Wimminz and Women: A Comparison

wimminz.women

There’s a heated argument down below, in some ancient thread. Brother Kryptonian wrote:

My position has and always shall be, that man NEEDS women, so please stop side tracking this issue

Despite the angry responses he got, I can’t disagree with this brother. I grew up with the sure knowledge that I needed a woman. I remember expecting to find a cute girlfriend, sometime in my late teens. I figured I would serve a Mormon mission, come home and marry her, and immediately begin cranking out hot Mormon babies. We’d grow old together, each having been each others’ first loves, and eventually be buried in the shade of the temple.

Of course, these dreams and expectations were largely ideological: a product of the pre-fab identity I was born into (see Jacques Lacan and Louis Althusser for more on this idea). They also grew up alongside a great number of other expectations and dreams, which included (but were not limited to) owning a flying car, and taking regular vacations to domed resort cities on the Planet Venus.

Men need women. This can’t be denied. Men also need antibiotics, regular dental checkups, a functional weight room, and a home with electricity and running water on tap. Everything we were created and/or evolved to need is not necessarily available in the world we find ourselves in. Getting basic: Many men starve to death in places like Africa and Asia. The fact that they were born with a need to eat food did not guarantee food to be on offer.

Thus I read Kryptonian’s arguments with Earl, Honeycomb, et. al. to be an argument of nature v. nurture. Men need women for companionship, to keep their homes, and to serve their emotional, sexual and temporal needs. Unfortunately, women are in very short supply presently. What we have instead are skank-ho wimminz.

At some point in time, between my early years of confidence that I’d end up a married father, and have a career as a radio DJ, and the present day, I found AfOR’s blog. The author lived my dream, only to see his life flushed directly into the toilet by his vindictive wife. In my earlier years (going on seven years now) he was my tutor to instruct me. The fact that I use the term “wimminz” to denote most modern females is a direct result of reading his work in those days. I can’t say for certain that his survival guide saved me for a prison sentence, but I know I’m less likely to be on the end of a false accusation because I follow most of his sound advice.

I do not agree with AfOR on everything. For example: NAWALT. I’m totally fine with the assumption that there are chaste women in the world who will keep their commitments and not screw their husbands over. I am confident of this, despite the fact that many of my friends and relatives have been screwed over, by the wives who promised to “love, honor and obey.” The screwing-over came the minute they became bored, or the screwing-over became convenient, with absolutely no thought of the future consequences, to their husbands, their children, or even themselves.

What I am most certain of is that I can not discern the women from the wimminz. This was one of the first propositions in which I ever had complete faith, and I remain absolutely confident in my own inability to pick out a woman from among the wimminz.

Moreover, it is not my burden to do the discerning. In AfOR’s own words:

Now, how do we differentiate between women and wimminz?

Simple, as Men, we don’t… IT IS NOT OUR FUCKING PROBLEM!

(Misogynists-R-Us)

I am, of course, happy that Brother Derek has found a decent woman, and is currently engaged in repopulating his part of the world with his descendants. He is a better and more trusting man than I am. I do hope that Kryptonian can find a woman, rather than ending up suckered by a wimminz into giving up all his money. As for me, I find the cost-benefit ratio pretty fearsome, and I won’t be taking that particular plunge.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

59 thoughts on “Wimminz and Women: A Comparison”

  1. I am continually astounded by your perceptive insight into this whole damn mess that us men find ourselves in
    You are a rare breed indeed Boxer
    You are able to articulate what I was trying to say, but you don’t do it with anger like me lol
    Keep up the awesome work my friend
    Your knowledge already puts you as a per-eminent spokesperson for the MGTOW community, even though you would shun such a label

  2. What I am most certain of is that I can not discern the women from the wimminz.

    Probably because every woman has the potential to be a wimminz. Our sinful natures haven’t changed from the fall…just the means of salvation when Christ died on the cross and was resurrected.

    Some of them don’t do it, but many do. And they’ll do it because they are encouraged, tempted, celebrated, or provoked.

    Here’s the thing…I didn’t disagree with the fact you need a woman (I even stated so in the way back discussion about mothers being the first one you need)…but when it comes to a wife you really need to know what you are dealing with.

    Cane Caldo did a post about this recently…and I think it was one of the best explainations about what tempts a woman everyday to be a wimminz.

    https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2018/02/02/5944/

  3. Boxer sez ..

    Men need women.

    I disagree .. Men WANT (e.g. covet) Women .. they don’t need them .. 1Ti 6:8 – And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

    I don’t see the other items either. Need vs Want .. just saying .. each has his own gifts. If you want a wife .. I’m all for it. If you think you have to have (i.e. need) one to be (fill in the blank) you are wrong. IMHO.

    What I am most certain of is that I can not discern the women from the wimminz.

    We can agree on that .. though I have a list of tells .. who knows if it’s fool-proof (e.g. can predict the future). It’s fool-proof at finding already skank hoe wimminz.

    I am, of course, happy that Brother Derek has found a decent woman, and is currently engaged in repopulating his part of the world with his descendants. He is a better and more trusting man than I am.

    Agreed on both.

    As for me, I find the cost-benefit ratio pretty fearsome, and I won’t be taking that particular plunge.

    Likewise.

  4. “Random Signals and Noise”

    LMAO! That’s what it was like, back in ye olde Blue Pill days of yore! The Red Pill has revealed the coded patterns to us men.

  5. Dear Fellas:

    Cane Caldo did a post about this recently…and I think it was one of the best explainations about what tempts a woman everyday to be a wimminz.

    Aside from Cowardly Cane’s penchant for kooky white nationalism,
    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2018/01/18/blade-runner-2049/#comment-932
    and his scummy tendency to libel anyone who is smarter than he is
    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/an-open-letter-to-lyn87/
    He’s also a very shallow thinker. e.g.:

    Her desire to rule is not hypergamy from an accident of natural selection; a wholesome sexual selection process that sometimes goes awry. No. Hypergamy is one strategy–of many–that women use to project power over men. Because in her mind it is always in question whether or not she can get him to obey.Likewise, women are not shit-testing to see if her man is “fit” to rule. “Shit-tests” are to see how much she can get away with, and how likely she is to get her way. Period. That’s it. That’s why she gets worse about it after marriage and she’s pledged to have and to hold until death. There’s no final test to pass.

    This is not news to anyone above the mental age of 10. It’s the original source for the “women, what you gonna do?” expression that every adult man has uttered at least once.

  6. Dear Honeycomb:

    I disagree .. Men WANT (e.g. covet) Women .. they don’t need them .. 1Ti 6:8 – And having food and raiment let us be therewith content.

    I’m not going to talk past you on the need/want distinction. It’s certainly true that our definitions don’t line up, in the same way that Kryptonian’s definition seemed to differ from yours.

    Would you agree that men need water, for instance? If so, then would you agree that they could, in theory, get their need met by drinking from an open sewer?

    We are stuck in a collapsed mine shaft, drinking waste-water from an underground pipe, when clear mountain streams are what we’d prefer. This is basically the distinction I was pointing out earlier. It’d be nice to find some virginal (or at least not totally banged out) woman, who was more intelligent than the average cow or sheep, who was pleasant, and who didn’t bicker with me for fun. Unfortunately, we must make do with what we have in this world.

    Best,

    Boxer

  7. In parallel ..

    https://therationalmale.com/2018/02/02/the-marriage-game/#comment-237919

    donalgraeme
    February 2, 2018 at 9:26 pm
    Rollo, I get the impression you are almost taunting me to respond to this (as my positions have been made clear in the past). Let me offer this simple response at first: Context matters.

    Context makes all the difference concerning marriage.

    Early marriage in a good environment? Good idea.

    Early marriage in an unhealthy environment? Awful, terrible -just the worst- idea.

    The problem is that most environments these days are unhealthy. Unless you are connected to and part of a traditionalist community, early marriage is no better than late marriage. Marriage in that context is simply a dangerous, risky thing to do. And I apply that to not simply this life but to the next as well (marrying a wicked woman is surefire proven way of a man being dragged down to hell).

    Anyone familiar with me knows I am very much pro-Marriage. And yet, at the same time, I advise against it for nearly all men. And for good reason- it is too much of a risk to a man’s health, finances, sanity, and most importantly, soul.

    and

    https://therationalmale.com/2018/02/02/the-marriage-game/#comment-237915

    tsotha
    February 2, 2018 at 9:20 pm
    The stakes are high for men, particularly if they aren’t Red Pill aware, but women too must understand her own sacrifices; I think this is the most difficult thing. Women’s solipsism, Hypergamous nature and a social order that ‘fempowers’ them to believe not only can they “have it all” but are entitled to it all makes this the bridge too far for young marriage.

    There’s the rub, right there. No matter what she’s like when you marry her, she’s going to change, and all the forces acting on her (except you, yourself) are pushing her away from you. Not every woman will go bad, but I expect most of them will.

    I suspect marrying a virgin at 19 is the path to the happiest marriage if your marriage survives at all. At least she’s here during her hot years when you’re broke – it would suck to “prepare for marriage”, as the tradcons see it, then marry in your late 20s or early 30s, only to have you newly ex take all your “preparations” with her when she leaves.

  8. “Probably because every woman has the potential to be a wimminz.”

    Well put. And in Western societies, they are championed to become the latter.

  9. Boxer sez ..

    Would you agree that men need water, for instance? If so, then would you agree that they could, in theory, get their need met by drinking from an open sewer?

    Yes (re: water) .. just like food.

    We have both said this ocean of fish is a sewer of fish. Men will never be healthy with with toxic fish (aka wimminz).

    GOD provides us with our needs. I’ve never wanted for needs.

    But it’s a strawman to equate need to want (re: with a need).

    We never have to agree on this issue. Your experiences are different than mine. As were my brothers and they wanted a (woman) wife & family. They got neither (thru divorce & parental alienation) on their first try (when they were young). Two have remarried .. so it seems they needed one more than wanted one. The other brother doesn’t need or want another womminz / wife. Who can blame him? I can’t.

    My experiences are different than yours as well .. it’s to be expected. That makes us a stronger group of men to have differing experiences.

    And then I read these comments .. and if the roles were reversed these men & wimminz would want to throw the book at him.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5492273/teacher-arrested-sex-pupil-tayler-boncal/

    If you find a well with non-toxic fish .. don’t keep your secret to yourself .. lol.

  10. Dear Honeycomb:

    GOD provides us with our needs. I’ve never wanted for needs.

    But it’s a strawman to equate need to want (re: with a need).

    We never have to agree on this issue. Your experiences are different than mine.

    I don’t actually think it’s a matter of experience, but rather of the lexical range of the words we use. There’s a great deal of semantic overlap in the need/want dichotomy. This was my basic reading of Kryptonian’s argument a few days ago. I suspect Kryptonian is not from the U.S., which adds to the linguistic confusion.

    Basically I don’t think we’re really even disagreeing on anything. We’re just using different words to say the same things.

    Of course I can’t speak for Brother K, but by men needing women, I’m referring to the same thing that Freud wrote about in his 1930s Outline of Psychoanalysis. There’s a great deal of psychic energy bound up in the drive to love someone, to mate with her, and to rear up children, which we were evolved/created to do. Men and women can sublimate this drive (Brother Earl has written about this extensively in a religious context), but most of us don’t have that sort of focus or self-discipline. At least, I know I don’t.

    So, sure, I won’t die if I don’t ever have sex again, but if I didn’t find a monastery I’d probably morph into an angry and unlikable asshole if that were to happen. The libidinal imperative is real.

    Best,

    Boxer

  11. @Boxer

    “There’s a great deal of psychic energy bound up in the drive to love someone, to mate with her, and to rear up children, which we were evolved/created to do. Men and women can sublimate this drive (Brother Earl has written about this extensively in a religious context), but most of us don’t have that sort of focus or self-discipline. At least, I know I don’t.”

    Nailed it!!

    I had to laugh when honeycomb brought up those videos with Bear Gryllis as his “proof” that men don’t need women……Lol, of course we don’t, if we’re talking about who is strongest, more intelligent, resourceful, us men win all the time, and we certainly don’t need women to clutter things up for us, or make things worse with their hormonal slaves to their emotions

    But that was a pathetic straw man argument, easily refuted….I am talking about that deep unconscious drive that compels us to seek solace and love and comfort from a woman….whether you believe in evolution or “God” driving that need, it is very real and it will not be easily sublimated because it is part of our hard wired nature
    In this case Freud was 100% correct in his analysis
    By use of contrast, Paul the apostle says what is so abhorrent and evil about faggots desire for each other, is that it is not “natural” whereas a man’s need and love and desire for women is NATURAL

    Did you notice how honeycomb deliberately left out the context of 1st Timothy 6:8 as HIS proof that we don’t “need” women
    Only someone entrenched in his fallacious garbage would attempt to use that verse so dishonestly
    The context has got nothing to do with needs at all, it was a body slam against the rich who were greedy, and high minded who thought that having wealth (gain) is godliness

    I’m kind of used to the celibate monks like honeycomb and earl who have crossed over from Dalrocks blog into here….I give them no quarter, and I will continue to expose them every chance I get
    Why?….because amongst other things they are dishonest, they like to pretend they don’t need women, while they come in here and pontificate how righteous they are in their sex-abstaining nonsense, while they verbally bash the female of our species every chance they get.

    I just wished they would be honest to themselves, and come out and say, “Yes I need a woman, I need a woman’s love and the feel of her riding me with my cock deep inside her, I need her affection and understanding, I yearn for the deep love of a woman which is finer than any wine…..BUT I do not and will never trust them, they have become toxic, narcissistic and evil, they are a living paradox, simultaneously both poisonous and desirable at the same time, and they will bring nothing but chaos and sadness to my life”

    Now that is more honest, and I think if these celibates admitted to that, it would put a stop to their foolish arrogance that they don’t need a woman, and it might teach them humility as well, as they humbly recognize their frail human natures

    There’s only 1 group of people who I despise more than feminists and the great majority of women, and that is the morally, self righteous Christians who demonize sex and who spend the rest of their miserable lives trying to convince others that their course of life is noble

    Freud was also right when he said that the most sexually repressed nations, and individuals are also the most violent….Hello America, I’m looking at you

  12. There’s only 1 group of people who I despise more than feminists and the great majority of women, and that is the morally, self righteous Christians who demonize sex and who spend the rest of their miserable lives trying to convince others that their course of life is noble

    I don’t have the time nor energy to refute line by line your youth and inexperience, bluster and ego.

    Frankly .. I’m hoping you’ll find what you’re looking for up ahead in life. Along with a big piece of humble pie .. it’s awaiting you and your zeal.

    Matt 7:5
    Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

    I pray God holds it against you.

  13. I changed my mind. I have all the timw in the world for stupid people. /s

    I had to laugh when honeycomb brought up those videos with Bear Gryllis as his “proof” that men don’t need women……Lol, of course we don’t

    Thank you .. it was kind of you to lol when you realized you didn’t need a wommimz.

    Did you notice how honeycomb deliberately left out the context of 1st Timothy 6:8 as HIS proof that we don’t “need” women
    Only someone entrenched in his fallacious garbage would attempt to use that verse so dishonestly
    The context has got nothing to do with needs at all, it was a body slam against the rich who were greedy, and high minded who thought that having wealth (gain) is godliness

    Yep, I noticed you don’t understand scripture. The message is deeper .. it means to trust in God .. and yes rich people are a perfect example of people that have it good and don’t want to live in your neighborhood.

    Have you ever noticed how much more you trust God when you have nothing? Or in a bad place and destitute?

    Do you recall the story about the woman who gave all .. & Luk 18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican .. God saves that publician .. not the high and might Pharisee .. oh that sounds like you (re: high and mighty) doesnt’t it?

    You say .. No of course not .. and I say .. your an idiot .. it fits like a glove.

    I give them no quarter

    Thank goodness .. you can’t get nothing for a quarter these days.

    I just wished they would be honest to themselves

    I have and you think you are the judge, jury and ex-eye-cue-shin-ur of truth, justice and the american way .. oh wait .. your not american. I bet you’re one of them illegal aliens stealing american jobs .. that’s why you hate the greateast liberator of slaves and un-free people in the world.

    Just so you know .. I hate illegals as much as pharisee’s like you.

    Freud was also right when he said that the most sexually repressed nations, and individuals are also the most violent

    The only violence that has been done has been by you .. you’re butchering the english language .. how about a period every once in a while .. damn gammar bar-bear-ee-uns .. geez the next you know you’ll be running around with a purple dino suit on singing how much you love everyone .. fag!

  14. Boxer, this is a great post. Love the picture. I’d love to weigh in now, but my Eagles just won the Super Bowl, so I’ll have to come around later.

  15. @honeycomb

    I actually am very hesitant to comment to you any more, as there’s no point in gloating how I’ve so bested you in our exchange because it is now downright embarrassing to continue humiliating you.

    But your latest idiocy deserves a response.

    “Frued was wrong .. male to female ratio’s are the cause of wars / violence”

    I urge EVERYONE, and I mean everyone to go to those links that you provided and see for themselves that it NOT only doesn’t substantiate your views, but they discuss NOTHING that is even relevant to our exchange

    Go on dear reader, and see for yourself….It merely shows the gender imbalance between the sexes in a few countries….NOT ONCE does the author of those articles even attempt to explain the connection between sexual repression and violence.

    On the other hand, even a cursory look with Google shows the connection between sexual repression and violence:

    https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex-dawn/201004/sexual-repression

    “The only violence that has been done has been by you .. you’re butchering the english language .. how about a period every once in a while .. damn gammar bar-bear-ee-uns .. geez”

    You accuse ME of butchering the English language? are you kidding me?, you can’t even spell, let alone be competent enough to use correct grammar and punctuation

    Look we need to stop making this personal honeycomb….you have your views and I have mine, but to start to accuse me of possibly being an illegal alien, or intimate that I might be a “fag” is going a bit far

    Just admit that your celibate lifestyle is a CHOICE that you made, and that you still need women, but you have chosen to forego relationships with women, for whatever reasons you hold to….at least be honest with yourself

  16. Look we need to stop making this personal honeycomb….you have your views and I have mine, but to start to accuse me of possibly being an illegal alien, or intimate that I might be a “fag” is going a bit far

    You started this fag-boy .. and now you want to play nice. I think not.

    I have never pushed or told anyone to live like me. I don’t tell young men not to marry. And you insist on pushing your agenda and persist in using words like .. full of devils and being an agent of the devil and evil nature. I cautioned you KrapTon51 (the illegal alien fag-boy).

    As for the links .. they are for your reading pleasure. We currently have annimbalance if you can read. If I have to go dig up decades old published articles I can .. and will. More men with free time equals trouble .. typically.

    And .. My spelling and grammar are intentional. Pot meet Kettle. You’re a hypo-crit.

    As for your illegal nationality .. it’s a certainty .. you don’t understand sarcasm (/s). Check out at the beginning of my post. Or are to illiterate to get the reference.

    As for “besting” me .. lol .. you’re a legend in your own mind .. and there only.

    Go suck your pacifier .. that’s a fruedian slip .. I meant d1ck.

  17. Dear Brother Honeycomb:

    Your comments do not violate the comment policy here, and I have no problem with them. They do, however, raise questions.

    the illegal alien fag-boy

    As for your illegal nationality .. it’s a certainty .. you don’t understand sarcasm (/s).

    These are serious charges, alluding to criminal offenses. What’s your evidence that Kryptonian is an illegal alien, homosexual, or has “an illegal nationality” (I don’t even know what that means.)

    I suppose I’m attuned to such stuff, given that Sir Hamster and Cane Caldo fabricated a months-long series of lies that I was a homosexual pedophile, after I hurt their feelings (i.e. winning a silly internet argument with them). They’re still going at this, and I find it simultaneously humorous and unmanly. Almost immediately after this, those two pieces of human shit accused a war hero of desertion and being a trans-sexual. Again, with no evidence.

    We can vigorously debate the real issues like men, or we can descend into feminist caterwauling and phony accusations, made up on the fly, like Cane Caldo is wont to do. I would rather we stick to the former policy; but, as I said, that’s just personal preference. The comment policy has not been breached, and you gents are welcome to do what you like within those guidelines, for as long as it amuses you.

    Peace,

    Boxer

  18. @Boxer

    Lol, It’s all good Boxer….I find this all rather amusing.
    I am confident in my own sexuality to not be hurt or afraid if anyone calls me a “fag”….it just washes off me. I’m actually too in love with “pussy” to ever go to the other side haha

    As for the illegal alien?, lol, I would have thought my near perfect grammar and exceptional command of the English language would identify me as NOT being a Mexican, or an illegal immigrant

    I’ll give our readers a bit of a help….I don’t actually reside in America, so I can’t actually be accused of being an “illegal alien”…..I live in New Zealand, and am one of those dreaded white people you so often hear about lol

    I suppose this revelation will spark a new round of ad hominem attacks against my nationality….probably think I’m an aussie (she’ll be right mate, show us yur tits luv, fair dinkim mate, yur winninz are lovely sheilas, good for a root)

    By the way, that was painful to purposely write “bad English”, those colloquialisms are terrible!

  19. Freud was also right when he said that the most sexually repressed nations, and individuals are also the most violent….Hello America, I’m looking at you

    LOL…Freud thought everything in life revolved around sex in some way. Much like krypt here…he made sex the god rather than worshipping the true God.

    ‘What is the source of quarrels and conflicts among you? Is not the source your pleasures that wage war in your members? You lust and do not have; so you commit murder. You are envious and cannot obtain; so you fight and quarrel. You do not have because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, so that you may spend it on your pleasures. You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. James 4:1-4

  20. There’s only 1 group of people who I despise more than feminists and the great majority of women, and that is the morally, self righteous Christians who demonize sex and who spend the rest of their miserable lives trying to convince others that their course of life is noble

    We don’t demonize sex…have plenty of it with your spouse. That’s what God made it for.

    You can’t call jerking off or watching porn sex though because you think you are invisible to women. That’s sinful.

  21. Boxer sez ..

    They do, however, raise questions.

    I’ll be back today to respond to your question on the particular’s regarding, the hypocrite, KrapTon51.

    My disparaging remarks toward him were sarcasm and giving him the needle. It’ll take some time to produce my response and I’m slammed today at work. Be patient, thanks in advance.

  22. @honeycomb

    “I’ll be back today to respond to your question on the particular’s regarding, the hypocrite, KrapTon51”

    I look forward to it.
    I await with baited breath……….

  23. @earl

    “You can’t call jerking off or watching porn sex though because you think you are invisible to women. That’s sinful.”

    Do you really want to go there with me earl? lol.

    I’m the one who put up a 10,000 dollar reward on YouTube for all comers if they could prove masturbation is a sin….To claim the reward all they would have to do is 1: abide by the definition that God himself sets for what constitutes sin, i.e “sin is a transgression of the LAW”, and show me the LAW that condemns masturbation, and 2: show me where masturbation is mentioned in the LAW, and I require chapter and verse……No beating around the bush, no prevaricating, no “inferring”, there has to be explicit mention of the action of masturbation

    To this day, NO ONE has claimed the prize money.

    So by all means, go there with me if you dare, but like Lucifer says to Baltar in Mission Galactica, “It shall be quite a good battle”

    BALTAR: “At long last, I have overtaken Adama with sufficient strength to blow him out of the sky”
    LUCIFER: “It should be quite a good battle”
    BALTAR: “It will be no battle at all, a single battlestar is no match for 3 base ships….on no, what we have here my dear Lucifer is what is known as a rout, a humiliation, a massacre”

    I await your reply with baited breath………

  24. I want to be very careful here, because I like all you guys personally, and I don’t want you to feel like you can’t act like a bunch of mean-girls at the middle-school lunch table, if you really want to do that. At the same time, I’m conflicted, because I don’t want this to devolve into a “Dalrock” type blog, where gangs of people dogpile each other for wrongthink.

    I, personally, find the Dalrock blog funny and enjoyable; but, that’s because I’m an asshole. Most people don’t like that atmosphere, and I think it generally encourages people to self-censor. If I aspire to do anything here on my blog, it’s to allow everyone to express himself openly. Gawd knows we can’t give our opinions, as men, in polite company any longer, without risking sanction. If this blog is worth anything, it’s only as a free-speech bubble, where we can all spout off as we like.

    There is no requirement for any of us to love one another here, nor is there a requirement for any of us to be pals. So there’s no way I can make anyone follow these non-rules, and I don’t have the time to micromanage comments anyway.

    In any case, I put up a new post, which addresses the problem with notions like truth and justification. It’s not directed at anyone in particular, but I hope you guys get something out of it.

    https://v5k2c2.wordpress.com/2018/02/05/quid-veritas-est/

    Peace,

    Boxer

  25. From here:

    ‘Offenses against chastity’

    2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”138 “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.”

    The use is outside the marital act. Hence it’s a sin.

    Get married krypt. Quit trying to rationalize.

  26. 2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.126 “Man’s dignity therefore requires him to act out of conscious and free choice, as moved and drawn in a personal way from within, and not by blind impulses in himself or by mere external constraint. Man gains such dignity when, ridding himself of all slavery to the passions, he presses forward to his goal by freely choosing what is good and, by his diligence and skill, effectively secures for himself the means suited to this end.”127

    Two thumbs up from me.

  27. @earl

    “The use is outside the marital act. Hence it’s a sin.”

    Is that the best you’ve got?…..seriously?

    Quit quoting from your catechisms and Church dogma, I asked for you to give me scripture references to prove your allegations and you can’t do it

    The Church is NOT and never will be the final authority and arbiter of what is sinful and what is not….The KJV Bible is the final authority PERIOD
    God’s word will always supersede the sex deprived dictates of the lunatics in the Church

    I’m not trying to rationalize anything……I asked you to prove to me that masturbation is a sin, and you can’t do it, so you have to run like a baby to mother church for your answer….PATHETIC

  28. @Boxer

    That was an amazing and powerful testimony.
    It shows the enormous amount of damage done to millions of people by teaching the LIE that masturbation is somehow sinful or bad

    In that respect the Mormon church is as guilty as the Satanic Roman Catholic church for teaching such unsubstantiated nonsense

    And it also clearly shows the enormous and debilitating effect it is when we trust the words of MEN, instead of going to God and asking his opinion on something

    The Catholic church likes to delude themselves that the catechisms, magisteriums, edicts and dogma are the official words of Christ passed on down through THEM, but they are pathological LIARS with no scriptural basis at all….This is why they are fanatically desperate to get you to stop reading your bible and trust what THEY say

    Like I said, here’s 10,000 dollars if you can show me in the bible where Purgatory exists as a proven doctrine….They can add that to the 10,000 dollars I’ve offered for finding 1 verse in the bible that condemns masturbation

  29. Two thumbs up from me.

    Yeah there is always two camps of people.

    Those who think chastity is an unbearable burden because they want to be ruled by their passions…and those who see the value in how it controls the passions to productive use.

    Masturbation is a shortcut, an easy way out, it drains you and puts you in a self-made prison. You become enslaved to it.

    Besides masturbation isn’t the marital act no matter how much krypt tries to rationalize it…it’s self made sexual stimulation with no outlet.

  30. “I am, of course, happy that Brother Derek has found a decent woman, and is currently engaged in repopulating his part of the world with his descendants.”

    Well I did adopt three of the five, so I’m not sure if that counts as repopulating. Moreover, decent is an understatement: she’s exceptionally decent.

    “I do hope that Kryptonian can find a woman, rather than ending up suckered by a wimminz into giving up all his money.”

    I was going to suggest he move to Amish-land and get an Anabaptist wife. But, lo, it seems Sigma Frame is (ex?) Mennonite and had poor luck. Also, he’s probably too old.

    “What I am most certain of is that I can not discern the women from the wimminz….As for me, I find the cost-benefit ratio pretty fearsome, and I won’t be taking that particular plunge.”

    While I’ve landed firmly in the “all men need women” camp (except for the celibate monks), I don’t really have any definitive solutions for how to solve the problem of identifying the wheat from the chaff, possibly because I’ve been out of the market for too long to have given it much thought.

  31. @earl

    “Those who think chastity is an unbearable burden because they want to be ruled by their passions…and those who see the value in how it controls the passions to productive use.”

    There’s that self righteous arrogance I was talking about, the belief that those who practice chastity are somehow “more virtuous” and moral than those who aren’t.
    Even Jesus said: Mat 19:11  “But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given”
    Notice how there are some men who are just NOT able to live without sex, and it is to a select group who ARE able to receive it
    Also notice Jesus reinforces the very selective nature of chastity in: Mat 19:12  For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. HE THAT IS ABLE TO RECEIVE IT, LET HIM RECEIVE IT”….Obviously referring to the fact that there are some men who just cannot accept the teaching on this lifestyle, yet Jesus did not condemn them for their “inability to control their passions”

    I would further add that once the FULL revelation of all of God’s word was put to paper, that not only is “chastity is an unbearable burden”, it is actually a doctrine of DEVILS, see 1st Timothy 4:1, and an extremely unwise lifestyle as it ENCOURAGES FORNICATION……This is why we are told that “each man is to have his own wife, and a wife has to have her own husband” in 1st Corinthians 7:1-2

    I have just given you sound biblical doctrine that militates against the notion that chastity is to be practiced….You had better come prepared and give me chapter and verse that refutes what I just said, instead of vomiting up the mindless drivel the Catholic church puts out.

    “Masturbation is a shortcut, an easy way out, it drains you and puts you in a self-made prison. You become enslaved to it.”

    As expected you can’t give me any scriptures to refute masturbation, so you have to resort to old wives tales and human “reasoning”
    Once again I reiterate, REASON is NOT the arbiter of what is right or wrong, as our reasoning faculties have been corrupted by the Fall….we need to rely on what GOD said in HIS word

    I once had a debate with the cult known as the “Church of the New Jerusalem”, they are also known as Swedenborgians, and are well known for their heretical beliefs
    In this debate, I came equipped with my sound biblical knowledge, and an extensive use of Hermeneutics and apologetics. I appealed to scripture time and time again refuting every thing they tried to say YET I completely and utterly LOST that debate….In fact my defeat was an humiliation, it truly was a massacre.

    Why did I lose despite knowing my bible so well?……..Because he used “human reasoning” to refute everything I said…… When one appeals to human reasoning and logic, you can literally teach anything and make the bible say whatever you want it to say.
    This is why an appeal to “reason” which is what you and honeycomb do, is so dangerous, and why it can appear that you guys are right when you are so wrong.

    Bottom line……you want to prove your contention with me, start using chapter and verse of the bible: 2Ti_3:16  “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

  32. St. Paul tells you to get married…I’ve told you to get married krypt. He didn’t say masturbate as an excuse because you have these passions but you don’t want to make the effort to get married or to stay chaste because you are not married.

    You can’t have it both ways.

  33. “As expected you can’t give me any scriptures to refute masturbation”

    Full stop.

    “we need to rely on what GOD said in HIS word…When one appeals to human reasoning and logic, you can literally teach anything and make the bible say whatever you want it to say.”

    While I agree with almost everything you’ve said so far, this is incorrect. Our ability to reason about the world is what points us towards God, for his word can only be understood within a rational framework. I agree with Oxford mathematician John Lennox when he cites the “rational intelligibility of the universe” is indicative of God. You can make the Bible out to say whatever you want, but this almost always involves fallacious reasoning, metaphysical differences, and/or unstated presuppositions.

    Earl writes: “St. Paul tells you to get married…He didn’t say masturbate as an excuse because you have these passions but you don’t want to make the effort to get married or to stay chaste because you are not married.”

    First, masturbation and effort to get married are not mutually exclusive. You cannot conclude that the instruction to get married implies a command against masturbation. It does not logically follow.

    Second, you imply that chasteness and masturbation are mutually exclusive, but that is assuming the conclusion of the argument, that is, circular reasoning. You have yet to make this case.

    Third, masturbation as an excuse is a red-herring argument.

    Fourth, you’re making an argument from silence, as Paul says nothing about masturbation whatsoever.

    And Fifth, catechism 2352 denounces masturbation because it is sexual pleasure outside of mutual self-giving and human procreation. Why did it explicitly state, in this context, that the sexual faculty outside of marriage is contrary to its purpose? If the Church is saying that masturbation is always wrong, then masturbation inside of marriage should also be wrong. Is this not a logical contradiction? Remember, you’ve made the claim that masturbation is a “self-made prison” and “sexual stimulation with no outlet”, but it’s trivial to prove that neither of these are true in the case of masturbation within a marriage.

  34. @earl

    “St. Paul tells you to get married”

    No such person as “St.Paul”….More of the Catholic drivel I see in their attempt to categorize some “Christians” as Saints, and not others

    “I’ve told you to get married krypt”

    What the hell has this to do with me?……Stop making it personal, my hermenuitical approach in dealing with your doctrinal errors is and has always been, in dealing with “what saith the scriptures”, but you continually obfiscate the issue by making this all about me…..You can’t beat me earl or refute what the scriptures say, so you make “ME” the target

    “He didn’t say masturbate as an excuse because you have these passions”

    An argument of silence is no argument at all, so quit the straw man antics. Either put up or shut up, now show me the scriptures that say I can’t masturbate.
    Once again, since you don’t have a leg to stand on, and your lack of biblical knowledge prevents you from being able to handle this debate, you make it personal again

  35. ‘Either put up or shut up, now show me the scriptures that say I can’t masturbate.’

    You say that because you know nobody can so you think you are justified to do it because you don’t want to make the effort to get married or practice chastity. But I’m sure you are well aware of the effects of it.

    https://bible.org/question/does-bible-say-masturbation-sin

    ‘Masturbation is an act of self-gratification rather than a part of giving gratification and pleasure to one’s partner. ‘

  36. And I’m not going to shut up about it because I know full well the effects it does to a person. It is one of the most emasculating things a man can do to himself.

  37. ? If the Church is saying that masturbation is always wrong, then masturbation inside of marriage should also be wrong. Is this not a logical contradiction? Remember, you’ve made the claim that masturbation is a “self-made prison” and “sexual stimulation with no outlet”, but it’s trivial to prove that neither of these are true in the case of masturbation within a marriage.

    The act itself still is whether you are married or not.

  38. kryptonian51 @ 4:16 pm:
    “now show me the scriptures that say I can’t masturbate.”

    1 Thessalonians 4:3-5. “It is God’s will that you should be sanctified: that you should avoid sexual immorality; that each of you should learn to control your own body in a way that is holy and honorable, not in passionate lust like the pagans, who do not know God…”

    Not really interested in joining the debate, but you’re asking for Christian moral guidance and besides, I’d like that $10,000 you mentioned. Paypal?

  39. Let’s review your stated positions and evaluate them logically, since we have no biblical citations. We can use these scenarios: (A) Non-mutual, partner-performed; (B) Self-performed simultaneously with partner; (C) Self-performed (with or without a partner present)

    “it drains you and puts you in a self-made prison”

    Obviously this cannot apply to ‘A’ because it isn’t self-performed. I strains imagination to see how ‘B’ could be a self-made prison, since the experience is shared. ‘C’ is no self-made prison if it fills your mind with intense thoughts of your spouse. So we can safely discard this objection.

    “it’s self made sexual stimulation with no outlet.”

    ‘A’ isn’t self-performed, so it can’t be self-made. ‘A’ and ‘B’ do not lack for output, as they are shared experiences involving both partners. ‘C’, the outlet is focus on one’s spouse. Again, this objection is easily discarded.

    “It is one of the most emasculating things a man can do to himself.”

    Obviously it doesn’t apply to ‘A’. Who would think that ‘B’ was emasculating? Not many people at all. What about ‘C’? As far as I can tell, the only reason it’s emasculating is because men are made to feel guilty about it. Talk about circular reasoning and self-fulfilling prophecies. It’s only emasculating because we’re told it is emasculating. Do you know what’s emasculating? Telling a man that his natural sexual desire for release is shameful. So let’s reject this one too.

    “The act itself still is whether you are married or not.”

    Here is the crux. The RCC gives two reasons why it is illegitimate outside of marriage: lack of procreation and lack of mutual self-giving. I’m calling you out on both of these.

    Many sexual acts lack the chance of procreation. This is most notable in those who are past child-bearing age. Of course the Bible approves of sex of those who cannot procreate. So there can be nothing strictly wrong with masturbation within marriage just because it doesn’t lead to procreation. Any other conclusion is faulty logic (whether ‘A’, ‘B’ or ‘C’).

    ‘A’ and ‘B’ are obviously cases where there is mutual self-giving. Both partners are involved in the process and there is opportunity for both partners to take pleasure in the shared experience. What about ‘C’? If it occurs in the spouses presence, then we can disregard the objection. But even if it doesn’t, many people have no problem with their spouses getting all worked up over themselves. It’s flattering, if nothing else.

    So, in the context of marriage masturbation is perfectly fine. None of the objections you gave hold up, and they must hold up in all cases because both you and the RCC have claimed that it is wrong in all cases. And if it can’t be shown that it is wrong in marriage, then the RCC’s claims must be rejected and there is no other evidence (i.e. biblical evidence) that it is wrong.

  40. @Gunner Q

    “besides, I’d like that $10,000 you mentioned. Paypal?”

    Wow another idiot from Dalrock’s blogs…..Does Boxer’s blog attracts Celibate freaks or is this sex hating, sex denying, sex abstaining epidemic endemic to America?
    I’m truly beginning to think that going MGTOW, and avoiding/hating women turns men into pathological Celibate nut cases….you guys can’t get sex, you know that no woman will ever fuck you, that you will have to remain celibate for the rest of your lives, so it causes some sort of psychological mental disorder where you hate ALL forms of sex, sex expression, sexual pleasure, masturbation, erotica etc.

    Oh well, It shouldn’t be too hard to refute your nonsense. The scripture text that follows is from the KJV, which is the ONLY bible that God authorizes. In the passage I give below is the true and accurate translation of the verse you gave. Using a corrupt, counterfeit bible like your NIV will result in your misunderstanding of key doctrinal positions and a bungling of the intended meaning of the text…..As you can see by comparison, the 2 different texts are completely opposite in their intended meanings.

    As you can see, the SUBJECT of the passage is NOT masturbation at all, but FORNICATION, and in order to live a sanctified life pleasing to the Lord, to avoid fornication, it tells us to “POSSESS HIS VESSEL”………The Greek word for Possess here is κτάομαι which means to purchase, to acquire to get, and the Greek word for Vessel is σκεῦος which refers to a WIFE in 1st Peter 3:7.. When we couple the two terms together it is apparent that it means to get a wife, yet the NIV makes it look like it is talking about how we treat our physical bodies.

    Even if we allow for the NIV reading, it is obvious that masturbation is NOT the subject of discussion, but Fornication
    What YOU have done is filter the NIV translation of “passionate lust” and put a 21st Century sexual spin on it and inferred it means masturbation, but the Greek word means nothing of the kind……are you implying that Jesus is guilty of PASSIONATE LUST?….well that is the EXACT same Greek word used to describe Jesus lusting after the Passover…surely you’re not implying that Jesus wanted to celebrate the Passover sexually

    Do you see the bungling mess you celibates get into when you 1: Use a counterfeit version of the bible, 2: Don’t know the linguistic meaning behind the Greek texts, and 3: attempt to make “lust” a sexual sin, when it’s neutral, it is the OBJECT of lust that makes it a sin….this is how JESUS was able to Lust in Luke 22:15 yet not be accused of sinning, this is how Paul told others to LUST after the office of a Bishop 1Ti 3:1  This is a true saying, If a man ἐπιθυμέω the office of a bishop, he ἐπιθυμέω a good work. 

    That is the EXACT same Greek word in 1st Thessalonians 4:3-5 “passionate lust”….so are you trying to tell me that we are supposed to have SEXUAL, MASTURBATORY desire in wanting to be Bishops???

    Of course not…..so next time, don’t you dare come in here and attempt to challenge me with your garbage, with such a shallow and woefully inept understanding of the scriptures
    I’m not here looking for “Christian moral guidance”…..If you want to know stuff, you will come to ME

    1st Th 4:3  For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication: That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour; Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God: 

    Better luck next time, I still get to keep my 10,000 dollars 🙂

  41. Gotta say, I’m siding with Kryptonian again. I just read 1 Thessalonians 4, in its entirety. There is no “thou shalt not jerk off” commandment to be found in that muhfugga. The closest I can get to Gunner’s read is a very general admonition not to go all wild and jerk off in the streets, because there actually were groups of pagans who did such stuff, just to be publicly annoying.

    Here’s a link for those that don’t believe me.
    https://www.ancient.eu/Diogenes_of_Sinope/
    They were called the cynics. They jerked off in the street as an homage to that guy, above — their ideological leader. They were also given to public nudity, as well as disrupting dinner parties. The cynics were, in other words, classical antiquity’s version of 4Chan.

    So, the chapter just seems to me to be giving good advice about being modest and not taking anything (sex, eating, speaking loudly, etc.) to excess, because gluttony is aesthetically abhorrent in all its forms.

    1 Thessalonians 4 King James Version (KJV)

    1 Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort you by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, so ye would abound more and more.

    2 For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

    3 For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

    4 That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

    5 Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

    6 That no man go beyond and defraud his brother in any matter: because that the Lord is the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

    7 For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness.

    8 He therefore that despiseth, despiseth not man, but God, who hath also given unto us his holy Spirit.

    9 But as touching brotherly love ye need not that I write unto you: for ye yourselves are taught of God to love one another.

    10 And indeed ye do it toward all the brethren which are in all Macedonia: but we beseech you, brethren, that ye increase more and more;

    11 And that ye study to be quiet, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, as we commanded you;

    12 That ye may walk honestly toward them that are without, and that ye may have lack of nothing.

    13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.

    14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.

    15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

    16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

    17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

    18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

    Setting aside the talk about Jesus (who I don’t see as a historical character) there is nothing but good advice in here. It’s not about masturbation at all. It’s just about living a civilized life.

    What’s most interesting is that you’re all having this debate on a blog that was started by a guy who has never been a Christian, can’t be a Christian, and who both jerks off and fucks skank-ho wimminz on a regular basis. Yet, you’re all fighting among one another, rather than rebuking me for my nasty-ass ways (and it wouldn’t take much).

  42. Did my big long post on the subject get eaten or deleted? Did your recent site name change affect moderation or is that just me? I’m just seeing strange behavior all of the sudden. Wondering if it is just me.

    “What’s most interesting is that you’re all having this debate on a blog that was started by a guy who has never been a Christian, can’t be a Christian, and who both jerks off and fucks skank-ho wimminz on a regular basis. Yet, you’re all fighting among one another, rather than rebuking me for my nasty-ass ways (and it wouldn’t take much).

    Rather than rebuke you for something you don’t believe in, I prefer the metaphysical arguments that might have a shred of a chance. Regardless, the viewpoints you seem to approve of are those that tend to be Christian viewpoints, so I’d say that’s a good enough reason.

  43. Did my big long post on the subject get eaten or deleted? Did your recent site name change affect moderation or is that just me? I’m just seeing strange behavior all of the sudden. Wondering if it is just me.

    I apologize, and, it’s not just you. I’ve been fishing stuff out of the spam bin all day, from everyone. I’m also unable, about half the time, to comment on other people’s blogs. I’m hoping it all gets smoothed out on the back end, but in the interim, it’s a real pain in the butt.

    Rather than rebuke you for something you don’t believe in, I prefer the metaphysical arguments that might have a shred of a chance. Regardless, the viewpoints you seem to approve of are those that tend to be Christian viewpoints, so I’d say that’s a good enough reason.

    You call them Christian viewpoints, but you could just as easily call them Jewish, Muslim or Buddhist viewpoints. I’ll always be in favor of an advanced, high-trust society, rather than living in a mud-hutted matriarchal shithole. That’s just good sense.

  44. @Boxer

    “on a blog that was started by a guy who has never been a Christian, can’t be a Christian, and who both jerks off and fucks skank-ho wimminz on a regular basis”

    LMAO!!!! That had me in stitches Boxer

  45. @Derek Ramsey

    “Do you know what’s emasculating? Telling a man that his natural sexual desire for release is shameful. So let’s reject this one too”

    Nailed it!

    The rest of your comment is wonderfully put together and an irrefutable refutation of the retarded anti- sexual, anti-masturbation garbage from the filthy Catholic church

    The untold spiritual damage that their unscriptural teaching on chastity, masturbation and sex in general has done to millions of lives, will NEVER be forgiven, and I for one can’t wait to see the Whore of Babylon( the Roman Catholic Church) be utterly burned with fire at Armageddon: Revelation 18:8

  46. @honeycomb

    You have seriously lost the plot dude…..perhaps being tortured by your celibate lifestyle at NEVER being able to feel the warm embrace of a woman as she sensuously rides your member to ecstasy, and knowing that will NEVER be yours to experience has permanently addled your brain, because that link, once again, has got absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand

    Not only that, but no one is called “winninz” in that link

  47. “Possess his vessel” still refers to controlling one’s body. If it only meant wife then it would have used the word “wife”. The idea kryptonian is pushing is that sexual immorality is not possible if a second person is not involved. Jesus refuted that in the famous Matthew 5:28 “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

    But I’ve had my say.

    Boxer: “Yet, you’re all fighting among one another, rather than rebuking me for my nasty-ass ways ”

    Why expect a non-Christian to act Christian?

  48. Yet, you’re all fighting among one another, rather than rebuking me for my nasty-ass ways (and it wouldn’t take much).

    When it comes to fornication…I learned a long time ago no rebuke from me will compare with the negative effect that naturally occur from it. Somewhere along the way an ‘oops’ will happen if you play with fire long enough.

  49. @Gunner Q

    ““Possess his vessel” still refers to controlling one’s body”

    Wrong. It only refers to “your body” if you’re using a counterfeit version of the body, The KJV strongly implies that it’s talking about acquiring, or getting (possess) a wife in order to avoid fornication…..Remember the SUBJECT of any particular verse is vitally important in understanding what any passage means in the bible

    Even if we allow for the possibility that you’re correct, and it is indeed talking about “your body”, you would have to prove that masturbation creates a condition that is opposite to sanctification and honor…..when the bible is silent on any particular SUBJECT, and you make bold pronouncements on that SUBJECT, you have deviated into eisegesis, and NOT exegesis…..Remember, an argument from silence is no argument at all.

    Follow the logic, all red apples are bad, all green apples are good, therefore purple apples are bad also…..That is an argument of silence, it postulates that subject c must be the same as subject a, but it is pure conjecture

    “If it only meant wife then it would have used the word “wife””

    Wrong! the SUBJECT of 1st Peter 3:1-7 is clearly and unmistakably talking about wife, YET she is called a VESSEL in verse 7……Don’t assume what the bible says, read it in context to see what it’s talking about….also, don’t make the bible conform to your preconceived notions of interpretation.

    “The idea kryptonian is pushing is that sexual immorality is not possible if a second person is not involved”

    BINGO!!!!!…….You’re damn right I’m pushing the idea that “sexual immorality” is not possible without a second person. There is not 1 sin mentioned in the long list of transgressions in sexual sins in Leviticus 18 that does not involve someone else
    ALL sexual sin is a violation of another person, and you cannot find 1 exception….for e.g, ADULTERY is a sin against a married man, because you are taking his property, see Leviticus 20:10

    It’s celibates like YOU who are desperate to push the idea that sex thoughts are a crime, just like the SJW’s and the Femnazi’s do.

    “Jesus refuted that in the famous Matthew 5:28”

    Of course you failed to mention Matthew 5:27, where it is vital to see that the SUBJECT being discussed is ADULTERY, and not fornication…..I’ll give you a hint why understanding why the SUBJECT in Matthew 5 is so important, it is because single men CANNOT commit adultery with a woman UNLESS she belongs to a married man, so when a single man looks at a single skantily clad, sexy bikini wearing “slut” at the beach, and wants to fuck her, he hasn’t committed adultery, because adultery can ONLY occur if that woman belongs to an husband
    And I’m not just splitting hairs here, the SUBJECT of Matthew 5, was and has always been adultery, but celibates and self righteous moralists WANT that verse to refer to fornication so they can continue to shame men, and guilt them into thinking they’ve sinned.

    I could go much more into this but It’s taken up too much of my time already…I could go into the study of γυνή which is translated women here, when it’s a very common translation for WIFE, “whosoever looketh upon a WIFE to lust after…..”
    I could get into the definition of Lust which means to covet, and it’s not sexual thoughts like you suppose, but like I said, I’m bored with this topic, I’ve debated this topic to death, and engaged with Greek professors on Youtube….in the end only the humble will ever admit that they’re wrong on any particular doctrine and modify their views, and that goes for me as well

  50. EDIT:
    Line 2 is supposed to read: Wrong. It only refers to “your body” if you’re using a counterfeit version of the BIBLE

  51. “The act itself still is whether you are married or not.”

    Kryptonian has stated that the Bible is silent on the topic of masturbation. But that’s not completely true. The Song of Songs positively describes oral sex. It is not specific enough to differentiate the act described from scenario A. If oral sex is allowed, logically scenario A must be as well. Moreover, if oral sex is permitted, what’s the difference exactly?

  52. @Derek Ramsey

    ” If oral sex is allowed, logically scenario A must be as well”

    Of course our resident celibate monks who infest this blog, will get out of that logical conclusion by insisting that oral sex is performed with another person, whereas masturbation is “solo”
    These celibates have an absolute phobia about “self pleasure”…if it feels good, it must be wrong!

Comments are closed.