The Mastery of Self - Control
Tuesday, May 31, 2011 Update of This Page
The great student of the mind, Sigmund Freud, was not a mature adult in understanding. There is a power greater than the drive for sexual gratification. In modern times, many, especially many young people, have been brainwashed by society and the media into thinking that the drive for sexual gratification is the strongest power in social interactions.
Principles of Sexual Karate
Note that these principles apply even if you are an agnostic or atheist. This is because these principles are valid under the “Equitheism Principle,” which is explicitly or implicitly accepted by all sane people. Equitheism says that the universe unfolds in accordance with the existence or virtual existence of God. By the way, we are theists; we believe in the existence of God.
Warning: Do not fail to apply all of the principles!
Exposure to too much sexual sights and/or sounds can temporarily disrupt a person’s ability to refrain from sexual activity. What constitutes too much exposure varies from one person to another and, for each person, from one situation to another. Therefore, one must not be guided by what other people think is not too much exposure and by what they, themself, think is not too much exposure. One must always aim for zero exposure. For some people, society will make it impossible for them to achieve this goal. For these people, their success lies in 10% or less exposure.
Abstinence from sexual activity is easy with the proper planning.
Autoeroticism (masturbation) is the handling of the most private parts of one’s body accompanied by the imagining and/or viewing of unclad display. The Bible says that one should not choose or virtually choose to imagine and/or view unclad display of anyone other than their spouse. Our extensive research shows that everyone can refrain from sexual intercourse but that some people might not be able to refrain from private autoeroticism (autoeroticism in a private setting). We believe that this inability to refrain from autoeroticism in a private setting found in some people might be genuine and not just the result of self-deception resulting from the need for sexual relief. Therefore, we believe that no one should be judged by anyone for engaging in private autoeroticism. Note that tentative (uncertain) evidence of inability to refrain from private autoeroticism is, among other things, reported to be absence of intention during the act. Another is unawareness of the significance, which is the fact of indirect choice, of the use of ability to carry out a given plan. Another is absence of options. Again, these are all tentative (uncertain) evidence of inability to refrain from private autoeroticism.
Now it is interesting, and we believe informative, to note that God (the Bible) is silent about the physical activity involved in autoeroticism. Onan is not an example of the physical activity involved in autoeroticism. This is obvious from the fact that he was with his wife.† The Apostle Paul (the Bible) tells us that, when God was silent, the Apostle Paul used his own judgment in determining what was right. On this basis, mature adults have the right to judge for themselves whether the physical activity involved in autoeroticism is right or not. However, remember that no one should choose or virtually choose to imagine and/or view unclad display of anyone other than their spouse. In other words, choosing or virtually choosing to engage in the mental activity involved in autoeroticism cannot be right unless the object of the mental activity is one’s spouse.
One may never surrender to a morally unequipped state. That is, a morally unequipped state may never be used as a basis for planning and/or as a basis for action. Examples of a morally unequipped state include:
· Absence of intention
· Unawareness of indirect choice through the use of ability to carry out a given plan
· Absence of options
The reason one may never surrender to a morally unequipped state is that morally unequipped states are never conclusively real. This is called “special inconclusiveness.” Morally unequipped states are never conclusively real because the immediate future always holds the possibility of ability.
If an unrighteous (bad) act is involuntary, God (the Bible) says it is still a sin (moral shortfall). God may show mercy for such a sin. God does not assuredly show mercy because people need special inconclusiveness (see Defiance Principle above) more than they need mercy assuredness. However, God more often provides mercy assuredness to the morally dedicated.
One can never know that they are resisting sin to the best of their ability. This is because God places special inconclusiveness (see Defiance Principle above) above optimal resistance knowledge.
A person can never know with certainty that they are doing their best to refrain from sinful sexual activity. The reason for this is that the immediate future always holds the possibility of greater ability.
A person can never know with certainty that they are doing the best they can to refrain from sinful sexual activity. The reason of this is that the immediate future always holds the possibility of greater ability.
There is never a loophole in God’s (the Bible’s) moral principles that gives you freedom to engage in sinful sexual activity (or any other type of sinful activity for that matter). The reason for this is that the immediate future always holds the possibility of positive moral ability.
When a person is sufficiently aroused they enter a state of disinhibition. In this state, their capacity for internal, psychical restraint may temporarily, largely dissolve. Note the word “largely.” We do not know that this dissolution is 100%. At such a time, the only restraint that might be possible is external, physical restraint. If so, one should simply seek to engage in some other physical activity.
Now, when the disinhibition is extensive enough, one may be largely, internally, psychically “locked into” the sinful activity. Note the word “largely.” We do not know that this locking is 100%. Now, we strongly believe a person will still retain external, physical capacity to simply relax. (We are still researching whether the external, physical capacity to simply relax is a matter of fact and not only a matter of our strong belief. We will let you know what we learn.) This simple relaxation may be their only conscious defense against the sinful activity while they are in a state of “extensive disinhibition.” (Deep, technical, implicit and explicit discussions of disinhibition will be found in some of our earlier articles [see below]).
Disinhibition Principle Update
Our research has established that a person retains external, physical capacity to simply relax for a period of time while in an “XD state,” an extensive disinhibition state. We have not documented any permanent retention of this capacity to relax in an XD state. We have established that the simple relaxation is a conscious defense against the sinful activity while a person is in an XD state. We have not established that simple relaxation is always successful in an XD state. We have not established that it is a person’s only conscious defense in an XD state.
Sexual dreams are not sinful. For a detailed discussion and proof of this principle see http://lfnexus.com/biosis/decentbutforteenagersandolder.htm on our original website.
Waking Dream Principle
A waking dream is “a dream you are having while awake.” Sexual waking dreams are not sinful if one is alone and resisting sinful sexual activity with all their might when they occur. For a detailed discussion of waking dreams and sexual waking dreams see http://lfnexus.com/biosis/decentbutforteenagersandolder.htm on our original website. Note that we no longer believe that activity that occurs in sexual waking dreams is sinful when the dreams occur while one is alone and in “full resistance mode.” The reason this activity is not sinful is that we have documented such activity where the individual, alone and resisting, experienced SUD, spontaneous unconscious detachment. Spontaneous unconscious detachment is sudden, unconscious, involuntary loss of concern and, in this case, loss of concern to avoid sexual sin. Note that since the loss of concern is unconscious one has no ability to combat it. One might think that once a person becomes aware of SUD that they become responsible to overcome it. That is not the case, however, because with SUD comes the loss of ability to overcome.
Now, one might ask why God allows SUD to occur. We can think of one reason. Biological processes tend to atrophy when they are blocked. It is more important to God that a person retain their sexual capacity than that they avoid the experiencing of SUD. Some might object to all of this, insisting that God uses dreams alone. However, God cannot use dreams where there is “excessive consequence.” We will explain excessive consequence at some future time.
We have a thousand other principles to post. You will find our earlier articles at the L. F. Nexus Think Tank at http://lfnexus.com/sexualkarate.htm. Note that we have moved beyond some of the conclusions in these earlier articles because of new information that has come to light.
† A quick note to our “Bible lawyer” friends. If Onan had been alone, it would still be true that he was not judged for his physical sexual activity but for the disposition of (what was done with) his “seed.”
WEBSITE COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Copyright 2000 – 2011 Sexual Karate All rights reserved.
United States of America