Why isn't jerking off more valorized as an easy dopamine hit that's also literally good for you?
Why isn't jerking off more valorized as an easy dopamine hit that's also literally good for you?
people have been demonizing it for most of the AD years i think but it's quite pleasant really. are there any proven negative effects?
You're viewing a single thread.
Christianity and Feminism.
Most of the different waves of feminisms are actually quite vocal about masturbation being a positive thing regardless of gender.
Feminists infamously had a moral panic about pornography in the 1970's as adult theaters and the nascent home video porno market started to take off.
They predicted porn would condition men to expect sex on demand and sexual assault rates would skyrocket when in fact the opposite happened.
You see this same moral panic from feminists regarding AI girlfriends and you there's a rising fundamentalist strain of feminism that still says porn is dangerous.
They predicted pron would condition men to expect sex on demand and sexual assault rates would skyrocket when in fact the opposite happened.
Reminds me of "computer games turns teenagers into killer machines" saying.
I think you're right about the porn thing, but that isn't masturbation
The current 3rd/4th wave feminism finds male sexual pleasure very abhorrent. If you can find anything in the mainstream discourse coming from a feminist that says otherwise please share.
Feminists can't even agree to be against circumcision which is clearly genital mutilation.
Thats just not true my dude, there is nothing about feminist thought that says that male pleasure is abhorrent. To think so shows a lack of understanding of feminism...
Feminism suffers from being very broad. There are a lot of conflict viewpoints living under the umbrella of feminism and people saying that their interpretation is the correct one. And there ate a bunch of waves of feminism too, each one a bit different.
So there are absolutely feminists who are anti male. They may be a loud fringe minority, but they're there.
Feminism suffers from being very broad.
Bah dum tiss 🥁
I won't disagree that there are definitely anti-men feminists, but there have also been anti-bi feminists, and currently there are anti-trans feminists. But none of them are worth discussing when talking about feminism as a whole because they really don't apply. Those are ideologies that should be tackled independently, and should not be considered representative of the movement in general.
But I'm talking about mainstream feminism in the public discourse right now. Think the "Barbie" movie. Male sexuality is very clearly depicted a inherently dangerous which is core mainstream feminist belief.
Did you actually watch the movie or just regurgitating a viewpoint someone else claimed the movie was about.
I haven't seen the movie. How does it depict make sexuality as inherently dangerous?
Not to mention Ken's attraction to Barbie nearly destroys Barbie land and is revealed to based on selfish social climbing and his broken psychology.
Barbie is immediately sexually harassed several times upon first interacting with human men.
Also see "Wonder Woman '84" for more examples which was directed by a feminists with explicitly feminists ideology.
I'd like to point out that toxic masculinity is not the same thing as male sexuality. One can be criticised without the other being condemned.
Ironically though, I could see how a misogynist might conflate the two.
Also feminism as depicted in movies does not equal actual feminism
Okay, post some mainstream feminist discourse that says otherwise. Highly influential feminists like Dworkin go as far as saying that any sexual intercourse with men is sexual assault.
"She is often said to argue that "all heterosexual sex is rape", based on the line from the book that says, "Violation is a synonym for intercourse." However, Dworkin has denied this interpretation, stating, "What I think is that sex must not put women in a subordinate position. It must be reciprocal and not an act of aggression from a man looking only to satisfy himself. That's my point."[1]"
Second paragraph on wikipedia...
But she posits that patriarchy is all encompassing and subordinates all women. Even the feminist that wrote the forward said that's what she meant.
Numerous feminists have said they interpreted that way. It's hard to take her denial seriously given the context of her book and the rest of her writings.
"She didn't actually say what she said in the book. Or what she said in multiple interviews. She really said whatever dumb strawman I want to make up."
First, Dworkin has never said that and did not think that.
Second, she died almost twenty years ago my dude. Intercourse was published in '87 during the second wave of feminism. Why are you misquoting her as an example of current mainstream discourse? And even if we're going to be talking about feminist views of the 80's, you're conveniently ignoring sex-positive feminism. The sex wars were like, the defining feminist debate of that era.
She did in fact say that and your link doesn't refute that. And sex positive feminism is not sex positive for men. As I've said many times before I'm talking about mainstream feminist discourse. Feminist always use this tactic of digging up some progressive strain of feminism knowing full well it's not influential.
Dworkin may have died awhile ago but her work is still regularly cites and studies by mainstream feminism and her influence can be seen in movies like the Barbie movie.
She did in fact say that and your link doesn't refute that.
Come now. She very clearly denies saying it in the interview I linked to:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever.
If you want to claim she's lying about her own statements, find me a direct quote of her saying it.
She did say it's degrading and a form of contempt inflicted by men on women. In the context of the books it's not at all unreasonable to interpret it as rape.
Regardless it DOES posit male sexuality and violence and degragation of women when it is expressesed.
Regardless that's her influence even if unintentional and it's all over media and culture.
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/MoorcockInterview.html
All she's saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn't even true.
It's a distinction without a difference.
All she’s saying is that she meant maritial sex is a form of violence because maritial rape was legal, which wasn’t even true.
She's saying women cannot legally consent to sex in marriage when marital rape is legal. She wasn't saying that all sex was violent, she was saying it was all not the "free act of a free woman" because wives were property of their husbands and could be legally raped even if they denied sexual consent.
Also, marital rape was fully legal in the entirety of the US until the 1970s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marital_rape_in_the_United_States
You seem to have a pretty loose grasp on the issues here. I get that you didn't like the Barbie movie, but that all that means is that you didn't like the Barbie movie.
She was and she says it in both that and other wrirings and publically.
"Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women's lives, can run wild."
"Hatred of women is a source of sexual pleasure for men in its own right."
She argued that penetration was a form of "occupation".
"intercourse remains a means or the means of physiologically making a woman inferior"
She labeled women that had sexual with men "collaborators".
But defenders like you will split hairs to make it seem like her demonization of male sexuality is just made up by her critics.
This is exactly my point. This is a harsh misunderstanding at what she was getting at...
She is saying that the reality of sex for the vast majority of history has been about men dominating women, not interested in satisfying the women involved, but someone already covered that point.
Got caught beating it at work, eh?
Test
I don't find downplaying the gentital mutation of innocent babies funny. I'm not sure why feminists do.
Downplaying the nonsense that you tried to make more palatable by putting it next to actual issues and hoping you could use it to misdirect when you got called out, while also pointing out your completely untrue claims betray that you got justly called out for some IRL bad behavior and want to blame feminists for creating a social norm where that behavior is no longer tolerated.
Christianity I can understand, but would you mind explaining why you think feminism demonizes masturbation?
I believe feminism has an issue with how women are portrayed in pornography and how that can influence men's views and expectations of women.
Feminism demonizes male sexuality.
See, that’s really interesting to me! The mainstream feminist spaces I’ve interacted with have been very sex-positive, so I’m curious how you’ve experienced this demonization.
Sex positive for women, not for men.
Okay provide some links to these mainstream feminist circles that celebrate male sexuality and or are sex positive about men having sex. I'm genuinely interested.
Here’s exactly what you want: a feminist forum that’s specifically for discussing men’s issues (including sexuality) in a constructive and healthy manner.
For anyone on Lemmy interested in these issues there's also a !mensliberation@lemmy.ca.
Lol, they do not celebrate or encourage expressions of make sexuality instead they cite is all as objectifying just like garden variety feminists.
Do you think objectification is good and healthy?
Sex positive for women collectively, not for men as a whole.
That’s not an explanation you just restated the claim they asked you to elaborate on. What have you encountered that led you to this conclusion?
Yes it is, masturbation is a part of male sexuality. If you demonize male sexuality any endorsement of male sexual expression is an explicit endorsement of the harmful male sexuality.
You’ve been clear about what you think dude, we want to know why you think it.
Feminists posit that men are inherently predatory. See "toxic masculinity" debates. Influential feminists like Dworkin have even stated that any sexual intercourse with men is sexual assault.
Mainstream media, which is deeply influenced by feminism, depicts male sexuality as dangerous "any man can be a rapist" while lying by omission about female predators.
Being male is an inalienable trait and "toxic masculinity" inherently is borne from males. Things like sexual assault are "women's issues" even though studies show men are assault at near parity to women.
The list goes on, really shouldn't have spent so much time answering because it's so glaringly obvious so you're arguing in bad faith.
You’re making a lot of claims about things I don’t think you really have a grasp on. “Toxic masculinity” is not an implication that all men are inherently toxic. It’s a criticism of societal expectations for men that harm them and their relationships.
You’re saying that feminism has seriously hindered acceptance of male masturbation but all you’ve provided here is vague unsubstantiated implications of media bias and a single author’s name. I’m not going to read the entire collected works of whoever Dworkin is to figure out why you think they’re both representative of the entire feminist movement and also hate men wanking it. Give me something tangible here. A quote, a law they supported, a speech, a video, literally anything at all that isn’t just some insinuation that’s only attributable to yourself
I would consider myself a male feminist and I masturbate daily so if the movement thinks that’s wrong I’d like to know so I can stop describing myself as feminist.
Andrea Dworkin was an influential feminist mainly in the '80 and '90. She was pretty clearly anti pornography, at least as it existed in her time (she died in 2005. Who knows what she might think of some of the stuff out there today). She's also one of the most frequently misquoted feminists of all time, particularly by anti-feminists. she did not say all heterosexual intercourse was rape:
Several reviewers accused you of saying that all intercourse was rape. I haven't found a hint of that anywhere in the book. Is that what you are saying?
Andrea Dworkin: No, I wasn't saying that and I didn't say that, then or ever. There is a long section in Right-Wing Women on intercourse in marriage. My point was that as long as the law allows statutory exemption for a husband from rape charges, no married woman has legal protection from rape. I also argued, based on a reading of our laws, that marriage mandated intercourse—it was compulsory, part of the marriage contract. Under the circumstances, I said, it was impossible to view sexual intercourse in marriage as the free act of a free woman. I said that when we look at sexual liberation and the law, we need to look not only at which sexual acts are forbidden, but which are compelled.
The whole issue of intercourse as this culture's penultimate expression of male dominance became more and more interesting to me. In Intercourse I decided to approach the subject as a social practice, material reality. This may be my history, but I think the social explanation of the "all sex is rape" slander is different and probably simple. Most men and a good number of women experience sexual pleasure in inequality. Since the paradigm for sex has been one of conquest, possession, and violation, I think many men believe they need an unfair advantage, which at its extreme would be called rape. I don't think they need it. I think both intercourse and sexual pleasure can and will survive equality.
It's important to say, too, that the pornographers, especially Playboy, have published the "all sex is rape" slander repeatedly over the years, and it's been taken up by others like Time who, when challenged, cannot cite a source in my work.
I do understand "Toxic Masculinity". It's right in the word and is much like how conservatives would blame " black culture" for the societal ills of African Americans.
You simply denying that that's not what it is doesn't debunk anything.
And we have a term for societal expectations already and it's called gender roles. Which isn't a loaded admonishment like toxic masculinity.
All of feminism revolves around the critique of men which is an inalienable trait.
Specific aspects of gender roles are what toxic masculinity criticizes, you’re trying to substitute a general term for a more specific one. Toxic masculinity specifically refers to the ones that are toxic, not the fact that men have gender roles at all. It’s, like you said, right there in the name.
I already cited several scenes from the Barbie movie in this thread which was celebrated as a feminist watershed.
The Duluth Model of determining domestic violence another example. Child support is another. The banning of paternity testing is yet another. You're just being obtuse. I won't engage with you anymore.
My dude, scenes from a Barbie movie are not representative of an entire political movement and I really don’t think your interpretation of those scenes makes for any kind of proof of your claims.
Do you have anything demonstrating the feminist movement supports this shit:
The Duluth Model of determining domestic violence another example. Child support is another. The banning of paternity testing is yet another
Or are you just labeling these things as feminist because you do that with everything you perceive as misandrist?
Someone needs to go outside and interact with actual feminists.
Not really.
Feminism embraces openness in society, including walking your own path.
If that includes deviating from cis male sexuality, then yes, feminism does indeed allow that to happen, if it happens naturally. In other words: feminism does not force you to take part in the toxic masculinity circlejerk.
In that way, yes, feminism probably reduces the amount of "male sexuality" which is basically toxic masculinity in the world. But it does not force that change, instead, it lets it happen.
My ass. Yes, maybe some inviduals do, but feminism itself does not. Feminists only 'demonize' male sexuality when it starts turning into treating us as walking fleshlights.
I seriously doubt it causes either of those. Source?
Read the rest of this thread.
No thanks. The question was about negative effects, and you gave your response. I'd like you to explain how masturbation turns you into a Christian and/or feminist.
Okay whatever, I already explained my position. I'm not going to repeat myself to every bad faith actor that wants to their own personalized explanation.
You interpreted a movie about respecting women and not objectifying people as anti-pleasure for men, and you call me bad faith. You're an incel who can't understand a children's movie.
Nice strawman, I didn't say it turns you into a feminist. I said Christianity and feminism demonize male sexuality and that ideology is deeply influential.
You literally did say that.
Q: What are the negative effects if any of Masturbation
A: Christianity and Feminism.
How many anti-masturbation feminists do you know personally?
Here's an example of a prominant influential feminist calling all men rapists.
"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."
- Andrea Dworkin