I see that Matthew Bellisario has done a post on "Self-abuse."
What's ironic about this is that it got started when I did a post on John-Paul II whipping himself as a spiritual exercise. Armstrong then did a post not only defending self-flagellation, but he even went so far as to spooftext self-mutilation (cutting oneself).
So, according to Armstrong, Bellesario, et al. if an adolescent touches himself in the "wrong" place, that is "self-abuse," but if he whips himself bloody or crawls on his bare knees up a flight of stony steps, that's an act of supererogatory merit.
Autoeroticism is intrinsically evil and disordered, but physical self-harm is commendatory as long as this is a "spiritual" exercise.
I guy named Cory also raised some objections. Unfortunately, he doesn't offer any arguments to respond to. Just assertions.
I already dealt with the "lust" objection, both practically and exegetically. Of course, I could always be wrong, but no counterargument is forthcoming from his end.
He also lodges a last-ditch appeal to tradition. But tradition, at best, has an advisory role, not an executive role. Indeed, he's obviously quite selective in his own appropriation of tradition on various issue.
Everything is traditional. Gnosticism is traditional. Docetism is traditional. Arianism is traditional.
There's also his assumption that, in this context, sexual fantasies always involve a strange woman. Well, that's a very revealing assumption.
What about a married serviceman on a 6-month tour of duty overseas? Is it wrong for him to fantasize about his own wife?
We can debate that, but my immediate point is that a scenario like this doesn't even occur to Cory.
Likewise, does he think single men should read the Song of Solomon? What about single Christians–male or female. Should the Song of Solomon be part of their canon?
If they read it, won't that appeal to their imagination? Indeed, isn't the imagery designed to have that effect?