StarDestroyer.Net BBS

And as for incarceration: I think it actually depends on the intensity. If it's just a one time thing, then public humilation with a "slap-on-the-wrist" fine ($25 or less) should suffice. Or whatever Wong said. However, if it's someone doing it repeatedly, like in this case, then I may have to consider incarceration, but no more than a few days, maybe even just one day, maybe just hours. Maybe kinda like a detox situation, just to get him under control. Certainly no more than that, even if he does to extremely pervasive ends. I wouldn't incarcerate this boy though, because he probably just needs help. I would however place him under immediate evaluation. As for someone who jacks off in public in front of children knowingly (READ: Pedaphile), then I say give him life.

He hasn't done that, so why are you bringing it up? You can get in a lot of trouble if you spit in someone's face too.

Just because someone is jerking off in a classroom full of people in it, and he hasn't spilled it on anyone, it's perfectly acceptable? Come on. Let's restate what we're talking about here again: JERKING OFF IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO PEOPLE.

And it doesn't occur to you that Pee Wee's case was actually an example of Christians shoving their religious values down other peoples' throats? The punishment did not fit the crime in that case; someone whacking off in an inappropriate place should be given no more punishment than someone urinating in an inappropriate place.

Christian values? These are human values. This is not about religion. This is about being a civilized person fit for society. Humans are supposed to be civilized. At least in front of others. They are supposed to have the decency not to jerk off in front of other people. This is totally absurd. And just because some Christian values are the same as human values does not mean that it is a matter of religion. Murdering others is a violation of Christian values. Should murdering others not be a violation of human values?

So what even if they are Christian values? I've never heard of anything in the Bible or the Ten Commandments regarding jerking off in front of people. Even Christians that study the Bible try to say that masturbating is a sin, but they have nothing to back it up with. So are they "real" Christian values, or just human values?

I agree that maybe putting him in jail was extreme. But bear in mind this guy had a criminal record. Pee Wee Herman wasn't what he was on-screen at all. Before he played Pee Wee Herman, the guy was a sleazebag. So maybe he did this more than once, and the police finally arrested him after the other penalties. Or maybe they found out that he did it repeatedly, and then arrested him for all of those other times. So maybe it was because he violated the law too much that the police got pissed off and decided to arrest him.

I think it would be pretty rude, and under certain circumstances (eg- in an elevator with a girl) it would be considered serious sexual harassment. However, that's a red herring because he's not brazenly doing it in front of people, is he? Since he's trying to hide it, the biggest "crime" is the fact that he's leaving his ejecta all over the place, which should carry no more punishment than public urination.

I agree. But repeatedly doing it in classrooms for four years is ridiculous. How are people supposed to concentrate on their education when someone in there is jerking off? I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that classroom knowing another boy could spill his semen on me. That is just horribly disgusting IMO, and nearly everyone else's opinion that was posted on this thread.

OK, I'll take the bait; why is it not right? If I saw him doing it in public, I'd point and laugh, but I don't see why he should be locked up. I'd instruct my wife and kids to point and laugh too. Public humiliation is an appropriate punishment for this kind of behaviour, but jail time isn't, unless he spews in public and refuses to clean it up (and we already have other laws covering that).

As said before, I don't think he should be locked up for doing it once. But for four years?! Then of course he should be. And he shouldn't be put in a jail. Locked up doesn't necessarily mean jail. It could also mean institutionalized. He should see a state therapist or whatever. Or maybe they should just make him a permanent sperm bank donor/employee. LOL

But instruct your wife and kids to point and laugh?! I would shield all of their eyes, and run the hell away! This is something you don't want your kids to look at!!! This is not a family event!

"Hey kids, let's all go watch a teenager masturbate!"
"Yay!"
"I'll get the car warmed up!"
"Daddy, when I grow up I want to watch people masturbate and make fun out of them!"
"Hmm...I wonder if this is a case of bad parenting....nah! Let's hustle troops!"

"Treat" him for what? Being rude? Craving attention? Public masturbation is obviously a symptom of some other problem, since he could just as easily masturbate at home. It is not the problem in and of itself.

Do whatever it takes to stop him from masturbating in public! If it is because of some other problems, just don't ignore them! Find out what they are, and SOLVE THEM, because they won't just go away. I'm not a professional on the topic. It's just common sense that you have to find out why he masturbates in front of people, what the problem is, and then find a way to eliminate the problem. Or change it, or whatever it is that professionals would do to help people from stop masturbating in public.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Just because someone is jerking off in a classroom full of people in it, and he hasn't spilled it on anyone, it's perfectly acceptable? Come on. Let's restate what we're talking about here again: JERKING OFF IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO PEOPLE.

Strawman. I never said it was perfectly acceptable. I only said that it is not serious enough to lock the guy up. What the fuck is your problem? Don't you think it would be good to read someone's posts before attacking them?

Christian values? These are human values. This is not about religion. This is about being a civilized person fit for society. Humans are supposed to be civilized. At least in front of others. They are supposed to have the decency not to jerk off in front of other people.

True. It is, however, a typically Judeo-Christian-Muslim sexually repressive thing to consider masturbation a "sin" rather than merely rude, like public urination. I defy you to name one thing about public masturbation which is worse than public urination.

So what even if they are Christian values? I've never heard of anything in the Bible or the Ten Commandments regarding jerking off in front of people. Even Christians that study the Bible try to say that masturbating is a sin, but they have nothing to back it up with. So are they "real" Christian values, or just human values?

Masturbating is not a sin. Your elevation of masturbation from "private activity" to "sin" is entirely due to your religious upbringing, and has no foundation in universal human values. It is, however, a Christian value. Oman (sp) spilled his seed and was killed by God as a result, remember?

I agree that maybe putting him in jail was extreme. But bear in mind this guy had a criminal record. Pee Wee Herman wasn't what he was on-screen at all. Before he played Pee Wee Herman, the guy was a sleazebag.

Irrelevant even if true. At issue is whether the punishment fit this particular crime, not whether he had done other things in his life.

I agree. But repeatedly doing it in classrooms for four years is ridiculous. How are people supposed to concentrate on their education when someone in there is jerking off? I wouldn't want to be anywhere near that classroom knowing another boy could spill his semen on me. That is just horribly disgusting IMO, and nearly everyone else's opinion that was posted on this thread.

Of course it's disgusting. So is public urination; I wouldn't want someone urinating on me either. So why should one receive a stiffer punishment (no pun intended) than the other?

As said before, I don't think he should be locked up for doing it once. But for four years?! Then of course he should be.

What difference does it make if he does it once or a hundred times? It's either a crime worthy of imprisonment or it isn't.

But instruct your wife and kids to point and laugh?! I would shield all of their eyes, and run the hell away! This is something you don't want your kids to look at!!! This is not a family event!

I never said it was. But if some weirdo whips out his dick and starts to masturbate in the park, and we've already seen it, then it's too late, isn't it? At that point, you have to decide: do you run away in terror, thus teaching your children typically Christian sexual attitudes of guilt, shame, and fear which will fuck them up for the rest of their lives, or do you make fun of him and his rudeness, and then calmly explain to your children that masturbation is perfectly natural, but like urination, it's not supposed to be done outdoors?

"Hey kids, let's all go watch a teenager masturbate!"
"Yay!"
"I'll get the car warmed up!"
"Daddy, when I grow up I want to watch people masturbate and make fun out of them!"
"Hmm...I wonder if this is a case of bad parenting....nah! Let's hustle troops!"

Where the fuck do you get off calling me a bad parent, you self-righteous little shit-eating asshole? Fuck you.

I'm tired of you distorting everything I say so that it will fit neatly into your close-minded fucking little world. I never said I would actually want to go out and make my family see such a thing. However, I did say that the best way to respond is with mockery, not terror as you suggest.

Do whatever it takes to stop him from masturbating in public! If it is because of some other problems, just don't ignore them! Find out what they are, and SOLVE THEM, because they won't just go away. I'm not a professional on the topic. It's just common sense that you have to find out why he masturbates in front of people, what the problem is, and then find a way to eliminate the problem. Or change it, or whatever it is that professionals would do to help people from stop masturbating in public.

Sure, there's obviously some underlying problem. You don't do something which will bring down such a negative response unless you're looking for attention. However, you insist that he should be locked up and forced to undergo this "treatment", and all I've said is that this is excessive. All of your strawman distortions and transparent attempts to twist my words into opportunities for slanderous attacks on my parenting skills will not change that fact.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote: Or maybe they should just make him a permanent sperm bank donor/employee. LOL

NOOO!!!!!! THAT WOULD MEAN HE WOULD BE CONTRIBUTING TO THE GENE POOL IN A BIG WAY!!!!! HUMANITY WILL CRUMBLE!!!!!!

Why do I have to debate about this? This is jerking off in public and letting your children see it before they are ready to learn about such a thing. It's a bad thing to do. End of discussion.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Why do I have to debate about this?

Because you are clearly incapable of supporting any of your arguments with anything better than "because I say so".

This is jerking off in public and letting your children see it before they are ready to learn about such a thing. It's a bad thing to do. End of discussion.

I never said it was good to jerk off in public, you strawman-loving moron. I only said your punishment is excessive. What the fuck do you find so difficult to understand about this?

As for children being "ready to learn about such a thing", what makes you think they're not ready? The very first thing a little baby boy does when he figures out that he has a penis is that he will play with it. They already know about playing with Little Willy; what people like you teach them is shame and self-loathing about it.

Oh, and by the way: you may think you can end a discussion by simply saying you're right and then imperiously declaring it over, but it doesn't work that way. You fucking insulted my parenting skills, and then you try to waltz away as if nothing happened. Blow me, asshole.

Fine, I'll keep going.

When I made the false dialogue, I was fully aware that no sane person would do that, as you should be aware. It was a joke and not an insult of your parenting skills.

You say that I would teach my children that masturbating is wrong and would teach them to be shameful and have self-loathing, or people like me would. This is not true. I'd let schools teach them about masturbation. I would let them discover it themselves and decide whether it is wrong or not. But if someone was jerking off in public, I wouldn't let them see it if they were young enough. I don't think this would fuck up their lives, just because I didn't let them see someone jerk off.

You said putting him in jail is excessive, and I agreed with you. I said he should be treated, and you said it was excessive. Why is being treated excessive? If society does not like what he does, then why not correct it (treating him) to fit society?

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:When I made the false dialogue, I was fully aware that no sane person would do that, as you should be aware. It was a joke and not an insult of your parenting skills.

Ahh, so you just made a delightful little joke at the expense of my parenting skills! How nice. Fuck you.

You say that I would teach my children that masturbating is wrong and would teach them to be shameful and have self-loathing, or people like me would. This is not true. I'd let schools teach them about masturbation. I would let them discover it themselves and decide whether it is wrong or not. But if someone was jerking off in public, I wouldn't let them see it if they were young enough. I don't think this would fuck up their lives, just because I didn't let them see someone jerk off.

What makes you think I'd march them over and say "hey, look at this!" My point was that if we see something like that, the best response is mockery, not running away in terror as you suggest.

You said putting him in jail is excessive, and I agreed with you. I said he should be treated, and you said it was excessive. Why is being treated excessive? If society does not like what he does, then why not correct it (treating him) to fit society?

Because your idea of "treatment" is to lock him away from society until he is "fixed", which is different from jail only in name. You admit that imprisonment is excessive, yet you insist that forced confinement in an institution would not be excessive. Is it too much to ask for you to examine your own arguments for consistency?

IT WAS A JOKE, WONG! NO ONE WOULD DO THAT! YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT!

From what I understood, I thought you meant that you were, say, walking down a city sidewalk with your family. You all turn a corner. You and your family then see someone sitting down against a building wacking off. You would tell your kids to point at him and then mock him. Pointing and laughing usually requires you to look at something, so in effect you are telling them to look at him, when they might not have noticed it at all. Now that I think about it, running would make them think something was wrong. I'd just put my hands over their eyes, and move on. I wouldn't even know how my wife would react, so I think the best thing to do is just move on as if nothing happened. But that's just me.

Aren't there institutions where they just have therapy and not necessarily put you in a stray jacket and a padded cell in confinement? I thought there were different types of institutions. Putting him in an institution where they have group therapy and all of that stuff hardly seems like an oppressive place to be.

When I was in the Eigth Grade four young women snuck into the mens locker room with a Poloriod, I doubt the caught much, except our blurry asses heading into the safety of the steam. or around the cornor. Since I had showered early I was already 60% dressed when they came in, I just watched them dispassionatly, as they were led away by security, suspended and their parent's camera confiscated.

Of course my Freshman year of High School, Nocternal fantasies revoved around rewiting history were that whole scene turned into a game of "Amtrak"

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:IT WAS A JOKE, WONG! NO ONE WOULD DO THAT! YOU WOULDN'T DO THAT!

Bullshit. It was not a "joke" designed for humour. It was a facetious exaggeration designed to make it appear that my attitude makes me a bad parent. And when confronted about it, you refuse to admit that it was out of line to insinuate that I'm a bad parent for disagreeing with you on this, so you try to shrug it off. Fuck you, asshole. I don't know how people live in your area, but where I come from, you do not accuse a father of "bad parenting" and then try to shrug it off as no big deal, goddammit. Fuck you twice.

From what I understood, I thought you meant that you were, say, walking down a city sidewalk with your family. You all turn a corner. You and your family then see someone sitting down against a building wacking off. You would tell your kids to point at him and then mock him.

Since they're already looking at him, yes. If they haven't noticed, I'm not going to make a point of drawing their attention to him. What the fuck do you find so difficult to understand about this scenario?

Pointing and laughing usually requires you to look at something, so in effect you are telling them to look at him, when they might not have noticed it at all.

Where the fuck did you get the idea that I would draw their attention to it if they hadn't already noticed?

Now that I think about it, running would make them think something was wrong. I'd just put my hands over their eyes, and move on. I wouldn't even know how my wife would react, so I think the best thing to do is just move on as if nothing happened.

Then why would you clap your hands over your kids' eyes and rush them out of there as if the dogs of Hades are nipping at your heels? I advocate a nonchalant response if no one notices, or mockery if my kids see it and don't know how to react, so they will understand that it's no big deal. You, on the other hand, would turn it into a frightening event from their perspective, and then decide later whether or not to explain to them what horror you had to shield them from.

Aren't there institutions where they just have therapy and not necessarily put you in a stray jacket and a padded cell in confinement? I thought there were different types of institutions. Putting him in an institution where they have group therapy and all of that stuff hardly seems like an oppressive place to be.

You previously said "I don't think he should be locked up for doing it once. But for four years?! Then of course he should be". Now you implicitly agree that it would be "oppressive" to put him in confinement, regardless of whether the confinement facility is a jail or a mental hospital. Concession accepted.

You're right.

Serious psychiatric attention is needed..STAT!

[quote="Darth Wong" Masturbating is not a sin. Your elevation of masturbation from "private activity" to "sin" is entirely due to your religious upbringing, and has no foundation in universal human values. It is, however, a Christian value. Oman (sp) spilled his seed and was killed by God as a result, remember?
[/quote]

well, actually, oman was killed for not impregnating his dead brother's wife, as was the custom at the time. but just masturbating made you unclean for a week, then you were ok. I think. been a while since I read that. course, Jesus threw most of the unclean rules out, so it might be ok.

and, personally, I go with the song of soloman view of sex - keep your marriage bed pure, but once married, do as you well. some of the poetry there is quite interesting.

sides, are some parts of our bodies unclean? should I enjoy eating, but not orgasm? heh. they both sate my hunger, and we are obviously meant to enjoy it. . .

tho, back to the main point, I personally find public masturbation a touch icky. nothing religious or moral against it, I just think it gross. it could be that I've been raised to keep things like that private perhaps, but I dont think so, I am rather public in my affections to others. I just don't want to see some guy's ejaculate. . . same why I wouldn't want to see an extremely messy cold. slimy fluids over someone do not attract.

Enforcer Talen wrote:well, actually, oman was killed for not impregnating his dead brother's wife, as was the custom at the time. but just masturbating made you unclean for a week, then you were ok. I think. been a while since I read that. course, Jesus threw most of the unclean rules out, so it might be ok.

That depends on whether you go with Matthew ("Do not think that I have come to refute the law") or other interpretations. The Bible gives lots of leeway to interpret it however you wish.

tho, back to the main point, I personally find public masturbation a touch icky. nothing religious or moral against it, I just think it gross.

Of course you do. There's bodily fluids involved. If someone urinated in his chair at school, I'd find that pretty damned disgusting too. My only objection was to this notion that public masturbation is somehow so much worse than public urination.

well, actually, oman was killed for not impregnating his dead brother's wife, as was the custom at the time. but just masturbating made you unclean for a week, then you were ok. I think. been a while since I read that. course, Jesus threw most of the unclean rules out, so it might be ok.

That passage has been used for the basis of Catholicism's belief that all sexual contact must result in pregnancy. However, it's obvious that Onan's smiting was the result of his refusal to obey God. However, the case could be made that God doesn't like masturbation, given his numerous other sexual restrictions.

Jesus didn't throw the old rules out. He said that the old law had been "fulfilled," which leaves a space the size of a Mack truck open for interpretation. Some scholars think that "fulfilled" means nullified or finished. Others look at the whole passage, in which Jesus explicitly states that he has not come to abolish the old laws.

I think its time someone just closed this thread

Darth Wong wrote:

Enforcer Talen wrote:well, actually, oman was killed for not impregnating his dead brother's wife, as was the custom at the time. but just masturbating made you unclean for a week, then you were ok. I think. been a while since I read that. course, Jesus threw most of the unclean rules out, so it might be ok.

That depends on whether you go with Matthew ("Do not think that I have come to refute the law") or other interpretations. The Bible gives lots of leeway to interpret it however you wish.

tho, back to the main point, I personally find public masturbation a touch icky. nothing religious or moral against it, I just think it gross.

Of course you do. There's bodily fluids involved. If someone urinated in his chair at school, I'd find that pretty damned disgusting too. My only objection was to this notion that public masturbation is somehow so much worse than public urination.

that's the joy of reading a book that's centuries old and has had multiple interpretations. you can use it to justify any damn philosophy you want. I find most people make a moral system, then read a religious book to confirm their thoughts, whether is warm and fuzzy christianity, burn everything christianity, somewhere in between, or both.

I think people are more touchy about public masterbation than compared to urination in public, is because it is expected that such public display of sexual behavior should remain in private. It's just that there are a good number of people out there who are brought up in a home where masterbation is viewed as a dirty thing to do, or as a sin if they're religeous. I don't know whether this is accurate or not, but I remember reading somewhere that a while back, masterbation was viewed as unnatural thing to do, and was widely discouraged and punished for. I guess that notion carried on over time. Thoughts anyone?

Why is it that the wierdest people are the ones who distribute their genetic material most liberally?

SpacedTeddyBear wrote:I think people are more touchy about public masterbation than compared to urination in public, is because it is expected that such public display of sexual behavior should remain in private. It's just that there are a good number of people out there who are brought up in a home where masterbation is viewed as a dirty thing to do, or as a sin if they're religeous. I don't know whether this is accurate or not, but I remember reading somewhere that a while back, masterbation was viewed as unnatural thing to do, and was widely discouraged and punished for. I guess that notion carried on over time. Thoughts anyone?

In the 19th century, masturbation was viewed as a mortal sin, and many products were sold for the purpose of preventing masturbation. Historical trivia: Kellogg sold the original corn flakes as a "pure" food designed to keep a young man's mind on "wholesome" activities and not on physical pleasure. The word "wholesome" is still associated with breakfast food to this day, although the cereal was never commercially successful until after his death, when his brother altered the recipe by adding sugar, thus polluting its purity (good thing too; cornflakes without sugar is pretty damned boring for all of us sinful people).

Modern prohibitions against masturbation began largely in the 18th century. In 1758, a Swiss physician and advisor to the Vatican named Simon Tissot published a study called A Treatise on the Diseases Produced by Onanism (yes, Onan the Biblical "spilled seed" guy) which claimed that masturbation caused insanity and that sexual activity of all kinds was deleterious to human health. This started a literal anti-masturbation Victorian crusade, in which masturbation was seen as evil, an affront to God, etc.

In fact, Tissot published a list of X physical ailments that would result from excessive masturbation:

1. Acne
2. Backaches
3. Blindness
4. Constipation
5. Vomiting
6. Decay of bodily powers
7. Epilepsy
8. Gout
9. Infertility
10. Madness
11. Nymphomania
12. Use of profanity
13. Death

It was a lovely bit of "false cause" fallacious thinking: since they couldn't figure out what caused all of these ailments, and all sufferers masturbated, the ailments must have been caused by the masturbation (mind you, the same reasoning could have been applied to all sorts of other acts including breathing, but what do you expect from a doctor who's an advisor to the 18th century Vatican?).

The aforementioned founder of Kellogg also had a list of ways to spot masturbators (mind you, this guy was so repressed that it is rumoured he never consummated his marriage with his wife):

1. Rounded shoulders
2. Weak Back
3. Stiffness of the joints
4. Paleness
5. Acne
6. Heart palpitations
7. Fickleness
8. Bashfullness
9. Boldness
10. Confusion
11. Disgust at simple foods (like cornflakes)
12. Bed wetting
13. Nail Biting
14. Consumption-like symptoms
15. Untrustworthiness

People still joke about how masturbation will make you go blind to this day (now you know where it came from). So yes, I'd say people have some pretty fucked-up neuroses about masturbation. That's why public urinators are merely fined while public masturbators draw shrieks of "lock him up!", even though both bodily secretions are equally disgusting (perhaps urine is even more disgusting; more women are willing to take a man's semen in their mouths than a man's urine).

Darth Wong wrote: *snip*

Are you serious?! LMFAO! How far we have come. I wonder how they'd feel about frosted flakes, or even frosted chex!

Cornflakes are pretty good without suger. Well atleast after 14 or so years of sugery cereal.

anarchistbunny wrote:Cornflakes are pretty good without suger. Well atleast after 14 or so years of sugery cereal.

You're kidding, right? Just the flakes themselves....I can't just eat that. I've gotta add atleast some fruit or something sweet natured.

If you're going to eat cornflakes without sugar, have some cardboard instead. Lots of fiber. And how could grabbing yourself kill you? Could your semen have some sort of ly viral infection? Of course, back then, people made cures that involved a certain time of day, and advised pregnant woman not to eat chicken so their babies won't look like one.