Apparently we Americans don’t have a corner on wacky exhibitionism, because the U.K. just went through its first Masturbate-a-Thon. Frank Furedi recently wrote about it, critiquing both the event and the larger attitudes that he sees it stemming from.

I think Furedi makes some good points here, such as:

Marie Stopes International, one of the sponsors of Masturbate-a Thon, warns that ‘in our work all over the world, every day we see the consequences of fertile orgasms’. The denigration of the experience of a fertile orgasm expresses a profound sense of unease with human passion, particularly when it has life-creating consequences. Here, traditional prudishness is displaced by a far more lifeless dread of acting on spontaneous desire. …

Another of the sponsors of the Masturbate-a-Thon says they are proud to be associated with this ‘risk- and consequence-free method of sexual expression’. The promotion of ‘risk- and consequence-free’ behaviour represents a radically new moral outlook on the world. In previous times, moral codes were developed in part to assist people to evaluate the consequences of their actions. Such codes also sought to help human beings assume a sense of responsibility for what they did. In contrast, today some would seek to insulate people from activities that involve risks and consequences. Freeing us of the tyranny of risk and consequence is meant to protect us from the emotional turmoil that is associated with everyday life. In fact, it encourages the estrangement of people from one another. Solo-sex has no risks or consequences for the simple reason that it exists outside a relationship.

However, I think he goes overboard in responding, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!” For instance:

The message is that love needs to be rationed, and our passions must be curbed. ‘Too much love’ is said to lead to the many psychological illnesses associated with ‘co-dependency’. So it is claimed that parents who love too much produce dysfunctional children who will grow to be over-reliant on the approval of others. It is alleged that individuals who crave intimacy are not in touch with their own needs, and are likely to suffer from the psychological dysfunction of ‘sex addiction’. These health warnings, directed against the desire for intimacy, reveal one of the most unattractive features of therapy culture: its intense aversion to intimate, passionate and dependent relationships.

It makes quite a contrast to the book that Lynn has been blogging recently on this very subject (here and here.) I think that, like many critics of psychology, Furedi is conflating normal human behavior with its pathological extremes. I’m no expert on the subject but I thought the whole problem with sexual addiction is that it revolves around emotionally vacant sex, rather than the quest for “passion.” Similarly, many people get stuck in unhappy relationships for reasons other than love; as I commented on Lynn’s second post, my own experience was that I was looking for drama and meaning in my life that has been better provided by religion.

In fact, there is a “God-shaped hole” in both the event and Furedi’s response to it. Consider the concluding paragraph:

There is, of course, nothing new about warning individuals against the unrealistic expectation of romantic attachments. But what distinguishes today’s warnings is that they recast the desire for passionate love, the exhilaration of intimacy and the painful disappointment of losing an intimate partner as symptoms of a disease. But actually, those things are what our lives are all about. Instead of encouraging people to escape from such risks and passions, we should try living them instead.

I know some people who would disagree that this is “what our lives are all about,” and not because they think everybody should be wanking. Some time ago I wrote that romantic love has become a sort of idol in our culture, and for Furedi it seems to be the only sort of mystical experience there is. In fact, I think such mythologization of romance is an important counterpoint to the trends that Furedi is denouncing. He seems to think that falling madly in love repeatedly had always been the norm before the masturbation police came along, but historically that is not the case.

Another thing that seems off-kilter to me about the piece is Furedi’s acceptance of the idea that masturbation actually is a hermetically sealed event without consequences. From the article you’d never really know that anybody ever thinks about anything while they get off; but most people do, and I would venture to say they are mostly thinking about other people. I’ve heard it said, in fact, that the porn industry pretty much exists as a masturbational aid.

I’m undecided on whether masturbation is inherently a sin, but certainly this ersatz-social element has potential for sin. The porn industry itself is a pretty large and problematic consequence of masturbation. Also, though there’s much argument about the relation between people’s fantasies and their real lives, I think there is a connection, and it raises questions like (for instance) what effect does it have to get used to being totally in control of your sexual satisfaction, apart from the usual give-and-take of intercourse?

It’s also evidence of what an innately social species we are that whoever organized the Masturbate-a-Thon took a “solitary vice” and turned it into a big communal event. I really do not understand the appeal of participating, but I must say it feels a bit like a grown-up version of a competitive teenage circle jerk — I mean, someone walking around with a clipboard tallying up your orgasms? Yeah, this is really all about public health.