/lit/ - Literature

>>15908013
so what'd he do when he woke up with a rager and he wasn't at his gf's?

>>15908013
BASED
MASTURBATORS BTFO
BASTARDS BTFO

>>15908013

>Having serious opinions about masturbating

Jesus Christ people had way too much time on their hands before the internet.

>>15908013
the original no-fap poster

>>15908013
>hat by it a man surrenders his personality (throwing it away), since he uses himself as a means to satisfy an animal impulse

how is this different from using a woman to satisfy that animal impulse?

>the high degree of violation of the humanity in one's own person by such a vice in its unnaturalness

how is it "unnatural". Plenty of people and animals do it.

People in the past were pretty retarded desu

>>15908054
>>15908063
found the coomers

>>15908013

Kant on using spices for pleasure in cooking
>But it is not so easy to produce a rational proof that unnatural, and even merely unpurposive, use of one's hunger is inadmissible as being a violation of duty to oneself (and indeed, as far as its unnatural use is concerned, a violation in the highest degree). The ground of proof is, indeed, that by it a man surrenders his personality (throwing it away), since he uses himself as a means to satisfy an animal impulse. But this does not explain the high degree of violation of the humanity in one's own person by such a vice in its unnaturalness, which seems in terms of its form (the disposition it involves) to exceed even murdering oneself. It consists, then, in this: That a man who defiantly casts off life as a burden is at least not making a feeble surrender to animal impulse in throwing himself away.

>>15908063
your ''satisfaction'' in that case is not a waste

>>15908013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=129kuDCQtHs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc6F47Z6PI4

I get up in the evenin'
And I ain't got nothin' to say
I come home in the mornin'
I go to bed feelin' the same way
I ain't nothin' but tired
Man, I'm just tired and bored with myself
Hey there, baby, I could use just a little help
You can't start a fire
You can't start a fire without a spark
This gun's for hire
Even if we're just dancin' in the dark
Messages keeps gettin' clearer
Radio's on and I'm movin' 'round my place
I check my look in the mirror
Wanna change my clothes, my hair, my face
Man, I ain't gettin' nowhere
I'm just livin' in a dump like this
There's somethin' happenin' somewhere
Baby, I just know that there is
You can't start a fire
You can't start a fire without a spark
This gun's for hire
Even if we're just dancin' in the dark
You sit around gettin' older
There's a joke here somewhere and it's on me
I'll shake this world off my shoulders
Come on, baby, this laugh's on me
Stay on the streets of this town
And they'll be carvin' you up alright
They say you gotta stay hungry
Hey baby, I'm just about starvin' tonight
I'm dyin' for some action
I'm sick of sittin' 'round here tryin' to write this book
I need a love reaction
Come on now, baby, gimme just one look
You can't start a fire
Sittin' 'round cryin' over a broken heart
This gun's for hire
Even if we're just dancin' in the dark
You can't start a fire
Worryin' about your little world fallin' apart
This gun's for hire
Even if we're just dancin' in the dark
Even if we're just dancin' in the dark
Even if we're just dancin' in the dark
Even if we're just dancin' in the dark
Hey baby
Source: LyricFind
Songwriters: Bruce Springsteen
Dancing In the Dark - Introduction lyrics © Universal Music Publishing Group

>>15908013
bro you literally NEED TO COOM IT'S A BIOLOGICAL NECESSITY

>>15908063
Only sex is natural, coomer. Stop the jerk offs.

>>15908013
WORSE

THAN

SUICIDE

Hot damn. I wish we still had intellectuals this crazy.

>>15908114
>had a wet dream once when he stopped wanking
>continued to wank ever since
See>>15908106

It contains in itself the knowledge of the platonic necessity of man, and in that prudence; as well as his mirthful English dionysianism, in contrast to Nietzsche's dionysus who reacted to so much in Germany but still German in character in his harshness, that is he believed in an affirmation without mirth.

>>15908118
he's right though. only faggots haven't wanted to kill themselves when they're not gettign any sex. but now with neoliberal capitalism and neoliberal feminism, everybody's gay, you're isolated and jack off to computers, women are no longer subservient to men so men increasingly are forced to jack off. fuck this gay world

>>15908131
nigga i literally LEAK COOM when i don't JACK OFF nigga. MY BALLS ARE HUGE I NEED TO COOOOOOOOOOM

>>15908132

Lmao yeah because back in the day when sex before marriage made you a pariah no one was masturbating.

>>15908150
cooming outside the pussy was the biggest sin under jewish law. imagine living in a society that based, where it was basically illegal to not coom in a pussy

>>15908013
Original NoFap.
He's right.

>>15908132
I mean there were plenty of celibates, like Kant. Long-term NoFap is comfy as hell. But you're basically right about our society.

>>15908158

>Imagine living in a society where life is so harsh and infant mortality so high that cum becomes a valuable resource.

Yeah... based...

>>15908167
celibacy, man it's a complex issue, because it's good if you believe it's good but it's bad and unnatural if you believe it's bad and unnatural, these days people are shamed for being celibate whereas once it was a virtue, we've merely inverted judeo-christian morality in secular society, whilst retaining the morals we rebel against, to get to the heart of the matter. but again judaism was much more realistic wrt human sexuality, and even made it into a sacred domain within marriage. now we are liberated, we can fuck whoever we want, and we're feeling the guilt over that, unrestrained pleasure. you can masturbate these days, the doctors and scientists even say it's healthy and natural. times have changed. what i think is that you need to coom every single fucking day

>>15908186
yeah but they were still cooming in the pussy tho

>>15908192

Lmao the speech pattern, the non-sequiturs, the outlandish conclusion. Jordan Peterson is that you?

>>15908142
Everyone has nocturnal coom, that's not actually COOM you retard, that's cleaning out the penis tube. It's like precum. You don't have to wank, and wetdreams only come from a coomer mindset, once you stop doing it for a couple of weeks all such dreams stop.

And besides, after a week your minor frustration goes away and you are mostly set to normal but higher, then it repeats and you get a bit frustrated and so on eventually till you have complete control over your sexuality except for with real women... that's a whole other ball park.

Wanna give a shout-out to the based Catholic Church for preserving and defending the great eternal truths of our existence.
>always go in raw
>if you don't cum in in her you're basically a homo
Words to live by, friends

>>15908209
kek no but i am an idiot leaf tho

>>15908210
nigga why the fuck u talkin bout wet dreams? nigga i see a pretty bitch and my dick starts leaking, i'm a horny-ass motherfucka i need to COOM bitch i loooooove women. nigga if i don't fucking jack off every fuckin day i uh, well i feel upset because nobody loves me. but yeah it's okay to jack off every day, you need to coom if you have huge balls and are constantly fucking horny as fuck like i am

>>15908013
Doesn't that also apply to eating and drinking?

>>15908228
>nigga why the fuck u talkin bout wet dreams? nigga i see a pretty bitch and my dick starts leaking, i'm a horny-ass motherfucka i need to COOM bitch i loooooove women. nigga if i don't fucking jack off every fuckin day i uh, well i feel upset because nobody loves me. but yeah it's okay to jack off every day, you need to coom if you have huge balls and are constantly fucking horny as fuck like i am
Are you literally 13? You're not anymore "horny" than anyone else, everyone has gone through these moments, you get over it. Try to stop cooming for AT LEAST a weak you week coomer, and if you can't do that you'll be able to realise you're addicted, but even if you succeed you should be able to see that you're addicted.

>>15908100
It's an order of magnitude more waste.

>>15908225
Lads I just want one (1) thicc SSPX girl to dump endless loads into raw over decades until we have 20 kids

>>15908250
NIGGA I DID NOFAP FOR THREE FUCKING MONTHS. I DIDN'T COOM FOR THREE MONTHS. i was also volcel for 11 months one time. i am frequently volcel to focus on intellectual pursuits and just because i am neurotic. masturbation is an outlet for my sexual desires, and yes i do think i have stronger sexual desires than other men. i have found my balance, the way to maintain my psychological equilibrium, and it's just by jacking off once a day. you do you and i'll do me senpai. also i have a big dick and huge balls and i need to COOM nigga

>>15908286
>>15908225
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4600144/
Seek a higher purpose.

>>15908290
>big penis and balls = higher sex drive
Oh anon. Furthermore, it also includes not focusing on sex. Have you ever tried that you weak minded degenerate???

>>15908290
Based, fuck that needle dick nigga Tellin you not to get satisfaction he couldn’t coom if he wanted to.

>>15908310
Bro. I would never watch porn. So what if I have sfw thicc saved. I just wanna creampie a God-fearing woman thousands of times

>>15908330
And you're the opposite of God-fearing for really meaning that.

To hell you go.

>>15908316
i'm high testosterone too
> Have you ever tried that you weak minded degenerate?
i am jewish

>>15908317
based thanks for the support. masturbation isn't satisfying but you get used to it... to get žižekian even though žižek is a narcissistic faggot and basically a homosexual, i would say that masturbation is "sex without sex"
what's really satisfying is fucking the shit out of a hot babe with double E tits and making her coom 2-3 times, then cooming yourself

>>15908349
>what's really satisfying is fucking the shit out of a hot babe with double E tits and making her coom 2-3 times, then cooming yourself
This is true

>>15908370
i can literally die happy because i fucked a lot of hot chicks and i'm a fucking idiot so that's all i really wanted out of life

>>15908013
This feels like the same sort of reasoning that would lead someone to say that going to sleep is "like dying"

>>15908054
Cope.
>>15908063
Low IQ.
>>15908118
Kant is correct. Masturbation turns you into a slave and robs your intellect to serve your sensual appetites which is worse than suicide.

>>15908391
t. sentience of a dog.

>>15908054
Damn it's almost like masturbating is unnatural and a very recent phenomenon.

>>15908421
BASED.

>>15908421
>Masturbation turns you into a slave
I actually agree. I've been beating the life out of my willy for 20 years, but I agree. I unironically think this problem is at the root of my shit personality and failed life

>>15908429
NOOOOOOOO WHAT ABOUT MUH STICK FIGERNIOSSSS WE-WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD HARDCORE PORNOGRAPHY LIKE FLIPPIN FUCK DUDE I DONT SEE HOW MY 2160p 60 FPS PORN THAT TAKES UP TERABYES OF MY BRAINS MEMEORY HAS ANY EFFECT ON ME LIKE THESE GREEK FRESCO OR POO STATUE PROVES THE COMMONNESS OF SUCH A THING REEEEEES YOU FUGGGIN PRUDES.

>>15908429

Yep because animals definitely don't masturbate, no sir.

>>15908461
Same experience although I've had bouts where I've attained freedom. I'd take adderall and stop masturbating or fucking for months at a time. I felt pure and alive. Life goes to shit the moment I masturbate.

>>15908426
t. homosexual

>>15908349
>is a coomer
>hates religion
>is jewish
What a surprise.

>>15908484
Homosexuals are impelled by their slavery to pleasure as Plato said so you might want to look in the mirror, sodomite.

>>15908054
you act like /r/nofap doesn’t exist

>>15908477
did 120 hardmode during a manic episode where I fell for the TradCat meme and got /polx/ as hell

did 537 days with some sex years ago

>>15908501
>muh plato
bitch i've only fuck a bitch in the ass once and it made my dick smell like SHIT nigga

>>15908421
>tfw retaining my sexual energy to transmute it into artistic creations

>>15908429
Masturbation never once occured before the invention of porn in the late 90s. It's yet another way the rise of advanced information technology and the internet has destroyed us.

>>15908517
Thanks for proving his point and your disgusting aberrant propensity to engage in anal "intercourse".

>>15908471
then go jump in the gorilla exhibit.

>>15908528
>proving his point
>fucking hot chicks with big tits is somehow gay

>>15908553
Anal sex is inherently gay.

>>15908553
Your entire chain of retard comments proves Kant's words in the OP 100% correct. This isn't a man talking but an animal drive that hijacked a man and reduced him to nothing.

>>15908013
reminder that kant was literally afraid and filled with anxiety about taking a shit

>>15908635
understandable. poop is gross

>>15908013
thats nice but im gonna go coom

>>15908574
i only fucked a bitch in the ass once and i didn't even like it. i'm no sodomite and no faggot.

>>15908605
joke's on you, i just fapped. suck it bitch. fucking retard

>>15908421
I don't get the red paragraph, why couldn't don Quixote masturbate in prison? Why couldn't Dante masturbate in exile? Sir Issac Netwon, with his love for Hermeticism and Alchemy, probably was a coomer. eh, what can be said about this?

>>15908635
source?

>>15908421
holy shit that is based wtf

>>15908013
I masturbate once a week this has four benefits.

1. I dont cum in my sleep.
2. My semen stays healthy.
3. I dont get depression.
4. Testorone levels stay high.

>>15908013
It is a way (maybe the only one) of truly knowing one's body.

>>15908013
Eating food, drinking water etc. are all acts with which we satisfy our animal desire. I thought Kant was smarter than this. This is the best argument against maaturbation that he can come up with?

>>15908777
Your loss.

>>15908013
More words simply designed to be acceptable points of view at odd Prussian dinner parties, quotes like this are on the par of a twitter post and have nothing to do with analytical philosophy.

>>15908421
You would be very surprised to find out the amount of productive men that jerk it 10 times a day just to keep from becoming too manic to navigate the world

>>15908520
Even back in the 90s people still pretended they didn't masturbate. Back in the 1890ss people didn't masturbate. It was considered like sodomy.In British slang wanker means masturbator and it's equivalent to faggot.

He forgets one important point. Masturbation is pleasurable, and it's hard to argue against pleasure no matter how smart you think your arguments are.

In the past I have masturbated and read Kant within 5 minutes of the two separate activities

>>15910525
>not masturbating while reading Kant

>>15910497
>Back in the 1890ss people didn't masturbate

lmao, where do you get this kind of counterfactual history from? Last 300 years of history the upper class literally used makeup to hide their syphilic faces. If you think debauchery is something new, you need to update your history books.

>>15908013
Is he even talking about onanism?
It seems like he's talking about people whose lives are built on sexual pleasure in general.
It reads more like a typical argument against hedonism than specifically onanism.

>>15908013
My two cents are when I go months without jerking off I'm more aggressive and masculine, but its harder for me to focus on work and I go a little crazy. This is probably why people were always fighting are warring in the past.

>jerk off
>feel nice
fuck you Kant

>>15908013
Kant literally believed that you jizzed your brain out. Not everything he wrote was pure gold.

>>15908650
Based

>>15910574
When I say 'back in the 1890s people didn't masturbate' I mean the kind of people who don't cheat on their partners wouldn't masturbate. There will always be a large subset of people impervious to social restraints on sexuality but there will also be a large subset (even a majority) who abide by the restrictions placed by their society. Back in the day not wanking was one of those restrictions.

>>15908461
>I unironically think this problem is at the root of my shit personality and failed life
Nah that's way too simplistic and an easy way out
YOU are the reason, you wont be smarter, less lazy if you just stop wanking m8.
You have power and control to have 5 wanks and produce masterpieces if you want

>>15911018
>You have power and control to have 5 wanks and produce masterpieces if you want
Well thanks for the encouragement ^_^

>>15911029
no problem anon, remember no one's opninion (including mine) is gold. Not wanking at all works for some people, others it really doesn't.
It's all about having a balance, not going to either extreme and in general staying healthy, motivated and enthusiastic.
Brb going to COOOM

>>15909994
The other things are unfortunately necessary, sex and masturbating are not.

>>15908824
This. Masturbate once a week without porn or your imagination, just a casual wank on your own with no stimulus not for pleasure, but for release. This is the ultimate mode.

>>15908013
Hilarious dialectic of natural and unnatural present everywhere in the 18th century. The natural as valuable, what an error! This is what led Goethe to consider the men of antiquity "natural"! This is what led Rousseau on his tirade against civilization in the name of the "natural" man! The "natural" in music: the gallant style. The "natural" in painting: rococo finery. A side-effect and misunderstanding of Spinoza.

>>15908824
>tfw had to argue with gf again because she wants me to fuck her more than once a week, even though I explained to her that it would lower my test

>>15910988
I mean we don't have statistics from that period on sexuality, so it's impossible to know if they were actually practicing those restrictions.

>>15911073
Biologically though, sex is necessary and it has control over our brains. This wouldn't be the case if it wasn't necessary

>>15911170
absolutely disgusting and I hope you know she will eventually leave you over this. Fucking a girl doesn't lower your test.
Only EXCESSIVE masturbation does this, more than once a day everyday kind of shit.
So much misinformation and I'm fed up of people getting on their high horse over this topic. I'm probably more productive than most people who abstain

>>15910715
You sacrifice your freedom for momentary pleasure, and the most momentary surely.

>>15911264
>high horse
It's not a high horse you insecure autist, it's just that anon think it is healthier to abstain from sex up to such a level. And it is right to say that it is for both physiological and mental reasons.

>>15908031
cold shower.

>>15911235
biologically yes, but humans would not be humans if we couldn't recognize our natural desires in order to restrain ourselves to achieve something greater. Like Odysseus resisting the Sirens.

I love to objectify myself

tfw I haven't fapped for a week and I can feel the sexual energy all over my body, getting hard from the slightest friction. Will it go away if I wait longer?

>>15911343
Ah yes there is truly no greater human achievement than holding in coom. When my balls become swoll heavy with semen I'm really just like Odysseus tying himself to the pole.

>>15908013
>humans =/= animals

Fucking braindead af. Of course being addicted to porn and fapping is bad, but kant just doesnt know shit about nothing outside philosophy since he was such a bitch. A good fap can actually calm you down for good when you are in as situation where you dont want to be horny and it can also be a test to see if you feel truly turned on by someone or not: if not, after the fap you will regret having thought about that person. It is also said to be heallthier for mens reproductive system and last but not least, when you are completely bored you can always pull of a lil fap.

>>15908471
monkeys only masturbate when they are in captivity

>>15908013
>A man gives up his personality
And what if the man does not give up his personality? A man may have his personality intact but if it is of no use to him especially in this day and age, then what is even the point of not giving it up?

>>15910574
>counterfactual

>>15908225
hideous. Pig looking face. Tits look like they're about to pop. Fat as fuck.

>>15911403
This but unironically

>>15911235
It's only necessary for procreation.

>>15911657
You sound no different than a heroin addict

>>15910306
Based.

>>15908225
Refuted by Tertullian and Jerome and reinforced by Augustine (Soliloq. I, 10) insofar as you are taking pleasure in this and are doing this as an end which is clearly what you are hinting at. Any sexual activity is degrading to a rational soul, and that the only sanctioned and non mortal sin of is deliberate procreation which is still theologically regarded as venial and self polluting. You also reinforce the modernist lie that finis is what matters thereby sanctioning millions of perversions to occur before it, which was refuted by Alphonsus on his extortion to marital charity. Jerome proved that copulation has the same effect on a man exo/endo marriage so fornication and marital sex are one in the same. Hence, marital sex is no different than fornication inasmuch as it contains the problem rather than causes it to spread (as the Apostle suggested as the last ditch effort for those unable to conquer their animal urges). As St. Jerome says, 'through sexual commixture with wifes men do not differ in anything from pigs and other irrational animals'. The Church has always viewed people like you as pigs, as Christ called you, as within you harbor nothing but vileness and would will death of God if it meant uninterupted indulgence in your carnal affections (dogs refers to open sinners, pigs refers to secret sinners). The role of priest was that of a Shepard, to control the animals of his flock and regulate them accordingly using the bridle of reason and the sacraments to tame them. There is little hope for your salvation, "friend".

>>15908013
Oh yes, I practice Kanturbation, how could you tell? ;)

>>15908013
kant is a retard

>>15912386
>if you have sex within marriage you're literally the devil and you won't be saved.
>posted on 4channel's safe for work taiwanese spirit-channeling psuedo-porn board

>>15912446
>straw man + ad hominem + snark
Reddit response.

>>15912468
I only mocked you because I half-agree with you.

>>15912386
nice cult bro

>>15912386
>>15912446
>>15912478 (especially this one)
reminds me of the the thread we had the other day where the guy said this timolese thumb twiddlin board had the best and most solid discourse on theology in the entire internet, even more than actual religious forums.

>>15912386
Lmao how about listening to authoritative papal teachings for a change? You can pick all kinds of weird shit out of Church fathers that carries no weight.

There is literally nothing sinful about spouses banging cuz they like it. Nothing. In fact it's a very good thing and spouses aren't supposed to turn each other down. It just has to be a procreative kind of act, aka real sex.

Again, if you don't go in raw and nut inside her, you're basically a homo.

>>15912522
>There is literally nothing sinful about (x) cuz it's fun!

>>15912522
>there is literally nothing sinful about homosexuals banging cuz they like it.

My cooms keep getting better and better as I age

>>15912565
That was precisely Kant's point.

>>15912541
Wow. A+ parse, friend, and nice self-potrait.
>>15912548
Sex is ordered towards procreation in the context of marriage. You have the procreative act, you have the marriage, you can make love to your woman cuz you love her and it's awesome. You don't have to do it just for the child. It's not supposed to be a fucking chore.

>>15912386
St. Paul literally said that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with marriage. It's literally how the Church propagates itself from one generation to the next. Sex is a beautiful thing but the problem is people are too attached to the pleasure of it rather than the unitive and procreative aspects of it. God created man and woman so that together they can enter into the mystery of the inner life of the Trinity through marriage, which as a Sacrament is, a symbol of the Love of God and the Eucharist (in that like marriage, it binds one soul to God and through grace, produces faith and good works along with the Eucharist being the Real Presence of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ) . That means we shouldn't disparage it and on the other hand, you don't go full coombrain like >>15912522,>>15908225, >>15908286 and >>15908330. If one cannot control their healthy sexual passion (so not homosexual passions which are intrinsically disordered or anything of the same type), they shouldn't indulge it or repress it. They should be thankful to God for the gift he/she has received and discern if dating and marriage is for them and see where God is calling them. If their passion is disordered, they should pray to God for self-control and perseverance in this matter because a bit of temporal pain is infinitely better than eternal death and punishment.

>>15908013
>there are closet homosexuals that spent their life writing books about other men masturbating
>there are faggots like op that to this day look up and post about men masturbating
>op literally cannot stop thinking about thick throbbing dicks
OP I'm going to masturbate.

>>15912614
Cope and even refuted by St. Paul himself.

>Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman but for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife: and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render the debt to his wife: and the wife also in like manner to the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body: but the husband. And in like manner the husband also hath not power of his own body: but the wife. Defraud not one another, except, perhaps, by consent, for a time, that you may give yourselves to prayer: and return together again, lest Satan tempt you for your incontinency. But I speak this by indulgence, not by commandment. For I would that all men were even as myself.
>But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

The council of trent reaffirmed this and declared the inferiority of marriage to chastity continence.

>>15912614
>God created man and woman so that together they can enter into the mystery of the inner life of the Trinity through marriage, which as a Sacrament is, a symbol of the Love of God and the Eucharist (in that like marriage, it binds one soul to God and through grace, produces faith and good works along with the Eucharist being the Real Presence of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ) .
Imagine unironically believing this word salad. Worse than literature for women.

>>15908063
>how is this different from using a woman to satisfy that animal impulse?
It also serves a purpose of reproduction. What purpose does masturbation server other than satisfying your desires?

>>15912695
What purpose was there in God making sex pleasurable to the senses?

Yes it's true that society has turned into an American Pie movie when it comes to relating to the institutions of marriage and procreation. The hook up culture is a forced dynamic pushed by weak people too afraid of taking any responsibility, like many other things in current culture.
But the idea that a person should be as celibate like some extremely high IQ - extremely low test genius from history when men were 5'6 on average, 150 pounds, had no bananas or oranges, and no outlets for entertainment other than study piano 14 hours a day or do geometry, this is not realisitc.

When I was 15 I could have filled up an eggshell with some of the giant cartoon loads I used to shoot, jesus christ. I'd like to see Kant, Hitler, or Dante try one of those, never in a million years would they. Now I'm in my 30s I jack off less but I still notice a hormone reset sometimes. I'm not even thinking of jacking off but I'll be gritting my teeth for no reason and walking around shadow boxing and then I start absent mindedly jacking off out of nowhere and then go back to normal afterwards.

>>15912593
>It's not supposed to be a fucking chore.
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
>>15912614
>God created man and woman so that together they can enter into the mystery of the inner life of the Trinity through marriage, which as a Sacrament is, a symbol of the Love of God and the Eucharist (in that like marriage, it binds one soul to God and through grace, produces faith and good works along with the Eucharist being the Real Presence of the Bridegroom, Jesus Christ) .
Wrong. Man, was created for God. Period. Full stop. End of story.

>>15912679
>>15912386
> let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
>he sinneth not

>>15912800
People used to get married even in their teens because it was kinda known that young adults and teenagers are horny as all hell and it's better to have licit sex within marriage than sleep around. Personally, I think that custom needs to come back in some way.

>>15912804
Eve is cursed with with the pain of childbirth dumb dick

Day 4 lads. I'm gonna make it. Fuck cooming.

>>15908013
>i can't prove it, but it's wrong
>coomers btfo

>>15912970
>it's not supposed to be a fucking chore
Ok retard.

>>15913349
we're talking about sex, Anon. you're 9mo off

>>15912804
>Wrong. Man, was created for [a totally imaginary thing I am going to emphatically insist that everyone believe in]. Period. Full stop. End of story.
bro you unironically need anti-psychotics

>>15913372
The church fathers believed the holy spirit departed upon ejaculation. In some ways, the loss of semen is miniature birth. Following the discharge is headache, fatigue, slow reaction, inflammation, low motivation and death of the soul.

>>15911141
>gallant
you mean Galant

Why are the smartest people against masturbation and sex?

>>15911170
>refuse to fuck girlfriend to keep testosterone levels high, a hormone which drives one to fuck girls
?

>>15912386
>unironic christfags on my anime/hentai website
wtf happened?

>When should one masturbate or have sex?
>When you want to lose your strength.
Based Pythagoras.

>>15908013
Kant didn't understand that all impulses are "animal impulses," including the impulse to live like an ascetic.

>>15908421
I don't get it, anon. You gave up fapping, and yet all you do now is preach about how you don't fap anymore. Your life clearly hasn't improved if you're still posting here. If nofap is so effective why haven't you reached a point where you can just accept that your new routine is nofap and get on with your life?

>>15915216
Have you ever seen a struggling alcoholic take up various other narcotics in an effort to get over their alcoholism? The cause of that is weakness in the way of their capacity for introspection. That's exactly what you're seeing when you see people post nofap material.

>>15913382
Bro you unironically need to stop tipping your fedora, grow up and realize how necessary God is in your life if you want to live a virtuous life.

>>15908013
get over your obsession with dicks, faggot, your dick threads are off topic on every blue board

>>15915268
Are the angels in the room with you right now? Can other people see them?

>>15915244
It just seems odd to replace fapping with such a mundane activity. It's like when NEETs read self help books but do nothing except boast about having read the books without applying any of the skills. Nofappers always talk about finding Jesus too, which is ironic because making masturbation a shameful activity is what causes people to become porn addicts in the first place. As soon as you take away the evil of the activity you allow people with the problem to address it. If you're going on about how porn and masturbation are disgusting you're just making the problem worse.

>>15915268
If the only way to justify not watching porn is magic then you might as well just get into astrology and crystals and be done with it. If you can't accept reality you have no business lecturing anyone about anything.

>>15915326
>If the only way to justify not watching porn is magic then you might as well just get into astrology and crystals and be done with it. If you can't accept reality you have no business lecturing anyone about anything.

How about you actually read up what people believe before you sperg out and embarrass yourself like the gormless idiot you really are? You know that that's not even close to what I as a Catholic believe and I bet you're to dumb, prideful and angry to do any sort of research into anything approaching it, let alone the more accessible to all Aristotelian basis of Catholic philosophy.

>>15915381
Imagine lecturing about sexual behaviours when your religious leaders fuck children and cover it up.

>My superstitious religious beliefs are superior to other superstitious beliefs that are equally based on horseshit

Okay anon, okay. Congratulations, your spirituality is the real and true one.

>>15915409
>Imagine lecturing about sexual behaviours when your religious leaders fuck children and cover it
It's nothing new for clergy and laymen alike to commit sins that cry out to heaven. The Church is for sinners and saints. We aren't Donatists. Plus, that's one thing I can commend Francis for: he's really been very serious about cleaning up the Church and being transparent about the sex abuse crisis within the Church.

>Okay anon, okay. Congratulations, your spirituality is the real and true one.

I don't really care what you think about my faith. There was no reason to sperg out like a child because someone has a different faith or opinion than yours. Maybe you should try growing up and learning how to discourse with people like you are a mentally stable adult instead of a 13 year old fedora tipper. Even if you don't believe in God and never will, you don't have to resort to having a tantrum on the Internet because someone else does.

>>15908013
Holy based

i want to stop masturbating so badly, but its so ingrained my habit. Always once before sleep, not so much an impulse when i see something arousing, like before. I suppose thats progress. Any books for this?

>>15915593
its such an ingrained habit*. Christ im tired, excuse me.

The teaching of scripture is clear, people: it's fine to plow your wife. For goodness sake.

But it's also clear from ancient teachings (Christian and nonchristian) and personal experience that expelling your seed diminishes your vigor and makes you a weaker man. So you just have to be strategic.

My plan if I got married would simply be to edge a lot. It's good to have intimacy. This is called the coitus reservatus. Sounds like the most enjoyable form of sex for both man and wife desu - you enjoy lots of amative plateau state together without surrendering your vital essence / yang energy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_reservatus

>>15915028
PBUH.

>>15915593
The PMO hack book and eating less protein in the evening. Make up for it by eating more protein in the morning.

>>15915593

Best solution is probably to get married.

I'll pray for you anon.

>>15915669
the PMO hack book? doesnt sound all that reliable, but il look into it.
>>15915693
Thank you, i need all the strength i can get for this. Means alot anon.

>>15915638
>The teaching of scripture is clear, people: it's fine to plow your wife. For goodness sake.
t. Protestant/modernist twisting the word of God reducing it to nothing but a social etiquette manual. Begone, even your language shows how perverse and rotten your soul is.

>>15908013
Masturbate? Immanuel can't

>>15911141
Dilate, tranny

>>15915726
I ever read paul? Hes never read Paul.
Moving on

>>15915883
>it is good for a man not to touch a woman
>He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord: how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world: how he may please his wife. And he is divided.
Yes, you have never read St. Paul.

It's a reproach you can wipe away.

A woman is a reproach you cannot wipe away is from proverbs IIRC

>>15915920
>For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.

>I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.

>But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

1st corinthians 7:7-9

>>15915956
Non sequitur.

>>15915980
>But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
a last ditch option. Not ideal.

>>15915980
Bro nice fucked translation, but he's saying it's better to not exercise ANY sexual desire

>>15916043
>fucked translation
It's the kvj. And yes, ideally Paul would have every man be celibate as himself, but he recognizes that marrying is absolutely fine in the eyes of God.

>>15916061
Masturbation is listed as the better outcome. Paul also says any married man is mindful of earthly things, not spiritual

>>15908013
>I'm still to see any convincing foundation for supporting masturbation

"I can do whatever I want."

BUT I will say that if you marry a virgin child as Leviticus 21 states you could have a good, fulfilling life and wife.

It's very unlikely your wife will be more spiritual for you, and masturbation would be an improvement over a whore

>>15915726
what if one engages sexually with one's wife only during their fertile period and later they live celibate lives together and focusing solely on their spirituality?

>>15915726

Orthodox protestants believe that a man and woman can have marital intimacy and still enjoy union with God. Imagine it!

It's okay in the end. We'll outbreed you :^) Your dehumanizing marcionite reading of scripture will remain condemned to be uttered grimly by brittle incels lurking in the dark corners of society, looking for more consciences to bind as bitterly as their own, while faithful protestants will enjoy the covenant promises of God, cultivating their households and enjoying their youth in this earthly life and watching it pass away with peace, knowing that their eternal rest in God will be an even greater joy.

Proverbs:

"a lovely deer, a graceful doe. Let her breasts fill you at all times with delight; be intoxicated always in her love."

"Let your fountain be blessed and enjoy the wife of your youth."

Ecclesiastes:

"Enjoy life with the wife whom you love, all the days of your nvain1 life that he has given you under the sun, because that is your oportion in life and in your toil at which you toil under the sun."

Psalms:

"Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table."

>>15916174

also, side note, the fountain means semen

>>15916174
I don't care what men believe. I care about what Christ, the Apostles, Saints and God believe.

>>15915638
Oh no. You gotta complete the act. Again, the ancient and constant teaching of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is:

he who does not go in raw, and nut inside her, every single time, is basically a homo.

>>15916208
Actually it's licit, but only if both spouses don't orgasm and they both approve of it. If one orgasms by accident, they must stimulate the other spouse to climax as well.

https://www.vatican.va/archive/aas/documents/AAS-44-1952-ocr.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coitus_reservatus#Catholic_Church_and_Coitus_Reservatus

>>15916208
Only legitimate and sanctioned when wife isn't pregnant and intent is procreation. St. Paul actually considers anyone who surrenders to their desires to be homo tier, read Romans.

>>15916249
So wait, can you or can you not have sex with your wife if she's already pregnant in Catholic teaching? She's already pregnant so there's no procreative aspect to it, but there's still the unitive aspect.

>>15916266
>unitive aspect
Myth and false. The holy spirit leaves during intercourse. You are united to a creature and not God.

>>15916249
False
>>15916266
Married Catholics can have all the sex they want provided they don't intentionally remove the procreative aspect of the act. Post-menopausal wives can bang. People infertile for medical reasons can bang. Pregnant wives can bang. And you can do it just because you're a couple who want to express love for each other.

Just don't change the act itself into an intrinsically sterile one. The fertility of the partners at that moment is contingent. You're not responsible for that. Just do the intrinsically babymakin ACT.

If you doubt that I'm right, uh, you're just ignorant of Catholic teaching.

If you want to understand it more deeply on a conceptual level, look up John Finnis's stuff. He's also good on why homosex is evil.

>>15916340
See >>15912386

>>15916314
>The holy spirit leaves during intercourse
Absolute schizo heresy. You're saying good married Catholics leave the state of grace while having their lawful, marital sex! You're making it a damnable offense!

A baptized person only gets the Holy Spirit *back* in the confessional.
>Forgive me Father, I creampied my wife. Right up in her ovaries. It was fertile as hell. I really love her.
The priest would say hell yeah, no sin there.

>>15916340
>uh, you're just ignorant of
>If you
Reddits that way.

>>15916358
>Church Fathers are schizo heresies
>also wtf, why were all the saints, bishops and most priests celibate?

>>15916340
I just wanted to know if it was licit. Thanks for the mini-lesson and the recommendation. Are there any other good recommendations for learning more about the Theology of the Body? I admit, I focus more on stuff like Catholic ethics, metaphysics/theology and epistemology/science-related stuff more than I do things like how should a Catholic go about dating or other subjects relating to romantic love. Are there any books out there I could read about it?

>>15916355
He's utterly wrong. Random Church fathers in isolation are not popes. They floated all kinds of heresies. Read Humanae Vitae or the catechism to know what the Church teaches.

I must stress: there is no debate here. I am not expressing opinion about Catholic teaching.

Marital sex is not innately sinful and it need not be motivated by a desire for children as long as it is an intrinsically procreative act.

Memorize that.

>>15916358
> You're saying good married Catholics leave the state of grace while having their marital sex.
Yes.

>>15916383
Humanae Vitae
Theology of the Body
John Finnis essays (you can find pdfs online)
Contraception and Chastity by Anscombe (article)
Relevant sections of the Catechism
Relevant sections of The Way of the Lord Jesus by Grisez

>>15916391
A DOCTOR of the Church said it.

>Hence Augustine says (Soliloq. i, 10): "I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its heights as the fondling of women, and those bodily contacts which belong to the married state."

Keep coping. The majority of Catholics and even priests are damned as the saints maintained. If you want to follow christ, you must deny yourself.

>>15916392
Bro you're literally starting to commit heresy. Your being a brainlet might lessen your culpability for the moment, but you have to start educating yourself now. If you're stubborn about this you could end up in mortal sin. READ.

>>15916415
Bro, again, doctors of the Church said a lot. Augustine said Heaven will be a frolic, like the Garden of Eden, everyone running around on Earth having fun. Aquinas said it will be everyone standing perfectly still watching God. If doctors of the Church were infallible, we'd be screwed. But we're not because they expressed a lot of OPINIONS which never became authoritative Church TEACHINGS.

>>15916405
Thanks anon and God bless.

>>15916245
Always do the opposite of what Wikipedia says. In 1952 Pius XII warned priests who had been recommending coitus reservatus to stop.

Hey, if you lose it, you lose it. An unintentional early end to sex might happen sometimes, especially with old people. But intentionally not cooming would obviously not fit the Catholic ethic on these things.

>>15908054
Unironically this. The Ancients never even seriously considered the phenomenon of masturbation.

>>15915064
this. You are an animal, all your impulses and desires are inherently animalistic. It is better to accept this, instead of allowing frustration of your nature to cause you so much grief.

>>15915409
>Imagine lecturing about sexual behaviours when your religious leaders fuck children and cover it up.
You know what, since we're doing a sex and religion thread now, I was thinking about something.

While judges and juries haven't had much to say about clerical child abuse, the (((press))) have said quite a lot.

I wonder. Could the tarring of Catholicism as the boyfucking religion have something to do with the fact that Judaism, with perfect explictness, condones buttfucking little boys? Under 9 years and a day it's all good.

Tractate Sanhedrin, ch. 55
www.sefaria.org lads

>>15908013
"NOOO, you can't just do things that bring you pleasure in the privacy of your own home! Life should be devoid of pleasure so you are driven to serve the overlords who monopolize the produce of society"

>>15912775
to incentivize reproduction

>>15915298
>>15915326
>>15915409
enjoy burning in the eternal fires new age anti-spiritual bugman

>christians fighting tooth and nail to defend their right to go extinct
lmao

>Heretics severely misunderstanding Catholic sexual teaching claiming to be Catholic itt
Daily reminder that sex is not sinful when done for the purpose of procreation, following marriage, and the pleasure and unity one gets from sex with his wife is not evil either. Disgusting gnostic heretics, the body is not intrinsically evil, we just have to submit it rationally.

Why he be hatin on 'batin?

>>15908013
>The ground of proof is, indeed, that by it a man surrenders his personality (throwing it away), since he uses himself as a means to satisfy an animal impulse.
This is a strange way to put it. I guess you can say that when I use the spoon to eat my soup, I am using myself as a means to satisfy an animal impulse (hunger), but I don't see what that has to do with "surrendering one's personality" or what possible ethical implications it might have.

>>15918514
Right but they still think that doing sex with the purpose of pleasure in your mind is sinful, you should only think of procreation. Pleasure should just be a byproduct of the act, you may enjoy it but you can't aim at it. Which is of course hypocritical to the extreme, but we are talking about Christian ethics here.

>>15918535
because it be taintin ur matin

>>15908013
He would just intellectually masturbate instead. His writing is intellectual cum. Does that make philosophy bad?

>>15918514
I've been having trouble with this sort of thinking to be truthful. I'm 24 and by the grace of God, I'm just now starting to get rid of a pornography and masturbation addiction I've had since I was 12. On the one hand, I know that saying sex is a necessary evil is a sin but on the other hand, I don't want to relapse into a life of sin again.

>>15918658
>Which is of course hypocritical to the extreme, but we are talking about Christian ethics here.
How's it hypocritical? If you assume that sex has the primary purposes of procreation and the bonding of a man and a wife together, then it follows pleasure is part of the act but not the primary end of it.

>>15918747
>How's it hypocritical?
Because no one abides by it.

>>15918756
That's a problem of praxis more than the actual theory though. Plus, some people could argue that the pleasure is part of the bonding process.

>>15918763
No you can't, Aquinas is very clear about it. He is not merely saying that procreation is the primary purpose of sex, he says that it is positively immoral to aim at pleasure during sex. Which is why I said it is completely hypocritical, and psychologically absurd, since no one abides by it.

>>15918775
The thing is though, you end up using your spouse as a means to an end if pleasure is an end and the sexual act becomes little more than glorified masturbation, which is diametrically opposed to the Christian concept of self-sacrifice and loving one's neighbor as yourself. Pleasure in the sexual act can't be avoided nor is it intrinsically evil, but you can't justify it solely on the basis of pleasure because that's not Christian at all. There are easy ways not to turn your spouse into an onahole/dildo really: when they say they don't want to have sex, respect their decision, do things outside the bedroom like a date night or something in order to find other ways you can pair-bond except through sex and be abstinent for a time being to not become focused on the pleasure of sex (which even St. Paul wrote about in Romans). The point being, doing things like not being soley focused on the pleasure on the sexual act in marriage is hard, but not only is it possible, it's necessary in order to build up the virtue of temperance and prudence in one's self and in your household. Just because most people are either ignorant of how to build virtue or indifferent to it doesn't make it hypocritical or psychologically absurd. The whole focus of the sexual act should be on your spouse, not how good it feels, otherwise you are basically committing the sin of masturbation except via your spouse instead of your own hand.

>>15918815
>The point being, doing things like not being soley focused on the pleasure on the sexual act in marriage is hard, but not only is it possible, it's necessary in order to build up the virtue of temperance and prudence in one's self and in your household.
You keep downplaying what the Catholic teaching on the matter actually is. It is not merely that "focusing solely on the pleasure on the sexual act" is sinful. Rather, having pleasure as even a secondary aim during sex is sinful. When you decide to have sex with your life, the only consideration in your head should be "It's time to fulfill my reproductive duty". Pleasure should not even enter the picture, if you are looking forward to having some fun in bed it is a grave sin. This is why I said it's hypocritical, it is impossible to actually follow and in fact no one follows it. Doubly so with how obsessed Christians are with certain other "sexual immoralities".

>>15908054
Spotted the coomer.

>>15918863
>Rather, having pleasure as even a secondary aim during sex is sinful.
No it's not. It's literally the result of double effect: just like when you kill a burglar that's threatening your life, you aren't trying to murder him so much as to protect your life and that of your family, when you have sexual relations with your wife, the pleasure is a secondary effect of the conjugal act. The primary purpose is to express the marital love expected out of two spouses and the facilitation (or at least openness) of new life, hence the main object of sex should be your spouse, not you. The pleasure is a by-product of it and it's not sinful or grave unless you are having sex outside of marriage (which is the actual sin in that case no the pleasure). If you read Aquinas, you would know that he uses double effect a lot and it applies just as much to sex as it does to any other aspect of ethics. No one has ever said pleasure is a bad thing to be avoided during sex nor is it. Just don't make it the focus of sex, make your spouse the focus of sex. It's not that hard really if you actually love your spouse.

>>15918894
>No it's not. It's literally the result of double effect: just like when you kill a burglar that's threatening your life, you aren't trying to murder him so much as to protect your life and that of your family, when you have sexual relations with your wife, the pleasure is a secondary effect of the conjugal act.
But now you are just downplaying other parts of the Catholic teaching to make your view consistent. The double effect principle would say that if you aim even indirectly at killing the burglar, you are committing murder. You should somehow only have your mind in protecting yourself in your family. If you think that "okay, so I need to kill that guy in order to protect my family etc." that's still murder on that view. The view is obviously absurd, but that's precisely my point.
>The primary purpose is to express the marital love expected out of two spouses and the facilitation (or at least openness) of new life, hence the main object of sex should be your spouse, not you. The pleasure is a by-product of it and it's not sinful or grave unless you are having sex outside of marriage (which is the actual sin in that case no the pleasure). If you read Aquinas, you would know that he uses double effect a lot and it applies just as much to sex as it does to any other aspect of ethics. No one has ever said pleasure is a bad thing to be avoided during sex nor is it. Just don't make it the focus of sex, make your spouse the focus of sex. It's not that hard really if you actually love your spouse.
You are downplaying it again. It is not merely that pleasure shouldn't be the main aim, it shouldn't be an aim at all, period. You should look forward to having sex with only the duty of reproduction in your mind. If you think even a little about the pleasure of the act as part of the motivation, you sinned.

>>15918956
>The double effect principle would say that if you aim even indirectly at killing the burglar, you are committing murder.
No it wouldn't. Murder is the intentional UNJUSTIFIED killing of another human being. Killing someone attacking your home is perfectly justified and really expected for anyone to do. You really don't understand Catholic theology from what I'm getting. You should actually read it on Aquinas' page on SEP or something.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aquinas/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/


> It is not merely that pleasure shouldn't be the main aim, it shouldn't be an aim at all, period.
Again, no. That's unrealistic and impossible just from a physiological standpoint. The point is to focus on your spouse during the sexual act and not on the pleasure that results from it. Again, you should read JPII's Love and Responsibility or even just the Catechism's teaching on this because just like above, you have set up a strawman that isn't real and are attacking it, when that's not even the actual argument anyone is making in regards to sex. I think only St. Augustine though the pleasure of the sexual act was a sin and the Church doesn't hold that view because the pleasure of sex certainly is a part of the bonding/unitive process (also part of the procreative since of course male orgasms causes the releasing of semen into the woman's womb and female orgasms actually help stimulate the the cervix muscles to loosen and allow the semen to fertilize her eggs). But to focus solely on the pleasure resulting from sex is effectively another avenue for committing the sin of lust, even if you are married under the Church.
>"sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive [between spouses] purposes"

CCC 2351
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm


It's really clear you don't actually know what you are talking about and you are too prideful admit you are wrong. Or maybe you think Catholic theology on sexuality is the same as that of some more hardline Protestants or something, which is wrong frankly.

>>15908013
heres me *swiping my arms across the screen*
"ahh kamm on"

>>15919019
Also, in the last link, it literally says:
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:

-CCC 2362

So yeah, the pursuit of pleasure alone in the sexual act in a sin, but experiencing pleasure when you aim to give yourself fully to your spouse and are open to new life isn't. No shit, sex feels good. That's not a justification in and of itself to have it. It's an act of complete self-sacrifice and joining in the mystery of creation with, through and by God

>>15919019
>No it wouldn't. Murder is the intentional UNJUSTIFIED killing of another human being. Killing someone attacking your home is perfectly justified and really expected for anyone to do. You really don't understand Catholic theology from what I'm getting. You should actually read it on Aquinas' page on SEP or something.
The only one not understanding things here seems to be you. "Killing someone attacking your home is perfectly justified and really expected for anyone to do" ONLY if the agent does not, implicitly or explicitly, intends to kill the burglar. Do you think the principle of double effect means that you can kill the burglar if you only intend to kill him as a means to saving your family? If the answer is yes, you should really take a look at the second link you posted. (The first link you posted says nothing about the principle of double effect - maybe you should try reading what you are linking me first?)
>That's unrealistic and impossible just from a physiological standpoint.
Of course it is. That's my point.
>I think only St. Augustine though the pleasure of the sexual act was a sin
You are confusing two separate things here. I am not saying that enjoying sex (according to Thomas Aquinas) is sinful. I am saying that aiming at enjoying sex when deciding to have sex is sinful. The prospect of having fun should not enter your mind when deciding to have sex, but you can still enjoy it.

>It's really clear you don't actually know what you are talking about and you are too prideful admit you are wrong. Or maybe you think Catholic theology on sexuality is the same as that of some more hardline Protestants or something, which is wrong frankly.
I think the only clear thing here is that you should really take a look at that stanford article you posted before making your next post

>>15908054
>Ugh, why can't I just coom in peace and be entirely devoid of crititcism?

>>15908421
>there is yet to be recorded one individual who freely expended seminal fluid who ever amounted to anything
I guess Genghis Khan was a nobody then...

>>15916103
You will find a version of heaven on earth

>>15908192
>we've merely inverted judeo-christian morality in secular society
Masons had their way unironically.

>>15919153
>Do you think the principle of double effect means that you can kill the burglar if you only intend to kill him as a means to saving your family?
>the agent intends the good effect and does not intend the bad effect either as a means to the good or as an end in itself
-Defending your family is a morally good act. All people are called to do it, so it passes the nature-of-the act test
-Now this one is where you could theoretically have double effect not apply. If you kill the burglar or you otherwise incapacitate him and don't continue attacking him, then it passes the means-ends condition, since you have successfully defended your family and the burglar is incapacitated. If you torture him while he's incapacitated and/or continue to attack him while you KNOW he's incapacitated, then it just becomes a brutal assault and hence fails this part. It isn't evil to attack someone threatening your life and those of loved ones since you are tasked with protecting them, but that's a far cry from justifying torture (the evil means), even if the end is to prevent the burglar from attacking again (the good end).
- The right intention condition is very similar to the above so I won't go to much into it to much. It suffices to say that self-preservation is a justified end for protecting oneself and one's family, and the death or incapacitation of a burglar is an unfortunate side effect.
- Proportionality is kinda given: if the burglar aims to end your life or those of your loved ones, it makes sense to take his as a means to defend their lives.
>Of course it is. That's my point.
> I am saying that aiming at enjoying sex when deciding to have sex is sinful.
And that's still not what the Church teaches based on the two CCC quotes I posted above. There's nothing wrong with aiming to have fun or experiencing pleasure when having sex. That's comes with the territory. There is something wrong with using your spouse as an avenue to satisfy your lust and not putting the focus of the act on them. The sin isn't based on what you experience, but on what is the main focus of the act on your behalf: is it solely to satiate your lust or is it to express your love to your spouse?

>>15919417
Actually the right intention condition could fail if you intend to not only incapacitate the burglar, but actively punish him after you successfully do so instead of letting the proper authorities take care of him. But again, that's going past the justified self-defense intention and going towards you being judge jury and executioner, which you can't do unless you enforce the law of the land.

>>15916419
>>15916436
Insulting the saints and impugning their divine relations should be punishable by death. Your piss poor reasoning, "bro", was demolished by St. Bellermine in Disputationes de controversiis christianae fidei. After you die, Christ, the saint of saints, will say in so little words, "I never knew you, depart from me ye cursed into ever lasting darkness". You're the one that will burn in hell for all eternity for presuming God's grace, presuming your own salvation, ignoring the admissions of his faithful servants, nay even mocking them as you just did Saints Aquinas and Augustine, and pushing heresy so blatantly contrary to what the Church has taught for nearly 1900 years.

>And I say to you that many shall come from the east and the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven: but the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into the exterior darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

>>15919609
>relations
revelations
>admissions
admonishions

>>15918535
It's a low IQ behavior.

>>15912695
so its unironically far more animal to engage in sexual intercourse than it is to masturbate

>>15919639
It's not mutually exclusive.

>>15908462
This is a valid point, even if its style is positively correlated with brainletism.

>>15910508
>and it's hard to argue against pleasure no matter how smart you think your arguments are.

Peak pleasure comes from hard drugs, can't argue against those. Therefore you can't argue against opiod crisis.

>>15919748
It's actually been proven that sexual pleasure is greater than that of drugs. Someone posted a study here or on /sci/ a year ago.

>>15919758
My own experience tells no. But I would like to see the study tho, might learn something new.

Nietzsche was right. Kant had theologian blood.

>>15919417
First off, what I am defending primarily here is Aquinas' view, which I take it to be the correct position according to Catholics. If you want to claim that Aquinas' view contradicts certain Catholic Catechisms, and is therefore wrong, you can do that - I am not defending any view that the Catholic Catechisms are consistent with Aquinas' ethical views.
The view that I am defending is simple - The double effects principle, as formulated by Thomas Aquinas, says that (eg.) killing the burglar to save your famility is sinful if you intend to kill him, even indirectly, as a means to save your family. Do you deny that claim? Are you saying that intending to kill the burglar as a means to save your family is not sinful? Because this can be settled very easily. The Stanford link you posted starts the "formulations" section as such:
>Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one’s assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him.
And contrasts this with Augustine's view that killing is not justified in any case. If that doesn't convince you I don't know what else to say.

>>15908013
It is still better than raising kids with someone you don't feel like.

>>15920426
It's not mutually exclusive you retard. Kant didn't have children either.

>>15918658
>they still think that doing sex with the purpose of pleasure in your mind is sinful, you should only think of procreation.
False. That would be fucking insane.
>>15918863
>what the Catholic teaching on the matter actually is
Lmao, like you know! Weird manic autist pseud.
>When you decide to have sex with your life, the only consideration in your head should be "It's time to fulfill my reproductive duty"
False. Again, no one would ever do that.
>>15918956
>If you think even a little about the pleasure of the act as part of the motivation, you sinned.
False.

The literate people ITT know you are unfamiliar with Catholic teaching. Why are you doing this?

>>15920198
Based

>>15919609
Dude, read what you wrote. You are in a profoundly messed up state of mind. Exercise. Reduce your Adderall dose. Or best of all, jerk off. A shot of prolactin could really help you right now. Nature's Risperidone.

Also
>divine revelations??
Public revelation ended when John the Apostle died after writing the Apocalypse. Belief in any private revelations to saints is optional

>>15920582
>reddit linguistic motifs
Kill yourself.

>>15920582
>That would be fucking insane.
>Lmao, like you know! Weird manic autist pseud.
>Again, no one would ever do that.
>The literate people ITT know you are unfamiliar with Catholic teaching.
>Why are you doing this?

>>15908054
>t. animal

I love this thread. Reminds me of pre-current butterfly /lit/ circa 2017 2018.

>>15908054
>why would anyone examine the coding, does not compute
>initiate masturbation.exe

>>15920425
> The double effects principle, as formulated by Thomas Aquinas, says that (eg.) killing the burglar to save your famility is sinful if you intend to kill him, even indirectly, as a means to save your family.
>No only when the intention rather than any kind of self-defense is flat out murder, which is what's meant by intending to kill him. Literally the modern judicial system operates on similar terms: you can kill someone in self defense but you can't just randomly kill them, especially if they are running away.


>Do you deny that claim?
Yes, that's a misinterpretation f what he clearly meant.

>Are you saying that intending to kill the burglar as a means to save your family is not sinful?
No and I gave you a long explanation why with the whole litmus test with how to determine something is covered by double effect or not. The nature of the act must be good, the ends must justify the means, the intention must be achieving a good effect and it must be proportional to the threat. Again, I gave an explanation why self-defense is perfectly justifiable under double effect so long as you don't intend to torture the burglar after you incapacitate him. Again, it's probably something in the CCC as well, so if you have any more issues with the way I put it you can read that.

>>15921018
>And contrasts this with Augustine's view that killing is not justified in any case.
St. Augustine also says sex is always wrong because at one point he was a sex addict. Just because a Doctor of the Church has an opinion doesn't automatically mean as Catholics we have to take it seriously without some consideration of whether it is completely in line with Scripture and Tradition.

>>15921018
I am not talking about the Catechisms, I am talking about Aquinas' position. I gave you a Stanford quote:
>Thomas Aquinas is credited with introducing the principle of double effect in his discussion of the permissibility of self-defense in the Summa Theologica (II-II, Qu. 64, Art.7). Killing one’s assailant is justified, he argues, provided one does not intend to kill him.
Your point about torture is irrelevant. Aquinas' thinks killing the burglar is justified only if one doesn't intend to kill him. I don't know what else is to be said here. Are you rejecting the Stanford source?

didn't Goethe coom a lot, as well as Nietzsche?

>>15908013
>I'm still to see any convincing foundation for supporting masturbation.
It feels good.

>>15921133
>I am not talking about the Catechisms, I am talking about Aquinas' position.
The Catechism's position is literally just Aquinas' position but less verbose and a bit more theologically oriented. There is no difference.

>Your point about torture is irrelevant.
No it isn't. I'm talking when an act that's justified becomes unjustified due to using more force than is necessary and being necessarily cruel to the burglar. There's nothing wrong with incapacitating him in order to protect your family, but torturing afterwards nullifies the loss of culpability given by double effect.

>Aquinas' thinks killing the burglar is justified only if one doesn't intend to kill him.
Yeah, the whole intention should be doing what is necessary for protecting your family primarily, not to kill the burglar. In the breakdown of how double effect could apply, I said that defending your family is an intrinsic good that all people just by the very nature of being a member of the family (who is reasonably able to do so).

>Are you rejecting the Stanford source?
I'm not. I just think you genuinely don't understand it. Right below that quote it says:

> As Aquinas’s discussion continues, a justification is provided that rests on characterizing the defensive action as a means to a goal that is justified: “Therefore, this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in being as far as possible.” However, Aquinas observes, the permissibility of self-defense is not unconditional: “And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore, if a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful, whereas, if he repel force with moderation, his defense will be lawful.”

>>15921219
>Genuine question, have you actually delved into this topic before or my interpretation just seems intuitively wrong to you? Because literally no one in the whole scholarship disagrees with my claim. Stanford offers two explicit formulations of the principle. Here is the first:
>The New Catholic Encyclopedia provides four conditions for the application of the principle of double effect:
>1. The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.
>2. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.
>3. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
>4. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect“ (p. 1021).
The third condition puts it explicitly, using a bad means to a good end is never allowed. Period. There are cases where you can do a good action with bad consequences, but you can never use a bad means to a good end. If you deliberated the killing of someone to save your family, this is unambiguously using a bad means to a good end. Where if you can somehow intend to only save your family without intending to kill the burglar in the process, you are not using a bad means for a good end, you are doing a good thing while endorsing some unintended consequences. If you don't think that's even possible, that's fine, but it is crystal clear that Aquinas rejects using a bad means to a good ends in all cases.

>>15921031
>I can't refute his argument so let me just pathologize him as a cop out
REDDIT.

>>15921493
Killing in the case of the burglar isn't the bad means though. The bad means to justify killing the burglar would be something to the effect of killing the burglar after he had been successfully incapacitated and poses no harm to you or your family (or desecrating his corpse after he's dead). Of course, the end would still be to protect your family, but it goes from being that the death of the burglar was an unfortunate side-effect of you wanting to protect your family to actively killing him when he's defenseless. The actual act of attacking him and trying to defend your family by killing or otherwise incapacitating the burglar is not in anyway sinful or morally wrong. The difference in both cases is the justification: it is justified and necessary to defend oneself and one's family not only out of what is required out of an individual's role toward himself and his family, but out of love. You if you have to kill someone to defend your family and there's no way around it, fine. That's your duty towards them. But you can't go around using excessive force after the goal is achieved like torturing and otherwise maiming the burglar when they are down. That's completely unjustified and violates the love of one's neighbor one is supposed to have.

>>15921584
t. retard

I masturbate 3 times in the first two hours of waking up. That way I'm set for the rest of the day to do productive shit, without the creeping thoughts of tits and pussy.

>>15921637
Severe cope.

>>15921617
>I can't make an argument so let me try to 4chan

>>15921637
Wrong, you reinforced your sex drive by doing it.

>>15921656
Cope of what? It's just a way to suppress my sex-drive for a time. I'm not about "conquering my animal instinct", since that's retarded and counter-productive. You faggots will go on to live inside a pipe, feeding on shit, just so you can claim you've freed your spirit or some bullshit. Now that's a cope, my friend.

>>15921665
>I can only greentext like a retard in order to prove how I'm right and how the person I don't like is wrong
Pseud-tier

Reminder that fucking beautiful women is good. It is a blessing from the gods on strong young men. It is pure and innocent and joyful and everything a 4Chan sperg is not.

>>15908186

Cum is still a valuable resource.

>>15908192
>these days people are shamed for being celibate

Only online where there are literal porn agents trying to get people to consoom.

If you're an attractive man and you tell whores you're celibate, that makes you interesting, and a challenge.

>>15921754
>Reminder that fucking beautiful women is good. It is a blessing from the gods on strong young men.
Refuted.
>It is pure and innocent and joyful
Wrong. It is insidious and steals your life from you.

>>15908426

That's insulting to dogs. Most dogs are neutered, and derive their higher purpose from protecting and loving their human family.

So, that guy is lower than a dog.

>>15921617
>Killing in the case of the burglar isn't the bad means though. The bad means to justify killing the burglar would be something to the effect of killing the burglar after he had been successfully incapacitated and poses no harm to you or your family (or desecrating his corpse after he's dead).
Then please explain how intending to kill the burglar in order to save your family is not using a bad means to a good end.

>>15921775
>Wrong
You're trying to win an argument against sex. The gods are laughing their balls off at you. Olympus is in an uproar. Tears streaming down cheeks, abs burning from exhaustion.

Bro I don't even want you to change your mind. Your existence is too funny.

>>15921839
that's a hot womanlet

>>15911657
>It is also said to be heallthier for mens reproductive system and last but not least, when you are completely bored you can always pull of a lil fap.

Or you could, you know, open a book.

You're proving the nofapper's point.

>>15908013
Doesn't it fall into humes is/ought distinction?
It is unnatural and it is a violation of our sexual drive, how does this go to morals?

>>15921838
It depends on how you go about it. If you go in and kill the burglar for the sake of protecting your family and only kill/incapacitate him, then that's a requirement of your duty as a father/mother/child and you protecting your family (which is a necessary part of the role you take on within the family). If you go about it in such a way that you incapacitate them but you then slowly torture them and/or kill them after they are no longer a threat, then the end is still good (protecting your family) but you literally are committing murder or being excessively brutal in doing so, which is the evil means by which you do so. Killing in and of itself is not always wrong. You can accidentally kill people through ignorance or through unavoidable circumstance (like giving someone something they are extremely allergic to in the first case or accidentally running someone over when neither of you could see each other in the road in the latter). It's when the intention of the killing is directly on the killing itself and not anything intrinsically good that it becomes murder. Killing someone to protect you or your family isn't necessarily murder. Killing someone, incapacitating them, then continuing to attack them is. because they don't have the sufficient means to defend themselves from your attacks and you know it. Even if the ultimate end is still to defend you or your family, you are committing a sin by attacking someone that can't defend themselves and hence using an evil means to do so.

>>15912986

Eventually you will find nocturnal emissions to be more satisfying than porn and masturbation ever were.

That's not even necessarily in a pleasure-sense. More that you feel the 'relief' without the low that usually follows.

>>15915216
>posting on 4chan is proof that your life sucks

You should think about what you're saying anon.

>sex
>bad
Imagine pretending to believe this, even for .0001 milliseconds

>>15921955
>Herpes
>Bad

Imagine believing this.

>>15921917
Can you give me a formulation of the double effects principle that you accept? All you are talking about in your post is justified vs unjustified killing.

>>15922010
I accept the formulation as it already is. I'm just explaining the "bad means don't justify a good end" conception since it is kinda vague. Defending your family with the side-effect that the attacker may be harmed or die involves good means and a good end and double effect applies in this scenario. Further violent provocation on your part after he's incapacitated or dead is an evil means, but the end is still good seeing that it is to still defend your family. However, at that point the ends don't justify the means and double effect doesn't apply anymore.

>>15921924
Day 5! Feeling VERY energetic and horny but it's cool. I'll put it into a workout. Thanks for the encouragement.

Don't confuse me with the incels and christcucks ITT. I just think whacking it is super beta

>>15922001
I'm sure you would turn down a blowjob from a cutie on the off chance she has latent herpes. In fact, you turn down such opportunities all the time.

>>15922068
>I'm sure you would turn down a blowjob from a cutie on the off chance she has latent herpes.

Yes.

>In fact, you turn down such opportunities all the time.

Yes.

>>15921637
You're just making it worse.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1322146/

>>15922106
If you weren't lying it would be even worse

>>15922286

I'm sorry to tell you, I'm not lying.

You have no idea the quality of women I've turned down.

>>15922310
How did it start? What's your relationship with your mother like? Or were you bullied by the boys who got girls?

>>15922321
How did being a lust controlled animal start?

What's your relationship with your mother like? How many women have cheated on you, and you got back on them by boning another slut you hate?

>>15922340
I love my mommy and I love women. Even the bad gfs are just forces of nature. Fucking beautiful women doesn't make you a "lust controlled animal." Is everyone who appreciates good food obese? Plus, moderation is imposed on you by women being choosy.

>>15922043
somewhere around a week in too. I'm actually cherishing the horniness, if you pay attention to it it feels incredibly good and similar to adrenalin. Cock gets hard all the time on its own and radiates fertile energy, I feel like Zeus himself.

>>15922040
So let's try this distinction: The difference between intending a harm and forseeing harm as the result of one's action is that in the former case, it is logically impossible to realize your intend without harming someone, while in the later case it is logically possible that the circumstances are such that realizing your intention won't hurt anyone. Do you like it?

>>15922369
>Fucking beautiful women doesn't make you a "lust controlled animal.

Making it the center of your personality does. You spend your time just posting and staring at ass. You don't love women, you love ASS.

That's why the idea of celibacy is so offensive to you, sexual promiscuity is how you define yourself. Thus when someone denies that, it's as if they are insulting your very existence.

>>15922380
Basado. Si, y rojopillado.

I got a massage from a young slampiggy yesterday. Just had my well-developed glutes and lats worshipped for an hour. The pleasure of that on SR is unbelievable. My whole life is plateau phase

>>15922394
>center of your personality
Lmao how would you know that? It's a thread full of celibatefags. I'm gonna hit em with the truth, like in all the other threads

>>15922423
>Lmao how would you know that?

You would, too, if you qualified as self-aware.

It's so much a center of your personality that you feel compelled to spend your time trying to stop other people from breaking free of your infernal abyss.

>>15908013
>>15908118
>>15908421
*dabs on dull nerds*

>>15922437
>self-aware
says the guy arguing against HAVING SEX

>>15910340
>mfw regularly sustain hypomania through caffeine abuse and now my heart flutters
I mean people with my condition don't live long anyway but I'd like to live long enough to publish y'know

>>15922437
>infernal abyss
The world is full of THIS and you call it infernal. You are so messed up. The guy who isn't loving and being loved by beautiful women is the one in an "abyss"

>>15910340
name 10 (ten)

>>15908799
I was there. I remember it. reincarnation.

>>15922385
What about a case where you have to logically impossible to realize your intent without causing harm but that's not the primary motive? Like a doctor who happens to have no anesthesia who has to remove a bullet from the wound of a patient. He's not intending to cause the patient pain and he understands that it will cause a lot of pain, but it is his as the doctor to see towards the patient's health and make sure the patient is well (which won't be the case if the bullet is left in there since it will get infected and possibly be fatal if not debilitating). So he has to remove the bullet, but that doesn't give him license to do more than is necessary to the patient to protect his life. He can't chop off his leg to get rid of the bullet, he has to do it in a manner that respects the dignity of the patient.

So the difference is more in how the action is oriented, not the logical possibility or impossibility per se (although if it is logically possible to not intend harm, then that's the more moral action and should be done before all other options are exhausted and one has to resort to using lethal means). If the intention is strictly to harm someone, then even if the ends are good, the means are unjustified. However, if the intention is not to harm but to do something morally necessary due to either your role or out of love for another party on their own behalf and you willingly relent when the situation is neutralized, then the good means justify the ends.

>>15922503
>>15922457

Enjoy being one of the billion faceless retards whose lives will forever be forgotten.

Kant will be remembered beyond H. Sapiens.

>>15922503
Do you know what the word 'insidious' means? The worst evil is the one that poses as something good. You're shitposting on a board dedicated to literature and promoting superficiality and anti-intellectualism. Base animal instincts are just that, and if you can't see them for what they are then you're not even really human.

>>15922593
>Enjoy being one of the billion faceless retards whose lives will forever be forgotten.
You mean like non-breeders? Top kek. Kant will be remembered through Nietzsche as the last gasp of the priests

>>15908106
based

>>15922530
>What about a case where you have to logically impossible to realize your intent without causing harm but that's not the primary motive? Like a doctor who happens to have no anesthesia who has to remove a bullet from the wound of a patient.
That's a physical impossibility, not a logical impossibility but whatever, it's not important. Let's move on.
>If the intention is strictly to harm someone, then even if the ends are good, the means are unjustified. However, if the intention is not to harm but to do something morally necessary due to either your role or out of love for another party on their own behalf and you willingly relent when the situation is neutralized, then the good means justify the ends.
Okay now I think I have a good grasp of what your position is. So killing the burglar is justified because you can intend saving your family instead of killing the burglar, while holding a ladder for your master who is a thief because you don't want to get fired is not justified because you don't intend anything good, you are just using it as a means to achieve an end. If that's what you mean I concede that your interpretation is better than mine, since my account would make it impossible to kill the burglar (because intending to kill is always wrong in my reading).

Then if we apply the principle thus clarified to sex, the conclusion would be that having sex is justified if what you intend is fulfilling your reproductive duty, but unjustified if you intent to have a pleasurable experience. But now it seems that my previous criticism has some force - it doesn't seem psychologically possible to have sex without intending to have a pleasurable experience.

>it's the schizos vs coomers episode

>>15911018
You're wrong. I started masturbation at 16 and it aligned with the start of my depression spiral.

>>15923076
Yeah, it's psychologically impossible to not experience pleasure during sex. But at the same time, it's not even solely about the reproductive duty you have towards your spouse. Sex should be primarily focused on the unitive aspect of it along with the possibility of bringing forth new life through it. It's an expression of marital love just as much as it makes new people.

The pleasure is an unavoidable side effect of it, which in this case is not a bad thing at all compared to the burglar situation. But the pleasure you feel shouldn't be the primary end of the sexual act. Just because it's not possible to not have pleasurable sex doesn't justify it for it's own sake. It's not a sin or a negative thing in and of itself to experience pleasure during sex, but it's a sin to focus on the pleasure you feel primarily and your spouse's secondarily. You can have sex with the intention of making your spouse feel good since they also experience pleasure during the act and still experience pleasure yourself. It's like eating in that you may experience pleasure while eating, but the primary motive of it is to nourish your body.

>>15923132
I started it at age 13. Did it once every few weeks or few months. When I was 16 I did it once every week or two. College it was once a week at first. Age 20 it was every day, especially with tube sites. Fast forward to 30, its multiple times a day and it controls my life. I agree with you that this is the single reason why my life is shit and the only time I ever experience any sense of happiness or freedom is when I stop all sexual crap for days but I can't even do that anymore.

>>15923198
>Yeah, it's psychologically impossible to not experience pleasure during sex.
Right, but my suggestion is stronger than that. I claim it's psychologically impossible to have sex without intending to have pleasure.
>But at the same time, it's not even solely about the reproductive duty you have towards your spouse. Sex should be primarily focused on the unitive aspect of it along with the possibility of bringing forth new life through it. It's an expression of marital love just as much as it makes new people.
I am not sure if that's right, my impression is that Aquinas think intending to have pleasure during sex is sinful. Here is some evidence for this claim (first paragraph in the abstract):
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40017725?seq=1

>>15921955
t. npc

>>15922369
>Fucking beautiful women doesn't make you a "lust controlled animal."
Yes it does.

>>15922503
Fleshslave cope.

>>15923655
This is an interesting read. I'll definitely read it. I don't think I'll be able to respond before the thread dies, but thank you for this and that was a nice discussion.

>>15923725
yeah, very rare to actually have a productive conversation on 4chan

>>15923763
I blame it on the large amount of shitposters and trolls on the site tbqh. This board is full of people that just want to get people mad or make low quality posts for attention. Not really conducive to good discussions

>>15923840
Yeah, not like good old Reddit am I right? Go back

>>15922898
>You mean like non-breeders?

Newton is slapping you in the face with his eternal phallus.

Anons, look up

>ON THE INCURABLENESS OF THE VICE OF IMPURITY

There is a PDF with a link to an audio sermon. Very helpful.

>>15921775
>premature death
oh, I should wank more more often then

>>15924146
Smoking at least you're in control. Coom does nothing.