Both catholic and orthodox church state that masturbation is a sin

>both catholic and orthodox church state that masturbation is a sin
i don't understand this from a phisiological standpoint. has there ever been a human being with a healthy functioning sex drive who has never masturbated. aren't there serious health or mental problems associated with sexual repression like this. where did this doctrine come from.

It's a sin because you're wasting seed instead of making babies and thus, future members of the church.

don't catholics get creeped out by how much control the church wants over there lives. I understand wanting a religion in your life but a worldly institution with it's own laws are leaders governing everything from your diet to sex life seems creepy

Every sperm is sacred

Essentially the early church comes out of a very restrictive sexual culture which was reinforced by neo-platonist ideas on the flesh, which while not accepted in total, were influential among many.

They believe that sex is not necessary for a healthy person, that sexual desires can be conquered and that any sexual relations outside a new narrow perimeters are sinful

essentially the church's position makes no sense via modern physiology. It makes perfect sense from the theology and philosophy popular among the church fathers, and the church will always say that somehow they were right and are modern understanding is wrong.

>step one: take normal biological urge
>step two: brand it as highly taboo
>step three: show individuals that the only way to negate this shame is to submit to the church
>step four: enjoy automatic brainwashing mechanism

Daily reminder that christianity is an ingenious form of mind control.

Even the monks had specific rules and torturing devices to NOT masturbate. It seems to mean that's a strong instinct. Hell, even Mother Theresa confessed publicly to have masturbate several times.

but protestants don't mind it.

>“For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back; sends the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.

>"And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman.

>"For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifices or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no woman can rival.

>"Among those shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover; no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification ever imposed on his vanity.

>"In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself. . . . After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is to be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison.”

- Personal Letter From Lewis to Keith Masson (found in The Collected Letters of C.S. Lewis, Volume 3)

>ingenious
Not 'literally par for the course and only impressive outside contemporary time', user? That's okay, at least you're trying.

I'm pretty sure several protestant sects consider it sinful.

It's against natural law and what sex is ordered towards, it's an excess of the flesh.

>aren't there serious health or mental problems associated with sexual repression like this
No. There can be mental health problems when people exaggerate their failures, but it's not like people need sex.

most Anglicans, Lutherans, and Methodists are in favor
this doesn't adress the health and psycological part

>it goes against the teachings of the catholic church which i rephrased as natural law
>it has no health problems other than increased risk of prostate cancer, and no mental health problems like severe sexual repression
doesn't your body release the excess seed if you don't

>which i rephrased as natural law
No, natural law pre-dates Catholicism
>it has no health problems other than increased risk of prostate cancer
That's just not true. Masturbation may possibly reduce the risk of prostate cancer, but not masturbating hardly increases it. Besides, there is no moral principle that says you must do the most physically healthy thing at all times. Nobody lives like that.
>and no mental health problems like severe sexual repression
There is no mental disorder called sexual repression

>doesn't your body release the excess seed if you don't
Are you talking about wet dreams? Sure, so what? Involuntary acts aren't immoral.

Buddhism doesn't condone masturbation either. It's hardly exclusively to Christianity. Although I need to agree with Evola that the RCC cares way too much about lay people in regards to such things. If you are an ascetic and choose to forgo masterbation for certain supernatural reasons that's understandable but to demonize what is more often than not a creative and harmless act is imo stupid.

>masturbating reduces the risk but not masturbating doesn't increase it
what

it is about psychological "health"

>masturbation is creative
wtf

ok i understand what you are saying. but has there sincerely ever been a person who with a healthy sex drive who has never masturbated ever is that physically possible. if this is a real and often unpreventable evil it seems to be the duty of the roman catholic church to lock their members in chastity until they are ready to reproduce with their spouses under their supervision.

yeah that was a silly way to phrase that

Let's say your base risk of prostate cancer is X
Masturbation reduces this risk to Y
But your risk of prostate cancer doesn't increase if you don't masturbate (although hypothetically even if it did masturbation would still be immoral, immoral acts are never justified in any case no matter their results)

i know someone who never masturbated until her late teens and once she did wasn't a big fan of it and had no desire to continue
she's also a catholic and not an asexual
anyway the notion of a "healthy sex drive" is really questionable
what kind of sex drive you should have is fundamentally an ethical question and there's probably very little strictly medical to say about it

>drinking orange juice increases vitamin c
>but not drinking orange juice gives you the same amount of vitamin c

that does imply switching from masturbating to not masturbating increases the risk, though

some people (like me) have very strong unpleasant sex drives. it is a biological question not an ethical one, people have different horomones and drives which is why there are asexuals in the first place (unless abuse or psycological factors are involved). also women have very different sexual apetites than men .

>don't get enough vitamins
>develop health problems from vitamin deficiencies

>don't jerk off
>nothing happens

other than seminal retention which increases risk of prostate cancer

>it is a biological question not an ethical one
we're talking about "what kind of sex drive you should have", not "what kind of sex drive you do have"

>There can be mental health problems when people exaggerate their failures, but it's not like people need sex.

Yeah you go and tell that to all those kids being molested.

wait the catholic churche also has demands for amount of sex drive you should have while recognizing it is biologically pre-determined

not a catholic but the answer is no, the catholic church does not accept determinism or the idea that people cannot change

>not having sex magically makes people rape kids
wew
It doesn't increase the risk. You would have a normal risk of prostate cancer. It isn't even conclusively shown that masturbation reduces the risk of prostate cancer, and according to the same study it only positively affected men who are older than 50 anyway. It's irrelevant anyway since immoral acts ought never to be performed.

>Buddhism doesn't condone masturbation either
that's more in the context of removing yourself from all worldly desires, and frankly really only applies to monks/nuns. Technically you shouldn't have sex at all except for the purpose of reproduction but that isn't followed widely either. In practice a lay Buddhist wouldn't care about shit like that .
Catholics and Orthodox Christians on the other hand makes it a general sin and actively apply that ban to the general population.

I am not even saying hard determinism but simply accepting basic biological realities like height or hair color

>You would have a normal risk of prostate cancer
that begs the question
a "normal risk" of prostate cancer would be the rate someone who masturbates has given the assumption that masturbation is normal, and the risk someone who doesn't has given the assumption that not masturbating is normal

Which really just comes down to whether or not you think Catholicism/Orthodoxy is true, but I'm not going to get into that tonight.

who says sex drive is like height or hair color

body chemistry and hormones. that isn't to say you can't deny your drive but some people feel more drive than others. that is why some people don't have sex drives at all and why it tends to go away as you age

My age was 24 when I first masturbated. The only reason i did was because I had pains in my groin. The pains went away after I started jerking off.

Why is masturbation the only sin that gets people's jimmies rustled?

>tell someone that swearing is sinful
>people automatically acknowledge that while we all do it we should stop and work on our self control

>tell someone that gluttony is sinful
>people automatically acknowledge that we've all over ate or known fat people that we should stop and work on our self control

>tell someone that masturbation is sinful
>WOOOOOOW ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT NOBODY MASTURBATES WOOOOOOW THE CHURCH IS SO UNREASONABLE WOOOOW

swearing doesn't make sense to me either, some words are just naughty and mean because I say so. gluttony makes sense cause it hurts you and uses excessive resources. I don't even think the catholic church recognizes swearing as a sin

>tell someone that swearing is sinful
swearing is more a result of cultural taboos rather than some religious taboo (is it actually a sin? didn't even know that)
>tell someone that gluttony is sinful
if you mean today it's more because you're told obesity is unhealthy and fat people tend to be mocked rather than the religious objection to gluttony
Masturbation and other sexual sins tend to clash with modern societal mores in an obvious way which leads to the obvious clash

Because swearing and gluttony makes you look bad in front of other people and masturbation is private?

You're wrong anyways. I see people on /v/ complain about "christian servers" banning people for swearing in games centered around violence (and containing lots of gore) quite often.

They want you to stay horny so you'll make babies

Fuck off Satan

>swearing is a sin!
>uses the word "cuck" which has a meaning more ugly than any of the more conventionally used cuss words

>it's not a sin if it only hurts yourself
things brainlets believe

A question was asked to why people react the way they do, I merely answered it, not justified it.

A real brainlet would actually believe the claims of the initial post. People do in fact react with hostility when being told to eat healthy and speak with moderation, and anyone could see this if they paid attention.

>but has there sincerely ever been a person who with a healthy sex drive who has never masturbated ever is that physically possible. if this is a real and often unpreventable evil it seems to be the duty of the roman catholic church to lock their members in chastity...

>Once on Mount Athos there was a monk who lived in Karyes. He drank and got drunk every day and was the cause of scandal to the pilgrims. Eventually he died and this relieved some of the faithful who went on to tell Elder Paisios that they were delighted that this huge problem was finally solved.
>Father Paisios answered them that he knew about the death of the monk, after seeing the entire battalion of angels who came to collect his soul. The pilgrims were amazed and some protested and tried to explain to the Elder of whom they were talking about, thinking that the Elder did not understand.
>Elder Paisios explained to them: "This particular monk was born in Asia Minor, shortly before the destruction by the Turks when they gathered all the boys. So as not to take him from their parents, they would take him with them to the reaping, and so he wouldn't cry, they just put raki into his milk in order for him to sleep. Therefore he grew up as an alcoholic. There he found an elder and said to him that he was an alcoholic. The elder told him to do prostrations and prayers every night and beg the Christ to help him to reduce by one the glasses he drank.
>After a year he managed with struggle and repentance to make the 20 glasses he drank into 19 glasses. The struggle continued over the years and he reached 2-3 glasses, with which he would still get drunk."
>The world for years saw an alcoholic monk who scandalized the pilgrims, but God saw a fighter who fought a long struggle to reduce his passion.

When properly conducted, the Church knows that we are mere men with failings, needs, urges, etc. It tells us that no man is without sin (save for Jesus Christ). But we are expected to make an attempt.