Introduction

I wrote this study analyzing public perception of masturbation in 18th century England a while back, but it is relevant to attitudes in the US and Europe as recent as the 1930s.  The thinking at the time was mostly biblically based, so this may give some insight into more conservative views on masturbation even in today's society.  It's a bit long, but I hope you enjoy!

The Study

Masturbation has been a topic of illicit popular interest in Western society for centuries.  In particular, Tissot’s Thoughts on the sin of Onan: chiefly Extracted from a late Writer gives insight to the society’s attitudes toward masturbation, otherwise known as self pollution or Onanism.  Tissot’s treatise implied that masturbation was viewed as both a prolific and a dire issue requiring serious and immediate care.  It is clear from the piece that public culture viewed the discussion of Onanism as a struggle between good and evil; between piety and temptation.  It is equally clear that in an attempt to quell the practice, tactics of fear were employed.

Although there is evidence masturbation was abhorred by society as a whole (at least as far as public culture was concerned), it is quite obvious that it was a widespread practice that crossed both class and sex lines.  Unlike some sexual practices that seemed to be nonexistent (e.g. lesbianism) or marginalized (e.g. homosexuality, premarital penetrative sex) in period literature, masturbation was presented as a mainstream practice, “[f]or thousands both of men and women groan under bodily disorders whereof this sin is the cause” (Tissot, 2).  This is important to note because public culture often sought to further marginalize many acts that were perceived as deviant from the normal.  Therefore, the fact that masturbation was not marginalized implies that it was indeed an accepted, if distasteful, part of everyday life, and that most people could be expected to have engaged in it at one point or another in their lives.  Tissot gave many accounts of the harms of masturbation, which included cases of wealthy and middling youths, both male and female, who had fallen prey to the practice.  One such youth, “The son of M_____,” (5) was so famous as to be well known and have his name censored in the printing.  This precaution demonstrates that Onanism, which by the end of the 18^th century primarily referred to masturbation rather than coitus interruptus, was not isolated to the lower class or the dregs of society, but in fact was of concern to everyone.

Although masturbation was a mainstream issue that involved all classes and both sexes, it must be noted that it was still not acceptable, at least as it was discussed in public culture.  Obviously Tissot’s treatise referred to it as an “accursed practice” and a “snare of the devil”, which is to be expected from a work warning of the results of Onanism.  According to Hitchcock, however:

[T]here was an increasing concern about the masturbatory habits of both men and women, and… by the end of the eighteenth century… [it] had transformed into a serious medical and social concern, on which many of the social problems of the day could be heaped. (54)

Society as a whole became less tolerant of masturbation as it was blamed for causing more physical, psychological, and social problems.  These assumptions can be ascribed to the beginning of the Enlightenment and the attempt to apply scientific reason in search of the causes of society’s ills.  This yearning for rationality resulted in false conclusions about the consequences of masturbation, which nonetheless influenced society’s opinion on the subject and continued to do so into the early 20^th century.  It should also be noted that the acceptability of masturbation in public opinion correlated inversely with the promotion of penetrative heterosexual sex, that is, the more acceptable it was to have sexual intercourse, the less acceptable it became to masturbate, or engage in other non-penetrative, not necessarily heterosexual sex for that matter.

Finally, it should be noted that this treatise was distributed in its truncated pamphlet version in addition to the original much longer version in order to increase its circulation, availability, and appeal with the middle and poor classes.  As I have mentioned, the practice of Onanism in 18^th century public sexual culture was both prolific (cross class and sex) and increasingly reviled.  These factors combined led to the creation of shorted “Extract[s]” (Tissot, 3) from the longer treatises, which were far cheaper to produce, cheaper to buy, and easier to read (or listen to when read).  Because they were cheaper to produce, many more copies were made at the same cost, which meant that distribution widened and that the message gained audience.  In fact, Hitchcock states that some such “pamphlets were widely distributed free of charge to the poor throughout the country” (54).  This reduction in size and cost also meant that middle class and poor people could afford to buy the new pamphlets when they were not freely distributed.  Finally, the shorter versions of the treatises were easier to understand and absorb for the working and lower class because they could be more quickly read aloud (for those who could not read), and could be more quickly read, for those who could read, but had little leisure time.  All of these effects were intentional, and reflect the concern of publishers and moralistic “Reformation Societies” (Hitchcock, 55), who wanted to spread their views on masturbation as it became less popular.

Based upon the aforementioned conclusions that masturbation was widely practiced, widely condemned by society, and that there was much anti-masturbation literature in publication and circulation among all classes, it is reasonable to deduce that 18^th century public cultures of sex increasingly treated the discussion of masturbation as a medical and moral battle for nothing less than the lives and souls of those involved.

Masturbation was often projected as a dire societal and medical disorder requiring immediate care if its victims were to be saved.  Tissot convinced his audience of the evils of masturbation in much the same way that the rest of society was convinced: by placing the blame on masturbation for many mysterious diseases, by claiming that some relief could be offered through his remedies, and through the claim that the only total cure for these diseases lay in abstinence from the practice, but that the supposed damage done through the act was often irreparable.

Tissot accomplished this sense of urgency by first proclaiming the assumed physical and psychological consequences of masturbation.  He describes those who regularly practice masturbation:

[They are] pale, effeminate, dull, inactive… [as having lost] their appetite, weaken[ed] their fight, their memory, their understanding, and contract all the disorders attending weak nerves.  Many bring on thereby a general weakness, and paralytic disorders of all kinds: yea lethargies, epilepsies, madness, blindness, convulsions, dropsies, and the most painful of all gouts. (4)

Again, these assumptions can likely be attributed to the Enlightenment and society’s growing need to explain disease in a scientific or pseudoscientific manner.  Whether the diseases were actually caused (or inflamed) by masturbation is irrelevant; the treatise accomplished its purpose in vilifying Onanism and simultaneously increasing public sentiment against masturbation and playing into existing sentiments to ensure its own popularity.  The fabrication of a connection between masturbation and the aforementioned ailments also served the author in that as long Tissot knew of treatments for these common ailments, he could claim to be treating the so called victims of self-pollution, in effect creating a disease and a cure in one publication.  This is not to say that he was solely responsible for the idea of Onanism as a serious medical condition, but his full length treatise in fact “… formed the basis for a respectable medical theory of the debilitating consequences of masturbation” (Hitchcock, 56).

As an author of a medical treatise, Tissot must offer some advice to help alleviate the symptoms of the diseases mentioned, and so he concocted a series of remedies, but still warned that some of the damage done was irreparable.  His remedies were simple folk cure-alls, not based on hard science, which is to be expected given that the date of publication and the inaccuracies in the rest of the work.  He focuses on what was to be consumed, how much rest was to be taken, how much exercise was to be taken, and other generalities of health much of the time.  He warned that “[s]o long as any continues in this practice, it is impossible to remove the effects. And what can enable one, habituated thereto, to break it off?  Nothing less than the mighty power of God.” (11). This statement summarizes the entire purpose of this treatise.  It existed not to offer actual medical knowledge or assistance, but to spread the idea (through its claims about disease) that masturbation was a physically harmful, sinful habit, and to give cure-all advice as a secondary purpose and means of proliferation.

Finally, Tissot claimed that the only total cure for the supposed effects of the practice was complete cessation of the practice; “…till the Cause of [the ailments] is removed, the Effect of [Onanism] must remain… and many times, even when that subsists no more, they are not to be cured, but by death” (3-5).  This was the final way in which Tissot discouraged masturbation.  He offered no compromise, alternative cure, or means of lessening damage, but rather claimed that if one continued with the habit after being treated by his means, that they would likely fare even worse than before.  He also claimed that once the act had been committed, the damage was done, and there was no repairing it, even by his methods.

It is clear that the methods employed by Tissot in his treatise were the same methods employed by other pamphlet authors and influential members of society.  He drew a connection, spurious or not, between Onanism and diseases of unknown origin.  He built credibility through promotion of cure-all methods that were likely to work to some extent in most cases.  Finally, he condemned masturbation completely, and claimed that the supposed damage done was irreparable.

In conclusion, Tissot’s Thoughts on the sin of Onan: chiefly Extracted from a late Writer offered much valuable information regarding the public culture of the 18^th century as it related to masturbation, specifically the perceived portion of the population that engaged in the act, society’s attitude about it as a whole, and the extent to which it was discussed, as well as the tactics employed to persuade people of every class that it was physically and morally dangerous.  When examining the conclusions, one must wonder why such a close and critical examination of a practice occurred at this point in the 18^th century. The answer lies in the idealization of heterosexual, penetrative sex and the yearning for explanation that came with the enlightenment.  As other forms of sexuality were stigmatized and became less acceptable, they were labeled as “unnatural”.  Unnatural acts were thought to be the cause of disease, therefore, the assumption was formed that sex other than penetrative heterosexual sex (in this case masturbation) led to disease.  It is important to note that this phenomenon occurred during the mid-18^th century, and continued through the early twentieth century, but was not, for the most part, an issue in the early 1700’s. 

Sources:

On May 15, 2009 the New York Times published an article entitled "A Judge's View of Judging Is on the Record" discussing some of Judge Sonya Sotomayor's comments relating to race and her judical philosophy.

On such quote reads as follows:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life”.

A 2005 video also surfaced in which Sotomayor states:

"[C]ourt of appeals is where policy is made.... and I know — I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it. I’m — you know”.

Should our representatives and sentators confirm a justice who has openly claimed that, all things being equal, a Latina woman would make a "better decision" than a white male who has lived a less "rich" life?  Furthermore, should they approve a justice who openly admits to being an activist policy maker rather than a somber interpreter of the constitution?

Also see trunthepaige's post on this topic.