Ethics of masturbation
This is an odd topic; I've heard that Emanuel Kant believed that masturbation was a violation of "moral duty to the self" or something along those lines, but I'm not sure what his line of logic or reasoning was.
Does anyone have any other opinions on this subject?
Does anyone have any other opinions on this subject?
Comments (69)
Kant:
Masturbation has been considered "A Problem" for quite a while--a perversion, an act against god (one ought to fuck a member of the opposite sex and beget children), an act against the state, an act against whoever wanted to feel aggrieved about it. It has variously been considered unhealthy, a drain of vital energies (see books about tantric sex) and precious bodily fluids (see Dr. Strangelove), and a crime. Some guys think it is an insult to their manhood that they should ever have to masturbate--somebody should jolly well make themselves available to fuck.
Fortunately a lot of people have dispensed with the nonsense of ages past and no longer give a rat's rear end what Immanuel Kant thought about masturbation.
He was a wanker, don't believe anything he said.
How could the act of pleasuring one's self be a sin or crime. Is it not true that one must love thy self before being able to love another. And what greater love of one's self that making one's self happy.
I'm tempted to venture some aesthetic arguments against masturbation, if nothing else.
And not specifically about "masturbation", but I'm not sure that healthy self-love as promoted by psychology can be conflated with "self-indulgence", such as overeating and the morbid obesity which tends to correlate with that "narcissistic" variant of "self-love" - rather I'd be more inclined to view a measure of self-discipline or restraint as actual "self-love", and pure self-indulgence as more akin to neglect.
If by "happy" you mean pure self-indulgence, I don't see that as a very meaningful end or that true "happiness" could be reduced to pure indulgence (if that was the case, then I'd venture that our Neanderthal ancestors would have discovered the secret to "happiness" eons ago, and that no modern existential thought on the subject would be necessary).
Whether one quotes Kant. John Stuart Mill, or any other modern philosophical thinker.
And I think the answer is, we're a social species and it is something that is embarrassing. Consciously, I'm 100% on board with it being natural and healthy, but I would still be mortified if friends, family or the internet were to see me stroking the goomba.
And when people feel shame about something, it's natural to retroactively try to think of why that activity must be wrong.
schwitzsplinters.blogspot.com/2010/03/kant-on-killing-bastards-on.html?m=1
So, the devil is really in the details here. Almost anything could have some moral concern under some circumstance. For example, you don’t have to be an antinatalist to think that a fairly mundane act like reproduction can often be morally problematic if it is done in a careless manner for example. Similarly, one does not have to be a religious or Kantian prude to understand that there’s probably a lot of people who do have problematic masturbation habits(at least if they are in a relationship or masturbate too often or watch messed up porn).
I think that the reality of life is that many people have not found the relationship which they would like to have. Rather than seek other alternatives including shallow sexual encounters or prostitution surely masturbated is a best option.
Masturbation avoids the problem of safe sex. Also, at the present time of the pandemic we are almost prohibited from meeting others so masturbation is about the only uncomplicated form of sexual expression left open.
I see that some people have spoken of fantasies while masturbating and I would say that it is likely that those fantasies would likely be experiences anyway. Surely life cannot be about regulating people's fantasies but about ensuring that they treat other people with respect and cause no harm to others. Any prohibited on fantasy life in itself would be about thought control.
All in all, I would argue that masturbation is about one of the only free ways of sexual expression in a broken and an increasingly coercive world. Surely it should be accepted rather than anyone being made to feel guilty about it. It is about acceptance of one's own body and sexuality. In this way, it can be seen as a spiritual act.
That seems to me a perversion (no pun intended) of the notion of morality. Morals / ethics are about interpersonal relationships / conduct. Fantasies or wishes do not enter into it. So unless you have an agreement with your partner regarding masturbation, I don't see how any of it could be of moral concern. And I think that applies even to fantasies which contain immoral acts.
About the only moral duty you have regarding your fantasies is to ensure that they don't turn into an addiction.
This, in my humble opinion, suggests some kind of, in Kantian ethics, failure of duty to the self. How? In what sense? I'm completely stumped.
The only duty to the self that seems relevant seems to be not to hurt yourself i.e. avoid self-harm at all costs or thereabouts. Was Kant a coeval of those physicians who held and propagated the belief that masturbation was harmful to one's health? :chin:
Just what I need to make my case Thanks.
Thoughts?
@Benkei
The two members above have written some amazing thoughts on love. Which is why I ask them their thoughts.
My personal philosophy?
Meh..
twisted idea that is still guilt laden for me with some serious Catholic underpinnings.
Maybe it is different for a woman because at least for me the goal of masterbation is to orgasm.
Given the goal, the way to get me there is to lose the need to control the way I am going to feel and let my mind float above (total cleared mind) what is driving me there, to climax BUT that is where I am snapped back to the realities in my mind and it blows any chance of achieving of my goal.
I have all but given up so I guess I have failed my moral duty in Kant's eyes.
Anyway, that's my two cents worth and if I could get my change I will be on my way.
Tiff
General Jack Ripper was more concerned with the physical act of sex with a partner. The trick, as he saw it, was to deny them your essence.
I've heard the same about Bentham and some others.
So assuming he was unable to form a lasting romantic relationship, you're saying that he never paid money for sex, despite being more than wealthy enough to, right?
Not at all. I'm merely saying we know of nothing indicating he had sexual or romantic relations with any other persons. Masturbation, in that case, may have been of particular interest to him. But it's possible he paid for sex, of course. Perhaps he did so regularly, or was himself paid for sex, the randy fellow.
Sorry. It's difficult for me to take pontifications regarding masturbation seriously.
Well, I think most people would probably say the absolute best option is to try to fix your relationship or try to avoid entering a bad relationship in the first place or maybe leaving that relationship. I agree that masturbation beats the other stuff you mentioned though.
Quoting Jack Cummins
That is a pretty good point. With the pandemic, it’s probably more ethical to masturbate then to get intimate with your SO.
Quoting Jack Cummins
I agree but many people would disagree especially those from a religious background. Christianity has plenty of thought sins(in fact most sins in the Bible are thought sins.) Although, nobody believes that we can control our all our thoughts and the occasional bad thought is not thought of as being sinful in the religious traditions. But, it may be argued that one chooses to let their pattern of thought continue for too long and this puts them at a greater risk of acting on their thoughts.
For example, suppose you have 2 guys who fantasize about molesting their young nephews. One guy is repulsed by his fantasies and tries to seek help from a sex therapist. The other guy is completely unbothered by them and continues masturbating while thinking about his nephew. Who do you think is more likely to molest their nephew one day?
On a final note, it could be argued that the fantasies you have on a regular basis are a better indication of what lies deep in your heart than your actions are. Many people don’t act on their fantasies because they afraid of the consequences of doing so rather than genuinely being troubled by the behavior.
Well, this excludes many popular ethical traditions from being counted as ethics in your book. Aristotelian ethics tends to have some focus on controlling fantasies. Even utilitarians would likely encourage fantasy control as a strategy to avoiding acting on that fantasy. The Christians are big on fantasy control as well. Also, who exactly gets to decide what ethics is about and what it’s not about? Isn’t ethics just a loosely defined phenomena that concerns the actions of people? Of course, it’s worth noting that thoughts and fantasies can be regarded as actions in a loose sense.
I entirely agree that regular fantasies are an indication of what is deep in the heart and I think that it is a separate topic from masturbation. I can see no logical basis for seeing why the fantasies of those who confess to masturbation should be any the worse than those who stay clear of it . If anything it seems to be connected to a belief about sin.
The whole issue of sin is rooted in Catholic religion, which has its own shadow, including abuse of others and the act of masturbation is free of this entirely.
I do agree that it may be better if people can have relationships with others. But I am not convinced that is the reality for so many. Perhaps I may be bombarded against this but I would be surprised if all the people, including philosophers, have found a relationship or have one at all.
We may dream of finding the perfect partner but in the meantime, especially in the time of the pandemic, I would argue that masturbation can be an ethically acceptable outlet, innocent and free, accepting of our own sexuality, heterosexual, gay, bisexual, with no intent of harm to any living beings.
Most philosophers I've met need to get layed asap. I would bet my firstborn that this applies to most of the members on TPF.
I fixed that for you.
No I was not talking about pure self-indulgence, I was talking about simple masturbation. The act of making yourself happy sexually is no different from taking a stroll to relax, or going dancing.
Any of the good things in life can be overdone and become obsessions or vices, but that does not mean they they are evil.
Fair enough, I agree with this
True indeed. Thank you my friend. I know I can always rely on you to correct my errors.
That would be the following: in masturbation you replace a direct sexual encounter with another human being for one with yourself. In that relationship you have complete control, you expose yourself to no one and can explore every sexual fantasy you like without having to negotiate with a partner. This creates a fantasy world in which you are much more safe than in the 'other' world that sexuality is. With ' other' I mean here you expose yourself to another, a 'not you'. Now if masturbation takes the place of actually venturing out in the sexual with a partner, it might be harmful because it makes actually beginning that journey harder, you feel safe in that world you created for yourself.
So this argument is different from Kant's masturbation is not wrong because it is self indulgent, it is 'wrong' because it excludes otherness. You allow a fantasy to take the place of the real.
The problem I see with your argument is that you talk as though the choice of avoiding 'otherness' of masturbation as if it is a lasting, permanent option. It is surely an option rather than just entering into relationships just for sexual gratification.
Relationships are based on a lot more, so I would argue that masturbation is a way of living in the meantime. The right person may not be found for a while or not at all, but this is a matter very different to the act of masturbation itself.
The Ancient Greek philosopher Diogenes (as Diogenes Laertius tells us in his biography of the philosophers) was caught masturbating, and ridiculed for it; he responded, “I wish I could satisfy my belly by rubbing it!”.
Whereas for me the goal is to traumatise schoolchildren.
Your reply is worrying!
“...watch the young man carefully. He can protect himself from everything else, but it is up to you to protect him from himself. Do not leave him alone, day or night. At the very least, sleep in his room. Distrust instinct as soon as you no longer limit yourself to it. It is good as long as it acts by itself; it is suspect from the moment it operates within man-made institutions. It must not be destroyed, but it must be regulated, and that is perhaps more difficult than annihilating it. It would be very dangerous if instinct taught your pupil to trick his senses and find a substitute for the opportunity of satisfying them. Once he knows this dangerous supplement, he is lost. From then on he will always have an enervated body and heart. He will suffer till his death the sad effects of this habit, the most fatal to which a man can be subjected. Surely, rather than that...If the furies of an ardent temperament become invincible, my dear Emile, I pity you; but I shall not hesitate for a moment, I shall not allow nature’s goal to be eluded. If a tyrant must subjugate you, I prefer to yield you to one from whom I can deliver you. Whatever happens, I shall tear you more easily away from women than from yourself.”
One should look at the context of this passage: here Rousseau contrasts masturbation as an “instinct”, ie as a mere satisfaction of physical need like Diogenes’ example, with the act as one of imagination, freighted with the images of a corrupted society...which speaks much to the post that preceded this one.
I'm just going to pretend I didn't see that.
Well, as per our national chief medical officer, as long as you wear a mask while having sex, then it's ok to have sex during the pandemic. Which, to me, says she is doing it wrong. This also explains why our national pandemic policies are so bizarre, if you think a medical mask during sex is the way to go, clearly I can disregard anything else you ever say.
To the point of the question, I would suggest that NOT masturbating would be more of a violation of moral duty to self. I would further support that by explaining the value of masturbation to the self as successful masturbation releases pent up stress, relaxes the individual and allows for improved sleep.
I did not realise that the chief medical officer said that it is fine to have sex during the pandemic, as long as you wear a mask. No wonder the virus is spreading. But what about social distancing and handwashing? It seems rather absurd. I presume that she meant that it is fine with members of your household or social bubble, not chance encounters with strangers?
I still think that masturbation is the best option for many at this point in time. At the moment, it is one of the few liberties we have left.
I don't look at it as liberty. I look at it as your duty that you pay to your country and people. It is the yoke you bear for your family; you protect them, fight for them and for their welfare by your ceremonial discharge. It is certainly healthier than smoking. (Please... no cheap puns.) A husband and wife, in holy matrimony, and in God's own service, will make their marriage last a lifetime by employing the services of imaginary lovers.
"Spare the rod and spoil the child."
We must join and sing hozannah to the Lord, for masturbation is not only a duty, but a gift from the gods. It is one of the most egalitarian widespread movements that join people regardless of race, creed, nationality, height, financial standing, flexibility, organ donor status, sex, gender, gender identity, confusion, misplaced sex organs, sexual changelings, and god only knows what else.
Yes, I am glad that you celebrate diversity in all its forms. We must uphold gender dysphoria, intersex, misplaced bodies and all the people who do not fit into the binary of gender.
I do agree, and I think that each of us has a masculine and feminine side, but primarily I am coming from a Jungian perspective and I am bisexual.
,
To deny a block of people sexual joy and ensuing happiness just because they are different is cruel.
I think we must petition the med officer that during masturbation as well we ought to wear masks, and socially distance ourselves from ourselves.
This ought to be the only way allowed to autoerotical satisfaction.
masturbation in itself is nothing to be particularly ashamed of, it’s really the pairing with porn that makes it a concerning matter. another facet is that semen is considered by some spiritualists to be an extremely creative, powerful force that should be retained and channeled rather than released.
That's an interesting point of view, can you explain please? You are saying that if someone with a vivid imagination creates their own stimulation in their mind, that's ok; but if someone without such a good imagination uses the interwebs to dial up some visual stimulation, that's "concerning." Can you say why, and exactly what the concern is? Let's assume that the performers and production crew are all consenting adults and are compensated fairly.
Also, one should not be "particularly" ashamed of wankification; but that perhaps they should be just a little ashamed? How much shame is required, exactly? I need to know right away. "Asking for a friend."
Perhaps if you worked on your own coercive skills you wouldn’t need to pay so much.
Quoting Jack Cummins
Did a priest tell you that? :grimace:
there are some studies that show porn may pose a myriad of issues to the human brain. a cursory Google will show you these things, here’s a quotation from the top article.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/neurosciencenews.com/neuroscience-pornography-brain-15354/amp/
“Porn use has been correlated with erosion of the prefrontal cortex — the region of the brain that houses executive functions like morality, willpower and impulse control. To better understand the role of this structure in behaviour, it’s important to know that it remains underdeveloped during childhood. This is why children struggle to regulate their emotions and impulses. Damage to the prefrontal cortex in adulthood is termed hypofrontality, which predisposes an individual to behave compulsively and make poor decisions.
It’s somewhat paradoxical that adult entertainment may revert our brain wiring to a more juvenile state. The much greater irony is that while porn promises to satisfy and provide sexual gratification, it delivers the opposite.“
and a bit deeper dive, a quotation from a more scholarly source dealing with how it may lead to lesser sexual satisfaction with intimate partners:
“When judging the attractiveness of romantic partners, we often to refer to a common standard, one informed by other individuals we encounter (Kenrick & Gutierres, 1980), as well as the media we watch. When males view images of attractive females, and then judge the attractiveness of their own mates, we observe contrast effects—they see their mates as less attractive than those not exposed (Kenrick, Gutierres, & Goldberg, 1989). This same principle might also apply to other aspects of relationships: “Free-spirited, varied sexual encounters in pornography produce a sharp contrast versus the restrictions, commitment, and responsibilities associated with family and relationships and make the latter appear as particularly restricting” (Mundorf et al., 2007, p. 85) to Zillmann and Bryant (1988b) tested these contrast effects by exposing individuals to six hours of non-violent pornographic material over six weeks, measuring satisfaction with their (mostly dating) partners, not only in terms of attractiveness but also with affection, sexual curiosity, and sexual performance. Compared to controls, those exposed expressed substantially less satisfaction on each of these measures. These findings are supported by correlational data connecting pornography to decreased satisfaction with physical intimacy in a relationship (Bridges & Morokoff, 2011; Poulsen, Busby, & Galovan, 2013). Real life, it seems, does not compare favorably with pornography.”
it can desensitize the human brain to regular run-of-the-mill heterosexual (and/or gay) relations and make people search for more extreme forms of porn, like BDSM, gaping, orgies and other forms of hardcore porn in order to achieve pleasure. really similar to a drug, honestly! (this is OFTEN ONLY, overconsumption however) another aspect is that it may delude consumers as to what actually occurs in sex or what sex should be like, (which leads to less sexual satisfaction as stated above) so, really my main concern lies within porn addiction (albeit what qualifies as “addiction” is somewhat nebulous in my opinion)
of course, porn has its own benefits though. it encourages sexual expression, sexual catharsis etc. it isn’t DOOMING. and i find the issue has a lot of conflicting information due to some of it being religion-laced and that it’s a “sin” and all that other nonsense. maybe it’s a huge looming issue (with the NoFap forum/movement with thousands of members) or maybe it’s a case-by-case thing. but i feel like ive dealt with some issues with porn, so i abstain every now and then just to be safe
Quoting fishfry
that was more me convincing myself, i don’t feel particularly shameful after masturbation, but i feel a little ashamed because i feel like i should be doing the real thing or i should’ve spent that time doing something else!
Dopamine is addictive. Why go through the motions of maintaining a healthy relationship if that's all you're really after.
There's many theories and beliefs as to why it's unhealthy ranging from the understandable to the downright bizarre. Heard it all. From folk tales like it can make you go blind, to religious views that it's a "waste" or other versions like "you have limited ammo" before you don't know what you're gonna get, and even more farfetched like every time you do a kid is born somewhere and one day you're gonna run into him. That and some say it's just gay. Sounds odd but you can't neglect the fact your mind and body is still reaching full mental and physical orgasm by vigorously stimulating a member of your own gender with your hands, even if it is your own. Just what I've heard.
Porn is a side topic, which many also believe is unhealthy. First, you're watching another person with a person you're trying to focus on. Which subconsciously may be a little unhealthy. Let alone the industry, no one wants to see or even hear about their sister, daughter, or future, current, or ex partner baring it all for the world to see and.. doing that. Heard an interesting fringe theory as well. Some suggest it can lead to perversion as you're subconsciously training yourself to become aroused by imagery or video of persons who by visual comparison are much smaller than you the viewer. It's an interesting take.
If anything it can lead to an unhealthy addiction that takes up your time and even leaves you burnt out for your life partner(s). That's not fun for either.
I have never discussed masturbation with a priest. The main point I was making was how I disregard puritanical views.
and rightfully so, very archaic.
I don't want to be too archaic. How would I be seen as postmodern. Perhaps it would involve art work involving torn shreds of Kant's writings. But I don't hate him. I don't think he much pleasure but perhaps his writing life was more enjoyable than masturbation.
The mind is, in essence, letting the cat out of the bag, it informing itself, as weird as that sounds, that the body's been cheating and forcing it to act/behave in certain ways by, literally, hooking us onto drugs (pleasure-inducing neurochemicals). The very fact that some of us masturbate bespeaks the primary aim in the act (sex/masturbation), the real motivation as it were, is orgasmic ecstacy and coincidentally there's a highly addictive drug by that name. Masturbation then is the cardinal sign of the body manipulating the mind which manifests as typical behavior in men, women and even children.
Cheating and forcing someone, something in this case, that something being the mind, is unethical and using drugs (irrestible pleasure-neurochemicals) for that purpose simply takes the whole sordid and sad business of the mind-body relationship to the mother of all nadirs and to a point where trust seems impossible between the two.
Too, this reminds me of hedonism and the experience machine. Perhaps I'm too quick to judge the matter; after all, masturbation is a kind of substitute i.e. real sex is more preferable but the fact remains that some of us who do masturbate seem satisfied with just the orgasmic experience of it, not requiring an actual man/woman.
Hedonism has an ethical dimension. Does masturbation support hedonism by exposing our contentment with ecstasy (via orgasm) simpliciter or does it undermine hedonism by the (slight) dissatisfaction everyone who masturbates undergoes because the act doesn't involve an actual partner?
Perhaps the Buddhist middle way could be a useful way of thinking in between the extremes of hedonism or Kant.
I know that your post is not a particular response to my post but when I mentioned Kant's writing life I was trying to say that there are higher pleasures rather than just physical pleasure. I am in favour of masturbation but not as an end but as a means to an end, in terms of creativity. For to forbid an act is to increase desire.
I am aware of the some traditional ways of thinking about meditation which suggest that we can sublimate sexual desires into creativity and I do wonder if this is possible. One whole area of thinking about meditation is the whole tradition of thought about the kundalini lifeforce.I have read a book on this by Gopi Krishna.
The awakening of kundalini is a perilous quest, but of course many would question the whole idea of the chakra system but I certainly feel aware of my chakras, and I believe that many have a certain degree of opening of chakras awakening of kundalini or triggered through drug experimentation.
You mention about drug use, especially you refer to the drug, ecstasy. I think that this has a lot of relevance because so many of us are searching for ecstasy. But this is often to cope with the opposite state, the misery of depression. So, on one hand we may have hedonistic yearnings but this is often thwarted to the point of clinical depression. It is quite interesting that both the drug, ecstasy, and the SSRI antidepressants, which include Prozac, both work on the serotonin receptor points. It is just that Ecstasy gives it in a big wave, all at once, unlike the small steady rate of the antidepressants.
So, one question is do we need less misery or less hedonism?
Quoting Jack Cummins
I get the impression that a lot of people misunderstand hedonism or is it just me? You be the judge. I used to think hedonism is all about pleasure and the dictionary reinforces and perpetuates this, my, misconception.
Definition from Google
Hedonism: the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.
I had, what seems now, a fortuitous encounter with a book on critical thinking and it defines hedonism as a philosophy that [s]pleasure[/s] happiness is, should be, our primary target and happiness, as it turns out, has a precise definition which I'm more than glad to share:
Happiness:
1. To experience pleasure and not to suffer (self-explanatory)
2. The satisfaction of desires (to be able to achieve our goals guided by ethical considerations)
3. The development of talents (to be able to become proficient in a productive manner one's special skills/abilities)
So, hedonism, if it's a pursuit of happiness thus defined, is
1. Down-to-earth: it cuts through all the bullshit we tell each other about how happiness as an objective is somehow a symptom of a deficient mind and gets right to the point with a simple question, "why do we do the things we do?" The answer is very simple and also very true, "we do the things we do because they make us happy"
2. Mature: we finally get to know ourselves - what do we really want? The sooner we come to terms with our nature, the more fruitful our efforts will become. Recognizing ourselves, knowing our innate dispositions, will usher us into adulthood and we can finally talk of profits and losses without people trying to accuse us of some kind of moral transgression (selfishness to be specific).
3. Noble: what could be more noble than a person who makes a clean breast of faer intentions, someone who shows his cards up-front? "I'm involved in such and such because it makes me happy and not because of anything else" is frank declaration of intent and aim but, most importantly, true for all of us. A sign of nobility in my book.
As for the Buddhist middle-path, it's a contradiction. Hedonism-wise, a human on earth is happy relative to a being in hell, tortured continuously, and a human is sad relative to a being in heaven, indulging in every conceivable pleasure. Ergo, necessarily that a human is both sad and happy and this is twice the burden: one the guilt of being happy compared to souls in hell and the other of being envious of those who are in paradise. By extrapolation then everything about the middle-path is a contradiction. Perhaps that's the real message the Buddha wanted to share - the underlying contradiction in reality.
At least the Buddha is not giving us a fixed rule. Perhaps each of us to find our own way and balance. This allows for us to experiment with the extremes.
I remember my dad, who was a strict Catholic, brought up in a school run by the Christian fathers in Ireland, coming out with a surprising comment a couple of years before he died. He said that he had 'an elastic conscience.' My mother looked a bit startled and I never got round to asking him what he meant.
But I do believe that the worst possibility is when people dictate on morality, and masturbation is private, so I do think it is something we can make personal choices about. It is one aspect of life which does not affect others directly.
Puritanical masturbation is hot, you don’t know what you’re missing.
So, clearly, these guys were doing things wrong in their married or serious relationships. Restricting relationships are restricted, I get that, but the blanket statement that family and relationships appear particularly restricting when contrasted with porn is more a reflection on the individual making the claim of restriction.