![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Those are most definitely not the lyrics to Chuck Berry's song "My Ding-a-Ling," which is not (explicitly at least) sexual in any way. I googled for a song with those lyrics but found nothing. I have removed the lyrics completely, since they are false.
What about other forms of autoeroticism, such as use of sex toys like dildos? Should that be mentioned here or under autoeroticism as a larger area? -- Dmerrill
"Many conservative religious groups teach masturbation to be a sinful practice."
Which ones, and why? -- LMS
yeah, and why is there no mention of the "shock the monkey" syndome?- Stevert
Also Islam consider it sinful and forbidden it.
Most Muslims clerics regard masturbation as sinful and forbidden (haram). However it's important to remember unlike with the Catholic church, there isn't any real authority. Although in some Muslims countries, the highest Imam may say it's forbidden, to my knowledge, there is no punishment in even the strictest Muslims countries.
"There is no credible scientific or medical evidence that manual masturbation is damaging to either one's physical or mental health." - Seems like some reference should be made here to the guilt that can frequently accompany it, especially if the person grew up in a sexually repressed environment.
Yesterday, I corrected the lie about circumcision not reducing pleasure (I timed out, so only my IP-address appeared). Someone changed it back. One cannot destroy 20,000 nerve-ending and bury the remaining under calluses without effecting sensation. Sure, now that parents do not want a reduction in pleasure, money-grubbing doctors claim that circumcision does not effect sensation. I ask:
"¿Does this make sense?"
Back in the 1870s, when everyone believed that masturbation caused blindness and insanity, doctors specifically advocated circumcision as a way of reducing the pleasure of sex. Moses Maimonides recognized hundreds of years ago that circumcision reduces the pleasure of masturbation and general sexual pleasure of both men and women.
¿If one burns of the ends of one's fingers, does it not reduce tactile sensation?
I shall reremove the lies about mutilated and intact men feeling equal pleasure from orgasm. I am not interested in an editwar: If one removes the correction, I shall accept it -- although we will all know that the article is incorrect.
?alabio 03:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I know about NPOV. I am NPOV. The lies of circumfetishists that genital mutilation does not reduce pleasure is as absurd as stating:
- "Gouging out eyes does not effect vision."
If you insist that I must leave such nonsense -- ¿Must we give Flat-Earthers equal say in the article about geology? -- I shall leave in the lies; but nonetheless however, I shall point out that hundreds of years ago, Moses Maimonides believed that circumcision reduced all forms of sexual pleasure, in the 1870s, US-doctors started circumcising children for reducing masturbatory pleasure, doctors from countries other than the US still believe that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. Only circumcising US doctors when selling the "benefits" -- no national medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision [ | Current Position Statements of Medical Societies in English-Speaking Countries -- No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants] -- claim that circumcision does not reduce pleasure.
I shall put all of this in the article and let the reader decide. ¿Is this sufficiently NPOV?
?alabio 04:12, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"Must we give Flat-Earthers equal say in the article about geology" -- Yes, that is what NPOV is all about (however the two examples aren't so comparable -- Information about what Flat-Earth adherents believe would go in a Flat-Earth type article). Dysprosia 04:20, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I suppose that NPOV could mean airing all views, no matter how insane. Speaking about Flat-Earthers, I suppose showing that only 1.5% of doctors (a reference to Flat-Earthers and lighthouses) make the ludicrous claim that destroying twenty thousand nerve endings does not reduce pleasure puts that absurd claim in perspective.
?alabio 01:27, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The circumcision debate seems better suited for an article about circumcision. One is located conveniently nearby. Given what the ongoing debates over there have done to that article, maybe it would be better to limit the masturbation article to the matter at hand. I suggest that the Masturbation and circumcision section here is redundant given the extant circumcision article and the ample coverage given here to differences in masturbation techniques based on circumcision status, and propose that the section be removed (or moved to genital mutilation or foreskin restoration) and the topic relegated to the See also section. The existence of the debate can certainly be acknowledged here, but there's no reason to engage in it. 67.42.118.55 17:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
First of all, this is all quite funny to me. Mostly because I read the word 'circumfetishists,' and I can't gather myself. OK, now my point: to include statements about circumcision in a masturbation article, in a NPOV fashion, is nearly impossible given the body of substantiated evidence on this issue. A peripheral point: the success of hemispherectomies [2] certainly casts doubt towards impassioned statements regarding what's possible, in terms of neural regeneration, if one 'mutilates' an infant's glans, removing 20,000 presumably vital 'endings'. Yo alabio: circumcision doesn't 'burry remaining nerves under callouses' - the callouses come from masturbating too much (and wrong)! And of course, the anthropic-principle-flavored-argument: if circumcision perturbs masturbation so much, why does everybody masturbate? Nerves exhibit a strongly plastic developmental pattern, and there's plenty of consensus in the medical community: stimulating nerves promotes their growth in most situations where growth is possible. So the biggest threat to enjoyable chicken-choking is lack of practise, which is what the chicken's been saying all along. rmbh 05:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Quite a bonny pleasure to go strokin' in the country...or in our fair dictionary.... lol Rickyrab 22:19, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I know that I am technically incorrect (NT4RTFM) Just a comment: despite of NPOV, I have another objection: an encyclopoedia has to be up to date. This doesn´t not necesarrily imply that a quite recent study (which is almost another urban legend) has to be promulgated. This time, non-mentioning would have been wise for the sake of not-being-confused-by-nonsense-data. Comment to Rickyrab: for sure U will NOT die OF, perhaps WITH your prostate cancer..whatever U do, have fun. [[User:guest..some slash not on my keyboard..what Time is ist, honey..OH..we have a date?? (where?) KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE TABLE! ...I think I should add some brackets]]
---
Jankhouse: Thanks for your recent edit. It's great. Moncrief 20:00, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
I have serious questions about this assertion:
Ejaculation of semen can be messy, but may be controlled by wearing a condom...
Has anyone anywhere ever heard of any male person who has worn a condom while masturbating? Any evidence whatsoever, no matter how anectodal, is appreciated, because this sounds about as bizzare and unlikely as a masturbation story is likely to get. Moncrief 02:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding "manustupration" (not "manusturpration, as the original poster of the term had it), the only uses I can find are in 18th- and 19th-century French and German texts ( Psychopathia Sexualis for one); it's certainly not common enough to be mentioned in the lead section. —No-One Jones 21:49, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the astounding detail you used in describing how you pleasure yourself and the amount of liquid your sweaty, throbbing cock releases. We were all quite enlightened by it and feel our worth as human beings has increased due to this very necessary description of you choking your meaty shlong on a boring day.
64.26.82.18 20:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have removed from this article an image of a male masturbating. If you disagree with this, tough titties. - Mark 09:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I concur. The image served no purpose. If someone tries to remove the image of a body part from one of the medical articles, I will fight it tooth and nail, but the image of a man holding his penis is just going to cause too many people to be upset. The poster followed by adding a link to the same image with a content warning, (which I appreciate), but it still served no purpose. It does seem to border on the pornographic, and regardless of my own feelings about, I am certain that leaving it in would just cause edit wars anyway. func (talk) 14:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen the image, but I disagree. A description and a photo of masturbation seems to be a neutral image, just as an image of a hand may seem to be unnecessary to someone who has a hand tapping on their keyboard. Nevertheless, the image is included in the article because it is a visual depiction of the matter discussed in the article. Someone who is disturbed by the image of masturbation should avoid reading an article on the subject. The vast majority of people reading the article have hands, yet an image is included. Roughly half of the people reading the article do not have a penis. Some of those who do have a penis do not masturbate, hence the image of masturbation is quite reasonable. In fact, the title WikiPorn is itself non-neutral. Bring back the image, allow people to be upset or not. 21 November, 2004.
Just to note where I get the 1 in 10 figure from, question 18 from this link: http://www.jackinworld.com/library/surveys/survey2.html
This survey is not scientific. The sample is self-selected, rather than random. Using this source for a 1 in 10 number is not valid.
Doug, I shifted your commentary on the alleged health effects of prone masturbation to...the section dealing with health effects of masturbation. I have further clarified the reference to make sure that people can make the link to the prone position described in the previous paragraph and the alleged health effects. What more do you want (other than for us to turn this and the TMS articles into screeds warning of the horrible perils of prone masturbation, which we simply aren't going to do)? -- Robert Merkel 06:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about a "but see below" where the art introduces the concept of prone mast? Doug22123 17:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 07:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why are Sank and the Lipsith et al group described as "a small number of clinicians" while in the para right above there, Graham Giles is mentioned by name, with no qualification that he is one of "a small number of scientists" who have linked mast to prostate cancer? Where is the demand for 100s of studies to corroborate this finding and for the medical community generally to embrace it as there is for TMS? Doug22123 22:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The point of my comment was not that Giles needs to be scrutinized -- in fact, I cite Giles's research frequently on my own site -- but that Sank doesn't need to be qualified so heavily and his research buried in the middle of the page. IMHO, Sank made a common-sense point: Don't thrust your penis against a mattress with all your strength daily for 10-50 years and expect it to function the same as if you didn't. Giles is making a much more sweeping point: An activity which many people actively discourage even today may prevent cancer. (And preventing cancer is always controversial, whether it involves tomatoes or Laetril.) Which of those studies would you say needs the most qualifications?
I believe the reason people are opposed to Sank's thesis is not because there haven't been enough citations but because it contradicts the libertine mantra of "if it feels good, do it." Doug22123 05:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeesh. I hoped I had seen the last of this, but I just noticed the Request for Comment. Here's my $0.02 and then I will duck out again. I'm not going to look at the dispute in the detail, so I may be missing important relevant stuff. The current short paragraph
looks OK to me. It seems to me that it is short and clearly makes all the required points. It says very plainly that "syndrome" is not medically accepted. Plainly enough, I think, to satisfy the naysayers. But it says enough to make the interested reader understand what it's about and what article to go to to read more. That should satisfy the aye-sayers.
When traumatic masturbatory syndrome came up on VfD (I voted delete by the way) the effective decision was to neutralize the point of view and keep the article. On the face of it, if we are going to have an article on traumatic masturbatory syndrome, if you say "what articles should mention it and link to it," it seems to me that Masturbation would be one of the obvious ones.
OK, that was my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The healthystrokes.org site is excessively biased. Why is it linked to at all?
This list could go on and on. The author's (who I get the impression is a sick middle-aged man who has only partially repaired his puritanical belief system) main goal is to discourage stomach-down masturbation for both males and females. It's common for both males and females, particularly males, to have sex stomach-down, so the entire premise of the site is totally absurd.
I checked the stats for the month and there have been 592 visitors to HealthyStrokes.com from the link on this page. That's less than 20 a day. What are the criteria for notability? How is HealthyStrokes.com less notable than other sites linked from that article? We have pages about
What we don't have at HealthyStrokes.com is a POV that people like Rhobite and his anon fellow traveller would like to see. There are plenty of sex sites that shout "if it feels good, do it." HealthyStrokes.com encourages readers to think about their sexual health. That's why HealthyStrokes.com is notable. Doug22123 04:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs
The word onanism ... is not used anymore with [the] meaning [masturbation] in English.
Many women are only able to orgasm by masturbation.
Paragraph purporting to make distinctions between masturbation styles based on presense of a foreskin:
More so than in the past, some men use an artificial vagina for masturbation.
Men who can reach their penis with their tongue sometimes also perform autofellatio, in which the man licks or sucks his own penis.
Ejaculation of semen is sometimes controlled by wearing a condom or by ejaculating into an artificial vagina or even into a sock or rag. It may also be wiped up with a tissue or old towel.
Methods common to both human genders
females are less likely to masturbate while in a sexual relationship than men.
It is being increasingly recognised in mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression
Masturbation with a man and a woman can result in pregnancy only if semen contacts the vulva.
A very small number of clinicians and an internet support group claims that masturbating prone (laying down face-first, as described in the previous section), as distinct from in other positions and methods, can be psychologically harmful. This position is not supported by the broader medical literature. See traumatic masturbatory syndrome.
Prehistoric rock paintings from around the world evidently depict male masturbation, though these are entirely matters of interpretation.
However, in the ancient world depictions of male masturbation are far more common.
Male masturbation became an even more important image in ancient Egypt.
The ancient Greeks had a more natural attitude toward masturbation than the Egyptians did
They considered masturbation a safety valve against destructive sexual frustration.
This hierarchy of sin was repudiated by the Catholic Church fairly recently
[a study showed]: "A total of 47% of circumcised men reported masturbating at least once a month vs 34% for their uncircumcised peers."
However, a less scientific internet based 85 male participant survey from Australia found that 60% of uncircumcised males masturbate weekly as opposed to 40% of circumcised men.
In males with phimosis, frenulum breve and other similar rare conditions, circumcision was once, and continues to be to some extent, the remedy prescribed. Now, however, depending of the severity of these conditions, they are increasingly likely to be alleviated by foreskin stretching - with or without steroid creams - or with frenoplasty or frenectomy if necessary.
If these conditions interfered with masturbation or coitus, successful treatment would help to remedy the situation.
Masturbation tends to be legal, even by children, as long as nobody else is involved and no image is made.
According to some historic chronicles, (masturbation in a public place) has not always been illegal.
Masturbation, mainly male masturbation, has long been the subject of humor.
Some famous wits have commented on masturbation, as in P. J. O'Rourke's quote:
Two issues now. First, what are you doing with those paragraphs Doug? If you have some problem with them, please elaborate. "3 days of worthless edits" isn't a valid reason. Second, stop spamming your own site. As many people have explained to you here, it's not notable. Rhobite 15:06, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: 18. A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. As for spamming: a quick rule of thumb would be that if you are inserting links to your own website, you're likely to be spamming. If you are reinserting them against a consensus that they don't belong, you are yet more likely to be spamming. -- Nunh-huh 07:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Doug, the consensus is that your link is not notable and that you're spamming. I count myself, Nunh-huh, and Robert Merkel as users who have opposed your addition of the link. To date, nobody has defended this change. We're asking that you respect the consensus developed on this talk page. Rhobite 20:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
There was another user who recently restored the HealthyStrokes.com link. So that's two of us against three of you. Hardly a consensus. Would it be more acceptable to you if I recruited some other people to work on this section? And what of the other sites linked in the section? What makes them notable? Doug22123 02:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Still not clear as to what policy prohibits that link, other than 3 or 4 discontents. But I will omit the links if people will follow a different approach I propose for the links. These links are not an important source of traffic to my site. It averages more than 1000 visitors a day and in the first 10 days of Nov. exactly 61 of them came from the links on the masturbation article in Wikipedia. The importance of the link is to provide an alternative to the "if it feels good, do it" that runs rampant on most of the Internet. This site provides an alternative viewpoint that is based on sexual health. I have revised the set of links leaving my site out but including some others that consider sexual health and omitting some of the most extreme sites previously linked in terms of IIFGDI orientation. Doug22123 07:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not really about a paragraph here but could someone provide medical evidence that this is true: "Another alleged way to control ejaculation of semen is to put pressure on a spot about half way between the scrotum and the anus...". The word alleged was removed. I feel this should only have been done if there is real evidence this works (not just anecdotal evidence or the claim of 1 site)
Doug you seem to be having problems understanding what advertising is. Maybe you should look up Wiki for advertising? The simple fact is, you are advertising your site. Whether or not your advertising your self is irrelevant. If your site was geniuinely helpful to a large majority of people then it might be acceptable to add a link but since most people do not seem to feel that it is, just accept it. You do not have a right to include a link to you sure if others do not feel it's good enough or relevant enough!
I am at a loss to exactly why this article is suposed to be non-nuetral. I have read the talk padge and no one seems too outraged by anything. Is the problem that anti-masterbationist think its pro or vice versa? Or the stuff about for-skins? My point is - the red POV hand is ugly, so remove it unless its really needed -- JK the unwise 10:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why this is being done repeatedly? It doesn't seem justifiable to claim that these statements, which appear to be based on verifiable observation, are being removed under the guise of POV. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While the picture is well drawn, I'm not sure it's particularly a) informative, and b) it might be a little confronting for some. Would anybody object if I shifted it down the page a little? -- Robert Merkel 22:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think this drawing is more appriate farther down the page, in the section on History and Society, as it opens a window on the perception of masturbation during that time period. Also, since masturbation is primarily a "solo sport", it does not seem appropriate to have the prominent lead image be an image of mutual masturbation. Finally, although not an expert on 17th century Japan, the person performing the masturbation does not look male to me. Therefore, I relabeled the picture (which had been labeled "Male couple on a futon"). Johntex 20:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It now says "Samurai being masturbated by a courtier." Do you mean "by a courtesan"? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Haiduc. This is a lovely picture and deserves a prominent position. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) Revert User:Nigelj. Please explain your removals on talk. I can't see what's up here."
Is this article 'finished' then, or just perfect as it is?
"The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles," says the 'Style and how-to series'...
I just felt that the emphasis on socks and toilets was a bit over-prominent for this article and this context. Just trying to make it a bit more pleasant 'round here ;-)
Forget it - keep it how you like it. -- Nigelj 23:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This section needs more work. Whyever is the non-scientific study by the Canadian magazine NOW! being given so much attention when there are many scientific studies on the question available which could be cited? The statement about masturbation frequency declining after age 17, especially among females, is patently untrue, although I did not change it because I don't have the correct stats in front of me. It is certain that adult women masturbate MORE than adolescent females (many are not even orgasmic until after age 18), and the decline among males is anything but "drastic." Doug22123 00:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
WANK FOR GOD!
WANK FOR G-D!
WANK FOR ALLAH!
WANK FOR THE BUDDHA!
HARI WANKA HARI WANKA DING DONG!
Wanking off is a Sacred and Religious activity
and Shame on the religions that consider masturbation
a sin or haram or trayf or verboten.
WANK FOR AMERICA!
I LUV TO WANK!
204.52.215.107 02:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In general, individuals of either sex who are not in sexually active relationships tend to masturbate more frequently than those who are.
There seems to be a logical contradiction between these two sentences in the first paragraph: "Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs [...]" and "In the animal kingdom, masturbation has been observed in the male of every species of mammal." RodC 14:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It defies logic to believe that "masturbation has been observed in the male of every species of mammal." Can anyone picture a whale masturbating? I am changing this wording. If someone can provide a reputable source then of course I'm happy to see it changed back. Johntex 00:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
Those are most definitely not the lyrics to Chuck Berry's song "My Ding-a-Ling," which is not (explicitly at least) sexual in any way. I googled for a song with those lyrics but found nothing. I have removed the lyrics completely, since they are false.
What about other forms of autoeroticism, such as use of sex toys like dildos? Should that be mentioned here or under autoeroticism as a larger area? -- Dmerrill
"Many conservative religious groups teach masturbation to be a sinful practice."
Which ones, and why? -- LMS
yeah, and why is there no mention of the "shock the monkey" syndome?- Stevert
Also Islam consider it sinful and forbidden it.
Most Muslims clerics regard masturbation as sinful and forbidden (haram). However it's important to remember unlike with the Catholic church, there isn't any real authority. Although in some Muslims countries, the highest Imam may say it's forbidden, to my knowledge, there is no punishment in even the strictest Muslims countries.
"There is no credible scientific or medical evidence that manual masturbation is damaging to either one's physical or mental health." - Seems like some reference should be made here to the guilt that can frequently accompany it, especially if the person grew up in a sexually repressed environment.
Yesterday, I corrected the lie about circumcision not reducing pleasure (I timed out, so only my IP-address appeared). Someone changed it back. One cannot destroy 20,000 nerve-ending and bury the remaining under calluses without effecting sensation. Sure, now that parents do not want a reduction in pleasure, money-grubbing doctors claim that circumcision does not effect sensation. I ask:
"¿Does this make sense?"
Back in the 1870s, when everyone believed that masturbation caused blindness and insanity, doctors specifically advocated circumcision as a way of reducing the pleasure of sex. Moses Maimonides recognized hundreds of years ago that circumcision reduces the pleasure of masturbation and general sexual pleasure of both men and women.
¿If one burns of the ends of one's fingers, does it not reduce tactile sensation?
I shall reremove the lies about mutilated and intact men feeling equal pleasure from orgasm. I am not interested in an editwar: If one removes the correction, I shall accept it -- although we will all know that the article is incorrect.
?alabio 03:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I know about NPOV. I am NPOV. The lies of circumfetishists that genital mutilation does not reduce pleasure is as absurd as stating:
- "Gouging out eyes does not effect vision."
If you insist that I must leave such nonsense -- ¿Must we give Flat-Earthers equal say in the article about geology? -- I shall leave in the lies; but nonetheless however, I shall point out that hundreds of years ago, Moses Maimonides believed that circumcision reduced all forms of sexual pleasure, in the 1870s, US-doctors started circumcising children for reducing masturbatory pleasure, doctors from countries other than the US still believe that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. Only circumcising US doctors when selling the "benefits" -- no national medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision [ | Current Position Statements of Medical Societies in English-Speaking Countries -- No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants] -- claim that circumcision does not reduce pleasure.
I shall put all of this in the article and let the reader decide. ¿Is this sufficiently NPOV?
?alabio 04:12, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
"Must we give Flat-Earthers equal say in the article about geology" -- Yes, that is what NPOV is all about (however the two examples aren't so comparable -- Information about what Flat-Earth adherents believe would go in a Flat-Earth type article). Dysprosia 04:20, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I suppose that NPOV could mean airing all views, no matter how insane. Speaking about Flat-Earthers, I suppose showing that only 1.5% of doctors (a reference to Flat-Earthers and lighthouses) make the ludicrous claim that destroying twenty thousand nerve endings does not reduce pleasure puts that absurd claim in perspective.
?alabio 01:27, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The circumcision debate seems better suited for an article about circumcision. One is located conveniently nearby. Given what the ongoing debates over there have done to that article, maybe it would be better to limit the masturbation article to the matter at hand. I suggest that the Masturbation and circumcision section here is redundant given the extant circumcision article and the ample coverage given here to differences in masturbation techniques based on circumcision status, and propose that the section be removed (or moved to genital mutilation or foreskin restoration) and the topic relegated to the See also section. The existence of the debate can certainly be acknowledged here, but there's no reason to engage in it. 67.42.118.55 17:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
First of all, this is all quite funny to me. Mostly because I read the word 'circumfetishists,' and I can't gather myself. OK, now my point: to include statements about circumcision in a masturbation article, in a NPOV fashion, is nearly impossible given the body of substantiated evidence on this issue. A peripheral point: the success of hemispherectomies [2] certainly casts doubt towards impassioned statements regarding what's possible, in terms of neural regeneration, if one 'mutilates' an infant's glans, removing 20,000 presumably vital 'endings'. Yo alabio: circumcision doesn't 'burry remaining nerves under callouses' - the callouses come from masturbating too much (and wrong)! And of course, the anthropic-principle-flavored-argument: if circumcision perturbs masturbation so much, why does everybody masturbate? Nerves exhibit a strongly plastic developmental pattern, and there's plenty of consensus in the medical community: stimulating nerves promotes their growth in most situations where growth is possible. So the biggest threat to enjoyable chicken-choking is lack of practise, which is what the chicken's been saying all along. rmbh 05:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Quite a bonny pleasure to go strokin' in the country...or in our fair dictionary.... lol Rickyrab 22:19, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I know that I am technically incorrect (NT4RTFM) Just a comment: despite of NPOV, I have another objection: an encyclopoedia has to be up to date. This doesn´t not necesarrily imply that a quite recent study (which is almost another urban legend) has to be promulgated. This time, non-mentioning would have been wise for the sake of not-being-confused-by-nonsense-data. Comment to Rickyrab: for sure U will NOT die OF, perhaps WITH your prostate cancer..whatever U do, have fun. [[User:guest..some slash not on my keyboard..what Time is ist, honey..OH..we have a date?? (where?) KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE TABLE! ...I think I should add some brackets]]
---
Jankhouse: Thanks for your recent edit. It's great. Moncrief 20:00, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)
I have serious questions about this assertion:
Ejaculation of semen can be messy, but may be controlled by wearing a condom...
Has anyone anywhere ever heard of any male person who has worn a condom while masturbating? Any evidence whatsoever, no matter how anectodal, is appreciated, because this sounds about as bizzare and unlikely as a masturbation story is likely to get. Moncrief 02:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)
Regarding "manustupration" (not "manusturpration, as the original poster of the term had it), the only uses I can find are in 18th- and 19th-century French and German texts ( Psychopathia Sexualis for one); it's certainly not common enough to be mentioned in the lead section. —No-One Jones 21:49, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the astounding detail you used in describing how you pleasure yourself and the amount of liquid your sweaty, throbbing cock releases. We were all quite enlightened by it and feel our worth as human beings has increased due to this very necessary description of you choking your meaty shlong on a boring day.
64.26.82.18 20:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have removed from this article an image of a male masturbating. If you disagree with this, tough titties. - Mark 09:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I concur. The image served no purpose. If someone tries to remove the image of a body part from one of the medical articles, I will fight it tooth and nail, but the image of a man holding his penis is just going to cause too many people to be upset. The poster followed by adding a link to the same image with a content warning, (which I appreciate), but it still served no purpose. It does seem to border on the pornographic, and regardless of my own feelings about, I am certain that leaving it in would just cause edit wars anyway. func (talk) 14:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I haven't seen the image, but I disagree. A description and a photo of masturbation seems to be a neutral image, just as an image of a hand may seem to be unnecessary to someone who has a hand tapping on their keyboard. Nevertheless, the image is included in the article because it is a visual depiction of the matter discussed in the article. Someone who is disturbed by the image of masturbation should avoid reading an article on the subject. The vast majority of people reading the article have hands, yet an image is included. Roughly half of the people reading the article do not have a penis. Some of those who do have a penis do not masturbate, hence the image of masturbation is quite reasonable. In fact, the title WikiPorn is itself non-neutral. Bring back the image, allow people to be upset or not. 21 November, 2004.
Just to note where I get the 1 in 10 figure from, question 18 from this link: http://www.jackinworld.com/library/surveys/survey2.html
This survey is not scientific. The sample is self-selected, rather than random. Using this source for a 1 in 10 number is not valid.
Doug, I shifted your commentary on the alleged health effects of prone masturbation to...the section dealing with health effects of masturbation. I have further clarified the reference to make sure that people can make the link to the prone position described in the previous paragraph and the alleged health effects. What more do you want (other than for us to turn this and the TMS articles into screeds warning of the horrible perils of prone masturbation, which we simply aren't going to do)? -- Robert Merkel 06:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
How about a "but see below" where the art introduces the concept of prone mast? Doug22123 17:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:
Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 07:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Why are Sank and the Lipsith et al group described as "a small number of clinicians" while in the para right above there, Graham Giles is mentioned by name, with no qualification that he is one of "a small number of scientists" who have linked mast to prostate cancer? Where is the demand for 100s of studies to corroborate this finding and for the medical community generally to embrace it as there is for TMS? Doug22123 22:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The point of my comment was not that Giles needs to be scrutinized -- in fact, I cite Giles's research frequently on my own site -- but that Sank doesn't need to be qualified so heavily and his research buried in the middle of the page. IMHO, Sank made a common-sense point: Don't thrust your penis against a mattress with all your strength daily for 10-50 years and expect it to function the same as if you didn't. Giles is making a much more sweeping point: An activity which many people actively discourage even today may prevent cancer. (And preventing cancer is always controversial, whether it involves tomatoes or Laetril.) Which of those studies would you say needs the most qualifications?
I believe the reason people are opposed to Sank's thesis is not because there haven't been enough citations but because it contradicts the libertine mantra of "if it feels good, do it." Doug22123 05:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Yeesh. I hoped I had seen the last of this, but I just noticed the Request for Comment. Here's my $0.02 and then I will duck out again. I'm not going to look at the dispute in the detail, so I may be missing important relevant stuff. The current short paragraph
looks OK to me. It seems to me that it is short and clearly makes all the required points. It says very plainly that "syndrome" is not medically accepted. Plainly enough, I think, to satisfy the naysayers. But it says enough to make the interested reader understand what it's about and what article to go to to read more. That should satisfy the aye-sayers.
When traumatic masturbatory syndrome came up on VfD (I voted delete by the way) the effective decision was to neutralize the point of view and keep the article. On the face of it, if we are going to have an article on traumatic masturbatory syndrome, if you say "what articles should mention it and link to it," it seems to me that Masturbation would be one of the obvious ones.
OK, that was my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith| Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The healthystrokes.org site is excessively biased. Why is it linked to at all?
This list could go on and on. The author's (who I get the impression is a sick middle-aged man who has only partially repaired his puritanical belief system) main goal is to discourage stomach-down masturbation for both males and females. It's common for both males and females, particularly males, to have sex stomach-down, so the entire premise of the site is totally absurd.
I checked the stats for the month and there have been 592 visitors to HealthyStrokes.com from the link on this page. That's less than 20 a day. What are the criteria for notability? How is HealthyStrokes.com less notable than other sites linked from that article? We have pages about
What we don't have at HealthyStrokes.com is a POV that people like Rhobite and his anon fellow traveller would like to see. There are plenty of sex sites that shout "if it feels good, do it." HealthyStrokes.com encourages readers to think about their sexual health. That's why HealthyStrokes.com is notable. Doug22123 04:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs
The word onanism ... is not used anymore with [the] meaning [masturbation] in English.
Many women are only able to orgasm by masturbation.
Paragraph purporting to make distinctions between masturbation styles based on presense of a foreskin:
More so than in the past, some men use an artificial vagina for masturbation.
Men who can reach their penis with their tongue sometimes also perform autofellatio, in which the man licks or sucks his own penis.
Ejaculation of semen is sometimes controlled by wearing a condom or by ejaculating into an artificial vagina or even into a sock or rag. It may also be wiped up with a tissue or old towel.
Methods common to both human genders
females are less likely to masturbate while in a sexual relationship than men.
It is being increasingly recognised in mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression
Masturbation with a man and a woman can result in pregnancy only if semen contacts the vulva.
A very small number of clinicians and an internet support group claims that masturbating prone (laying down face-first, as described in the previous section), as distinct from in other positions and methods, can be psychologically harmful. This position is not supported by the broader medical literature. See traumatic masturbatory syndrome.
Prehistoric rock paintings from around the world evidently depict male masturbation, though these are entirely matters of interpretation.
However, in the ancient world depictions of male masturbation are far more common.
Male masturbation became an even more important image in ancient Egypt.
The ancient Greeks had a more natural attitude toward masturbation than the Egyptians did
They considered masturbation a safety valve against destructive sexual frustration.
This hierarchy of sin was repudiated by the Catholic Church fairly recently
[a study showed]: "A total of 47% of circumcised men reported masturbating at least once a month vs 34% for their uncircumcised peers."
However, a less scientific internet based 85 male participant survey from Australia found that 60% of uncircumcised males masturbate weekly as opposed to 40% of circumcised men.
In males with phimosis, frenulum breve and other similar rare conditions, circumcision was once, and continues to be to some extent, the remedy prescribed. Now, however, depending of the severity of these conditions, they are increasingly likely to be alleviated by foreskin stretching - with or without steroid creams - or with frenoplasty or frenectomy if necessary.
If these conditions interfered with masturbation or coitus, successful treatment would help to remedy the situation.
Masturbation tends to be legal, even by children, as long as nobody else is involved and no image is made.
According to some historic chronicles, (masturbation in a public place) has not always been illegal.
Masturbation, mainly male masturbation, has long been the subject of humor.
Some famous wits have commented on masturbation, as in P. J. O'Rourke's quote:
Two issues now. First, what are you doing with those paragraphs Doug? If you have some problem with them, please elaborate. "3 days of worthless edits" isn't a valid reason. Second, stop spamming your own site. As many people have explained to you here, it's not notable. Rhobite 15:06, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: 18. A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. As for spamming: a quick rule of thumb would be that if you are inserting links to your own website, you're likely to be spamming. If you are reinserting them against a consensus that they don't belong, you are yet more likely to be spamming. -- Nunh-huh 07:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Doug, the consensus is that your link is not notable and that you're spamming. I count myself, Nunh-huh, and Robert Merkel as users who have opposed your addition of the link. To date, nobody has defended this change. We're asking that you respect the consensus developed on this talk page. Rhobite 20:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
There was another user who recently restored the HealthyStrokes.com link. So that's two of us against three of you. Hardly a consensus. Would it be more acceptable to you if I recruited some other people to work on this section? And what of the other sites linked in the section? What makes them notable? Doug22123 02:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Still not clear as to what policy prohibits that link, other than 3 or 4 discontents. But I will omit the links if people will follow a different approach I propose for the links. These links are not an important source of traffic to my site. It averages more than 1000 visitors a day and in the first 10 days of Nov. exactly 61 of them came from the links on the masturbation article in Wikipedia. The importance of the link is to provide an alternative to the "if it feels good, do it" that runs rampant on most of the Internet. This site provides an alternative viewpoint that is based on sexual health. I have revised the set of links leaving my site out but including some others that consider sexual health and omitting some of the most extreme sites previously linked in terms of IIFGDI orientation. Doug22123 07:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Not really about a paragraph here but could someone provide medical evidence that this is true: "Another alleged way to control ejaculation of semen is to put pressure on a spot about half way between the scrotum and the anus...". The word alleged was removed. I feel this should only have been done if there is real evidence this works (not just anecdotal evidence or the claim of 1 site)
Doug you seem to be having problems understanding what advertising is. Maybe you should look up Wiki for advertising? The simple fact is, you are advertising your site. Whether or not your advertising your self is irrelevant. If your site was geniuinely helpful to a large majority of people then it might be acceptable to add a link but since most people do not seem to feel that it is, just accept it. You do not have a right to include a link to you sure if others do not feel it's good enough or relevant enough!
I am at a loss to exactly why this article is suposed to be non-nuetral. I have read the talk padge and no one seems too outraged by anything. Is the problem that anti-masterbationist think its pro or vice versa? Or the stuff about for-skins? My point is - the red POV hand is ugly, so remove it unless its really needed -- JK the unwise 10:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could someone please explain why this is being done repeatedly? It doesn't seem justifiable to claim that these statements, which appear to be based on verifiable observation, are being removed under the guise of POV. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
While the picture is well drawn, I'm not sure it's particularly a) informative, and b) it might be a little confronting for some. Would anybody object if I shifted it down the page a little? -- Robert Merkel 22:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think this drawing is more appriate farther down the page, in the section on History and Society, as it opens a window on the perception of masturbation during that time period. Also, since masturbation is primarily a "solo sport", it does not seem appropriate to have the prominent lead image be an image of mutual masturbation. Finally, although not an expert on 17th century Japan, the person performing the masturbation does not look male to me. Therefore, I relabeled the picture (which had been labeled "Male couple on a futon"). Johntex 20:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It now says "Samurai being masturbated by a courtier." Do you mean "by a courtesan"? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 21:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Haiduc. This is a lovely picture and deserves a prominent position. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) Revert User:Nigelj. Please explain your removals on talk. I can't see what's up here."
Is this article 'finished' then, or just perfect as it is?
"The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles," says the 'Style and how-to series'...
I just felt that the emphasis on socks and toilets was a bit over-prominent for this article and this context. Just trying to make it a bit more pleasant 'round here ;-)
Forget it - keep it how you like it. -- Nigelj 23:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This section needs more work. Whyever is the non-scientific study by the Canadian magazine NOW! being given so much attention when there are many scientific studies on the question available which could be cited? The statement about masturbation frequency declining after age 17, especially among females, is patently untrue, although I did not change it because I don't have the correct stats in front of me. It is certain that adult women masturbate MORE than adolescent females (many are not even orgasmic until after age 18), and the decline among males is anything but "drastic." Doug22123 00:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
WANK FOR GOD!
WANK FOR G-D!
WANK FOR ALLAH!
WANK FOR THE BUDDHA!
HARI WANKA HARI WANKA DING DONG!
Wanking off is a Sacred and Religious activity
and Shame on the religions that consider masturbation
a sin or haram or trayf or verboten.
WANK FOR AMERICA!
I LUV TO WANK!
204.52.215.107 02:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In general, individuals of either sex who are not in sexually active relationships tend to masturbate more frequently than those who are.
There seems to be a logical contradiction between these two sentences in the first paragraph: "Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs [...]" and "In the animal kingdom, masturbation has been observed in the male of every species of mammal." RodC 14:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It defies logic to believe that "masturbation has been observed in the male of every species of mammal." Can anyone picture a whale masturbating? I am changing this wording. If someone can provide a reputable source then of course I'm happy to see it changed back. Johntex 00:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)