The thing is, though, I know that pathway will never be gone. It will always be there. It's unfortunate this happened to me, and I don't feel sorry for myself as a victim, but hte truth is I will always be dealing with my condition in some way or another. I'm glad I can at least see it and not let it affect me as much. I've seen some people that latch onto something and are blind to everything in front of their face. Not necessarily anyone here, but I've seen it too often. I had someone on here tell me she was looking forward to being "wined, dined, and then, well... you know." Unfortunately, that person engaged in destructive behavior and really didn't want to hear anything, no matter how well delivered.

I am glad I am not blinded in that regard anymore. However, that doesn't reduce its grip any less. I'm back into double digits again, but I probably won't feel back up to it until I'm sufficiently along again. Ten days just isn't much.

It's interesting you say that Lancer, because another man wrote me privately - also saying my suggestion was a bad idea. I've asked him to post his reply publicly, as I know you'd all find it interesting. If he doesn't, I'll share it anonymously.

It's great having you guys weigh in on such an important issue. I try to make sure we look at skinning this cat from all angles. Sometimes what works for one person doesn't for someone else.

Here's a larger issue, that I would like everyone's thoughts on. A chapter in the new book will look backward at the influence of Freud, Reich and Kinsey -- to see how the West got to its current state of wishful thinking (that pursuit of orgasm will solve all our problems). While working on this chapter I had the insight that what the West has really been working on during this past century in the sexual area is the entanglement between "sin" and "sex." I was slow to see this, because I wasn't raised with any of those ideas, so I simply never felt that way.

But those who are, can wreak real havoc for themselves and others. And the problem is far broader than the odd Inquisition. First, believing masturbation or sex is "sinful" makes it far more addictive. The "naughtier" something is, the "riskier" it is to engage in it. And the more it raises your dopamine.

Worse yet, there's the problem of believing you're incredibly superior to others if you overcome your "sin" or hypocritically pretend that you do. We've seen a lot of the repercussions of this kind of thinking in political sex scandals under this administration. (Yes, Clinton was not in control of his sexuality, but he didn't seem to tout his moral superiority to others as so many of the recent folk have.)

I think this is one reason I feel uneasy when people get too fanatical about avoiding orgasm (I know you're all laughing as you read this... ). Gaining control of our sexuality should be an experiment in returning to balance and learning to sustain tension for creative purposes, like Hotspring was talking about.

The odd slip will occur. It's useful because it shows us the hangover phenomenon again, and maybe brings up useful insights about blocks. But it surely isn't "sinful." Just as successfully sticking with the practice isn't evidence of moral superiority (although it has certainly made it easier for me to stay in integrity with myself in many areas).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that avoiding orgasm is a problem if it slips into rigid judgmentalness toward self or others. It sets us up for the same kind of thinking that led the West into this "sin" mess in the first place.

So my question is, how do we separate these two mindsets so that people can best understand the difference? This is not an idle question. Kinsey ended up harming himself with S&M stunts because he was *in resistance* to the idea of "sin" connected to sex. His pendulum swung (literally, in a sense...pardon my sick sense of humor, as the guy hung himself to the ceiling by his testicles) too far in the opposite direction. This makes me think that "sin" thinking tends to lead to extremes.

Gary, on the other hand, was raised in liberal Seattle with a dad who once taught sex education in schools and a therapist mom steeped in Freud...with no hint of sexual repression. He perhaps over exercised his urge to orgasm...now that he looks back on it. But when he chose to stop making love without ejaculation it was fairly painless, and he was never much interested in porn (preferring thoughts about real women). I had a similar upbringing. Both of us were quite relaxed about masturbation, and yet both of us could make this experiment simply by changing our minds. It wasn't a big moral issue...rather, more of a scientific experiment.

In short, "sin" maybe has to GO if people are successfully going to move toward this expanded use of sexual energy. There can be no inner conflict, or there's unlikely to be much progress. Struggles against "sin" seem to make this practice far more challenging. That's why I encourage everyone to see this all in terms of a brain chemistry challenge. There's no "moral" charge on that at all, and it's something one can chip away at with experiments for extended periods of time.

Or maybe, there's another way to see this that I'm missing.

Anyone "raised on sin" have some thoughts on this? Anyone *not* raised that way have observations? Am I making too much out of this issue?

I was not raised on sin either, thankfully. But I am sure I have been in many lives past. I am only one generation removed from an attitude that a woman's period is a "curse" and other such nonsense.

What you point out about a sense of sinfulness and shame leading to its opposite extreme of sexual excess is certainly true. I observed this when I lived in Turkey. I had women friends who had been raised in families where their mothers were married to their fathers shortly after hitting puberty. These women's parents expected their daughters to save themselves for marriage so as to uphold the honor of the family. One of my friends was 33 years old and had a longtime boyfriend, who she could not live with unless they got married. Her parents still believed she was a virgin, despite the fact that she had long since swung in the opposite direction. Influenced by a Russian friend of hers in high-school, the two girls would go out to bars to find men to screw. Needless to say, eventually Evren realized this wasn't very healthy for her either. Her impulse to move away from the extreme of repression, control, and sin was healthy, but she had no model whatsoever for what a liberated sexuality really looks like, and had to learn the hard way that going in the opposite direction wasn't that fulfilling either.

I soon noticed in Turkey that what I was observing - a very real sexual repression of women (which is, by extension, a repression of true manhood in every sense) was only a mirror image of the sexual excess of my own Western culture, in which a sexually liberated woman is expected to be hot, horny, and ready at every moment. The common link between the two views? Women's sexuality is not seen as its own thing, or even real - it is seen in terms of how well it serves men.

The idea that sex is sinful or dirty was largely a mechanism that males designed to control women and women's sexuality so that their property (women, land, assets) and heredity (sons) could be held securely. I think that the idea of sexual sin is rooted in notions of ownership - it is a tool for maintaining power, property, and secure genetic lineages of paternity. Eventually men got roped into a sense of shame around sex as well, though I doubt to any degree compared to women. Perhaps part of them knew something was amiss in their desexed wives, and they felt some sense of conscious or unconscious shame about how disproportionate the distribution of permission to feel desire was between men and women. At a certain point (1800's), women had been so desexed that the clitoris was no longer shown in anatomy books. It had ceased to exist - a spiritual and cultural circumcision of women if not a literal one, one that went as deep as some of the literal circumcisions of women living in the colonial territories in Africa. It was during this time that women were seen as the most fit and able to uphold the morality of sinfulness. They were so desexed at this point that they were seen as pure, morally superior beings, whose job it was to lead men back from wantonness. That's always particularly ironic and interesting when a group has become so indoctrinated by repression that they themselves become the upholders and maintainers of the system that has disempowered them. But it is actually not all that surprising. Robbed of any other power, pretty much every group will use what is available to them to have some form of power and influence within their own lives.

that a fanatical approach to avoiding orgasm at all costs is an exercise in futility.

I also believe that the reason so many people struggling with compulsive masturbation fail is because the very act of resisting the urge energizes it until it is irresistable.

It's an interesting topic as the SA and SAA groups do not agree on this issue - SA does not consider masturbation healthy while SAA does. Both groups make a good point for their positions.

SA defines the real problem as "lust" and in that regard, I can see that most forms of masturbation using porn certainly fuel lustful thoughts and feelings that loop into feeding the addiction.

SAA allows for each individual to define healthy masturbation and I prefer that approach as it avoids the value judgment inherent in making all masturbation "sinful".

I grew up in a vacuum when it came to my sexuality and discovered masturbation around the age of 8, before I had any interest or understanding of how my sexuality operated relative to women. My religious upbringing was very liberal to non-existent as we were Jewish but comfortable to celebrate Christmas.

Having experienced the fundamental Christian mindset for the last 26 years until recently, I can testify to how attempting to avoid sin at all costs, energizes the very behaviors you attempt to resist. That being said, I can now see that the foundational issue was my distorted understanding of Christian theology and an intellectual experience of God, devoid of what my heart was telling me about God's unconditional love.

Now I know God's love when I am celebate and I also know God's love when I masturbate. You are so right Marnia when you suggest it is all about balance. My love of God is made manifest in learning how to love myself in what I eat, how I exercise and what I choose to value in life.

Your example of Kinsey's extreme behavior is a perfect example of how sexual repression can energize sexual dysfunction and addiction exponentially. I am also reminded of the slew of religious leaders and politicians that are caught in sexual addiction and they are typically the one's that are known to vehamently denounce the very things they end up being caught doing - combining repression and projection to cope with their disease.

How to separate mindsets? Good question! It is all about love, health and balance through self realization. In my seasons of experiencing celebacy, I am at peace as my body is free from sexual craving and I have no sense of lack. At this time, I am still learning to get back in touch with my body, in order to know what it needs. Earlier this year, I had a vivid sexual dream and awoke in a blissful state of arousal that lead to masturbation and orgasm. I took this to mean that my body had completed a reasonable season of celebacy and giving expression to my sexuality in the absence of a loving partner, seemed to flow. There was no need for shame and no need to doubt my self worth based upon an arbitrary measure of days, weeks of months of "sobriety".

There was no inner game of telling myself that I had "failed" as I had confidence that what I did was normal and natural for me. From that moment forward, I was free to masturbate or not and my body seemed satisfied and did not require additional stimulation, allowing me to return to my season of celebacy.

I found the Long article interesting and was reminded of a beautiful video I purchased years ago from a group called "The Welcomed Consensus" - have you heard of them?

They claim to be "internationally known sensuality and sexuality educators, having researched female orgasm collectively for over 100 years."

Not to digress into their philosophy but many of their videos are designed to showcase female masturbation to "expanded" orgasm as the "birthright" of every women.

The video I purchased showcases a woman in a beautiful setting as she takes herself to orgasm. I have to admit that the focus on her vagina as it experiences all the phases of transformation from arousal to orgasm is breathtaking and beautiful.

Where I would digress with Long's take is that for me, focusing exclusively on the image of a vagina would not feel healthy and natural to me. I would prefer to share my sexuality with a women in totality, that would include the sights, sounds, scents, feelings, textures of everything from her head to her toes. In that regard, the welcomed consensus video starts by showing the women in the context of the entire room environment as she reclines in her bed and then zooms in and out to document what is taking place with her vagina but also with her entire body including facial expressions, body movement, hand movements and vocal expressions.

I find that more appealing than a detached image of a yoni but then again, that is just one man's uneducated opinion.

For those interested in learning more about welcomed consensus:

www.welcomed.com

In my pursuit of healthy masturbation, I have discovered that I can indeed experience arousal without porn or even fantasy as I focus on breath and my ability to move and circulate energy. There is no doubt that images and fantasy can fuel faster more intense arousal but my intention to avoid ejaculation necessitates that I not get aroused quickly. Using a culinary metaphor, masturbation with porn is like doing stir fry and healthy, sacred masturbation is more a long, slow simmer that allows for subtle nuiance without including the goal of getting off.

I must admit that in my current state of consciousness, I still find orgasm very appealing and try to allow orgasm to flow or not without judgment about what is right and what is wrong. I can't help but believe that the ongoing difficulty with my wife about expressing any sex and intimacy at all influences my circumstance and some day, I will enjoy observing how I express my sexuality with the support of a loving, connected partner.

What was the question???

Richard

In a previous castigation of Marnia's suggestion that Lancer and others masturbate on schedule because one can't sit on a volcano forever and then beat one's self up afterwards, the situation was likened to counseling a smoker to have a cig on schedule while trying to quit.

Scheduling cigs is an effective measure for cutting back. A realistic measure at that. First, neither smoking or masturbation is a sin so then why is there so much shame and shaming involved? Second, It is only what the body is asking for until a healthier alternative is developed. Third, When the "sinful" activity comes up on schedule, it can always be taken or passed until the next scheduled sin. In this way smokers and drinkers have effectively cut back to zero or near zero while lengthening the interval between sins and strengthening the replacement activity. So, on your masturbation schedule, don't forget to experiment with the energy, you might find yourself stroking for a while but never coming.

It is less productive to suffer guilt over failing at cold turkey. Take success in the steps that your body and soul will allow, and keep up the good work. The idea of a "slip-up" is only in your mind.
Luke

When there is the experience and understanding that we are spiritual beings, there is hope on not being trapped in dual experiences of pleasure and pain. Sex has become such a problem. There are some who profit by exploting human weaknesses. Your pursue of pleasure will lead you into suffering, mental anguish, uneasiness, etc. Sexual addiction is like any other addiction. You cannot live without it. You are a slave of it. That addiction rules your life. The interesting thing is that most realize about this addiction but have no power to overcome it.
The realization that being a slave of my own passions, desires, etc, will allow me to see that happiness will not exist within me as long as I am in bondage with my own weaknesses. Food and Sleep are biological needs. Sex is not. Sex is mainly mental. Your thoughts start the process. Can you be the master of your own thoughts? Many cannot. Something which sounds so simple becomes impossible. Do we realize this? What is the solution? Ah! Now we are thinking... it is not the "schedule," "the quantity or quality" it is to become free from an addiction.
A link to check once in a while: http://healthycelibacy.blogspot.com/
Best Wishes.

Celibacy is the easiest way to learn to love

what "bad" means. Choosing not to do something because it is bad for you makes a lot of sense. (And this may be exactly what you're saying, Lancer.)

Choosing not to do something because someone tells you it's a "sin," with implications for your residency in the Hereafter, puts a big "charge" on it. That can strengthen the addiction, because it makes the moral battle deliciously intense - and the lows afterward lower.

I think one can still respect the potential compulsivity of sex with the first perspective. And, neurochemically, it might be the wiser perspective.

everyone offers wisdom which seems appropriate or helpful and the "victim" Lancer in this case, gets to shoot it all down thus winning, because, "see how special and difficult my situation is?" Classic.

The victim is not looking for help or solutions, only attention.

Get with it . Shit . man, Marnia is only offering a step, a compromise toward a goal. A step is superior to stagnancy. Einstein said that to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result is madness. Marnia is offering different approaches.

Continuous prayer in your spiritual system works, or try another spiritual system. They are all effective with a sincere heart.

But for goodness sake, attacking the ones you are asking for help, is not going to get you anywhere, unless nowhere is the place you prefer. I ran out of cheeks to turn for your slaps,

bye bye
Luke

but I'm not sure I totally get your point, Lancer. My brain is a bit fried due to book writing. Are you saying that threatening yourself with religious ideas is working for you?

"it's not really that bad." It IS bad, just as being an alcoholic is bad. But both are "bad" in the sense of "disheartening" and "uncomfortable" and "judgment distorting" and "isolating," and *not* in the sense of "sinful."

I do see your point that it's helpful sometimes to read others' thoughts on why something may be a problem, whatever the source. I find sources like Lloyd and Stockham very soothing for the same reason. They were thoughtful explorers who had given a lot of thought to issues that are of interest to me. They are useful compasses as I try to find my way.