Wednesday, May 01, 2019

Rebutting the more sophisticated arguments against nofap

There is a new website called realyourbrainonporn.com which claims to tell the truth about porn and masturbation. It is really pretentious, made by self-styled experts who according to their press release include
the principle investigator for the first research-based porn literacy curriculum for youth, the first person to coin the expression "sex positive", the first neuroscience lab to test the addiction model of pornography, and the lab that demonstrated porn did not impact partner satisfaction in the largest pre-registered, failure-to-replicate in the field of human sexuality. Experts' background includes terminal degrees in addictions, communications and media, sociology, psychology, neuroscience, and physiology, among others.
I am not impressed, however. I maintain that male masturbation and pornography-watching are evils that we should oppose on an ideological basis as male sexualists. And I mean weakly oppose, at the level of recommendations rather than legislation, but oppose nonetheless. It is male masturbation that is bad and maladaptive to our values, and porn is bad insofar as it exacerbates male masturbation.

When we look at what these best “experts” on the other side have to offer, weak minds might easily be persuaded that I am wrong. Here is their research:
Which includes conclusions like these:

“Viewing sexual stimuli [is] associated with greater sexual responsiveness, not erectile dysfunction.”

“No empirical studies exist that demonstrated a link between pornography consumption and sexual problems.”

“There is no evidence of [porn] consumption being either adaptive or maladaptive when it comes to relationship satisfaction, closeness, and loneliness.”

I am not going to answer these studies on the methodological or data level right now, because that is not necessary for my position. I am sure the studies are not as convincing as they sound in these summaries (yourbrainonporn has good info to the contrary), but even if they reflected the truth, they miss a sufficient reason to shun porn and masturbation, namely the opportunity cost. You should compare yourself to nothing but your own sexual performance potential. If the men with the strongest libidos watch the most porn, they would also have even more and earlier sex without. And if relationship satisfaction is reported to be the same in porn users, they would surely have more relationships and other sexual encounters to be even more satisfied with if they never masturbated or looked at porn.

So all of these men who are ostensibly unscathed by porn still suffer an opportunity cost! They could have had better sex lives without, even if there are no demonstrable clinical issues, because life is so much more than avoiding clinical diagnoses.

There is no meaningful control group, except us nofappers that these “experts” dismiss as anecdotes. We can look to the past when men had more sex, but they dismiss that as well. Also, effective pharmaceutical remedies for impotence appeared at the same time as Internet porn, so those pills may mask some of the problem, which is also ignored. And finally I think these studies are flat-out wrong, fraudulent and biased in important ways, but again, that is not essential to the argument I am making here.

The reason why male masturbation is seen by the establishment as harmless and even desirable, and why hateful laws against real sex are also seen as nothing to be resisted by men, is one and the same: a devaluing of male sexuality. It can take the form of feminism, but also it manifests as a general apathy in men about both sexual politics and the personal opportunity cost of wasting your sexuality on asexual practices like masturbation.

Keep in mind that the same researchers who proclaim that masturbation is harmless also think the current sex laws are harmless to men, or at least justified in the interests of women (and probably an asinine belief in female sex offenders as well). Why would a self-respecting male sexualist listen to them? The issue is not whether porn use fits some official “addiction” model or leads to other diagnosable conditions. I happen to think it can lead to clinical impotence and always leads to less sexual enjoyment, but that is beside the point. We can all agree that if we never masturbated or watched porn, we would certainly be more sexually driven and probably able to boast more experiences. It is not far-fetched at all, even if all the porn-promoting research is factually correct, that a nofapping man can double the number of women he sleeps with in his lifetime, say from 10 to 20 on average, and that makes nofap profoundly valuable.

Male sexualism is the bridge between our instinctive sex drives and ideology, because the male sex drive is damn near ideologically blind. History shows almost zero correlation between the two, unless you count brute force. Our sex drive is great for the immediate decision-making to fuck the women in our proximity, but it sucks for politics (and it sucks even for the former with porn in the mix). Evolutionarily speaking, what matters strategically is to rise in hierarchies, so that’s what men will focus on when not engaged in immediate sexual pursuit (or maladaptive misdirection fostered by porn, as the case may be). Even if those hierarchies are wedded to antisex such as feminism or the Catholic clergy or researchers who study porn in order to extol its politically correct virtues, the men who rise to prominence will have the most sexual opportunities and therefore do the right thing in some sense. But we can do better! Since men have no evolved tendency to champion the philosophy of sex-positivity, we need to take it upon ourselves to devise such an ideology if we want one. Male sexualism, humble though it may be, is the greatest attempt in history to do just this. Men need to learn to think with their dicks, and I am proud to lead a movement that teaches them how to do this.

Other value systems have also incidentally opposed masturbation, but we do it for the right reasons, because we explicitly think with our dicks and thus recognize and fear the opportunity cost of everything that gets in the way. The other nofappers, who only quit porn because it made them impotent, are also by and large accidental sexualists who care nothing about the sex laws. Only male sexualism brings it all together into one wholesome ideology and way of life.

Comments are open (but moderated), so if anyone wants to discuss nofap in more detail or other male sexualist issues, feel free.

24 comments:

Anonymous said...

Sexualist (la-de-da). Sounds like a white-washed description of just a rotting old fornicator. Ew! Just another case of VD waiting to happen - another medical bill for the TAX-PAYERS.

Eivind Berge said...

There is no shame in being a fornicator, and male sexualists are the men who have finally figured that out and made an ideology to go along with it. On the contrary, we are proud of our sexuality and don't fall for any sort of shaming, of which the VD scare is just another sorry excuse.

Anonymous said...

I do disagree with some of this at first glance. I'm from an older generation, porn was not readily available, so fapping was not as common.

That said, the reasoning you provide is sound.

I discourage fapping...albeit weakly.

John said...

I'd be honoured to be known as a fornicator.the above comment by anonymous Puritan probably thinks all sex is eww... "icky" but not of course,with tiger woods, wilt Chamberlain, Brad Pitt, Ryan Reynolds etc etc.weve got 2 justice systems in this republic,or oligarchy, or WHATEVER one wants to call it. one where lifelong career criminals like trump don't spend a day in jail, and 2 societies one where celebrity allows you instant access to beautiful females and..the one I'm in surrounded by tattooed trash and retarded(brain damaged?) trump cult worshippers who only watch Fox and believe every lie.this is one lonely existence and going around speaking truth to idiots will always get me exactly nowhere.

Eivind Berge said...

Yep, we are all fornicators, which comes with an unbelievable amount of negativity outside of our movement. You would think more men would join us just so they could feel better about what they are doing anyway and protest the "eww" factor, to say nothing of the laws we need to change.

John said...

Apathy rules! and the dumbing Down of America has been a huge succes.the things I say go right over their heads or they just get angry, or both.the other very irritating thing is this question I get "what did you DO to get banned from Twitter"?!? I did NOTHING.and neither did you eivind.you don't HAVE to "do" anything.you don't have to do anything to end up in jail in America either.we all KNOW or should know that.5 years for looking at CP? Yah, THATS doing nothing! It's another Saturday morning.i SHOULD be getting ready to do the flea market.but I'm banned!? for what? I didn't do a goddamn thing.this women in charge thing is hurting my wallet big time and going forward."for the safety and security of our vendors and customers you can't come back". Me: what happened?! Oh nothing, no one complained.(at that moment, i wanted to punch her face in,but I held back,eating shit/compromising is my specialty) i guess I was naive.i just assumed I could always set up at a lousy flea market.and my search to find somebody sober, and has a vehicle,to sell my merchandise for me has been fruitless, and im willing to pay VERY well) i guess I must sell online but I REALLY don't want to.

Nataliya said...

Hello everyone. This is Eivind's ex speaking.

As Eivind has already said, we had to go our own separate ways due to disagreements over children. That's sad, but nothing could be done about it. As a result, I'm now single and free to spread love like a Paddington bear. So... if there are any incels here and live in Norway, that wish to engage in commitment-free fornication, contact me and perhaps we can meet and have a good time.

Love,

Nataliya K.

John said...

Uh,ok.anyway, today's outrage of the day: 'austin Jones' a 'youtube' 'sensation' and 'singer', was sentenced to ten years, TEN. for "coercing" some underage girls into posing semi nude on video.ten years for doing NOTHING.thats rough.phew! Thank God he's off the streets! Don't you feel much safer?! so once again, don't go near any females but especially any "underage" ones unless you're in Thailand,phillipines, etc.i know I won't be.doing hard time for nothing REALLY must suck.

Eivind Berge said...

Yes, I saw that. A complete non-crime that bizarrely gets treated like it is serious. These monsters are playing men for fools with their moronic absurdities and still nobody objects aside from us male sexualists. Story here:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/05/04/us/austin-jones-youtube-child-porn-sentence-trnd/index.html

"Production and receipt of child pornography are extraordinarily serious offenses that threaten the safety of our children and communities," Assistant U.S. Attorney Katherine Neff Welsh said in the government's sentencing memorandum. "Jones' actions took something from his victims and their families that they will never be able to get back."

John said...

This is seriously insane.we really are a rare miniscule ass group that sees this feminist police state! everyone else is blind deaf AND most importantly dumb.so I read this story, this travesty of "justice" on Yahoo and I'm the only one calling this bullshit out and what a stunner they called me a paedo naturally, on their message boards.IDIOTS.

Eivind Berge said...

Interesting interview with a primatologist:

The Goodness Paradox | Robert Wright & Richard Wrangham [The Wright Show]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RRgucCSZzA

I'm fascinated by how chimps and bonobos solve the incel problem. Females are careful to mate with all the males in the group, because if a male doesn't get to mate with a female, there is a good risk he will commit infanticide on her next baby. But the alphas still reproduce the most, in chimps because of aggression and in bonobos (who lack sexual coercion) because of female choice.

And an interesting theory to explain the low reactive violence in humans: we executed so many troublemakers that we domesticated our species. Which explains why humans are 1000 times less reactively violent than chimpanzees, but we retain the capacity for a great deal of premeditated violence.

Eivind Berge said...

The fact that proactive violence hasn't declined makes me realize how incredibly violent humans still are. We don't often lose our temper and get impulsively violent that way, but it does not take much at all for a community to gang up on an individual and kill him or her in a cold and calculated manner, just like in the lottery story I blogged about last time. A suggestion that someone is a bit odd or has violated any kind of norm is enough, particularly in times of stress. Nowadays this tendency usually works through sexual accusations, and in light of how dangerous it is to be a nonconformist, it is sadly understandable that more men don't want to be male sexualists. There is a thin line separating us from being killed for our opinions, which happens for a lot less under the right conditions.

So, look at chimpanzees, or multiply the violence caused by drunken rage and that sort of thing by 1000, and you get an idea of how violent humans really are when we have some sort of norm-based excuse for it. Even if those norms are complete and utter nonsense like most of the current sex laws.

The precursor to the female sex offender charade is also mentioned in that talk, except it wasn't a charade back then, just flat out controlling female sexuality because it is valuable. He talks of hunter-gatherers killing women for being "nymphomaniacs" and sleeping around with men other than their husbands. And men could conversely be killed for sex with females that the group felt they weren’t entitled to, of course. What has changed is merely the charade of pretending women can sexually exploit males and be punished for that rather than the real reason that they can only abuse themselves and become damaged goods to the men who seek to control them. But the evolved tendency to punish (and gladly execute, which used to be the only effective option) norm-breakers is so strong that this gibberish justification will suffice today. How to get women to go along with controlling female sexuality as property just like under the worst patriarchy, and even make this a feminist issue, is to call their fornication “sexual abuse,” and women will gladly go along with punishing all women against which this accusation is leveled. So there you have the female sex offender charade explained. When I got banned from Twitter, despite my best efforts exactly zero women had come around to realizing that female sex offenders are a sham. They ALL want to punish women who are labeled “sexual abusers” and most of them want to silence me for holding a contrary opinion as well. I have no doubt that if they got the chance, they would gladly kill me for it too. That is the depressing nature of humans; natural selection has favored moral conformity, and while men still occasionally lash out in other directions based on independent moral reasoning like I am doing here, women are so agreeable to social norms that it is damn near impossible to find a woman who is opposed (on general principle) to burn her as a witch, or lock her up for contrived "sexual abuse" as the case may be.

Eivind Berge said...

About the moral conformism of women...

There is no shortage of political activism by women as long as it is politically correct, such as this latest antisex demonstration:

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/04/28/uk/rape-claimants-phones-police-gbr-intl/index.html

Making it easier to convict men for sex crimes is the most celebrated cause of our times, so no surprises there. Every minor detail in the war on sex is enough to mobilize female activism, while the entire war isn't enough to mobilize men because men don't truly oppose it. But when was the last time you saw a woman protest something that would actually make her controversial? Women are so agreeable to social norms that their political force is practically an illusion. No woman will dare protest the female sex offender charade that is a byproduct of all this sex-hostility, no matter how much it targets women with meaningless persecution, because that would require her to take a stand against the prevailing norms. Not until men make it politically correct to do so will women get on board. This burden is on us male sexualists alone. I think feminism happened because men first made it politically correct. Men need to reverse this foolishness on our part, and then women will surely follow because they don't really have it in them to oppose the male consensus, whatever it is.

John said...

Oh no doubt! I've never seen a woman protest this absurd idea that women can rape, ever. well, if it's our burden we are In dire need.theres only 7 of us, it's going to be a tad difficult.
and no one is going to follow me that's for sure.i'm "anti american" for being anti imperialism and I'm an atheist who's also anti feminism?!? . you're not going to win on that platform.
neither of us will be internet sensations or YouTube stars anytime soon.we're banned from Twitter but trump gets a pass, as long as he's the president anyway.what a revolting situation.

John said...

Yes indeed. well they have me conforming.conform or die( or just go directly to jail)no more social media for this guy,even Yahoo is censoring or simply deleting my comments, I guess I'm done on there also. It turned out the internet sucked unless you're a celebrity and or feminist.twitter is terrified to ban trump.

tg said...

Another issue is gynocentric victimology. According to gynocentric victimology, women generally only behave badly because evil men compel or impel them to behave badly. If a woman offers sex in exchange for money, her choice to engage in prostitution is blamed squarely on the shoulders of men, usually her patrons. She is a weak and vulnerable woman; men are evil exploiters!, so goes the narrative.

(Actually, that women -- often old, ugly, and annoying -- can get 200$ for 30 minutes of coitus, proves how immensely powerful they are; can you imagine an old, ugly, and annoying man getting 200$ from a young, healthy woman for sex?)

Gynocentric victimology also explains the female sex offender charade, because the narrative that has to be maintained is that "power imbalances are *inherently* victimizing," and in the case of female sex offenders, it is always the official power imbalance factor that determines guilt.

In the first place, the notion that "power imbalances" a) work in favor of those officially in authority, regardless of unofficial power; b) are inherently victimizing towards the side that is officially subordinate, was invented by people who consider female misbehavior (or "misbehavior") to be the result of men compelling or impelling women to misbehave; only later, to maintain logical consistency, it has been applied to women in positions of authority, such as teachers or in cases where the man is young.

That is the gist of victimology: separating the world into those in official power and those lacking official power, and designating various interactions between them as inherently victimizing for the latter.

I keep using terms such as "Puritanism-Feminism," "Blue Knightism," and "Gynocentric Victimology" because the issue is clearly more fundamental than merely Feminism; this mentality is more often than not shared by conservative men. I believe that at the root of their psychology is the perception that the blood of women is redder than the blood of men, and that moreover they adhere to a worldview according to which male-female relations, in various forms, are inherently victimizing to the female side. That women end up on the receiving end of this crooked psychology is an inevitable result of the attempt to disguise outright misandry as egalitarianism.

Where "regular" Feminism first entered the scene was when it denied the very existence of unofficial power, such as that wielded by women, and argued that only official power (usually male) is real power. That helped it formulate its theory of "power imbalance." If there's one great thing about the Manosphere/Incelosphere, it's that it recognizes how immensely powerful women are in unofficial ways. We recognize that a young woman, in unofficial and non-obvious ways, is more powerful than older men. Our enemies, meanwhile, are invested in the "official power imbalance" narrative, which is why they can't recognize the immense power of women, especially young women; and that's why, ironically, they ended up championing the imprisonment of sexy teachers.

Feminism is a form of autism, in that the moment power stops being official and becomes unofficial, its adherents no longer register its existence within their minds. "It it's not official, it does not exist." That in general explains the many of blindnesses, double standards, and apex fallacies which characterize the Feminist mindset, facilitated, of course, by "right-wing" men who believe in the blood of women is redder than the blood of men, and that women are inherently victimized by various relations with men.

tg said...

It seems that you are deeply surprised that women support the charade; you should not be surprised at all. To you, that looks like a "low hanging fruit," but to them, it is two things:

1) A case that, if allowed to "pass," may pave the way for the collapse of the narrative about official power imbalances being inherently victimizing;

2) A great opportunity to demonstrate just how deeply they adhere to the Puritan-Feminist, Gynocentro-Victimological narrative about official power imbalances being inherently victimizing.

In other words, some of the more intelligent women see precisely what we see, and that is exactly why they zealously and ardently support the charade: they recognize that if we allow the notion of official power imbalances being inherently victimizing to be questioned and critically examined, soon enough the entire framework -- under which sex crime legislation is used to imprison men; 99.9% of "sex offenders" are men, after all -- will collapse.

In order to maintain the narrative that official power imbalances are inherently victimizing to the subordinate party within them, Feminists *must* support the imprisonment of various types of women who officially have more power than some men. If they allowed themselves to say, "Female sex offenders are a bullshit concept," they would have to explain why the rest of Gynocentric Victimology is not-nonsense. It's strategically better, from their perspective, to just accept that 0.1% of sex offenders will be female.

That's why I've never been surprised by the thing that so surprises you. Modern women are so invested in the maintenance of the narrative about official power imbalances being inherently victimizing -- that is at the very core of their worldview -- that sacrificing a few slutty women for the cause is really not a "big deal," as far as they are concerned. Much better to do that, so they reason, than to risk having the whole framework collapse as people may question the very validity of victimization-based morality in general.

This idea basically ties in everything I've been writing about in general, from pedophiles to incels to any aspect of male-female relations. As long as one considers official power imbalances to be inherently victimizing (and autistically, wholly disregards the very existence of unofficial power imbalances), one must inevitably support the criminalization of things that are not actually harmful. The charade is simply a by-product of that situation.

Eivind Berge said...

Well said. There are two things profoundly wrong with the feminist dogma on so-called power imbalances: that they are inherently abusive, and that female sexual power doesn't count in these calculations. I don't know if the fake victimology or the hypocrisy of denying women's sexual power bothers me most; both are definitely near the top of what's wrong with feminism.

And speaking of old hookers who make a lot of money, check out this post by Maggie McNeill:

https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2019/04/25/this-right-here/

She's in her 50s, and here she speaks of regularly getting $100 for not even a minute of sex, but just the cancellation fee whenever a client needs to reschedule! The higher value of female sexuality is difficult to overstate. Women are so much more valuable that their slightest attention to anything remotely sexual, or even their used panties alone command far more value than anything a man in his prime can offer (who even then often has to pay for it to a woman).

Eivind Berge said...

And I sort of agree that I shouldn't be surprised that feminists are too invested in "power imbalances" being necessarily victimizing to acknowledge that boys can get lucky with female teachers rather than abused, but I would have expected at least some women to snap out of it, perhaps some who aren't so ardently feminist? I think on thousands of tweets trying to explain this I didn't get a single agreement or like from a woman, and it's hard not to be surprised by that level of impenetrability. After all, consistency is not a strong value of theirs anyway, so why can't they relent some on the "need" to punish women for sex? It's not like they give a shit about about having equal criminality for women otherwise or 50% women in prison or anywhere undesirable, or equal military service for women or financial abortion rights for men and so on.

tg said...

Well, that's exactly the point! In the case of women (not) being 50% of the prison population, the homeless population, the war-slain population, and so on, they don't need to support equality because they don't have a victimological narrative to maintain here; these issues affect men, not women, so they can be disregarded.

Meanwhile, "sexual abuse" is an aspect of the sex war, in that women and white knights effectively use this concept to penalize men; so anything that may de-legitimize the concept of "sexual abuse" needs to be censored, from their perspective. By pointing out that the power imbalance does not magically turn women into "sexual abusers," you threaten to de-legitimize their worldview. And the more obviously correct you are, the more dangerous your position is.

Hence, ironically, you will receive more support from non-Feminist women regarding sex-crime legislation *generally* being insane, than you will receive from Feminism-brainwashed women, even and especially intelligent ones, about "female sex offenders" specifically being a kooky idea.

The issue of female sex offenders is a distilled case of a "power imbalance" -- and *nothing but that* -- being considered to be victimizing in and of itself, regardless of other factors and circumstances. Indeed, you can notice that the more out-of-touch various Feminist positions are, the more enthusiastically they support them, because their craziest ideas are simply regular Feminist doctrine taken to its most logical conclusion and most abstract manifestation. To Feminists, actual people don't matter; ideas matter, and the idea they have of "power imbalances" must be preserved lest the entire ideology loses its foothold.

They promote various positions not because they find them instinctively appealing, but because they understand that these positions reflect on everything else they believe in. Take for example the issue of 3-seconds-rape; the idea that if during sex a woman whispers "stop" and it takes the man 3 seconds to stop thrusting, well, of course, she has been raped for 3 seconds, which is just as much rape as any other rape.

To people in touch with reality, that sounds like utter madness; but because Feminists adhere to a strict, uncompromising position of: "once she said STOP, it then automatically becomes RAPE," or "no means NO," or "maybe means NO," or "yes means NO," or "silence means NO," or "teleportation to and fro a parallel universe means NO," or whatever the bizarre current Party Line even is, it is exactly the case of 3-seconds-rape that must be vociferously championed as real, legitimate rape. The same logic applies to absurd sinister pixels violations, AoC violations, and so on.

tg said...

Feminists need to convince everyone else that the *logic* of their position is unassailable, and to do that, they have to support taking their ideology to its logical conclusions exactly when those conclusions look deranged. So, while you might have expected the issue of female sex offenders to be a "gotcha" for Feminists, in actual fact they saw it as yet another opportunity to elucidate and validate the victimological facet of their ideology.

Women may not be logical (to say the least), but let's give them some credit: if they can tell that a certain idea endangers all that they've been brainwashed to believe, they will disregard that idea on principle. They believe in 3-seconds-rape precisely because the evident absurdity of 3-seconds-rape shows that Feminism altogether rests on shaky grounds, and so it goes with the rest of their worldview. The more absurd a position is, the more strongly -- not weakly -- it has to be defended, or else, people may notice that everything else Feminists say is also absurd.

Supporting madness to maintain intra-ideological logical consistency is not uncommon; we see the same thing with Communism, for instance. Once one is brainwashed, it becomes second nature, an inner urge; women are not exempt from such madness, especially when the contagion is widespread. Put another way, when you see that one part of a mathematical formula is wrong, you should rightly assume that the whole formula is completely false; so Feminists end up insisting that 2 + 2 = 5, or else everything else would be questioned.

That women hold absolute sexual power over men must not be recognized, because if you allow it to be recognized (e.g., by noticing the absurdity of "female sex offenders"), then sooner rather than later, the misandry that lies behind Feminist theory, and the falsity of Feminism's premises, become evident and even undeniable.

As they see it, they stand much more to lose by recognizing the charade for what it is, than by insisting that it's totally alright. If they said, "Perhaps we should reconsider our position about female sex offenders," people then might also reconsider victimology in general. Feminists dread that prospect. By insisting on all their absurdities, the only negative repercussion for Feminists so far has been the meager opposition from avowed anti-Feminists such as ourselves; it seems that Feminists are okay with that.

Eivind Berge said...

All good points, but I am not done yet. Here I go again with another attempt at convincing the feminists or at least some saner women:

https://eivindberge.blogspot.com/2019/05/further-reflections-on-female-sex.html

Anonymous said...

The realyourbrainonporn website is run by staunchly pro-porn group. The realyourbrainonporn research page is thoroughly exposed and debunked here: https://www.yourbrainonporn.com/relevant-research-and-articles-about-the-studies/critiques-of-questionable-debunking-propaganda-pieces/pro-porn-science-alliance/

Realyourbrainonporn claim that no studies link porn use to sexual problems is a lie. See this page for over 35 studies linking porn use or porn addiction to sexual problems and lower arousal in response to sexual stimuli or partnered sex (the first 6 studies demonstrate causation - https://pornstudycritiques.com/studies-reporting-relationships-between-porn-use-in-young-men-and-ed-anorgamsia-low-sexual-desire-delayed-ejaculation-and-lower-brain-activation-to-sexual-images/

Eivind Berge said...

Thanks for that comment. I completely agree, they are misrepresenting the science. Why is it so hard to be honest about the effects of porn on male sexual performance? Our culture's insistence that porn and masturbation can't possibly be bad (except for women and children) is something resembling a religious belief. I can't even have a discussion about this within the male sexualist movement without the others freaking out at the suggestion that porn isn't good for male sexuality, it's so sad.