Gavin,
“Well, those other unnatural vices are condemned by Thomas for various other reasons”

Again, do you have a cite in Aquinas. His main reason for condemning the four unnatural vices is that they are unnatural. His understanding, or at least his argument, goes back to Plato. He doesn’t seem to differentiate them enough to allow you the use to which you put masturbation.

“The main section in Gilson's Christian Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas in which he outlines Thomas's thought on sexuality, the married life, and the family is on pages 280 - 282.”

Yeah, but the closest Gilson comes to saying anything supportive of your position is a line on 282 to the effect that, “sexual pleasure pursued as its own end is gravely immoral and unnatural, it is both natural and moral when directed to the higher end of the conservation of the species.” Alas he is no more explicit than that and therefore could cover a couple who uses rubbers or mutual masturbating duo.

“But education is dialectical in scope, in which case it is practised amongst other learners. The primary educators of children are the parents, who themselves are life long learners, and parents have this obligation for as long as they are parents.”

This seems to be more you than either Aquinas or Aristotle. In fact, it ignores Aristotle and Aquinas’ point about potency and being at work. The parents are the primary educators only as long as the children are children. When Aristotle went to the Academy, his primary educator was Plato, not his father.

Fred

The main section in Gilson's Christian Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas in which he outlines Thomas's thought on sexuality, the married life, and the family is on pages 280 - 282. That is from the 1956 english translation. Part 3, Chapter 4 is on love and passions in general.

"If using an unnatural vice as foreplay makes it okay, consider what follow. If a couple sucks off their dog as foreplay, bestiality is okay since it is used in the furtherance of procreation. If a couple sucks off their gay friend [Easy Linz] then homosexuality is okay!! If a couple uses the doggie position, but the man finishes off inside the woman, then that’s okay. It would make what Thomas calls “monstrous and bestial manners of copulation” okay?!"

Well, those other unnatural vices are condemned by Thomas for various other reasons, and the other reasons for which he condemns those vices preclude the same vices being used in legitimate sexual acts. Now the distinction that I outlined in the previous post applies, if masturbation, as an unnatural vice, is taken to be the act of bringing oneself to climax, then masturbation is not legitimate between couples, but if the means of masturbation, i.e. penile or clitoral stimulation, can be distinguished from the act, then the means can be used as a form of foreplay; this is at least permitted within Thomistic moral theory.

"Let’s grant that we are life long learners. It doesn’t follow that we are or should be life long recipients of parental education. Again, a man (as opposed to a child) can self-educate, just like he can self-masturbate."

But education is dialectical in scope, in which case it is practised amongst other learners. The primary educators of children are the parents, who themselves are life long learners, and parents have this obligation for as long as they are parents.

"A very good summary of Aquinas's ethical position, especially with regard to the sexual act, can be found in Gilson's The Christian Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas (I don't have this in front of me at the moment, but I can get it and chase up the exact pages where he outlines Aquians's thought on this matter, with all desired scholarly material)."

Please do. I have the book and “sex” doesn’t even appear in the index. Of course, it could be listed under another heading, e.g., the dirty sloppy.

“He remans peculiarly silent on the means of masturbation, that is, as an act between two people which does not lead to ejaculation but can be part of foreplay that leads to the sexual act.”
My point exactly. The theologian I refer to in my previous post thought this was the Church’s way of compromising with their rather tight-assed position on sex, but he didn’t not think Aquinas would go along. I guess the safest position is to say that Aquinas is silent on mutual masturbation as foreplay. Remember, for Aquinas, masturbation is “an unnatural vice.” If using an unnatural vice as foreplay makes it okay, consider what follow. If a couple sucks off their dog as foreplay, bestiality is okay since it is used in the furtherance of procreation. If a couple sucks off their gay friend [Easy Linz] then homosexuality is okay!! If a couple uses the doggie position, but the man finishes off inside the woman, then that’s okay. It would make what Thomas calls “monstrous and bestial manners of copulation” okay?!

“If my [I think you mean “by”] nature all human beings desire to know, then for as long as they are human beings, they naturally desire to know.”

True, but it doesn’t imply that parents must do the educating throughout the child’s life. Here is what Thomas says, “For nature intends not only the begetting of offspring, but also its education and development until it reach the perfect state of man as man, and that is the state of virtue.” NB, here “perfect” is used in Aristotle’s sense as the being-at-work (ENERGIA) of the potential (DUNAMIS). A child is a potential adult and the adult is the perfection of the child.

“But presumably human beings are human beings their entire lives (a fair assumption I think), in which case their desire to know must be nurtured by education.”

There may be an equivocation here. Let’s grant that we are life long learners. It doesn’t follow that we are or should be life long recipients of parental education. Again, a man (as opposed to a child) can self-educate, just like he can self-masturbate.

Fred

A very good summary of Aquinas's ethical position, especially with regard to the sexual act, can be found in Gilson's The Christian Philosophy of St Thomas Aquinas (I don't have this in front of me at the moment, but I can get it and chase up the exact pages where he outlines Aquians's thought on this matter, with all desired scholarly material).

What you say on the vices is correct. However, with regard to masturbation, what must be distinguished is the act of masturbation taken to its end, that is, until ejaculation, and the means of masturbation, thst is, the physical act. Now, Aquinas always condemend the act of masturbation, but what he was considering what the act that leads to ejaculation. He remans peculiarly silent on the means of masturbation, that is, as an act between two people which does not lead to ejaculation but can be part of foreplay that leads to the sexual act. The recent change in teaching is because it was recognised that the means of masturbation can be used as a part of foreplay without thereby leading to the full act of masturbation. Thus, even though it is not expressely permitted in Thomistic ethics, it is entirely compliant with Thomas's thought on the matter.

If a parent dies immediately after giving birth, then there is no question of parents' remaining faithful to one another. But when parents do survive the birth of their offspring, they do tend to remain together for the education of the young.

If my nature all human beings desire to know, then for as long as they are human beings, they naturally desire to know. But presumably human beings are human beings their entire lives (a fair assumption I think), in which case their desire to know must be nurtured by education.

There is a kind of inevitability in the human desire to know, which does not equate it with the example that you give. Women are ovulators by nature, but there is not the inevitability in their nature that they ovulate their entire life, whereas Aquinas points out in his commentary on this famous line that the desire to know is in the order of ends. A proof that human beings desire to know is that every being desires its own perfection, which is the excercise of its highest faculty. Now the highest faculty in man is his rational faculty, which provides him with knowledge. Thus, man's perfection is gained through acquiring knowledge. Insofar as the desire to know is ordained towards man's end, there is an inevitability about it, man never stops desiring to know, whereas women do stop ovulating, because ovulation is not their end. Your division of phusis and techne is an adequate one, but it is not one that Aquinas makes in his commentary on the first line of the metaphysics. Although, I do think that it is indeed a division that Aquinas employed.

What has to be made clear in the whole discussion is that the sexual act must only be goverened by procreation. Being goverened by something does not always imply that the act is on the govenor's behalf. The sexaul act need not always be on behalf of procreation as its end. My understanding of Aquinas on this matter is that the natural end of the sexula act if procreation, but the sexual act of goverened by procreation as a regulative principle. Again, Gilson is very good on this. His book is not very reliable for Thomas's metaphysical thought (although Chapter 2 is a classic). For his metaphysical thought I thoroughly recommend Wippel, The Metaphysical Thought of Thomas Aquinas.

“Firstly, it is a radical over simplification to suggest that Aquinas viewed sex as nothing more than a procreative act. Essentially his position comes down to this: use of the sexual faculty is licit if and only if it is goverened by the procreative act. In other words, sex must always be governed by procreation, but not necessarily for the end of procereation.”

Do you have a citation in Aquinas for this?

“However, mutual masturbation, as a form of foreplay that anticipates the sexual act, is indeed licit as long as ejaculation does not occur.”

When I was teaching at Wheeling Jesuit University a theologian told me of this position but stated that it was a relatively recent change on the part of the Church. I don’t know if Aquinas ever discusses it. But my sense is he would not sanction mutual masturbation. Since mastubation is an “unnatural vice,” mutual masturbation would seem to double the vice. For Thomas there are four “unnatural vice.” He writes, “First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy." [Sorry Linz] Secondly, by copulation with a thing of undue species, and this is called "bestiality." Thirdly, by copulation with an undue sex, male with male, or female with female, as the Apostle states (Rm. 1:27): and this is called the "vice of sodomy." [Sorry Linz] Fourthly, by not observing the natural manner of copulation, either as to undue means, or as to other monstrous and bestial manners of copulation.” (ST, II-II,154,11).

“The main one being that, just as in the animal kingdom the parents remain together until the education of the young is complete, for instance, bird mates stay together until the chicks fly the nest, so too should human parents remain together for the education of their young.”

While this may be true of birds, it is hardly true of salmon, who do not stay together with their ‘youngins’ since Mom dies immediately after giving birth. Therefore it is hardly true of animals generally.

“human education lasts the entire life of the human; for by nature all men desire to know (Cf Aristotle, first line of the Metaphysics).”

The first clause doesn’t not follow from the second and represents a misunderstanding of this famous line from Aristotle. Aristotle is making a point about the source or cause of the human desire to know. He claims that nature (PHUSIS) is the source of that desire and not either art (TECHNE) or chance. Although I think Aristotle would agree with you that human learning never ends, that position doesn’t follow from the fact that the desire is natural. Although an artist can produce artworks throughout a whole life, the source of art is TECHNE, not PHUSIS. One more example. Woman are by nature ovulators, but that doesn’t mean they ovulate throughout their entire lifetimes. (And aren’t the ladies happy about that fact.)

“Thus, by their very nature, human beings are in a constant state of education. Given that human beings are in a constant state of education, parents are thus obliged to remain together for as long as the life of their child. Moreover, this is an obligation peculiar to the parent, in which case, if the child dies, it does not remove the obligation from the parent, because the death of the child does not erase the parents' nature as parents.”

Again, do you have a cite from Aquinas on this. Nothing I know of in the big guy justifies what you have written.

Aw well. Back to my hobby.

Fred

With male/female/transvestite tarts being cheap, plentiful and legal for the last five years in New Zealand it is a wonder anyone needs to wank...

It is said that in Soho, London; and Los Angeles; and (presumably) Hamburg, Germany...if you have the money you can buy literally anything...(yes, yes, you also have a choice of colours)...so how this Kant chap never got laid, and took a puritanical view towards anyone else getting laid, is beyond me.

In short...ignore Kant, listen to Rand, get stuck in and shag yourself silly...have an enjoyable time...and life goes on....

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

Clearly you have far too much time on your hand, Kas.

The young and enthusiastic Lord Kasturbator.

A number of points should be made with regard to the original piece. Firstly, it is a radical over simplification to suggest that Aquinas viewed sex as nothing more than a procreative act. Essentially his position comes down to this: use of the sexual faculty is licit if and only if it is goverened by the procreative act. In other words, sex must always be governed by procreation, but not necessarily for the end of procereation. A number of conclusions result. Firstly, the sexual act itself must be in accord with the natural order of whichever species practises it. In the case of humans, sex must be in accord with the natural order of human sexual relations. Now, the natural order of human sexual relations that is procreative in outlook is male/female. Furthermore, if the sexual act is to be procreative in outlook, then the use of artificial contraceptives is precluded. However, the use of thickness tests of female mucus, timing of ovulation, PH levels of internal vaginal discharge are all licit, since they do not remove the procreative act, essentially, if a couple decided to engage in sexual relations at a time when the female's mucus is exceptionally thick, the egg not fully descended and the PH level of her vagina is so that the sperm will die, then so be it. Sexual relations at anytime, as long as they are goverened by the principle of procreation, are licit.

Now to the point, masturbation is not goverened by the principle of procreation, since masturbation is an individual act and therefore contrary to the natural sexual relations of the human species. However, mutual masturbation, as a form of foreplay that anticipates the sexual act, is indeed licit as long as ejaculation does not occur. With regard to the scenario of the two women outlined in the original post, I don't think that Aquinas would legitimate such a situation, and this for a number of reasons. The main one being that, just as in the animal kingdom the parents remain together until the education of the young is complete, for instance, bird mates stay together until the chicks fly the nest, so too should human parents remain together for the education of their young. But human education lasts the entire life of the human; for by nature all men desire to know (Cf Aristotle, first line of the Metaphysics). Thus, by their very nature, human beings are in a constant state of education. Given that human beings are in a constant state of education, parents are thus obliged to remain together for as long as the life of their child. Moreover, this is an obligation peculiar to the parent, in which case, if the child dies, it does not remove the obligation from the parent, because the death of the child does not erase the parents' nature as parents. Thus, as the sexual act is in principle geared towards procreation, and procreation by its nature ensures the obligation of remaining together for as long as the life of the child, there is the implicit obligation of the procreative act that it be private amongst two individuals and only two individuals. In which case, the scenario outlined above does not legitimate masturbation, because the scenario itself contains an illegitimate use of the sexual faculty.

far too much time on your hand, Kas.

Kant and Aquinas both have a criterion for blowing your load. "Sex is made for procreation and no matter how good you get at wacking off, you’re not going to procreate.

Here is your question: "Let say a guy is making it with two women. Woman number one is jacking him off and when he is about to cum, she sticks his hickey into the other woman and then, nine months later, has a bouncing little baby Objectivist, who is never allowed to visit Koenigsburg."

Answer to which is very simple. The procreation (criterion) of blowing your load (masturbating) is now removed and you can masturbate freely as long as the load gets plunged into a puss. Is this not obvious?

Do you know what another name for masturbation is? Onanism. Onan was biblical character who practiced birth control technique known as withdrawn intercourse. He, however, never became blind, only had been instantly killed by God Almighty for the sin of wasting his sperm in vain. That was a lesson for future generations. Use the Pill!

If you "tipple" wood alcohol, or contract syphilis from "debauchery," blindness can indeed result.

Wow, now I'm not only the most unreliable I'm also the most evil. Who loves ya baby.
Well, I have to go now, something's come up. (Didn't someone already use that line) Woops.

Fred

That was so wrong Ciro... but so right.

---Landon

It all basically comes back to fight or flight.

Masturbation is self discovering!!! That's how pinocchio discovered that he was made of wood because while masturbating His hand caught fire! 

Ciro D'Agostino

I have just read from Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics",

"Though no one would reproach, but pity a person blind from birth, or owing to disease or accident; yet all would blame one who had lost his sight from tippling or debauchery."

So, now I know where that nasty Catholic rumour comes from!

Masturbation is a very human thing... I should know.

Human doesn't necessarily mean weak, stupid, bad or flawed.

---Landon

It all basically comes back to fight or flight.

Well, I have to go now. Something’s come up.

You are the most evil man in history.

And you're boasting again as well. Idly.

Yours humungously,

Linz

So Objectivists cannot call Kant an evil w**ker!

Being human?

But Aristotle advocated slavery.

Sometimes it taks a long time and a lot of effort to shrug off bad ideas. Aquinas was first and foremost a minister so it doesn't suprise me. Kant was a philosopher... what's his excuse?

---Landon

It all basically comes back to fight or flight.