It sounds like you agree with me.
In my first post, my argument wasn't well-framed. In a later post, I tried to reframe it by comparing the safety of masturbation to sex as it pertains to the transmittal of AIDS. That's my argument.
I agree to the point that if one has a choice to have sex with someone infested with AIDS or to choke his chicken, then yes, common sense will dictate that if he chooses the latter then his chances of contracting AIDS decreases.
What about problems? Have you seen studies that show problems could arise?
The only ones I've been able to find readily on journal sites are tied to negative feelings a person has about masturbating ("its a sin"...etc..) or doing it in a fashion that isn't acceptable (like in public).
No, I haven't seen studies only the interviews that I've cited from serial rapists who have stated that they began their crimes after seemingly innocent beginnings that I'd be willing to bet started with solitary masturbation and the fantasizing of others while doing so. It's a warping of the mind that occurs with too much of this fantasizing to where there is no distinction between fantasy and reality, but as I said, I haven't seen any studies and don't even know if they're are any. Just my conclusions after having read some personal accounts.
If, as you say, masturbation becomes the preferred choice of sexual release, then it would be more desirable to that person than committing deviant crimes to achieve release.
Not necesarrily. In my thought on this, it becomes the preferred choice because it reinforces any anti-social behavior the person might be harboring, for example in a man who is awkwardly shy and clumsy and just not very good at interaction with girls, so he can pretend he's some Valentino in his mind, and that added to the fantasizing could lead the person to the point that the masturbation isn't enough to satisfy their sexual urges. After awhile, the fantasy just isn't as real anymore so the person needs to do the extra work to make it real. He might want to try to prove he's such a Valentino, and when things go terribly wrong, he then turns into a predator.
My argument to this is that the person would be a danger to society already. I don't know if science has determined this conclusively, but I don't think one can change his desires. If he likes little boys, I don't know anything that'll change that deviant behavior. If anything, I might argue that masturbation would STEM the act of commiting a sexual crime.
I can understand your point, but I don't think it holds up. There are many people that are "latent" dangers to soceity yet live full productive lives in which they are fine upstanding citizens because the thing that was needed to awake their psychoses was never triggered. That's the type of case I'm talking about. Not the ones who are going to commit a crime regardless. I'm talking about the ones, that when not having the correct socialization become menaces because they can't draw the lines between what is acceptable and what isn't. A perfect example to me, and I know it's from a movie, is Karl from Slingblade. Because he was locked up in a shed his whole life, he didn't know how to handle certain situations because he didn't have the correct socialization skills or the correct knowledge of the real world and how to react in adverse situations. In a normal, civil situation he was as gentle as a lamb, but in a seemingly dangerous situation or a situation that he confused him, all he knew was to kill.
Imagine how many more people might have died had Bundy not been able to find release through other means first.
None, because by his own admission his deviant behavior didn't start until he started getting into pornography.
In truth, I don't know what science they were looking at to make their determinations that teaching this subject was a good idea, and yes, I was using common sense here to a certain extent.
I do agree with the common sense approach, just not to the point that it needs to be introduced to anyone under about 14 or so.
I think Fox news was making an appeal to emotion by reporting on UNESCO's sex education report.
I don't disagree. Don't all news outlets today appeal to emotion?
Let's look at what REALLY is in it regarding masturbation
For children aged 5-8, the only mention of masturbation is the following:
1. "Touching and rubbing one's genitals is called masturbation".
1. Masturbation is not harmful, but should be done in private.
There you have it. That's it. It doesn't advocate, it merely introduces a new word to them.
If that's all there is to it, then it leaves the child vulnerable to predators who can tell them all their doing is helping them masturbate. Or that they can't do it themselves because they're hands are hurting so can the little girl help them. Afterall, it's just masturbation and you've been taught it's not harmful. As you can tell, in no way, shape or form will I agree that a 5-8 year old be taught anything sexually other than it's not okay for anyone to touch you where you shouldn't be touched unless it's a parent or doctor for medical/injury reasons. As someone said, a child doesn't have the capacity at that age to comprehend anything about sex or masturbation. Heck, my 6 year old is having trouble understanding how I can be the father of his older brother and still be his father even though they have different mothers.
For children aged 9-12:
1. masturbation is often a person's first experience of sexual pleasure.
2. masturbation does not cause physical or emotional harm.
- That wraps up 9-12 yr old information.
I don't necesarrily find much harm in that except that I'm not totally convinced that too much masturbation doesn't cause emotional harm. I'd like to see if there are some studies on that and if not, get some done. I just think it has the potential to produce anti-social skills and retard one's development socially and psychologically.
For 12-15 yr olds:
1. Masturbation is a safe and valid expression of sexuality.
I don't have any problems with that verbage either. I'm just not convinced, and I'm not saying that's what the report is doing, but I'm not convinced that trying to direct people to masturbate instead of having sex is as safe other than the non spreading of AIDS that the UN thinks it would be. I agree with 110 that the best and most effective use of funds would be to change the sexual culture and have them start using condoms more often.
That's it. No graphic details. No instruction on HOW to do these things. By this age, the kids are probably pretty well-versed with their body anyway.
I don't see anything subversive, or dangerous about this information if presented by a responsible adult.
For reference, here's
UNESCO's full report.
For the record, I never thought there would be anything graphic or demonstrable shown to anyone. As has been said, I don't think anybody needs to be shown how to masturbate. 
Originally Posted by Dirtydawg
It sounds like you agree with me.
Reply With Quote
as far as sex always winning out over masturbation, i've seen a number of women i wouldn't touch as long as i had one good hand and others that having sex with would indicate that one was too lazy to masturbate. of course, there's also the nagging question: "is masturbation a homosexual act?????"