by Rudy Cheeks

Dear Dr. Lovemonkey,

I overheard a couple of older guys talking about masturbation a few weeks ago, and one of them referred to it as "self-abuse." What's up with that?

-- Rico

Dear Rico,

I won't inquire as to where -- or under what circumstances -- you overheard a couple of guys "talking about masturbation," but will assume it was on a street corner somewhere, a street corner that I shall try to avoid.

This is not to say that all discussion of masturbation is inappropriate -- only the kind you are likely to hear from a couple of guys on the street corner. Let me give you an idea of what I mean by "appropriate" discussion.

A couple of years ago, Joycelyn Elders, then surgeon general of the United States, brought up the topic of masturbation in a speech. She suggested that considering the number of children born out of wedlock to youthful and generally unprepared parents and considering the statistics on the age at which young people are becoming "sexually active" and the dramatic increase in sexually transmitted diseases, it might not be a bad idea to teach children about masturbation in the schools.

It sounded like a reasonable approach to me. But the president of the United States apparently didn't think so -- Ms. Elders was canned the next day.

But, back to your main question. My best guess as to how the phrase "self-abuse" came to be associated with masturbation goes back to a tale from the Old Testament about a character named Onan. The story goes that God chastised Onan for "spilling his seed" (a.k.a., "shaking hands with the wife's best friend," "flogging the bishop," and the latest, "firing Joycelyn Elders").

Implicit in the moral of this story is the idea that, in the words of the Monty Python song of the same name, "every sperm is sacred" and that ejaculation is a gift to be used for the sole purpose of creating life.

You see, during the era when God caught Onan whacking off, the earth was not quite so populous as it is now. In addition, the primary occupation in those days was farming. Viewed from this context, it made a lot of sense for people to have as many kids as possible to help with the farm chores.

What's more, in this pre-nursing-home -and-401K age, families had to take care of each other, and a brood of kids ensured a bit of help in old age (40 to 50 years old at the time) for mom and dad.

As a result, the idea that one was wasting one's sperm by not procreating had quite a bit more validity then, although it may be of some interest to students of logic and/or sexology that this interpretation of the story of Onan would leave the world of female masturbation wide open, as sperm and ovum function quite differently.

But the logic in all this became lost when some theologians (the philosopher ancestors of those guys out on your street corner) decided that the Onan story wasn't entirely about using one's resources wisely. They had this bizarre notion that pleasure was a bad thing, and they employed scare tactics to put a stop to it. Right into this century (what we charmingly like to call "the modern age") some have claimed that masturbation will lead to everything from heart disease to "hairy palms."

As you can see, Rico, there is much to ponder in the wild world of whacking off. I don't buy into the "pleasure is bad" school of thinking, so I find the phrase "self-abuse" not only inaccurate but a reflection of the repressive side of some religions.

I'm one of those radical heretics who believes that God actually wants us to pleasure ourselves and to give pleasure to one another. When one is happy (and guilt-free whacking off frequently makes one happy), it is easier to spread that happiness and positive attitude around to others.

Dear Dr. Lovemonkey,

I am trying to convince my boyfriend to go with me to see the movie Titanic. I understand that it is very romantic. He is extremely unwilling to see this film. Do you think that he's trying to tell me something in his incomprehensible resistance to this highly praised film? Is our relationship in trouble?

-- Ellen

Dear Ellen,

Yes, you do have a relationship that is in trouble -- your relationship with reality. It is my opinion that your boyfriend is trying to tell you that he doesn't want to see this movie -- nothing more, nothing less. Lack of interest in the Titanic is not the yardstick with which you measure his feelings for you.

But that yardstick is his apparent lack of interest in wanting to make you happy. Dr. Lovemonkey believes that people in intimate relationships should be willing to go out of their way for each other. And while I find nothing unreasonable about not wanting to sit for over three hours in a concrete bunker at $7.50 a throw to watch Leonardo DiCaprio get wet, I do think that refusing to go to a film, performance, or social event with one's significant other (especially when your mate has expressed a great desire to do so) reveals a selfishness that is really inexcusable.

So the real reason that you should be upset with your boyfriend and contemplating whether your relationship is a good one is not that he won't see Titanic but that he is an insensitive doofus.

By the way, I noticed an advertisement in the paper the other day for a new film called Chairman of the Board, starring a comedian called Carrot Top. If your boyfriend suggests that you go to that movie, I would not only break up with him but also consider contacting state mental health authorities.

---

Email Dr. Lovemonkey

---

Dr. Lovemonkey's archive

---