masturbation

"What's the Appeal of the 'Money Shot?'" Opinonz I Haz Them

Thu, 2012-01-19 21:38

Photo by Flickr user Universal Pops. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photo by Flickr user Universal Pops. Used under a Creative Commons license.

So for their regular weekly Wise Guys feature Em & Lo asked for answers to a reader's question: "What’s the appeal of the “money shot?" Although I'm one of their Wise Guy contributors the question didn't pop up in my rotation. But I did leave a comment. Em & Lo were then nice enough to make it their comment of the week this week.

So once again the question was "What’s the appeal of the “money shot?" Here's what I said.

I’m not even stepping into the whole “facial” business. I’ll just point out Charlie Glickman’s thoughts from a post that arrived in my newsreader moments before this one.

Instead I’ll just say I think the “money shot” is a seriously stupid dual artifact of porn. First, in the production of porn it’s just way more convenient to towel semen off skin than out of bodily orifices and therefore it’s more cost effective. This is why, at least early on, it was the low-budget porn shops that did money shots rather than the well-heeled ones. Second, for decades, anyway, porn was primarily an aid for male masturbation and so, I think, money shots are a way to help watchers identify with male actors.

I really think the masturbation element is key. Yes, you’ll occasionally see men’s parters “finishing” them off, but for the vast, vast, vast majority of cases the man essentially stops interacting physically with his partner, steps back a ways, and basically jacks off.

Again, fine if you’re at home alone. But seems to me sort of the whole point of sex with a partner is to have sex with them… not just on them.

Now, that said, don’t get me wrong. If you’re both into it (and increasing numbers of both men and women seem to be) and it’s all good clean fun for both of you then great. Lots of great things about “sex” don’t actually involve sex.

Also, that said, another name for “money shots” is “the withdrawal method.” And while nothing in life is certain, when ejaculation occurs outside a partner’s body it at best reduces the odds of pregnancy and STI transmission and even at worst it evens them out between the semen donor and semen receiver. So that’s ok too.

But at the end of the day, for me, the physical pleasure reduction of orgasm via masturbation rather than with a partner isn’t worth whatever symbolic enjoyment it seems to bring other people.

So, again for me, thanks but no thanks.

Source: Em & Lo

Note: I shared the comment-of-the-week slot with fellow Wise Guy pinch-hitter Mark Luczak, who seems to share my assessment.

Kate McComb on Letting Our Fingers Do the Walking... and Other Ways to Say It

Wed, 2011-08-24 22:50

Photo by Flickr user spike55151. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesy
Photo by Flickr user spike55151. Used under a Creative Commons license.Photo by Flickr user spike55151. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesyPhoto by Flickr user spike55151. Used under a Creative Commons license.XXXX" class="imagecache-Normal" />

Kate McCombs says

Sometimes “hand jobs” get a bad rap. “Intercourse’s [or a blow job’s] poor cousin,” some people say. And as it applies to women, “fingering,” while an accurate descriptor for some vulva/vagina stimulation activities, evokes a rapid in-out motion of finger-in-vagina, which is insufficient for most women to to experience orgasm. The phrase often invoked to bring some legitimacy to the act, “mutual masturbation,” brings to mind more routine self-pleasure rather than the exchange of delicious, playful climaxes. Despite the negative press, the manual pleasuring of your partner’s sexy bits can be a delightful addition to your sexual repertoire. Variety is, after all, the spice of (sex) life.

Source: Debby Herbenick's My Sex Professor

I'm really not sure why we're so quick to pooh-pooh manual pleasuring, although as McCombs laments, compared to almost every other kind of sex act there are very few euphemisms for it and few of those make it sound either interesting, desirable, or very pleasurable.

Which is a shame because while like pretty much everything else about sex it takes time and practice but, once taken, the results can be elegant, intimate, erotic, and eye-rollingly enjoyable.

I mean, seriously, to the extent we're able to use our hands* is there any limit to the situations our hands can't be central to?  We already use our hands for timid first-time explorations, for gleefully surreptitious mischief, for foreplay, for massage, and for even the most operatic moments of domination and submission.  And as I pointed out years ago in Giving everybody a warm round of (self) applause "let's get over even the faintest fantasy that women's orgasms from hands-free intercourse are 'normal' or 'real' orgasms.  Nor should we forget about using our hands on ourselves to show our partners what we enjoy.  And while we're at it let's remember that very often our partners are able to take their own pleasure seeing, or at least knowing, when we touch ourselves.

And finally, while McComb is careful to point out that there are some illnesses that can be transmitted hand to hand, she also reminds us that while hands are a great way to transmit pleasure to each other, they really are a remarkably safe way to minimize transmitting other things.

Anyway, point is, rather than look at... darn it all I really want more vocabulary for this... rather than look at "manual stimulation" as high-school substitutes for "real thing" activities we should recognize and embrace what we can do with them, in bed and... elsewhere.

* It would be ableist to assume that everybody has uses of their hands.

Photo by Flickr user spike55151. Cached as a bandwidth-conserving courtesyPhoto by Flickr user spike55151. Used under a Creative Commons license.XXXX" class="imagecache-Normal" />

You Don't Really Need Evolution to Explain Sexting... Which Is Good Because It Only Emerged About Twelve Years Ago

Sun, 2011-06-12 20:15

Sungold uses reactions to the Rep. Weiner cybersex scandal to emphasize a far more "scandalous" but actually utterly mundane fact about "sexting." (emphasis mine)

I wouldn’t be able to give [reporters asking for a gender-studies take] a pat explanation, because I think that masculine sexual entitlement isn’t the whole story. We all have an unruly id. Men aren’t the only folks playing at sex on the Internet. Every hetero man playing around in the vast cyber sex emporium is interacting with female partners (or at least, so he thinks).

Source: Kittywampus

Yes.  Yup.  Yeah, exactly!  Whatever one might think of Weiner himself (I'm generally forgiving but not at all about to forget) the behavior he actually engaged in was by all (or possibly all but one) accounts step-wise consensual and/or reciprocally escalated.

But how, sez all the knee-squeezing twits who reflexively think "hurr hurr they said 'weiner,'" could that possibly happen if people with lady parts were involved?  Sungold has a suggestion that will shock them even further.

Mainstream practitioners of ev psych systematically avoid theorizing about pleasure. It’s all about “reproductive success.” And yet, the quest for pleasure is by far the more parsimonious explanation for Weiner’s actions. What’s more, it even explains his partners’ actions! Weiner and his partners were looking to get off. They wanted the thrill of being wanted. They enjoyed the thrill enough to risk (or repress) the potential for embarrassment, should they be caught out. Of course it’s true that Weiner, as a congressman, had more to lose, but the women have also been dragged through the mud in ways that were foreseeable. They, too, took a risk.

Shocking I know.  But there you go.  Lady parts don't get wet when you drop a quarter in them (the "women need a reason, men just need a place" theory), or when they think they're going to get a baby (the hysterical womb theory) or even just for their husbands (the monogamous "what evolution does to keep the offspring's father around the house" theory.)

Instead I have it on very good authority (on average more than 103.4 million authorities in the United States alone) that lady parts get wet when women get horny.  And on average when they get horny it feels really, really good when someone rubs their lady parts just right or (gasp!) when they do it to themselves!  And on average stuff like consensual, reciprocally escalated online flirting, sexting, and phone cyber sex makes women horny, which makes them wet, which makes it feel even better when they rub their lady parts.

Hmm... wouldn't it be funny if you had to lay out a similar case to explain why men like online flirting, sexting, and phone- and cybersex?

Now to respond fairly to the field Sungold is interrogating, yes, the fact that rubbing your own lady- or gentleman is really pleasurable is probably a byproduct of evolution.  But only in the same way the hair on our heads grows in such a way that we can enjoy looking at it when we part it in the middle is a byproduct of evolution: as a byproduct of some other probably-more-critical function.

But trying to explain why our drives to reproduce is directly rather than very-indirectly responsible for our appreciation of parting our hair in the middle or rubbing our own parts, without using a general (no-doubt evolved) ability to hack our gene expressions for pure personal enjoyment is going to be a fool's chase.

Hmm... to digress even further, an even better example of the general phenomenon of hacking might be that many people like Jagermeister despite the fact that eons ago our animal ancestors evolved a kind of taste bud that identifies poisonous alkaloids as bitter.  We evolved the taste buds to avoid eating poisonous plants and minerals, but since we're flexible enough to hack taste-bud expression we're able to take pleasure from the flavor of Jagermeister.

To get back on track, anyway, Sungold's right that the general, non-sex-specific drive to create pleasurable sensations from direct stimulation of nerve endings, regardless of their original "purpose" goes way farther to explain why men and women sext and cybersex each other than any amount of speculation about seed spreading or husband retention.

Paradox of Paper Cuts and Plastic Creates an Intriguing Hitachi Magic Wand / Tenga Egg Mashup

Tue, 2010-11-30 00:13

Paradox of Paper Cuts and Plastic finds a great off-label use for a male-masturbation product. It relates to a widely-experienced but little-mentioned hassle with a legendary sex toy used mainly by women.

I got a Tenga Egg from Good Vibrations!

You might be asking yourself why I would choose a male masturbator as my first toy to review. You might be thinking that I do not have a bio cock (although I do have a few less-sensate ones in my drawer at home) and therefore might not be able to write a detailed review of this kind of product. You might then conclude that I’ve used it with one of my male partners, but you’d actually be wrong!

Source: Paper Cuts and Plastic

The legendary sex toy, of course, is the Hitachi Magic Wand
. It’s been around for years. They were the primary learning tool in Betty Dodson’s masturbation workshops for decades. Genuinely countless women say the Magic Wand gave them their first orgasms, sometimes when nothing else from hands to partners to prayer had worked before.

The widely-experienced but little-mentioned hassle, though, is that while it’s well designed and of course perfectly, perfectly safe, they’re made with the same electric motor Hitachi puts in its consumer-grade electric sanders! (Hitachi being better known around the world for its construction tools and kitchen appliances than its one-and-only sex aid.) Consequently their vibrations are very intense.

Intense enough that, like Paradox, most of the women I know who use them at least started out using them through clothes (don’t ask how I know tight jeans work well) or folded towels or, when even that’s too intense, folded pillows!

Turns out that Tenga Eggs (a very stretchy plastic-gel single-use penis stimulator I probably ought to try some day) can be stretched over the vibrating end of a Magic Wand. Once in place the very soft, jiggly egg material buffers the vibrations enough to permit direct clitoral contact.

The downside for most people would be the Egg’s single-use construction and relatively high price ($7-$10 each.) And since there are a number of after-market attachments for the Magic Wand I’m guessing you might find a more permanent but still impact-buffering solution at Babeland or other quality sex-toy shops.

But worth a try.

Quick questions: What’s been your experience with Hitachi-style wand vibrators? Do you go for direct contact? (I know some people can handle it right away and many more work up to it.) Do you use padding? How about turning it around and “riding” the relatively less-intense handle (as one person I know does)? Did you have your first orgasm with one? Is it still the only one that works for you?

My Reply for the Question "Why Do Men Deny Masturbating?" For Em and Lo's Wise Guy Feature

Tue, 2010-09-28 10:25

Photo 'WTF, Mate' by Flickr User Afroswede, cached as a bandwidth courtesy
Photo by Flickr user Afroswede. Used under a Creative Commons license.

I’m an occasional subject-matter expert for Em & Lo’s popular Wise Guys feature. This week the question was “Why do some men — single, married, in relationships, straight, gay, bisexual, etc. — deny masturbating?”

Here’s how I answered

Straight Married Guy (Figleaf): Until maybe very recently, nearly all depictions of male masturbation have made it seem like the most disgustingly pervy, unhealthy, immature, and (worst of all) desperate thing a man can do. For instance, think about the archetypical dirty old man in a trench coat, or the loser characters in Fast Times at Ridgemont High or Something About Mary.

When men in relationships do it, they or their partners often see it as “cheating.” Theologically, masturbation has been held to be a worse sin (a mortal sin with automatic damnation) than rape (a venal sin that can be repented!).  Medically, masturbation was until very recently believed, no kidding, to lead to insanity and early death. Legally, it’s historically been punished the same way sodomy was — with floggings, branding, and even hanging! Politically, just a few years ago the U.S. Surgeon General was fired for suggesting it was okay for adolescents to learn about in sex ed. Even today, the fact that every heterosexual porn scene ends with the male actors rubbing out a “money shot” doesn’t make us feel more like admitting it. And that’s just the short answer!

In retrospect, all that hoopla to discourage male masturbation seems foolish, as does the similar discouragement women got. Even though the stigma’s evaporating pretty quickly, it’s understandable that a lot of men — and a lot of women — are still reluctant to admit to it.

Read the quote in context here.

We all sent in our answers to this round of questions well before this year’s Delaware Senate primary catapulted ‘winger candidate Christine O’Donnell’s stance against masturbation became a national punchline. But her pronouncements… and even their nervous reception… strongly support my answer. O’Donnell’s opinions against it would have been absolute conventional wisdom as recently as the 1960s.

Mainstream Media Needs to Focus on the Heart of Conservative's Anti-Sex Agenda, Not Its Anti-Masturbation Sideshows

Sat, 2010-09-11 13:11

So the other day twit-o-sphere is all a tweet about Delaware Senate Candidate Christine O’Donnell’s record of discouraging masturbation. And that really is ridiculous. Thing is, while O’Donnell’s MTV-era anti-masturbation activism might be what all the buzz is about, it was just a superficial gloss Kathleen Reeves of RHReality Check used to introduce deeper issues at the heart of the nominally conservative pro-ignorance, pro-denial agenda:

Her campaign against masturbation was only the beginning of a lifelong assault on human well-being. She opposed President Bush’s restrictions on stem-cell research on the grounds that they were not restrictive enough, and she argued that sex education would cause us to become blasé about sexual predators. This last argument is a particularly helpful illumination of the conservative position on sexuality: this aspect of being a human is dirty and shameful and deserving of punishment. Healthy sex or even just sex education is not distinguished from sexual molestation.

This kind of repression and denial is, of course, what gets people into trouble: we’re not really having sex so let’s not use a condom; we weren’t supposed to have sex so let’s abandon the baby in a trash can.

Read the quote in context here.

That sounds about right. For all their talk about “protecting the unborn,” or “protecting maidenly virtue” or even “avoiding oxytocin exhaustion” the real end results are higher risks, more stress, increased but inappropriate use of sex as leverage and use of leverage to obtain sex, and even graver “sins.”

But masturbation sounds funny and it’s a little embarrassing to talk about so let’s all squeeze our knees and have a nice nervous giggle about that small element of their equally ridiculous but even more dangerous agenda.

Research Suggests That After a 50-Year Gap Vibrators Are Once Again Common As Toasters and Coffee-Makers

Wed, 2009-07-01 19:09


Photo by Flickr user figleaf (hey, that’s me.) Used under a Creative Commons license.

Dodai of Jezebel says

Something Once Regarded As Exotic Has Become Commonplace

“According to the first academic, peer-reviewed studies of vibrator use, it is nearly as common an appliance in American households as the drip coffee maker or toaster oven.”

She said it here.

By coincidence at almost the exact moment she posted her piece I was reviewing a photo I’d taken in the Electricity Hall at the Smithsonian’s Museum of American History during our recent family vacation in Washington, D.C. The photo was of a bunch of early American home appliances. Among them were now-100-year-old fans, toasters, waffle irons, and mixers from the turn of the 20th Century. But, oddly, no 100-year-old vibrators.

Which might not sound like much of an omission.

Except that, as Rachel Maines meticulously detailed in The Technology of Orgasm: “Hysteria,” the Vibrator, and Women’s Sexual Satisfaction (Johns Hopkins Studies in the History of Technology), electric-motor driven vibrators were among the first mass-produced appliances sold in American homes.

The electrification of the home proceeded rapidly after the introduction of electric lights in 1878, and predictably, women were significant consumers of electric appliances. The first home appliance to be electrified was the sewing machine, in 1889, followed in the next ten years by the fan, the teakettle, the toaster, and the vibrator. The last preceded the electric vacuum cleaner by some nine years, the electric iron by ten, and the electric frying pan by more than a decade, possibly reflecting consumer priorities.

...

A one-liner in the June 1908 Review of Reviews ... cautions readers against “imprudence” and “excess in action” when using vibrators…

...

Women were advised [in advertising] that the “American [brand] Vibrator … can be used by yourself in the privacy of dressing room or boudoir, and furnishes every woman with the very essence of perpetual youth.”

Source: Pgs.100-103

Oh yeah, and

During the first two decades of [the 20th Century], the vibrator began to be marketed as a home appliance through advertising in such periodicals as … Modern Woman, Hearst’s McClure’s, Woman’s Home Companion, and Modern Pricilla. The device was marketed mainly to women as a health and relaxation aid, in ambiguous phrases such as “all the pleasures of yought… will throb within you.” When marketed to men, vibrators were recommeded as gifts for women that would benefit the male givers by restoring bright eyes and pink cheeks to their female consorts. ... An especially versatile vibrator line was illustrated in the Sears, Roebuck and Company Electrical Goods catalog for 1918. [An] advertisement headed “Aids That Every Woman Appreciates” shows a vibrator attachment for a home motor that also drove attachments for churning, mixing, beating, grinding, buffing, and operating a fan.”

Source: Pgs 19-20

In other words, contrary to Dodai’s sources as appliances go the electric toaster predated the vibrator but not the coffee maker.

The slip-up seems natural because just a few years later Freud came along and the 2500 year old practice of treating “hysteria” massaging the vulva to the point of “hysterical paroxysm” was replaced by… talk therapy to treat “frigidity” and “nymphomania,” leaving women between roughly 1925 and 1975 largely in the lurch.

Hot Sex Without Holding Hands

Mon, 2009-04-20 17:53

Kink In Exile tackles head on the masturbation question that’s been percolating around the intertubes (and, obviously, in real life) recently

Someone did in fact ask why it might be hard for some people to orgasm with a partner if most of their orgasms have been through masturbation. I should first clarify that question to say “...if they can masturbate to orgasm successfully.”

...

The way people masturbate is often different from the mechanics of partnered sex. You may have learned to masturbate in an environment of secrecy and so you do it quickly, but find that partnered sex doesn’t allow you to reach that tempo. Or maybe you find an angle from which to approach your own genitals that feels soo good, but is harder to do with partnered sex. Your body gets used to the way you’ve been getting it off and expects that kind of contact; you change things up, don’t go fast enough, or don’t hit the right spots and suddenly it doesn’t work. Keep in mind also that many women can’t orgasm from vaginal penetration alone. So what do you do? Pay attention to how you masturbate, how your partnered sex looks and what physical differences exist there in. You can then try masturbating in a way that is more reflective of partnered sex or adding toys to partnered sex to make sure you’re hitting all the right spots.

She said it here.

There’s been a fair amount of conversation lately about the merits and demerits of masturbation as it relates to partnered sex. Given that masturbation is now effectively mainstream… as is conversation about sexual function and dysfunction… it’s a good time to talk about integrating solo and partner sex competency instead of imagining they are or should be separate.

At least for women back in the 1970s Shere Hite announced a strong correlation between learned masturbation position and, I think, orgasms during intercourse. (Darn it I’m probably going to have to look it up now.) Anyway, I distinctly remember her saying something about women who learned to masturbate in face-down or curled-up, upper-legs-crossed positions having difficulty and thinking yeah, that could be a problem. Although that was so long ago now that rear-entry intercourse was still largely considered a (demeaning, intimacy-avoiding) kink.

I had a little epiphany about sex and masturbation a couple of years ago, based on remarks from someone who said she never got off on intercourse and so she’d wait till her partner was asleep and then masturbate really surreptitiously. That experience was probably more unusual for men but since the advent of Prozac and other anti-depressants many men need a manual override to have orgasms during partner sex as well. There’s also, as you hint, a bit of a subculture among young men (at least) who might fantasize madly about whoever they’re oriented to… but in practice prefer the pace and, possibly, the auto-focus of masturbation. Oh, and finally, there are any number of people in kink who don’t care for or who even actively dislike, say, being beaten black and blue while it’s happening,_ who nevertheless get off hard in anticipation, on recollection, or both. So my epiphany was that we ought to get over the idea that we ought to reconsider not just the 70’s notion of “simultaneous orgasms” as ideal but the idea that intercourse is the “right” way to have orgasms at all.

The key, though — one that Hite missed or disregarded in her post — is that just because you develop one set of neural pathways to orgasm (through this position or that sensation) it doesn’t mean that’s the only way you’ll ever be able to do it. The obstacle, at least physically, is that it can take almost as long to grow the nerve pathways as it did to learn the first way. That’s fine if you mix it up while learning (something Betty Dodson talked about at least in her workshops.) It’s harder if you learn on the sly, if you’re uncomfortable or in denial about doing it at all, or if you get the idea (from porn, say, or bible-study classes) that it’s supposed to be this way instead of one’s own way. Or, preferably, ways.

None of this is to say orgasms during partnered sex is bad (in fact, as they say in the blogosphere, “heh.”) It’s just that as Kink In Exile points out, if you’re pretty good at having them by yourself, and if neither you nor your partner are brow-beaten and/or drum-beaten into being embarrassed that it might be so. And while I’d never make promises, who knows? Given that expectation stress and performance anxiety are major buzzkills, not worrying about it might even improve one’s odds with one’s partners.

See also:

If you’re an adult you can click here to see a probably-not-work-safe image.

Grist.org and Babeland.com Team Up to Promote Non-Novelty Sex Tools For Valentine's Day

Thu, 2009-02-12 12:24

So. You probably wouldn’t be surprised to learn that sex toys are called “toys” instead of, say, sex appliances or masturbation devices for a reason. Nor would you be surprised to learn they’re called toys, or, more specifically, “novelty items” specifically because so many jurisdictions either explicitly or implicitly regulate commercial activities anything having to do with sex, let alone anything having to do with masturbation.

Ironic, then, that whereas the sale of sex devices are heavily regulated around the country (until very recently they were flat illegal in Texas) the manufacture of “novelty items” isn’t regulated at all. With the classic twittery vs. substance consequence that many such toys contain toxic and/or carcinogenic chemicals that would be prohibited if they were sold for actual use!

What? You actually use your vibrators, dildos, butt plugs, sleeves, and other items instead of having a good laugh at their novelty and then chucking them out? Who knew?!?!? :-)

That’s where Grist comes in. They’ve teamed up with Babeland to promote a funny, disarming video that both mocks the lack of safety in some products and promotes healthier, and hotter (njoy vibrators and glass dildos anyone?) alternatives.

“>

This isn’t Grist’s first foray into eco-friendly sex advice. See also

Hat tip to Jennifer Prediger

Shameful Behavior

Wed, 2009-02-04 18:00


Photo by Flickr user amanky. Used under a Creative Commons license.

Jessica Valenti of Feministing rightly mocks an “ex-masturbator” clothing line from a group called Passion for Christ Movement. (They also have shirts and sweatshirts that say “ex-slave,” “ex-diva,” and “ex-fornicator.”)

From their promotional material a testimonial from one of the ex-masturbators begins…

Two things I’ve come to know about masturbation is this:
1. It brings shame, and…

Read the quote in context, and follow the links, here.

It doesn’t really matter much what number 2 is. In recent decades both a) not wearing fur and b) wearing fur have brought shame. In recent decades both a) nursing an infant and b) not nursing an infant has brought shame. Shaving one’s body hair brings shame. So does not shaving one’s body hair. Same with gastric bypass surgery(?!?) Same with having a cell phone. Definitely same with cunnilingus (compare the 1960s and 70’s) and fellatio (compare the 1970s with the 2000s.) Mental illness used to be dreadfully shameful, not just to the individual but to their entire family. Now it’s not. Cancer, for reasons that escape me, used to be almost as shameful. It hasn’t been for years. Soap companies want to make it shameful that you don’t use their soap. Teeth-whitener companies shame you for not whitening your teeth. It used to be shameful to have ring around the collar… and for all I know may still be. Before the great depression it “brought shame” for women to work outside the house… then through World War II it wasn’t… and then it was… and now it isn’t. Heck, until Inauguration day 1961 it was shameful for a man to go outside unless he was wearing… wait for it… a hat! And as recently as Sept. 1, 2008 it was shameful for one’s daughter to have a baby out of wedlock… until the people most inclined to shame out of wedlock birth decided it was hunky-dory and maybe even lucky, plucky and heroic.

And what do all those things have in common? All those things were shameful till someone decided they weren’t. And in all those cases shame was what? A social construct. And no, not the post-modernist/deconstructionist construct I mean constructed construct: a collective and alterable public decision.

So… should anyone feel ashamed about masturbation? Duh, no. Should anyone feel ashamed for not masturbating? Duh, no. Just like stupid is as stupid does (gee, why did that aphorism come to mind?) so shame is as shame does.

Does anybody who says yes to either of the above have a shred of moral authority? Duh, no.

The sin of pride being no less deadly than the sin of gluttony it’s hard to ascribe moral authority for anyone claiming that salvation lies only through mortification… let alone bragging about it.

User login