Interesting thought......

[Texanguy]

I thought of an interesting way of looking at abstaining from MB for religious reasons. Every religion that prohibits MB expects WD's to occur, and they all say that you can't be held responsible for their content. Many WD's involve having sex, and perhaps the ideal WD's always do.

So what these religions are basically saying is that all your orgasms should be from having sex, and never from masturbation. You can have sex while awake if you are married, or asleep if you are not. If you are single, you are free to have all the sex you want in WD's -- but you should never masturbate! This may be an 'extreme', interpretation, but it is pretty much what they are saying.

They could even point out that once you reach the point where you have frequent sex 'naturally' in WD's that it will feel much better than masturbation ever did, and that you'll never want to go back to MB.

If religions taught it this way, they might get a lot more people to enthusiastically sign on to the 'no MB' rule!

[thatguy4390]

It is a very interesting thought. But one thing.

If religions taught it this way, they might get a lot more people to enthusiastically sign on to the 'no MB' rule!

Maybe not. Some people do things regardless of whether the church says to do it or not (cussing, lying, hot dogs, etc.).

Interesting theory.

[Texanguy]

Some people do things regardless of whether the church says to do it or not (cussing, lying, hot dogs, etc.).

Yes, it wouldn't convince everyone, but it might convince a few.

But mainly I just thought that it was an interesting way to look at the fact that many religions forbid masturbation and yet consider WD's to be fine. ( They have to accept WD's, they'll happen if people don't MB).

[rdgann]

Totally AGREE! :agree:

[sgenius]

i am a christian, and my religion, though i won't reveal its identity, says that committing any sexual sin is the third worst sin a human can possibly commit. the only two that are worse are murder and denying the holy ghost, which, by the way, is the only unforgivable sin, both in this life and the life to come. murder is even forgivable, but only in certain circumstances, such as a person who commits it and is devoid of knowledge that such a thing is as serious as it is or even a crime. in addition, the apostle paul in the new testament, which is located in the bible, said the the human body is a temple of God, and whosoever defiles it, him shall God destroy (1 Corinthians 3: 16-17). therefore, my religion tells us not only to not have sex or participate in any type of sexual activity before marriage, but to take care of our bodies with proper hygiene. in addition, they say that guys are not allowed to have earrings, that girls should only have one pair of earrings, and that nobody in our religion can have tattoos. the body is a sacred, precious gift from god and should not be disgraced by hideous tattoos or defiled by sex or sexual activity before being enclosed in the legal bonds of marriage, whether it is a secular marriage or a religious such as ours that lasts for eternity. do not think that God is unaware of what His children do, for he knows every single thing that every single of His children has done, is doing, and will do for the rest of time. do not play with gifts from God, but only use them as He has commanded us.

[Texanguy]

Sgenius, your religion, whichever it is, portrays a strict, vengeful, unforgiving God. A strict guidline for wearing earrings, etc, implies a religion that is rigidly hierarchical, believes that its leaders are the only offical representatives of God on the earth today, and that they have full and exclusive power to unilaterally make and pronounce all rules and guidlines for 'proper' behavior. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind as possibilities. Not all Christian religions are like this, and you might even be misinterpreting the strict rigidity that you portray here.

I would personally think that it would be good for a 17 year old such as yourself to get involved with discussions and debates with others about religious topics and various religions. If your religion is indeed the one and only 'true' religion, you should be able to defend it with logic and argument. A child will accept without question all the beliefs and tenants of their religion, but a young adult should probably question, examine, critcize, defend, analyze, and otherwise decide whether or not they should continue to embrace or even reject the religion they were brought up in. I think an adult can't really embrace their religion unless they critically examine it first. You would come away from the experience with a firmer, well informed conviction that your religion is the 'true' religion, or be able to state with informed conviction why you no longer think it is. Either way, I think, is better than continued 'childish acceptance' of a religion they were brought up in.

This is not a religion forum, and you didn't even say whether you agreed or disagreed with my post. But there are lots of religious based discussions going on here lately, and I'm thinking that maybe we should have a religious section or at least several clearly labeled religious based topics.

So I'm thinking that I could move your post to another topic, where religious aspects, morals, etc can be discussed. Or you could copy, paste, and modify your post and start a new topic yourself. Obviously, at this site a person could freely discuss sexuality, wet dreams, masturbation etc in these topics as well as religion.

Any comments on this from sgenius or others?

[Squeeze!]

Texanguy, yeah, as far as popular sexual advice literature within evangelical Christendom goes (my religious neck of the woods), yeah, masturbation is generally frowned upon, for various reasons, though few would hold it up to the "sin level" of fornication, adultery or homosexual behavior.

Wet dreams are generally taught to be God's designed sexual outlet for single men, as you said. One of the reasons masturbation is taught as someting to be avioded, even though neither the New or Old Testaments mention is specifically, is because it almost always involves lust--contextually, intentional sexual fantasy--with someone you are not committed to via a loving marriage. In other words, you don't have the "right" to intimate sexual behavior w/that person because you are not committed to them. And Jesus himself said to some men that to commit adultery, for instance, with a woman "in your heart" is a sin just as it would be to do so in the flesh (because God looks at the heart--and desires purity there--and not just at one's actions).

Also, masturbation is generally viewed as a selfish type of behavior, and one that can easily become addictive, but this has to be tempered with the fact that doing other types of things you enjoy alone isn't necessarily sinful, as God isn't against pleasure or fun, but against the abuses of it, and the distraction (and bondage) that addictive behavior can become. So, it is generally counseled that single Christian guys (and girls) find other positive, constructive, pleasurable, and creative things to do instead with their free time and energy than masturbate. It is easier said than done, but it is true that one won't die from not masturbating, and as we have all seen here, one's body can generally "switch" to relying upon wet dreams if one abstains long enough from self-stimulation. But the character-formation and self-discipline that one can develop via abstinence is a good thing (one of the same reasons fasting is sometimes practiced), and one that can be put to good use, including maintaining fidelity in marriage and on the marriage bed itself.

As far as promoting the better feelings of wet dreams, I'd say most Christians generally speak of wet dreams as positive things that are fine to enjoy, and certainly that guys shouldn't feel guilty or embarrassed about having them, and that they shouldn't wig out if they have a dream that involves sexual acts they wouldn't commit in their waking life, because they can't control their dreams. However, it probably wouldn't be accurate to suggest that wet dreams will necessarily feel "better" than masturbation--sometimes true, sometimes not--but mostly (speaking generally here) many pastors, Christian authors, etc. would probably feel that putting too much emphasis on the pleasurable aspect of wet dreams might be focusing on the wrong things in that our reason for abstaining is to please God by avoiding immoral sexual behavior (and not defiling one's body, the temple of the Holy Spirit, as sgenius mentioned) and to honor one's future spouse and to put more of one's focus on serving others, growing spiritually, etc. For many of us, it's not to obtain a better "high" of sorts (even though that might be a nice side benefit), bec. that kinda puts the focus of sexuality on physical pleasure and not on the relational aspect, which is generally our emphasis. Pleasure is good, but the relational aspect comes first.

Sgenius--on "eternal marriage," what does your church do with Matthew 22:30 : "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage, they will be like the angels in heaven"? Also, although modesty is right and appropriate, Biblically-speaking, as I understand it, it is acceptale for men and women to wear earrings, etc. Many men in Bible times wore earrings. They are mentioned in the Old Testament; even nose rings for women are mentioned as an acceptable adornment. (Please see Gen. 24: 29-31; Exodus 35:22; Prov. 25:12; Song of Solomon 1:10-11; Ezekiel 16:11-13 for positive references to ear and nose rings in the Bible.)

[Texanguy]

Squeeze!, We agree here. My post, as the title suggests, was that it was an 'interesting thought'.

Christian authors, etc. would probably feel that putting too much emphasis on the pleasurable aspect of wet dreams might be focusing on the wrong things in that our reason for abstaining is to please God by avoiding immoral sexual behavior

I'm sure that is indeed correct. I just thought it was an ironic twist to point out that having sex in WD's is fine with most religions that disourage MB. It would seem that if a guy involuntarily has (and can' help enjoying) hot sex every night in WD's, it is still better than MBing.

[omgsplunge]

To: sgenius
Now, im a Catholic, and even though the Pope says things are wrong, it doesn't mean that they are. Sex isnt dirty, its a sacred practice and it is God's gift to man.
You say that to deny the holy ghost is an unforgivable sin, this is contradictory to the bible in two spacific places
A. Peter denies Jesus three times in the bible, and yet jesus forgives him. He is the Founder of the Church, far from being cast into hell.
B. For a sin to be unforgivable is to limit the power of God. If God can not forgive somthing, he is not Omipowerful (I've forgotten the proper term). If God is not All Powerful, he is not God.

Texanguy is right about questioning your religion. The Bible contradicts iself many times, you need to step back and look at it contextually. Ether its 100% literal or 100% contextual. Dont pick and choose. If you followed the Bible exactly you would
- Not eat food from animals with hoofs
- Put women in a solitary confinment after birth
- Sacrifice animals (or humans)
- Believe in a Phisical "Garden of Eden" or the tree of life. (dare you to find it!)

[Squeeze!]

To: sgenius
Now, im a Catholic, and even though the Pope says things are wrong, it doesn't mean that they are. Sex isnt dirty, its a sacred practice and it is God's gift to man.
You say that to deny the holy ghost is an unforgivable sin, this is contradictory to the bible in two spacific places
A. Peter denies Jesus three times in the bible, and yet jesus forgives him. He is the Founder of the Church, far from being cast into hell.
B. For a sin to be unforgivable is to limit the power of God. If God can not forgive somthing, he is not Omipowerful (I've forgotten the proper term). If God is not All Powerful, he is not God.

Texanguy is right about questioning your religion. The Bible contradicts iself many times, you need to step back and look at it contextually. Ether its 100% literal or 100% contextual. Dont pick and choose. If you followed the Bible exactly you would
- Not eat food from animals with hoofs
- Put women in a solitary confinment after birth
- Sacrifice animals (or humans)
- Believe in a Phisical "Garden of Eden" or the tree of life. (dare you to find it!)

Hey, omgsplunge, welcome to the forum!

Now, I'm a Protestant, but as far as I know, no contemporary Pope has called sex "dirty," and certainly the American Bishops have referred to sexuality as both a "gift" and an "awesome responsibility." Like you said about contextuality, as I understand it--and this is true for most Christian groups--sex is looked at as a very good thing, a blessing--when done in the right context, ie, marriage.

As far as blaspheming the Holy Ghost, what sgenius was referring to is found in Matthew 12:31-32 : here Jesus says

30"He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come."

The context of the situation is that after seeing Jesus heal a blind and mute man, some Pharisees say "It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons." (v.24)

The interpretation of that passage, of what this unforgivable blasphemy Jesus refers to, in light of this passage and of the general teaching of the New Testament, is that it referrs to one rejecting Christ as the Son of God. If it is the Holy Spirit who convicts us of sin and gives one faith to belive in Christ, than to reject the work/witness of the Spirit is unforgivable, because only faith in the blood of Christ saves us. In other words, the Pharisees may reject Jesus in the flesh, but if they reject the inner witness of the Holy Spirit that Jesus is the Christ, than they have rejected salvation.

Peter (temporarily) denied that he knew Christ three times, true, but he didn't reject or renounce his faith in Christ. It's not so much that God can't forgive a certain sin, but one who has truly utterly rejected Christ would be so hard in his or her heart that they wouldn't want to come back. And God has given us the gift of free will, so...

I'm not sure what you mean by the Bible is either 100% literal or 100% contextual. I guess I'm not sure what you mean by contextual. The Bible is a collection, an anthology of 66 different books. These books, written at different times by different people (though most Christians believe that God is inspiring all of the writing one way or another), but these different books are written in different genres, or types of writing. For example, today we have sci-fi novels, romance novels, books of jokes, books of poetry, plays, science textbooks, etc. Each of these genres follow certain rules and conventions. You don't take a book of poetry literally in the way you would take a history book. In the same manner, parts of the Bible are meant to be taken literally, others are metaphorical, others use exaggeration to make a point (called "hyperbole"), done in the manner of writing style of the time. The Bible's not all one or the other, it depends on the context of the particular passage or book, but maybe that's what you are saying.

As for your first 3 examples of taking the Bible literally, Jews under the Old Covenant (ie, pre-Jesus and the later rabbinical period after the Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed--for the 4th time!) Jewish people did literally follow those laws you mentioned, and according to the Law given to Moses, that was what God wanted of them. (BTW, God never asks people to sacrifice humans. The one exception was His testing of Abram, but that was a test, as evidenced by His supplying the goat (or was it a ram?) to sacrifice instead of Isaac. The other, in a way, was the voluntary sacrifice of Jesus himself. Otherwise, human sacrifice is condemned as a horrible and pagan practice.)

For Christians, Jesus alone fulfilled the requirements of the Old Testament, and was Himself the ultimate atoning sacrifice--the spotless lamb of God. In His very body, He established for us a New Covenant/Testament--a new arrangement w/God, if you will--of how we are to live in light of this sacrifice, the resurrection of Christ, and the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. (What your priest declares during the Mass!) So for us, although the Old Testament is still important to us on many levels, we don't need to obey its unique requirements (like not eating pork, etc.) because Christ did it for us, and we are now under a different arrangement. Instead, we have the law of love that Christ and His apostles made known to us. (A much better way to live, if you ask me!)

As far as there being a physical Garden of Eden, if the creation story in Genesis is meant to be taken literally (and that is an argument I will plead the 5th on!), judging by the description given it in Genesis 2:8-14, the Garden would have been around the Persian Gulf area, or nearby. But, considering the flood that ocurred in Noah's day, the area would have been covered up, and the flood probably destroyed whatever was there, including the Tree of Life. (Although we see the Tree of Life re-appear in the Book of Revelation, in the New Jerusalem. Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14, 19)

Happy New Year!

[j.oxtrap]

The religions don't really talk about wet dreams, they talk about nocturnal emissions. And they don't recommand them, they only acknowledge the fact that you can't help having some if you don't otherwise expell your semen. Several places of the Old Testament explain that you're unpure for 24 hours after having a nocturnal emission - you then aren't allowed to participate to family or tribe council, go to the temple, sacrifice to God etc..

Furthermore, the religions are mostly concerned with your intentions at least as much with your acts. So looking forward to have WDs, enjoying them instead of regretting, or trying to cause or facilitate them is definitely a sin.

The central point for these religions is that sex and the pleasure it gives must be reserved to the purpose of making children with your wife/husband. They will tolerate nocturnal emissions since they're unavoidable, they will probably forgive moderate MB as a means to release bodily pressure if you don't take too much pleasure to it, but they'll definitely condemn practices like edging or sexual daydreaming that are pure play and pleasure.


Texanguy, I'm afraid your interesting thought is very unrealistic...

[Texanguy]

I agree with what you say in general. My initial post was just more of a novel way to look at the whole MB/WD issue as far as religion goes, and wasn't intended to be a serious treatise on religious philosophy. But I do think that many religions strictly forbid MB at any time -- Mormons and Muslims for example.

So looking forward to have WDs, enjoying them instead of regretting, or trying to cause or facilitate them is definitely a sin.

I'm not an expert in how much various religions actively discourage enjoyment of WD's, but I would agree that looking forward to them would not be very spiritual. But given the realities of the situation, many people couldn't help but enjoy them at least while they are happening, especially since it is the only sexual outlet they have.

MB can be forbidden, and it's an act you can control. But it is tolerable to have WD's and not help but get pleasure from them, since they, and the enjoyment of them, are involuntary. Many people would know that it's not very 'spiritual' to look forward to them, but at some level they probably can't help but do so.

But now my little post on an 'odd twist' on the religious position on MB and WD's has taken on a life of its own, which is perfectly fine.

It's good to see that this new 'Religious Topics' forum is being utilized.

[Squeeze!]

The religions don't really talk about wet dreams, they talk about nocturnal emissions. And they don't recommand them, they only acknowledge the fact that you can't help having some if you don't otherwise expell your semen. Several places of the Old Testament explain that you're unpure for 24 hours after having a nocturnal emission - you then aren't allowed to participate to family or tribe council, go to the temple, sacrifice to God etc..

Furthermore, the religions are mostly concerned with your intentions at least as much with your acts. 

j.oxtrap, I agree w/your assessment of how nocturnal emmissions are dealt w/in the Torah, and with your observations on the importance of intentions. However, this statement:

The central point for these religions is that sex and the pleasure it gives must be reserved to the purpose of making children with your wife/husband.

Is a good description of a very medieval/Victorian-type faith! Few contemporary authors in the Judaeo-Christian tradition still feel that sex is ONLY for procreation, and that sexual pleasure, even in the context of heterosexual marraige, is to be minimized or not sought. If that was the case, and sex was only "acceptable" when a couple wanted another child, then Paul was out of his mind to tell couples not to withold sex from one another for very long (I Cor. 7:3-5) and the Song of Solomon, which highlights the pleasures of erotic love should be cut out. The S. of S. even alludes to oral sex, a non procreative act.

Most Christians today don't feel that sex is only to make babies, and don't frown on pleasue, in and of itself, as somehow bad. Even the oft-misunderstood Puritans were all for it. Overly focusing on wet dreams or whatever would be the wrong focus, but I don't know many people who would say you shouldn't enjoy them or should somehow feel ashamed for being a sexual person. In fact, such attitudes often lead to bad behavior, addictions, neuroses, etc., which are contrary to the freedom found in Christ.

[qwerty]

I thought of an interesting way of looking at abstaining from MB for religious reasons.  Every religion that prohibits MB expects WD's to occur, and they all say that you can't be held responsible for their content.  Many WD's involve having sex, and perhaps the ideal WD's always do.

So what these religions are basically saying is that all your orgasms should be from having sex, and never from masturbation. You can have sex while awake if you are married, or asleep if you are not.  If you are single, you are free to have all the sex you want in WD's -- but you should never masturbate!  This may be an 'extreme', interpretation, but it is pretty much what they are saying.

They could even point out that once you reach the point where you have frequent sex 'naturally' in WD's that it will feel much better than masturbation ever did, and that you'll never want to go back to MB.
 
If religions taught it this way, they might get a lot more people to enthusiastically sign on to the 'no MB' rule!

hey texan, sorry i suddenly left during that lil debate on sexual orientation...had net issues and then just forgot about it.
hope you didn't think i had a fit or anything.

but anyway... you are very right to ask people to consider what they believe...if more people could just "step back" and judge themselves before others the world would a be a vastly different place. but i just think most people are too primitive to be able to do such a thing without something serious shaking them down to the core, but maybe some don't because they simply don't have the mental capacity to think on such a level.

now thats said and done, i think you are right to ask why "fornication" is sooo "BAD" in most religions but WD's are normal and are expected. This would seem a bit sus, a bit of self serving preaching from religious types...but you forget to point out something important. The reason why WD's are prefered to Fornication or MB, is because...it is assumed that wd's can not be controlled. However that is the only reason i believe they would be acceptable, spending all night trying to plan on how to "force" a WD would probably be just as "sinful" as MB.
You should note that wds are like getting "up" for no reason during the day, you haven't committed a sin (according to religious teachings) but doing something to get like that is different. INTENTION IS KEY

I just wanted you to consider that, because it seems like WD in your p.o.v. is exactly the same as MB and fornication and reproduction. In that its a human choice which to participate in, and religions try to persuade us which is "good" and which is "evil".

But the meaning behind it, is to stop people from being hedonistic and addicted to stupid biological actions, and instead live life, to do something great...not just try to satisfy whatever vain desire we have in the primitive parts of our cranium. Now its probably a no brainer that doing something to "force" a WD is as morally reprehensible as MB, i mean whats the difference, the chance of success?

and remembering that the whole point of religion is to show a model for a society that can perpetually function, i.e. a utopia. Now maybe the stupider among us need promise 70 virgins there to satisfy their sick twisted desires, and maybe there better just want to live in a world that works, where they transcend the physical world and they are above base primitive emotions, but are finally Human.

[Squeeze!]

qwerty, I agree with much of what you said, but besides the goal of heart intentions and transcendence above base, "primal" desires, there is a more immediate concern about unwanted children, disease (or "uncleanness"), and the emotional/spiritual bonds that are created through intercourse w/another person that don't with a wet dream, or even masturbation. Also consider on the masturbation front, that when the sacred books of many faiths were written, people got married pretty much as soon as they could reproduce, so masturbation due to lack of a sanctioned sexual partner wasn't as much of a problem.

[qwerty]

qwerty, I agree with much of what you said, but besides the goal of heart intentions and transcendence above base, "primal" desires, there is a more immediate concern about unwanted children, disease (or "uncleanness"), and the emotional/spiritual bonds that are created through intercourse w/another person that don't with a wet dream, or even masturbation. Also consider on the masturbation front, that when the sacred books of many faiths were written, people got married pretty much as soon as they could reproduce, so masturbation due to lack of a sanctioned sexual partner wasn't as much of a problem.

o for sure, i guess i didn't mention any of that because i was only considering how "religious teachings" would have influence in today's societys, and by today i mean the west, i mean i know there are still old timey societies around and that disease is an important issue there and in the west too, but i guess those were no brainers that i didn't think needed to mention. Probably because those are all preventable problems: ie. for disease why try abstinence when there are fairly inexpensive pieces of plastic or having failed theres the DIY- Vasectomy, i dont know if that's out in the US yet but in Aus i know a fair few celebs that must have tried it

I think i focused on "primitive desires" so much because it seems like all the other negatives from addiction to sex whether it be with others or just...errr....well those negatives seem to be all preventable with enough money spent on contraception, electronic add ons and miscellaneous enlargements, and yet you would be ridiculed as a backwater bozo if you even brought up abstinence...

my theory is that the unprotectable negative effects that are physical are rather something based on risk, eg: 7 out of 10 people will be addicted to it and put sexual acts high on their list of prioritioes...1 out of 100 will become perverted psychos. ( these numbers all eminating from yours truly's ass)

then there's the metaphysical effects which would come from this "attachment"

well again this is solely based on why there should be a moratorium on extra- and pre- marital relations.

but i aint trying to cram anything down anyones throat, except that i just want more people to atlast "see" the world. I guess i am getting pretty sick of the world, i mean if there is another news flash about paris hilton i will start to hurl, unless its due to her untimely and humorous death.

hahaha, i guess i could just erase what i just said and replace it with i only focused on the metaphysical because texan was talking about mb and comparing it to wd in the pov of religious texts and how its odd that they are treated differently, i guess i need to focus on how they are indeed different and that is purely a matter of choice not usefulness or risk of disease or point in biology.

well i hope you enjoyed my ranting, i tried to make it as entertaining as possible

[Squeeze!]

DIY vascectomy? Yikes! No, I don't think the US's FDA has approved such a device yet. I'm scared to even think of such a thing! I don't know if I would trust myself w/a scalpel down there... I can't even imagine how it would work

Though a vascetcomy might protect a lady from getting pregnant, it still doesn't protect from venereal disease! Only a condom (your inexpensive piece of plastic?) can do that, when used properly, of course. But it's not 100% effective! I personally know a guy who used a condom that broke and the girl got pregnant and she ended up having an abortion. And he was working in the porn industry at the time (tho not as an "actor") and was a responsible guy who was not "new" to sex, so it's not like he didn't know how to use it properly...

I didn't get this part of what you said:
"it seems like all the other negatives from addiction to sex whether it be with others or just...errr....well those negatives seem to be all preventable with enough money spent on contraception, electronic add ons and miscellaneous enlargements"

Electronic add ons? Miscellaneous enlargements? Are you taking about sex toys? I don't understand. How do these things prevent addiction? Addiction doesn't come from simply enjoying pleasure, it's "using" pleasure (usually) to try to fix (or avoid) problems, and then forming a dependency on that particular behavior in order to "function," while the problems in your life stay the same because you supress them with your addictive behaviour.

Sorry, but I didn't get this point either!:
"my theory is that the unprotectable negative effects that are physical are rather something based on risk"

"then there's the metaphysical effects which would come from this 'attachment'"
DEFINITELY--the "unseen" result of sexual relations, and very important to both men and women

"I guess i am getting pretty sick of the world, i mean if there is another news flash about paris hilton i will start to hurl,"
Ha ha, true dat!

[qwerty]

DIY vascectomy? Yikes! No, I don't think the US's FDA has approved such a device yet. I'm scared to even think of such a thing! I don't know if I would trust myself w/a scalpel down there... I can't even imagine how it would work

Though a vascetcomy might protect a lady from getting pregnant, it still doesn't protect from venereal disease! Only a condom (your inexpensive piece of plastic?) can do that, when used properly, of course. But it's not 100% effective! I personally know a guy who used a condom that broke and the girl got pregnant and she ended up having an abortion. And he was working in the porn industry at the time (tho not as an "actor") and was a responsible guy who was not "new" to sex, so it's not like he didn't know how to use it properly...

I didn't get this part of what you said:
"it seems like all the other negatives from addiction to sex whether it be with others or just...errr....well those negatives seem to be all preventable with enough money spent on contraception, electronic add ons and miscellaneous enlargements"

Electronic add ons? Miscellaneous enlargements? Are you taking about sex toys? I don't understand. How do these things prevent addiction? Addiction doesn't come from simply enjoying pleasure, it's "using" pleasure (usually) to try to fix (or avoid) problems, and then forming a dependency on that particular behavior in order to "function," while the problems in your life stay the same because you supress them with your addictive behaviour.

Sorry, but I didn't get this point either!:
"my theory is that the unprotectable negative effects that are physical are rather something based on risk"

"then there's the metaphysical effects which would come from this 'attachment'"
DEFINITELY--the "unseen" result of sexual relations, and very important to both men and women

"I guess i am getting pretty sick of the world, i mean if there is another news flash about paris hilton i will start to hurl,"
Ha ha, true dat!

i am so sorry, i really should edit my post before submitting.

ya i no a vasectomy doesnt protect against disease, i just used it as an example...and more importantly i just wanted to say....DIY-Vasectomy....Patent Pending.

about your first query with what i said....concerning electronic add ons...i was pointing out the way how there rarely is any 'abstinence' recommended for sexual problems...instead...the solution to those problems in relationships...is usually "just work through it" until "you find something you both enjoy". I.E. "just keep experimenting"....whether it be "enlargements"...toys....and i have even heard of "swinging" being recommend to FIX a relationship. It was just my annoyance at the way when there is a problem concerning sex it seems to me anyway, that they just need to keep at it instead of stopping and considering something more important.

and about your second misunderstanding of what i typed...and having re-read it i don't blame you. I meant that the excuse "i'm not hurting anyone" is usually put forward to justify why they should be able to molest themselves as often as they want. And also there is no realy physcal problems from mb, you wont go blind or anything like that. But that doesn't mean you can do that to yourself and your still normal. I think it changes you mentally, and like all addictive activities...some people can have their lives ruined by it. Which is a matter of risk, because maybe not EVERYONE will have their lives ruined by it.

But personally i can't see how i can continue to live if i am attached to something stupid, especially to something as stupid as mb.

Now here is where i put a disclaimer saying that i dont look down on people who choose to do that with themselves...but just that my point of view is that they are fooling themselves and not looking at the bigger picture. I mean being addicted to anything that changes your state of mind is stupid, i just find it so disconcerting to need to alter your consciousness so you can continue living

[sgenius]

as to god not forgiving the sin against the holy ghost, it is specific to the holy ghost and to him only, for jesus said that whosoever speaks a word against the son of man (himself) and repents, it shall be forgiven him. There is also a scripture in my religion that says "I the Lord will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men." Therefore, the Lord can choose to forgive whom he chooses to forgive, and thereby choosing an unforgivable sin actually supports the bible saying he is omnipotent (all-powerful). It's not that God can't forgive that sin, it's that he won't forgive that sin. and as for the mormon religion portraying a strict, or stern God, God has given us our standards because of His love and desire for us to be the best we can be. It also to promote our personal welfare and happiness, for, as Isaiah said, "There is no peace unto the wicked." In addition, Peter was not the founder of the Catholic church, contrary to popular belief. The Catholic church originated from the Universal church in Rome or somewhere nearby almost 1700 years ago! And, may I add, that the establishment of the Universal, now Catholic church, followed immediately after the complete and finished apostasy of the true, original Christian church founded by Christ. Peter, whom Catholics believe was the first Pope and the founder of their church, never would have taken such wordly glory upon himself. And besides, wasn't Peter crucified upside-down even before the original church apostasized. how, then, could He be the founder of a church in death? I can defend my beliefs with doctrine both of my religion, and from the King James Bible, as Texanguy encouraged me too. However, I do believe that my religion is and will forever be the only true religion upon the earth, that is the only truly restored church from the original one itself.