NationStates Jolt Archive

In our current time, the spilling of seed on the ground, is a term not generally used. The term for masturbation is wasting of the seed. The bible even goes as far as to say it is better to use a prostitute than to spill the seed on the ground. This is because the seed still has a chance to fulfill it's intended purpose, and not to waste a gift from God. In my opinion, this is the same as God saying he would not be pleased by masturbation. I try to lead a life that is pleasing to God. So for me masturbation it totally out of the question.

But by that logic using a condom is wrong also...Sperm has the possibility of passing through or going around a condom. So there is a chance for it to fulfill it's intended purpose.

Incorrect. Sperm cannot pass through an intact condom. If used properly, it has a 98% effectivity, which means that the tiny chance of pregnancy when using a condom is pretty much irrelevant.

Unless of course you're the guy who is approached by his girlfriend/lover/wife/fiancee/one-niter who just peed on the EPT and states you're part of that 2%..lol..

No the pledge doesn't stand for everyone, just the ones who belong here.

What, Native Americans you mean?Go there if you must, but I am 1/4 Indian myself and I take no offense at statements like I just made.

But you will avoid the question? I was not trying to incite you, merely get a definition to your rather loosely formed opinion.

OF COURSE THEY DO! YOU WOULDN'T BE MADE IN MY IMAGE IF YOU DIDN'T. AND WHAT A BORING LOT YOU'D BE WITHOUT MASTERBATION

OF COURSE THEY DO! YOU WOULDN'T BE MADE IN MY IMAGE IF YOU DIDN'T. AND WHAT A BORING LOT YOU'D BE WITHOUT MASTERBATION

psssst....for an omnipotent potentate you mispelled "masturbation"

Very nice god, eh?

"Don't use condoms or anything else that can waste the seed. That's a sin. Oh by the way, here's a bunch of sexually transmitted diseases to play with."

:wink:

OF COURSE THEY DO! YOU WOULDN'T BE MADE IN MY IMAGE IF YOU DIDN'T. AND WHAT A BORING LOT YOU'D BE WITHOUT MASTERBATION

psssst....for an omnipotent potentate you mispelled "masturbation"

MY FINGER SLIPPED.

No the pledge doesn't stand for everyone, just the ones who belong here.Just what the hell are you trying you say, punk? Go ahead--spout your idiocy and bigotry for the world to see and hear. Tell us exactly who doesn't belong here. Atheists? What about if people don't serve your God? Assuming you're "Christian," that gets rid of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, and the myriad other small non-christian religions. Anyone else you want to chuck out while you're determining, with your tiny little mind, who deserves to be in the US? Don't be shy--bring it.And here I was beginning to think you were smarter than to start calling people names. What a weak debating style you show. You jump to the conclusion that I was talking about religions. Yet you simply overlook the very nature of the statement. Patriotic people are who I was referring to and nobody else. Here you are taking this type of action when I have seen you run to the mods as soon as someone else does the same. Steph would be proud of you.

Children should be treasured, not just spilled. Until the time is right a couple should use any means at their disposal to prevent children. An unwanted childe is not just a burden on society, but, ultimately a hurt and crying childe.

Abuse takes many forms.

:twisted:



Ave Satanis!
Rege Satanis!
Hail Satan!

Big Jim P!
SC!

http://www.magickalshadow.com/daca/

http://www.shelterfordarkness.com/dadv/index.htmlI have agreed with the use of condoms. I just don't chose to use them myself. My belief just sees spilling the seed as a sin.


Would it not be a larger sin to harm a resulting child through neglect and lack of care for your "accident".? Me and mine are going to love our children, planned or not.

Jim

Well if you're not using a condom then most of it pours back out anyway. I'm confused, your "logic" is confusing.You were talking about intentional action. Not natural.

You can enjoy all the sex you want with your spouse.

And, pray tell, does your God also approve of the more kinky forms of sex, or is the 'good' christian prohibited to move beyond the missionary position? Asking just for curiosities sake.As long as it doesn't involve the wasting of seed, it is to be enjoyed.

This means that sex between a married couple is only frowned upon/a sin if the couple has recreational sex, right? Meaning that whenever a married couple has sex they should do so with the intent to procreate. :shock: Meaning that they can only have sex during the wife's fertile period, right? Only when she's ovulating. And when they are having sex outside that period they are sinning just as much as the adulterer or the guy/gal who frequents prostitutes or the guy/gal who's spending some quality time with him/herself by masturbating, right?

I just wonder how many christians who claim to follow the rules of their faith actually live up to that rule.

Well, at least I'm glad to hear that kinky sex is still oki :)That I have already answered earlier in this thread. Take a look back. I don't care for repeating myself.

Well if you're not using a condom then most of it pours back out anyway. I'm confused, your "logic" is confusing.You were talking about intentional action. Not natural.

Ah, you hold your girlfriend upside down to prevent spillage. Cool! 8)

In our current time, the spilling of seed on the ground, is a term not generally used. The term for masturbation is wasting of the seed. The bible even goes as far as to say it is better to use a prostitute than to spill the seed on the ground. This is because the seed still has a chance to fulfill it's intended purpose, and not to waste a gift from God. In my opinion, this is the same as God saying he would not be pleased by masturbation. I try to lead a life that is pleasing to God. So for me masturbation it totally out of the question.

But by that logic using a condom is wrong also...Sperm has the possibility of passing through or going around a condom. So there is a chance for it to fulfill it's intended purpose.

Incorrect. Sperm cannot pass through an intact condom. If used properly, it has a 98% effectivity, which means that the tiny chance of pregnancy when using a condom is pretty much irrelevant.Please note the use of the word possibility. 2% is a possibility.

DP

I have reached bedtime for tonight. I will check back tomorrow.

You can enjoy all the sex you want with your spouse.

And, pray tell, does your God also approve of the more kinky forms of sex, or is the 'good' christian prohibited to move beyond the missionary position? Asking just for curiosities sake.As long as it doesn't involve the wasting of seed, it is to be enjoyed.

This means that sex between a married couple is only frowned upon/a sin if the couple has recreational sex, right? Meaning that whenever a married couple has sex they should do so with the intent to procreate. :shock: Meaning that they can only have sex during the wife's fertile period, right? Only when she's ovulating. And when they are having sex outside that period they are sinning just as much as the adulterer or the guy/gal who frequents prostitutes or the guy/gal who's spending some quality time with him/herself by masturbating, right?

I just wonder how many christians who claim to follow the rules of their faith actually live up to that rule.

Well, at least I'm glad to hear that kinky sex is still oki :)That I have already answered earlier in this thread. Take a look back. I don't care for repeating myself.

I just went through the entire thread and the closest you got to addressing the questions I raised in my previous post is the following:

Here is something to think about, before making yourself sound foolish. I have not and will not claim that sexual intercourse is only for the purpose of procreation. My wife and I have two children, and as long as we can read a calendar, that is all we will have. Over population? Not because of anything I have done.

That appears to be rather hypocritical.

To label masturbation as a sin as it means the spilling of seed, the later meaning that no children can come from that kind of sexual activity.

And to next claim that f--king your wife outside her fertile period, also resulting in the spilling of seed as no children come from that kind of recreational sex, is not a sin because.... :?

There is a name for this, Jay W, its called "double standards".

In our current time, the spilling of seed on the ground, is a term not generally used. The term for masturbation is wasting of the seed. The bible even goes as far as to say it is better to use a prostitute than to spill the seed on the ground. This is because the seed still has a chance to fulfill it's intended purpose, and not to waste a gift from God. In my opinion, this is the same as God saying he would not be pleased by masturbation. I try to lead a life that is pleasing to God. So for me masturbation it totally out of the question.

But by that logic using a condom is wrong also...Sperm has the possibility of passing through or going around a condom. So there is a chance for it to fulfill it's intended purpose.

Incorrect. Sperm cannot pass through an intact condom. If used properly, it has a 98% effectivity, which means that the tiny chance of pregnancy when using a condom is pretty much irrelevant.Please note the use of the word possibility. 2% is a possibility.

Wonderful. So basically one can avoid sinning by evoking a statistical loophole.

God: "You spilled your seed. Prepare for my wrath!"
Condom-user: "But, technically, there's a 2% of it not working..."
God: "Oh. Never mind then."
:D

Once again, the U.S. Administration leads the way with a plan of attack to solve this crippling problem:

http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/purity/index.asp

You can enjoy all the sex you want with your spouse.

And, pray tell, does your God also approve of the more kinky forms of sex, or is the 'good' christian prohibited to move beyond the missionary position? Asking just for curiosities sake.As long as it doesn't involve the wasting of seed, it is to be enjoyed.

you cant waste that which is eternal

Well if you're not using a condom then most of it pours back out anyway. I'm confused, your "logic" is confusing.You were talking about intentional action. Not natural.

Ah, you hold your girlfriend upside down to prevent spillage. Cool! 8)Nice little joke, but no. Natural "spillage" only occurs after the sperm cells have had the chance to fulfill it's intended purpose. For those who seem to think in the millions or billions of cells involved, there is usually only one that fertilizes the egg (also usually only one). So the natural "spillage" are all cells that had a chance/possibility of being the one accepted by the egg.

Wasting your seed? Thats pretty damn stupid, it gets wasted anyway (expelled from the body in urine)!

Besides, monkeys masturbate, why aren't they considered 'evil'?

I just went through the entire thread and the closest you got to addressing the questions I raised in my previous post is the following:

Here is something to think about, before making yourself sound foolish. I have not and will not claim that sexual intercourse is only for the purpose of procreation. My wife and I have two children, and as long as we can read a calendar, that is all we will have. Over population? Not because of anything I have done.

That appears to be rather hypocritical.

To label masturbation as a sin as it means the spilling of seed, the later meaning that no children can come from that kind of sexual activity.

And to next claim that f--king your wife outside her fertile period, also resulting in the spilling of seed as no children come from that kind of recreational sex, is not a sin because.... :?

There is a name for this, Jay W, its called "double standards".Not at all. No human has the ability to know the exact moment of fertility. Human women produce eggs even when not in the fertile period. As far as anyone knows there is a possibility of fertilization at any time period. Note again the use of the word possibility. On religious terms, according to my faith and my understanding of the bible, sexual intercourse is to be enjoyed between spouses (note that it is not only for procreation, as I have previously stated).

YES AND I LOVE IT!

Wonderful. So basically one can avoid sinning by evoking a statistical loophole.

God: "You spilled your seed. Prepare for my wrath!"
Condom-user: "But, technically, there's a 2% of it not working..."
God: "Oh. Never mind then."
:DGuess who posted the possibility. Let's look at this on your terms. 98% efficent. For the purpose of this explaination we will use the figure of 1million sperm cells (which is a very low count). If you do the math that figures out to 200,000 sperm cells that could possibly be accepted by the egg. It only taking 1 sperm cell to be successful. If sexual intercourse has occured at the peak of the "fertility period" and the condom works to it top proficiency the chances of a pregnancy occuring are still outstandingly high. Thus, out of all 1million sperm cells, they all have a possibility of success.

You can enjoy all the sex you want with your spouse.

And, pray tell, does your God also approve of the more kinky forms of sex, or is the 'good' christian prohibited to move beyond the missionary position? Asking just for curiosities sake.As long as it doesn't involve the wasting of seed, it is to be enjoyed.

you cant waste that which is eternalSince when was Sperm eternal? Sperm cells die all the time and are absorbed by the body. Even your body, as much as the idea of you reproducing scares people to death.

Wasting your seed? Thats pretty damn stupid, it gets wasted anyway (expelled from the body in urine)!

Besides, monkeys masturbate, why aren't they considered 'evil'?The wasting you refer to is a natural process (involuntary). Masturbation is voluntary.
Yes monkeys masturbate, and if you wish to equal your intelligence to that of a monkey, that is your business.

Additional information editted in:

Monkeys are also known to play with their own feces and to even throw it when excited or angered. Is this an acceptable practice for humans as well? The monkey doesn't have to do this, some don't. Humans can do this, as well, and most don't.

Wasting your seed? Thats pretty damn stupid, it gets wasted anyway (expelled from the body in urine)!

Besides, monkeys masturbate, why aren't they considered 'evil'?The wasting you refer to is a natural process (involuntary). Masturbation is voluntary.
Yes monkeys masturbate, and if you wish to equal your intelligence to that of a monkey, that is your business.

But the point is it's wasted anyway, so why not have some fun doing it?

And yet you don't deny that monkeys are not considered 'evil', ho hum.

Wasting your seed? Thats pretty damn stupid, it gets wasted anyway (expelled from the body in urine)!

Besides, monkeys masturbate, why aren't they considered 'evil'?The wasting you refer to is a natural process (involuntary). Masturbation is voluntary.
Yes monkeys masturbate, and if you wish to equal your intelligence to that of a monkey, that is your business.

But the point is it's wasted anyway, so why not have some fun doing it?

And yet you don't deny that monkeys are not considered 'evil', ho hum.Note the difference between an involuntary action and a voluntary one.

Must go for now, I will be back on later tonight.

Wasting your seed? Thats pretty damn stupid, it gets wasted anyway (expelled from the body in urine)!

Besides, monkeys masturbate, why aren't they considered 'evil'?The wasting you refer to is a natural process (involuntary). Masturbation is voluntary.
Yes monkeys masturbate, and if you wish to equal your intelligence to that of a monkey, that is your business.

But the point is it's wasted anyway, so why not have some fun doing it?

And yet you don't deny that monkeys are not considered 'evil', ho hum.Note the difference between an involuntary action and a voluntary one.
If they have the same consequence (sperm wasted), I fail to see any discernable difference.

Wonderful. So basically one can avoid sinning by evoking a statistical loophole.

God: "You spilled your seed. Prepare for my wrath!"
Condom-user: "But, technically, there's a 2% of it not working..."
God: "Oh. Never mind then."
:DGuess who posted the possibility. Let's look at this on your terms. 98% efficent. For the purpose of this explaination we will use the figure of 1million sperm cells (which is a very low count). If you do the math that figures out to 200,000 sperm cells that could possibly be accepted by the egg. It only taking 1 sperm cell to be successful. If sexual intercourse has occured at the peak of the "fertility period" and the condom works to it top proficiency the chances of a pregnancy occuring are still outstandingly high. Thus, out of all 1million sperm cells, they all have a possibility of success.200,000 is 20% of a million, but you still make a reasonable point--not so much in terms of masturbation, but in the context of the rest of the discussion.

Masterbation is sex with someone you love

Twice on Sunday

Jeez, your poor wife.

Wonderful. So basically one can avoid sinning by evoking a statistical loophole.

God: "You spilled your seed. Prepare for my wrath!"
Condom-user: "But, technically, there's a 2% of it not working..."
God: "Oh. Never mind then."
:DGuess who posted the possibility. Let's look at this on your terms. 98% efficent. For the purpose of this explaination we will use the figure of 1million sperm cells (which is a very low count). If you do the math that figures out to 200,000 sperm cells that could possibly be accepted by the egg. It only taking 1 sperm cell to be successful. If sexual intercourse has occured at the peak of the "fertility period" and the condom works to it top proficiency the chances of a pregnancy occuring are still outstandingly high. Thus, out of all 1million sperm cells, they all have a possibility of success.200,000 is 20% of a million, but you still make a reasonable point--not so much in terms of masturbation, but in the context of the rest of the discussion.My mistake, and to think I was a straight "A" student in math classes.

If they have the same consequence (sperm wasted), I fail to see any discernable difference.Lets see if I can put this in terms you can understand:

1.) A person has a problem with rats in their home. They want to get rid of the rats because they have small children. They buy rat poison and carefully place it in their attic. One of the children gets into the attic and finds the rat poison. The child dies. Not a voluntary act on the part of the homeowner.

2.) A person buys rat poison and feeds it to their child. The child dies. A volutary act buy the person.

In both cases a child dies. In case 1 it is an accident and nobody is to blame. In case 2 it is intensional and murder charges are filed.

There is the difference between a voluntary and involuntary act. One a person is responsible for, the other they are not.

im a non-religious non-masturbater so eat that...

Masterbation is sex with someone you loveThe point being made is that, according to my own religious belief, sex is only permitted between spouses. Have you married your hand lately?

Masterbation is sex with someone you loveThe point being made is that, according to my own religious belief, sex is only permitted between spouses. Have you married your hand lately?

My hand brings me pleasure, food, drink, changes channels for me and helps me out considerably in my day to day life.

im a non-religious non-masturbater so eat that...And you are also a welcome addition to this conversation.

Masterbation is sex with someone you loveThe point being made is that, according to my own religious belief, sex is only permitted between spouses. Have you married your hand lately?

My hand brings me pleasure, food, drink, changes channels for me and helps me out considerably in my day to day life.Does your hand to any of these things without the use of thought by your brain? That is what is meant by an involuntary action.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.

DP

in order to do it then you have to be looking as something to get you aroused right?

Also, I think that "looking at something" is much more of a guy-thing than something women usually do. I suspect that women tend mostly to just use their imagination while "polishing-the-pearl". Or am I wrong about that?

Maybe.

Masterbation is sex with someone you loveThe point being made is that, according to my own religious belief, sex is only permitted between spouses. Have you married your hand lately?

My hand brings me pleasure, food, drink, changes channels for me and helps me out considerably in my day to day life.Does your hand to any of these things without the use of thought by your brain? That is what is meant by an involuntary action.

Several people in my course have said that I constantly walk around looking like I'm completely turned off, so I wouldn't be suprised.

Masterbation is sex with someone you loveThe point being made is that, according to my own religious belief, sex is only permitted between spouses. Have you married your hand lately?

Methinks the Christian doth protest too much.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.

show me any proof of anybody dying because they DID mastrubate.

i say if it feels good, do it

so for mastrubaters, it feels good , so do it

for you hardcore christians, it feels good to not mastrubate, so do that

there you go

discussion over :roll:

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.That makes absolutely no sense. Just because a person doesn't partake in an activity doesn't change the nature of that activity.

And regardless--if you are a healthy male and you are not having sex, at some point your body will expel its excess sperm. That's a fact of biology. Now if you want to call it involuntary masturbation, that's cool, but the fact is that at some point it will happen if there's no other outlet.

Jeez, your poor wife.

Jizz your poor wife. 8)

Wonderful. So basically one can avoid sinning by evoking a statistical loophole.

God: "You spilled your seed. Prepare for my wrath!"
Condom-user: "But, technically, there's a 2% of it not working..."
God: "Oh. Never mind then."
:DGuess who posted the possibility. Let's look at this on your terms. 98% efficent. For the purpose of this explaination we will use the figure of 1million sperm cells (which is a very low count). If you do the math that figures out to 200,000 sperm cells that could possibly be accepted by the egg. It only taking 1 sperm cell to be successful. If sexual intercourse has occured at the peak of the "fertility period" and the condom works to it top proficiency the chances of a pregnancy occuring are still outstandingly high. Thus, out of all 1million sperm cells, they all have a possibility of success.

Besides the incorrect math, the 98% effectivity figure was pertaining to the percentage of *sexual acts*, not the number of sperm ejaculated during one act. Considering how few intercourses actually result in pregnancy, only having 2% of said results gives a very low, virtually nonexistant, risk.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.

show me any proof of anybody dying because they DID mastrubate.

i say if it feels good, do it

so for mastrubaters, it feels good , so do it

for you hardcore christians, it feels good to not mastrubate, so do that

there you go

discussion over :roll:Very good way of putting things. However, keep in mind that I have not claimed masurbation as being an unhealthy act, only sinful. You have even helped my assertation that to some people it is wrong to masturbate so they don't do it. Whether that is on a religious basis or just a personal choice.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/07/cancer.ejaculations.ap/

Frequent ejaculation seems to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. So for people who have no spouse and people that have spouses that do not want sex as often as mentioned in the article (at least 21 times a month!) masturbation can be healthy. So yes, people may very well have died because they did not masturbate. In 2003 almost 30000 men died of prostate cancer in the US. According to the research article frequent ejaculation reduced the risk of cancer with 33%. That's 10000 men right there.

Now show me proof that masturbation somehow IS harmful.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.That makes absolutely no sense. Just because a person doesn't partake in an activity doesn't change the nature of that activity.

And regardless--if you are a healthy male and you are not having sex, at some point your body will expel its excess sperm. That's a fact of biology. Now if you want to call it involuntary masturbation, that's cool, but the fact is that at some point it will happen if there's no other outlet.There are those who have claimed that the release of sperm is a health matter. The natural process of absorbing dead sperm cells is an involuntary act. The body actually expells very little in the urine. It is claimed that the only sperm contained in the urine is there by a back flow type of action, if this is truely the case, then if a man was never to masturbate and to never have sex, in any form, the possibility is that there would be none present in the urine stream. This would also indicate that any sperm present in the stream would have been expelled first from the body then drawn back in. This would provide the possibility of the sperm cells to have travelled along the intended course.

Wonderful. So basically one can avoid sinning by evoking a statistical loophole.

God: "You spilled your seed. Prepare for my wrath!"
Condom-user: "But, technically, there's a 2% of it not working..."
God: "Oh. Never mind then."
:DGuess who posted the possibility. Let's look at this on your terms. 98% efficent. For the purpose of this explaination we will use the figure of 1million sperm cells (which is a very low count). If you do the math that figures out to 200,000 sperm cells that could possibly be accepted by the egg. It only taking 1 sperm cell to be successful. If sexual intercourse has occured at the peak of the "fertility period" and the condom works to it top proficiency the chances of a pregnancy occuring are still outstandingly high. Thus, out of all 1million sperm cells, they all have a possibility of success.

Besides the incorrect math, the 98% effectivity figure was pertaining to the percentage of *sexual acts*, not the number of sperm ejaculated during one act. Considering how few intercourses actually result in pregnancy, only having 2% of said results gives a very low, virtually nonexistant, risk.So the odds of a pregnancy occurring is 1 in 50. Those are better odds than hitting three numbers on the powerball lottery. Care to take a guess at how many people do that every Wednesday and Saturday? It happens. It shows there is a possibility, no matter how small, that the sperm can complete it's purpose.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/07/cancer.ejaculations.ap/

Frequent ejaculation seems to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. So for people who have no spouse and people that have spouses that do not want sex as often as mentioned in the article (at least 21 times a month!) masturbation can be healthy. So yes, people may very well have died because they did not masturbate. In 2003 almost 30000 men died of prostate cancer in the US. According to the research article frequent ejaculation reduced the risk of cancer with 33%. That's 10000 men right there.

Now show me proof that masturbation somehow IS harmful.


Wanker.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.That makes absolutely no sense. Just because a person doesn't partake in an activity doesn't change the nature of that activity.

And regardless--if you are a healthy male and you are not having sex, at some point your body will expel its excess sperm. That's a fact of biology. Now if you want to call it involuntary masturbation, that's cool, but the fact is that at some point it will happen if there's no other outlet.There are those who have claimed that the release of sperm is a health matter. The natural process of absorbing dead sperm cells is an involuntary act. The body actually expells very little in the urine. It is claimed that the only sperm contained in the urine is there by a back flow type of action, if this is truely the case, then if a man was never to masturbate and to never have sex, in any form, the possibility is that there would be none present in the urine stream. This would also indicate that any sperm present in the stream would have been expelled first from the body then drawn back in. This would provide the possibility of the sperm cells to have travelled along the intended course.I'm not talking about expelling sperm in urine--I'm talking about wet dreams, aka involuntary masturbation.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.That makes absolutely no sense. Just because a person doesn't partake in an activity doesn't change the nature of that activity.

And regardless--if you are a healthy male and you are not having sex, at some point your body will expel its excess sperm. That's a fact of biology. Now if you want to call it involuntary masturbation, that's cool, but the fact is that at some point it will happen if there's no other outlet.There are those who have claimed that the release of sperm is a health matter. The natural process of absorbing dead sperm cells is an involuntary act. The body actually expells very little in the urine. It is claimed that the only sperm contained in the urine is there by a back flow type of action, if this is truely the case, then if a man was never to masturbate and to never have sex, in any form, the possibility is that there would be none present in the urine stream. This would also indicate that any sperm present in the stream would have been expelled first from the body then drawn back in. This would provide the possibility of the sperm cells to have travelled along the intended course.I'm not talking about expelling sperm in urine--I'm talking about wet dreams, aka involuntary masturbation.


You must be a pro! Sorry, you left yourself wide open for that one.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.That makes absolutely no sense. Just because a person doesn't partake in an activity doesn't change the nature of that activity.

And regardless--if you are a healthy male and you are not having sex, at some point your body will expel its excess sperm. That's a fact of biology. Now if you want to call it involuntary masturbation, that's cool, but the fact is that at some point it will happen if there's no other outlet.There are those who have claimed that the release of sperm is a health matter. The natural process of absorbing dead sperm cells is an involuntary act. The body actually expells very little in the urine. It is claimed that the only sperm contained in the urine is there by a back flow type of action, if this is truely the case, then if a man was never to masturbate and to never have sex, in any form, the possibility is that there would be none present in the urine stream. This would also indicate that any sperm present in the stream would have been expelled first from the body then drawn back in. This would provide the possibility of the sperm cells to have travelled along the intended course.I'm not talking about expelling sperm in urine--I'm talking about wet dreams, aka involuntary masturbation.

Wet dreams are not involuntary masturbation...they are involuntary ejaculation.

Masturbation implies self...and intent.


Dictionary.com says:
mas·tur·ba·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mstr-bshn)
n.
Excitation of one's own or another's genital organs, usually to orgasm, by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse.

*snicker*


This is funny.

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/07/cancer.ejaculations.ap/

Frequent ejaculation seems to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. So for people who have no spouse and people that have spouses that do not want sex as often as mentioned in the article (at least 21 times a month!) masturbation can be healthy. So yes, people may very well have died because they did not masturbate. In 2003 almost 30000 men died of prostate cancer in the US. According to the research article frequent ejaculation reduced the risk of cancer with 33%. That's 10000 men right there.

Now show me proof that masturbation somehow IS harmful.What you have shown is proof that spouses should have sex. Not that a person must masurbate or die. The people mentioned in that article, who died, did so from prostrate cancer, not from not masturbating. They could have just as easily reduced their risk through normal sexual intercourse.

I'm a Christian and I have to say that masturbation is wrong. Think about it for a second, in order to do it then you have to be looking as something to get you aroused right? In Christian terminology this is called lust and Jesus clearly told us in Matthew that lust is wrong, so therefore masturbation is wrong.

Unashamed Christians

I'm sooooooooo glad I'm not a Christian. I love lust. Dirty, filthy, passionate lust.

I'm a Christian and I have to say that masturbation is wrong. Think about it for a second, in order to do it then you have to be looking as something to get you aroused right? In Christian terminology this is called lust and Jesus clearly told us in Matthew that lust is wrong, so therefore masturbation is wrong.

Unashamed Christians

I'm sooooooooo glad I'm not a Christian. I love lust. Dirty, filthy, passionate lust.


No wonder the world is such terrible shape. :roll:

For all those who are claiming masturbation to be a healthy act:

Show any proof you can of anyone dying because they did not masturbate.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/04/07/cancer.ejaculations.ap/

Frequent ejaculation seems to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. So for people who have no spouse and people that have spouses that do not want sex as often as mentioned in the article (at least 21 times a month!) masturbation can be healthy. So yes, people may very well have died because they did not masturbate. In 2003 almost 30000 men died of prostate cancer in the US. According to the research article frequent ejaculation reduced the risk of cancer with 33%. That's 10000 men right there.

Now show me proof that masturbation somehow IS harmful.What you have shown is proof that spouses should have sex. Not that a person must masurbate or die. The people mentioned in that article, who died, did so from prostrate cancer, not from not masturbating. They could have just as easily reduced their risk through normal sexual intercourse.

Gnjj...Are you even listening to me?! What about the people that DON'T HAVE A SPOUSE? You can't have sex unless there's someone to have it with! And I seriously doubt that all women want to be available for their husbands 21 times a month, considering the average sex statistics in western countries. I'm guessing that many of the 10000 men I mentioned would fit into this situation. So yes, masturbation could very well have saved their lives. Unless of course you're advocating promiscuity, sex with prostitutes, or forcing yourself upon your spouse, which I seriously doubt.

I'm a Christian and I have to say that masturbation is wrong. Think about it for a second, in order to do it then you have to be looking as something to get you aroused right? In Christian terminology this is called lust and Jesus clearly told us in Matthew that lust is wrong, so therefore masturbation is wrong.

Unashamed Christians

I'm sooooooooo glad I'm not a Christian. I love lust. Dirty, filthy, passionate lust.


No wonder the world is such terrible shape. :roll:

Whats wrong with finding people sexually attractive? Thinking about them is fun, and, having been bought up in a pretty much religion free environment (maybe slightly British Quaker) I don't feel guilty for having healthy sexual emotions. It'd be slightly disturbing if a 18 year old boy didn't enjoy lusting. Its part of growing up. How has personal, sexual lust made the world a bad place?

Wet dreams are not involuntary masturbation...they are involuntary ejaculation.

Masturbation implies self...and intent.


Dictionary.com says:
mas·tur·ba·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mstr-bshn)
n.
Excitation of one's own or another's genital organs, usually to orgasm, by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse.Sorry, Backwoods--I don't see anything in that definition that implies intent and self. I see a clinical act that doesn't even mention consciousness. And a wet dream does involve manual stimulation of the penis--it just happens while in the dream state. Therefore, it's involuntary.

I'm not talking about expelling sperm in urine--I'm talking about wet dreams, aka involuntary masturbation.Are you trying to claim that 100% of the male population has had a "wet dream"? If so, you are 100% wrong. I have never had one, never want one, and I attribute that to the fact that I do not masturbate and sex is not the only thing on my mind. In my belief, having a wet dream is the same as masturbating. I do not believe a person is capable of having a dream, if the subject doesn't enter the mind, and I have had some very strange dreams.

I'm a Christian and I have to say that masturbation is wrong. Think about it for a second, in order to do it then you have to be looking as something to get you aroused right? In Christian terminology this is called lust and Jesus clearly told us in Matthew that lust is wrong, so therefore masturbation is wrong.

Unashamed Christians

I'm sooooooooo glad I'm not a Christian. I love lust. Dirty, filthy, passionate lust.


No wonder the world is such terrible shape. :roll:

Whats wrong with finding people sexually attractive? Thinking about them is fun, and, having been bought up in a pretty much religion free environment (maybe slightly British Quaker) I don't feel guilty for having healthy sexual emotions. It'd be slightly disturbing if a 18 year old boy didn't enjoy lusting. Its part of growing up. How has personal, sexual lust made the world a bad place?

People like you care more about sex than other more important things. Sex is not important, things like curing cancer , saving the enviroment and world hunger are.

Remember, alot of sex gave us teens having kids, aids and over population.

Wet dreams are not involuntary masturbation...they are involuntary ejaculation.

Masturbation implies self...and intent.


Dictionary.com says:
mas·tur·ba·tion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (mstr-bshn)
n.
Excitation of one's own or another's genital organs, usually to orgasm, by manual contact or means other than sexual intercourse.Sorry, Backwoods--I don't see anything in that definition that implies intent and self. I see a clinical act that doesn't even mention consciousness. And a wet dream does involve manual stimulation of the penis--it just happens while in the dream state. Therefore, it's involuntary.

and I have never heard of anyone ever masturbating in thier sleep....
Seems like you would wake up from all the vigorous movement...

I'm not talking about expelling sperm in urine--I'm talking about wet dreams, aka involuntary masturbation.Are you trying to claim that 100% of the male population has had a "wet dream"? If so, you are 100% wrong. I have never had one, never want one, and I attribute that to the fact that I do not masturbate and sex is not the only thing on my mind. In my belief, having a wet dream is the same as masturbating. I do not believe a person is capable of having a dream, if the subject doesn't enter the mind, and I have had some very strange dreams.

So wet dreams are as sinful as masturbation? But dreams are fro mthe subconcious, and you can't really control that. I agree that they can be made more common through sexual frustration- having sexual thoughts and not being able to 'expel' them- i.e through masturbation or sex.

Gnjj...Are you even listening to me?! What about the people that DON'T HAVE A SPOUSE? You can't have sex unless there's someone to have it with! And I seriously doubt that all women want to be available for their husbands 21 times a month, considering the average sex statistics in western countries. I'm guessing that many of the 10000 men I mentioned would fit into this situation. So yes, masturbation could very well have saved their lives. Unless of course you're advocating promiscuity, sex with prostitutes, or forcing yourself upon your spouse, which I seriously doubt.I am listening to you, but you have yet to show where there is a medical certainty of death by not masturbating. Your stats show that ejaculating 21 times a month may reduce the chance of prostrate cancer, nothing more. And then only in one third of the cases.

I'm a Christian and I have to say that masturbation is wrong. Think about it for a second, in order to do it then you have to be looking as something to get you aroused right? In Christian terminology this is called lust and Jesus clearly told us in Matthew that lust is wrong, so therefore masturbation is wrong.

Unashamed Christians

I'm sooooooooo glad I'm not a Christian. I love lust. Dirty, filthy, passionate lust.


No wonder the world is such terrible shape. :roll:

Whats wrong with finding people sexually attractive? Thinking about them is fun, and, having been bought up in a pretty much religion free environment (maybe slightly British Quaker) I don't feel guilty for having healthy sexual emotions. It'd be slightly disturbing if a 18 year old boy didn't enjoy lusting. Its part of growing up. How has personal, sexual lust made the world a bad place?

People like you care more about sex than other more important things. Sex is not important, things like curing cancer , saving the enviroment and world hunger are.

Remember, alot of sex gave us teens having kids, aids and over population.

Nice to see how much you know about my life just from me saying I lust. I don't care about sex more than other things at all. I live a healthy, full and active life. I'm involved in lots of 'worthy' tasks (I've recently spent a week helping kids paint a mural on the school wall for example). I care very much about ending war, poverty and etc. I just have space in my life and am enough removed from a guilt complex to recognise an essential part of my life- my sexuality. I recognise the natural and healthy sexual urges I have, and indulge them in a safe and healthy manner in long-term and/or commited relationships, based on respect, affection and, sometimes, love.

And alot of sex didn't bring us over population, teen pregnancy and aids. Lots of UNPROTECTED sex bought us that.

Also, I didn't say I had sex (though I do). I said 'lusting' was natural and healthy.

Whats wrong with finding people sexually attractive? Thinking about them is fun, and, having been bought up in a pretty much religion free environment (maybe slightly British Quaker) I don't feel guilty for having healthy sexual emotions. It'd be slightly disturbing if a 18 year old boy didn't enjoy lusting. Its part of growing up. How has personal, sexual lust made the world a bad place?Care to take a guess at the second most common reason for rape? Hint the first is a feeling of power.

Gnjj...Are you even listening to me?! What about the people that DON'T HAVE A SPOUSE? You can't have sex unless there's someone to have it with! And I seriously doubt that all women want to be available for their husbands 21 times a month, considering the average sex statistics in western countries. I'm guessing that many of the 10000 men I mentioned would fit into this situation. So yes, masturbation could very well have saved their lives. Unless of course you're advocating promiscuity, sex with prostitutes, or forcing yourself upon your spouse, which I seriously doubt.I am listening to you, but you have yet to show where there is a medical certainty of death by not masturbating. Your stats show that ejaculating 21 times a month may reduce the chance of prostrate cancer, nothing more. And then only in one third of the cases.

Do the math. 30000 deaths. 33% lower risk = 10000.

If even 1% of this is accurate it would still imply 100 deaths a year in the US alone. It's amazing that someone that just a couple pages ago was defending the use of a condom as not sinful because of a tiny statistical chance of it not working is now ignoring much higher statistical figures of masturbation's benefits. It seems as though you only choose to believe those statistics that fit with your own beliefs.

Whats wrong with finding people sexually attractive? Thinking about them is fun, and, having been bought up in a pretty much religion free environment (maybe slightly British Quaker) I don't feel guilty for having healthy sexual emotions. It'd be slightly disturbing if a 18 year old boy didn't enjoy lusting. Its part of growing up. How has personal, sexual lust made the world a bad place?Care to take a guess at the second most common reason for rape? Hint the first is a feeling of power.

So we should repress our sexual lusting emotions? And should we deny ourselves any form of power in any way, because feelings of power 'cause' rape?

Also, if more rapists masturbated instead of raped, things would be better.

Do the math. 30000 deaths. 33% lower risk = 10000.

If even 1% of this is accurate it would still imply 100 deaths a year in the US alone. It's amazing that someone that just a couple pages ago was defending the use of a condom as not sinful because of a tiny statistical chance of it not working is now ignoring much higher statistical figures of masturbation's benefits. It seems as though you only choose to believe those statistics that fit with your own beliefs.Do you see anywhere in that report that says a person must masturbate to remain healthy? What I see in that report is the benifits of ejaculation, not masturbation.

Do the math. 30000 deaths. 33% lower risk = 10000.

If even 1% of this is accurate it would still imply 100 deaths a year in the US alone. It's amazing that someone that just a couple pages ago was defending the use of a condom as not sinful because of a tiny statistical chance of it not working is now ignoring much higher statistical figures of masturbation's benefits. It seems as though you only choose to believe those statistics that fit with your own beliefs.Do you see anywhere in that report that says a person must masturbate to remain healthy? What I see in that report is the benifits of ejaculation, not masturbation.

If there is no sex partner, then yes, a person should masturbate to remain healthy. Is the concept really so hard to grasp?

So we should repress our sexual lusting emotions? And should we deny ourselves any form of power in any way, because feelings of power 'cause' rape?

Also, if more rapists masturbated instead of raped, things would be better.Guess what, if rapist ate cabbage instead of raping things would be better. If rapist smoked cigarettes instead of raping things would be better. If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

If there is no sex partner, then yes, a person should masturbate to remain healthy. Is the concept really so hard to grasp?The article does NOT say that you will definitely get prostrate cancer and die if you don't masturbate. Do you happen to know that prostrate cancer is one of the most treatable forms of cancer if found early enough? You are definitely not automatically going to die from it. That is where the difference lies in your article.

Oh boy...
We really do need to get over of 2000 years of judeo-christian guilt complex :O

Once again I have reached the bedtime hour. I have church in the morning and I have a lot of people to pray for, so I will bid you all good evening and check back tomorrow.

If there is no sex partner, then yes, a person should masturbate to remain healthy. Is the concept really so hard to grasp?The article does NOT say that you will definitely get prostrate cancer and die if you don't masturbate. Do you happen to know that prostrate cancer is one of the most treatable forms of cancer if found early enough? You are definitely not automatically going to die from it. That is where the difference lies in your article.

I do know that it is highly treatable. Nonetheless, nearly 30000 men died from it in 2003 in the US. It's a fact. Yes, most were cured, but these 30000 weren't. At least a few may have been avoided by regular masturbation. The fact that people did die from it makes your argument irrelevant. Also, even if you don't die, treatment is expensive. How much money would be saved in medical costs every year if 33% of the prostate cancer cases vanished?

Oh boy...
We really do need to get over of 2000 years of judeo-christian guilt complex :OWhy it has worked very well for this long.

Once again I have reached the bedtime hour. I have church in the morning and I have a lot of people to pray for, so I will bid you all good evening and check back tomorrow.

And it gets tiring being so self-righteous.
I wish I could say I was going to bed to masturbate, but I'm British and its only 11.15 in the morning here. Oh well, my geographical positioning yet again thwarts my attempts at comedy.

So we should repress our sexual lusting emotions? And should we deny ourselves any form of power in any way, because feelings of power 'cause' rape?

Also, if more rapists masturbated instead of raped, things would be better.Guess what, if rapist ate cabbage instead of raping things would be better. If rapist smoked cigarettes instead of raping things would be better. If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

Eating cabbage and smoking doesn't release sexual tension (unless you have some really weird fetish), so what you say is, again, irrelevant. Besides, smoking causes harm to yourself and possibly others. Masturbation doesn't. Try again.

Once again I have reached the bedtime hour. I have church in the morning and I have a lot of people to pray for, so I will bid you all good evening and check back tomorrow.

And it gets tiring being so self-righteous.
I wish I could say I was going to bed to masturbate, but I'm British and its only 11.15 in the morning here. Oh well, my geographical positioning yet again thwarts my attempts at comedy.It's almost time for a nooner then, isn't it. Go ahead and get started early.

Once again I have reached the bedtime hour. I have church in the morning and I have a lot of people to pray for, so I will bid you all good evening and check back tomorrow.

And it gets tiring being so self-righteous.
I wish I could say I was going to bed to masturbate, but I'm British and its only 11.15 in the morning here. Oh well, my geographical positioning yet again thwarts my attempts at comedy.It's almost time for a nooner then, isn't it. Go ahead and get started early.

I'm too busy caring about dying kittens. For Jay W's sake.
I might go do my noon-time ritual of worshipping the evil liberal satan fag man. Or something.

I'm too busy caring about dying kittens. For Jay W's sake. I might go do my noon-time ritual of worshipping the evil liberal satan fag man. Or something.

I didn't know I had worshippors! :lol:

I'm too busy caring about dying kittens. For Jay W's sake. I might go do my noon-time ritual of worshipping the evil liberal satan fag man. Or something.

I didn't know I had worshippors! :lol:

Oh baby yeah. Sexual lust/ rape/ evilness all the way. Judeo-Christian guilt complexes do suck. I wish I was totally removed from them, but I'm not. I just ignore it as some evil religious hangover. I hope future generations peel themselves away from it.

So we should repress our sexual lusting emotions? And should we deny ourselves any form of power in any way, because feelings of power 'cause' rape?

Also, if more rapists masturbated instead of raped, things would be better.Guess what, if rapist ate cabbage instead of raping things would be better. If rapist smoked cigarettes instead of raping things would be better. If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

Eating cabbage and smoking doesn't release sexual tension (unless you have some really weird fetish), so what you say is, again, irrelevant. Besides, smoking causes harm to yourself and possibly others. Masturbation doesn't. Try again.

Damn right.
And thanks for sticking up for me :D.

I'm not talking about expelling sperm in urine--I'm talking about wet dreams, aka involuntary masturbation.Are you trying to claim that 100% of the male population has had a "wet dream"? If so, you are 100% wrong. I have never had one, never want one, and I attribute that to the fact that I do not masturbate and sex is not the only thing on my mind. In my belief, having a wet dream is the same as masturbating. I do not believe a person is capable of having a dream, if the subject doesn't enter the mind, and I have had some very strange dreams.

No, 100% of the male population that do not masturbate have nocturnal emissions. If you do not masturbate, whether you can remember the dream, admit it, or not, you have had nocturnal emissions. Or did you get married at age 13, and have been having unprotected sex twice daily ever since?

You obviously got pulled out of school when they explained how the 'plumbing' works.

I'm not talking about expelling sperm in urine--I'm talking about wet dreams, aka involuntary masturbation.Are you trying to claim that 100% of the male population has had a "wet dream"? If so, you are 100% wrong. I have never had one, never want one, and I attribute that to the fact that I do not masturbate and sex is not the only thing on my mind. In my belief, having a wet dream is the same as masturbating. I do not believe a person is capable of having a dream, if the subject doesn't enter the mind, and I have had some very strange dreams.

No, 100% of the male population that do not masturbate have nocturnal emissions. If you do not masturbate, whether you can remember the dream, admit it, or not, you have had nocturnal emissions. Or did you get married at age 13, and have been having unprotected sex twice daily ever since?

You obviously got pulled out of school when they explained how the 'plumbing' works.

If Jesus didn't masturbated He must have been the son of God. No normal, healthy man can survive without letting his business out now and then. But why shouldn't God allow his poor son to jerk off? What in Gods name is wrong with spanking the monkey. Jesus fuck :twisted:

So we should repress our sexual lusting emotions? And should we deny ourselves any form of power in any way, because feelings of power 'cause' rape?

Also, if more rapists masturbated instead of raped, things would be better.Guess what, if rapist ate cabbage instead of raping things would be better. If rapist smoked cigarettes instead of raping things would be better. If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

Eating cabbage and smoking doesn't release sexual tension (unless you have some really weird fetish), so what you say is, again, irrelevant. Besides, smoking causes harm to yourself and possibly others. Masturbation doesn't. Try again.

Damn right.
And thanks for sticking up for me :D.

My pleasure! :wink:

I do know that it is highly treatable. Nonetheless, nearly 30000 men died from it in 2003 in the US. It's a fact. Yes, most were cured, but these 30000 weren't. At least a few may have been avoided by regular masturbation. The fact that people did die from it makes your argument irrelevant. Also, even if you don't die, treatment is expensive. How much money would be saved in medical costs every year if 33% of the prostate cancer cases vanished?Your article does not say that you can prevent prostrate cancer only by masturbation. Thus, masturbation is not necessary to keep a male alive. What I asked for is proof that you will die if you don't masturbate. You have failed to deliver this proof.
You cannot show proof that a man will definitely get prostrate cancer and die by refusing to masturbate.
You cannot show proof that a man will definitely die, from any cause, if he refuses to masturbate.
You cannot prove that masturbation will keep a man alive.
You cannot prove that masturbation is necessary.
I am not claiming that anyone will die from masturbating.
I am only claiming that, according to my belief, masturbation is a sin. I am also stating that, personally I do not masturbate. I find it not only sinful but disgusting.

Once again I have reached the bedtime hour. I have church in the morning and I have a lot of people to pray for, so I will bid you all good evening and check back tomorrow.

And it gets tiring being so self-righteous.
I wish I could say I was going to bed to masturbate, but I'm British and its only 11.15 in the morning here. Oh well, my geographical positioning yet again thwarts my attempts at comedy.Why does answering questions reguarding my opinion on masturbation make me self-righteous. I have not told anyone that they are going to suffer eternal damnation for masturbating, nor have I attempted to convert anyone to my faith.
If you are a proponent for masturbation why would it make any difference what time of day it was? Isn't a man fully capable of masturbation at any time? See I can exhibit a little comedy myself.

So we should repress our sexual lusting emotions? And should we deny ourselves any form of power in any way, because feelings of power 'cause' rape?

Also, if more rapists masturbated instead of raped, things would be better.Guess what, if rapist ate cabbage instead of raping things would be better. If rapist smoked cigarettes instead of raping things would be better. If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

Eating cabbage and smoking doesn't release sexual tension (unless you have some really weird fetish), so what you say is, again, irrelevant. Besides, smoking causes harm to yourself and possibly others. Masturbation doesn't. Try again.Do you have some sort of problem with reading an entire post? The point being made was to be found in the last statement:
If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

I'm too busy caring about dying kittens. For Jay W's sake.
I might go do my noon-time ritual of worshipping the evil liberal satan fag man. Or something.I know some Satanist on this game who would take offense at your comment. Personally I don't care who you worship or even if you worship. That is your choice to make. When you make a comment to me you get an answer. Not a sermon.

If Jesus didn't masturbated He must have been the son of God. No normal, healthy man can survive without letting his business out now and then. But why shouldn't God allow his poor son to jerk off? What in Gods name is wrong with spanking the monkey. Jesus f--- :twisted:This is your first post and the best that you can come up with is something to try to slam religious beliefs of another? Just in case you can't read the other post, from some lack of ambition or intelligence, spilling the seed is considered, by my faith, to be a sin.

When you make a comment to me you get an answer. Not a sermon.

That's your opinion. :roll:

When you make a comment to me you get an answer. Not a sermon.

That's your opinion. :roll:My opinon is all I have been stating through this whole thread. I have made no assertations to anyone about what would happen to them. I have not told anyone what they should or should not do. I have not even quoted any bible verse. Nobody has been preached to. I should know I am a preacher.

When you make a comment to me you get an answer. Not a sermon.

That's your opinion. :roll:My opinon is all I have been stating through this whole thread. I have made no assertations to anyone about what would happen to them. I have not told anyone what they should or should not do. I have not even quoted any bible verse. Nobody has been preached to. I should know I am a preacher.And you don't masturbate and never have--we get the point. Can we move on now? :lol:

So we should repress our sexual lusting emotions? And should we deny ourselves any form of power in any way, because feelings of power 'cause' rape?

Also, if more rapists masturbated instead of raped, things would be better.Guess what, if rapist ate cabbage instead of raping things would be better. If rapist smoked cigarettes instead of raping things would be better. If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

Eating cabbage and smoking doesn't release sexual tension (unless you have some really weird fetish), so what you say is, again, irrelevant. Besides, smoking causes harm to yourself and possibly others. Masturbation doesn't. Try again.Do you have some sort of problem with reading an entire post? The point being made was to be found in the last statement:
If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

Ah, yes...and praying helps people release the sexual tension... All those pedophile priests are proof of that.

I do know that it is highly treatable. Nonetheless, nearly 30000 men died from it in 2003 in the US. It's a fact. Yes, most were cured, but these 30000 weren't. At least a few may have been avoided by regular masturbation. The fact that people did die from it makes your argument irrelevant. Also, even if you don't die, treatment is expensive. How much money would be saved in medical costs every year if 33% of the prostate cancer cases vanished?Your article does not say that you can prevent prostrate cancer only by masturbation. Thus, masturbation is not necessary to keep a male alive. What I asked for is proof that you will die if you don't masturbate. You have failed to deliver this proof.
You cannot show proof that a man will definitely get prostrate cancer and die by refusing to masturbate.
You cannot show proof that a man will definitely die, from any cause, if he refuses to masturbate.
You cannot prove that masturbation will keep a man alive.
You cannot prove that masturbation is necessary.
I am not claiming that anyone will die from masturbating.
I am only claiming that, according to my belief, masturbation is a sin. I am also stating that, personally I do not masturbate. I find it not only sinful but disgusting.

My point was that masturbation can be healthy, which *is* advocated by the research. Of course it won't keep a man alive, but it is able to reduce the risk of developing a potentially fatal illness. Stop drawing my arguments to extreme truths.

So we should repress our sexual lusting emotions? And should we deny ourselves any form of power in any way, because feelings of power 'cause' rape?

Also, if more rapists masturbated instead of raped, things would be better.Guess what, if rapist ate cabbage instead of raping things would be better. If rapist smoked cigarettes instead of raping things would be better. If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

Eating cabbage and smoking doesn't release sexual tension (unless you have some really weird fetish), so what you say is, again, irrelevant. Besides, smoking causes harm to yourself and possibly others. Masturbation doesn't. Try again.Do you have some sort of problem with reading an entire post? The point being made was to be found in the last statement:
If rapist did anything instead of raping things would be better.

I chose not to comment the last part because it was an irrelevant and absurd platitude. If he should do *anything* instead of raping, how about murder, or robbing a bank? I was defending the argument that masturbation helps relieve sexual tension. Naturally, it won't stop rapists everywhere, but maybe it will help someone who is borderline.

If Jesus didn't masturbated He must have been the son of God. No normal, healthy man can survive without letting his business out now and then. But why shouldn't God allow his poor son to jerk off? What in Gods name is wrong with spanking the monkey. Jesus f--- :twisted:This is your first post and the best that you can come up with is something to try to slam religious beliefs of another? Just in case you can't read the other post, from some lack of ambition or intelligence, spilling the seed is considered, by my faith, to be a sin.

Again with the spilling of the seed argument! That's so very tiresome. According to that argument it's also a sin to:

- Use a condom (in 98% of the cases)
- Have sex with a woman outside of her fertility period
- Have sex with an infertile woman
- Have sex with a woman who is past her menopause

Tell me honestly: Do you intend to stop having sex with your wife after she reaches her menopause?

And you don't masturbate and never have--we get the point. Can we move on now? :lol:Anyone can move on whenever they like, but for me as long as people wish to ask me questions they will get answers.

If Jesus didn't masturbated He must have been the son of God. No normal, healthy man can survive without letting his business out now and then. But why shouldn't God allow his poor son to jerk off? What in Gods name is wrong with spanking the monkey. Jesus f--- :twisted:This is your first post and the best that you can come up with is something to try to slam religious beliefs of another? Just in case you can't read the other post, from some lack of ambition or intelligence, spilling the seed is considered, by my faith, to be a sin.

Again with the spilling of the seed argument! That's so very tiresome. According to that argument it's also a sin to:

- Use a condom (in 98% of the cases)
- Have sex with a woman outside of her fertility period
- Have sex with an infertile woman
- Have sex with a woman who is past her menopause

Tell me honestly: Do you intend to stop having sex with your wife after she reaches her menopause?Accusing me of tiresome arguements and turning right around and stating the same things that have already been covered. All four of your arguements are covered by the statement that: according to my belief, all of these situations have the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy if it is the will of God.

Bedtime again check again tomorrow.

This thread has gone on WAY longer then it should have..over 3000 viewings?...and it's the last time I look at it.....give it a undignified or dignified burial...but bury it pleaseeeee.

If Jesus didn't masturbated He must have been the son of God. No normal, healthy man can survive without letting his business out now and then. But why shouldn't God allow his poor son to jerk off? What in Gods name is wrong with spanking the monkey. Jesus f--- :twisted:This is your first post and the best that you can come up with is something to try to slam religious beliefs of another? Just in case you can't read the other post, from some lack of ambition or intelligence, spilling the seed is considered, by my faith, to be a sin.

Again with the spilling of the seed argument! That's so very tiresome. According to that argument it's also a sin to:

- Use a condom (in 98% of the cases)
- Have sex with a woman outside of her fertility period
- Have sex with an infertile woman
- Have sex with a woman who is past her menopause

Tell me honestly: Do you intend to stop having sex with your wife after she reaches her menopause?Accusing me of tiresome arguements and turning right around and stating the same things that have already been covered. All four of your arguements are covered by the statement that: according to my belief, all of these situations have the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy if it is the will of God.

Shagging an 80 year old can lead to pregnancy?

Shagging an 80 year old can lead to pregnancy?

No, the oldest known woman to give birth was 63 years old, and that was only thanks to in vitro fertilization. Maybe I should use the "will of God" argument to defend masturbation:

"If God wishes it so, may this holy hand job give a healthy child to a random woman I have never met."

Then again, that's kind of the point with sperm donations. Hey, is THAT a sin? Aargh, these divine loopholes are giving me a headache. :wink:

When you make a comment to me you get an answer. Not a sermon.

That's your opinion. :roll:My opinon is all I have been stating through this whole thread. I have made no assertations to anyone about what would happen to them. I have not told anyone what they should or should not do. I have not even quoted any bible verse. Nobody has been preached to. I should know I am a preacher.And you don't masturbate and never have--we get the point. Can we move on now? :lol:

Anyone who says they've never masturbated is a filthy liar.

If Jesus didn't masturbated He must have been the son of God. No normal, healthy man can survive without letting his business out now and then. But why shouldn't God allow his poor son to jerk off? What in Gods name is wrong with spanking the monkey. Jesus f--- :twisted:This is your first post and the best that you can come up with is something to try to slam religious beliefs of another? Just in case you can't read the other post, from some lack of ambition or intelligence, spilling the seed is considered, by my faith, to be a sin.

Again with the spilling of the seed argument! That's so very tiresome. According to that argument it's also a sin to:

- Use a condom (in 98% of the cases)
- Have sex with a woman outside of her fertility period
- Have sex with an infertile woman
- Have sex with a woman who is past her menopause

Tell me honestly: Do you intend to stop having sex with your wife after she reaches her menopause?Accusing me of tiresome arguements and turning right around and stating the same things that have already been covered. All four of your arguements are covered by the statement that: according to my belief, all of these situations have the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy if it is the will of God.

Shagging an 80 year old can lead to pregnancy?One of the stories in the bible tell of Sarah a woman who gave birth at 99. My faith believes the bible.

apparently your faith doesnt believe in medical fact.

Shagging an 80 year old can lead to pregnancy?

No, the oldest known woman to give birth was 63 years old, and that was only thanks to in vitro fertilization. Maybe I should use the "will of God" argument to defend masturbation:

"If God wishes it so, may this holy hand job give a healthy child to a random woman I have never met."

Then again, that's kind of the point with sperm donations. Hey, is THAT a sin? Aargh, these divine loopholes are giving me a headache. :wink:This amply shows your lack of understanding of the Christian faith.

Anyone who says they've never masturbated is a filthy liar.And we find another canidate for the ignore list. Learn to intelligently debate and you may get into the discussion.

you can ignore the whole world if you want to..it still doesnt make us wrong.

Shagging an 80 year old can lead to pregnancy?

No, the oldest known woman to give birth was 63 years old, and that was only thanks to in vitro fertilization. Maybe I should use the "will of God" argument to defend masturbation:

"If God wishes it so, may this holy hand job give a healthy child to a random woman I have never met."

Then again, that's kind of the point with sperm donations. Hey, is THAT a sin? Aargh, these divine loopholes are giving me a headache. :wink:This amply shows your lack of understanding of the Christian faith.

I admit my lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Mostly because it's outdated and has little to do my life in any way. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly shown your lack of understanding of medicine and science.

And as usual you didn't answer my question: Is masturbation for the purpose of sperm donation a sin, even if there is a chance it is never used?

I admit my lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Mostly because it's outdated and has little to do my life in any way. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly shown your lack of understanding of medicine and science.

And as usual you didn't answer my question: Is masturbation for the purpose of sperm donation a sin, even if there is a chance it is never used?

My best guess is it depends on the church you ask. As for Catholics (my specialty as an ex-member) I'd say, "only if you didn't enjoy it", due to their fanatical devotion to the belief that if the sperm has even the tinyest chance, and you didn't enjoy it, it's all good in god's eyes.

edit: Missed a "didn't" in my original. Makes the whole thing come out wrong.

I think I'm going to go sin.

I admit my lack of understanding of the Christian faith. Mostly because it's outdated and has little to do my life in any way. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly shown your lack of understanding of medicine and science.You admit to a lack of understanding of my faith, yet you claim to understand that it is "outdated and has little to do my life in any way". How do you know this without an understanding of the faith?
I have shown no lack of understanding of medicine nor science. On the contrary I have shown a wide range of understanding of medicine and science. I have also shown an understanding of what medicine and science cannot explain.

And as usual you didn't answer my question: Is masturbation for the purpose of sperm donation a sin, even if there is a chance it is never used?In my faith it is. In my belief, invetro fertilization is not accepted. It is looked at as not keeping the body a temple. Man has the capability to change the human body. That doesn't mean that God wishes him to.

I think I'm going to go sin.

Im sinning right now.....

If Jesus didn't masturbated He must have been the son of God. No normal, healthy man can survive without letting his business out now and then. But why shouldn't God allow his poor son to jerk off? What in Gods name is wrong with spanking the monkey. Jesus f--- :twisted:This is your first post and the best that you can come up with is something to try to slam religious beliefs of another? Just in case you can't read the other post, from some lack of ambition or intelligence, spilling the seed is considered, by my faith, to be a sin.

Again with the spilling of the seed argument! That's so very tiresome. According to that argument it's also a sin to:

- Use a condom (in 98% of the cases)
- Have sex with a woman outside of her fertility period
- Have sex with an infertile woman
- Have sex with a woman who is past her menopause

Tell me honestly: Do you intend to stop having sex with your wife after she reaches her menopause?Accusing me of tiresome arguements and turning right around and stating the same things that have already been covered. All four of your arguements are covered by the statement that: according to my belief, all of these situations have the possibility of resulting in a pregnancy if it is the will of God.

Shagging an 80 year old can lead to pregnancy?One of the stories in the bible tell of Sarah a woman who gave birth at 99. My faith believes the bible.

explain this....

have shown no lack of understanding of medicine nor science. On the contrary I have shown a wide range of understanding of medicine and science. I have also shown an understanding of what medicine and science cannot explain.

So you believe a 99 year old woman can get pregnant?

You admit to a lack of understanding of my faith, yet you claim to understand that it is "outdated and has little to do my life in any way". How do you know this without an understanding of the faith?

I know enough to draw that conclusion. Christian propaganda is everywhere, and I've heard more than enough people spout random Bible verses citing rules that were set to fit in society 2000 years ago to prove their point. The only thing in Christianity that is relevant to today's world is the teaching of showing love towards your fellow man, something that far too many Christians seem to be incabable of.

I have shown no lack of understanding of medicine nor science. On the contrary I have shown a wide range of understanding of medicine and science. I have also shown an understanding of what medicine and science cannot explain.

Is that so? All I've seen is an adamant tendency to ignore all statistics and facts that have been shown.

And as usual you didn't answer my question: Is masturbation for the purpose of sperm donation a sin, even if there is a chance it is never used?In my faith it is. In my belief, invetro fertilization is not accepted. It is looked at as not keeping the body a temple. Man has the capability to change the human body. That doesn't mean that God wishes him to.

Who's to say what God wishes? If God didn't want man to improve the medical situation for people by artificial means such as these, he wouldn't have given us such powerful brains to come up with those solutions. You consistently use "the will of God" as an argument, so why doesn't that apply here as well?

You admit to a lack of understanding of my faith, yet you claim to understand that it is "outdated and has little to do my life in any way". How do you know this without an understanding of the faith?

I know enough to draw that conclusion. Christian propaganda is everywhere, and I've heard more than enough people spout random Bible verses citing rules that were set to fit in society 2000 years ago to prove their point. The only thing in Christianity that is relevant to today's world is the teaching of showing love towards your fellow man, something that far too many Christians seem to be incabable of. If that is how you feel about the relevancy of the Christian faith, you have less of an understanding than you think. When the relevance of Christ dying on the cross is overlooked, very little can be understood.

I have shown no lack of understanding of medicine nor science. On the contrary I have shown a wide range of understanding of medicine and science. I have also shown an understanding of what medicine and science cannot explain.

Is that so? All I've seen is an adamant tendency to ignore all statistics and facts that have been shown.I answered all statistics given. Just because I answered them in reguard to the justification of my answers does not mean they were ignored.


Who's to say what God wishes? You consistently use "the will of God" as an argument, so why doesn't that apply here as well?In my faith God does not prevent a man from any sin. That is entirely up to the man to chose. Like the statement if God didn't want man to commit murder he would have made us incapable of doing so. It just doesn't hold up.

Bed and back tomorrow.

You admit to a lack of understanding of my faith, yet you claim to understand that it is "outdated and has little to do my life in any way". How do you know this without an understanding of the faith?

I know enough to draw that conclusion. Christian propaganda is everywhere, and I've heard more than enough people spout random Bible verses citing rules that were set to fit in society 2000 years ago to prove their point. The only thing in Christianity that is relevant to today's world is the teaching of showing love towards your fellow man, something that far too many Christians seem to be incabable of. If that is how you feel about the relevancy of the Christian faith, you have less of an understanding than you think. When the relevance of Christ dying on the cross is overlooked, very little can be understood.

Explain to this ignorant then, how that is relevant to today's world.

I have shown no lack of understanding of medicine nor science. On the contrary I have shown a wide range of understanding of medicine and science. I have also shown an understanding of what medicine and science cannot explain.

Is that so? All I've seen is an adamant tendency to ignore all statistics and facts that have been shown.I answered all statistics given. Just because I answered them in reguard to the justification of my answers does not mean they were ignored.

For the most part you answered them with irrelevancies or platitudes like "God's will". You didn't give a single solid argument to debate the facts.

Who's to say what God wishes? You consistently use "the will of God" as an argument, so why doesn't that apply here as well?In my faith God does not prevent a man from any sin. That is entirely up to the man to chose. Like the statement if God didn't want man to commit murder he would have made us incapable of doing so. It just doesn't hold up.

Oh, this is nice: You deliberately edited my post to make it sound like a stupid absolute. You conveniently left out the part about using technology to *help* people. Read the *whole* post next time.

When you make a comment to me you get an answer. Not a sermon.

That's your opinion. :roll:My opinon is all I have been stating through this whole thread. I have made no assertations to anyone about what would happen to them. I have not told anyone what they should or should not do. I have not even quoted any bible verse. Nobody has been preached to. I should know I am a preacher.

haha. But you will still pray for those not as enlightened as you, though.

When the relevance of Christ dying on the cross is overlooked, very little can be understood.

Explain to this ignorant then, how that is relevant to today's world.In my faith, it is believed that Christ died for the salvation of man. Past, Present, and Future. Christ is who you find salvation through. There is the relevance for today.

For the most part you answered them with irrelevancies or platitudes like "God's will". You didn't give a single solid argument to debate the facts.Your main fact was that a condom is 98% effective. The solid argument, that you chose to ignore, is that means they have a 2% failure rate, which plainly shows possibility of failure. Another "fact" that you claimed was that a man must masturbate to be healthy, yet you failed to present one piece of information supporting that claim. You came close by finding an article that provided the health benifits of ejaculation, but you could not produce even one article that clearly states a man must masturbate in order to stay healthy. Your claim was refuted by the fact that ejaculation occurs during normal sexual intercourse with a spouse. You claim that some people don't want a spouse. That would only go to show they did not care enough about their health to take the appropriate steps to reap the benifits of ejaculation.

Who's to say what God wishes? You consistently use "the will of God" as an argument, so why doesn't that apply here as well?In my faith God does not prevent a man from any sin. That is entirely up to the man to chose. Like the statement if God didn't want man to commit murder he would have made us incapable of doing so. It just doesn't hold up.

Oh, this is nice: You deliberately edited my post to make it sound like a stupid absolute. You conveniently left out the part about using technology to *help* people. Read the *whole* post next time.I did read the whole post the deletion was an accident. If you look at the example statement in my reply and cannot see the similarity between it and your part of using technology then I will repost the reply. I don't have a problem with doing that at all. You made a statement that basically says if God didn't want us to sin, in whatever form that sin takes, then he wouldn't have given us the capability to do so. Your statement was applied to using medical knowledge to intentionally impregnate a woman. In my faith that is going against the will of God. If God had intended for that woman to get pregnant he would have allowed it to happen naturally. The very act of forcing a biological event to happen, is against nature, and thus against God. In my belief.

haha. But you will still pray for those not as enlightened as you, though.I do not look upon myself as any more or any less enlightened than anybody else. I know what belief system works for me. I do not know what will work for anyone else. I do not pray for other people's enlightenment. That is a choice I leave up to God.

For the most part you answered them with irrelevancies or platitudes like "God's will". You didn't give a single solid argument to debate the facts.Your main fact was that a condom is 98% effective. The solid argument, that you chose to ignore, is that means they have a 2% failure rate, which plainly shows possibility of failure. Another "fact" that you claimed was that a man must masturbate to be healthy, yet you failed to present one piece of information supporting that claim. You came close by finding an article that provided the health benifits of ejaculation, but you could not produce even one article that clearly states a man must masturbate in order to stay healthy. Your claim was refuted by the fact that ejaculation occurs during normal sexual intercourse with a spouse. You claim that some people don't want a spouse. That would only go to show they did not care enough about their health to take the appropriate steps to reap the benifits of ejaculation.

Oy, there's so many errors in this that I have to break it down just to make sense of it:

Error #1: A 2% failure rate is rediculously small, if you count how many sexual acts actually lead to fertilization. You use this to justify the use of a condom as not being a sin, yet the very purpose of a condom is to *prevent pregnancy* (as well as prevent STDs, but now we're talking about not "spilling the seed"). If you don't want to prevent fertilization, you don't use a condom. It's the *intention* that matters, isn't it? Or is God so dense that he easily can be fooled by a statistic?

Error #2: For the last time, I didn't say a man MUST masturbate to remain healthy. You asked for evidence that ANYONE had died from not masturbating. If the entire population of men who die from prostate cancer in one year, 30000, had a higher rate of ejaculation by masturbation or otherwise, the risk of developing the cancer would have dropped 33%. That's one-third of the total risk, which would have saved up to a third of the men. It's simple math.

Error #3: I didn't claim they didn't WANT a spouse. I claimed that they may not have HAD a spouse. There's a difference. "The appropriate steps"??? This has to be by far the most ignorant thing you have said. You make it sound like a spouse is something you pick up at the local supermarket. Let me enlighten your closed little world: PEOPLE LIVE IN DIFFERENT FAMILY SITUATIONS! Some men go their entire lives without finding their significant other, even though they want to. Some men don't want to marry at all. Many men divorce. They may have had a spouse who died, or who is invalid, or who is simply not willing. We're talking about 21 ejaculations a month. I wonder how many older couples fill that quota. For all those listed above and more still, masturbation would be beneficial for preventing prostate cancer.

Who's to say what God wishes? You consistently use "the will of God" as an argument, so why doesn't that apply here as well?In my faith God does not prevent a man from any sin. That is entirely up to the man to chose. Like the statement if God didn't want man to commit murder he would have made us incapable of doing so. It just doesn't hold up.

Oh, this is nice: You deliberately edited my post to make it sound like a stupid absolute. You conveniently left out the part about using technology to *help* people. Read the *whole* post next time.I did read the whole post the deletion was an accident. If you look at the example statement in my reply and cannot see the similarity between it and your part of using technology then I will repost the reply. I don't have a problem with doing that at all. You made a statement that basically says if God didn't want us to sin, in whatever form that sin takes, then he wouldn't have given us the capability to do so. Your statement was applied to using medical knowledge to intentionally impregnate a woman. In my faith that is going against the will of God. If God had intended for that woman to get pregnant he would have allowed it to happen naturally. The very act of forcing a biological event to happen, is against nature, and thus against God. In my belief.

Such a petty God... you shouldn't help a person be happy because it's not natural. By this logic all hospital care is a sin. Is that what you believe?

DP

Hey, just asking!

Objectively speaking, masturbation is simply inducing a muscle-spasm in oneself - nothing more.

Yet it obviously means much more than that to many people, and one's religion (or lack of it) seems to have a bearing on what we think on the subject.

We do not masturbate it is disgusting eww. also you are killing sperm when you do it. I do not see why anyone would do it.

I'm a Christian and I have to say that masturbation is wrong. Think about it for a second, in order to do it then you have to be looking as something to get you aroused right? In Christian terminology this is called lust and Jesus clearly told us in Matthew that lust is wrong, so therefore masturbation is wrong.

Unashamed Christians

Sure, lust is wrong, but isn't lust defined as a sexual desire for another person? Masturbation is merely performed on oneself for one's own pleasure. If this pleasure results from the arousion of one's genitials and not from sexual desire for another, then there is nothing wrong with masturbation.

((bump))

The problem here is that the Bible never really says specifically that masturbation is wrong.

It does, however, clearly state that lusting after someone outside of your marriage is wrong.

Since it's nearly impossible to masturbate without lusting after someone...

Since it's nearly impossible to masturbate without lusting after someone...

Not true. One can easily lust after a certain situation or specialized activity without having any particular person in mind.

You know Ghost, from the game Enter the Matrix? He had a good approach to masturbation.

-----------------------------------------
"If the left is understood to include 'Bolshevism,' then I would flatly dissociate
myself from the left. Lenin was one of the greatest enemies of socialism."-Chomsky
Free your mind! (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)
I like big butts!
http://img63.photobucket.com/albums/v193/eddy_the_great/steatopygia.jpg

Don't gravedig old threads.