So does @nofap oficially endorse auto-fellatio as well?

Hinduism promoting Polytheism is the misconception.
Hindus actually only believe in one God, Brahman, the eternal origin who is the cause and foundation of all existence. The gods of the Hindu faith represent different forms of Brahman
Hinduism is a religion which incorporates diverse views on the concept of God. Different traditions of Hinduism have different theistic views, and these views have been described by scholars as polytheism, monotheism, henotheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, agnostic, humanism, atheism or Nontheism.
Even word Hindu is given by outsiders to us. Essentially it is a culture.
Hindus (Hindustani: [ˈɦɪndu] (listen)) are persons who regard themselves as culturally, ethnically, or religiously adhering to aspects of Hinduism.[1][2] Historically, the term has also been used as a geographical, cultural, and later religious identifier for people living in the Hind (Indian subcontinent).[3][4]

The historical meaning of the term Hindu has evolved with time. Starting with the Persian and Greek references to the land of the Indusin the 1st millennium BCE through the texts of the medieval era,[5] the term Hindu implied a geographic, ethnic or cultural identifier for people living in the Indian subcontinentaround or beyond the Sindhu (Indus) river.[6]By the 16th century, the term began to refer to residents of the subcontinent who were not Turkic or Muslims

 

Since you refuse to answer the points I made earlier, I'll just use the very sound list @TheAddictedHuman provided (which you are okay with, as you said yourself) to check if your main points are correct or if your argumentation potentially is flawed. I'll leave out the question whether or not masturbation is healthy entirely for the same reasons, you left it out. It's basically another discussion entirely. Let's focus on the main points here:

1. Assumption #1: Autofellatio is sexual stimulation of one's own genitals.
No question about it, this assumption is correct. It obviously is.
Result: True.

2. Assumption #2: Classical hand-based masturbation is sexual stimulation of one's own genitals.
Again, this is obviously correct.
Result: True.

3. Assumption #3: Classical hand-based masturbation is widely considered "normal", while autofellatio is widely considered "weird".
Although there are no statistics or polls about this specific question, I think most would agree that this is correct as well. I think it's fair to assume, that most people would consider hand-based masturbation "normal", while they consider autofellatio "weird" at the same time.
Result: Most likely true.

4. Assumption #4: Because both behaviors are sexual stimulation of one's own genitals, both must be considered either equally "normal" or equally "weird".
To answer the question whether or not it's plausible to consider them both equally as "normal" or equally as "weird", we first have to ask ourselves the question "What do we mean, when we say 'normal'? And what do we mean, when we say 'weird'?"

a) "Normal"
"Normal" means "it's the norm" or as a dictionary might put it "conforming to a standard; usual; typical". So in other words: Normal is what the majority of people (i.e. "the norm/the normal people") do on a regular basis. There is no moral or judgemental component attached to what is normal; the judgement comes later. It's simple a metric of how common something is happening.

b) "Weird"
"Weird" is somewhat of an opposite of "normal". You could describe it as a synonym for "strange". When we see something as weird, we basically say "it's not normal; it's going beyond what is usual, regular, or customary".

Considering that the vast majority of dictionaries define these words in a very similiar way, I think it's safe to say, that this comes very close to what most people mean when they call something "normal" or "weird" respectively.

Now that the first question is answered, we can check whether or not the classifications we saw in Assumption #3 are irrational/unlogical/incoherent as @ultrafabber claims them to be or not. In other words: Does it make sense to consider hand-based masturbation normal, while at the same time we consider autofellatio weird?

1. Let's start by checking, if the first classification of hand-based masturbation as normal makes sense:
As we saw, normal is what the average Joe does on a regular basis. If we take a broad look on society, we can see that the vast majority of men (and the vast majority of people in general) do use their hands to stimulate themselves sexually on a regular basis. So it's normal to masturbate by hand. I'll repeat, that there is no statement included, whether or not it's therefore a good or healthy activity. That's an entirely different question.
So, the first classification is logical and therefore it makes sense.

2. Let's continue by checking, if the second classification of autofellatio as weird makes sense:
I think we both agree, that most people would consider autofellatio as abnormal, as strange, as beyond of what's usual, so in order words: as weird. Hardly anybody can physically do it but even if they could, most men would not do it. The fact alone, that hardly anybody can physically do it, is already a strong indicator of the behavior not being common, not being usual, not being normal.
So, the second classification is logical as well and therefore makes sense.

As we can see, the different classifications between hand-based self stimulation and mouth-based self stimulation do follow the rules of logic. They do make sense. They are justified. In other words: Assumption #4 is not correct.

Of course one could argue that hand-based masturbation should not be normal or that autofellatio should be normal, but that does not change the status quo. What is normal and what is not, is decided by society as a whole, not by individuals. These classifications can change of course, but as of today they are how they are.

Just as an example for better understanding: In the past, it was normal to eat meat and it still is today. But society is changing right now. Vegetarians and vegan people are rapidly growing in numbers. It could very well be the case, that in 50 years from now it's no longer the norm to eat meat. But we don't know that yet; the status quo is different from the possible future: It still is normal to be a meat-eater as of today.

Result: Incorrect.

That being said, the only question left is this: How should the NoFap team act in this regard?

1. They stated, that masturbation is normal (by which they most likely meant hand-based; or at least it's unlikely that they specifically wanted to include autofellatio). As we just saw, it is in fact normal. Therefore the statement is perfectly fine.

2. They compared masturbation to eating an apple: I'm not going to say anything about this point, since it's mainly the health question again. Of course it's fair to challenge that assumption, but as I repeatedly said: It's an entirely different question, which I won't discuss in this thread.

3. They didn't specifically exclude autofellatio: Yes, they didn't. But the expectation to specifically exclude every way of self stimulation is absurd. The list is basically endless. There are probably more ways to stimulate your dick by yourself than positions to have sex in. If we really ask so much of the NoFap team (who mainly are voluntaries), I would argue we expect too much.

4. The name NoFap suggests "not fapping": Indeed. This is a fair point. The name can be somewhat misleading, since "not watching porn" is actually the core of it. But changing a brand name after so many years is absurd.

5. They do not specify, what they mean by "moderation": Yea, they don't. But what use would there be? Strict rules don't take into account the different situations people are in, the different goals people have, the different experiences they made. By trying to create a one-size-fits-all-rule, we're just setting ourselves up for failure. We'll just have to experiment and see what works best for us.

I think I made my main points clear. I'm happy to clarify or explain certain points in greater detail, if necessary.

 

That's really interesting. It seems that based on your comment, Hinduism isn't really 1 religion rather multiple religions based on a similar philosophy. But having Brahman taking different forms means you can worship idols that in some way represent him correct? This is really an alien ideas in the Abrahamic faiths which are the religions of western societies. This is probably why we see it as polytheistic.

Also I know of some Hindus worshipping stuff that couldn't possibly be God, like a cow or monkey. I've even seen a Hindu man worship a Trump statue



Perhaps many Hindus have a different view of Brahman or what is or isn't acceptable to worship.

I'd like to learn more about this faith, just like all the other world religions. Is there a specific sacred book or sacred texts that Hinduism is founded on that I can read?

 

You totally defined the whole tread concisely. Good break up of the threads. This should conclude the whole thread if one agrees basic logics.

 

Has anyone here ever tried auto-fellatio? Actually I have. No chance, did not even get close. I think it is just a very few people that are physically capable of it, so this is a very theoretical discussion.

 

Hinduism does not has one book. Vedas can be seen as the authorities but where shall you find them in their pure translation. I suggest GITA and Vedanta Philosphy.
http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/intro.html
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta
Srimad Bhagwat Geeta(go through), Vedas, Upanishads, Arayanaks, Shrutis
Vedanta (go through it if you can, Vedanta are the highest level Or most refined level)
Yes, we do worship cows. Simply, its a culture of bowing down. Bowing down keeps you humble. Bow down to God, Bow down to your elder, Bow down to nature.
I donot know if you will find authentic translations. There will be translator's bias. Also, western people who have translated Hindu scriptures in colonial times had ulterior motives. I suggest you to go through those links. Also, Hindus even donot bother to read them. With time focus shifted on Bhakti.
Yogic practices also come from Hinduism. Yog is not meant for physical well being, its purpose is to get enlightened.
Here is a good site:
http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm
Now you have put me into a undesirable situation, I feel like a preacher. Also, invaders kind of destroyed the culture and its roots.
I would like to add a quote by Sashi Tharoor on India:
India is not, as people keep calling it, an underdeveloped country, but rather, in the context of its history and cultural heritage, a highly developed one in an advanced state of decay.

 

http://www.hinduismfacts.org/concept-of-god-in-hinduism/

http://www.hinduismfacts.org

The above link covers the topic "Hinduism" somewhat.
Now, kindly go through the links.

 

Thank you friend

I knew a guy who did it once. He just put the tip in his mouth though to impress some girls. He definitely didn't suck himself off to completion.

 

Very good analysis of the issue. I totally agree. I think this post makes very clear, what the problems in the original theory are.

 

First of all you started by basically calling me dumb. So, if anything you should be the one to apologize. But you can save yourself the trouble. I can handle such minor things pretty well. So, instead of acting childish and just throwing around empty rhetoric, you could explain what in my post was an "incorrect fact" or "strawman".

Again, just empty rhetoric. You could at least make your point and explain why it apparantly was wrong. The fact that multiple people agreed with me (as well as basically all dictionaries), indicates that people share my interpretation of "normal". So either all those people are "wrong" as well, or your interpretation is not as good as you think it is.

Okay, then let's check that list as well:

1. Assumption #1: The word "masturbation" neatly applies to autofellatio.
If you define masturbation as sexual stimulation of one's own genitals (as I personally would), then it's obviously correct. However, that is not mandatory. If you google "masturbation definition" for example, google suggest it is "stimulation of the genitals with the hand for sexual pleasure", which indicates that there is room for debate about the terminology. But for the sake of argument, let's assume "masturbation" includes autofellatio.
Result: Depends on the underlying definition.

2. Assumption #2: The word "masturbation neatly applies to classical hand-based masturbation.
This is correct without question.
Result: True.

3. Assumption #3: Classical hand-based masturbation is practiced by some/many people.
I think it's safe to say, that this is most likely true even though there are no statistics presented in this thread.
Result: Most likely true.

4. Assumption #4: Because both behaviors apply to the term "masturbation" though, the same people that use classical hand-based masturbation should either be perfectly fine practicing autofellatio as well, or they should not be fine practicing either
The sole fact, that the same term applies can not proof that is appropriate to judge the underlying behaviors identically. Let's use an extreme example to show that crystal clear: If a man sticks his dick into a woman's vagina with her consent, everything is fine. But when he sticks his dick into a woman's vagina without her consent, it's called rape and gets punished. No one disputes this obvious difference, although both actions fall under the term "penetration". So, we see that such an approach is not convincing.

That being said, if your "logic" would be accurate, people should also have absolutely no problem to do all the other things they usually do with their hands, but with their mouth. Open the door to a public bathroom? Check. Clean the toilet? Check. Pet a dog? Check. You see, your "logic" has no internal logic in the first place.

Furthermore, - according to your logic - all women who enjoy vaginal sex can't have problems with anal sex either: In the end it's all the same thing, only a different hole is used. Not very convincing.

But before you accuse me of not getting the point again, let's look at the core of the issue: You argue, that there is no reason for people, who are fine with jerking themselves off, to have problems with sucking themselves off.

Apart from the things I already mentioned, there are a variety of reasons why people can be fine with hand-based masturbation, but not be fine with autofellatio:

1. There is a significant risk of injury linked to autofellatio, since the position you have to be in in order to reach your dick is very unnatural and heavy on the back and neck, even when you're very flexible (which most men are not).

2. When I masturbate by hand, I can cum wherever I chose to. However, when I would suck myself off, there is a really high chance of either cumming on my own face or in my own mouth. I'd assume, that the vast majority of men doesn't like that.

3. It's kind of unhygenic. There are bacteria on your dick, there are potentiall rests of pee on your dick, there is potentially sweat on your dick, there potentially are rests of cum on your dick. I don't want any of that in my mouth.

4. You seem to believe that being okay with something has no moral or judgemental component of sorts. That's simply not true. The sole fact, that people don't want to suck themselves off, is reason enough for them not being okay with sucking yourself off. There is no need for objective reasons in the first place.

Result: Incorrect.

If you want to disagree with anything of the above, then feel free to do so. But then at least have the courage to explain your reasons, otherwise you're simply using empty words again.

 

Gosh, we're not in kindergarden anymore. On top of that I never said anything to attack you personally nor did I say anything majorly disrespectful, so I don't see any reason to apologize. So, either swallow your pride and say what you have to say, or leave it. I don't need an answer to see the flaws in your argumentation.

 

You accuse me of not getting your point, which by and for itself already implies that I'm apparantly not intellegent enough to understand what you're saying. But furthermore, you call if a symptom of a literal brain malfunction. I think a little bit of sarcasm was therefor justified. But why don't we just spend our time discussing about the actual topic, instead of discussing irrelevant stuff.

 

Well, you'd have to provide a little bit more of an explanation on where and why he is wrong exactly. What you wrote until now isn't really convincing at all. And the fact that you're not willing to answer due to such very minor offenses, also doesn't help in making your argumentation look very solid; actually the opposite is the case. So, I'd like to hear an actual argument for your claim instead of this "Who was mean first"-type-of-situation.

 

In the paragraph you cited, I not once call you weird. I called your line of thought weird, and as far as I counted only twice. But whatever...

And that's exactly what I was saying from the beginning: I'm not upset. Frankly, I don't give a damn about such things, especially in an online forum like this. Neither should you, as far as I'm concerned.

Since I don't really see an "issue", you'd have to specify on how we'd resolve it. I won't apologize for something, that's not worth an apology. I did not once attack you personally, so what are you talking about? A little bit of sarcasm and strong language is nothing to apologize for in my eyes. As I see it, you're making mountains out of molehills.

Since you started the thread to put your point across, it should be in your interest to come back at my points. So, answer my points or don't, it's up to you.

 

Does the international fishing industry promote cannibalism? They promote eating fish, which is meat, which the same as eating another person, meat right?
Do arborists consider apples and oranges to be the same thing, they are both fruit and come from trees.
The question is almost like putting words in someone's mouth because things are similar or related in some way, though they are not the same.
Granted moderation varies from person to person. So even if they were to say what constitutes moderation, for someone else it would be different.
I get what you are saying but I don't think over generalizing gets anything accomplished.
In any case you are thinking, which is a good thing. Always question.