Viktor Frankl on promiscuity and masturbation

[AndyDT]

I've been reading "Man's ultimate search for meaning"" by Viktor Frankl. He talks about promiscuity and masturbation being immature stages of development. The former because it's making an object of the other person, the latter because it's tension relief.

This idea I think has been holding me back in finding a relationship and I'm sure it does for many other people - the fear that commitment and monogamy (which Frankl says treating the other person as a human leads to) is somehow some institution (traditional morals, church etc) victimising me. The fear of pornographic fantasies that I'll somehow never live out if I commit to a woman for life.

Everything that I've been lead to in my reading and thinking says that committed relationship is right for me. Anything outside of that is excess - porn - as I see it now and I know it is when I start thinking about it. I'm not telling people how to live, just how I see what's right personally although I'd certainly guess that a lot of other people would benefit. But that's for them to weigh up.

[El JoNNo]

Any girlfriend I've ever been with didn't care if I watched porn and I didn't care if she watched porn. It's not like one of us preferred it to the company of the other. It was when the other person wasn't around and there wasn't a shortage of intimacy. Anytime there was a shortage of intimacy it was time to correct it; either break it off or binge and purge in the love shack.

This 100% monogamy is not only improbable by human nature, it's usually torturous.

[rumborak]

I've been reading "Man's ultimate search for meaning"" by Viktor Frankl. He talks about promiscuity and masturbation being immature stages of development. The former because it's making an object of the other person, the latter because it's tension relief.

And tension relief is bad ....... because?
Does this guy also oppose back massages?

rumborak

[Chino]

This Viktor Frankl seems full of crap. Why can't we have pornographic fantasies as well as a life long partner?

[Tick]

I've been reading "Man's ultimate search for meaning"" by Viktor Frankl. He talks about promiscuity and masturbation being immature stages of development.

He must have a bum right hand.

[eric42434224]

This Viktor Frankl seems full of crap. Why can't we have pornographic fantasies as well as a life long partner?

You can.  I do.

[AndyDT]

I've been reading "Man's ultimate search for meaning"" by Viktor Frankl. He talks about promiscuity and masturbation being immature stages of development. The former because it's making an object of the other person, the latter because it's tension relief.

And tension relief is bad ....... because?
Does this guy also oppose back massages?

rumborak

He's talking about finding ultimate meaning.

[rumborak]

And ultimate meaning can be found through suppression of the natural? How ... Victorian of you.

rumborak

[AndyDT]

Frankl is saying ultimate meaning is found through monogamous love. I'm saying his philosophy seems to work for me in finding meaning in relationships. No idea what you mean about Victorian.

[Perpetual Change]

Frankl is saying ultimate meaning is found through monogamous love. I'm saying his philosophy seems to work for me in finding meaning in relationships. No idea what you mean about Victorian.

Of course masturbation isn't a substitute for monogamous love... I don't think anyone's suggesting that. But how, exactly, does it get in the way of finding it?

[Chino]

Frankl is saying ultimate meaning is found through monogamous love. I'm saying his philosophy seems to work for me in finding meaning in relationships. No idea what you mean about Victorian.

Of course masturbation isn't a substitute for monogamous love... I don't think anyone's suggesting that. But how, exactly, does it get in the way of finding it?

I think the point he's making is that you masturbate because there is a void in your life. If you are married and still masturbating, you are in a sense settling for the one you will be spending your life with.

[Bedwetting Cosmonaut]

fapping is proof that god exists and that he hates us.

BC

[Chino]

fapping is proof that god exists and that he hates us.

BC

"Fapping is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."
- kinda Ben Franklin

[rumborak]

Given that we were made in his image, it probably means that God had a little bit too much time "on his hands" Himself. Eternity can be a long time.

rumborak

[The Dark Master]

*sigh*

Honesty, I have never understood this position that sexual gratification outside of a monogamous relationship some how prevents an individual from attaining higher meaning.  As Rumby pointed out, that is such a Victorian point of view.  There are people out there who find divinity through sex, and who feel that sexual exploration through a variety of partners is not only good, but should be encouraged.  Sex is one of the most primal, natural acts that a human being can perform, something that reminds us that for all our intellect and self-awareness, were are still animals of flesh and blood, and that our bodies have a will of their own that transcends conscious thought.  I have never viewed human nature as being purely monogamous.  Sometimes people do find happiness in monogamy, and sometimes they find it in promiscuity.  Who the hell is this Frankl to say one is right and the other is wrong?  If it makes someone feel fulfilled, who is to say it is wrong for them?

As for masturbation, I highly doubt anyone believes that it is a substitute for sexual interaction with another human animal.  It's just practice and fun, pure and simple.  Excessively, it can be a distraction, but for most, it is just a way to pass the time and relieve sexual tension when a suitable partner is not around.  This is nothing wrong with fapping off when your significant other is away, or as a "warm-up" between one one-night-stand and another.  It's natural and it's part of who we are as beings of the flesh, so there is no need to feel guilty about it.  The closer you are to your inner beast, the more happiness and contentedness you will find.  Fighting against that animal within causes way more problems then simply giving into it every once and a while.

[AndyDT]

*sigh*

Honesty, I have never understood this position that sexual gratification outside of a monogamous relationship some how prevents an individual from attaining higher meaning.  As Rumby pointed out, that is such a Victorian point of view.  There are people out there who find divinity through sex, and who feel that sexual exploration through a variety of partners is not only good, but should be encouraged.  Sex is one of the most primal, natural acts that a human being can perform, something that reminds us that for all our intellect and self-awareness, were are still animals of flesh and blood, and that our bodies have a will of their own that transcends conscious thought.  I have never viewed human nature as being purely monogamous.  Sometimes people do find happiness in monogamy, and sometimes they find it in promiscuity.  Who the hell is this Frankl to say one is right and the other is wrong?  If it makes someone feel fulfilled, who is to say it is wrong for them?

As for masturbation, I highly doubt anyone believes that it is a substitute for sexual interaction with another human animal.  It's just practice and fun, pure and simple.  Excessively, it can be a distraction, but for most, it is just a way to pass the time and relieve sexual tension when a suitable partner is not around.  This is nothing wrong with fapping off when your significant other is away, or as a "warm-up" between one one-night-stand and another.  It's natural and it's part of who we are as beings of the flesh, so there is no need to feel guilty about it.  The closer you are to your inner beast, the more happiness and contentedness you will find.  Fighting against that animal within causes way more problems then simply giving into it every once and a while.

He's talking about finding God and/or ultimate human potential including in sexual relationships.

[rumborak]

Good God, Andy, does everything have to be this grandiose revelation?
At the danger of you not answering this question, but may I ask how many times you've had sex in your life? I can not imagine somebody who's had any reasonable amount of sex not to have noticed the sweet banality of it.

Rather on-topic, I took this photo a few days ago close to the Ganges:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/k1docYxo4Sjjm_AbzpC_Kg?feat=directlink

Andy, maybe you should convert to Jainism (IIRC this was taken at a Jain temple).

rumborak

[The Dark Master]

He's talking about finding God and/or ultimate human potential including in sexual relationships.

Yeah, I get that, but in your initial post you said that he referred to promiscuity and masturbation as "immature stages of development".   I can see how masturbation could be considered an incomplete form of sexual experience, and even as an addictive distraction, but I don't really see how it can be considered immature relative to one's relationship status when people of all types of relationships, be they single, monogamous or promiscuous (whether the variety of partners are mutually exclusive or not) masturbate with little to no impact on their inter-human sexual relations.

With reguards to monogamy and promiscuity, to claim that being promiscuous is immature is placing a vaporous higher value on monogamy.  While there are certain advantages to monogamy, both sexual and emotional, depending on your view of sex, there are an equal number of advantages to being promiscuous (aside from the obvious) and some people just find more happiness, not simply gratification, in having a multitude of partners. If someone views sex as a form of social interaction, then promiscuity is just another way of being social.  If someone view sex as truly divine, then what could be better then sharing that sacredness with a variety of people?  Who can tell them otherwise?  What works for some does not work for others, so I fail to see how this Frankl can make such broad claims that monogamy is the ideal relationship status. 

Andy, I don't want to dissuade you from finding fulfillment in life, so you should just do whatever feels right for you. If that is monogamy, then go for it, but you should always bear in mind that whatever may be right for you may not necessarily be objectively right for everyone, and it sounds like that is precisely what this Viktor Frankl has done.

[Chino]

I highly doubt anyone believes that it is a substitute for sexual interaction with another human animal.  It's just practice and fun, pure and simple

This.

While I do crank out for the convinient fix to my horny needs, I do see it as a way to get good practice and technique.

[AndyDT]

He's talking about finding God and/or ultimate human potential including in sexual relationships.

Yeah, I get that, but in your initial post you said that he referred to promiscuity and masturbation as "immature stages of development".   I can see how masturbation could be considered an incomplete form of sexual experience, and even as an addictive distraction, but I don't really see how it can be considered immature relative to one's relationship status when people of all types of relationships, be they single, monogamous or promiscuous (whether the variety of partners are mutually exclusive or not) masturbate with little to no impact on their inter-human sexual relations.

With reguards to monogamy and promiscuity, to claim that being promiscuous is immature is placing a vaporous higher value on monogamy.  While there are certain advantages to monogamy, both sexual and emotional, depending on your view of sex, there are an equal number of advantages to being promiscuous (aside from the obvious) and some people just find more happiness, not simply gratification, in having a multitude of partners. If someone views sex as a form of social interaction, then promiscuity is just another way of being social.  If someone view sex as truly divine, then what could be better then sharing that sacredness with a variety of people?  Who can tell them otherwise?  What works for some does not work for others, so I fail to see how this Frankl can make such broad claims that monogamy is the ideal relationship status. 

I don't know what you mean about "what works" but for the third time he's talking about ultimate meaning.

Andy, I don't want to dissuade you from finding fulfillment in life, so you should just do whatever feels right for you. If that is monogamy, then go for it, but you should always bear in mind that whatever may be right for you may not necessarily be objectively right for everyone, and it sounds like that is precisely what this Viktor Frankl has done.

To my knowledge he doesn't talk about right or wrong.

[AndyDT]

Good God, Andy, does everything have to be this grandiose revelation?

If you're looking for the truth or essence behind something arguably yes.

At the danger of you not answering this question, but may I ask how many times you've had sex in your life? I can not imagine somebody who's had any reasonable amount of sex not to have noticed the sweet banality of it.

Rather on-topic, I took this photo a few days ago close to the Ganges:
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/k1docYxo4Sjjm_AbzpC_Kg?feat=directlink

Andy, maybe you should convert to Jainism (IIRC this was taken at a Jain temple).

rumborak

That's a yoga position and quite satisfying per se.

[rumborak]

Good God, Andy, does everything have to be this grandiose revelation?

If you're looking for the truth or essence behind something arguably yes.

Then I'm afraid you're gonna be in for the long haul. You're looking for divine revelation in an act that has been dominated by evolution for the last few hundreds of thousands of years (and further, if you include the animal realm too).

rumborak

[AndyDT]

His point is that people can find meaning in losing oneself in a cause or devotion to another person. He says that to reach the ultimate potential of sex it's in the context of a loving, monogamous relationship.

[Adami]

What's his reasoning that meaning can only be found in the context of others and not in the context of self?

[AndyDT]

 

What's his reasoning that meaning can only be found in the context of others and not in the context of self?

I wondered about that as well. He talks about in his first book about thinking of his wife's hands when he was in Auschwitz and seeing her gentle face etc again and picturing himself talking before audiences telling them of what went on. The people who didn't  have *or find* things to live for after just gave up. He says in this book that the more you lose yourself in a cause or devotion to another the more you find yourself.