Proud Wanker in Australia Writes In

Dave **** <****@idl.net.au>

Today Dave from Australia emails:


Hi!

I have read all of your articles on the Ezine list, and I was impressed. I
don't have the same sarcastic style as you, but I think we may have both
dealt with some of the same issues. I'll paste one of my longer articles
below... just for your interest (though a compliment would do wonders for my
ego).

"Wanking" by the way is Australian slang for masturbation.

Love and peace,

Dave


He then included a lengthy article on why he loves to
polish his chrome. Here is my email response, as well
as his article, spiced up with my own witty banter:


Hey Dave,

Thanks for your comments--I really do appreciate the encouragement.
And, yeah, I'm a *little* sarcastic. But hey us "Cowboy Americans"
are kinda known for that...

I thought your article stands up well and makes a hard point
(please note witty puns)...not that *I* masturbate or anything...
no, that would be wrong...

I also inserted a few comments into it below. Enjoy.

If someday I head "down under" maybe I can buy you a
Fosters. Just don't expect me to shake your hand.

Kevin

PS: FYI: I am banned at EzineArticles.com now for submitting
this article:


http://whorechurch.blogspot.com/2005/07/joyce-meyer-supporters-can-go-to-hell.html


More comments on your article inserted below...

> Wanking: The Last Taboo
>
> In today's permissive society there are few taboos left. Teenagers are
> educated in areas of sex that would have shocked and embarrassed many
> married couples in previous centuries. Fantasies are discussed freely; and
> films become more and more explicit. Premarital sex is virtually the norm.
> Homosexuality, S&M, group sex, wife-swapping - all can be freely discussed
> in polite society now. More concern is registered over someone making a
> value judgement against such practices than whether or not someone indulges
> in them.
>
> But one bastion of privacy and shame remains, and that is the subject of
> masturbation. Sperm banks in Australia suffer from a shortage of (paid)
> donors simply because the Australian male is too bashful to face a
> receptionist with evidence in his hand that he actually masturbated.
>


Hey! It's the solution to my carreer problem--I will just move to
Australia and work as a sperm donor.

> Some men find it painful to admit to themselves that they indulge in
> wanking, much less acknowledge such a practice to their friends or even to
> their GP.
>

Here in the states we have "Wanking Booths" at every public
restroom. We are proud of our openness and honesty. You
ought to come here--you'd fit right in.

Just bring your own lotion.

> Paradoxically, masturbation is despised by religious prudes and liberated
> machos alike. Prudes see it as sinful, and machos see it as a sign of
> weakness. Yet both parties practise it.
>
> Here is the ultimate in sexual hypocrisy. All of the arguments used against
> wowserism and double standards in every other area of sexual practice have
> overlooked the number one offender. While "self-abuse" as it used to be
> called, is practised almost universally, it is also done with almost
> universal shame.
>
> It is like the story of The Emperor's New Clothes. We all implicitly support
> the lie that no respectable person would touch themselves "down there" when
> what we really need is for an innocent child to speak the truth and say,
> "Hey look! The emperor is playing with himself!"
>

I did that once--well, it wasn't The Emporer, it was at a 2003 Bush rally.
Did you know the Secret Service carries metal batons? I didn't.

> Many people have found it liberating to be able to speak freely about their
> fantasies, about their sexual preferences, and about other practices which
> were once frowned upon. But how much more liberating it would be if people
> could overcome the dictates of their biological needs when those dictates
> interfere with other goals. And that is exactly what masturbation
> represents. It is the safety valve on the sexual pressure cooker.
> Masturbation stops us from exploding in unacceptable or inappropriate ways.
>

Plus "Ball Explosions" can be really messy.
Kinda like cleaning up raw eggs with a paper towel.

> I spoke about this situation quite frankly with a fellow minister once, in
> an effort to get him to realise the positive side of masturbation. He
> eventually confided to me that in his youth ("Before I became a Christian,
> of course!") he had gone out on a date with a girl that he greatly
> respected. He did not want to scare her off by being too forward, so he
> stopped at a service station and went into the toilet to relieve himself in
> more ways than one. And, of course, it worked.
>

What worked? the bathroom, the stress relief or the...? Oh,
I get it. Nevermind.

> Yet this same minister still teaches boys in his congregation that they are
> guilty of a great sin if they indulge in masturbation. Paedophilia, incest,
> rape, homosexuality, bestiality... all these practices seem to be tolerated
> more by a church which refuses to speak the liberating truth about
> masturbation.
>

Yeah, I think I'll put that on the billboard out front of 1st
Baptist: "This Week's Sermon: The Liberating Truth about
Masturbation."

> The traditional reason given for condemning masturbation within the
> Christian church is that Jesus Christ taught that it was just as bad to
> "look on a woman with lust" as it was to actually commit adultery with her.
> In other words, the thought was as bad as the action. So a teaching
> developed that thinking about sex (which obviously occurs during
> masturbation) is evil, whether you would ever actually indulge in the
> practice you are thinking about or not.
>

I disagree with this understanding of Jesus prohibition as well--me,
I don't think of sex. I think of spoiled produce. (Don't ask.)

> Some tried nobly to suppress all thoughts of sex, only to discover that they
> resurfaced, often in more bizarre forms than they had when first pushed
> underground. In Arab countries where women are covered from head to toe, for
> example, sexual offences still occur. And the same is true of the most
> extreme "holiness" cults.
>

Those Heaven's Gate guys had it right though: Castration.
That's the ticket to curbing the urge. Just create a ball-free
zone. No muss, no fuss, no masturbation.

> Covering women's bodies will not take away the God-given, biological urge to
> have sex. Nor is clothing going to stop the war that rages in the minds of
> people who feel guilty about sex thoughts. Some Amish groups have succeeded
> in stopping all forms of ejaculation for extended periods of time, only to
> develop cancer from the rotting semen inside their sex organs.
>

I need to use that with the wife..."You've got a headache?
Your headache is giving me ball cancer!"

> Others have taken the attitude that, if they are going to fry in hell
> anyway, they may as well get as much pleasure out of this life as they can
> before the final judgement.
>

Makes sense to me.

> So a rule aimed at teaching greater morality has led to greater immorality,
> both from those who have thrown it out as too hard and from those who have
> tried their hardest to follow it.
>

“’Do not handle! Do not taste! Do not touch!’? These are all destined to perish with use, because they are based on human commands and teachings. Such regulations indeed have an appearance of wisdom, with their self-imposed worship, their false humility and their harsh treatment of the body, but they lack any value in restraining sensual indulgence.” (Paul, 1st Century Religious Philosopher)

> The mistake is that people confuse "thinking about sex" with "lust". Lust is
> actually wanting to do something that you know is wrong. There are plenty of
> people who lust these days. And it is not limited to matters pertaining to
> sex.
>

Can I masturbate while fantasizing about my wife? Especially that
night we watched Titanic and she had on that little…oops. The point
is this: Can we sin by having an overwhelmingly “strong desire”
(lust) for our spouse?

I don’t think so.

> Let's say, for example, that you like pizza. You don't feel guilty about
> this do you? But if the only way you can get one is to steal it from your
> neighbour, then fulfilling your desire could mean doing something that you
> know is wrong (i.e. stealing). You can desire the pizza all you want, and
> even (if you like, for the fun of it) fantasise about stealing it; but if
> the bottom line is that you would not actually do it (because you know it is
> wrong), then you have not sinned.
>

You didn’t mention what KIND of pizza. I don’t like olives. If
The pizza has olives, I’m not going to lust after it.

Pepperoni and sausage? Now you’re talking’

> But if you would steal it if you could get away with it, and if you held
> back simply because you were afraid of being caught, then you are
> spiritually guilty of the act (robbery) whether or not you ever got up
> enough courage to actually do it. You have "lusted" for the pizza, by
> wanting it more than you want to do what is right. But the pizza (i.e. the
> thing you desired) is not wrong in itself.
>

Too much logical thought. Brain hurts. Must take
pill.

> Applying this to sex, the sin is not in desiring sex (since that is as
> universal as the desire for food), nor is it in fantasising about sex. The
> sin is in wanting to actually perform a sexual act that you know is wrong,
> and then refraining from doing it only out of fear about what people would
> think of you or what they would do to you if they found out.
>
> Being turned on by a rape scene in a movie (or a detailed description of one
> in a book) is not the same as actually wanting to rape someone. And if you
> felt the scene was tempting you to rape someone, then masturbating as a
> result of the fantasy turn-on is the best way to overcome the temptation and
> to stop yourself from indulging in the action in real life.
>

My, you must be one busy guy, Dave.

> Masturbation is the universally legitimate way to satisfy your sexual
> appetite without indulging in something else which may not be legitimate. If
> there was more masturbation, there would be a lot less incest, fewer rapes,
> less infidelity in marriage, etc.
>

What a great support group: Rubs for Rapists. The slogan
could be: “You Don’t Need Incarceration, Just a Hand”

> Instead of trying to stop people from masturbating, the church should be
> encouraging them to do so, thus leaving them free to choose (without the
> overriding pressure of sperm build-up) not to do those things that God has
> forbidden.
>

I agree, but wouldn’t that make the pews all sticky?

> Much of this has relevance to females as well. Many marriages would be
> happier if wives weren't so riddled with feelings of guilt about their own
> need for sex.
>
> There is a popular myth that people cannot live without sex, and it suggests
> that God is unreasonable to expect people to remain faithful in marriage,
> chaste outside of marriage, and single if the first marriage fails. But
> people can live without engaging in sex with another person; and to do so
> does not require some impossible level of discipline.
>

OK, here you’re wrong. Maybe YOU can live without sex,
I can’t. Plus, I lost both hands in a freak slide rule accident
as a child.

> Living without ejaculation is, however, a different story. And because the
> church has fostered the myth that people can, through sheer willpower,
> become asexual, it must take some responsibility for the sexual
> permissiveness, high incidence of divorce and remarriage, and the backlash
> against God that has resulted from this lie in today's world.
>

All kidding aside, I believe the subconscious goal of
much of the institutional church is creating the
asexual male. Get rid of masculinity and you will
ultimately rid yourself of all those ugly man problems.

> In conclusion, we should ask ourselves: Was Jesus fully human? If so, did he
> have wet dreams? (For if you don't masturbate, then sooner or later, the
> semen will come out through "nocturnal emissions".) And if this happened to
> Jesus, would he have had thoughts about sex at the moment of ejaculation?
> The obvious answer is Yes. For ejaculation itself is sex. And if Jesus was
> without sin, then thoughts about sex (and ejaculations outside of marriage)
> must not be any more sinful than eating or going to the toilet. It is only
> cultural brainwashing that has taught us otherwise.


Did you really just mention Jesus’, um, man juice? What are
you, some kind of religious CSI?

Of course it does make the whole idea of “relics” more
interesting: “The True Cross,” “The Spear of Destiny,”
“The Holy Grail,” “The Shroud of Turin” and the
“Nocturnal Emission.” Imagine the testimonies of the
faithful:

“I came here with one leg shorter than the other. I
touched the vial and my short leg grew six inches.”

Or even better:

“I was barren and nine months after I visited ‘Our
Lady of the Holy Ejaculate’ I had a child.”


>
> As a sexually frustrated, religiously uptight youth I used to look forward
> to wet dreams, because it was the one time when I was free to indulge in
> activities and thoughts which were forbidden to me in the daytime. And yet
> even these were marred by the fear that the dream might not be just a dream.
> How much better to consciously choose to fantasise (and masturbate) while
> awake. For me, this became a guilt-free option only when I discovered that
> there was absolutely nothing forbidding it in scripture.
>


Yeah, this one had always puzzled me too. God takes time
to lay out the details of bestiality as well as punishments for
same, but He couldn’t take a line or two to say “Stop Touching
Yourself There!”


> One of the cleverest ways the church has ever found to control the masses
> has been to make masturbation a sin. The consequence has been that the most
> dishonest (i.e. the ones who try to give the impression that they don't
> masturbate) are looked on as being the most holy, while more honest
> believers are made to feel guilty and in need of absolution from the
> hypocrites.
>


Your theory, in a nutshell: The Church controls the masses through
keeping them horny then refusing to give them a hand.


> Anyone interested in a genuine revival of sexual morality and sincere faith
> should consider the possibility that the first step in that direction might
> be to enlighten the masses to their right (and perhaps even their
> responsibility) to masturbate.
>
> At the same time, those who suffer from guilt because of the secular myth
> that real men don't wank need to stand up to that lie as well. The result
> will be a happier, healthier society.
>

I feel better already. Now I need a cigarette.