It is no secret that conservative Christians are often deeply frightened by basic aspects of sexuality. When this conditioned fear is combined with the fallacious misinterpretation of Biblical sexual ethics, they are quick to condemn acts like sexual self-stimulation. A variety of powerless objections might be raised, one of the popular ones being that masturbation is sinful in at least most circumstances because it entails fantasies derived from pictures, videos, or thoughts of other people to whom one is not married.
This objection to masturbation relies on a major non sequitur (among others): it assumes that masturbation must be accompanied by some sort of visual or imagined stimulus. The evangelicals behind it assume that some sort of fantasy crafted around another person is at the core of self-pleasuring. However, masturbation does not require the sight of sensual or sexual imagery (the two are not identical). Likewise, it does not require mental imagery, although an individual's subjective experience of psychological pleasure could be thoroughly enhanced by either of them.
Imagery of either a visual or mental kind can certainly serve as an aid for self-pleasuring, but it is in no way necessary even in the cases where it amplifies pleasure. The evangelicals who mistakenly think the Bible condemns or discourages masturbation because it allegedly involves sexual reactions to physical or mental imagery overlook the fact that sexual thoughts about a person are not Biblically sinful in themselves, but they also overlook the fact that masturbation can take place without thoughts of another person to begin with.
For this reason alone, the objection fails; it also fails in that it neglects the fact that men and women (yes, women are visual, and the male body is not unattractive!) who masturbate to the sight or thought of specific people of the opposite gender are not automatically violating, degrading, objectifying, or lusting after them. A person can pleasure himself or herself to images without dehumanizing the recipient of their attraction or attention. Moreover, it is Biblically impossible to lust after a single person [1] because lust is the coveting of another person's spouse, so anyone who claims that masturbating to the thought of an unmarried person involves lust is incorrect by default, as is someone who claims that sexual thoughts about someone else's spouse involve lust by default.
Masturbation is demonstrably nonsinful on the Biblical worldview [2], but it is nonetheless treated by many Christians as if it destroys marriages, promotes selfishness, and dehumanizes the opposite gender when it is coupled with erotic imagery. None of these myths are endorsed by anyone other than those who wallow in assumptions and ignorance. There are those who nonetheless embrace a heretical asceticism so thoroughly that it blinds them to the utter stupidity and unbiblicality of their positions on innocent sexual behaviors.
[1]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2019/03/the-impossibility-of-lusting-after.html
[2]. https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2017/07/sexual-self-stimulation.html
This topic always fascinates me. Any Christian who wants to condemn masturbation as sinful according to Scripture are already at a disadvantage as you won't find any verse to defend that claim. Even defenses appealing to words like "sexual immorality" or "living in the flesh" have to be assumed to include masturbating. It seems more and more like they condemn it simply because of prudery, which is very unfortunate.
ReplyDeletePrudery seems to be one of the most common motivators behind a lot of sexual legalism, even though there are plenty of Christians who make superficially positive comments about sexuality and the human body. I find it very amusing when people reference vague New Testament phrases like "sexual immorality" and simply read whatever they subjectively dislike into the words. When pressed, they have nothing other than an assumption or preference to appeal to!
DeleteI have seen certain passages used to condemn any sensuality because Paul mentions it by name like in Galatians 5 or 1 Peter 4. From what I can see on closer inspection, the greek word for "sensuality" is translated to mean more along the lines of licentiousness or debauchery.
DeleteTo be licentious is to be unrestrained especially in a promiscuous sense and debauchery means to be overindulgent in pleasures. Obviously these are anti-hedonism passages, but they aren't anti-pleasure passages that most Christians seem to take away. So it's misleading to cherry pick these verses to perpetuate an ascetic narrative.
People really got to understand the difference between hedonism and wanting to experience biblically permissible pleasure! It seems like they could use some of that, then we can all calm down a little haha
There is a huge difference between enjoying sensuality and engaging in hedonism that is ignored by the typical Christian. Ironically, many of them have some sort of preferred pleasure that they realize is Biblically legitimate, like eating certain foods or appreciating nature, and yet they usually draw arbitrary and unbiblical lines the moment sexual pleasure (outside of a legal marriage) is given emphasis. They wouldn't describe themselves this way, but they fear or despise sexuality simply because it is sexuality, despite it being a foundational part of how God created humans to live!
Delete