Christine O'Donnell and the Onanist's Paradox

Been reading up on the teachings of O'Donnell. She's got to be pretty smart because she has a book out now. So I have to say I don't really get this masturbation controversy, the "O'Donnell Dilema" if you will. I just wish I'd paid more attention in Ken Dorter's first year philosophy class.

Dorter was a pretty interesting lecturer and I think what we were supposed to be learning was the basic "A cannot be non-A" logic that allegedley underpins all Western thought. I don't know about that, but he also had some great masturbation jokes. Socrates, on spying Democratus having a wank in the public square, says to him, yo, Democratus, why are you masturbating in the public square? Democratus says, forsooth, Socrates, I just wish I could rub my belly and make my hunger go away.

So O'Donnell seems to have this contradiction in her position, and I can't quite put my finger on it. That most solitary of sins is a sin, but the sin of lust is actually more sinful. Are there greater and lesser sins? Or have ye all sinned etc. and are headed to the hotspot anyway? Now here's the paradox; the little sin will make the big one go away! Among other things this fact throws a mighty wrench into the very logic that underpins Western civilization. Two wrongs don't make a right? A cannot be non-A? Watch this!

Alas, I've reached an age where both logic and masturbation have lost their lustre. Is it sin? Who knows? I suppose it's a question you could run by the parish priest the next time you're sharing some quiet time in the confessional. 

Or just ask Christine.