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:

http://www.vice.com/read/our-interview-with-a-guy-who-didnt-masturbate-for-100-days-722

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:
http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm
and http://mormoncurtain.com/topic_markepeterson.html
and http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml

And then there's Islam:
http://nowscape.com/islam/Islam_masturbation.htm

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'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3072021.stm

And more recent health benefit articles:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2518802/Masturbation-good-health-prevents-cystitis-diabetes-cancer.html

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"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/07/self-hatred-in-skeptical-community-via.html

Subverting normal human sexuality: Mormon Church's principal crime
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2012/12/subverting-normal-human-sexuality.html

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
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013/03/karezza-is-dangerous-abusive.html

Issues with being "childfree:"
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/search/label/childfree

Announcement: Ok, I'm not opposed to gay marriage and gay adoption
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/09/announcement-ok-im-not-opposed-to-gay.html

Liberal anger at being human - Criticisms of California Senate Bill SB 967

Debunking the dominant paradigm - a never ending job.

Here, specifically, the State tells us exactly how to have sex:

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967

"...lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent..."

Who says?

This is the government of California telling everyone in colleges in California, exactly, how to have sex.

The abusers deserve to be locked up. But this goes too far. And wrongful accusers can be abusers as well.

More criticisms of the bill:

http://www.thefire.org/fire-statement-on-california-affirmative-consent-bill/

http://www.independent.com/news/2014/aug/11/affirmative-consent-u/

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/churchformen/2014/09/men-the-sexual-revolution-is-over/

http://www.city-journal.org/2014/cjc0718bb.html

And sometimes even the libertarians are right:

http://libertarianviewpoint.com/blog/california-government-proposes-license-law-for-consensual-sex/

"...it is fundamentally abhorrent for the government to be in your bedroom..."

also check out:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/09/29/jerry-brown-signs-bill-telling-college-k

It's also abhorrent for the church to be in your bedroom as well (eg: your average Mormon bishop or Catholic priest).

http://corvus.freeshell.org/corvus_corax/two/life_path/Mortal_Mormonism.htm

Rape laws are already on the books. But this new law goes way too far. Plus it's based on a lie - the one in five lie. More info:

1 in 5: Debating the Most Controversial Sexual Assault Statistic
http://time.com/2934500/1-in-5%E2%80%82campus-sexual-assault-statistic/

2.5% probably, not 20.

Quote from article:

"...This means that 2.5% of women are sexually assaulted in college, not 20%..."

In the military the risks to women are higher than in the general population that's true. In college the risks are less.

And dually-boozing partners who have buyer's remorse afterward should not be included in any rape statistics.

Politifact's take:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/may/02/are-20-percent-women-sexually-assaulted-they-gradu/

Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/05/01/one-in-five-women-in-college-sexually-assaulted-the-source-of-this-statistic/

Judgy Bitch chimes in:
http://judgybitch.com/2014/04/30/i-am-now-officially-sick-of-rape-culture-bullshit/

Interesting comments:
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_politics.htm

From the above:

"...a view held by many on the left that presumes man is born a blank slate..."

OMG! The Blank Slate! Remember that one!

Pinker debunks the blank slate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blank_Slate
...see related videos of Pinker talking about this on youtube & TED.

Humans are not born blank slates, and leftists work to deny human nature in huge ways. Righties deny human nature in other ways (& truth & facts). But it's sad to see that both sides are in denial.

From Wendy McElroy:
http://blog.panampost.com/editor/2014/04/14/the-big-lie-of-a-rape-culture/

From Caroline Kitchens:
Rape Hysteria & the Rape Culture Lie Must End
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/rape-hysteria-the-rape-culture-lie-must-end-jessicavalenti-rapeculture/

Anyway I agree that NFL jocks who hit their girlfriends & wives should be ejected. I agree that abusers who break the law should be locked up.

There *may* be "rape culture" in some hiphop music. But it's way too non-PC to be honest about that...

Also rape is about sex, not just about control. I have no idea why people say it's not about sex. How do they know? And what happens during rape anyway?

Is rape about control or sex?
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-human-beast/201104/is-rape-about-control-or-sex

"...Evolutionary psychologists have been at pains to show that rape is actually a sexual crime through which men seek sexual gratification from women who would otherwise refuse them..."

related blog post:

Why do rapists rape? For power or sex?
http://emmatheemo.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/why-do-rapists-rape-for-power-or-sex-lets-ask-a-rapist/

from apparently conservative blogger
http://glaivester.blogspot.com/2006/03/rape-is-about-sex-duh.html

"...Which leads in to the reason why we keep hearing that rape is not about sex. It is philosophically untenable to keep pushing the boundaries of the sexual revolution without making rape seem less and less violative by comparison, as the act which is coerced in rape becomes less and less private, personal, and valued in society. So the only way to retain the sense of horror at rape is to alter the rationale for rape being bad; that the goal is total violation, so that the violence becomes the issue; rather than the horror coming from the intimacy of the act which was forced upon the victim, which is the old rationale..."

---

A tough topic but it's important to be honest. There's fear mongering & inappropriate shaming on the left that needs to be debunked, called out, and resisted.

Forcibly imposed upon self, and all people, undue flagellation & shame, because yes some humans are criminals or abusers. But not everyone is and we all shouldn't be treated like we are.

Anger and hatred at being human, at all humans, because a few humans do bad things. Now that is a type of "rape culture," rape of a different kind.

Both the right AND the left seek to use & abuse students in colleges & universities for their own ends. Both sides tell them lies, about human nature, and the truth.

A portion of the "sexual revolution" has, can, and does destroy families (ie: advocacy for non-monogamy, for the "childfree" life, for disposable marriages, and for seeking to have a general disconnect between sexuality & reproduction - all incredibly abusive tenants of the revolution).

The parts of the revolution that advocate for honesty, education, having more fun with our partners, being less inhibited with our partners, and not shaming for adults viewing other adults sexual activities (eg: sexuality expressed in art & film) - yes those are some generally good parts. But seeking to outright deny human nature, and decouple sex from having babies is evil & abusive.

Both sides have an agenda: to hide the truth in their own ways.

Yes evolution by natural selection did happen. No there is no god. But, on the other hand you can really fuck up your life if you "choose" to live a wastrel childfree life when you could have, and should have, had some kids. You can fuck up your children via adultery and believing you can easily bail on your husband or wife.

Separating yourself too far from the tree of life, and from basic human nature, can screw up your life & the lives of others.

Oh, and a certain percentage of humans will be naturally born criminals (sociopaths & worse). Lock them up, I very much agree...

---

p.s. Found this video;

http://youtu.be/1KQQ1bzQn0k

Advice for Social Conservatives & Moderates, from a Family Values Atheist

On social issues, groups of scientists, atheism, and the atheist movement are still religions.

Dogma.

Doctrine.

Unquestionable dogma & doctrine.

Heresy & excommunication trials.

These are a few of religion's favorite things.

Humans are not a tabula rasa (a blank slate).

Here is some general advise for the religious & social right & middle:

1. Put more of your energy into searching for secular arguments to back up the otherwise good & valuable human morality that exists with your cultures.

2. Be less harsh & abusive where necessary.

3. Admit that on the "god" front (including on evolution), the intellectual argument has mostly gone to the side of the left.

4. Many of the moral arguments you make do have value - when made a bit less harsh.

Daniel Dennett's dangerous idea: Religion is a natural phenomenon. This fact cuts both ways. Fully natural, normal, valuable, and useful human morality can and does exist within religious frameworks. A damn hard thing for a liberal to admit! In fact many liberals are in active denial.

It's no wonder that Steven Pinker has commented about the modern denial of human nature, in his book The Blank Slate.

The left IS in denial, just as the right has been about god & evolution.

Yes we ARE animals, with BUILT IN morals, AND some damn good reasons for ascribing shame (yes shame!) to certain otherwise descructive human behaviors.

I remember when Sam Harris made note of how the right's view on Islam was more correct than the secular left. The secular left is in denial about Islam.

I remember when Steven Pinker made note of how the left & right are both in denial about human nature.

I remember when Christopher Hitchens made not of how the left was in denial about Islam and both the right & left about Mother Theressa.

I remember when Daniel Dennett stated "Dennett's Dangerous Idea" (thanks go to me for coining this if no one else has to date!), that: Religion is a natural phoenomenon. Again, this apparent fact cuts both ways. Very inconventient for the social agenda of assholes like P.Z. Myers and the like. The fundie left.

Hey, when I listened to the talk of the following guy, he does mention the tabula rasa issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfHTNt4ELwY

Hmmm.

Here's additional articles I found, debates, & discussions:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/03/22/homophobia-phobia-bad-science-or-bad-science-comprehension/

http://www.albany.edu/psychology/files/Gallup_Vita.pdf

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0162309594000286

http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ensold/article/0162-3095%2896%2900042-8/abstract

Why all the gay stuff? Because the left worships homosexuality as the pinnacle of liberal sex. No kids. "Cha-ching" they say - "we're helping the environment!" Automatic birth control. Perfect liberal sex. Also perfect liberal marriage.

People trying to "recover" from conservative religion can be and are easily sucked into the abusive fundamentalism of the left.

For example: Atheists of Utah - in my view a fundamentalist religion of the left. Doctrines. Dogmas. Unquestionable paradigms. An ultra-leftist social agenda. Voted by Q Salt Lake as the best religion, and a runner up to being the best social group.

But where's the regular straight families? Where's the children? Where's the people who value good old fashioned healthy happy useful family values? They're actively excluded. They MUST be, because politically correct leftist dogmatism is their core religion.

Boozer parties where high alchohol content liquor is raffled off.

Beer drinking meetups on a more frequent basis.

But not much pro-kid stuff.

Leadership straight from the local branch of Stonewall.

Nominated by Q Salt Lake as being the pinnacle of religions & the near pinnacle of social groups.

But again being at that pinnacle is not all it's cracked up to be.

Not only does the conservative emperor have no clothes (eg: Joseph Smith), the liberal emperer has none also (eg: "gay culture"). The latter group are happy about that though, with their constant posting of near-naked photos of themselves on facebook.

Hey, I've seen it all first hand. I've seen the ultra-right AND the ultra-left. Unlike your average muff mouthed muff brained liberal, I've done in depth research into BOTH "ultra" sides. And here's what I've found: BOTH SIDES are nearly equally abusive!

It's sad that scientists claim they're being objective when they're not - on social issues.

They're ok with being mostly-objective when it comes to far off things like planets, or far distant in history things like dinosaurs. BUT, question their ultra-leftist social agenda on things like marriage & family, and by fuck they will revert to the new-ultra-dogmatic-religion-of-the-left as quick as a bat out of hell. Two seconds. Maybe one

"Yes, here on the high pillars of academia, we poo poo and laugh at the poor middle & right leaning religionists, with their views on the existence of god & evolution. BUT, question our social views and we'll quickly show you just how religious WE ARE as scientists - so-called scientists who refuse to be scientists when it comes to social issues."

So, yes, Mr. & Mrs. Conservative, you ARE right to conclude that groups of scientists, AND atheist groups, AND secular groups, most such groups are religions - dogmatic religions of the left.

----------

Both sides, right & left, poison of the well of reasonable discussion regarding natural normal good valuable useful human morality.

Jumping from one extreme to the other is no solution.

Honesty is the answer! Both to dogmatism on the right & the left.

Related posts:

Recovery from Atheists of Utah
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/recovery-from-atheists-of-utah.html

The Atheist Movement needs move laxative - Making room for social & political conservatives!
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-atheist-movement-needs-move.html

many atheist groups ARE religions: gay marriage & liberal dogma

Example of the new de facto religion present among some atheist groups:

"Genuine Atheists and Illegitimate Christians Support Gay Rights."
...by Minnesota Atheists

Shaming. Fear-mongering. Belief Maintenance. Do people in China read the Christian Bible? Not much at all. How about in Russia? Not much. Also, once again, since religion is a natural phenomenon human morality CAN be and IS expressed in religion.

Video response then more commentary:

Quote of comments posted on the Minnesota Atheists page:

Sounds like a religion to me - the religion of the left. "You're not a 'true' atheist or humanist if you don't agree with 100% of the homosexual agenda." Indeed.

Dogma. Heresy. Excommunication. Sounds like a religion. Since religion is a natural phenomenon perhaps we need a new term. How about: "Meme set backed up by dogmas, heresy trials, witch hunts, and virtual or de facto excommunication courts."

Having examined the gay "movement" first hand for several years via a gay nephew & an uncle who died of AIDS, I can attest to the fact that it's rather highly unsavory & petty. It's also, in my view, a "death cult" - part of the more general "death cult" of the left, which embraces other views such as how concerns about overpopulation should mean YOU should not have any kids. A religious dogma that leaves you childless - sounds like a bad one to me.

...speaking as an atheist, and an enlightened humanist & naturalist.

Humanism / naturalism / atheism / science & Enlightenment advocacy does not mean embracing the homosexual agenda 100%, nor the other dogmas of the liberal death cult - not to me, as a human who values life, how we got here, and not wasting the little speck of time we have here.

Examples of atheist groups that are actually religions:

Minnesota Atheists
American Atheists
American Humanist Association
Atheist Community of Austin
Center For Inquiry

We already know Unitarian Univeralism is a religion. It's just that these other groups have now become one also. Leftist religion - still a religion nevertheless, with unquestionable dogmas, elders, and de facto heresy & excommunication trials.

The "gay marriage" question has become a watershed issue, showing not which destructive outlier human behavior "deserves" the "right" to indoctrinate all and suck children into the cult of homosexuality, but rather, to show which supposedly "objective," "skeptical," "free thinking" groups actually, in fact, have any real connection to reason, objectivity, skepticism, free thought, and what could be called: honest true enlightened humanism and naturalism.

Human groups have taboos against destructive behaviors for some damn good reasons. This fact seems largely lost on the naive leftist new-atheism-religionists.

According to a political compass I'm still a leftie in some respects, largely on economic and social welfare issues (eg: the dole, social security, and advocacy for single payer healthcare). On abortion I think it should be discouraged, but legal before viability. On gay marriage I'm against it. Contractual allowance via civil unions - maybe. But marriage's primary focus is and should remain children and continuing the human species. Homosexual sex is inherently non-reproductive, and homosexual culture is generally speaking destructive & petty. Children should not generally speaking be exposed to such culture.

Still a leftie?

Well, since I don't agree with gay marriage, according to the lefties I've spoken with I'm now in the same camp as the ultra-right. Ok, well, on that issue maybe I am - and maybe that fact speaks to the bogusness of the above scale. Maybe "post-modern?" But reportedly post-modernists agree with gay marriage. So it's all rather too simplistic. How about: Honest human?

Take in enough data & maybe you'll change your mind. An honest human would & should do that.

more references and links:
http://jonathanshome.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html

8-19-2013 4:44pm