This is topic An onanism thread of my own in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=038870

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Since the discussion started by odouls was so interesting, and as his sense of responsibility prevented him from seeing it continue, would we like to continue it or start again here?

My understanding of the discussion was the role of masturbation in a marriage (definition of terms had not yet been made when I last saw the thread), or prior to marriage. Whether it should be abstained from or not according to scripture or religious custom. If it is of inscrutible harm, and thus should simply be avoided simply because God says so.

The LDS church says no before and after marriage. I say it's left to interpretation since there are no absolute proscriptions against it in scripture, and that Onan was punished for his disobedience in masturbating, not for masturbating itself.

Polite discourse please.
 

---

Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
 
What I asked in the other thread was what if you're not fantasizing about a specific person, if the fantasy aspect is thought to be the offending element?

A couple of people mentioned that they thought that would be worse, but I had to go to class.

I mean, wouldn't it be much more offensive to think that one's spouse was fantasizing about Mr./Ms. X as opposed to just some vague male/female type entity?

-pH
 

---

Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
 
I think Onan was punished for his disobedience, and I also think, despite the word his name gave us, Onan's story has very little to do with Catholic proscriptions against masturbation. I only saw it brought up with reference to being open to child-bearing, never with reference to masturbation.

As for my personal take... well... I'm re-thinking a lot of my attitudes towards sexuality in general these days, so I'm probably not very qualified to comment as I'm in a state that can only be described as mild confusion.
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
Onan didn't masturbate in the account. He practiced coitus interruptus in a way that was improper according to his levirite marriage.

That being said, Church proscriptions and policy concerning the properness (or lack thereof) of masturbation have nothing to do at all with Onan.
 

---

Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
 
That is all true. But for the purposes of Hatrack, we have always used the term onanism as a type of code-word to refer to this kind of self-gratification without having to actually say the "m" word...
 

---

Posted by Taalcon (Member # 839) on :
 
I am well aware of that, and wasn't objecting to that.

I was referring to the first post, where it was said,

quote:

---

I say it's left to interpretation since there are no absolute proscriptions against it in scripture, and that Onan was punished for his disobedience in masturbating, not for masturbating itself.

---

 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
So, the sin of Onan was not the act itself, but his disobedience in deliberately trying not to produce children.

Is that safe to say? I mean, in the sense that we can all agree on it?
 

---

Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
 
Incredibly shortly before the other thread was deleted, I posted in it (I don't know if it was the impetus to odouls' deletion or not). In it, I was reminding the wonderful memb--um, individuals of Hatrack that we intend to remain a PG-13 rated forum. This subject, even when approached politely and maturely, can strain such a rating.

This is in no way a comment on the rightness or wrongness of any particular standpoint on the issue. It's just that the subject itself is somewhat difficult to discuss without getting at least a little graphic, and graphic oversteps the bounds.

Before the other thread was deleted, I had already edited one of the posts, and I hope I won't have to do so here. It's possible that this thread may be locked/deleted, too. I'm not pointing fingers, I'm not saying anyone has said or done anything wrong, or will say or do anything wrong -- I'm just saying that the topic itself might be unable to be discussed without stepping over the line of what's appropriate here.

--PJ
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
That's what I meant, Olivet, thanks. I did actually know the story of Onan, but for the purposes of the discussion called it masturbation since that's what we were talking about. I interpret it to mean that he not only wasn't trying to produce children, he was specifically trying not to that time because he'd been explicitely told to. It's been a long time since I last read it, but that's what I remember.


Thanks, pH, I'd forgotten about that part of the discussion.
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
Pops, I'm sorry...if you'd like, I'll just ask we stop the thread, though I won't delete it unless you ask. It just seemed so generally interesting that without getting graphic, in a clinical sense, I thought it would be worth continuing the discussion. It was mentioned bringing it up on the one of the other forums, but I don't read there. So...

But if you want us to stop, I totally respect it.
 

---

Posted by peterh (Member # 5208) on :
 
One point: The LDS church has no formal counsel on it after marriage. At least that I'm aware of.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
For what it's worth, PapaMoose, I will never have a problem with you editing one of my posts (whether you did this time or not, I don't know, but I do know that I was being more specific than most in the thread, so I have my suspicions ).

However, I think my own auto-edit function in this regard has been ... dulled? reset? something like that ... by the nature of the rest of my life. It's a situation I have to discuss clinically all the time, and I really have forgotten what it is like not to be frank. Unfortunately, that frankness is usually confined to a private and confidential provider-patient space, and so I forget how to talk in regular conversation.

Like my husband says, I can't be trusted in public.

So, anyway, I'll bow out of anything remotely touching on this topic here. And I'll give you and the Cards (and any disturbed young'uns, or old'uns, for that matter) my sincerest apologies for any consternation I caused. You, in particular, get put in a very difficult place when trying to moderate these things, and I appreciate the good work you do. I certainly don't want to make it any more difficult, that's for sure.

[ October 20, 2005, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
 

---

Posted by Jonathan Howard (Member # 6934) on :
 
It isn't clear what Onan did.

The Hebrew in 38:9's ambiguous; the verse can be read in these two ways (I'm preserving syntax):

1) Onan knew that not to him the sperm would be; and it would be if he came to his brother's wife he would spoil to the ground, not to give sperm to his brother.

2) Onan knew that not to him the sperm would be; and he came to his brother's wife and spoiled to the ground, so not to give sperm to his brother.

We can only assume that "spoil" in this case means spill the sperm. What God was angry at him for (thought, unstated refusal, deed?) is that he did not do what he should have.

But what did Onan do? We do not know.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by adam613:
I heard an interpretation that what both Er and Onan did that got them smited was refuse to impregnate Tamar because they didn't want to mar her beauty. I can't remember where that is from though.

---

quote:

---

I'll bow out of anything remotely touching on this topic here

---

Interesting way of putting it, CT...


 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
I guess you didn't see the great site Shmuel linked to the other day.
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
Um, what?
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 
*radiates innocence*
 

---

Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
 
*glare*
 

---

Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
 

quote:

---

This subject, even when approached politely and maturely, can strain such a rating.

---

An act in which a decisive majority of 13 year olds participate in isn't pg-13?
 

---

Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
 
rofl
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Eh, just move it to Sakeriver, with all the other interesting discussions.
 

---

Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
 
Already been done.

('Lo, Livvy!)
 

---

Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
 
Hey, a little privacy here. Didn'tcha read the title:
An onanism thread of my own
 

---

Posted by Yozhik (Member # 89) on :
 
Er was the oldest brother, and as such, he would get a larger portion of the family inheritance than Onan would.

So what Onan was refusing to do, was to father a "son" for Er, which would be Er's heir and thus get Er's share of the inheritance. Onan wanted to keep as much of the inheritance as possible for himself, not father a "nephew" who would take it from him.

So Onan's sin is that he's selfish and greedy. (He doesn't care that his brother's line will go extinct, and his brother's widow will be poor and without support in her old age; he just wants the inheritance for himself.)
 

---

Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
 
aspectre Nice girls don't do that, didn't you know?
 

---

Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
 

quote:

---

So what Onan was refusing to do, was to father a "son" for Er, which would be Er's heir and thus get Er's share of the inheritance.

---