The M Word

Dave Pollard's environmental philosophy, creative works, business papers and essays.
In search of a better way to live and make a living, and a better understanding of how the world really works.

The M Word

dave's bed by melisa christensen
Sketch, Dave's Bed, by Melisa Christensen
Masturbation is a lot like modern video games. Both activities are solo substitutes for what are normally social activities. Both of them are fun and release pleasurable hormones. Both of them require some imagination. Both of them are somewhat addictive, and doing too much of either to the exclusion of other activities is socially discouraged. Both of them are frowned at by many as being anti-social. Neither should be engaged in while operating a moving vehicle or other machinery. The idea of teaching proficiency in either as part of a school curriculum engenders outrage.

What's different about them? Masturbation is healthier (a bit more exercise and a bit less stress), and done by many non-human species (pigs have been, however, shown to be remarkably adept at video games, with the right reward). Playing video games in public is socially acceptable. Video games arguably improve manual coordination and reflexes. Churches don't consider (to my knowledge) playing video games to be sinful.

So why the double standard? Why is it that playing video games in public is considered perfectly acceptable, while masturbation in public is not only considered extremely anti-social, but is illegal? Is it because masturbation is assumed to be directed at someone else, and therefore considered a form of psychological assault on that person? Doubtful, since if a blind, or blindfolded person were to do it in public it would be considered no less outrageous. And it's not about nudity – doing it without exposing oneself, or doing it at a place where public nudity is acceptable, is still completely unacceptable. We consider the act, in public and even in private, to be somewhat pathetic. It is a more egregious act, to be sure, than eating alone in public, but eating alone is similarly considered somewhat pathetic: S/he couldn't find anyone to do it with – what a loser s/he must be! That perception is principally what keeps us from teaching masturbation at home and in schools: If we were to do so (and assuming we could erase the stigma) it would, I think, make a lot of young people happier, less dependent on others, increase their self-esteem, make them less likely to put up with unsatisfactory, selfish or incompatible sexual partners, and probably reduce the incidence of STDs.

So why does this stigma exist? Why is masturbation considered pathetic? Things are the way they are for a reason. No matter that all the studies suggest that people who have more sex with partners also masturbate more, not less.

I think the answer to this question is somewhat complex. It is a consequence of two phenomena, one instinctive and one cultural, learned. The instinctive phenomenon is: Social activities are best done with other people, not alone. This is Darwinian, and probably universal in the animal kingdom. We are social creatures because we succeed better in groups than as isolated individuals. Ergo, we instinctively look for company in all activities where that company confers advantage. We eat together because we can look out for predators. We sleep together to conserve heat and to protect each other. We talk together because collective learning benefits our ability to survive and adapt. We hunt (work) together because we can accomplish more together than alone, whether that be cornering prey or brainstorming approaches to a work problem. These social occasions therefore become bonding experiences and become selected for. So ultimately, we instinctively prefer to do these things together. When we eat, sleep, work, talk or have sex by ourselves, alone, it just seems somehow wrong. When we do these solitary activities in public it seems doubly so. There are some things that can be done socially but are not instinctive social imperatives because doing them in groups confers no great advantage: singing and other arts, playing, walking (with a destination in mind) and peeing come to mind. There is hence no stigma to doing these things alone.

The cultural phenomenon is: Self-restraint is a virtue. We live in an horrifically overcrowded world of ruthless hierarchy and manufactured scarcity. For nearly 7 billion humans to live and work at close quarters we need to behave unnaturally, with great restraint. Those who fail to show such restraint are socially shunned (or jailed). We wear uniforms, or at least conservative clothing, to conceal our diversity and suppress the temptation for strong reactions to others' bodies. We follow social rules of behaviour including rules of 'politeness', rules of the road, and a thousand others, all reinforcing the need for self-restraint so we do not easily offend or hurt others. This suits the upper levels of hierarchy perfectly, since it breeds conformity and obedience, making us 'everybody else', so those with money and power invest both to reinforce the need for self-restraint. When it comes to things we 'must' do -- eat, sleep, have sex -- self-restraint dictates that these things be done with decorum or (as with sleeping and sex) when this is impossible, in private. Self-restraint also dictates that these things be done as rarely as absolutely necessary, and hence overeating and obesity, sleeping in, and masturbation, are stigmatized as unrestrained excesses suggesting weakness of character.

Put these two together and our aversion to masturbation of any kind (and to doing so in public especially) is understandable.

The problem is that we have now muddled the two -- the instinctive preference for social over solo activities and the cultural preference for restrained over uninhibited activities -- together. Our instincts are who we are, and, I believe, cannot be changed. We would have these instinctive reactions even if we were to grow up alone or in an 'uncivilized' culture.

But our culture is learned, and, while it is difficult to change, it is not impossible, especially if we perceive it is to our advantage to do so. I would argue that the cultural preference for restraint serves to subvert us more than to help us self-manage. It is in the interest of the rich and powerful that we be subdued, but I do not think it is in the interest of the rest of us. It is contrary to our nature to be inhibited and self-restrained. And, for the most part, in an egalitarian society, it is largely unnecessary.

So what we need to do is separate the instinctive from the cultural component, and declare cultural war on self-restraint. What does that mean? It means realizing that in our modern society, eating alone is often necessary, and should be de-stigmatized -- restaurant tables for one, resealable food containers, etc. It means renewing the fight against uniforms and making nudity legal and socially acceptable. And it means encouraging parents to teach their kids that it's just fine to masturbate, as much and as often as they like, and how to do it, and getting that message reinforced in the schools. (That idea got Clinton's Surgeon-General fired, if you recall.)

So far, the only champions for this idea have been musicians like Cindi Lauper (thanks to David Jones for the link) and Madonna, and the real fanatics at the annual masturbate-a-thons. We should make masturbation as socially acceptable as video games, though we're probably not ready for public displays yet. Bonobos, apparently, use it as a stress-buster, and our society could sure use an alternative to mind-numbing drugs for that. Hell, maybe an epidemic of masturbation might reduce the amount of violence and war in the world, mellow us all out, make us better lovers (and less tolerant of sexual abuse), reduce STDs, increase our self-esteem, and improve our imagination.

And it's not even fattening.