Notes on fapping

[Furquim]

Thinking about last night relapse and reading some journals here made me realize how early the habit of masturbation came up to into the life of many of us, so as to make it seem like a "natural" habit. But I've got strong reasons to believe it's not.
I realized how ridiculous is the idea of self erotism, how it brought me to an egoistic approaching at people and myself, and how it  leads to deception and compulsive behavior, as you tend to lust for something that doesn't belong to you yet (real sexual intercourse, for example). Moreover some searches report that men of isolated tribes aren't familiar with this habit, some of them can hardly conceive that habit and find it funny and nonsense (available on YBOP). And I know how hypersexualized is being our generation, cause I remember vividly to have been seeing sensual images of people barely dressed on commercials, movies, prostitution craigslist since my early childhood and I remember how it has impressed me. Can I say I was in a "natural" environment to conclude that masturbation was naturally developed? I think no. So I'll pursue don't to do that anymore and I know it will help my reboot.

Thanks for reading the long text.
I'll be thankful for any comments. See you soon

 

[imsorrynotsorry]

I like your perspective on things and that you seek the experience of others here. That was for me most important when starting to reboot.
If you pass by the video you mentioned feel free to send me a message. Thanks.

 

[Furquim]

I like your perspective on things and that you seek the experience of others here. That was for me most important when starting to reboot.
If you pass by the video you mentioned feel free to send me a message. Thanks.

Hi! Thanks for the reply. I agree that reading other's experiences give us a true headstart. Before I've been aware of this kind of community, I was kinda hopeless. But now I think it's possible. The data I've mentioned you may  find thru this link: www.yourbrainonporn.com/ybop-articles-on-porn-addiction-porn-induced-problems/masturbation-ejaculation-articles/weird-masturbation-habits-2011/
It's a critical and cleverly done article and I think it's worth reading.
Thank you again and till the next time.

 

[imsorrynotsorry]

Thank you very much for that interesting article. It's even more obvious how WEIRD this all is ;-)

 

[doneatlast]

Hi Furquim,

I tend to agree. 

If we want to know what is "natural", I think we have to decide what definition of "nature" we're working with.  Masturbation isn't procreative, so it isn't "natural" in the strictly evolutionary sense.  In the widely accepted anthropological models in biology, evolution or philosophy, there is no reason for masturbation to exist because it has logical end.  Ideas that it helps with prostate health have been debunked, and masturbation (at least when combined with porn) leads to an array of sexual dysfunctions, so it isn't "natural" in the health sense, like getting exercise or eating a healthy diet. 

If you define "natural" as what you do automatically or what is the path of least resistance for you then it might be "natural"... in the same way we can say we by "nature" crave and smoke a cigarette, even though drying plants, rolling them up in paper, packaging them, lighting them and inhaling the smoke isn't "natural" by the prior two definitions.  But, this is not a real definition of "natural", but more of a colloquial usage.

Really, I think we'd have to understand masturbation in a context where porn never existed.  When someone masturbates who has ever viewed porn, it is largely in reaction to the porn, even if it is distant memories.  Some guys say they only masturbate to "sense memory", but the way I see it after you've replayed it a number of times in your head, you've basically turned it into porn.

I wonder how many of us tried it because we'd heard of it, and were just curious if our bodies could do it.  I can't put my head into a place where I'd never heard of it.  I can't imagine having tried it, though.  It frankly doesn't feel good unless you've done it enough times to wire yourself with the rewarding orgasm at the end.  I know the first few times I did it, it started as curiosity and then became relieving tension, which is the endorphin rush from orgasm, not the actual self-stimulation. 

Yeah, it is a sensitive part of the body, but not all contact is necessarily stimulating.  I can't remember often having the physical sensation on its own being all that interesting to me.  Maybe I was hooked on porn too long, and I just don't remember clearly.

 

[Furquim]

Hi Furquim,

I tend to agree. 

If we want to know what is "natural", I think we have to decide what definition of "nature" we're working with.  Masturbation isn't procreative, so it isn't "natural" in the strictly evolutionary sense.  In the widely accepted anthropological models in biology, evolution or philosophy, there is no reason for masturbation to exist because it has logical end.  Ideas that it helps with prostate health have been debunked, and masturbation (at least when combined with porn) leads to an array of sexual dysfunctions, so it isn't "natural" in the health sense, like getting exercise or eating a healthy diet. 

If you define "natural" as what you do automatically or what is the path of least resistance for you then it might be "natural"... in the same way we can say we by "nature" crave and smoke a cigarette, even though drying plants, rolling them up in paper, packaging them, lighting them and inhaling the smoke isn't "natural" by the prior two definitions.  But, this is not a real definition of "natural", but more of a colloquial usage.

Really, I think we'd have to understand masturbation in a context where porn never existed.  When someone masturbates who has ever viewed porn, it is largely in reaction to the porn, even if it is distant memories.  Some guys say they only masturbate to "sense memory", but the way I see it after you've replayed it a number of times in your head, you've basically turned it into porn.

I wonder how many of us tried it because we'd heard of it, and were just curious if our bodies could do it.  I can't put my head into a place where I'd never heard of it.  I can't imagine having tried it, though.  It frankly doesn't feel good unless you've done it enough times to wire yourself with the rewarding orgasm at the end.  I know the first few times I did it, it started as curiosity and then became relieving tension, which is the endorphin rush from orgasm, not the actual self-stimulation. 

Yeah, it is a sensitive part of the body, but not all contact is necessarily stimulating.  I can't remember often having the physical sensation on its own being all that interesting to me.  Maybe I was hooked on porn too long, and I just don't remember clearly.

Hi!
At first, thank you for taking time to answer with this thorough answer.
On the term "natural", I used that in the definition I think is often attributed by fapping defensors, which is "beneficial or innocuous since widely practiced" (don't know if it's clear)
I think I got what you explained then. I agree we must take in consideration the "no porn" scenario. And I dare to say we have an easy way to approach this matter. Let's take a glimpse on the most known and reliable western (eastern, originally) old text (the "no porn scenario"): amid the +-600 commandments of Moses law, we've got 1 that refers to emission of semen of a male, it's about nocturnal emission, which would make an Israeli male impure till the sunset. Interestingly, the semen emission through masturbation is never mentioned in the entire old testament, making me believe it wasn't mentioned because the mankind (at least that nation) at that time couldn't even conceive that. Why does this habit not appear there? Please figure: if the unintentionall emission was impure, what about the deliberate produced? Unless, indeed, the mere idea of self stimulation wasn't there.
I can be completely mistaken, but... Who knows?

Thanks for reading this lengthy text.
See you soon!

 

[doneatlast]

Hmmm.... well, Mosaic law is a whole other thing.  I'm not an expert, but much of it has to do with ritualistic cleanliness which is not necessarily the same as morality.  As Mosaic law turns into Christianity (or even contemporary Judaism) it does have more to do with morals.  For example, a woman who gave birth must be presented to a priest to be declared clean after birth.  It isn't because giving birth was immoral or shunned, but just because it was... well... messy.  There was blood involved, and the ancient Jews were VERY particular about how they dealt with blood.
Really, we're talking about hygiene more than anything else.  I'm not sure if that is the case with the teaching on nocturnal omissions or not, but my guess would be yes.  In Christianity, once the first ecumenical counsel at Jerusalem happens, much of those laws are dismissed, and only a handful are retained.  (Among which is not eating the meat of strangled animals, which begs for some immature puns, but I digress).  St. Augustine talks about nocturnal emissions, and clears it of any potential immorality on the very simple grounds that it is not intentional.  I'm not sure if he addresses masturbation at the same time.

At first I was going to counter your argument that masturbation isn't mentioned in the OT by mentioning Onan, but then I realize that his situation involved "pulling out", not masturbation per se.  Even if the teaching of it gets applied broadly to masturbation, it doesn't in any way indicate that masturbation was known about then. 

One potential place to look would be first and second Corinthians, especially with a very good commentary.  The reason so much sexual ethics stuff appears there is because Corinth of the time was absolutely off its rocker with sex stuff.  Orgies and plenty of "man/boy" relationships among who knows what else were commonplace, and the context of Paul's words there were fairly specific admonishments of what was happening there.  Paul, of course, was a Pharisee, and as much of an expert on Mosaic law as you could find, so there is likely something just under the text there, hence the need for a good commentary.

 

[doneatlast]

Alright, checking the Wikipedia entry for "masturbation" now, and while I am not up to checking all the citations, some of them seem reliable.  There are ancient world examples of fapping.  The references in Greek culture, particularly as mentioned by Aristophanes, seem solid.  So, you're somewhere around 400 BC at that point.  Other examples given have citations to sex books from the 90s and I don't know how reliable they are, and the "cave paintings" aren't 100% convincing to me, but there are enough decent examples to show that it was a thing, even if it wasn't widespread. 

The study you mention in the OP is also mentioned.

There is one allusion to Egyptian mythology, but unfortunately I can't put any dates to it.  The ancient Israelites would have been familiar with Egyptian religion, so if it existed then, they would have known it.  Many of the events of Exodus and the laws are in reaction to the tendencies of Egyptian deism - the narrative with the golden calf is one, the emphasis on the "one God" is a rejection of polytheism if nothing else, the stories of the plagues have nods and winks to the gods of Egypt being overpowered by the God of Israel, etc. etc.  I hesitate to conclusively say that the Israelites would have known about that particular story that involves masturbation though, since it would have greatly increased the likelihood of it appearing in either scripture or Mosaic law.  Appearances in the Talmud would be different, since those came about after the Babylonian exile, though that might be an interesting pursuit for another time.

Another thought: if other alternate sexual practices, for example "man/boy" relationships are documented, can it be assumed that auto-erotic stimulation would have pre-existed?  I mean, if sexual relations are happening when simple penile/vaginal interaction is impossible, could it be assumed that masturbation exists as well, since it seems like a more obvious form of stimulation?

Of course, the original question isn't whether or not it existed in the ancient world, but instead whether it is "natural".  You don't need to put off the invention of it to modern times to disprove it being "natural", you would just need to present enough cultures that don't have it to show that it is not biologically intuitive (again assuming a specific definition of "natural").  I'm not sure what that threshold would be.