Masturbation: Vice or Virtue?
Author(s): William E. Phipps
Source: Journal of Religion and Health , Jul., 1977, Vol. 16, No. 3 (Jul., 1977), pp. 183195
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/27505405
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of
Religion and Health
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal of Religion and Health, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1977
Masturbation: Vice or Virtue?
WILLIAM E. PfflPPS
The Kinsey research team has clearly defined masturbation as "deliberate self
stimulation which effects sexual arousal."1 This term is commonly used by social
scientists in spite of its etymology. According to the Oxford English Dictionary,
"masturbate" is a compound from the Latin roots manus (hand) and stuprare (to
defile). Accordingly it is defined in that standard work as "to practice self
abuse." That was certainly the meaning of the term when it was first used two
centuries ago. Social scientists who are sensitive to etymology realize that the
word "masturbation" carries too much manual association to be fully descriptive
and, of more concern, has traditionally carried a negative moral judgment.
Consequently, neologisms have been created for the phenomenon in recent
years. But they also have their limitations and have not been accorded full
acceptance. "Automanipulation" is too mechanical and vague; "autoerotism" is
too broad, for it can also describe, for example, one's response to sensuous works
of art; and "auto-orgasm" incorrectly assumes that orgasm is always the aim of
this endeavor. Even though masturbation has a value-loaded etymology, it will
be presumed that its original connotation can be disregarded?even as "manu
facturing" is no longer associated with making by hand.
It is often wrongly stated that masturbation is dealt with in the Bible. Kinsey,
for example, claims that it is there treated as a greater sin than engaging in
coitus outside of marriage.2 Also, the Catholic-edited Dictionary of Moral Theol
ogy pronounced: "Direct voluntary pollution is properly called masturba
tion. ... In the Holy Scriptures it is condemned as a sin which excludes a
person from the Kingdom of Heaven."3 Actually masturbation is not mentioned
in the Jewish Scriptures or in the New Testament. Why is it that that nonpru
dish literature, which frankly refers to zo?philia, homosexuality, and other
sexual variations, does not discuss masturbation? It is safe to assume that its
omission displays that its practice was of no moral or cultic concern to the many
writers of books now called the Bible.
In this essay I shall first review in historical sequence the treatments of
masturbation as a vice in the postbiblical Judaeo-Christian tradition. Then I
shall focus attention on some benefits that can result from masturbation.
William E. Phipps, Ph.D., is Professor of Religion and Philosophy at Davis and Elkins College,
Elkins, West Virginia. He is author of Was Jesus Married? (Harper & Row, 1970), The Sexuality of
Jesus (Harper & Row, 1973), and Recovering Biblical Sensuous n?s s (Westminster Press, 1975).
183
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
184
Journal of Religion and Health
I
In medieval Judaism, masturbation came to be regarded as a grave offense. In
the Talmud it is associated with Onan who, according to Genesis, was slain by
God for spilling his semen on the ground.4 Onan's sin was actually coitus
interruptus, which resulted in his failure to fulfill his levirate responsibilities.
In more recent centuries, the Jewish strictures against masturbation have
continued. This is reflected in the modern Hebrew term onan, which means
"masturbate." Louis Epstein has written: "The ethical literature of post-tal
mudic days, down to the latest centuries, endlessly harps on the severity of this
sin, exhorts its avoidance, points out its danger to health, and pleads for
penitence and expiation."5 A case in point is the Code of Jewish Law, which is
still regarded as binding in Orthodox Judaism. It states:
It is forbidden to cause in vain the effusion of semen, and this crime is severer than any of
the violations mentioned in the Torah. Those who commit fornication with their
hands . . . violate a grave prohibition, but they are also to be banned; and concerning
them it is said: "Your hands are full with blood" (Isaiah 1:15); it is analogous to the killing
of a person. See what Rashi wrote concerning Er and Onan. . . . Occasionally as a
punishment for this children die while young. A man should be very careful to avoid
hardening himself. Therefore it is forbidden to sleep on one's back with his face up
ward. ... It is forbidden to hold the penis while urinating. If he is married and his wife is
in town and she is clean, it may be permitted, for since he has the possibility, he will not
think of intercourse, neither will he become heated up.6
This last prohibition has caused much anxiety in the devout Jewish family.
" 'Without hands' is the admonitory cry of a parent seeing his or her son
attempting to pass water with digital aid. Better a bad aim than a bad habit!"7
In medieval Christianity, masturbation was also identified with the act of
Onan and was accordingly condemned.8 That sin of emission was one of the
cardinal sins of commission, as can be illustrated by statements in several
seventh-century handbooks on penance. The Irish penitential of Columban
required two years' penance for a layman who masturbates and three years for a
clerical masturba tor.9 Three years' penance was also prescribed for female
masturbation by the influential Anglo-Saxon penitential of Theodore.10 A
Frankish penitential decreed: "A man who practices masturbation by himself,
for the first offense, one hundred days penance; if he repeats it, a year." By
comparison, seven days' penance were expected of a person who violated the
Decalogue's commandment against stealing.11 In the eleventh century, Pope Leo
IX held that masturbators should not be admitted to sacred orders.12
Thomas Aquinas, the most distinguished theologian of the late Middle Ages,
classified sexual sins as either natural or unnatural. Rape, incest, and adultery
were deemed natural because procreation was a possibility. These were not as
grave as the unnatural vice of "procuring pollution, without any copulation, for
the sake of venereal pleasure."13 Masturbation was, for Aquinas, not a "venial"
or minor wrong, but a "mortal sin" meriting damnation. In his hierarchy of sins
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Masturbation: Vice or Virtue?
he ranks "every emission of semen in such a way that generation cannot follow"
as nearly as serious as homicide.14
Following Augustine, Aquinas advocated that prostitution be permitted in
order to drain off lust that might otherwise stimulate more serious sexual sins.
He wrote: "Those who are in authority rightly tolerate certain evils
lest . . . certain greater evils be incurred. Thus Augustine says, If you do away
with prostitutes the world will be convulsed with lust.' "15 Elsewhere the An
gelic Doctor compared prostitution to a sewer system. Just as a palace would be
foul without a sewer, so a city without a brothel would be polluted by unnatural
lusts.16 Apparently Aquinas thought it was less wicked to use a whore as an
instrument for relieving genital pressure than to use one's own hand.
As long as theophobia was a prime factor in culture, churchmen could be
confident that religious threats would provide sufficient sanction to curb mas
turbation. However, after the Renaissance, Europeans tended to turn their
attention away from church-certified punishments in the life after death and
became more concerned with matters that affected the quality of life this side of
the grave. Accordingly, the fear of the loss of health in the here and now came to
be a more effective enforcing agent for proper conduct than the threat of hell
fire. It is understandable, therefore, that over the past several centuries many
have been alarmed by the eighteenth-century claims that masturbation pro
vokes mental illness as a prelude to eternal punishment. The distinguished
neurologist Samuel Tissot came to this conclusion by combining inadequate
observation with his religious tradition.17 That Swiss physician claimed that
masturbation causes an excessive blood flow to the brain that can result in
impotence and insanity.18 Tissot was a devout Catholic and an advisor to the
Vatican on epidemic control.19 He acknowledged that he was influenced by a
book written around 1717 by an anonymous English zealot entitled Onania, or
the Heinous Sin of Self-pollution, and all its Frightful Consequences in both
Sexes. Tissot's treatise, also entitled Onania, was originally published in Latin
in 1758. Soon it was translated into French and English and passed through
eighty editions.
Medical researcher E. H. Hare attributes the popularity of Tissot's theory of
masturbatory insanity in part to the fact that the prevailing beliefs for the cause
of madness were no longer acceptable. Witches and the moon had been dis
credited as explanations of lunacy, but no more satisfactory hypothesis had been
presented.20 A fallacy in inductive reasoning is also responsible for the easy
acceptance of Tissot's theory of insanity. Since the insane are less inhibited with
respect to open practice of what is not in conformity with social standards,
attendants of the insane observe with comparative ease that most of them
masturbate during periods when they are institutionalized and deprived of sex
partners. However, there are few opportunities for observing whether or not
most of the sane indulge in masturbation in similar circumstances. In the
absence of sociological studies on secretive practices, it was easy to isolate
masturbation as the common factor in nearly all cases of insanity and therefore
the likely cause. It would be no more invalid to conclude that right-handedness
causes insanity since most insane people have that trait.
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
185
186
Journal of Religion and Health
The first molder of the modern mind to accept Tissot's pseudoscientific judg
ment was Immanuel Kant. In the late eighteenth century, that German philoso
pher combined medieval theological strictures with the current medical opinion.
Kant shares Aquinas's outlook when he makes this declaration: "Uses of sexual
ity which are contrary to natural instinct and to animal nature are crimina
carnis contra naturam. First amongst them we have onanism. ... By it man
sets aside his per son and degrades himself below the level of animals. . . . Heno
longer deserves to be a person."21 Kant urged educators to confront a youth who
masturbates with the horribleness of his act, "telling him that in this way he
will become useless for the propagation of the race, that his bodily strength will
be ruined by this vice more than by anything else, that he will bring on himself
premature old age, and that his intellect will be very much weakened, and so
on." After this prognosis, Kant offers this cure: "We may escape from these
impulses by constant occupation, and by devoting no more time to bed and sleep
than is necessary."22
Tissot's views were spread in English-speaking areas during the nineteenth
century by William Acton,23 an eminent London urologist, and by Benjamin
Rush, the famous Philadelphia professor. In the first psychiatric text published
in the U.S.A., mania, seminal weakness, dimness of sight, epilepsy, loss of
memory, and even death were ascribed by Rush to masturbation.24
The hysteria over masturbation in the Victorian era resulted in sadistic
inventions. Yankee cleverness devised a chastity belt that could be locked onto a
boy's pelvic area to prevent him from masturbating. Also barbed rings were
manufactured for encircling the penis when in bed. An erection not only caused
sharp pain but closed the circuit on an electric bell that rang in the parents'
room.25
At the beginning of the twentieth century, many boys were terrorized by a
book entitled What a Young Boy Ought to Know. Clergyman Sylvanus Stall, its
author, made this dreadful claim:
The consequences which result from masturbation do not stop with the boy who practices
it. . . . If he marries, and should become a father, his children after him must suffer to
some measurable degree the results of his sin. ... As in grain so in human life, if the
quality of the grain which is sown in the field is poor, the grain that grows from it will be
inferior. When a boy injures his reproductive powers, so that when a man his sexual
secretion shall be of an inferior quality, his offspring will show it in their physical,
mental, and moral natures.26
In 1907 a minister confessed that after reading Dr. Stall's book as a boy, he
had suffered severe depression and suicidal thoughts brought on by self
hatred.27 There have subsequently been recorded a number of cases showing
that torment over the anticipated terrible results of masturbation has caused
attempted or accomplished suicide.28
Sigmund Freud was, to a surprising extent, a defender of the dominant
outlook of his age with respect to masturbation. He warned that it "vitiates the
character through indulgence" and that it might result in "diminished potency
in marriage."29 Masturbation was the cause of what he termed neurasthenia, a
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Masturbation: Vice or Virtue?
neurosis characterized by fatigue, worry, and lack of physical and mental
alertness.30 Kinsey writes that Freud regarded masturbation as "a personality
defect which merits psychiatric attention when it occurs in an adult." He points
out that this father of psychoanalysis was, on this subject, a perpetuator of the
talmudic tradition.31
Robert Mortimer, an Anglican bishop, in 1947 stated a position on masturba
tion similar to that of Freud:
Those who practice this vice . . . lose mental vigor and alertness. Their lives become
centered on trivialities, their thirst for pleasure and excitement grows, they become
selfish, luxurious, and unable to bear discomfort or to overcome difficulties. And when
the time for marriage comes they are unprepared and unable to bear its responsibilities
or to abide by its loyalties. They are unfit for adult life. The prime root cause of their
softness lies in the selfish pursuit of pleasure for its own sake.32
In recent years some other Protestant scholars, now without physiological
sanctions against masturbation, have focused on its being nonaltruistic and
therefore wrong. The influential Lutheran theologian Helmut Thielicke de
scribes masturbation as an inversion and then asserts that "all acts which are
centered not upon God and my neighbor but upon my own self are actualization
of sin."33 Logically Thielicke's catalogue of sin should include such activities as
the intake of food and elimination of waste! Mennonite theologian John W.
Miller finds masturbation repulsive because it is a "private pleasure." He
presumes, without citing evidence, that even Jesus was against it: "Measured
then against the standard of God's purpose in human sexuality as revealed both
in the teaching of Jesus and in nature itself, masturbation must be judged an
abnormality."34
The contemporary Roman Catholic position is that masturbation is a "gravely
sinful matter."35 Bernard H?ring, a renowned moral theologian, holds that it is
wrong because of the pleasure accompanying it.36 Recently Father Richard
Ginder observed that "the conscientious Catholic who takes his training seri
ously is convinced that he is committing a mortal sin every time he 'plays with
himself.' "37 At a symposium for young couples in 1970, Catholic Doug Hughes
testified: "When we were growing up, the most sinful thing wasn't intercourse.
Not for a boy, anyway. What you really felt guilty about was masturba
tion. . . . Once you're married, you know it's all right to enjoy sex. . . . But
masturbation is still a no-no."38
These positions echo current Vatican pronouncements on masturbation. It is
not even permitted for the purpose of obtaining a semen specimen for medical
diagnosis.39 In 1975, Pope Paul mandated a "Declaration of Some Questions of
Sexual Ethics" that '"unhesitatingly asserted that masturbation is an intrinsi
cally and seriously disordered act."40 Archbishop Joseph Bernardin, president of
the American Bishops Conference, welcomed the document as a fundamental
proclamation of values.41 The declaration claims that masturbation is "con
demned in the New Testament when the latter speaks of 'uncleanness' or
'unchasteness.' " Presumably reference is made here to Jesus' criticism of Phari
sees who are externally like whitewashed tombs "but within they are full of
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
187
188
Journal of Religion and Health
dead men's bones and all uncleanness" (Matthew 23:27). It is ludicrous to hold
that one reason Jesus objected to the Pharisees was because they masturbated.
"Uncleanness" for both Jesus and Paul pertains to a broad range of practices
that they deemed unethical.
I conclude this review of the tradition of treating masturbation as a vice with
personal testimony. "Billy, take your hand off your bottom" was a frequent
parental admonition, even though there was no objection to my scratching other
places that itched. On reaching the age of puberty, I was disturbed by the
paragraph on "sex fluid conservation" in my Boy Scouts' handbook. It read: "Any
habit which a boy has that causes this fluid to be discharged from the body tends
to weaken his strength, to make him less able to resist disease."42 That book,
rivalled only by the Bible in circulation among boys, suggested that masturba
tion was a dirty habit that could result in the sacrifice of one's manliness. Then I
enrolled in a church-related men's college where a religion professor occasion
ally thundered against those idolatrous self-pleasers who indulged in solitary
sin on their beds. Another professor only half-facetiously announced at a urinal,
"If you shake it more than once you are playing with it." Formally and infor
mally it was taught that private enjoyment was wrong if it pertained to
stimulating one's genitals but right if it pertained to reading in the library. It
was with some qualms of conscience that I flouted the exhortations of home
and school.
Later, after falling in love, I felt that I could share with my girl my inmost
feelings. Hence when, separated from her for some months, I wrote her that my
recollections of her attractiveness gave me pelvic discomfort, which was relieved
by masturbation. That disclosure ended the romance. She wrote that after the
initial shock of my confession wore off she had consulted some books but had
been unable to find any cure for my sickness. That experience was so traumatic
that, till now, I have not mentioned it to anyone for the past quarter century.
A decade ago, social scientist Clellan Ford described the contemporary out
look on masturbation in this way: "American society generally condemns self
stimulation of the genitals. Most adults in our society consider the deliberate
excitation of one's own genitals as a perversion on a par with homosexual
relations and seek to prevent such activity on the part of their children."43 More
recently Richard Hettlinger has made this comment on sex education in our
culture:
One of the most profound sources of difficulty in reaching a positive and coherent
understanding of one's sexuality continues to be our society's irrational condemnation of
masturbation. . . . Masturbation remains an even more sensitive subject for discussion
between parents and children than intercourse. Mothers still usually make it very plain
to small children that, while other bodily pleasures of all kinds are to be enjoyed, the
genitals are to be left alone.44
II
Having traced the way in which religiously oriented people in the Judaeo
Christian tradition for the past thirteen centuries have treated masturbation as
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Masturbation: Vice or Virtue?
a sin and a sickness, I shall now turn to the possible benefits of masturbation. In
our culture, attention has rarely been directed to the broad range of positive
effects. For purposes of discussion, I shall differentiate between the psychophysi
cal, educational, moral, and theological aspects.
What are the facts about the psychophysical effects of masturbation? Only in
the past generation have there been conclusive sociological and medical studies
showing the harmlessness of masturbation. The Kinsey researchers have shown
Americans how widely masturbation is practiced among youths and adults,
males and females, singles and married persons. They show that approximately
60% of the women and 90% of the men have experienced masturbation and that
apparently it is frequently practiced by the majority of the total population.45
Masturbation statistics for European and Middle Eastern peoples are about the
same.48 The naturalness of this behavior is also attested to by its being found
among some other mammals, with greater incidence among males.47 If the past
hypothesizing of a causal relation between masturbation and serious illness had
been true, then the latter should be at plague frequency.
Some have retreated from claiming that occasional masturbation is harmful
but still champion the bogey that "excessive" masturbation can cause one's
health to deteriorate.48 Masters and Johnson say of this: "There is no established
medical evidence that masturbation, regardless of frequency, leads to mental
illness. Certainly there is no accepted medical standard defining excessive
masturbation."49 Several decades ago an experiment requiring men to mastur
bate every several hours over a two-year period was conducted in Germany.
There was no evidence of any physical or mental disorders in the subjects as a
result.50 Psychiatrist Wilhelm Stekel, who has devoted attention to patients who
masturbate daily, claims that he has never encountered a case of excessive
masturbation.51 The physiological system has its own controls, so there is as
little point in warning about the dangers of excessive masturbation as about the
dangers of excessive sneezing. Both are usually orgasmic experiences in which
tensions are relieved. With respect to masturbation the data prompt the gener
alization that never has a more harmless activity provoked more harmful
anxiety.
To demonstrate that an activity is medically benign is not equivalent to
claiming that is is beneficial. What, if any, positive psychophysical effects can
be found? Masturbation can be compared to solitary singing. The mouth evolved
in animals as an orifice for receiving food, but for human beings it also has
acquired the important function of forming sounds for communication. Al
though words are usually uttered in interpersonal situations, it is also normal
for people to express exuberance by singing to themselves. Such singing is often
viewed as having no intrinsic value but is thought of as practice for harmonious
singing at a later time. Likewise, the genitals evolved as a means for species
reproduction, but for human beings they often become a delightful means for
communicating affection. So pleasurable is the release that is generally concom
itant with the linking of loins that human beings strive to attain some of that
experience through masturbation in the absence of a partner.
Masturbation is sometimes used as a therapy for tense persons. Some women
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
189
190
Journal of Religion and Health
find it a relief for menstrual cramps. Masters has provided this information: "We
know that many women will masturbate with the onset of their menstrual cycle
if they are having dysmenorrhea?severe cramps. An orgasmic experience
frequently will relieve the spasm of the uterus and the cramps will disappear."52
For men as well sis for women masturbation can transform a restless night into
quiet sleep. Rather than draining off vital potency, it can be an aid to restoring
physical energy. Stekel, in striking contrast to his mentor Freud, has presented
case studies illustrating that neurosis, far from being caused by masturbation,
can be caused by attempting to live without masturbation.53
In earlier times it was wrongly believed that masturbation is generally
detrimental to establishing satisfying coital relations in marriage. The influen
tial sexologist Havelock Ellis, who wrote before extensive sexual research was
begun, thought that masturbation was frequently a cause of frigidity in mar
riage.54 The leading researchers of the past generation have shown that this is
not at all the case. The Kinsey researchers, on the basis of several thousand sex
histories, state that "pre-marital experience in masturbation may actually
contribute to the female's capacity to respond in her coital relations in mar
riage. . . . Having learned what it means to suppress inhibitions, and to aban
don herself to the spontaneous physical reactions which represent orgasm in
masturbation, she may become more capable of responding in the same way in
coitus."55 The fact that female masturbation increases throughout the years of
greatest coital activity shows that the two sexual expressions are compatible.56
More recently Masters and Johnson discovered that "female orgasmic experi
ence usually is developed more easily and is physiologically more intense
(although not necessarily as satisfying) when induced by automanipulation as
opposed to coition."57 From these studies Edward Brecher concludes that "the
most probable cause of female frigiditiy in marriage is the repression of sexual
responsiveness, and especially the repression of masturbation, in girls and
young women before marriage."58
Even when orgasmic sexuality is no problem, it is frequently the case that
there is a disparity between the sexual drives of partners. Masturbation can
help to ease this situation so that unpleasant heavy demands need not be made.
Masters and Johnson explain: "Partners have different sexual tension levels.
This difference in levels is found in an incredible number of cases and is often
balanced by masturbation, which permits the partner with the higher tension
level to relieve that tension occasionally, and ease up a bit. It may be the
husband who needs relief; it may be the wife."59
Let us now examine the ways in which masturbation can be integrated into
wholesome sex education. The most widespread of all sexual activities for youth
is masturbation, and therefore society's attitude toward it may determine the
outlook of the boy or girl toward all sexual expressions. Out of awareness of this
momentous significance, the United Presbyterians in 1970 issued a paper on
"Sexuality and the Human Community" containing a section on masturbation.
With respect to sex education it states: "Since masturbation is often one of the
earliest pleasurable sexual experiences which is identifiably genital, we con
sider it essential that the church, through its teachings and through the atti
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Masturbation: Vice or Virtue?
tudes it encourages in Christian homes, contribute to a healthy understanding
of this experience which will be free of guilt and shame."60 If authority figures
treat masturbation as repulsive and dirty?not to say pathological ? the youth
may extrapolate that sexual expressions of any kind should be similarly evalu
ated. Brecher observes: "The taboo against masturbation ... is the chief means
by which the message is transmitted to the next generation that sex is a
loathsome disease. The Victorians were shrewd enough to make enforcement of
the masturbation taboo the foundation of their sexual doctrines."61 It would be
impossible to estimate the great permanent damage to sexual development that
has been done by judgmental writings and parental proscriptions on masturba
tion. Over against the antisexual training of the past, Brecher holds that
masturbation has "an essential phase in the normal, healthy blossoming of
mature sexual responses." It is important, he thinks, to establish an environ
ment in which children "can develop self-confidence, self-esteem, and self
acceptance?including an acceptance of their own bodies and of their sexual
feelings."62 Cyril Bibby, an authority on sex education, gives reinforcement to
'this opinion: "Masturbation may lead to the discovery that one's body is capable
of yielding richly satisfying sensations, and fortunate are those who are allowed
to make this discovery without the accompaniment of guilt or fear."63
The adolescent, who is absorbed in establishing his or her psychosexual
identity, is curious about erogenous areas, sensitive swellings, and seminal
emissions. If she or he is encouraged to appreciate these things, many lasting
difficulties can be avoided. Autogenital manipulation provides a laboratory
situation in which bodily functions and pleasures can be learned about under
controlled circumstances. In that situation there is no need for anxieties over
venereal infection, maternal conception, and social detection. Out of these
experiences the youth can understand better that sex has both recreational and
procreational purposes. By becoming aware that semen is a vital natural
resource that is forever overabundant in supply, youth may learn that it is of
benefit to the world to waste it for fun.
The fantasy that usually accompanies masturbation is also healthy. Children
learn to cope with the real world and gain self-control by dealing with the
tension and release that fantasy affords. The youth who becomes absorbed in
stories of daring sportsmen or medical missionaries develops some mastery over
otherwise fearful situations. The same is true of the youth who has, when
masturbating, fantastic images of sexual relations.
What moral defense can be given of masturbation? Exploitative and violent
sexuality is not sanctioned in any culture.64 Moreover, it is generally assumed
that the most intimate of physical acts between people should be an outward
sign of a loving personal relationship. Thus it is destructive to humanistic ethics
to opt for promiscuous copulation rather than masturbation. Consider, for
example, the position of the celebrated writer Norman Mailer. He has expressed
his machismo in this way:
I think masturbation cripples people. . . . Anybody who spends his adolescence mastur
bating, generally enters his young manhood with no sense of being a man. . . . No
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
191
192
Journal of Religion and Health
adolescent would ever masturbate, presumably, if he could have sex with a girl. ... If
you have more sexual liberty, why the hell defend masturbation? . . . It's better to
commit rape than masturbate. ... If one masturbates . . . one hasn't tested him
self. . . . All you know is that you can violate in your brain. . . . The ultimate direction of
masturbation always has to be insanity.65
Mailer is right in assuming that the realistic alternative for most men is not
between having or not having deliberate genital activity. Also, he is correct in
showing that coercive sexuality is a consequence of utilizing another person
whenever one feels a strong urge for sexual relief. However, Mailer blends an
ignorant understanding of the psychophysical results of masturbation with an
inhumane outlook on male-female relationships. He unwittingly demonstrates
that masturbation is a social protection. A propos is David Gordon's judgment:
"Many of our sexual crimes are committed by [the psychopath] who refuses to
resort to masturbation because he regards it [as] unmanly."66 Stekel hypothes
izes that sex crimes would increase enormously if masturbation were wholly
repressed.67 Masturbation is a cathartic safety valve in that it releases pent-up
emotions in a manner that causes no social damage. In light of this a finding of
Kinsey's makes sense: "Masturbation sometimes shows a complementary rela
tionship with premarital coitus. Where the one is high, the other is likely to be
lower."68 Rustum and Delia Roy see masturbation as a way to "help prevent
escalation of heterosexual expression beyond the point desirable at a particular
stage of a relationship."69
In addition to the proper place masturbation has for the unmarried, it also
should be sanctioned for temporarily separated married couples. A considerable
amount of brothel patronage comes from those who, in the absence of a spouse,
are driven to use other persons as impersonal receptacles. A higher morality is
expressed in a slogan attributed to combat troops: "If your wife can't be at your
right hand, let your right hand be your wife." This means for resolving frustra
tion is also appropriate for those confined in institutions such as a prison or a
hospital and those sleeping with their spouses but abstaining from coitus
because of sickness, menstruation, or pregnancy.
Among the variety of other appropriate uses of masturbation, several may be
mentioned. There are some handicapped people who find it difficult, if not
impossible, to find a sexual partner because of their physical deformity or
mental retardation. Masturbation may be their only orgasmic sexual outlet.
Reuben points out that it is one of the few sources of sexual satisfaction for the
blind.70 That noted psychiatrist also states that "most homosexuals find their
man-to-man sex unfulfilling so they masturbate a lot."71 Moreover, there are
many latent homosexuals who opt for solo stimulation rather than open expres
sion because of fear of social stigma if detected, or repugnance over the usual
unesthetic places for liaison, or anxiety over contracting venereal disease.
Consider also the advantages of masturbation for the older widows and wid
owers who, on the one hand, are upset because their accustomed pattern of coital
sexuality has ceased, yet on the other hand have little opportunity for finding
another desirable sex companion. Without genital stimulation, older men lose
their sexual desire more rapidly.72
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Masturbation: Vice or Virtue?
193
I shall conclude this study with a look at the theological significance of
treating masturbation as a virtue. Two clergymen of the past generation who
had a special interest in psychology helped to halt the crusade against mastur
bation. Oskar Pfister criticized a fellow Swiss minister who wrote a pamplet
alleging that masturbation caused premature old age.73 Stekel commends Pfis
ter for rising above the deplorable ignorance about masturbation and for replac
ing "a threatening God" with "an understanding God."74 Englishman Leslie
Weatherhead believed that masturbation was sinless if "the picture on the
screen of the mind at the time could be shown to our Lord without shame."75 It
can be assumed that the Lord would approve of these biblical words of a groom to
his naked bride: "Your figure is like a palm tree and your breasts are like its
clusters. I said: I will climb the palm tree and lay hold of its clusters" (Song of
Songs 7:7-8). Judging from this and other sensuous biblical imagery, one should
be willing to share with the Creator of sexuality a wide range of fantasies
without embarrassment.
From the standpoint of the prevailing biblical outlook on sexuality, masturba
tion can be given a comparative evaluation: it belongs to both the better-than
and the not-so-good-as categories. To paraphrase the advice of the apostle Paul,
it may be said that it is better to masturbate than to use prostitutes as an outlet
for the "fire" of passion (I Cor., 6:15; 7:9). Yet it has been generally acknowl
edged from at least as early as the time when the Garden of Eden story was
composed that sex has the more fundamental purpose of expressing a depth of
relationship between companions. Paul Gebhard, a specialist in sex research,
succinctly states the prevailing comparative judgment on solo versus duo sex:
"While solitary masturbation does provide pleasure and relief from the tension
of sexual excitement, it does not have the same psychological gratification that
interaction with another person provides. Thus extremely few people prefer
masturbation to socio-sexual activity."76 Even as composing poetry for one's own
reading is usually not as enjoyable as its use as a means of communicating one's
intimate feelings to others, so masturbation is a lesser good than sexual inter
course by spouses.
The persistent disdainful attitude toward masturbation held by some reli
gious people in our culture has caused improper ties to be made between
normative Judaeo-Christian morality and the entire range of pleasures. Youth
who become aware that masturbation is a harmless pleasure regardless of what
kill-joy religionists say, might understandably but wrongly conclude that the
Western religious tradition generally frowns upon indulging in any sensuous
fun, no matter how innocent. Or they might wrongly reason that since there is
no rational basis for giving masturbation a negative valuation, there is probably
little basis for accepting as sinful other sexual behavior?such as promiscuity,
prostitution, adultery, and rape ?that has traditionally been condemned. In his
book entitled Whatever Became of Sin?, psychiatrist Karl Menninger laments
that people who become enlightened about the past frantic and foolish attempts
to treat masturbation as a sin tend to assume that all of the sexual standards
imposed by society have been discredited.77 It is Menninger's hope that we will
become better informed psychologically before making ethical and theological
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
194
Journal of Religion and Health
judgments. As a result we should be able to perceive more clearly what consti
tutes truly sinful sexual behavior and reject with more conviction conduct that
causes personal relationships to deteriorate.
It has been shown that biblical people had an attitude toward masturbation
that was literally laissez faire, meaning not hands off by human beings but let
nature act without the legal restrictions. This outlook is in accord with a basic
biblical sexual affirmation contained in this sentence from the New Testament:
"Everything that God created is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is
received with thanksgiving." (I Tim. 4:4).
References
1. Kinsey, A., et al., Sexual Behavior in the Human Female. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1953, p.
133.
2. -, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1949, p. 473.
3. "Onanism." In Palazzini, P., ed., Dictionary of Moral Theology. Westminster, Maryland,
Newman Press, 1962.
4. Niddah 13a; Genesis 38:8-10.
5. Epstein, L., Sex Laws and Customs in Judaism. New York, Ktav Publishing House, 1948, p.
146.
6. Ganzfried, S., ed., Code of Jewish Law. New York, Hebrew Publishing Co., 1927, 151, 1-2.
7. Edwardes, A., "Self-stimulation among Arabs and Jews." In Masters, R, E., Sexual Self
Stimulation. Los Angeles, Sherbourne Press, 1967, p. 308.
8. Cf. Noonan, J., Contraception. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1965, p. 226.
9. McNeill, J., ed., Medieval Handbooks of Penance. New York, Octagon, 1965, p. 253.
10. Ibid., p. 185.
11. Ibid., p. 113.
12. Leo IX, Letter to Peter Dami?n (1054). In Migne, J. P., Patrologica Latina. Paris, 1878-90,
Vol. 143.
13. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2-2, q. 154, 11-12.
14. -, Summa contra Gentiles 3, 122.
15. -, Summa Theologica, 2-2, q. 10, 11; Augustine, De Ordine 2, 4.
16. -, Opuscula 16, 14.
17. Tissot, S., Onanism, or a Treatise upon the Disorders Provoked by Masturbation. London, 1766.
18. Ibid., p. 61.
19. Cf. Comfort, A., The Anxiety Makers. New York, Dell, 1970, p. 74.
20. Hare, E. H., "Masturbatory Insanity: The History of an Idea,"?/. Mental Science, 1962,108,11.
21. Kant, I., Lectures on Ethics. New York, Harper & Row, 1963, p. 170.
22. -, Education. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan Press, 1960, p. 117.
23. Acton, W., The Functions and Disorders of the Reproductive Organs. London, Churchill, 1857.
24. Rush, B., Medical Inquiries upon Diseases of the Mind. Philadelphia, 1812, pp. 33, 347.
25. Cf. Taylor, G. R., Sex in History. New York, Harper & Row, 1970, p. 223: for pictures of these
devices see Comfort, op. cit.
26. Quoted in Comfort, op. cit., p. 93.
27. Kampmeier, A., "Confessions of a Psychasthenic," J. Abnormal PsychoL, 1907,2, 116-117.
28. Cf. Stekel, W., Auto-Erotism. New York, Liveright, 1950, pp. 72-76; Gordon, D., Self Love.
Baltimore, Penguin, 1972, pp. 30-32, 70-71.
29. Freud, S., " 'Civilized' Sexual Morality and Modern Nervous Illness" (1908). Standard Edition
of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. London, Hogarth, 1959, Vol. IX, pp.
199, 201.
30. -, "Sexuality in the Aetiology of the Neuroses" (1898). Standard Edition, Vol. Ill, p. 268.
31. Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, op. cit., p. 170.
32. Mortimer, R., The Elements of Moral Theology. London, Adam and Charles Black, 1947, pp.
182-183.
33. Thielicke, H., The Ethics of Sex. New York, Harper & Row, 1964, p. 256.
34. Miller, J. W., A Christian Approach to Sexuality. Scottdale, Pennsylvania, Herald Press, 1973,
p. 54.
35. Cf. Jone, H., Moral Theology. Westminster, Maryland, Newman Press, 1962, p. 149; Farraher,
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Masturbation: Vice or Virtue? 195
J. J., "Masturbation," New Catholic Encyclopedia. New York, McGraw Hill, 1967, Vol. 9, pp.
438-440.
36. H?ring, B., Morality Is for Persons. New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1971, p. 143.
37. Ginder, R., Binding with Briars. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1975, p. 172.
38. Quoted in Masters, W., and Johnson, V.s The Pleasure Bond. Boston, Little, Brown, 1974, p.
64.
39. Decree of the Holy Office, August 2,1929; cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia, op. cit., Vol. 9, p. 440.
40. The Pope Speaks, 1976,21 (1), p. 67.
41. The New York Times, January 16, 1976, p. 10.
42. Handbook for Boys. New Brunswick, New Jersey, Boy Scouts of America, 1934. The 1948
edition (p. 412) of this official guide for Boy Scouts of America states that occasional masturba
tion is wrong and that such a habit should be broken. The 1968 edition (p. 425) asserts that it
may cause worry and that "any real boy knows that anything that causes . . . worry should be
avoided." Logically this would also exclude for many boys such anxiety-related activities as
competitive sports.
43. Ford, C, "Culture and Sex." In Ellis, A., ed., The Encyclopedia ofSexual Behavior. New York,
J. Aronson, 1973, p. 308.
44. Hettlinger, R., Sex Isn't That Simple. New York, Seabury Press, 1974, pp. 13, 17.
45. Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, op. cit., p. 173.
46. Cf. Masters, Sexual Self Stimulation, op. cit., p. 105; Klausner, S. Z., "Islam, Sex Life in," The
Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior, op. cit., pp. 550-551.
47. Cf. Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, op. cit., p. 135.
48. Cf. Masters and Johnson, Human Sexual Response. Boston, Little, Brown, 1966, p. 201.
49. Ibid., p. 202.
50. Raboch, J., "Men's Most Common Sex Problems," Sexology, 1969, Nov., 60-63.
51. Stekel, op. cit., p. 54.
52. Masters and Johnson, The Pleasure Bond, op. cit., p. 67.
53. Stekel, op. cit., pp. 43-44, 63-104.
54. Ellis., H., Studies in the Psychology of Sex. New York, Random House, 1941, Vol. I, p. 262.
55. Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Female, op. cit., pp. 172, 391.
56. Ibid., p. 143.
57. Masters and Johnson, Human Sexual Response, op. cit., pp. 313-314.
58. Brecher, E., The Sex Researchers. Boston, Little, Brown, 1969, p. 127.
59. Masters and Johnson, The Pleasure Bond, op. cit., p. 65.
60. Minutes of the General Assembly of the United Presbyterian Church, U.SA., 1970. Philadel
phia, Office of the General Assembly, p. 902,
61. Brecher, op. cit., p. 318.
62. Ibid., p. 318.
63. Bibby, C, "Loving, The Art of," The Encyclopedia of Sexual Behavior, op. cit., p. 660.
64. Cf. Kluckhohn, C, "Values and Value-Orientations." In Parsons, T., ed., Toward a General
Theory of Action. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1951, p. 418; Linton, R., "Universal
Ethical Principles." In Anshen, R., ed., Moral Principles of Action. New York, Harper, 1952,
p. 651.
65. Mailer, N., The Presidential Papers. New York, Putnam, pp. 138-141.
66. Gordon, op. cit., p. 39.
67. Stekel, op. cit., p. 53.
68. Kinsey, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male., op. cit., p. 512.
69. Roy, R. and D., Honest Sex. New York, New American Library, 1968, p. 170.
70. Reuben, D., Everything You Wanted to Know about Sex-But Were Afraid to Ask. New York,
David McKay Co., 1969, p. 172.
71. Ibid., p. 147.
72. Ibid., pp. 310-313.
73. Pfister, O., Die psychanalytische Methode. 1927. p. 476.
74. Stekel, op. cit., p. 245.
75. Weatherhead, L., Psychology, Religion, and Healing. Nashville, Abingdon Press, 1951, p. 329.
76. Gebhard, P., "Sexual Behavior, Humain," Encyclopaedia Britannica. Chicago, Encyclopaedia
Britannica, Inc., 1974, Vol. 16, p. 593.
77. Menninger, K., Whatever Became of Sin? New York, Hawthorn Books, 1973, pp. 31-37,140.
This content downloaded from
31.205.214.108 on Sat, 21 Jan 2023 20:49:55 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms