Solitaire Sex

Witch side are you on ?

by Pam Green, © Oct, 2010

Election time crazies are upon us again, perhaps a bit more so than usual. In Delaware, the Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell, who says she has "dabbled in witchcraft", is crusading against masturbation.
I have a few thoughts on this subject, as contributed to a blog site discussion of this campaign at
This topic has little to do with dogs, who have no inhibitions whatsoever on this issue and who have a flexibility of spine and of tongue that many humans envy.

Masturbation : witch side are you on ?

Masturbation is the only truely SAFE form of sex because there is no risk of being infected with an STD (including AIDS) and no risk of becoming pregnant.

Masturbation is the MOST MORAL form of sex because there is no risk of infecting anyone else and no risk of causing anyone else to become pregnant. Masturbation can never cause yourself or anyone else to need an abortion (the same of course is true of gay sex). You also are not risking your partner's emotional welfare and you have not had to tell any lies to your partner in order to "get laid". You do not have to use force and you'd be ill-advised to use rohipnol.

Now someone on this blog has emphasized that Christianity (or at least some of its 131 flavors) considers masturbation immoral and that Ms O'Donnell's crusade is based on "Christian values". Well Christianity also says "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", so perhaps Christine O'Donnell in pursuit of "Christian values" should not suffer herself to live because she has "dabbled in witchcraft". Of course most flavors of "Christian values" also disapprove of suicide. Seems like a case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't."

Actually to whatever extent the Christian values' disapproval of masturbation is a continuation of Jewish values and is derived from the Onan story, it rests on a complete misunderstanding. Onan's sin was actually that he refused to impregnate his deceased brother's widow as he was required to do by the then current Jewish law so that the child could be raised as his dead brother's child. While copulating with his dead brother's widow, rather than ejaculate in a way that could impregnate her, he pulled out and "spilled his seed on the ground".

Today this whole idea seems a bit obsolete. Any obligation to do stud service on behalf of a dead brother could be fulfilled by fresh or frozen semen Artificial Insemination, without the two persons ever having to meet. Plus, if I recall correctly , by the time of Henry VIII, the Catholic Church had completely divorced itself from the old Jewish law and instead forbade a surviving brother from marrying his deceased brother's wife instead of requiring such a marriage ; that prohibition was the basis of Henry seeking annulment from Catharine of Aragon. Again, this is an issue that doesn't come up very often these days.

Likewise the " shalt not suffer a witch to live" dictum rests on a mis-translation. (I am indebted to Robert Heinlein for this factoid.) The original language was that thou (and thy community) "shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" , especially a well poisoner. That makes good sense, especially in a community dependant on a communal well for their water supply. The idea of well poisoning and mass murder may be less obsolete than the idea of refusing to be sperm donor for one's dead brother's widow. We do after all have municipal water supplies that a terrorist might poison with any number of modern poisons or infective agents.

Masturbators of the world, arise !! Relief is just an armslength away !!!

Excuse me now while I go to do my daily shaving of hair off of the palms of my hands and then go to walk and feed my faithful guide dog.


Related topics :

site author Pam Green copyright 2003
created 10/02/2010 revised 10/10/2010
return to top of page return to Site Index