The naturalistic fallacy and masturbation

[pocaracas]

I was just making dinner and thinking about masturbation (because, you know, why not?)

I get that a lot...

and got to thinking about the standard defense rolled out of "it's perfectly natural to masturbate, it's a normal human act of exploring your own sexuality and yadda yadda yadda..." and got to wondering whether this falls prey to the naturalistic fallacy.

"The naturalistic fallacy"... I wonder what that is... google, help!

In philosophical ethics, the term "naturalistic fallacy" was introduced by British philosopher G. E. Moore in his 1903 book Principia Ethica.[1] Moore argues it would be fallacious to explain that which is good reductively in terms of natural properties such as "pleasant" or "desirable".

I guess you're right... I've seen a lot of people around here saying just that.
It's pleasant, it's right!

But, wait, there's more:

Moore's naturalistic fallacy is closely related to the is–ought problem, which comes from Hume's Treatise. However, unlike Hume's view of the is–ought problem, Moore (and other proponents of ethical non-naturalism) did not consider the naturalistic fallacy to be at odds with moral realism.

The naturalistic fallacy should not be confused with a fallacious appeal to nature, a mistaken claim that something is good or right because it is natural (or bad or wrong because it is unnatural).

Ah, perhaps you were actually going for this "appeal to nature"?
The same appeal we hear when people are against homosexuals... it's unnatural, hence wrong, hence should be banned, outlawed, criminalized.
Masturbation is natural, hence it's good.

It's okay to masturbate because it's natural.

Thoughts? Does this qualify as a fallacious argument or not?

It seems you were practically right.
As always... as should be expected of a smart person.

(full disclosure, I haven't given this a huge deal of thought. In fact, I'm still making dinner.)

your place, tonight, I see!