Is masturbation immoral?

[??????????]

I'd prefer a woman who was completely ignorant on political matters. Oh and BTW, this thread is priceless.

[Gabu]

This thread has become quite possibly the weirdest thread ever.

[Reaganfan]

Masturbation is fine....:-D

[Alcon]

This thread has become quite possibly the weirdest thread ever.

No, now it has:

Masturbation is fine....:-D

[The Duke]

I can't believe 4 people actually said yes.

[The Duke]

And of course the USSR and their puppet Communist regime in Afghanistan were opposed by feminism's worst nightmare, the Taliban. The US definately took the wrong side there, at least women would be treated fairly under the Soviet puppet regime.

I'm gonna have to take your side there BRTD.  We should have let the Soviets take Afghanistan now that I think of it.  Osama's extreme rightism would have had no place to flourish.  Reagan created a lot of blunders conservatives and foreign policy hawks, such as John Ford, will not admit to.

I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this.

First of all, you have considered only one side of the equation.  You only consider the negative results, and only of the actual US policy.  You do not take into account the positive impact of US policy, or the negative impact of hading the Soviets another colony.  This is bad analysis at a very basic level.

I have admitted to the blunders of Reagan's foreign policy.  I think Lebanon was a mistake, and for that matter so doe Reagan, he said so himself.  Its factually wrong to say that I am unwilling to criticize Reagan when he was wrong.

You have soe facts wrong.  Osama did not build the AQ network in Afghanistan, he built it in Sudan.  "Rightist" conditions in Afghanistan had nothing to do with building Al Qaeda.  You actually seem to have not even rudimentary knowledge of the history of Al Qaeda judging from this post.

Poor analytical skills, no understanding of facts on the ground, etc.  Hey, its what you get for mentionng me by name.

[TeePee4Prez]

And of course the USSR and their puppet Communist regime in Afghanistan were opposed by feminism's worst nightmare, the Taliban. The US definately took the wrong side there, at least women would be treated fairly under the Soviet puppet regime.

I'm gonna have to take your side there BRTD.  We should have let the Soviets take Afghanistan now that I think of it.  Osama's extreme rightism would have had no place to flourish.  Reagan created a lot of blunders conservatives and foreign policy hawks, such as John Ford, will not admit to.

I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this.

First of all, you have considered only one side of the equation.  You only consider the negative results, and only of the actual US policy.  You do not take into account the positive impact of US policy, or the negative impact of hading the Soviets another colony.  This is bad analysis at a very basic level.

I have admitted to the blunders of Reagan's foreign policy.  I think Lebanon was a mistake, and for that matter so doe Reagan, he said so himself.  Its factually wrong to say that I am unwilling to criticize Reagan when he was wrong.

You have soe facts wrong.  Osama did not build the AQ network in Afghanistan, he built it in Sudan.  "Rightist" conditions in Afghanistan had nothing to do with building Al Qaeda.  You actually seem to have not even rudimentary knowledge of the history of Al Qaeda judging from this post.

Poor analytical skills, no understanding of facts on the ground, etc.  Hey, its what you get for mentionng me by name.

Actually had the Soviets taken Afghanistan in 1980, they would have collapsed in 1991 anyway and the added bonus is Taliban operation would have been limited.  Granted the Taliban could still operate elsewhere, but Afghanistan would have been spared had the Soviets taken over.  You also forgot about the fact the weapons Reagan gave Osama made him more powerful.  We dirtied one hand pretty badly to clean another.  I can also criticize Reagan for the whole Iraq-Iran fiasco.  I think it was better for us to take a non-interventionist policy.  Yes Iraq has democratic elections, but how long will that last?  Shiites control the country and may soon turn it into a military theocracy a la the Ayatollah.  I know Reagan was thinking of buddying up to Iran because of the Soviet threat to the Middle East and South Asia, but the effects have backfired.  Turkey, while it has been pretty secular, could have very well been in danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy as well. 

Was aggressive anti-Communist containment worth it?  Maybe.... Maybe not.  One could argue Cuba did better under Communism than under mob rule which was the case prior to 1960.       

[opebo]

Clearly BRTD has a fetish thing influenced by his political views, which is fine-- PROBLEM is that not many hot girls match his description, so he can't act on it too well.

Filipino chicks are HOT

Quite correct!  I've been there twice.. or maybe it is three times now.  Hard to remember.  But Thai girls definitely edge them out, imo.

[opebo]

And of course the USSR and their puppet Communist regime in Afghanistan were opposed by feminism's worst nightmare, the Taliban. The US definately took the wrong side there, at least women would be treated fairly under the Soviet puppet regime.

I couldn't agree more!  Any reasonable person would prefer to live under communism compared to theocracy, particularly Muslim theocracy.

[dazzleman]

You guys have ruined a great thread with all this arguing over communism in Afghanistan.  What does that have to do with choking the chicken (or bopping the baloney, etc.).

How many euphemisms can we come up with for the act of sexual self-stimulation.  I just came up with two.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And of course the USSR and their puppet Communist regime in Afghanistan were opposed by feminism's worst nightmare, the Taliban. The US definately took the wrong side there, at least women would be treated fairly under the Soviet puppet regime.

I'm gonna have to take your side there BRTD.  We should have let the Soviets take Afghanistan now that I think of it.  Osama's extreme rightism would have had no place to flourish.  Reagan created a lot of blunders conservatives and foreign policy hawks, such as John Ford, will not admit to.

I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this.

First of all, you have considered only one side of the equation.  You only consider the negative results, and only of the actual US policy.  You do not take into account the positive impact of US policy, or the negative impact of hading the Soviets another colony.  This is bad analysis at a very basic level.

I have admitted to the blunders of Reagan's foreign policy.  I think Lebanon was a mistake, and for that matter so doe Reagan, he said so himself.  Its factually wrong to say that I am unwilling to criticize Reagan when he was wrong.

You have soe facts wrong.  Osama did not build the AQ network in Afghanistan, he built it in Sudan.  "Rightist" conditions in Afghanistan had nothing to do with building Al Qaeda.  You actually seem to have not even rudimentary knowledge of the history of Al Qaeda judging from this post.

Poor analytical skills, no understanding of facts on the ground, etc.  Hey, its what you get for mentionng me by name.

however, one can not deny that at least the Soviets kept the Taliban out, and it's tough to argue life for women under the Taliban was better than under the Communist puppet regime. The US backed the greater of two evils there.

Might I add, the US actually created the Taliban, in a sense. The Taliban were far more repressive than another other Muslim fundamentalists in the world, in fact they were criticized by the Iranian mullahs for giving Islam a bad name. The reason is that much of their law is not in the Koran, or only stated in an out of context way. That's because during the Soviet campaign, the US wanted to stir up the local populace against them as much as possible, and decided warmongering religious fanatacism would be the easiest way. So it dropped pamphlets empahsizing out of context Koran quotes or even ones just made up. Since most people there were illerate and uneducated, they weren't too familiar with what the Koran actually said. The result was that a new very nasty strain of Islamic fundamentalism was created, and we saw it in action during Taliban rule. Had the US stayed out of Afghanistan, the country would've been spared a very nasty civil war, would've not have had to suffer under the Taliban for 5 years, and there would've been no terrorist sponsoring nation during that time. Plus, the Soviet puppet regime almost certainly would've collapsed before the 90s anyway.

[dazzleman]

In theory, yes it is.

howso when it does not harm anyone?

I certainly do do it, but it is not something I am really proud of.  It is more like simply serving a raw human desire that, if I were a better person, I would be able to control.

Dude, nobody can control it.  That's one area where I don't agree with the Catholic Church, trying to lay guilt on people for necessarily body functions.  You might as well feel guilty about needing to take a piss.

[Storebought]

My opinion: Sort of immoral. I don't like when I do it, so I try within reason to limit the practice; but I have no real problems if friends tell me that they do masturbate.

Now, if somebody lies to me and says they don't when in fact they do, the lying bothers me enough to end the acquaintance/friendship.

Interesting fact: Hatred of masturbation was the only thing that Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the Roman Catholic Church could agree on.

[dazzleman]

This thread exploded so quickly that I missed parts of it, so I went back over it and read the whole thing.  In its entirety, it is quite possibly the funniest thing I have ever read on this message board.

I hereby nominate Flyers2005 and BRTD as posters of the month for their contributions to this thread, most particularly their discussion of the "blue balls" phenomenon.  This stuff is so hilarious that I couldn't possibly have made it up.  These discussions could be incorporated into a guy-oriented movie like "Office Space."

BRTD and Flyers2005, please accept your awards.  You've earned them.

[minionofmidas]

Hmmm...guess I will have to read this thing, then. (This is my first ever view of the thread IIRC.)

[minionofmidas]

of course

'of course' makes it sound obvious. It ain't so obvious - I do not see how it does any harm to anyone, so how is it immoral? Enlightend us if you would.

There is a case for it being immoral. I guess one basis would be that (for example in the case of males) when a male ejaculates during masturbation he is wasting life in that the sperm lost which hold potential for life cannot meet said potential due to their being wasted with no chance of reaching an egg. That is one case I can think of, not a particularly strong one but a case none the less.

Oh and my answer is of course no.

Not a great basis, though, especially if you aren't gonna get laid anytime soon - those sperm are gonna die of natural causes if that's the case. Of course, if we extended this logic, we could say it's immoral not to be having lots of sex.

Yeah, we could create a "What do you think is worse: Wasting Sperm or Rape?" poll.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Masturbation is fine....:-D

now we know why you have that giant cardboard cutout of Bush in your room.

[12th Doctor]

In theory, yes it is.

howso when it does not harm anyone?

I certainly do do it, but it is not something I am really proud of.  It is more like simply serving a raw human desire that, if I were a better person, I would be able to control.

Dude, nobody can control it.  That's one area where I don't agree with the Catholic Church, trying to lay guilt on people for necessarily body functions.  You might as well feel guilty about needing to take a piss.

Undoubtedly there are those who can, though it takes extreme discipline.

Fot the most part, I agree, however.

[Richard]

Of course it is immoral!  You're wasting sum good tastin' stuff.  Get her/him to swallow it!


OK I will go now.

[??????????]

You guys have ruined a great thread with all this arguing over communism in Afghanistan.  What does that have to do with choking the chicken (or bopping the baloney, etc.).

How many euphemisms can we come up with for the act of sexual self-stimulation.  I just came up with two.

Flogging the Bishop
Spanking the monkey

[The Duke]

And of course the USSR and their puppet Communist regime in Afghanistan were opposed by feminism's worst nightmare, the Taliban. The US definately took the wrong side there, at least women would be treated fairly under the Soviet puppet regime.

I'm gonna have to take your side there BRTD. We should have let the Soviets take Afghanistan now that I think of it. Osama's extreme rightism would have had no place to flourish. Reagan created a lot of blunders conservatives and foreign policy hawks, such as John Ford, will not admit to.

I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this.

First of all, you have considered only one side of the equation. You only consider the negative results, and only of the actual US policy. You do not take into account the positive impact of US policy, or the negative impact of hading the Soviets another colony. This is bad analysis at a very basic level.

I have admitted to the blunders of Reagan's foreign policy. I think Lebanon was a mistake, and for that matter so doe Reagan, he said so himself. Its factually wrong to say that I am unwilling to criticize Reagan when he was wrong.

You have soe facts wrong. Osama did not build the AQ network in Afghanistan, he built it in Sudan. "Rightist" conditions in Afghanistan had nothing to do with building Al Qaeda. You actually seem to have not even rudimentary knowledge of the history of Al Qaeda judging from this post.

Poor analytical skills, no understanding of facts on the ground, etc. Hey, its what you get for mentionng me by name.

however, one can not deny that at least the Soviets kept the Taliban out, and it's tough to argue life for women under the Taliban was better than under the Communist puppet regime. The US backed the greater of two evils there.

Might I add, the US actually created the Taliban, in a sense. The Taliban were far more repressive than another other Muslim fundamentalists in the world, in fact they were criticized by the Iranian mullahs for giving Islam a bad name. The reason is that much of their law is not in the Koran, or only stated in an out of context way. That's because during the Soviet campaign, the US wanted to stir up the local populace against them as much as possible, and decided warmongering religious fanatacism would be the easiest way. So it dropped pamphlets empahsizing out of context Koran quotes or even ones just made up. Since most people there were illerate and uneducated, they weren't too familiar with what the Koran actually said. The result was that a new very nasty strain of Islamic fundamentalism was created, and we saw it in action during Taliban rule. Had the US stayed out of Afghanistan, the country would've been spared a very nasty civil war, would've not have had to suffer under the Taliban for 5 years, and there would've been no terrorist sponsoring nation during that time. Plus, the Soviet puppet regime almost certainly would've collapsed before the 90s anyway.

BRTD, you ignorant slut.

The US did not support the Taliban, as it did not exist until AFTER the US stopped sending aid, and the Soviets did not keep the Taliban out because the Taliban did not exist until after the Soviet withdrawal.

The Iranian mullahs criticized the Taliban because they are Shia, and the Taliban were Sunni, so obviously they have an entirely different view of Islam.  It would only surprise someone who knew nothing about Islam that the Iranian mullahs were not in love with the Taliban.

You're right about one thing, there would not have been a civil war, just an East Europe in Afghanistan.  Nice going, with your endorsement of the Soviet Union's expansionist foreign policy!

And of course the USSR and their puppet Communist regime in Afghanistan were opposed by feminism's worst nightmare, the Taliban. The US definately took the wrong side there, at least women would be treated fairly under the Soviet puppet regime.

I'm gonna have to take your side there BRTD.  We should have let the Soviets take Afghanistan now that I think of it.  Osama's extreme rightism would have had no place to flourish.  Reagan created a lot of blunders conservatives and foreign policy hawks, such as John Ford, will not admit to.

I don't even know where to begin telling you what's wrong with this.

First of all, you have considered only one side of the equation.  You only consider the negative results, and only of the actual US policy.  You do not take into account the positive impact of US policy, or the negative impact of hading the Soviets another colony.  This is bad analysis at a very basic level.

I have admitted to the blunders of Reagan's foreign policy.  I think Lebanon was a mistake, and for that matter so doe Reagan, he said so himself.  Its factually wrong to say that I am unwilling to criticize Reagan when he was wrong.

You have soe facts wrong.  Osama did not build the AQ network in Afghanistan, he built it in Sudan.  "Rightist" conditions in Afghanistan had nothing to do with building Al Qaeda.  You actually seem to have not even rudimentary knowledge of the history of Al Qaeda judging from this post.

Poor analytical skills, no understanding of facts on the ground, etc.  Hey, its what you get for mentionng me by name.

Actually had the Soviets taken Afghanistan in 1980, they would have collapsed in 1991 anyway and the added bonus is Taliban operation would have been limited. Granted the Taliban could still operate elsewhere, but Afghanistan would have been spared had the Soviets taken over. You also forgot about the fact the weapons Reagan gave Osama made him more powerful. We dirtied one hand pretty badly to clean another. I can also criticize Reagan for the whole Iraq-Iran fiasco. I think it was better for us to take a non-interventionist policy. Yes Iraq has democratic elections, but how long will that last? Shiites control the country and may soon turn it into a military theocracy a la the Ayatollah. I know Reagan was thinking of buddying up to Iran because of the Soviet threat to the Middle East and South Asia, but the effects have backfired. Turkey, while it has been pretty secular, could have very well been in danger of becoming an Islamic theocracy as well.

Was aggressive anti-Communist containment worth it? Maybe.... Maybe not. One could argue Cuba did better under Communism than under mob rule which was the case prior to 1960.

Flyers, you ignorant wannabe slut.

Its ludicrous to pretend that the USSR would have collapsed on the same timetable regardless of what happenned in Afghanistan since the Soviet defeat there was a major cause for their ultimate downfall.

Even if you presume that the USSR collapses in 1991 anyway (which as I've said is ludicrous) they pull out of Afghanistan BEFORE the Taliban ever exists, and therefore have no impact on its strength.

Your comment that Turkey's stability was endangered by Reagan rings more than a little hollow, considering how things turned out.

The implication that Shia want to turn Iraq into a military theocracy is ignorant of Shia history in Iraq.  They have no historic ties to the military establishment, nor do they exibit anti-democratic tendencies.  I'd like at least soe evidence for the racist allegation against the Shia you've made by implying that they are unfit to govern.

Nice touch at the end by praising Castro.  Oh, but you guys aren't Communist sympathizers or anything, even though this is the second time in two days one of you has praised Castro.

[Gabu]

Undoubtedly there are those who can, though it takes extreme discipline.

Fot the most part, I agree, however.

Of course, then we have to ask the other question: is it good to put that much control on it?  I'm not saying that you should just do whatever, but sexual desire is a perfectly normal phenomenon.  I don't see how it makes you a worse person to listen to the desire; it's not as if it's like smoking, where you're gaining something by not doing it.  In fact, some studies have shown that not having an orgasm for an extended period of time can lead to an increased risk of prostate cancer for men, so you're protecting yourself from cancer by masturbating.

[TeePee4Prez]

In theory, yes it is.

howso when it does not harm anyone?

I certainly do do it, but it is not something I am really proud of.  It is more like simply serving a raw human desire that, if I were a better person, I would be able to control.

Dude, nobody can control it.  That's one area where I don't agree with the Catholic Church, trying to lay guilt on people for necessarily body functions.  You might as well feel guilty about needing to take a piss.

Undoubtedly there are those who can, though it takes extreme discipline.

Fot the most part, I agree, however.

Supersoulty, you're a good guy and some girl may be very lucky some day but for crying out loud masturbation is for your own sanity.  You think you are just going to sit there all "backed up" and wait for that perfect, conservative prissy girl.  DREAM ON PAL!  Those types go for bad asses that have been eating out girls in junior high and having sex by their sophomore year in HS.

[minionofmidas]

Considering you can't be a Communist female without being a feminist, it's pretty clear I want a piece of ass from hot armed and militant left wing feminists.

Wake up.  Women were more exploited under communism than they ever were in this country.  You really don't have much of a grip on the realities of communism.

It sounds like you really just want a dominatrix, regardless of politics.  You should watch "A View to a Kill" the James Bond movie made in 1985 that featured Grace Jones as a dominatrix that James Bonds has sex with.  That's the type of thing you need.  Maybe you should get some "equipment" and invite one of these women over to your bachelor pad...

Actually one of the main reasons the Communists in Nepal have so much support from the female population is they are opposed to many fuedal misogynist traditions. I really doubt the rebels in South America and the Phillipines are a big fan of such things either or anti-equality.

Might I add that in Poland under the communist regime women had free and completely access to abortion and birth control. That is no longer the case.

In Romania, they weren't allowed abortion at all.  Communism has nothing to do with feminism. 

Romania has nothing to do with Communism.

[minionofmidas]

Not really. Every topic even remotely related to sex always ends up about communism.

That's because Dakota Red replies to them.
Well, he actually started this one.