| Home >> Philosophy

Mutual Masturbation or Contraception?

Masturbation mutuelle ou pilule anti-conceptionnelle?

1) Introduction

The Catholic Church claims that the birth control pill is bad. This fact is well known. What is less known is that the Church also teaches that the birth control pill can be proven to be bad, but with reason alone, without the help of Revelation! In this article, we will explore some rational arguments against birth control methods. Of course, that doesn't mean that the Bible and the Catechism have nothing to say about it, just that we're going to ignore the religious aspect here.

2) What is masturbation?

What is the definition of "masturbation"? It's an activity that:

1) Involves, in one way or another, the genitals;
2) is pursued with a view to obtaining genital pleasure;
3) is incompatible with human reproduction.

It's easy to verify this definition by taking counterexamples. For point #1, we could see for example that someone who sticks their pinky in their ear is not masturbating; the ear is not a genital organ, nor the little finger.

For point #2, it's easy to observe that people who engage in this activity do not do so for financial pleasure, or musical pleasure, etc. If no genital pleasure is possible, they will cease the activity in question.

Normally a good writer doesn't insist on the obvious, but we're talking about a subject where many people have lost touch with reality. So sorry, I insist: for #3, it's obvious that a teenager equipped with a pornographic magazine and a box of tissues is not participating in an activity that could lead to human reproduction.

3) Does the CBC censor the word "masturbation"?

Readers of this website know my unrelenting hatred for the CBC (and other sources of leftist propaganda). Why talk about it here?

Perform the following science experiment: imagine a real real married couple, a male (a heman) and a female (a woman), married in a Catholic Church, and who indulge in (sorry, I'm going to talk about things which may be improper in public), who indulge in sexual copulation, the real thing (vaginal coitus, not sodomy or anal coitus). Except they take the contraceptive pill.

Now compare this situation with the definition of masturbation above:

1) It involves, in one way or another, the genitals; hard to be more genital than a penis doing a sightseeing tour in a vagina!
2) is pursued with a view to obtaining genital pleasure; the couple in question aren't doing this because it's unpleasant for both of them!
3) is incompatible with human reproduction. Think about it: what is the definition of "contraceptive pill"? The pill that makes producing a baby impossible.

Still don't believe me that the CBC (and universities, and "Catholic" priests, and politicians, etc.) censor the word "masturbation" in this case? Continue your scientific investigation. Go talk to people, and watch their reaction when you mention "mutual masturbation" when describing couples who have sex while using the contraceptive pill. Often, they won't even be mad at you or insulted: they'll stare at you with big fish eyes, as if the idea had never crossed their minds! They will look upon this idea of "mutual masturbation" with much surprise, just as the Indians of Canada looked with surprise at the first white men setting foot in America! A totally new novelty!

4) So what? Is masturbation really that bad?

The philosophers of Antiquity had already noticed that survival of the individual requires that he eat, and that Nature has therefore associated pleasure with the activity of eating. In the same way, to prevent society from "starving to death", people must "make love", in other words, sexual copulation between heman and woman is necessary for survival of the species, just as food is necessary for the survival of the individual. Nature has therefore associated pleasure with human reproduction.

Obviously, there's nothing wrong with such pleasure. There is nothing wrong with enjoying pleasure when acting in accordance with reason. And survival of the individual and of the species are activities consistent with reason. Where the problems start is when you act contrary to reason. Sound philosophy proves that our goal in life is not physical pleasure. From the moment you disconnect an act from its natural end, in order to pursue only the pleasure that is normally associated with it, you introduce disorder into your life.

5) The birth control pill degrades women

Woman pasturing her cow.

We are repeatedly told that the contraceptive pill has "liberated" women. Really? if I was a woman, and a sexual pervert insisted on making babies with me without my consent, I wouldn't want a bottle of contraceptive pills. I'd want a Kalashnikov. No pill can stop a rapist, except a high-velocity lead "pill"!

If, on the other hand, the sexual violence came from inside me, in other words, if I felt incapable of resisting my sexual urges, there too I would not want a stupid pill that would upset the natural functions of my body. My problem would not be in my body, but in my soul. I would like help to put my passions at the service of my reason, rather than having a reason that is a slave to my passions.

Hiding the problem does not solve the problem. If you have fallen into a vice, you are a slave. You are degraded. You have fallen below your dignity, and you are now dragging yourself in the mud, unable to get up. As Uncle Diogenes rightly pointed out:

You can treat a child as rancher treats a calf, simply taking its appetites as a given. If you don't fence it, you want it to run; if you don't neuter it, you want it to breed. You don't blame the beast for its instincts, and you grasp as an obvious truth that acting on instinct X is not a consideration distinct from having instinct X. For a beast.

A woman is not a cow. Even if the person who treats this woman like a cow is this woman herself, it's still degrading. A cow cannot submit its impulses to the government of its reason, because the cow has no reason. The cow is not free. The cow is not created in the image and likeness of God.

6) Conclusion

As others have already noted, the social acceptance of pseudogamy ("gay marriage") came chronologically after the social acceptance of the contraceptive pill. Once the population had been accustomed to tolerate the denatured sexual act, but in a beautiful male-female couple married in the Church, it became easy to point a finger at the same act (mutual masturbation), but this time between two sodomites, and to say: "if the others are married, why not these?"

Also, if I were a sociology professor at a university, I'd love if one of my master's students would do a thesis on small dogs and the contraceptive pill. I know several couples who take the pill, and who end up acquiring one or often even several dogs (or cats, or some other nonsense), to then treat these beasts like children, lavishing them with so much luxury and attention that everyone notices it, except for the beast in question, who doesn't give a damn.

| Home >> Philosophy