Is there a philosophical argument against masturbation?

Kant had a compelling argument against it.

I can't remember what it was, though.

>I can't remember what it was
>can't
>Kant
Is that a pun?

'oooh it violates your humanity weeewooo' was p much the gist

I hate you.

>Implying

Nope, the body reabsorbs it. What evolutionary advantage would there be to wasting a resource if it's not going towards reproduction? Its common to have wet dreams in the beginning but eventually they stop and you can go for months at a time without ejaculating at all no problem.

Any more than once week at most but even weekly seems excessive.

>there isn't

Yet another one of these faggots. Try retaining your semen for 2 months, see how it changes you.

Masculine desire is inherently more destructive than feminine desire, and so, you shouldn't do it out of strength of your own will. Ignore yourself and find inner peace. Go to church.

>see how it changes you

i don't think i want to

desu the only good argument you'll find against masturbation is that it may lead to ED if you do it too much

most of the other arguments are something along the lines of:

>"lol denegerasy"
>jesus watches you masturbate
>it's gross
>muh purity
>u'll never get laid :))

otherwise fap away

>Masculine desire is inherently more destructive than feminine desire

It's true. I can consistently manifest your defensive reactions to the truth if it gets you off.

Men on the internet are typically stupid wherein women who post this deep are typically smart

Schizo-poster please go take your medicine.

>Masculine desire is inherently more destructive than feminine desire

Other way around. It wasn't women who build every single civilization.

I haven't had any alcohol yet unfortunately.

>Other way around
You're cute.

Are you posting from your advanced matriarchal utopia?

Are you taking credit for work you've never done, your generation would never be capable of accomplishing, anyways?

No, but a biological reason.

I masterbaited myself into depression. Long story short, 8 times a day, and a cig after everytime. Joined army, couldnt masterbait. The therapist told me that it is a probable cause.

Brazil nuts, wheat germ, cereals.

Is any desire destructive at all? What's wrong with desire, again? Say you have a "destructive" desire but you don't act on it. Is it still destructive, even though you didn't destroy anything? How is masturbation destructive in any tangible way beyond "lol it hurts ur soul"?

At what point does this all break down to pointless self-help book garbage whose only utility is to make less-than-average people feel like they deserve a medal for not doing something?

>Is any desire destructive at all? What's wrong with desire, again? Say you have a "destructive" desire but you don't act on it. Is it still destructive, even though you didn't destroy anything? How is masturbation destructive in any tangible way beyond "lol it hurts ur soul"?

Let me put it this way. Masculinity is on the decline the less menial tasks become available, and femininity is on the ascent.

What previously was needed in society is not anymore, especially in middle class America where you have your tiny armed neets and meme men, as opposed to the outside physical labor done by the third world to support it.

In a place where masculinity naturally exploits the labor of femininity, socially speaking, and biologically speaking, it ultimately proves more destructive; more so, it proves pointless.

Women are degenerate sluts who shouldn't be allowed to vote, partake in public gatherings or even let out of the house of their parents/husband, with the exception of a marriage or funeral.

then move to Africa lol

This.

That dog looks old, I hope it doesn't have to be put down :(

Africa is too damn hot, фaм.

They don't have voting, public gathering or funerals/marriages in Africa for anyone you dip

Then suffer alone the present you won't effect and deny the fact your lifestyle doesn't reflect your false ideal

Funny you mention it. The only matriarchal societies still hanging around are there. Nothing ever changes because the women do all the labor while men act as dancing monkeys who occasionally get laid, and don't invest themselves in the well-being of the next generation because they have no paternal certainty.

There are precious few such tribes for a reason.

I don't really dispute your post except for maybe the last part. I'm still hung up on:

>How masculine desires, in and of themselves, are destructive, even when not acted upon
>How this all relates to masturbation, especially considering that plenty of women masturbate as well

That's where most idiots like you end up when they have power, yeah

r-rude ;_;

Also, what the fuck is "false ideal"? I see it thrown around all the time, but it seems to be one of the words that have so many subjective meanings that they don't carry any information at all, such as "pretentious" or "faggot".

Wow thanks for the sick wisdom David Attenborough

>Also, what the fuck is "false ideal"?

No man who posts so often on the internet reflects the traditional masculine role defended. It's gone.

The stone age is grand. You'll love it. So progressive and free of hate.

But I didn't outline any of my masculine ideals. I merely expressed my opinion that women are sluts.

Yeah actually. It was. Anthropology tells us nobody gave a fuck about gender roles because they didn't exist and treated each other relatively equally. In fact, prehistoric art has a commonality of representing idealized figures of voluptuous women. It is heavily thought, that because reproduction was so sacred, they worshiped women.

Everything changed when agriculture exploded around 7,000ish years ago in the Neolithic when ideals could be made up, ideals that stuck naturally, infected society.

Interesting Engels thought of that first on speculation alone, and it was later (now) studied, but that's another matter.

If women are sluts what are men? Whores?

If that was the case, it wouldn't be a "false ideal" anymore, would it?

No no, it would.

>people didn't care about gender roles
>therefore it was great and I would love it
My point is that there was all kinds of stuff you would not love, like having to go to war with nearby tribes when the rain doesn't come, or dying because you cut your arm while out hunting. Those patriarchal structures and divisions of labor are responsible for most of the things you enjoy in life.

I don't think that's true.

Not him, but he didn't take credit for it. It's simply a statement of fact that most (keyword: most) of history is driven by men. There have been historically significant women, but they number in few where the men number in thousands.

And saying that the present generation would be incapable of the accomplishments of the past is simply naive. I guarantee that if you took the average person from any point in history and said, "do what the greatest of your contemporaries are doing right now," they would fail spectacularly.

The thing about history is that it isn't driven by the plebs; it's driven by the greats. Literally N O N E of the historically significant things to happen since the beginning of recorded history have been caused by the average dude doing the things the average dude would do. They have A L L been caused by great men, and occasionally women, doing the things that great men and women do.

>Those patriarchal structures and divisions of labor are responsible for most of the things you enjoy in life.
I don't see the connection here, but I'm guessing it's vague.

I never said it was great and I would love it, first of all.

Second of all, especially when the definition of masculinity in the first world has become so vague without purpose for labor, there's no reason that feminine strength should be entirely rejected. These things are all as fluid as West African Frogs now, only within the social rules we've made for ourselves

>Those patriarchal structures and divisions of labor are responsible for most of the things you enjoy in life.

Yes. And you don't do them. Who does do them? China mostly.

>Not him, but he didn't take credit for it. It's simply a statement of fact that most (keyword: most) of history is driven by men. There have been historically significant women, but they number in few where the men number in thousands.

First you have to prove that's the default, and once you study that you realize it's not. Society could have equally gone the other way, but lack of value put on reproduction when you get fat off resources you previously never had, old habits never die.

And that's all these things are, convenient habits. The more you try to define masculinity in who you are the more you realize how subjective it has become for you.

If there is, I haven't seen it.

>Those patriarchal structures and divisions of labor are responsible for most of the things you enjoy in life.
Men pretty much only invest in things in the long-term for the sake of a family where they enjoy some authority and certainty of the paternity of the children. If you take this away, they just work out, dance and try to have anonymous sex, or they commit to a family out of habit of the thing while pretending they're noble for not needing/accepting any incentives.

Really not how it works.

Please enlighten us as to how it works then.

I'm not defining masculinity, but correcting misconceptions.

I don't have a dog in this fight, because I don't think it really matters, but that post really irritated me with just how wrong it was on the base level of its assumptions.

>Society could have equally gone the other way, but lack of value put on reproduction when you get fat off resources you previously never had, old habits never die.

What does this mean? Are you saying that women were pushed aside because excess made them irrelevant to male interests? Or are you saying that the habits of working hard to impress women never died, but when women became irrelevant men continued to work hard towards other goals? I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I really don't understand what you're trying to accomplish with this sentence.

If you're on the other side of the argument, this makes literally no sense. You're essentially saying, "women could have been dominant, but they just didn't try hard enough or were brushed aside by men."

I don't care either way, but you're really making women seem weak desu fampai.

Yep. One simply shouldn't.

Progressives don't actually think women are strong. They just think that you shouldn't let someone's weakness have any consequences whatsoever.

Meanwhile, even backwater Christian dominionists claim to recognize where women are strongest, and make the most of that strength.

How about twice a day?

>Men pretty much only invest in things in the long-term for the sake of a family where they enjoy some authority and certainty of the paternity of the children.

>tfw I invest in things in the long term but I don't have children or a wife
Am I still a man, or is what you just said vague posturing as I predicted it would be? It's pretty easy to make bold claims desu

>What does this mean? Are you saying that women were pushed aside because excess made them irrelevant to male interests?

Emotionally speaking, it makes men more sloth like and easier to disregard needs of the entire other portion of the population if they only matter for sexual pleasure and pregnancy, if they did, there wouldn't be as many deaths via pregnancy through time.

You can't go from the culture of Paleolithic to the Neolithic without some kind of explanation for what happened, and what ideas traveled genealogically. The clear is, agriculture and accumulation of resource made previous worries non existent, and so habits were developed that turned into traditions.

Escaping tradition as it happened was impossible. But now, the opposite is happening as so much resource has accumulated men don't have to the tasks they've been stereotyped as doing, putting things traditionally held emotional at risk in the metropolitan world we live in.

>I don't care either way, but you're really making women seem weak desu fampai.

Have you ever tried the thankless job of human reproduction? I'm not.

...

It's only thankless in a feminist society where family matters are seen as degrading and distracting because they highlight sexual differences.

wrong

>It's only thankless in a feminist society

What a good goof and what a good spoof.You must sound smart to yourself when you say contradictory things.

There's a pretty vast supply of people on this board who masturbate at least that often. Know where you hail from, babe :^))

Getting pregnant young and devoting time to your family is counter to the ideal of men and women sharing roles in the workplace equally. You can pretend that modern career women don't talk about stay at home moms like they're an affront to decency, but you'd be wrong.

Drinking is better than masturbating. Though I still don't know the differences between the sensations in sex. Still. You'll thank me later.

enjoy the dead braincells bb

>Getting pregnant young and devoting time to your family is counter to the ideal of men and women sharing roles in the workplace equally

Who the fuck even wants that. If anything statistically speaking, shows, it's that intelligent and educated people want the exact opposite for a reason.

>You can pretend that modern career women don't talk about stay at home moms like they're an affront to decency, but you'd be wrong.

Your Mom's Wine Friends don't count as the entirety of women sweet heart. I can say something baiting too. You'll be seeing much more lesbian couples pushing strollers and more women rejecting men, the more men as yourself keep your mouth open and fingers keying lol

I'm sure it'll be fine.

Yeah, it's banned in The Bible.

Enough argument for me and, quite frankly, if you disagree you're a fat fuck fedora tipping autist.

lmao low-t beta detected

There is no evidence of a matriarchal society ever existing anywhere in human history. The idea of a prehistoric feminist utopia is a daydream. Even in Western Europe and North America men still hold most positions of authority from the level of the family to the level of the state.

Agriculture has been around a lot longer than 7000 years.

>Anthropology tells us nobody gave a fuck about gender roles because they didn't exist and treated each other relatively equally

Again there is no evidence for this. Next you'll be telling me that pre-agricultural hunter gatherers were all peaceful and hated war!

Here's the gist of Aquinas
>our organs have a natural end
>the natural end of sexually and hence penis is reproduction
>masturbation is a sexual act without the end of sexuality in mind
>therefore masturbation is against the natural law

I'm a christian, so I think people shouldn't do it, but I'm also not a muslim so I'm not going to threaten people's lives over it.

Wow, how enlightened and tolerant of you. I was getting pretty worried there. It's nice to know I won't be executed for jacking off.

This is a good post.

>Agriculture has been around a lot longer than 7000 years.

Except...there's no clear evidence to suggest it was, you fucking dumb ass. The change between paleolithic and neolithic is clear.

>Again there is no evidence for this

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Ocice

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_Figurines_from_Valdivia

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitriansky_Hrádok

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seated_Woman_of_Çatalhöyük

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Moravany

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_Wife

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Tan-Tan

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Berekhat_Ram

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Hohle_Fels

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Brassempouy

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Galgenberg

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Laussel

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Lespugue

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Petřkovice

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Savignano

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines_of_Mal'ta

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Buret'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Dolní_Věstonice

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_figurines_of_Gönnersdorf

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Monruz

For added measure, for education because I am generous:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_of_the_Upper_Paleolithic

And for added measure since I can't figure the study I read a while back.

theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

What is the 'natural law'? Men do it, do we not? Then why is it not natural? Masturbation seems all too much like second nature, in fact numerous other species have been known to do it as well

>Who the fuck even wants that
Lots of women get cravings to have a family when they're quite young, actually. They don't tell you about it because you'd probably give them some radfem tracts to read about how reproduction is rape.

I've always wanted a family since I was a little boy.

>If anything statistically speaking, shows, it's that intelligent and educated people want the exact opposite for a reason.
>correlation = causation
Smart people just don't want to be poor. The earning power of an individual, especially an uneducated one, has declined rapidly since women joined the workforce in earnest. Now you actually need two incomes to maintain a middle class lifestyle in most cases. They're working towards a goal they could have reached much younger prior to the advent of full economic "liberation" of women, the same women who now have to work for exploitative wages for someone who at best does not love them.

I was making a joke. No one gives a shit about it except muslims. Any christian will shake the finger at you, but not try to stop you.

Aquinas was a primitive sophist. That's the point.

Onanism is a reference to pulling out. Not masturbation.

*tips fedora*

>Lots of women get cravings to have a family when they're quite young, actually

And less of them exist, reproduction is going down for a reason in the first world.

>Smart people just don't want to be poor. The earning power of an individual, especially an uneducated one, has declined rapidly since women joined the workforce in earnest. Now you actually need two incomes to maintain a middle class lifestyle in most cases.

I stopped reading because I don't really give a shit about wonderbread families and their wonderbread worries.

Christ, okay, lemme try and dissect this to understand what you're trying to say.

>Emotionally speaking, it makes men more sloth like and easier to disregard needs of the entire other portion of the population if they only matter for sexual pleasure and pregnancy, if they did, there wouldn't be as many deaths via pregnancy through time.

Okay, so you're saying that men, in their positions of power, disregarded the needs of women because men saw them as irrelevant to any interests outside of reproduction and pleasure. And then you go on to blame men for high rates of death during childbirth.

This is the same problem as before. You're putting men in a position of power before women, and then blaming them for women not being powerful and relevant throughout history. And yet you said,
>First you have to prove that's the default, and once you study that you realize it's not.
Which seems to imply that there was an equal chance of women and men becoming the dominant sex. This is the fundamental error in your argument.

And I'm no biologist, but death from childbirth seems to be a combination of bad hygiene and plain 'ole bad luck in the form of genetics. How are either of these specifically men's fault?

>You can't go from the culture of Paleolithic to the Neolithic without some kind of explanation for what happened, and what ideas traveled genealogically. The clear is, agriculture and accumulation of resource made previous worries non existent, and so habits were developed that turned into traditions.

Okay, first sentence, we're on the same page. The past informs the present, or, in this case, the far past informs the slightly less far past. And then we stay on the same page in the second one. You haven't explained what these habits or traditions are or why they're bad, though, and from where I'm sitting that's the whole crux of the conversation.

>Escaping tradition as it happened was impossible. But now, the opposite is happening as so much resource has accumulated men don't have to the tasks they've been stereotyped as doing, putting things traditionally held emotional at risk in the metropolitan world we live in.

Wait, now we're in modern times? I thought we were talking about the moment the coin was tossed to decide which would be the dominant sex? Whatever, now you seem to be saying that we've got so many resources that we're seeing a similar shift away from resource gathering to emotional well being.

It seems to me your argument has a few basic flaws in it's fundamental logic and assumptions.

In your response I'd like to know:
>why, in your opinion, aren't women the dominant sex?
>why, in your opinion, are men the dominant sex?
>what are the traditions developed at the start of the neolithic that caused women to be inferior?
>how is it men's fault that humans die in childbirth?
>if it was just a coin flip, why are all your justifications placing men in power when women have the chance to become dominant?

did it at least 8 times to day. Are you proud of me user?

>I stopped reading because I don't really give a shit about wonderbread families and their wonderbread worries.
And the resentment comes out in full force. We could have had a nice thing going, but oh no, everybody has to be as miserable as you.

Aristotle says that abstaining from pleasure can make you more temperate. Because temperate people avoid pleasure.

Basically it's morals.

>Okay, so you're saying that men, in their positions of power, disregarded the needs of women because men saw them as irrelevant to any interests outside of reproduction and pleasure. And then you go on to blame men for high rates of death during childbirth.

Nope. Particularly the last part. It's a communal problem.

>And I'm no biologist, but death from childbirth seems to be a combination of bad hygiene and plain 'ole bad luck in the form of genetics. How are either of these specifically men's fault?

Like the neolithic to the 19th century were a good indicator of either.

Or that's a justification for? What? I don't understand what you're saying.

>You haven't explained what these habits or traditions are

What people on the internet seem to romanticize and be up ready to defend.

>or why they're bad, though, and from where I'm sitting that's the whole crux of the conversation.

They don't exist in the world as it is for either you or me anymore. Defending them will prove destructive and pointless. Abuse where it's not needed, things of the sort.

>
Wait, now we're in modern times? I thought we were talking about the moment the coin was tossed to decide which would be the dominant sex? Whatever, now you seem to be saying that we've got so many resources that we're seeing a similar shift away from resource gathering to emotional well being.

Masculinity is in the decline because, as you probably already do, you classify masculinity as strength. If there are no tasks for men to do, men adapt like humans always do, and abandon the previous ideal to explore something else created.

Gender roles are changing because of many factors, I outlined the most general. You're just going to have to accept that.

Jericho was a farming settlement in 8000 b.c.

Why do you think a few artworks can tell us anything about ancient people's views of women? This is like what would happen if ten thousand years from now the only extant television show left was Lena Dunham's "Girls." You're making a big extrapolation from some fragmentary evidence.

>theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists

That's just one study though, hardly a consensus. You also know why the Guardian would print something like that. Look, I wish humans had always lived in an egalitarian paradise as well but we have to be realistic. We can't take present values and desires and apply them backwards to a time we really don't have much information on. This is as damaging and unhelpful as the myth of the "peaceful savage."

>Jericho was a farming settlement in 8000 b.c.

And Jericho was not common. Existence of one does not equal agricultural bloom.

>That's just one study though, hardly a consensus.

Except it is a consensus because there's no other way to explain how figures of women dominated paleolithic art for so long in such a vast area from Europe to the Mediterranean Central Csia. You just aren't read in the subject.

It is heavily speculated based on this, for several thousand years traditions existed where women were dominant due to their importance in reproduction in a hostile world. Traditions change. Like what is currently happening.

>And I'm no biologist, but death from childbirth seems to be a combination of bad hygiene and plain 'ole bad luck in the form of genetics

Women or more accurately girls who have babies at young age are more likely to die in childbed, lose the baby, or both. It's safest form them to wait till they're in their mid to late twenties to have kids. Of course waiting too late is another problem.

So men should have protected the virginity of women until they were old enough to responsibly breed? How patriarchal.

>the natural end of our organs is to foster life
>giving birth to people recklessly is dangerous
>therefore having sex without foresight can lead to the detriment of life (by way of overpopulation, congenial diseases, children being badly raised)
>however our bodies are programmed so as to try to reproduce with a good mate whenever possible, due to the conditions our ancestors evelved in
>invariably resisting those urges can lead to frustration
>further, no experience of any kind with sexuality could lead to unsuccesful coupling, if any at all, potentially leaving good genes/memes out of the pool
>plus, masturbation by way of pornography creates occupations for people and art, and used correctly can lead to education and exploration in matters of sex, without some of the dangers involved
>this, along with sex workers, can lead to the refining and precising of an individual sexual tastes
>such tastes can then be used to form better bonds between mates, and therefore better children
>given that the relationship is still open to sex workers or physical third parters, those involved could also be relieved from some of the pressure of sexual life
TL;DR: wanking and hookers are the only way any kind of monogamy can sanely function.

Then why are modern hunter gatherers such shitlords? Just look at the abbos. Women have always been depicted in art. I like the art of photography myself :^)

I guess you may be right but you don't have unequivocal proof. If there is anything I've learned from the study of history it's this: "Question Everything." Academic consensus changes by the decade, and there are always dissenting voices in something as murky and soft as anthropology, art history, or history.

it's a waste of time