Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dajo123)
    Okey dokey, im off to bed. Night Llamas, MD.

    Mobb, to you i shall say: sometimes you cannot see the wood for the trees.

    goodnite, everone.
    Goodnight.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    How the hell did you make that link?
    Tissot Declares Masturbation Dangerous

    I'm not giving you the website, as the source is of rather dubious sexual-alignment (produced on a Google search), but nonetheless serves its purpose.


    Switzerland, 1760 - The Swiss physician, Simon-Auguste-Andre-David Tissot (1728-1787), published his influential treatise Onanism: Or a Treatise Upon the Disorders produced by Masturbation: Or, the Dangerous Effects of Secret and Excessive Venery in 1760. He warned of the danger of sex, especially the dangers of sex undertaken for the purpose of pleasure rather than reproduction, as a cause of debility and even death.

    The idea that non-procreative sex is dangerous had been widely disseminated by doctors before Tissot's Onanism (see Onania), but the book's wide distribution and Tissot's reputation as a respected professor of medicine did much to popularize it. Earlier warnings against onanism had focused on "venereal excess" as a cause of damage to the nervous system through over-excitation which could cause nervous and physical exhaustion, but Tissot's theories were more sophisticated.

    He followed in the tradition of the Greek medicine when he wrote that the body is an energy system which needs constant care to maintain equilibrium. The body, he said, is continually depleted of the vital fluids the Greeks called "humours" through excretion. Eating and drinking, in turn, refresh the body's vital force. The cycle of loss and renewal inevitably ends in death since the renewal through eating and drinking is imperfect, never quite making up for the losses of excretion.

    In the context of this view of the body as an energy system caught in a precarious balance of consumption and depletion, sex was especially troublesome. Tissot believed that semen is a unique humour: it causes the beard to grow and makes muscles larger. He even quantified its importance: one ounce of semen lost has the same consequences as the loss of forty ounces of blood. The loss through intercourse is bad, but wasting semen through masturbation, anal or oral sex, or sex with contraception is far worse. He grouped these most dangerous practices under the term "onanism". Onanistic practices cause a variety of symptoms including hemorrhoids, pimples, tuberculosis, weak-mindedness, blindness, pain and death.

    The analog of semen in women is the fluid of vaginal lubrication, and this "seed" is even more precious than male semen because women's weaker nerves make the loss of female seed far more dangerous than male masturbation. Tissot warned that women and girls who become habitual onanists can expect to suffer many diseases including hysteria, jaundice, and, because of excessive clitoral stimulation, a pronounced tendency to turn to their own sex for erotic satisfaction. Tissot was convinced that onanism is a gateway to sodomy, the worst sexual practice of all.

    An "Enlightened" Approach

    Tissot dismissed Onania as so many "theological and moral trivialities" because its anonymous author depended on Biblical sources instead of the secular, mechanistic traditions of Greek medicine. Like other French intellectuals at the middle of the 18th Century, Tissot was an enlightenment thinker. He created a theory of sexual morality based on physical and social causes, not on divine prohibitions. Without intending to do so, he converted traditional, religiously based moral prejudices against non-procreative sex into a secular system that removed the divine and substituted "nature" as its justification. The formerly sinful onanist was now seen as the victim of a process of moral disease.

    Tissot taught that the causes of moral disease are not just physical. In three later books, Advice to common people on their health (1761), On the Health of Men of Letters (1766), and Essays on the Diseases of the Valetudinary (1770) Tissot argued that the lives of modern people, especially intellectuals, favor mental work over physical with frightful health consequences. Peasants are the healthiest people because their devotion to hard physical labor keeps them from the boredom that comes from indolence. The wealthy, urban, and especially the intelligentsia with their lives of luxury and idleness, are prone to fight their boredom in a search for stimulation, a search that leads them to practices "opposed to the usage of nature", including onanism. Once the practice begins, it becomes an addiction leading to enervation and death.

    Other doctors shared Tissot's horror at masturbation and many believed that masturbation produces a state of excessive sexual desire they called satyriasis in the male, and nymphomania in the female. The descriptions of the female disorder are especially evocative. Masturbating women or girls risk "uterine fury", a condition that turns them into "lascivious brutes".

    French Family Values

    Non-medical writers were almost as concerned about the dire effects of masturbation as doctors were. In Emile, a book Rousseau wrote as a guide to teachers, he urged his readers to take great care to prevent their pupils from masturbating because they might prefer solitary vice over sexual intercourse and never marry.

    What possessed French intellectuals and doctors to make them so fear a practice as innocuous as masturbation? Any response to the question is at least a little speculative, but part of the answer lies in the traditional Christian aversion to luxury. The sins of "Luxuria" as the Church had enumerated them in the middle ages included onanism, gluttony and other sexual sins, all the products of wealth and especially the leisure it allowed. The idea that onanism is a product of idleness is probably a remnant of this medieval idea.

    But why was onanism considered so dangerous? The historian Thomas Laqueur has theorized that onanism became a special concern of the 18th Century because of anxiety about rapid urbanization and changes in family life. Cities like Paris were growing, and the extended family was becoming less important than it had been when France was a more agrarian society. The government was changing, and a new merchant class was becoming a potent cultural and political force. People believed that fertility was declining, and were frightened that France would lose her vaunted position. If young men could turn to themselves for sexual satisfaction, would they not, as Rousseau had warned, prefer a life of leisure without the labors and duties of marriage and family? And without the family, would France not collapse?

    Whether these factors entirely account for the worries about Onanism is unclear, but the idea that masturbation causes serious disease became a medical dogma. In the last half of the 19th Century, Richard von Krafft-Ebing, among many others, elaborated on Tissot's work, and theorized that masturbation in combination with a degnerate genetic heritage was the cause of the antipathic sexual instinct, his word for homosexuality. As late as 1904, Tissot is cited in Walling's anti-sexual screed Sexology to prove that yes, masturbation can kill you.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    Tissot Declares Masturbation Dangerous

    I'm not giving you the website, as the source is of rather dubious sexual-alignment (produced on a Google search), but nonetheless serves its purpose.


    Switzerland, 1760 ... blablabla ....
    Your evidence is some nonsense from the 18th century?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Your evidence is some nonsense from the 18th century?
    How do you know it's nonesense? I'm willing to take on board the teachings of an 18th century theorist, instead of populist-driven 'science', reported by the BBC.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    How do you know it's nonesense? I'm willing to take on board the teachings of an 18th century theorist, instead of populist-driven 'science', reported by the BBC.
    You're denying medical science?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    You're denying medical science?
    I'm sure that if sufficient funds were chanelled into projects which sought to challenge, question and denounce masturbation - then we could probably have a more informed discussion. As it stands, the theorists and scientists of the time are caught-up in outlandish, self-gratifying projects.

    What is more, the evidence which you point to does not singularly undermine my claim, which is this: masturbation has more negative effects on the individual & society than positive ones.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    I'm sure that if sufficient funds were chanelled into projects which sought to challenge, question and denounce masturbation - then we could probably have a more informed discussion. As it stands, the theorists and scientists of the time are caught-up in outlandish, self-gratifying projects.

    What is more, the evidence which you point to does not singularly undermine my claim, which is this: masturbation has more negative effects on the individual & society than positive ones.
    I would contend that masturbation has precicely zero negative effects on the individual or society.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    That article looked at non-procreative sex and not just masturbation only. I can't see many people sticking to sex just for pro-creation purposes. Oh how the guys would miss a b*****b haha
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sloaney87)
    I see no point in them, all they do is attract pedophiles, and waste alot of everyones time. Instead of wasting so much money on internet police, it would be so much easier to completely ban them. The concept of 10 year oldsbeing able to speak to complete strangers is disturbing.
    its also a place where people just go to either cyber or hook up, its sick.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThornsnRoses)
    its also a place where people just go to either cyber or hook up, its sick.
    Websites can do this too, swinger sites and the rest of it. Don't here websites criticised and condemned to be all banned on the same basis as chatrooms.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The suggestions here show a complete lack of understanding of how the internet works. Firstly it is cross borders, which is why a law against spam in this country won't stop it from coming in overseas. Also chat rooms are not simply things hosted by big major corporations by Yahoo or MSN, though they are generally easy to access, a little program called IRC or Internet Relay Chat means that anyone can start a chat server on any network, be it a private network or a public network like the internet. I have set up an IRC server for use on a small private network and it only requires moderate computer knowledge.

    So the technology exists to start chat servers by any computer user, then they need an IRC client, of which mIRC is one of the most famous, using that program you can access literally tens of thousands of chatrooms.

    We have a few laws that would prevent you from banning chat rooms, such as the right to Freedom of Speech. Preventing people from communicating over the internet would infringe upon this right. Sure it is illegal to transfer pedophilic pornography but I have used many chat rooms as a source of programming information, there are thousands of legitimate uses for technology for every illegal one.

    Also the suggestion that we ban chatrooms because pedophiles use them is the same as suggesting that we ban http because child pornography can be transmitted that way. And why stop there ban DVD, VHS, and paper, because they could be used to transfer naughty pictures and movies. Effective laws try to combat the crime, bad laws ban the medium.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMagicMan)
    The suggestions here show a complete lack of understanding of how the internet works. Firstly it is cross borders, which is why a law against spam in this country won't stop it from coming in overseas. Also chat rooms are not simply things hosted by big major corporations by Yahoo or MSN, though they are generally easy to access, a little program called IRC or Internet Relay Chat means that anyone can start a chat server on any network, be it a private network or a public network like the internet. I have set up an IRC server for use on a small private network and it only requires moderate computer knowledge.

    So the technology exists to start chat servers by any computer user, then they need an IRC client, of which mIRC is one of the most famous, using that program you can access literally tens of thousands of chatrooms.

    We have a few laws that would prevent you from banning chat rooms, such as the right to Freedom of Speech. Preventing people from communicating over the internet would infringe upon this right. Sure it is illegal to transfer pedophilic pornography but I have used many chat rooms as a source of programming information, there are thousands of legitimate uses for technology for every illegal one.

    Also the suggestion that we ban chatrooms because pedophiles use them is the same as suggesting that we ban http because child pornography can be transmitted that way. And why stop there ban DVD, VHS, and paper, because they could be used to transfer naughty pictures and movies. Effective laws try to combat the crime, bad laws ban the medium.
    Hear Hear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Typical idiot liberalism at its best.......make up for bad parenting by imposing marxism, yeah that will win a lot of support.

    God save the BNP.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    I'm not suggesting that we should clamp down on civil liberties to anything like the extent of The People's Republic. I just think that China, as a model, demonstrates that it is possible to block (or at least hinder) access to certain material.

    Call me idealist, but I believe that if the major ISPs in this country were made to block the major chat sites - we would see less paedophile activity, less abductions, less murders et cetera. A lot of this activity goes unreported, Lord knows how many children end up at the hands of chatroom paedophiles every year.
    You make it sound like half of every neighbourhood's children are missing, after being abducted by chatroom paedophiles.

    Reality is the number abducted is minimally small (and usually extremely stupid :rolleyes:). Why not focus money on more serious issues with greater frequency? People use chat rooms because they want to. Taking away people's liberties because of some miniscule threat that exists elsewhere anyway is a pretty poor use of resources and achieves very little.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    This is officially the most hilarious thread ever posted on the internet. Ever! And what makes it even funnier is that some people actually believe the premise is either feasible or desirable. You've made my day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sloaney87)
    I see no point in them, all they do is attract pedophiles, and waste alot of everyones time. Instead of wasting so much money on internet police, it would be so much easier to completely ban them. The concept of 10 year oldsbeing able to speak to complete strangers is disturbing.
    But surely the entire point of the internet is to connect to other people, so while there is the internet you will have this problem.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sloaney87)
    I see no point in them, all they do is attract pedophiles, and waste alot of everyones time. Instead of wasting so much money on internet police, it would be so much easier to completely ban them. The concept of 10 year oldsbeing able to speak to complete strangers is disturbing.
    What a weird and ironic forum for such a statement!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    obviosly the geeks on here are gonna defend chat rooms to the hilt. the internet is a way of life for minors of this ilk.

    the vast majority of chat users use yahoo/msn/aol and the other big isps.

    msn stopped chat. why was that? a moral obligation

    the vast majority of chat rooms ive been on, on yahoo are pontless. the conversation always turns to sex and cussing and chat bots advertising stuff. people always IM to ask for webcam or advertise their own webcam and they arent very productive at all. the vast majority of chat rooms are of this nature no matter if they are about geneology, politics, school or sport.

    there shouldnt be a government imposed ban on chat because its unfeasible.

    the isps should morally feel it upon themselves to stop chat or make it so u have to pay and give out credit details or something else traceable and send any one who breaks the rules on chat who they have details on to prison.

    the big isps removing chat possibly by way of the govenments asking them to would lead to dramatically less chatting with no doubt as these are the main well known chat devices and most people arent geeks who no all these other minority chat sites.

    if the big isps all make chat so u have to pay and they know your real details or you just stop chat altogther then this would be socially positive as the vast majority of chat is ******** and only the people who are really interested and have something posistive to input will sign up and it would mute the fiends.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sloaney87)
    I see no point in them, all they do is attract pedophiles, and waste alot of everyones time. Instead of wasting so much money on internet police, it would be so much easier to completely ban them. The concept of 10 year oldsbeing able to speak to complete strangers is disturbing.
    So you are sugesting, on an internet chat forum, to ban internet chats ? Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    So you are sugesting, on an internet chat forum, to ban internet chats ? Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh!!!!
    This isn't a chatroom in the sense of Yahoo Chat (which I abhor) - it's a [moderated] message board.

    As you have probably encountered, I like my fill of fun and good cheer as much as any other man. But Yahoo Chat is repugnant. It makes me sick to the stomach. It should be banned.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.