What’s wrong with masturbation?

[Anonymous]

I don’t see anything wrong with it. In fact this looks like one of the most common and harmless of all supposed “sins” as taught by the LDS Church right up there with coffee and tea. I think LDS Church leaders have generally considered it a sin mostly because of the idea that sex is supposedly only intended by God for straight married couples. In other words, it is a purely theoretical objection based on assumptions about what God supposedly wants and expects rather than any practical real-life considerations such as health, lack of harm, etc. If you don’t believe in God or that God cares that much about anything like this then worrying so much about masturbation seems pointless and even harmful to Church members that are repeatedly given a guilt-trip about it sometimes to the point of confessing to priesthood leaders. Does this really need to be anyone else’s business?

Beefster wrote:

Why isn’t it mentioned by name regularly in GC? What about church publications on the matter?…A number of GAs are known for bringing up the subject, but most of that was before 1990 and they did not bring it up with any regularity. There is a pamphlet on the order of curing homosexuality that condemns it by name, but it does so under the false pretense that it causes homosexuality.

This is the one of the most interesting things about this to me. Why is it that they talk about pornography so much in the Church but we hardly ever hear about masturbation anymore and usually only in a rather vague way such as “self-abuse” (leadership handbook) and “Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.” (For the Strength of Youth)? Personally I think Church leaders realize deep down that if they tried to push the idea that masturbation makes men unworthy too hard and if very many men and young men take this idea very seriously and get discouraged by it then there wouldn’t be many completely “worthy” men/young men left to bless and pass the sacrament, go on missions, get married in the temple, serve in callings, etc. So they are basically stuck in this state where they still think it is technically a sin but they have no choice but to live with it to some extent simply because of the sheer numbers involved where weeding out all the masturbators simply would not fly in practice.

[Anonymous]

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

In fact this looks like one of the most common and harmless of all supposed “sins” as taught by the LDS Church right up there with coffee and tea.

I’d say it is a topic all over the map for different religions, but the LDS church is not so different from other mainstream religions on this topic, making it very different in that regard from coffee or tea, which is mormon thang.

To quote DA back in 2013 on a good topic that goes along with this thread:

The Nature of Sin

DevilsAdvocate wrote:

Personally I would define sin as doing unnecessary harm either intentionally or through some gross negligence. If no significant harm is done by some specific thought or action then I don’t see why anyone including God should care that much about it.

If a young man is hurting his own self by damaging thoughts and expectations of what sex is healthy or not, or is hurting his mom or parents by behaviors that turn into addictions…well…seems like that meets that line of thinking that it can be sin and lead to unhappiness and can be taught as something to avoid.

It can become unhealthy in some cases. I’m not sure it is necessarily wrong in every case.

So…I kinda am with Curt…too simplistic teachings won’t apply to all. It is also too simplistic to say it is no big deal or just a mormon traditional hangup or rule.

I accept the church leaders’ guidance and counsel on this topic. I also reject some of their statements or use of scripture that I think is not right.

There is a middle ground.

[Anonymous]

Some prepubescent kids, even really young ones, like 2- to 4-year-olds, masturbate or otherwise stimulate themselves in a way that would be considered sexual. They’ll not be engaged in any fantasies or visualization involving another person because they lack a context for that (assuming they’re not victims of abuse). It is a purely biological, self-oriented activity, but no one would say it’s harming their relationships with God or their ability to love others, or putting in jeopardy their future marriage. So, at what point does the behavior become harmful?

It seems the FAIR post is saying it’s important that they (and youth, and adults) learn not to do this because it’s selfish. Seems to me that’s like saying my son shouldn’t read comics (something he does purely for his own pleasure) because he COULD be reading comics aloud with others and bonding with them. What if the rest of the family is tired of hearing about superheroes, or just not interested? What if others are too often busy doing other things? What if he were by himself for an extended period of time? What if we note that when he doesn’t read comics he becomes increasingly preoccupied with the idea of comics to the point that he thinks about comics almost all the time and it negatively impacts his academic and social life? Do we just deny him comics, or guilt-trip him for reading them? I’m only going to be concerned about his comic book reading if it becomes excessive to the point that it’s affecting his ability to serve or bond with others, or otherwise preventing him from reaching his fullest potential. Poor metaphor?

Is there any evidence that masturbation actually impairs relations with a spouse, or impairs an individual’s motivation to find a spouse? The FAIR post makes a lot of claims about harms caused by this practice without providing evidence. I searched the Church’s website last week, as I’ve been trying to decide what/how to teach my kids about this issue, for the term “masturbation” recently and found only older (1980s and prior) references, one of which discouraged it because it could lead to exhibitionism or homosexuality. That claim seems highly improbable to me. It seems important to figure out whether these are legitimate claims or just speculative ones produced solely to back up the original assertion that masturbation is harmful. The whisperings I receive in my own personal prayers about this say that the Spirit will tell each person whether this is harmful for them or not, and can direct them in how to proceed, and that I can teach my kids about it that way: “Leaders at church might teach you that masturbation is a sin, but your parents feel that it might be different for each person, and that you can listen for what the Holy Ghost tells you about it and decide for yourself.”

The CS Lewis passage as well as the scripture quoted in the post seem to assume that during masturbation is never independent of lust. But that can’t be, because see my first paragraph. I’m female, so I can only wonder if it’s really difficult for men to masturbate without mentally bringing another person into it. If so, I could see it potentially harming a marriage relationship if the imaginary person was someone other than one’s spouse. For those not married, it seems like if one MUST visualize another person, it would be best if it were someone nondescript, and if one cannot NOT visualize an actual person then maybe he is one of those cases where it’s best if he doesn’t masturbate. It does seem to me like a violation of respect for others to mentally bring them into one’s sexual behavior. And of course, if one is masturbating in conjunction with porn use, that seems clearly wrong. But in the right context it seems like it could be a very healthy thing that could even strengthen one’s relationship with one’s spouse. It seems like it’s necessarily judged on a case-by-case basis, and since it’s not really kosher to go into the specifics of potential scenarios during church lessons, it’s something best left for individuals and couples to decide (kinda like how birth control used to be condemned and now it’s left to couples). It’s good that GC has been silent on it for a few decades. Hopefully the last vestiges of it will be absent from the next edition of “For the Strength of Youth” and other printed materials.

[Anonymous]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong with “selfish” acts. I was thinking something similar last night. If my ultimate life priority is to become a better person, the question shifts from “is this right or wrong?” to “does this help me achieve that?” The answer seems like a no in general, but then you have to consider other things. I play video games quite a bit and that doesn’t always help me to become a better person. But I enjoy it. Most would see nothing wrong with it. And it doesn’t get in the way of my becoming a better person, so it’s something I feel totally comfortable continuing to do. It gets a bit hazier with masturbation because of ideas that I’ve been conditioned to believe, but given the lack of evidence one way or the other, objectively it should not be an issue for me to do if kept within reason. I certainly enjoy it, it’s just really up in the air whether it helps or hinders (or neither) me in my quest to be a better person.

In some situations, it can hurt relationships. In others it can help. It’s a matter of judging the situation properly and acting accordingly.

Self-denial is not a virtue IMO. It comes from ascetics from a number of religions (most prominently in eastern religions), but I don’t think it’s well-founded to deny yourself of pleasure just because it is pleasurable. All pleasure should be judged by its effects, short term and long term. If a certain pleasure hinders you in your overall quest, it is best to avoid it. Otherwise, I say indulge away.

[Admin Note: A short paragraph about how to masturbate has been deleted. That discussion is not appropriate for this site.]

[Anonymous]

I respond to this like most things from my own experience and my own lens.

As a young unendowed man that had not yet served a mission, I struggled with masturbation. I visited a temple and walked the grounds. I committed to stop and wrote into my journal that unless I stopped I would never find fulfillment with a real committed relationship – my deepest desire. I worried that it would make me sexually insatiable and driven to ever more extreme attempts at satisfaction.

After my endowment, I felt that my garments were like a holy suit of armor (probably influenced by that seminary video “Whole Armor of God”. Or that God had given me impenetrable castle walls. When I eventually succumbed again to the temptation of masturbation, I felt that I must have let the enemy in through the back door. I had betrayed the gift that God had given me. I did not have a house of light and order, I had a house of shame and betrayal … and it was my own fault … my own weakness.

I felt that it disqualified me from being marriage material to young women in my community – an unacceptable result. To marry outside the faith and the temple would be so disappointing to my family. It would have to remain hidden and secret.

Quote:

But when sexual stimulus comes in the form of masturbation, completely devoid of the sharing and vulnerability and complementarity of marriage, then the brain can become wired so that it is primarily masturbation that produces the reward, and an individual can become increasingly unable to sexually respond to a spouse.

I felt that I would be deviant, perverted, evil. My only choice (because I was too week to stop for good) was to live a lie.

Quote:

Anyone fettered by this weakness should abandon the habit before he goes on a mission or receives the holy priesthood or goes in the temple for his blessings.”

Yup, I tried that. I felt that getting endowed was my “do or die” moment. I failed.

Quote:

And this harem [of imaginary brides], once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman.

I interpret this quote not as saying that someone that masturbates would never have sex or even never to get married – that would be demonstrably false. I interpret it as saying that someone that masturbates would be impeded from becoming “one” with a spouse physically, mentally, emotionally. Ironically, the secrecy that I lived by helped this to become a self fulfilling prophecy. I remember having a fight with my wife over something unimportant. I remember thinking something like, “Wow, she is really mad or hurt over this little thing. Imagine how she would respond if she ever knew the real me. She would reject me mentally and emotionally if not physically. She must never know.” Because my wife could not know all of me I was denying her the opportunity to accept all of me. I knew this and still it seemed better than the alternative. Better that she love my portrayal of myself than possibly reject the real thing.

Quote:

It is not anything so wicked nor is it a transgression so great that the Lord would reject you because of it, but it can quickly lead to that kind of transgression. It is not pleasing to the Lord, nor is it pleasing to you. It does not make you feel worthy or clean.

The Lord had not fully given up on my or rejected me, but it was only a matter of time. My habit could “quickly lead to that kind of [unforgivable]transgression” and because I could not stop myself, I was on a one way train.

[Anonymous]

In my last post I focused on how these types of thoughts and quotes influenced my behavior and self image as a young man both before and after temple endowment, mission, and temple marriage.

After several years of being married DW and I began to be able to talk about M in small doses. Would it be acceptable if we were apart for a long period of time? We also talked some about my pre-marriage struggle and feelings. As time progressed and I have been able to be more and more open about myself. I am not a “deviant or pervert”. I do not pressure DW into things she is not comfortable with. I am a loving husband and father. I am fulfilled in the relationship. Those fear (and fear mongering) turned out to be unfounded.

[out of an abundance of caution to keep this thread focused and maintaining site rules against sexually explicit comments I am self editing my previous post. Suffice it to say that many women, including DW do not achieve O through intercourse. Without M, we may never have discovered how to make that happen for her] The FAIR article might make it seem that this was selfishness on my wife’s part. I assume that the author of the article would give some latitude for married couples to find what works for them but the following quotes are troubling on this point.

Quote:

Masturbation and intercourse are simply different. One who masturbates frequently has a very direct knowledge of what actions bring pleasure most effectively. It can be difficult or impossible for a spouse to reproduce the pleasure that a masturbator has learned how to produce on his or her own. Thus, sexuality, if not expressed in the context of a loving and devoted relationship, turns inward and becomes a focus on self. It is spiritually dangerous to use sexuality for self when God intends for it to be used to help us overcome our love of self.

Quote:

Jesus makes clear that to be his disciple we must be prepared to sacrifice our comfort

I am aware that the standards and teachings for married people and for unmarried teens and YSA can and should have differences.

For my own children (not yet teenagers) I have tried to teach them about the amazing thing that is the human body. I have described the skeletal, muscular, or digestive systems as I massage their back. The heart beats and the lungs breath even when sleeping (thank goodness). Poop and pee is not gross or shameful (though rightfully done in private) but rather the natural result of eating or drinking. As my children become older and start asking questions I try to follow the same pattern. Reproductive organs and processes are amazing – bordering on the miraculous! They are not gross or shameful. Like so many parts and processes of the body these are to be respected and cared for.

[Anonymous]

Criminy Roy, I’m going to have to take a cold shower after reading about your wife!

One thing I would warn children about is STDs. They are at epidemic proportions now. M is better than unprotected acts, but chlamidya is at an all time high among the young in developed countries.

[Anonymous]

Every time I see this thread bumped it’s a cross between:

[img]https://media.tenor.com/images/43f8df4fb38f9fa7e8e48932d64b8c79/tenor.gif[/img]

and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wKN3OF7oiI&t=0m23s” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wKN3OF7oiI&t=0m23s

IOW I think of Mike Judge. :crazy: :crazy:

[Anonymous]

Roy wrote:

After several years of being married DW and I began to be able to talk about M in small doses. Would it be acceptable if we were apart for a long period of time? We also talked some about my pre-marriage struggle and feelings. As time progressed and I have been able to be more and more open about myself. I am not a “deviant or pervert”. I do not pressure DW into things she is not comfortable with. I am a loving husband and father. I am fulfilled in the relationship. Those fear (and fear mongering) turned out to be unfounded.

I think we might be better off in the Church teaching everyone to do what you and your wife have done, Roy, rather than having black-and-white rules about what is and isn’t acceptable when people are in their own bedrooms. Isn’t it more important to do what strengthens your particular marriage relationship, and your particular relationship with Heavenly Father, than following a list of prescribed and prohibited behaviors? What happened to, “I teach them correct principles and the people govern themselves”?

We pride ourselves on living the “higher law” and rising above the old rigid rules of the Children of Israel in the Old Testament. But then we seem have a tendency to want to add some of those black and white rules back into the Gospel. Why do we do that? Are we living the higher law, or aren’t we?

[Anonymous]

squarepeg wrote:

Are we living the higher law, or aren’t we?

I often feel we are not having the higher laws given to us, but the lowest common denominator for all of us because they don’t know how to manage the organization without a standard for all…and that standard is a compromise (for example, TR interview questions as the measure of worthiness). That seems to be when I don’t agree with things, when it is below what it should be, or more than it should be. The lesser law has more specifics. The Higher law is less detail and more principle based. Right?

Regarding this thread…it seems the topic falls into the realm of lesser laws, perhaps for the purpose of adapting to the capacity of weakest of all saints. It should, therefore, fall to lesser consequence if broken.

Don’t ask for direction on it from leaders, or you will get their opinion as if doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

Don’t ask for direction on it from leaders, or you will get their opinion as if doctrine.

Thanks, Heber. I think that’s generally true. 😆 My previous bishop was one reason I felt I might be able to come back to church after several years of not attending, because he was exceptional for saying, “I don’t know. There are a lot of things I really don’t understand.” When I presented my concerns to him explaining that I’d had experiences that I’d not been able to fit into Restored Gospel theology, he, remarkably, didn’t give me his opinion as doctrine; he just admitted ignorance. As frustrating as it was to STILL not have answers, I respected that so highly. I thought, ok, I can go back to church with this guy as my bishop.

I think you’re spot-on saying that the Law-of-Moses-esque rules are a compromise for the purpose of running the Organization. I really feel like all hell wouldn’t break loose if our temples were like Hindu, Buddhist, and Daoist temples where no “recommend” is required. Most people whose hearts aren’t in a spiritual place with righteous desires are not going to bother going to the temple; I mean, it’s like church on steroids. Maybe we’re worried about people stealing the furniture? But that’s another topic.

[Anonymous]

squarepeg wrote:

As frustrating as it was to STILL not have answers, I respected that so highly. I thought, ok, I can go back to church with this guy as my bishop.

Thanks for correcting me on this…my sweeping statement was not fair to all those good leaders out there that are strong enough to say they don’t know when they don’t know. There are good leaders that just want to help and are trying…and some just don’t know what they don’t know…and so I shouldn’t make it sound like discussing it with leaders is always going to go wrong. It’s the leadership roulette. They probably know more than I do about life stuff.

Perhaps what I should say is to be wise, and use your own judgment on these things, and if you need some help to discuss us…take it with a grain of salt and see if it helps your or not.

squarepeg, I’m glad you’ve had a good leader helping you feel comfortable going to church in the past. Thanks for sharing that.

[Anonymous]

Heber13 wrote:

squarepeg wrote:

As frustrating as it was to STILL not have answers, I respected that so highly. I thought, ok, I can go back to church with this guy as my bishop.

Thanks for correcting me on this…my sweeping statement was not fair to all those good leaders out there that are strong enough to say they don’t know when they don’t know. There are good leaders that just want to help and are trying…and some just don’t know what they don’t know…and so I shouldn’t make it sound like discussing it with leaders is always going to go wrong. It’s the leadership roulette.

This particular bishop was a rare gem. He was called to be bishop after going through treatment for non Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, when had just been laid off after working for the same large company for 25+ years, and had just been diagnosed with prostate cancer and was going through radiation. Fabulous timing for being called as bishop, no? But seriously, he knew what real suffering was like and he wasn’t going to downplay it in order to maintain credibility as this all-knowing, wise priesthood leader. He had the deeper wisdom and deep humility that comes from being put through the ringer and staring death in the face daily for years on end. Most bishops have had personal challenges, but often not on that level. Our current Bishop is different. I’m not sure what he would say about this issue in this thread. I’m still working up the courage to speak to him about mine and my husband’s decision not to allow our kids to answer detailed questions about the LoC in interviews, and I kinda hope masturbation doesn’t even come up, heh.

[Author]

Posts