Tuesday, July 31, 2007

I'll bite: what -are- the drawbacks of masturbation?

(izzat a new technique, or...? "oh.")

From our old friend NoPoBoJoSchloMo (link: http://nopornnorthampton.org/, don't feel like giving him the boosted stats) via the blog of pro-porn activism: What Every Young Boy Should Know, handily updated for the 21st century. Or something.

By now even most Catholics have freed themselves from the nonsensical notion that masturbation is sinful. But, as the saying goes, "there is no free lunch." Masturbation, like all fertilization-driven sexual behavior, has unsuspected costs.

Masturbation appears to decrease sexual magnetism. The more you retreat into your own private (emotionally "safe," readily available) world of self-gratification the less likely you are to attract a partner of the opposite sex for intercourse.

In fact, frequent, casual orgasm actually can actually cause you to repel the opposite sex subconsciously (or attract partners who also believe that the point of having genitals is "getting off," not union). At an energy level you send out messages like "I don't need you. I can take care of my sexuality by myself - thank you very much," "Relationships are just too much trouble; I can't be bothered," "Sex is just a physical thing, so getting off is all there is." or "It’s hopeless….I’ll never have a loving relationship." In doing so you repel what you most need to sustain a sense of well-being: healthy intimacy.


Not to mention, hairy palms: Not Attractive To The Opposite Sex. Just imagine, there you are handing her a nice corsage or opening the car door for her, and: d'oh! embarrassment! Even if you shave 'em, the stubble's bound to raise Dad's eyebrows when you go in for the hearty handshake before promising to return his little pumpkin at a reasonable hour.

Also, it would be Wrong.

Anyway, he's bang on with this: there's nothing more repellent than a guy who can actually take care of his own needs (sexually or otherwise) -all by himself.- What's -really- attractive to the Opposite Sex: the needy, whiny tone of the dude who -knows- that only the soft hands or orifices of his lovely date can successfully relieve his aching manhood.

What say you, Opposite Sex-loving women? Am I right or am I right? (I mean, -besides- tops who're into teasing and denial...)

(Of course, he could always burn off all that excess energy with a nice sweaty rugby game with the lads beforehand)

I'm not really quite sure what to say about the accompanying photos on that page, to be honest...

Oh, and Peace Between the Sheets (which is a lovely, reassuring title, not at all suggestive of a shroud) is recommended as a companion piece with a new oeuvre by Dr. Dean "A Single Drop Of Any Fat Will KILL You!! Yes, YOU TOO!!" Ornish.

Unsurprisingly, it would seem that hunger shouldn't be indulged too readily either.

Suppose you're really hungry, but it's almost time to leave for your basketball game. What are you going to do? Answer: you're going to listen to either the old part of your brain or the new part. The old brain is saying, “You're hungry, go eat.” But the new brain is saying, “Sure you're hungry, but it would be smarter to eat after the game so you don't throw up.”


Now, I don't play basketball, admittedly. Generally speaking, though, I find if I'm -really- hungry before I'm about to do something intensely physical, it's probably a good idea to eat -something-, if not, you know, something super heavy. Then again, perhaps that lightheaded, "I may pass out at any minute" feeling is part of the "new brain." Well, I've always been a bit of a luddite about upgrading. And, I don't know if I can afford a whole new brain.



And, that salesman doesn't inspire confidence -at all.-

16 comments:

humbition said...

The whole site is like that -- all about the advantages of avoiding "conventional" orgasm. Couples, for example, do so much better when the partners avoid "conventional" orgasm, which makes them want to avoid each other. (Not my experience btw, but somebody's mileage evidently varies.) And the site references, online so you don't have to find the books, sex manuals from it seems like 1872 -- just the era, one would think, to help us inform our "new sexuality."

KH said...

As always when this subject arises, I think Jimmy “Palma Pilosa” Ho, he of: “I want a world where renting a woman’s body to ejaculate inside is not considered more ‘manly’, less shameful for any man, than masturbating with his own damn hands.” I can almost see the far-off, visionary look in his eyes, as he does his bit to make the dream real.

I assume somebody's already mentioned the whole Joanathan Edwards, Great Awakening thing with Northampton. Hairy hands in the hands of an angry God.

belledame222 said...

Jimmy Ho! hee, i keep forgetting about that dude. i don't know why, he's hilarious.

and yeah, that site is like 19th century Muscular Christianity wrapped up in a -very- thin gloss of New Age/pseudoBuddhism. Curious...

Cassandra Says said...

Humbition - Out of interest, what are they defining as an unconventional orgasm? And is it going to make my head hurt?

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole "masturbation is bad because it makes you less needy and everyone HATES that!" part.

Rootietoot said...

Rugby! Hot sweaty fit men crashing into each other! Oyez..

My policy on masturbation is Don't Ask Don't Tell. What one does in private is not my business, and I am not convinced that it adversely affects our conjugal relations. As for my boys, Don't Ask Don't Tell, here's a handtowel.

These people, NoMoBloJo, they're just silly. They're so full of their own baloney they've lost touch with reality. It is, simply, a great big circle jerk tho I'm sure they'd loathe the comparison. Tho I guess it's not masturbation if you're doing it to someone else? I don't know these things.

Pardon while I return to Rubgy and neglect the ironing.

humbition said...

Cassandra -- The approach of the web site is basically, have lots of sex but not orgasm. Surprisingly given the focus on Victorian (and Tantric) sources, the focus on less orgasm is not merely applied to male genitals (which should avoid ejaculation) but to female as well. Orgasm leads to satiety, the site argues, which leads to withdrawal from one's partner and tends away from monogamy. The best thing is a monogamous partnership of preorgasmic bliss. People without partners who indulge too much in orgasms won't attract partners. Gays are not included in the analysis at all, as far as I can tell, though I guess they could be, but the argument is bolstered with lots of discussion of brain chemicals, with what I suspect to be a unique set of interpretations. The site seems to be the brainchild of a particular female author. I would classify it as a variety of sexual "perpetual motion machine" -- maybe a perpetual monogamous bliss machine.

Not really mainstream 19th Century stuff either, but there is a widespread world folkloric belief on the dangers to men of too much depletion of their vital fluids -- cf. Jack D. Ripper of Dr. Strangelove ("I don't let the women have my essence"). What happens when you bi-gender this, you will just have to read further into this website than I am about to do.

belledame222 said...

yeh, Victorian Tantra sums it up. veddy strange.

SnowdropExplodes said...

I apply a simple "cause and effect" relationship here:

I have attracted more women since I started wanking than I did before, ergo the thesis is false. Masturbation does not drive away women (although it might do if I did it as a way to introduce myself to them!) but, in my case, has attracted them.

Heck, seems like good enough logic for that sort of person.

Rootietoot said...

"The approach of the web site is basically, have lots of sex but not orgasm. "

but but...um. Isn't that the GOAL of sex, to orgasm? Or do they advocate sex for procreational purposes only? Am I a libertine for thinking this way?

I'm so confused.

belledame222 said...

There are esoteric (as well as kinky) reasons for delaying or withholding orgasm, yeah, derived from Tantra more or less. i'm not sure this person's quite clear on the concept, though.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Well, 'Goal of sex' is one of those sort of ambiguous constructions, really.

I frequently consider orgasm a bonus; I rarely get it as a goalstate. (And often when I consider it a goal the process winds up frustrating, and I'm usually quite easy...)

Rootietoot said...

It's definitely a goalstate for me. I have to be planning on it to have one. I don't think I've ever had an incidental (almost said accidental) one.

To have sex without orgasm in mind strikes me as putting a cheese cake in the middle of the table just to smell it.

Dw3t-Hthr said...

Whereas I don't like cheesecake and find orgasm (in most circumstances) completely incidental to my sexual satisfaction.

Human variety is an amazing thing.

kactus said...

sounds like somebody's been reading too much Calvin.

Or playing too much calvinism ball.

kactus said...

But seriously, with my first lover I was a virgin and had never masturbated in my life. I had never had an orgasm. And for the first 3 months we had mind-blowing sex, satisfying and delicious in every way, except that neither of us ever had an orgasm.

It really changed after we discovered that particular pleasure. Orgasm became a goal, and although the sex was still good, it was different. It didn't last for hours any more, for one thing.

So I have to say that living in a pre-orgasmic state of desire, while you don't want it to go on for too long, can be pretty fun in and of itself.

belledame222 said...

calvinism ball.

win.