I never did any formal auditor training really (besides some read it drill it do it on the RPF for TRs and Objetives Co-Audit) but I did listen to a lot of LRH tapes when I was stuck on the decks out at INT for a while.
I was trying to figure out what the heck the word "withold" really meant because I could never understand that question in ruds. Was it ANYTHING I did not feel like talking about? Any time frame? Was it something I did wrong that I didn't want to confess? And 'wrong' according to what moral code? WHAT??? Because every auditor I ever had dealt with it differently to me, AND sometimes they'd ask the quesion and expect an answer, then treat whatever the answer was as an OVERT ie. something I'd done wrong, rather than something I just did not like taking about (Grade 0 item). And I was really pissed off about that because I'd never done my Grade 0 and there were plenty of things I didn't like to talk about
that had nothing to do with any moral codes broken or ideas about right and wrong.
So ... with all that said.... I studied these lectures. 22 different lectures on the Special Breifing Course dedicated to WITHOLDS. In these tapes, Hubbard defined WITHOLD 7 different ways. He also explained how they influenced a case in different ways. No, it was not confusing to me, but it was complicated and I have found that most all of my auditors really made such an effort to keep it simple and that was confusing! Because it was not simple.
For example, I had been exposed earlier on in Scientology to some of the OT levels and so I thought that because of this I should have an auditor who was on OT 5 at least, despite the fact that I was "no grade" or Objectives, or whatever the heck ended up on my file.... Because, according to these lectures I'd listened to, if I was "witholding" ANYTHING at all from my auditor, it would harm the session. If I was sitting there trying NOT to think of something to tell the auditor, then it would make it impossible for me to be "in session" because it gave me a case withold or a session withold. That's what I got from all those tapes.
But my originations were pretty much ignored. I was told that if I knew something "confidential" then it was fine. I could have a secret and not have a "withold."
What the heck :confused2: That was not per any LRH tape that I had read!!!!!!
I was told this by a GAT Grad 5 auditor in 2000, in a session AND I was being CSd by someone in the SNR CS INT office AND in RTC. I was like sitting their thinking," what a bunch of IDIOTS". I guess I was never really "in session." because we obviously had some disagreements about what the definition of "withold" was.
OK.... well, now that I have talked just about the subject of "withold" and some of the confusions I got as a PC on this subject and how I tried to clear it up on my own--- I will get onto what this thread is about and that is masturbation:
Of the 22 lectures on witholds i listened to from the BC lectures, there was a tape where LRH said that masturbation was not a withold (overt), it was "just an unseemly human detail" And not to pick it up as an answer to the question "withold" but to get what the person had done that was "destructive." That it was more of a Grade Zero item.
I wrote this quote down and I cued up the cassette tape to this part of the lecture and I sent it to the Snr CS INT office and to RTC.
I am sorry I don't remember the name of the tape. My BC tapes, and my written notes were all stolen by a Security guard at Gold before I left the base. The tape might have been about prep checking ( I think this was an earlier term for sec checking, or more precisely --- getting a case ready for some other auditing rundowns that included sec checking as part of it) It was an earlier to middle tape of the BC lecture series. Hubbard on the tape seemed to be annoyed to have to be telling his students this. Maybe he was getting annoyed by hearing about masturbation too much in the co-audit sessions he was listening in on. Who the heck knows.
The problem with this section of the tape I'd heard was that it was hard to hear and distorted. It may have been edited out by tape editor later when the BC lectures were all re-released and re packaged because of this.
Or maybe it had been edited out earlier and I just had found a previous version of the lecture. I don't know.
I do know that my auditor, after I had found this tape and sent it around, still asked me about this subject and so I was upset about that. I really didn't understand why my auditors insisted on hearing my masturbation fantasies
I can only imagine that maybe my fantasies were perhaps really entertaining
to them too????
Personally, my opinon on this subject is that masturbation is that it can be fine sometimes and not fine other times. It's not black and white.
According to my college Health book, scientific studies have shown it to be a helpful and healthy activity physically. If used appropriately, with good judgement (ie. don't go trying it out in plain view in public, or you'll get arrested), it's supposed to be healthy.
I think that Hubbard was kind of a nut. Maybe he needed to talk about this subject more on his case and he essentially avoided it all by telling his auditors in that lecture NOT to pick it up... well.... that could have been his down fall huh? He never talked about masturbation as much as I had to, so he never regained his sanity and I did!
But I never really thought it was wrong and I still don't. I've never liked having it implied to me that is is wrong either, because where is the evidence that this has ruined ANYONE's life? And as far as "spiritual" progress. Hey... you can stop eating and sleeping too... the other human activities and that will speed your way to being a free spirit, dead but "free" if that is what someone wants. If you stop eating, you can kill your sex drive. Or you can overeat and kill your sex drive too. So if you feel this urge to quit having any sexual urges at all.... then just get an eating disorder!!!! Like Kirsti Alley. Oh wait... maybe she has been told that her sexual urges are all WRONG!!! Could that be why a Scientologist overeats herself into a dangeorus health state?
Oh... what about the PAIN AND SEX HCOB? Didn't psychiatrists INVENT Sex to screw people up? So your sex drive, according to Hubbard, IS ALL WRONG!!!! So if you fight it.... will that make you a better spriit?
This attitude engenders eating disorders.
There is another Hubbard lecture on Witholds in that batch of 22 tapes I listened to wherein Hubbard had said that one of the best ways to destroy a group of people was to make something a withold that wasn't. Ie. force group members to have witholds from each other, by inventing a withold out of nothing. And again, I don't know this exact tape and I don't have my notes. but if I ever find them, I will post them.
Hubbard did say some wise things once in a while. Luck or whatever.
I think It is true, that a society that is intolerant towards naturally occurring things in the human race, for example, homosexuals.... if that is made "wrong" well, there is trouble. And when people are compassionate and understanding towards people with this difference, there is peace and the society is more productive. Making this horribly wrong and being intolerant of it, well that makes a bad group that eventually ruins itself.
