseas) where aspiring towards seemingly righteous behavior is becoming normative.

This “all or nothing” analysis reinforces an oft-heard truism in the Orthodox world of the “slippery slope.” In the case of touching, for example, which according to the laws of “shomer negiah” is completely off limits for the unmarried, the thinking goes that something as innocuous as holding hands will necessarily and without question lead to sex.

That’s simply not true, Damelin said and Rosenfeld agreed. Why can’t couples find a middle ground? Discuss how far they’re willing to go…or not, in an open exchange of values. After all, houghts and actions are very different in nature and don’t carry the same degree of halachic punishment, Rosenfeld pointed out.

The answer seems to be that Orthodox couples don’t talk about their feelings regarding sex a whole lot – even if they’re in a non-sexual relationship. And that’s not healthy, Damelin said. “Exterminating such feelings gives rise to problems later on” when sexual desire becomes not just acceptable but necessary. Newly married couples can’t be expected to turn it on overnight, so to speak.

Much of the literature around sexual practices revolves around “sin,” Rosenfeld said. But ironically, the very rabbis in the Talmud who codified the more extreme laws were themselves flawed, and the Talmud doesn’t try to hide their dalliances with prostitutes and other illicit activities. Why then should Orthodox Jews today feel like they need to be on a higher level than the gedolim (the great scholars) 2,000 years ago, Rosenfeld asked?

Rosenfeld went one step further. If a religious couple is sexually active before marriage, that doesn’t mean they have to leave their Judaism at the door. There are many ethical teachings from Jewish tradition that can be applied, such as how to treat the other with dignity and respect.

And for Orthodox singles who find that abstinence is just not an option, there are loopholes. The main Torah prohibition against sex before marriage is that relations are forbidden when a woman is in nidah – that is, the time frame after her period until she goes to a mikveh, the ritual bath where she is symbolically purified.

If an unmarried woman goes to the mikveh, however, it would presumably lessen the severity of the sin. And, Rosenfeld added, no one is checking whether a woman comes with her hair covered or is wearing a wedding ring.

While Rosenfeld understood – and even accepted (while not entirely sanctioning)– this mikveh workaround, she cautioned against it being codified as mainstream behavior, lest it undermine the overall sanctity of marriage.

Sin can even be seen as a positive. Rosenfeld cited Rav Tzadok HaCohen, a 19th century rabbinical authority, who re-interpreted the mystical Kabbalistic text, the Zohar, as saying that sin can be good in that it helps improve the depth of one’s repentance.

On the other hand, when writing about masturbation, the Sefer Hasid says that the best repentance is to fast for 40 days in the height of summer…or to sit in a bucket of ice at the height of winter.

There is also the story in the Gemara of a man overcome with sexual desire. The rabbis tell him to dress all in black, get as far away out of town as he can where no one knows him, and only then he can let out his sexual “compulsion.”

If we were to sum up the issue in a single sentence it would be that while Orthodoxy doesn’t officially permit many sexual behaviors, if you read the texts creatively and take into account what’s actually happening in the religious world, there are ways to, if not exactly reconcile tradition and modernity, then at least to feel a little less guilty about it.

You can see more of Jennie Rosenfeld in action on Google Video.

Brian Blum heads Blum Interactive Media, a consulting group that works with companies to jumpstart their businesses through comprehensive product planning and strategy. His personal blog is This Normal Life.