Anal Only Lifestyle Forum

Good evening everyone

I joined the site a while ago but only now had the proper time to sit and write my story. Hopefully it will help and motivate the inexperienced and shed light on troublesome aspects.

---

It's been around... seven months I would say since my partner decided to stop taking birth control pills. Before that time our sex life had many ups and downs; I am strongly sexual while she isn't, so that's a pickle. It always bothered me that she could only cum if masturbating, but I was getting progressively dissatisfied until about... a couple of years, maybe, when I made abundantly clear how much it bothered me; moreover (and I think it's a proper subject to bring it up here), lately I've come to reject masturbation altogether since it is clearly a perversion for its obvious objectifying nature. Now... when I say perversion, I'm not saying 'kinkiness', 'naughtiness' or anything like it. Perversion is the objectification of an individual, i.e. treating somebody as means and not as an end on itself. I don't want to taint the story by delving too deep into this subject, although I think it is a topic of paramount relevance, specially in our days.

Moving forward... she stopped masturbating a while before I reached this conviction but she was still unable to cum. One thing we discovered, though, was that not only she didn't miss cumming, but said to me several times that the whole experience felt more 'elevated' and 'joyous' in general (not to mention that it could last hours (and maybe that's why she said those things) while before we could never continue after she came). I felt bad that she didn't cum and there were times when I told her to masturbate, others when I reached down to do it, but every time she genuinely rejected my propositions or attempts. I came to realize that the whole 'cumming' concept might be more or less misunderstood by myself, others, and specially the scientific community. I definitely don't enjoy cumming more than the whole experience itself, in fact, the more I can abstain from it the better the experiences, be it for days or weeks. Before anyone thinks, this is not a case of delayed pleasure for when I finally cum, no huge amount of pleasure or "accumulated tension" ensues (I do ejaculate a lot, though).

Into the anal case. As I said before, about seven months ago she stopped taking birth control pills so our only way out was condoms or the backdoor. I'm not a big fan of condoms but neither a hater, so I thought we would start using them more often. She, on the other hand, absolutely hates condoms (and I actually never came to realize how much until just recently) so, whenever we started getting frisky with each other, her choice was the back entrance. We've always practiced anal moderately as I've always been a big fan and whenever we could get going (meaning she could relax sufficiently), she enjoyed plenty. This 'anal only' situation, however, even though implicitly decided, was never on the plans. As weeks passed, our lovemaking occasions started to gradually rise and each day seemed to be getting better and better. One day, though, out of the blue, I was utterly blown away. For the first time ever in our relationship (it's been close to 7 years now) she could take me as deep as I could go. Not only that, but she did it with ease! I was astounded, stupefied. Looking retrospectively, I feel that all the times we did anal prior to that day were like she was 'bearing' me somewhat; sometimes more, sometimes less. Obviously none of those times she was in pain, but that was definitely a borderline problem considering the 'bearing' nature of the situation. This time, however, everything was different. She wasn't 'bearing' anything, she was actively taking me in and I think the active nature of it all is key here (and to everyone else who's about to engage in this particular activity). Without a doubt, that was the most amazing experience I've had with her.

A couple of months ago, with our lovemaking frequency skyrocketed (we went from 1 time every 2 weeks to 3-4 times every week), I've suffered a motorcycle accident. Long story short, the car passed over my head and god knows how I didn't suffer any kind of cracking or fracture (always remember to take your vitamin D3 supplements, everybody ). On that day, after we got home (she wasn't with me on the motorcycle, she got to the hospital when I was on the MRI), I started teasing her and she promptly rejected, preoccupied that I could have a concussion or any life-threatening risk (the doctor asked me to stay at least 24 hours at the ICU as a precaution but I declined). After much persistence, she agreed, but she wasn't into the moment as I could easily tell. Fortunately or not, I came fast and went to take a bath to better wash off the asphalt dirt from my wounds. We went to bed after dinner and I started to tease her yet again. This time, though, she wasn't as reluctant as before (I guess she trusted I was really alright) and we fully engaged in our making out rituals. As we started to make love, I could easily see and feel she was greatly enjoying; she was moaning ever louder, her body was writhing and she was pushing, clenching and twitching around me as never before. I was befuddled and ecstatic at the same time. Her reactions began to rise in a crescendo until suddenly her whole body started convulsing in waves of spasms that seemed endless. I reached to see if she was alright and she was crying; she just had an orgasm. I was so happy at the moment I could've easily cried myself!

Our frequency is still high and our love life never been better. Now, every time we make love she can drive herself to orgasm. The best advice I would give to newcomers is that the active role of the ladies in the act cannot be overstated. I think that this switch is key to a successful and much more pleasurable and intense moment between the couple.

Happy lovemaking to you all

P.S.: After she stopped taking birth control pills, her libido moved up considerably, her face must have rejuvenated at least 4 years (which is really amazing and terrible at the same time), her natural lubrication went back to what we haven't seen in ages and her belly diminished considerably. I may note that she tried the most varied of pills available and it seems that even the ones with what doctors claim to be an allegedly small amount of hormones, the side effects can be pretty drastic.

P.S.S.: Any pendency someone might have for anything I said, be about any detail I might have omitted or about any opinion I issued, please do speak up. That's why we're here after all.

I'm very happy for you, and it's great to read another success story. Is anal only now a mutually established plan of yours, or is it just the way things have been working out as of late?

Thanks, singleinDC

I would say It became somewhat of a tacit agreement. In the beginning she was looking for other contraceptive methods so we could at least entertain the possibility of vaginal intercourse if we fancied; now whenever I ask she usually says something along the "Yeah, I'm gonna look into it" or "I've been forgetting to do that..." lines.

I'd say this will go on for a long time.

Let me add to the congratulations on resolving a conflict in your relationship and going from an anal-neutral status to the bliss you've achieved: may it only continue!

But in the spirit of friendly polemic that you have invited I feel compelled to respond to your comments about masturbation as a "perversion": as Woody Allen best put it, "Don't knock masturbation; it's sex with somebody I love!"

On a semantic level, I would caution against labeling any sex act--let alone a sex act that virtually every person at some point in time engages in--as a "perversion." From a Christian perspective historically, any sex act that didn't lead to procreation was considered a perversion--so that would automatically include anal sex as well. Haven't people suffered enough from having the acts that bring us pleasure being viewed as perversion?

Moreover, on the scale of sins, outrages, and offenses, masturbation must surely count as the most victimless crime imaginable? I would argue, in fact, that masturbation is an intrinsically healthy pastime: not only is there incidental evidence that masturbation is good for maintaining prostate health, but also there are physical as well as mental benefits to exploring our sexuality solo before deciding what we like with a partner. How many women on this list, I wonder, became amenable to anal sex as a result of masturbation prior to having explored this area with a partner? I would also argue that given the choice between masturbating and pursuing loveless, anonymous (possibly purchased) sex--masturbating is in every sense the preferable option on both a psychological and physical level.

Of greatest significance, however much I applaud your motivations for disavowing the "objectifying" aspects of masturbation, I fear that your efforts at living a life without objectification are doomed to failure, for a lot of reasons. First of all, we objectify other people throughout our daily life, for the most part without a sexual connotation; when you order food in a restaurant and a waiter or waitress brings it to you, you're objectifying that person insofar as they become an instrument of your desires during the transaction. The same is true of every other business relationship, whether we are workers or employers. Similarly, whenever we look at strangers on the street, we are inevitably objectifying them. When I visit a museum, for example, I find that after a couple of hours of viewing works of art, I wind up looking at other people in the gallery as if they were art works as well--and not because I'm interested in having sex with all of them, or even any of them! In spite of this disorienting side effect, I still think it's worthwhile visiting museums, and I don't think there are any long term risks to my moral compass as a result of the sensation. Finally, it should be pointed out that the obligation to treat other people as objects is something hardwired into the grammar of our language--whether that language is Urdu, Swedish, or English. The grammar of subjects and objects exists not to manipulate our perception of other people, but to represent it: when I am speaking to you, "you" is the object (indirect) of the sentence, just as when you are speaking to me, "me" fulfills the same grammatical function. We are each objects to one another, a subject to which Hegel devoted several hundred pages trying to explain. Me, I'd rather masturbate!

I fear, in other words, that by demonizing the term "objectify," you make a similar semantic error that certain food activists make when they polemicize against "additives": salt, after all, is also an additive, as are spices, as is water. The question is not--and, I think, cannot--be whether "objectifying" is intrinsically or always wrong, but rather by what criteria one can distinguish between objectification as the inevitable consequence of behaving as a subject in the world, vs objectification that actually exploits, takes advantage of, or abuses other people. I object to the latter sense of the term--but I don't think masturbation is either the cause or the solution to this problem.

With respect to sexuality, I would argue in fact that objectifying a partner not only isn't a problem--it's actually a necessary component of sexuality as such. Sex is different from any other form of relationship in the sense that we give our partner the permission to objectify us; it's as much a part of our desire to be an object for them as it is to objectify them. Sex is also exceptional in the sense that the ability to objectify our partner is precisely the means toward intensifying our intimacy, rather than revoking it: our relationships wouldn't be sexual if they didn't involve our use of one another's body--which is objectification--and yet, what makes sex meaningful is the ability to combine the physical pleasures of the body with the metaphysical experience of the other person's subjectivity. It's the only form of transcendence I know of that requires the participation of the body, rather than the negation of it. Which is pretty fucking awesome, if you ask me!

Finally, speaking as a currently single person: having (only a few months ago) lost out on all the social and emotional benefits of being in a relationship--you want to deny me this pleasure and comfort as well? To what effect?

Thanks for really taking the time, zarafan; it means a big deal to me, specially because as I said before, I think it's a paramount subject.

Now... from reading and rereading all the things you've said I can say for sure that you didn't grasp the idea. I'll try to address orderly to your concerns.

From a Christian perspective historically, any sex act that didn't lead to procreation was considered a perversion--so that would automatically include anal sex as well. Haven't people suffered enough from having the acts that bring us pleasure being viewed as perversion?

First of all, you're plain and simply stating a blatant lie about Christianity: sex that doesn't lead to procreation is nor a sin nor a perversion. It is debatable whether people "suffered enough" for whatever reason whatever religion preached. One could easily argue that no, we haven't, considering the astounding number of murderers, coveters, cheats and all sorts of evils that still lies within the world. What it not debatable, however, is that just because something brings us pleasure that doesn't mean it is good for ourselves or others. Thieves can feel good stealing; unfaithful husbands can feel good cheating; rapists may feel good raping. Just because something feels good that doesn't mean it is either morally acceptable or psychologically/spiritually healthy. People in today's world tend to think that just because something doesn't harm someone directly it is acceptable to do so: that's devious thinking. You don't teach a child to be good by saying "It's okay to think of killing your little buddy, so long as you don't do it!".

Moreover, on the scale of sins, outrages, and offenses, masturbation must surely count as the most victimless crime imaginable? I would argue, in fact, that masturbation is an intrinsically healthy pastime: not only is there incidental evidence that masturbation is good for maintaining prostate health, but also there are physical as well as mental benefits to exploring our sexuality solo before deciding what we like with a partner. How many women on this list, I wonder, became amenable to anal sex as a result of masturbation prior to having explored this area with a partner? I would also argue that given the choice between masturbating and pursuing loveless, anonymous (possibly purchased) sex--masturbating is in every sense the preferable option on both a psychological and physical level.

When you say victimless crime you're thinking as I put it earlier that not harming someone directly somehow means no harm at all —which is wrong. The scientific evidence of its healthy benefits is no argument for doing so; hell I could say stealing is good for your heart considering you have to run, climb fences, carry heavy objects and the such.

It's a classic cliche (and it originates from the "sex specialists community") to say "explore your own sexuality alone so you can know what you like when you are with someone else". That may not only be harmful (and illogical) but kill the whole experience itself (unless all you want is a 'humanoid masturbator'). It's good you brought Hegel to the table for Hegel is one my dearest philosophers (the one in which I majored). Sex, as an extension of self-consciousness, stems from the Other, not from oneself. Out of respect to those that are not initiated on Hegel's philosophy I'll abstain to argue in such fashion, that was just an opportune drop to you since you mentioned him later.

Women may become amenable to anal sex after masturbating, but that doesn't follow that masturbation made them amenable, only that the loss of fear (which could be reached in many different ways) made them so.

If you pursue loveless, anonymous and purchased sex you're already perverted beyond imagination so I'll abstain from saying more.

Of greatest significance, however much I applaud your motivations for disavowing the "objectifying" aspects of masturbation, I fear that your efforts at living a life without objectification are doomed to failure, for a lot of reasons. First of all, we objectify other people throughout our daily life, for the most part without a sexual connotation; when you order food in a restaurant and a waiter or waitress brings it to you, you're objectifying that person insofar as they become an instrument of your desires during the transaction. The same is true of every other business relationship, whether we are workers or employers. Similarly, whenever we look at strangers on the street, we are inevitably objectifying them. When I visit a museum, for example, I find that after a couple of hours of viewing works of art, I wind up looking at other people in the gallery as if they were art works as well--and not because I'm interested in having sex with all of them, or even any of them! In spite of this disorienting side effect, I still think it's worthwhile visiting museums, and I don't think there are any long term risks to my moral compass as a result of the sensation. Finally, it should be pointed out that the obligation to treat other people as objects is something hardwired into the grammar of our language--whether that language is Urdu, Swedish, or English. The grammar of subjects and objects exists not to manipulate our perception of other people, but to represent it: when I am speaking to you, "you" is the object (indirect) of the sentence, just as when you are speaking to me, "me" fulfills the same grammatical function. We are each objects to one another, a subject to which Hegel devoted several hundred pages trying to explain. Me, I'd rather masturbate!

This is the where I start to see you might haven't grasped the concept of perversion and objectification. When you ask the waiter for a food that person is by no means an object or being objectified at all! How could it be so? That waiter isn't a slave (if it were the case, then we would qualify this as objectification), neither can you treat him with disrespect or disregard of anything that makes him an individual. This goes true for every other human relation. With masturbation on the other hand, anyone is as you want them to be, regardless of what they would want if given the opportunity. How many women would flinch at the very thought of having a physically and morally corrupted creep, let's say... a murder or rapist of children, masturbating to them? The reason they'll do so is obvious.

You're whole exposition of the "grammar argument" has no sense. You are deliberately transposing one meaning of a word (the grammar meaning) and arguing that because of this meaning we are forced to exert it everywhere else in every situation whenever we use the same word. A wave can mean something completely different between a surfer and a physicist; albeit the same word, it doesn't mean the physicist must think of hip boards, bikini girls and sunny beaches whenever he's researching on gravitational waves.

I fear, in other words, that by demonizing the term "objectify," you make a similar semantic error that certain food activists make when they polemicize against "additives": salt, after all, is also an additive, as are spices, as is water. The question is not--and, I think, cannot--be whether "objectifying" is intrinsically or always wrong, but rather by what criteria one can distinguish between objectification as the inevitable consequence of behaving as a subject in the world, vs objectification that actually exploits, takes advantage of, or abuses other people. I object to the latter sense of the term--but I don't think masturbation is either the cause or the solution to this problem.

I am not demonizing a word, I am criticizing a behavior. This has no parallel whatsoever with what you say food activists do. Objectification is far from being inevitable; it may be common, but it is definitely not inevitable. Any objectification is pernicious whether you're directly acting upon an individual or just thinking of it. One doesn't do harm without thinking aforehand and if it does, it should naturally feel regret afterwards (one that may be accountable, that is, not children or madmen, for example). Evil thoughts can obviously lead more and to more bad actions than kind ones. I'm not advocating for restraint, I'm advocating for humaneness. Masturbation is a manifestation of an objectifying perspective on the world and on people, not the cause of the problem.

With respect to sexuality, I would argue in fact that objectifying a partner not only isn't a problem--it's actually a necessary component of sexuality as such. Sex is different from any other form of relationship in the sense that we give our partner the permission to objectify us; it's as much a part of our desire to be an object for them as it is to objectify them. Sex is also exceptional in the sense that the ability to objectify our partner is precisely the means toward intensifying our intimacy, rather than revoking it: our relationships wouldn't be sexual if they didn't involve our use of one another's body--which is objectification--and yet, what makes sex meaningful is the ability to combine the physical pleasures of the body with the metaphysical experience of the other person's subjectivity. It's the only form of transcendence I know of that requires the participation of the body, rather than the negation of it. Which is pretty fucking awesome, if you ask me!

In this last paragraph it became clear you didn't understand what I meant by objectification. If you objectify your partner then he cannot, logically, be your partner; he can only at best be your slave. Objectifying is treating someone as means to something, not an end on itself (in this case your sexual lust). When you discard and/or have disregard for the moral component of the sexual encounter — that is objectification. A rapist isn't interested on what the raped person wants for that person in his eyes is an object of his will; in other words, it isn't a person, it's a thing, it has no saying on anything. Rape fantasy is not equal to rape for this obvious and fundamental distinction — permission. If you give "permission to be objectified" (which technically cannot be a permission to be objectified for the very fact of permission eliminates the objectification component), than you can "no longer" be objectified!

Finally, speaking as a currently single person: having (only a few months ago) lost out on all the social and emotional benefits of being in a relationship--you want to deny me this pleasure and comfort as well? To what effect?

I don't want to deny you this pleasure. What I really wanted (if I'm allowed) was that you didn't have to resort to this for it is a "pleasure" that results from a corrupted and shifted worldview. When I lost my second girlfriend (which I count as being the real first), I went on a state of grief for about... 4 years. I'm not saying what I'm saying out of being at some high and mighty throne of impeccable moral immaculateness. I understand grief following a breakup, I really do. That, however, has nothing to do with the problem. Contrary to what you may think, masturbation stems from accumulated anxiety more than the reverse as commonly most people could think. In other words: it's a just a fix, and a bad one, not the solution.

I hope you the best in the recovery journey from your breakup. Pm me if you want to talk about anything, really, or just for closeness.

Well, speaking from my own corrupted and shifted worldview, I have to question how productive our exchanges can be when our understanding of what words mean and how they function is apparently as incompatible as your response to my posting indicates. To put it another way, if we are only capable of talking at one another and not to one another, aren't our posts just so much verbal masturbation?

Suffice to say, however, that none of your arguments have shaken my understanding that masturbation is, at worst, a harmless pastime: certainly equating it, as you suggest, with theft, rape, or exploitation does little to challenge my beliefs, simply because I fail to believe that you actually take your own analogies seriously. Fundamental among many differences between your examples and the practice of masturbation is the distinction between fantasy and reality. I can anticipate your argument that fantasy distorts our perception of reality--but the mind will continue fantasizing whether we masturbate or not, and given the prevalence of masturbation among the general populace I feel safe in stating that most people are capable of distinguishing between their fantasies and reality. If we lost our moral compass simply by entertaining fantasies, then Plato was right and all the artists, poets, and songwriters would have to be banished from our ideal commune. Once again, I'd rather opt for masturbation!

I'll nonetheless return to my analogy to the waiter in a restaurant: he or she, I'll contend, really is an object from the perspective of the patron insofar as he or she serves as an instrumentality toward the purchase of food. This doesn't provide any of us the ethical license to treat a waiter or waitress with disrespect, but nonetheless (1) a waitress isn't evaluated in the performance of her job based on the intrinsic qualities of her soul--her subjectivity--but on her ability to serve food; (2) although one shouldn't, in an ethical sense, mistreat a waiter, if one does--and we unfortunately see this all the time--the waiter has no legitimate recourse other than the discretion of his employer. And the only reason why a waiter or waitress is serving you food is to get paid. We can ameliorate the exploitative nature of the relationship by behaving courteously to the waiter--I sincerely hope everyone on this list, myself included, does so--but the fact that we use the waitress for the fulfillment of our own desires is intrinsic to the relationship, as it is in every other economic transaction. Masturbation is ultimately a far less objectifying or exploitative undertaking than capitalism, and capitalism will remain an exploitative, alienating system of power whether or not people continue to masturbate!

But ultimately I fear that we don't have to venture so far afield as my philosophical scenario to recognize that objectification is a fact of life and, inevitably, a function of language. After all, I--and presumably everyone else on this list--have never met you or your partner, and I don't know what she looks like, what her qualities as a person are, or any of her doubtless numerous good deeds and virtues. I don't even know if she's aware you're a member of this list. And yet, I know how she cums, how frequently she has anal sex, what the shape of her belly is, and how she practices birth control. In this sense, you seem quite eager to objectify her to make a point. In a moral sense, I would suggest that there's only one difference between this form of objectification and the objectification that occurs when one masturbates: when one masturbates, the objectification is a purely private, non-verbal, and transient experience; your objectification of her was achieved for everyone on this list--or anyone surfing the internet--to read. And it will presumably be here indefinitely.

Just trying to keep the conversation lively, my friend; continue to enjoy your relationship, and please forgive me my trespasses...!

I honestly don't know if you're just confused or deliberately malicious.

In either case, any keen reader can see that you didn't provide any counterargument to what I addressed, therefore showing your complete heedlessness for the issue. Instead, you decided to introduce "new arguments" and repeat an old one, to which I already addressed, while using many vague and thus problematic concepts (which is usually a sign of intentional misleading or unintentional lack of knowledge) like fantasy, reality, mind, 'capitalism as alienating system of power'...

Unsatisfied with your already disrespectful position of ignoring what I said in a schizophrenic fashion, you decide to go further and then lie about me and then about Plato (even though you were close with this one). I never equated masturbation with theft or rape, nor could I do so. As I said earlier, either you are deliberately malicious or incredibly inattentive to the rationale of my argument. However, by doing so you unintentionally proved my point.

Summing up and briefly recollecting: first you lied about Christianity, then Hegel, then me and then Plato; all that while ignoring what I said and just piling stuff up without any follow up. Anyone repeatedly resorting to lies with abandon is someone who can't obviously have any credibility; moreover, it is someone who doesn't care for the truth or the issue itself but rather with 'winning the debate at all costs'. This is not only dishonest but it is also disrespectful and incredibly selfish. It is no wonder you completely ignored what I said, either for inattentiveness or maliciousness.

I have no intentions of discussing a subject with a dishonest and disrespectful person so I won't reply to anything else you may say. I really have to thank you, though, for making my point: bad thinking leads to bad actions. Considering you are confident on people distinguishing fantasy from reality, all this might serve you as food for thought, for lying is just deliberately changing reality for fantasy, usually with pernicious intentions and consequences.

Finally I want to apologize to whoever took the time to read this personal feud. I hope valuable ideas can be extracted from all this.

Dang! Finally some interesting posts on the forum - I thought the place was pretty much dead and buried!

I must say that you two dudes seem to be taking things a bit too seriously... but I suppose that is why its so interesting lol!

Hopefully you'll both continue the highly thought-provoking exchange - instead of throwing a temper tantrum (yep, I'm looking at you Analonely! )
Bro, you asked for discussion... and discussion is what you got!
This is a "discussion" forum after all... not an "agree with me or I'll call you malicious" forum!
Perhaps a little Anal Porn will calm everybodies nerves and we can get back to having a friendly a conversation = http://www.analonlylifestyle.com/viewto ... f=2&t=5105
(Whether you do or don't masturbate to the porn, is entirely up to you! )

Anyway, as I am nowhere near the intellectual giants you guys seem to be - please do allow me to ask a laymans question

From what I can tell, the argument revolves around the following:
1) Masturbation is bad
2) Objectifying people is bad
3) The reason Masturbation is bad is because it objectifies people?

Could I ask... why exactly is objectifying people so bad?

Hey, KeepItReal, thanks for taking the time.

Discussion is when there is a progressive exposition of arguments and counterarguments. If I say "If you put a knife against your hand and slice it, it will cut you" and you reply "No, it won't", then I'll go and try and show you the nature of the skin's tissue, its resistance, the pressure of the knife against the atoms of the skin which in turn will cause them to split for its weaker state in comparison and so on (this was as scientific approach for instance), and after all this you just say, as our friend did, "It's pointless for us to argue for we have different views" or "What you said didn't move me, I still believe it won't cut me." this isn't a discussion. This is just a display of childish stubbornness. I am not mad at him, nor do I regret my decision when asking for a debate, but I would be a fool to continue a debate with someone who, in the first place, doesn't want one. All it wants is to impose its behavior (probably because it doesn't want to feel guilty for masturbating) on others.

You seem to think that I called him malicious for disagreeing with me but that is not the reason. First, he didn't disagree, he just stomped his feet on the ground. Second, the reason is that, as I said before, it would be foolish to debate with somebody who resorts to lies in order to provide base for its arguments for this person, obviously, isn't looking for a debate, it's just looking to 'win the election'. I didn't just "called him" malicious as to sneak my way out of it. If you deliberately lie in order to support an argument, you are being malicious. Being confused is one thing, lying is another. As I stated before, I believe this issue to be of considerable relevance (specially in our days when it's not only a practice widely done but also promoted for our "naive" scientific community). I could be wrong, I could be right, but no debate can ever progress if somebody deliberately just wants to impose its point of view in a fascist way (and nor will I tire myself trying to convert a dictator).

On to your concerns, now

Just as a technical detail, let's put that masturbation can be bad, instead of is bad, for you could always, let's say, masturbate someone else and this has nothing on the objectifying issue.

Now... objectifying people is bad for the simplest of reasons. If you objectify a person it means, first and foremost, that that person isn't an individual anymore. It is, as the term implies, an object. When you treat someone as an object, you are instrumentalizing that person. By instrumentalizing I mean that since no longer this person is a person, you can just use him or her however and in whatever way it pleases you. This gives grounds for slavery, for instance; it gave grounds to the Holocaust. It is no wonder why dictators and terrorists don't care about slaughters and massacres for they don't see people as individuals but rather as means to achieve their ends. They're pieces, not human beings (and it must be highlighted — pieces for their delight/objectives). I am not saying, however, as our dear friend said I did, that masturbators are the same as terrorists, or that taking a candy from a child is the same as robbing a bank. It is, nonetheless, objectification, and it can be really problematic for its implications go towards inhumane worldviews, not humane ones; it goes towards cruelty, not kindness. I remember seeing reports of many different girls, usually young ones, sad and revolted at the same time when all the boys they hooked up with wanted them to do what they see on porn. These boys learned sex from porn and masturbating, so they wanted to reproduce what they saw as if it were natural (in the sense of being what and how it is done) and treated the girls accordingly as objects. They didn't engage in the moral enterprise which is inherent to any human relation; needless to say that being with another individual in this level of intimacy is a highly special and qualified one. Thankfully the girls didn't abide. I also remember hearing about many men not being able to have erections with real women but instead only with porn. I won't stand by the veracity of this last account but it definitely wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

People shouldn't be treated as objects for we can have no jurisdiction over another person's liberty (so long as this person didn't trampled on ours). No one exists for the amusement of others and every human being is sacred on its own right. I wish I could write more, explain myself better and be more specific but I'm in a rush. If I poorly explained my point or if you disagreed with something, please let me know, but I beg you to take the time and respect I did in answering to show me any inconsistencies I might have said, any point I might be missing, etc.

Best regards

I just stumbled upon this. It makes an interesting philosophical change from the standard fare. But, sadly, appears to have fallen down a hopeless rabbit hole argument over semantics, and the inability to arrive at an agreement on the conventions of communication. I have to admit it was to a large extent TLDR. Argument for arguments' sake has never interested me.

For me, masturbation is good. It keeps me from objectifying others as the means to fulfill my needs. Some might call me narcissistic, since I find my own self sexy and exciting. I feel that enjoyment of one's self is a very good pre-requisite for establishing a non-codependent, non-predatory communion with another individual.