Talk:Religious views on masturbation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Articles in userspace should NOT be in categories. The use of templates should include appropriate mechanisms to prevent userspace articles being added to categories.

Under current wikipedia conventions if this article is seriously intended to be in the encyclopedia the best place to work on it, is in the encyclopedia where it can more easily be bought to the attention of the general editing community.Garrie 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you reverted what look to me to be good copyedits. I'm not going to get in an edit war, but I'd like to discuss what the issues are.

• In the Painting by South African artist Anton Brink, I felt that the text was too long for a caption. The point of the story of Onan, is of course that Onan was Slain by god for disobecience. Your caption says "Painting by South African artist Anton Brink entitled "Conflict (Onan)". As suggested by Brink's painting, views on masturbation in Judaism and Christianity have often been conflicted by the story of Onan in Genesis 38:1-10. Onan did coitus interruptus while consummating his Levirate marriage (Yibbum) and was slain by God. This has sometimes been extended to mean that male masturbation is prohibited by God."

Which was too long. So, by trimming off the editorial comment at the end "This has sometimes been extended to mean that male masturbation is prohibited by God" Which is not the point of the artwork at all, and just someones opinion." I made it much shorter. If you could give a reference as to what makes you think that the point of the artwork is to express that god does not want man to masturbate, I would appreciate it.

• The secton on Roman Catholicism was taken from another article. But, someone at some point had added onto the end some uncited OR "Consequently, all other sexual activity including masturbation, homosexual acts, acts of sodomy and sex outside of marriage and the use of artificial contraception as morally disordered as they frustrate the intention of God "written" in the design of the human body.^{[citation needed]} "

It was controversial unough that someone else added a call for a citation, that had not been met. The "frustrate the intention of God "written" in the design of the human body" is complete nonsense, and not listed in the writings of the cathlic church as far as I have seen.

The Church teaches that Manichaeism, the belief that the spirit is good while the flesh is evil, is a heresy. Therefore, the Church does not teach that sex is sinful or an impairment to a grace-filled life. As God created the human body in his own image and likeness, and because he found everything he created to be "very good,"^[1] then the human body and sex must likewise be good. The Catechism teaches that "the flesh is the hinge of salvation."^[2] However the Church does teach that sexuality outside of marriage is a capital sin because it violates the purpose of human sexuality to participate in the "conjugal act" before one is actually married. The conjugal act "aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul" (Catechism 1643) since the marriage bond is to be a sign of the love between God and humanity (Catecism 1617).

(See

I'm not sure why you added an unreferenced tag to the secular humanism section, as the entire article, for the most part is unreferenced, and not just that section.

• The last section, "Because Onan's punishment was so much more severe, they argue that the spilling of semen was the relevant offense.^{[citation needed]}" is entirely OR. It is true that orthodox judaism feels that the sin of Onan may have been the spilling of seed, and not disobedience to God. But, this statement says neither. Is says that someone's logic is that it could not likely be for "refusing a levirate marriage" as the punishment for that is minor, compared to death, which may be true, but the point is that, the punishment for Onan was more severe because his sin was not in "refusing a Levirate marriage", but for directly disobeying God. You as a biblical scholar certainly know this. Please see the onan article. I agree that there are people on both sides of this issue, but the way it is expressed here is not correct. My edit was to stick to the facts, and avoid the controversy. The alternative is to discuss and document, along with citations, the different views, in order to be NPOV. We can do that if you like, but trying to force one view (a mistaken view) that the story of Onan is about the spilling of seed, and that the spilling of seed prohibits masturbation won't fly. The misconception that the story of Onan had something to do with masturbation began in the 1700's, and was not viewed that way previously.

I'd appreciate it if, rather than reverting my edits wholesale, that you would discuss your views or your disagreement in the talk pages, as I am doing first. Atom 02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I reverted your edits because they utterly screamed that they came from an editor that is terribly, terribly uninformed about this topic. Each point in your post above, which twists and re-twists things, further confirms this. No offense, but I added numerous of your statements to my ongoing list on my user page, Examples of lamest content I have found on Wikipedia. I did not name your name. You can look at my replies there. CyberAnth 04:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Well at least you've commented as to what your reasoning is. My point as stated above is that the bible says nothing for or against masturbation (in the hebrew bible, or the new testament). The quote in Genesis regarding Onan is interpreted many ways by many people. (For instance, "spilling of seed", disobeying God, not following the laws of Levirate marriage) Only the most conservative regard it as related to masturbation. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the view that masturbation is proscribed is a minority perspective with other views that should be presented. One could argue that the comment regarding Onan is only historical, as it is from the hebrew bible, and pre-Christ, the relevance of the bible entirely is debatable, but those things aren't relevant here.

Certainly I agree that Catholic dogma is against most sexuality. My point was not that the paragraph was mistaken that Catholicism is against masturbation, but mistaken in it's expression. The teaching of the Catholic church, the origin of it's current catechism, that all forms on non-procreative use of the penis and vagina are a "grave offense to the sagacious plan" is Thomas Aquinas, 1200 years after Christ, and not biblical in origin. That view, echoed by Pope Paul in "Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics". His statement is similar to the quote in the article, and what was said above, but that is a misquote, and in fact really is synthesis and someones interpretation. What he said was more along the lines of

"the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."

Masturbation was regarded as acceptable by the Catholic church, as was a number of other sexually related things, prior to Pope Leo XI in 1054, when it was condemned for the first time. Perhaps that is when the story of Onan was first mis-interpreted, this is not an area that I know a great deal about, as you pointed out.

Pope Pius XI, gave this interpretation of Genesis:

Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: "For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him" (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).

from "Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubii" in 1930.

So, it was clearly his view that Onan was slain for having non-procreative intercourse. An "authoritative" interpretation that does not attribute the sin of Onan to masturbation.

The current Catechism of the Catholic Church says "...that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.' 'The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.' For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of 'the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved'" which is much more similar to the quote given. It would be great for the article, in the Catholicism section, as it is a direct quote from current Catholic dogma, rather than the opinion or interpretation of others. (In fact I think I will change the article to reflect that in a bit.)

Now, that is only regarding the Catholic church, and so has to taken in that context. There are a great many people who have strong opinions about that topic. (both within and without Catholicism). But that also is not the topic here.

Judaism, and the Hebrew bible are the source for the one comment intepreted to be regarding spilling of seed, which is also often interpreted as applying to Masturbation. The breadth of Judaism differes widely, as you know, from Orthodox, to conservative, to reformed to Humanistic, and is a broad spectrum of belief. They have no central leader, such as the pope, and no central dogma that adherents must follow, but only the interpretation of a vast array of Rabbi's who give opinions on various matters. Opinions by Rabbi's regading masturbation vary across the spectrum from more conservative in nature than Catholicism, to as liberal as any liberal christian church. Whether it is interpreted as forbidden (more common) or allowed (less common) the interpretation is still that Onan's sin was in not consumating the levirate marriage as directed by God, or in "spilling of seed" (in the context of avoiding getting his brother's wife pregnant.)

Atom 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You continue to use many words to display your complete proclivity to twist and re-twist things you have apparent ignorance over. CyberAnth 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently your use of "twist and re-twist things you have apparent ignorance over" means the same thing as "have a different point of view on". I'm not sure how exactly quoting the CCC explicitly, Pope Paul or Pope Pius XI could be seen as twisting or apparent ignorance. If you mean that it seems that your view, and my view are different, and not likely to find common agreement soon, then I would agree with that. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I'd prefer to just present the facts in the article. The Catholic Churches position on Masturbation is, per each of my comments above, clearly a matter of public record.

We are both advocates of providing sources and citations for things expressed as facts in articles, as well as NPOV. Those also happen to be Wikipedia policy. If we both continue to do that, there should be little ground for future controversy. Atom

Leaving the content dispute aside, I'd like to make an observation. Both

keep cool in a conflictl (it is for me), but it's the only way to achieve progress in a consensus-based project. --Ssbohio

01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The image appears to be Copyrighted image. The justification listed is that it is here for fair use. My understanding of is that it can only be used for fair use if the artwork itself is the subject of review, or criticism. Using it to illustrate an article that reviews or criticizes something else is not fair use. We should respec the intellectual property of the artist and remove this image. Atom 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh this is comical. The user removes material that would allow it to be used as fair use and then gripes that it does not meet fair use. CyberAnth 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. With or without the caption, it is not fair use. As I just said, fair use would allow for critical review or comment of the artwork itself. If you show clip of a current movie, and then proceed to review that movie, that is fair use of that clip, and you are not violating copyright by doing so. The appropriate use for his image in a context of fair use would be if you were comparing or contrasting the work of the artist with their other work, or with the work of other artists with the same genre. Using the artists work to illustrate an encylopedic article about religious views of masturbation does not say anything about the qualities of the artwork, and as such is not a critical review of that artwork. Atom 19:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a drive by the image in question & considered how it was used in the article. Under Wikipedia's new, tighter

fair use policy. I checked the edit history of the article and didn't find an edit by Atom that removed a valid fair use rationale from the article, but I might have missed something. Are there diffs pointing to the removal of the fair use rationale? --Ssbohio

02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff[1] that CyberAnth was referring to. I think the image is visually interesting, but it is clearly copyrighted. Atom 03:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the link to the diff came through. --Ssbohio 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I really put it in this time. Atom 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I did review that diff, but I don't see how it establishes fair use under

policy. The fair use of an image like a painting would exist where the painting is what's being discussed. For example, I could claim fair use of an image of the Mona Lisa in an article about the painting, but not to illustrate a Smile in a different article. If an illustration of the "sin of Onan" is desired, a free image should be created. Free images don't have to meet the restrictions of fair use images. --Ssbohio

04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

A quick search resulted in finding a free image of Onan. THis may not be the best image for this article, but it demonstrates that free equivalents are out there. --Ssbohio 04:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet that does not even slightly have the Conflict connotation that Brink's work does. Thus it does not even illustrate the point. CyberAnth 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As the artist, I find it weird that I haven't been contacted about any of this - I discovered this site (unfortunately too late too see my pic!) purely by chance! Frankly, I have no objection to the use of any of my works in this manner. that is the purpose of art, to illustrate concepts, ideas, arguments without words. Art does not exist merely to be discussed as art by a few pompous intellectuals: if it does not speak on a gut level, it is worthless. To use my work in this way, all I require is a formal request for permission: the work is otherwise offered free for non-commercial purposes. Please feel free to continue using my work in the present context. -- anton brink ([email protected]) 155.232.128.10 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anton. I uploaded to this article the image of Conflict (Onan) from http://www.southafricanartists.com/ShowArtist.asp?ID=69&WorkID=362 under a Fair Use rationale, which I still think is acceptable. This piece is fantastic, by the way, unique in the world to illustrate the point in this context. CyberAnth 02:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the image very much. We would like to use it in the article. As it is copyrighted, you would need to release it. Please see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. From this section "Please don't ask the copyright owner for "permission to use the content on Wikipedia." Many people would grant such permission, but if this occurs, the content must be deleted, as the owner has not licensed the work under the GFDL."

We would also need to relicense the image under GFDL. Also, we need permission from the photographer who took a picture of the artwork. If you should choose to do this, we would be thankful for your contribution. I'll follow up to you in email when I get the opportunity. Atom 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what you quoted is not even a policy. It is a help topic that has clearly erroneous information.

For example it states "as the owner has not licensed the work under the GFDL"; and your statement "We would also need to relicense the image under GFDL" - both are completely erroneous.

In point of fact, there are multiple ways something may be licensed and it be used on WP. Here are just two examples besides the GFDL:

• Creative Commons-Attribution
• Copyright by [Name of Person]. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that [Name of Person] is attributed as the author and derivatives do not deface the piece in any way.

CyberAnth 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment was a quote from the copyright policy

I think it is most ethical to ask Brink to release the image under Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat. CyberAnth 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that will work if he releases it for any purpose. If he limits the use for non-commercial purposes, then we can't use it.

Also, we need permission from the photographer who took a picture of the artwork. Probably someone at the studio of the website. Or with luck, the artist.[2]. Atom 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Non controversial issue, opinions requested.

• One editor prefers the article listed historically ordered by older religions to newer, as it gives timeline of policies in more of a free flow.See Here
• One editor prefers ordering by religion, and with religions with more adherents before religions with less adherents in order to present a balance of opinions about masturbation based on numerical predominance.See Here Atom 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick note as to which way you think is better is appreciated:

• Second option - One, in the first option, the religions are not actually ordered by older religion to newer. That order would be Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Taoism, Islam, and so forth. Two, since these religions' views largely exhibit no meta-story (e.g., there is no connected development or "advancement" of thought from Judaism to Hinduism, for example), there is no real cause for placing them on a timeline. Three, absent a strong rationale and connecting of thought from religion to religion, the predominance argument is really the only way to go. It also avoids the perception of bias that can occur when a readers sees a more minor religion placed ahead of a major one. CyberAnth 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Your suggested ordering would work for me (Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Taoism, Islam, and so forth). Didn't Taoism (300 or 400 BC) and Islam (Abraham) precede or equal Christianity(Abraham)? You're the expert on that. Your argument makes (no meta-story, progression) sense to me, as no advancement is clearly evident. Clearly the change from older to newer views are more complex. (interelationships of cultures) I'm not convinced that any ordering is that noticed to readers to think there is bias, especially if (regardless of the end ordering) the ordering is briefly explained. 04:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Edit war problems. A user with strong moral feelings regarding the Catholicism section keeps adding unsupported opinion embedded within the reference citation. I'm certain he feels he is doing the "right" thing, but the reference he cites does not support the synthesis and conclusion that he espouses. Also, that POV does not belong embedded in the reference. His POV, supported by citations, is welcome in the article, of course. Request other input as to encouraginf use of cites and references as per Wikipedia policy. Atom 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the changes you made because it is basically the opposite POV of the one stated there. Removing that POV and inserting your opposite view is not oppropriate. Also, the references that you gave are not good references. Opinion sites that don't offer any citations don't meet verifiability. Atom 00:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am backing up Atom on this issue. While it is certainly possible for a section to be written that represents "non-official" Catholic positions on the Catholic view, the verbiage he removed just does not meet that. CyberAnth 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the most recent change, which has a better reference. This is not my area of expertise, and I believe that you have a right toyour POV within the article, if you can cite it. The cite you gave seemed to me to be of the best quality this time, but the comments you made weren't (or didn't seem to me) to be within the reference. Also, the reference should be a line of text, not four paragraphs of comments and opinions. If you could summarize your POV, while not removing the other POV of which you do not agree, and give a tight citation, rather than a citation that is a thesis in itself. I understand that you may not agree with the existing opinion that someone has presented, but in order for the article to be NPOV, it needs to have a balance, and have that other opinion as well as yours. Atom 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss your changes here and we can find a workable solution. Removing a POV you disagree with and replacing it with your own view isn't acceptable. There is a place for your view along side the other POV. Let's discuss it here. Atom 12:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

If one of you thinks my reinsertion of official Catholic moral theology on the sin of masturbation or my changes are pov, please correct them. But do not delete them entirely. I have entirely referenced the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the deviation of masturbation. That it does not fit into other people's concepts or way of life, is irrelevant. You do not remove entire sections in wikipedia, especially if well referenced as mine are to vatican.va.Smith2006 09:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are your opinion. The reference you gave is the vatican, but your stated opinion doesn't seem to be directly from that reference. As there are 1 billion catholics, and any number of conflicting views on the topic (within Catolicism), I don't think that your opinion/POV is anything more than a re-iteration of one conservative viewpoint of many views. The previous POV was not put here by myself. I have just asked you to follow Wikipedia policies by balancing your view with the other view, rather than removing the view that you feel is incorrect. We also asked you to cite your words. By that I think we mean;t finding a citation for the POV you expressed, not just to find a citation somewhat related to your stated POV. Atom 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited yet again. Please don't disrupt the article. I'm asking you, yet again, to discuss this rather than being disruptive. I'm concerned about maintaining a quality article, and have no theological position on this. Your more conservative view can be shown, as it is now, but has to be accurate and cited. The biggest issue is not your POV, but the huge citation comments that are not relevant. The cite should cite the source, and not be a platform for making a point. Atom 13:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have cited Vatican.va-articles which prove this. That is all. You may take out my and underlining, but not the entire section to replace it with "some take a mora conservative view". This has got to do with official Roman Catholic teaching on this matter, not with opinions. Neither mine, nor yours.Smith2006 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to idle threats in the edit commentary. I've tried to explain numerous times what the problem with your edit is, and how to fix it, as well as fixing it myself to leave your meaning while having it follow Wikipedia policy. I've asked you to discuss it further, which you have declined to do. If you like I can go through the edit line by line to explain the issues. Again, the references should have the reference in it, and not commentary, regardless of wht you feel the commentary says, or its source. If it is meaningful, put it in the article and reference it. Your presented POV, well meaning or not, needs to be backed by persona humana, not merely related in some vague fashion. Quoting persona humana exactly is your safest bet. If you'd like to work through it, rather than continually reverting my proper edits, please discuss it here, or on my talk page. Thank you. Atom 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I've asked smith2006 on his personal page to please stop disrupting this article. I have applied Wikipedia policy correctly. I have edited to try and preserve his viewpoint, and yet follow that policy.

The biggest issue is the way that the ref tag is being placed. The ref tag should give a source for a citation, and that's it. Editorial comment does not belong in the ref tag. Here is a link to the article that describes proper ways to use citations (Please see

Here is a quote of the citation given by Smith2006:

</nowiki>

moral theology and the Church's official teaching, clarified in the declaration Persona Humana, say.^[3]

</nowiki>

I am going to fix this yet again, and hope that Smith2006 does not sirupt by referting, yet again. I have asked for discussion of the issue a number of times. Smith2006 has declined to do this. He seems to feelm for whatever reason that his viewpoint on the subject supersedes following Wikipedia policies. That viewpoint, cited, can be freely expressed, but must be done appropriately, not as opinion embedded into a ref tag. Atom 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It can be found here:

I'm not sure who put it in, but I don;t see a problem with it being there. It is informational and accurate. If someone can make it more specific to the topic, that would be great too. Atom 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Atom. I made a big rant elsewhere, but I was too tired to write up a new one. While I do think the information is/was correct, it wasn't specific to the article in general. Disinclination 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

It is of course, difficult if not impossible to cite sources for a negative, but I am aware of no Conservative teshuva contra the prohibitions on male masturbation as they have come down to us from the rishonim. The Conservative position, as far as I know, is identical to the Orthodox in this case, not the Reform or Reconstructionist. The Rabbi cited in the 'non'-Orthodox section is, by Google search, Reconstructionist and should be noted as such. The Reform position is not as unambiguously positive as hers, as can be demonstrated by a link to the relevant document from the Central Conference of American Rabbis. Also, the female masturbation bit requires clarification. Savant1984 12:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This page should really mention Egyptian mythology - that the world was created by Atum masturbating. Malick78 08:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/~austbua/masturbation.htm

This site seems to be reliable enough. I think it has some important information which is not mentioned in the article.

201.230.62.247 23:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

You have a lot of quasi-accurate material on Tantrika views on sex. This is not masturbation. That which you are referring to is known as kaama-kalaa: the junction of siddha and yogini. This does sometimes refer to the sexual act, however, there is no siddha-yogini in the act of masturbation.

Please feel free to improve and expand this article. The material was originally taken from masturbation. I confess I am largely unlearned about Hinduism in these areas. The article needs a subject expert like you appear to be. CyberAnth 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The influence of Catholic and Islam on the non acceptance of masturbation in Hinduism-from article Religious Views on Masturbation is not correct. Yoga one of the main branch of Hindu faith condemns any thought of sex through the practice of Brahmachariya and it is in-corporated as Yama in Yoga sutra of Patanjali. Upanishads too discourage sexual thought other than procreation purpose. And Yoga existed more than 2000 years ago, before the birth of Christianity and Islam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevenseas (talk • contribs) 14:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

im a little confused as to what the roman catholic sections says. i know masturbating is bad, butthe last paragraph says it is normal...? huh? can someone clarify this for me? thx!04:49, 10 June 2007 (UTC) anyone?

reply: masturbation is considered a sin if you are a full grown adult. In puberty, it is considered less of a sin because of high hormone levels.

Im Christian, however not Catholic, which are christians but i thought it might be apporpriate to speak here...

Matthew 5:27-30, According to this, it is inapporpriate to think of any other female, in want. Because even though you are not physically touching, you are lusting...and that commits adultery. So in relation to masterbaution, most masterbate while looking at pornography, how so different is it online or in magazines, or dvd's. Now overall i dont know even if masterbation is appropriate, however be wise enough not to do it with the intention of looking at porn or thinking of porn...or thinking of the lady next door, or the one who works with you, or any other female...then your own —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.102.107 (talk) 09:47, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing the subject; rather, it is a place to discuss improving the article. I think the points you mention are covered in the article; if they aren't, please add them, with appropriate citations.

talk

) 13:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The catholic view is to take sexuality as a whole in it's relationship to the trinity. The love of the Father to the Son and the Son to the Father is so intense that it IS the holy spirit - the love is expressed as a new person. The idea of marriage and sex is that a man and a woman's love for each other is so strong that it creates a third person. This is not some outlandish concept, we know that sex naturally leads to children. - see: Pope John Paul II, Theology of the body Nov 14, 1979

Anything short of this ideal is 'disordered' while not necessarily being evil. Pubescent Men and Women have sexual feelings which are all part of this plan to marriage and children, but it is hard for people with that maturity level to fully comprehend the feelings they are having and to act appropriately, that is why the catechism allows a lessening of culpability in that case, and in the case of addiction. - see: Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2352

This is the same with all sin though, if we take the ideal and perfect path, our relationship with God grows. We all fall short of that perfection, and that falling is called Sin, the sin is worse or less depending on how free we were to make the decision to sin. If someone physically holds a gun in my hand and pulls the trigger for me, i can't be blamed for murder, if someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to rob a bank, i am very slightly culpable, but it is 'understandable', if i rob a bank on my own, and i am a millionaire, well, then i am almost fully culpable. - see: Aristotle - Nicomachean Ethics (yes, the whole thing)

- tenelus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.237.42.59 (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have difficulty finding many sources that will be "pro-masturbation". If you do, I doubt that they will be from well-known or widely-used sources. I could be wrong, of course. BenC7 06:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

James Dobson considers it part of normal adolescent exploration and strongly urges parents not to shame their children over the act lest they have marital difficulties later because of shame over their sexuality. At the same time, he realizes it becomes an addiction and an escape from intimacy for some and of course argues against it in that case.

Richard Dobbins in Teaching Your Children the Truth About Sex takes a similar approach. His overall approach is one of "neither condemn nor condone" the act. He looks at it multifactorally to determine its ethics. He gives a lot of advise to parents in the matter.

Herbert J. Miles in Sexual Understanding Before Marriage also takes a similar approach. He views the act as a controlled tool of sexual self-control for single males and advises them in that way, while also pointing males to nocturnal emissions. His view toward single females in the matter is different per their biology and lack of semen buildup, and he urges young women to wait to experience their first orgasm with their husband, while not making it a sin if they masturbate.

Both Dobbins and Miles go so far as to discuss what they feel is Biblically permissible for people to imagine while masturbating. Dobbins says fathers should urge their sons, if they masturbate, to imagine their future wife, and never some girl they may know. Miles suggests single males pray before masturbating, thanking God for the gift of their sexuality and keeping Him in mind while achieving self-release.

Ed Wheat instructs on mutual masturbation in marriage, see http://www.amazon.com/Love-Life-Every-Married-Couple/dp/0310214866/sr=8-1/qid=1166772650/ref=sr_1_1/002-3657703-4961632?ie=UTF8&s=books

Evangelical based therapeutic approaches to masturbation addiction suggest counselors place counselees on a schedule, e.g., they may masturbate 3 times per week at set times in private but no go beyond that. Over and above than a prohibitionist position, this is viewed as part of a Biblical, realistic, and effective approach to facilitating counselees to overcome a masturbatory addiction.

In general, it seems to me that reputable, balanced evangelicals realize the Bible could have but did not specifically condemn that act, and so make it a Romans 14 issue, i.e., a matter of conscience for individual believers: that the believer should not violate his or her conscience, but also realizing the conscience is fallible and may be either rightly or wrongly trained.

All condemn the act if done in lust, to pornography, or if it becomes an addiction or an escape from intimacy.

Most view it as at least having the potential to be a tool of sexual self-control, not only for singles but married persons when they may be separated from their spouse. The Marriage Bed is a very reputable evangelical web organization that I think has a very sane approach to the matter along these lines. They conclude "that a loving God designed masturbation as a 'stop gap' measure for those who do not have a spouse", see http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/masturbation/mastdiscuss.shtml

In my studies of the subject thus far, it is more the people on the fringes of evangelicalism who take a complete (and completely unrealistic, I think) prohibitionist stance on the matter, although I obviously am still studying the matter and could be wrong. If you have any sources you can add, please do, even if it is just some links or books you can add here. I am particularly interested in sources that may be reputable who take a prohibitionist stance on the matter.

Well, sheesh, look what you done! You went and made me already write part of the article section. :-)

I intend to later branch from this current project to create

Christian views on masturbation

. I think the issue is very important, because Christians just do not talk about it much and have no opportunity to see diverse Christian views and their rationales laid out on the matter.

CyberAnth 07:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

When the subject is "religious views" on masturbation, it is important when improving this article to site sources that represent a verifiable official position of the denomination as defined and accepted by the governing body of the church or body of believers. Religious views of a formal religious community are typically not a view held by one individual who has published a book or article with his opinion, but instead represents the unified body of belief of a denomination - what they understand and agree as "true" about their faith, and what is taught about it to others. Also, particularly with this section, it is important not to include non-religious perspectives as religious views, including treatment or opinions used in counseling or therapy, that may or may not be aligned with the teachings of faith of a religious denomination.

24.60.134.52 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)Newpost13724.60.134.52 (talk) 14:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

1) Isn't the woman masturbating the monk? 2) How do we know the monk is a Roman Catholic?

reply:

1) No

2) Because the artist was an

Actually, it is quite clear to me that the woman is masturbating the monk. Look at the orientation of the hand that is gripping the penis. The thumb is near the base, the grip is from below, and the wrist extends to the right. It is not possible for a man to grip his penis with his right hand in that fashion. However, it is a natural grip for the woman's left hand. Based on this, I will update the caption. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 19:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I also notice that the name of the file is "Geiger-masturbation-mutuelle". That makes it even more clear that the woman is masturbating the monk. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to hear an explanation of how the picture at the top of the page adds to the text of the article or increases the reader's understanding of religious views on masturbation. Since the text of the article suggests that Christian churches almost universally condemn masturbation, I submit that the picture is sending the wrong message concerning the views of the Catholic Church on masturbation. As such, I argue that it tends to confuse rather than clarify the article. Furthermore, because the concent of the picture is irrelevant to the article's body, I take it to be a deliberate attempt to bias the reader against Chrisitanity by suggesting that Christians are hypocritical and licentious.

I wonder whether a depiction of religious people masturbating wouldn't be better for an article about sexuality among Christian clergy. Would it be appropriate to use a picture of a monk shooting up to illustrate an article on "Religious views on substance abuse"? I don't think it would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nico KG (talk • contribs) 17:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles are generally intended to have pictures. I can't imagine what picture would be any better than the current one. I don't understand why you think that a picture attached to an article which is about religious people masturbating is going to make people think Christians are "licentious". (You might be able to make a better case if you complained that the monk was breaking his vow of chastity by his involvement with the woman.) And monks aren't necessarily clergy.

talk

) 18:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about religious people masturbating. The article is about the doctrines of various religions concerning the act of masturbation. I do not think that a picture attached to this article will cause any particular problems, but I do think that this picture attached to this article causes a problem. It causes a problem for the reason that I mentioned in my original post and that you also mentioned in your reply - namely, that it depicts acts performed by respected members of the Catholic church (that is, monks) that are not consistent with the doctrine of the Catholic church. As such, it confuses rather than clarifies the discussion at hand. Nico KG (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The picture is clearly of mutual masturbation (see my notes below), not the monk masturbating himself as it was previously described, so it may (or may not) be less relevant now. 80.235.57.239 (talk) 19:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Any particular order that the religions on this page are in? It seems to me that it should be alphabetical, so that there's no bias. --MosheA 05:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC) "Some Mormons disagree with the prevailing opinion against masturbation in Mormonism. They teach that masturbation is normal, healthy, developmentally appropriate and leads primarily to healthy marriage bonds.[12]" The validity of this satement is very suspect seeing that the article comes from the website "re-thinking mormonism." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.78.3.75 (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

And then, after that, links to (other than his own website and the odd Google News) non-notables as references? References with classic headers like this: "Is mastrubation [sic] is haram in Islam?" And shouldn't this be reviewed: Wikipedia policies - The key here is that his own website is not an independent source... it is a primary source.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.49.156 (talk) 17:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I have just removed the following two paragraphs from the main article,

This biblical story of [[Onan]] is traditionally linked to referring to masturbation and condemnation thereof, but the act described by this story is [[coitus interruptus]], not masturbation.<ref>{{cite book|last=Coogan|first=Michael|title=God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says|url=http://books.google.nl/books?id=2_gPKQEACAAJ&dq=god+and+sex&hl=nl&ei=4fbCTaPKDpGXOrq88Z0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAQ|accessdate=May 5, 2011|edition=1st|year=2010|month=October|publisher=Twelve. Hachette Book Group|location=New York, Boston|isbn=978-0-446-54525-9|page=110}}</ref> There is no explicit claim in the Bible that masturbation would be sinful<ref>{{cite journal|last=Patton|first=Michael S.|author=Michael S. Patton|month=June|year=1985|title=Masturbation from Judaism to Victorianism|journal=Journal of Religion and Health|volume=24|issue=2|pages=133–146|publisher=Springer Netherlands|issn=0022-4197|doi=10.1007/BF01532257|accessdate=12 November 2011|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r407h39183426645/|quote=Nevertheless, there is no legislation in the Bible pertaining to masturbation.}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kwee|first=Alex W.|author=Alex W. Kwee|coauthors=David C. Hoover|year=2008|title=Theologically-Informed Education about Masturbation: A Male Sexual Health Perspective|journal=Journal of Psychology and Theology|volume=36|issue=4|pages=258–269|location=La Mirada, CA, USA|publisher=Rosemead School of Psychology. Biola University|issn=0091-6471|accessdate=12 November 2011|url=http://www.alexkwee.com/uploads/kwee_hoover08.pdf|quote=The Bible presents no clear theological ethic on masturbation, leaving many young unmarried Christians with confusion and guilt around their sexuality.}}</ref>, however ''[[Leviticus]]'' chapter 15 in the [[Law of Moses]] states that any male having a "flow" for any reason, is ceremonially defiled for seven days. Christian theologians have deemed the direct link between masturbation and [[lust]] and [[addiction]] as incompatible to Christian morality.

For example, [[Thomas Aquinas|St. Thomas Aquinas]], one of the most prominent [[Doctor of the Church#Catholicism|Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church]], wrote that masturbation, an "unnatural [[Vice#Roman Catholicism|vice]]" which is a species of [[Lust#Roman Catholicism|lust]] in same category as [[Bestiality#Religious perspectives|bestiality]] and [[sodomy]], "by procuring pollution [i.e., ejaculation apart from intercourse], without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure [...] pertains to the sin of '[[Unclean spirit#Pneumata plana|uncleanness]]' which some call '[[effeminacy]]' [Latin: ''[http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0059%3Aentry%3Dmollio mollitiem]'', lit. 'softness, unmanliness']."<ref>''[[Summa Theologica]]'' [http://newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11 IIª-IIae, q. 154 a. 11 co.] ([http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/sth3146.html#45233 in Latin])</ref>

I hope that is some or all of the references and text here may be of interest to editors here. --Nigelj (talk)

Ok, I have added part of the info under "The Bible"; Thomas Acquinas's view seemed to be already part of the article.

Coogan's view is confirmed by a Catholic tract declared doctrinally error-free by a book censor and approved by a bishop at [3]. See also J. Harold Ellens, Sex in the Bible: a new consideration, p. 48 at [4]. Also confirmed at [5]. Church Father St. Epiphanius of Salamis agrees with Coogan, according to John M. Riddle, Contraception and abortion from the ancient world to the Renaissance, p. 4 at [6]. See also Talk:Masturbation#Bible and masturbation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've given it some careful thought, and looked at the article as it has been re-ordered (by # of religious adherents) and it doesn't seem right to me. As the topic is Religious views of Masturbation, I had arranged it roughly based on the historical timeline of the religions themselves. Judaism being older than Christianity or Islam, etc. Perhaps I did not have them precisely correct, but I think that that ordering makes more sense when this topic is historical in nature.

A minor point, the current ordering is listed as by # of adherents, giving Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Wicca, Secular Humanists. Our article Major religious groups seems to show Christianity, Islam, No-Religion, Hinduism, Chinese Folk, Buddhism in that order, as do other sources. But still, the previous listing that was historically based along a timeline makes more sense to me. Atom 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame Buddhism comes first simply for the reason that the section has been unauthoritative in various ways for some years, and this isn't likely to change in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.44.200 (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the statement on masturbation in Vajrayana is not correct; if you wish to keep it like this, the source needs to be cited. rudy 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I believe the statement "Like all religions, Buddhism takes a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular" is not correct for several different reasons. First of all there is no single "Buddhism" per se. There are multiple variations, and each may take a different stance. Also, I strongly believe that fundamental form of Buddhism based on Pali_Canon does not site what is right and what is wrong for a lay person. I took the liberty to modify the article and yet did not remove the opening statement "Like all religions, Buddhism takes a strong ethical stand in human affairs and sexual behavior in particular". However, I believe it should be changed. Ritigala Jayasena (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The statement wasn't wrong for saying it takes a strong stance - it was only wrong for being a little too general and open to misinterpreation. Buddhism does have moral teachings in all it's forms. What you're calling the fundamental form of Buddhism most certainly does. I cannot think of a form of Buddhism that doesn't use the Vinaya, covering monks and laypeople, as an essential basis for their other practices. (Not as a command of course, more "if you do this, then this...")46.64.44.200 (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The Buddhism portion of this article does not appear ready for display on wikipedia, I think it is in need of revision. My view is formed as such because I consider it to be weighted more towards opinion and subjective interpretation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.93.132 (talk) 02:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. I have edited it in the past, and don't think it will ever be authoritative simply because people have so many interpretations and, perhaps, it isn't especially prominent in Buddhism compared to other types of sexual misconduct for laypeople such as adultery. I understand that the masters of the lineage and the Vinaya have not and do not approve it for lay people, but that is not going to be easily accepted by some commentators on Buddhism and revisions to that effect aren't going to remain. And that revisions of the revisions aren't going to remain either.

Whatever your view, the article changes so often and over time cites such a odd variety of sources and interpretations that it would be better not being there at all, certainly not as the first article on the page. Presentations of, say, the Roman Catholic view are likely to be less in dispute.

Even my edits to this talk page get deleted, which does not seem right somehow.46.64.44.200 (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, it's a joke of a section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.64.44.200 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Many people won't know what a "Romans 14 issue" is since it is a specifically Christian term heard only in a small subset of contemporary churches. I think it is best that this particular phrase be removed. It is enough to use "In general, most evangelicals assert that the Bible could have but did not specifically condemn the act, and so make it a matter of conscience for individual believers: that the believer should not violate his or her conscience..." There is no reason to reference the biblical passage as far as I can see.

Also, the last sentence in the Protestantism section seems like a plug for the Marriage Bed website. I suggest that it be removed or further detail out the specific teachings there if they are significant and unique. So many of the articles seem to simply list plugs for websites. <sigh> :)

Oh, and another thing: Be careful that the protestantism section isn't selling a pro-masturbation-as-a-stop-gap stance. It seems to be heavily weighted in that direction. There are plenty of protestants who believe that all masturbation is sin. The section almost reads like it was written by a Christian for masturbation-as-a-stop-gap selling to a Christian against. ;) - Concerned in Fullerton

I agree with everything you just said. Particularly that last sentence. I think that definitely needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, I am not too Bold and if I may be quite honest this is not exactly a subject I enjoy writing about. If anyone else would like to deal with issue, I think it would be useful. Czar Baldy Bald IV (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Re "Concerned in Fullerton", the "Romans 14 issue" deserves to be stated fully and clearly by quoting Romans 14. Romans 14 along with 1 Corinthians 10:23-33 are two of the most important and relevant passages to give guidance to disciples of Christ in matters not specifically and explicitly dealt with in the Bible, like dancing, wearing bathing suits, wearing bikinis, watching movies, watching TV entertainment, diet questions, clothing and modesty issues, dating, kissing, holding hands hugging, sanctified self-stimulation (self-stimulation without thinking of or imagining sex sin) and etc.. Here is the Romans 14 passage: Romans 14:1 As for the man who is a weak believer, welcome him [into your fellowship], but not to criticize his opinions or pass judgment on his scruples or perplex him with discussions or argue about doubtful issues or opinions. . . . 13 Then we may no more criticize and blame and pass judgment on one another, but rather decide and endeavor never to put a stumbling block or an obstacle or a hindrance or a snare in the way of a brother [that would make him sin]. . . . 19 So then we must definitely aim for and pursue what makes for harmony, peace and for mutual upbuilding (strengthening, edification and development) of one another. 20 You must not, for the sake of food, undo and break down and destroy the work of God! Everything is indeed [ceremonially] clean and pure, but it is wrong for anyone to hurt the conscience of others or to make them stumble or fall into sin by what he eats. 21 The right thing is to eat no meat or drink no wine [at all], or [do anything else] if it makes your brother stumble or hurts his conscience or offends or weakens him. 22 Your personal convictions [on such matters]—exercise [them] as in God’s presence, keeping them between yourself and God. Blessed (happy, to be envied) is he who has no reason to judge himself for what he approves [who does not condemn himself for what he chooses to do]. 23 But the man who has doubts (misgivings, an uneasy conscience) about eating, and then eats, stands condemned [before God], because he is not true to his convictions and his action is not based on a faith conviction. For whatever does not originate and proceed from a faith conviction is sin [whatever is done without a conviction of its approval by God is sinful]. 15:1 We who are strong [in our convictions] ought to bear with the failings and the frailties and the tender scruples of the weak; [we ought to help carry the doubts others] and not to please ourselves. 2 Each one of us should make it a practice to please his neighbor for his good and for his true welfare, to edify him [to strengthen him and build him up spiritually]. 3 For Christ did not please Himself [gave no thought to His own interests] . . . [From the HCSB, CJB, ESV, MOUNCE, YLT, GNT, AMP & NASB, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/]Oldservant (talk) 15:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)oldservant

Such conclusions are prohibited by the Wikipedia policy

WP:NOR. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 22:52, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The original translation is Greek and I think it says 'He who looked at a woman while desiring to have her, is guilty of adultery'. 71.246.158.53 (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly my point: interpreting the Bible by yourself constitutes

reliable sources in order to include anything into the article. That's how Wikipedia works. Tgeorgescu (talk

) 22:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In Babylonian Talmud Tractate Nidah 13a, it says "a woman who frequently puts her hand below to check, she shall be praised. A man who does this, may his hand be cut off". Make of this what you will. I don't know whether or not this should be in the article. Valley2city 08:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Interestingly ambiguous, too! CyberAnth 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

The woman is checking to make sure she has not started menstruation, for behavior during menstruation is subject to many taboos. A man

has no need to do the like. The most he need check is whether he has had a seminal emission overnight, which would make him ritually impure. See the tractate more generally. DGG 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation here of Leviticus 15:3's discussion of seminal emission and ritual impurity, is incorrect - it does not refer to delayed or otherwise incomplete ejaculation, rather to an abnormal seminal flow such as the blockage that might result from various sexually transmitted illnesses, and contrasts this with a steady flow of emission that is likewise an abnormal condition. This is similar to the parallel situation for female menstruation, normal or irregular flow of blood (see 15:25 for irregular bleeding). For 'normal' seminal emission, that is ejaculation, regardless of situation, see 15:16.--Nafqa (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I made an apart section about the Bible since what the Bible says and what Judaism and Christianity say are different subjects, e.g. Bible scholars have pointed out that the Bible has nothing explicit to say about masturbation, although Jews and Christians traditionally claimed that it would condemn masturbation. No one could deny that the Bible is a book full of religious views, therefore we let it say what it has to say inside this Wikipedia article. It is not