My question is about masturbation as i find is my weakest link, specially regarding the argument that masturbating thinking in women or with images of women is degrading to them by converting them into a sex object. Argument to  which i hypocritically agree. My questions are, is this argument reasonable? are there other ways to approach that action? Is there a proper rebuttal besides the slippery-slope of "If it is not with woman, guys will start looking for pictures of animals or ..."?

Tags: Argument, Christianity, Religion, Sex, question

Views: 1446

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

All sex with animals is rape.  It is still rape when a man is raped, even if he gets an erection.  So, a physical, sexual response does not negate the fact that the individual did not/could not give consent. 

You people and your meaningless consent babble. How do you manage to bring up "consent" up as an issue in every discussion? Did you ask for your pets' consent before taking them home? Did that cat or fish give you a written notice of consent before you bought it from the pet shop? Because if not it's slavery. Did the cows whose milk you drink everyday give you their consents personally? Did you ask for the consent of the fetus before aborting it? Did your mother ask you for your consent before bringing you into existence? Oh let's kill, enslave and abuse all kinds of things both animal and human, but god forbid some chick wants to make a dog orgasm.

Stop with the stupid double standard, as if humans gave two shits about consent to begin with. Stuff happens without consent all the time, grow up.

The fact that, in the cases you cite, consent was not given, does NOT mean that in principle consent should not be required when using another to fulfill your own interests.  You may not give " two shits" about consent.  Stuff does happen.  So what?  Are you saying that no-one should say a word to promote fairness, or justice just because many people behave  unfairly, and unjustly?

Animal lovers will say you can't do this or that with animals because they can't give informed consent, but then they'll make sure to spay or neuter their cats and dogs. Now, imagine what a cat or dog would say if they COULD give informed consent and I suspect consent would be rare. If you shouldn't "mangle" your baby boy's johnson, then maybe you should think twice before robbing that puppy or kitten from having a natural sex life rather than one as an animated plush toy eunuch.

I'm saying

1. there is no fairness, there is only your double standard. If we want fairness humanity should first stop doing all this shit they do, before they even dare talk about any form of consent. Also what Unseen said.

2. It's not "a" word, this consent nonsense is coming up in many discussions now and people eat it up as a great argument even though it makes no sense.

Yes, you objectify a rose.  It IS an object!  Women are people!

@Kyle Bates

Rather I was explaining that it was part of feminist theory to a guy, Kyle, whose total experience of feminism seemed to be based on feminists he met at or knew through Slutwalk.

I quite honestly don't have anything to say to you after a comment like this.  You don't know jack.

I actually know several Jacks.

Hi. I am a feminist atheist and I think you are influenced, with the best possible intentions,  very strongly by Christian cultural values with this attitude. I may be wrong so think about this. How would you feel if you were to somehow find out that a woman you did not know well or at all was masturbating whilst thinking about you? Would you feel objectified and degraded by knowing you were the object of a fantasy or would you in fact feel rather flattered by this? If you feel that in 99% of cases you might well feel flattered, then consider why you would see a woman as victimised by this?

Women, like men, are mulsifaceted beings. If you would value your female doctor on her professional expertise, your female friend on her personality and value the work of female musicians, artists and scientists, if you vote for a female politician if her views best expressed yours then I see no reason why you, as a heterosexual male, should not be fully entitled to think about a woman's physical attractiveness to you when you feel horny! If on the other hand, you find yourself valuing all women on their sexual attractions then you could justifiably be considered to objectify women.


I get very annoyed when people (not you) claim it is the woman who is degraded by being in a porn film even when men also act in it and when they claim that the woman is being used when a couple has casual sex. Why should this be? Don't people, by this assumption, essentially say that sexual desire is the man's prerogative? That he is the taker and the woman is the used? If that actually is the case then he's doing it wrong! Both men and women are sexual beings and by affording women special protection from being seen as objects of sexual attraction, women are actually being marginalised in the area of sex! If sex degrades one gender it must degrade both.

There is an evolutionary cause for this common double standard. Men biologically can often be in the mood for casual sex with a woman they may not know, like, trust, respect or even sometimes, find attractive. This stems from the biological imperative to spread their seed. Women, on the other hand, often need to like and trust a man before they feel like having sex with him. This is because female primates like us are vulnerable when pregnant and their young are vulnerable and females need to be in family groups to be safe. We therefore often have a lower sex drive and take longer to feel comfortable having sex. This leads to the stereotype that the man is always waiting for the woman to 'give it up' thereby making sex an active thing for the man and a passive thing for the women. This leads to the idea that to be the kind of man who is not just seeing this one aim of the relationship men have to be particularly sensitive and considerate of women when it comes to sex. Yes, recognising these biologically and culturally different expectations is certainly not a bad thing but you are being overscrupulous if you internalise this to the degree that you feel guilt for masturbating whilst thinking of women sexually. No-one is harmed by this or even knows, women do it too and men very rarely would be offended by this.

Hi. I am a feminist atheist and I think you are influenced, with the best possible intentions,  very strongly by Christian cultural values with this attitude. I may be wrong so think about this. How would you feel if you were to somehow find out that a woman you did not know well or at all was masturbating whilst thinking about you? Would you feel objectified and degraded by knowing you were the object of a fantasy or would you in fact feel rather flattered by this? If you feel that in 99% of cases you might well feel flattered, then consider why you would see a woman as victimised by this?

Great point.

Women, like men, are multifaceted beings. If you would value your female doctor on her professional expertise, your female friend on her personality and value the work of female musicians, artists and scientists, if you vote for a female politician if her views best expressed yours then I see no reason why you, as a heterosexual male, should not be fully entitled to think about a woman's physical attractiveness to you when you feel horny! If on the other hand, you find yourself valuing all women on their sexual attractions then you could justifiably be considered to objectify women.

I think what goes on in our mind is our business and our business alone, as long as it doesn't lead to objectionable behavior.

I get very annoyed when people (not you) claim it is the woman who is degraded by being in a porn film even when men also act in it and when they claim that the woman is being used when a couple has casual sex. Why should this be? Don't people, by this assumption, essentially say that sexual desire is the man's prerogative? That he is the taker and the woman is the used? If that actually is the case then he's doing it wrong! Both men and women are sexual beings and by affording women special protection from being seen as objects of sexual attraction, women are actually being marginalised in the area of sex! If sex degrades one gender it must degrade both.

I totally agree with you, and the old school feminists unintentionally infantilized women by posing that in almost every exchange the female was the junior partner and the male had more responsibility. Example: they would argue that if a couple goes to a dorm room (it matters little if it's his or hers) and down a half bottle of vodka and then have regrettable sex, the guy committed rape! W...T...F?!!! That logic only works if the female is the more childish of the two. If I were female, I'd find that logic demeaning and insulting. Even by age 16, I would assume that almost all girls understand the effects of alcohol, and certainly by college age. I would only accept that logic if the female had passed out entirely and the male hadn't.

BTW, I'm equally annoyed when people assume that the porn actresses are being exploited. First of all, all employment is exploitative by its nature. The employer is always exploiting something about the employee, talents, abilities, appearance, etc. If there's no compensation and the employee isn't a volunteer, itr's slavery. But in porn (with the rare exception of the girl exploited by a partner or pimpish managager), she is paid a market rate for her work while her male partner is often little more than a volunteer who is paid a nominal amount just to make it legal employment. I know people will sometimes question if the actress has considered the long term consequences, but to do so is to threat her as though she's not an adult. It's disrespectrful. Women have fought for the right to make their own choices, and as one woman said to me once, "We didn't throw off the chains of oppressive males telling us how to think, feel and act, just to have women take over."


There is an evolutionary cause for this common double standard. Men biologically can often be in the mood for casual sex with a woman they may not know, like, trust, respect or even sometimes, find attractive. This stems from the biological imperative to spread their seed. Women, on the other hand, often need to like and trust a man before they feel like having sex with him. This is because female primates like us are vulnerable when pregnant and their young are vulnerable and females need to be in family groups to be safe.

Well, while physiology shouldn't be destiny, there are some physiological advantages to being male. Harder muscle, larger hands, greater upper body strength, and testosterone, which makes aggression easier and more likely. Whether women think about this consciously or not, it does justify women being more cautious because if things go bad, guess which one is more likely to get the beat down?

We therefore often have a lower sex drive and take longer to feel comfortable having sex.

This is my first major disagreement with you, and maybe you'll agree with the qualification I'm about to make because it's limited. For years I've worked around young women as a photographer and I've overheard them talking to each other and sometimes they've opened up to me as well. YOUNG women in particular are more horny and sexual than boys their own age. Roughly speaking, girls in middle and high school through perhaps the first few years of college are extremely highly sexed. Males in the same age group actually kind of fear sex because they lack confidence and experience performance anxiety, whereas girls tend to actively want experience.

This leads to the stereotype that the man is always waiting for the woman to 'give it up' thereby making sex an active thing for the man and a passive thing for the women.

In the same age group I just referred to—and despite the notion that males tend to be acquisitive and possessive—isn't it usually the girls who stake a claim on a guy and we end up with "He's my guy, stay away from him!"-style catfights in the hall or parking lot.

This leads to the idea that to be the kind of man who is not just seeing this one aim of the relationship men have to be particularly sensitive and considerate of women when it comes to sex. Yes, recognising these biologically and culturally different expectations is certainly not a bad thing but you are being overscrupulous if you internalise this to the degree that you feel guilt for masturbating whilst thinking of women sexually. No-one is harmed by this or even knows, women do it too and men very rarely would be offended by this.

And like I said above, we are entitled to think about what we think about without being judged by others. If you have no privacy in your own mind, where can you possibly ever have it?

'For years I've worked around young women as a photographer and I've overheard them talking to each other and sometimes they've opened up to me as well. YOUNG women in particular are more horny and sexual than boys their own age. Roughly speaking, girls in middle and high school through perhaps the first few years of college are extremely highly sexed.'

That's interesting. No I have not found this. I wonder why there would be this difference. You are in the US, aren't you so maybe more cultural than biological tho I always the Americans tended to be more sexually conservative cos of all the Christians?

Agree with you that no thought is wrong providing it does not lead to actions which affect others. Cesar seemed to have guilt about his attitude to women tho so defined what I feel would be considered mental objectification.

For years I've worked around young women as a photographer and I've overheard them talking to each other and sometimes they've opened up to me as well. YOUNG women in particular are more horny and sexual than boys their own age.

@Unseen, are you certain that models posing for you are sufficiently representative of all, young girls?

regarding the argument that masturbating thinking in women or with images of women is degrading to them by converting them into a sex object. Argument to  which i hypocritically agree.


This sounds so much like religious self-righteous nonsense. I think this modern day "objectification of women through wanking" shares a common ancestor with old religious prudery. At bottom, it's imagined to be some kind of 'sin' or thought control i.e. "we know what you are thinking - you are degrading women with your thoughts -  and we think you are bad for thinking it. Please, the idea that thinking about sexy women while masturbating is somehow degrading to them is just wrong, stupid, fatuous, ludicrous and quite frankly unhealthy. Now get wanking, it's good for ya!

RSS

Events

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service