Tuesday, October 21, 2014

response to Rory Patrick's 100 day masturbation abstinence - the pain and sorrow of having genitals

A man (Rory Patrick) abstains from touching his penis for 100 days. Supporters then express solemn tearful solidarity with him.

An interview of the man:

Quote from interview: "...On April 5, 2014, Rory Patrick announced to his Twitter followers that he was going to stop masturbating for 100 days. Soon, a hashtag was started: #Rory100. Friends and supporters cheered him on, sent him messages of encouragement..."
Respondents from his supporters as found at #Rory100: "...solidarity. we love you..." "...I believe..."...in my heart I believe in u & ur miracles..."
My response to all:

Oh the pain & sorrow, of having genitals. The great solidarity raised by three fingers, of others, offering great & wonderful support to the protagonist.

As I viewed the people's responses at #Rory100 I felt amazed, annoyed, and sick. My fuck what did the guy do? Abstain from touching his penis for 100 days? That warrants tearful wondrous support for the guy? WTF?

In any case:

The left bemoans the fact that we have genitals at all, nearly as much as the right does.

The left is unhappy that genitals can be used to make babies.

The right is unhappy that genitals can be used for things other than making babies.

And both seem to get pretty upset when your average sexual urge interferes with your ability to do other activities.

Oh, if there were just a way to separate out this part of our brain, right?

But, to do so is IMO abusive. For example the Mormon flavor of abusiveness:
and http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html
and http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml

And then there's Islam:

These religious prophets, leaders, and scholars hear you Mr. Patrick. They've got their three fingers up in solidarity with you. So do the Victorians and Puritans.

100 days without masturbating? Who gives a flip (rephrase in the common Internet colloquialism as you please).

I fully agree there can be some value in abstaining say for a few days, or maybe for up to two weeks. So that you can, for example, focus on finding a real in the flesh date or mate. But concepts like Karezza are in my view dangerous and abusive.

And the "solidarity" expressed sort of reminds me of World Hijab Day supporters. An excellent response: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2013/02/01/world-hejab-day/

And then there's cancer:
Masturbation 'cuts cancer risk'

And more recent health benefit articles:

Yes perhaps our moods would be more even if we didn't have genitals. But if we didn't have them we wouldn't be here. So don't look too closely at the mouth of this wonderful gift horse (if that's a good analogy - whatever).

Yes it's good that sex results in kids, and it should. The childfree life has a higher probability of being an empty one.

But it's also mostly ok that outliers like gays can have sex. They can contribute to society, and sex can help their lives be more happy. That's fine too. So both sides are wrong, and right, on these issues.

Potentially related posts:

Self-hatred in the "skeptical" community via angry neurotic so-called "feminists"

Subverting normal human sexuality: Mormon Church's principal crime

whitewashing history -- sex obsessed ancestors -- nudist hypocrisy
and explorations & activities after leaving Mormonism: nudism, & Temple Square protests
at http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/puritan

Karezza is dangerous & abusive - reuniting.info: teaches us to be afraid of orgasms, very afraid

Issues with being "childfree:"

Announcement: Ok, I'm not opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption