Would you be comfortable if people saw you masturbating?

Discussion in 'Problematic Sexual Behavior' started by ultrafabber, Apr 4, 2019.

Would you be comfortable if people saw you masturbating?

  1. Yes

    11 vote(s)
    20.4%
  2. No

    43 vote(s)
    79.6%
  1. ChangeSince95

    ChangeSince95 Fapstronaut

    170
    203
    43
    sht..
    That's why I don't like to go to parties
     
  2. SamFZ

    SamFZ Fapstronaut

    46
    66
    18
    My wife often sees it, if she finishes or tires out first (Which, unless I’ve recently rebooted, is always, I don’t even get close if I’ve been doing it a lot on my own in between, very unsatisfying, she just tires out). So I guess I’m comfortable with her seeing it, and other sexual partners in the past have. My ex used to sort of put on a show for me while I did it sometimes. It’s the only fun option when you have death grip syndrome (which I get when I JO frequently, and goes away when I reboot for a little while), as the other option is to disappear to the bathroom, which sucks.

    ...So I think a ‘woman from instagram’ or whatever, if she was consenting, I’d be fine with.

    But it isn’t without any shame at all. It’s pretty obvious that (most) women don’t get much out of seeing a guy do it in the same way men tend to out of seeing a woman do it, and it can feel a bit awkward I guess, but my wife says she just likes seeing me enjoy myself.
     
    Randy likes this.
  3. SeekerMan

    SeekerMan Fapstronaut

    6
    5
    3
    Hahah I was waiting for someone to say that. Hahah
     
    Vandermeer likes this.
  4. AlexWillDoIt

    AlexWillDoIt Fapstronaut

    71
    41
    18
    Masturbation is NOT wrong, for religion any kind of sex if not done to procreate is a sin. Or sex before marriage. Come on guys. Masturbation is a sexual natural and healthy behavior, if not done compulsory and with porn and not as the only way to live our sexuality.
     
  5. I would not care if anyone saw me, beyond wondering why they'd feel the need to watch.
     
  6. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    699
    817
    93
    No, that is false. First of all, it's not a sin to have sex if it's not for procreation, that's just false. What is a sin is having sex outside marriage.

    Second of all, masturbation has been considered wrong in many populations that had nothing to do with Abrahamic religions at all. Indians (hindus) for example, or the chinese, that were NOT religious at all still ended up considering masturbation as damaging,
     
  7. AlexWillDoIt

    AlexWillDoIt Fapstronaut

    71
    41
    18
    That doesn’t make it wrong, it’s a natural act (even young dogs mastrubate). Society want’s is to think that nakedness, sexuality and masturbation is wrong, but nothing natural is wrong. It’s how we use to do it that makes it wrong.
     
    Vandermeer likes this.
  8. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    699
    817
    93
    I've had this discussions many times. It's actually an extremely RARE act in nature, especially masturbation to ejaculation.
     
  9. Lenard Fosterman

    Lenard Fosterman Fapstronaut

    20
    26
    18
    Humans collect stamps, humans jump out of planes, humans visit the gravesites of their beloved ones... there is plenty of human behaviour that is extremely rare in the animal world or not comparable to any other 'natural' phenomenon... and those acts are not per se harmful (well unless you forget the parachute) or immoral. Thus being 'unnatural' in this sense can't be a reasonable basis for a moral judgement.
     
    Vandermeer likes this.
  10. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    699
    817
    93
    A huge portion of our knowledge on human biology/psychology comes from animal studies and testing. Most of the progress in medicine comes from animal testing because they have an extremely similar biology to ours and so does a lot of neurology/psychology/sociology information and advancement.

    There's nothing about "morality" here, it's just science.
     
  11. Lenard Fosterman

    Lenard Fosterman Fapstronaut

    20
    26
    18
    And yet another huge portion of our knowledge comes from using our human brain that is unique in its capacities. When it comes to sociology for example, you'll learn in first semester to deconstruct terms like 'normal' or 'natural' that you use unquestioned. Do you honestly deny that there are differences between humans and other species? Is talking in a worded language an 'unnatural' thing to do? (And will you delete the whole thread now as you did last time I brought up that argument?)

    (First passages of this thread, bold types by me)
    Well... what is marking acts good or bad, right or wrong if not morality? And shame is a concept that presupposes a moral consciousness, so it is only another example of something unrelated to animals.
    (Btw it is science only once you come up with scientific evidence of your claims that is not yet falsified.)
     
    Vandermeer and AlexWillDoIt like this.
  12. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    699
    817
    93
    Just because it has partly unique features doesn't stop it from having common features with the rest of the animals. Neurotransmitter/hormonal (endocrine) systems are virtually identical to those of other species.

    Sociology spawned many dumb ideas and it's mostly grounds for mental masturbation. You can deconstruct all you want, those things will still exist.

    That recent comment on "no morality" was strictly connected to the fact that masturbation is not normal or healthy.
     
  13. Lenard Fosterman

    Lenard Fosterman Fapstronaut

    20
    26
    18
    I never denied there are similarities, only you argue that something that might be unique is 'unnatural' simply because of its alleged uniqueness.
    Yes. Now we arrive at a decent scientific discussion, according to the very scientific principle: what overstrains me intellectually must be bullshit. If you had any clue you'd know that deconstructing something doesn't mean denying its existence. It rather means acknowledging its subjectivity. The fact that evaluations - for example regarding masturbation - are subjective, seems to be unbearable for you, as you cry for the authority of 'nature' or 'science' as godlike entities, even though you only display a vulgar understanding of them.
    By the way, it was you who named sociology. Don't you think that social sciences have a say when it comes to social phenomena - human societies and social behaviour being far more complex than those of any other species? But surely it is only relevant sociology if breeding mice and deriving social theories from there...
    If you just set aside humans outstanding cognitive capacities and highly elaborated social organisation, you'll deal with the most pitiful and non-viable animal, and that is the point where your blinkered evolutionism is chasing its tail.

    Which is not a fact but merely another moral statement.
     
  14. ultrafabber

    ultrafabber Fapstronaut

    699
    817
    93
    I didn't mention uniqueness, i said that we share most of our physiological/neurological structure with animals and that masturbation is extremely rare, especially to completion.

    It's not scientific because most of sociology is not actually science, especially new-age sociology. It's just a superficial psychology combined with superficial philosophy. It overcomplicates things so that it can later "deconstruct" them and make it look like it's actually doing something.

    Yes, in the context of psychology.

    Like I said, making things "complex" to have something to deconstruct. Yes, some aspects of human behavior are more complex, but some are very simple. Sexuality is very simple and straight forward, the "complexity" comes from the recent trend of considering less and less things as sexually deviant.

    Incorrect.
     
  15. Lenard Fosterman

    Lenard Fosterman Fapstronaut

    20
    26
    18
    Come on, we start running in circles. I have very well understood your claim, only it doesn't become more convincing if you refuse to support it with further arguments to clarify incoherences and critical objections. But you reliably ignore my most pointed questions and remarks. I am tired out of this discussion unless you begin to meet my perspective with respective answers.

    Denouncing entire academic disciplines instead is an intellectual immunisation strategy that is far from sincere scientific debate. Oversimplification might be the opponent allegation and is a mental strategy that serves to reduce cognitive stress. Labelling a statement 'incorrect' without rationale is another step further down to cracker-barrel philosophy.
     

Share This Page