![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal , "an article should not read like a "how-to" style" and therefore the entire "Techniques" section should not be allowed. Please delete it, you would not find this in any other encyclopedia. I also fail to see that it is necessary, along with the graphic images (what are they telling us anyway?). People will come to the article primarily for medical questions, they will not be coming here for advice, and even if they are, the page should not provide it.
Describing to the reader how other people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_source and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) , please remove original research sources (e.g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00851611 , or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15961213 and all the other original research studies), and the content that they are used to support. Also please note that although many sources are not the original research studies themselves, they are not suitable according to the second quoted rule as sources (e.g. newspapers, blogs, non scientific web publication sites)
Please remove unreferenced content, such as, but not limited to:
Done Sourced or removed.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk)
12:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I removed the image of Teresa of Ávila and that was reverted with a hostile attack, which is completely baseless and shows a misunderstanding of my given reason. The reason I gave was that it is unnecessary and certainly not critical to have a painting of a depiction of a saint on this page and in this fashion. It is not about the creator; but this image is chosen without meaning and purpose relevant to the page that cannot be expressed with another... one that doesn't demean a historical figure. We don't allow this on the Muhammad page; so we shouldn't allow it here. I and many of our readers would find it equally offensive to see any other religious or political leader depicted in such form for an example. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The image is inspired from the theory that St Teresa had in fact an earthly orgasm instead of her alleged divine contact with God. Since her experience happened as a dream during sleep, it is very possible that her dream was an orgasm, but I think that masturbation was obviously not involved as you would have to be awake to do this. And anyway, a more famous work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teresabernini.JPG shows better the described event, there is an angel with a spear. Correct me if I am wrong, but the word masturbation can only be applied if the saint was alone and doing these thing alone. I agree that this image does not add anything to the page, and also that the artist's interpretation is outspoken interpretation. However, the real photographs of people masturbating I consider to be potentially more offensive to most people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.142 ( talk) 09:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus to remove the image in the discussion above, and it has been removed. This is not the way Wikipedia works. If several people disagree with one person, for good reasons, actions are not then decided by who put in the last word. The image should be restored. It should be obvious, in a section called 'Paintings and drawings', that the inclusion of a picture depicting masturbation is about the fact that there is a famous historical picture in existence, not about the details of the artist's intention. -- Nigelj ( talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed earlier that ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) removed this image again today, and I have reverted it back in again. Various editors commented above a month ago, but as I said at 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC), there was no consensus for removal, indeed I would say that the clear consensus was to keep the image, which has been on this page in one form or another for some years, if I recall correctly. -- Nigelj ( talk) 21:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The Chinese term is 自慰, which literally means "from comfort.""to "The Chinese term is 自慰, which literally means "self comfort."or "console oneself"", since the word "自" here means "self" and not "from". here is a link for the word definition http://www.nciku.com/search/cc/detail/%E8%87%AA%E6%85%B0/71901 221.207.122.190 ( talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit removes several statements from the WP:LEDE, which is meant to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". As it stands, what was left is mostly about "contention ... taboo ... religions ... sin ... conservative ... stigma ... restricted ... private ... illegal", followed by a brief mention of "assisted reproduction" and "animal masturbation", and then we're back to repeating "religions ... sin" again. This is not a reasonable summary of the article. The fact that this edit was made under the summary "Edit request. change" baffles me. Which discussion above, precisely, reached a consensus to make these changes? -- Nigelj ( talk) 19:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
As late as the seventeenth century in Europe the practice was commonly employed by nannies to put their young male charges to sleep.
This statement is cited to the book "The Tyranny of Pleasure" on page 22. However, the statement has no source in the book. It is wedged between two sourced statements. Is printing something in a book that is unsourced good enough to make it to wikipedia?
Here is an online link to the book. http://m.friendfeed-media.com/c3f606ba7f49d9f9aa9785dcfc6d0b0a6fa9cd0c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.76.250 ( talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm requesting a change I guess. Not sure how Wikipedia works. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.129.76.250 (
talk)
08:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As the article stands right now, the lede has absolutely no mention of dolls or robots. [edit: neither lede nor body] The entire article doesn't contain a single mention of the word 'robot'. I have made persistent efforts ( most recent) toward rectifying this, but each time my edits have been reverted. Rationale for the removal included the view that I was adding original research and that my additions were not WP:LEDE compliant in that there was no mention of robots within the body of the article. For editors who strive to increase the quality of Wikipedia, it is clear to me that the most helpful action to take for these valid criticisms, instead of simply hitting the 'revert' button, is this:
- Statement in lede is unsupported.
Fix: Flag as needing a reference. (I found a great book with a single googling.)
- Lede is discussing a topic that is not discussed in the article's body.
Fix: Add a statement or two into the body.
I realize that these approaches to fixes require putting in a little more effort, but that's the direction that leads to higher quality articles instead of preserving the gaping holes in them.
Last point: If there's an edit instability regarding the quality of an article, it is clear to me that the best place to initiate a Talk discussion is on the article's Talk page and not any particular User's Talk page (ie: mine). This way other editors who care about the issue in question are not required to go hunting around in order to get up to speed on whatever disagreements had transpired. Now if the issue is that a particular user is vandalizing an article, then that would be an excellent reason to open a discussion on the UserTalk page and keep the article Talk insulated from irrelevant noise. Vybr8 ( talk) 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I've scoured all 10 archives as well as the entire revision history of this article all the way back to its creation way back in 2001, and I am absolutely astounded to find not a single mention of robots or dolls ...other than the single edit where 'sex doll' was added to the 'see also' section (without discussion).
Once again, I will highlight the fact that the very first sentence in the sex doll article says "masturbation". Something is either broken over on that article, or it is broken here on this article. Vybr8 ( talk) 05:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
"No causal relationship is known between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder."
This is a categorical statement of fact. It is also false.
There is sound peer reviewed research over the last decade which suggests statistically relevant connections between incidence of prostate cancer and quanta of masturbation at various ages, and/or psychological/neurological/hormonal and inter-human relational harm from excessive masturbation. The studies are well reported in the wider media and I am happy to provide scientific references if you are interested.
The best that could be said is that "There was a general consensus until the end of the last century based on an assumption that all activities leading to ejaculation were of equal physiological effect to males, and therefore harmless, but that assumption is now being re-examined. Some recent research has shown statistically relevant connections between incidence of prostate cancer and quanta of masturbation at various ages, and/or psychological/neurological/hormonal and inter-human relational harm from excessive masturbation."
Legalisfortis ( talk) 10:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Some sources set out below and while on reflection the "bald claim" is false - paragraph below is closer to the true position.
"There has been, and still is, a general consensus that all masturbation is harmless. The assumption is that sexual activity and orgasm are natural human functions and all behaviour and activities that led to orgasm have outcomes of equal psychological and physiological effect. That assumption is now being re-examined and some recent research indicates statistically relevant connections between the incidence of prostate cancer and prostatitis, apparently dependent on the frequency of masturbation at various ages, and quite different physiological, endocrinal and psychological outcomes when partnered intercourse and orgasm is compared with orgasm induced by masturbation.”
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16095799 > < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19016689 > < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284056 > Legalisfortis ( talk) 15:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The point is still that the bald universal "No causal relationship is known" claim is false and should be moderated. Somehow. I am open to suggestions.
This piece below is from an influential secondary source you all will recognise and speaks the idea that there is a universal positive consensus. There needs to be a moderation of the existing sentence to uphold the truth. < http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201209/rethinking-the-wonders-adult-masturbation>
Can someone explain to me how the tildes are meant to work...? Is it like so:
~~Peter~~ or so Legalisfortis ( talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Now about debunking such claims:
In the collection's introductory chapter, Eli Coleman describes how Kinsey's research half a century ago was the first in a series of studies to challenge widely prevalent cultural myths relating to the 'harmful' effects of masturbation, revealing the practice to be both common and non-pathological. Subsequent research, outlined by Coleman in this chapter, has shown masturbation to be linked to healthy sexual development, sexual well-being in relationships, self-esteem and bodily integrity (an important sexual right). As such, the promotion and de-stigmatization of the practice continue to be important strategies within sexology for the achievement of healthy sexual development and well-being.
The collection concludes with two surveys among US college students. The first of these was based on limited quantitative questions relating to masturbation. The findings suggest that masturbation is not a substitute for sexual intercourse, as has often been posited, but is associated with increased sexual interest and greater number of partners. The second of these surveys asks whether masturbation could be useful in treating low sexual desire, by examining the relationship between masturbation, libido and sexual fantasy.— Kate Wood, Masturbation as a Means of Achieving Sexual Health by Walter Bockting; Eli Coleman, Culture, Health & Sexuality, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Mar., 2005), pp. 182-184
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
He asserted that masturbation is healthy by ‘‘for example, lessening the likelihood of developing prostate cancer, improving mood, developing sexual interests, and perhaps even ridding oneself of tired sperm’’ (p. 219). However, these unreferenced claims contrast sharply with the best available empirical evidence.
— Rui Miguel Costa, Masturbation is Related to Psychopathology and Prostate Dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012), Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:539–540, doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9956-0
Stengers and Van Neck follow the illness to its fairly abrupt demise; they liken the shift to finally seeing the emperor without clothes as doctors began to doubt masturbation as a cause of illness at the turn of the twentieth century. Once doubt set in, scientists began to accumulate statistics about the practice, finding that a large minority and then a large majority of people masturbated. The implications were clear: if most people masturbated and did not experience insanity, debility, and early death, then masturbation could not be held accountable to the etiology that had been assigned it. Masturbation quickly lost its hold over the medical community, and parents followed in making masturbation an ordinary part of first childhood and then human sexuality.
— Lisa Z. Sigel, Masturbation: The History of the Great Terror by Jean Stengers; Ann Van Neck; Kathryn Hoffmann, Journal of Social History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Summer, 2004), pp. 1065-1066
The medical profession isn’t convinced. Every doctor and psychologist I spoke with informed me that “there’s no evidence” to link masturbation to sexual performance, and that it’s an oversimplification to think that frequent masturbation is the cause of delayed ejaculation. According to Stephen Snyder, a sex therapist in Manhattan, it’s “most often not the case.” Darius Paduch, a professor of urology and reproductive medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, went so far as to say that ejaculation leads to greater fertility. “In our practice, we pretty much make men achieve an erection at least three to four times a week,” he says. Paduch also cited studies that found that men who ejaculated multiple times a week faced less risk of erectile dysfunction later in life. There’s also the body’s natural process of elimination: Many anti-masturbators start having wet dreams.
— Emily Witt, Hands Off, New York. 4/22/2013, Vol. 46 Issue 12, p28-31. 4p.
It is a well known scientific fact that if you go too long without having an orgasm, your balls will explode and the pain will kill you. DeistCosmos ( talk) 23:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Question. What does any of the above have to do with masturbation? Ought it not to be applied to orgasm? If a man has three orgasms a day every day of his adult life, it can not possibly medically make any difference if all are in the course of conjugal intercourse, or by that man's own hand. DeistCosmos ( talk) 23:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I have stated what appears in DSM-IV-TR, now it's time for DSM-5 (searched for keyword "mastur"):
So, Brody is exposed as not representing the medical consensus and Costa as willfully misrepresenting it. If Brody would be mainstream, this would be reflected in DSM-5, which was published in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association (earliest Brody paper cited inside the Costa article was published in 2009, it had four years to produce a revolution in medicine). Accordingly Brody and Costa should be considered WP:FRINGE in respect to establishing medical facts upon Wikipedia and citing them should be regarded as WP:Advocacy. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
p. 694 pornography mentioned in sexual masochism disorder
p. 696 pornography mentioned in sexual sadism disorder
p. 698, 699 pornography mentioned in pedophile disorder
p. 797 pornography disqualified as a possible internet use disorder, in the context of internet gaming disorder which does not amount to a recognized disorder, but to a condition for further study
Nowhere in DSM-5 masturbation in itself and/or pornography in itself constitute health problems. MythBusters would say that Brody and Costa are busted. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to include the following in section 7.4 Problems for males:
After ejaculation, some men experience physical and cognitive symptoms characterized as Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS). [1]
KalleVomDach ( talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Alot of this article are the opinions of hedonistic people. It is not genetically good for a male person to waste his time masturbating whenever he could be out in the world breeding women. The good and the bad of masturbation is born out of genetic proliferation. Good equals a male person going out in the world doing things to gain the favor of a woman and then the male person breeding her. Bad equals a male person wasting his time masturbating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.184.232 ( talk) 17:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
In the without constipation and overflow incontinence subtype, feces are likely to be of normal form and consistency, and soiling is intermittent. Feces may be deposited in a prominent location. This is usually associated with the presence of oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder or may be the consequence of anal masturbation. Soiling without constipation appears to be less common than soiling with constipation.
— DSM-5, p. 358
307.7 Without Constipation and Overflow Incontinence. There is no evidence of constipation on physical examination or by history. Feces are likely to be of normal form and consistency, and soiling is intermittent. Feces may be deposited in a prominent location. This is usually associated with the presence of Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder or may be the consequence of anal masturbation. Soiling without constipation appears to be less common than soiling with constipation.
— DSM-IV-TR, p. 117
Elimination disorders all involve the inappropriate elimination of urine or feces and are usually first diagnosed in childhood or adolescence. This group of disorders includes enuresis, the repeated voiding of urine into inappropriate places, and encopresis, the repeated passage of feces into inappropriate places. Subtypes are provided to differentiate nocturnal from diurnal (i.e., during waking hours) voiding for enuresis and the presence or absence of constipation and overflow incontinence for encopresis. Although there are minimum age requirements for diagnosis of both disorders, these are based on developmental age and not solely on chronological age. Both disorders may be voluntary or involuntary. Although these disorders typically occur separately, co-occurrence may also be observed.
— DSM-5, p. 355
Most children with the disorder become continent by adolescence, but in approximately 1% of cases the disorder continues into adulthood.
— DSM-5, p. 356
The event must occur at least once a month for at least 3 months (Criterion B), and the chronological age of the child must be at least 4 years (or for children with developmental delays, the mental age must be at least 4 years) (Criterion C).
— DSM-5, p. 358
I have just removed the following phrase from a very prominent position in the second paragraph of lede of this article:
It does not say so in the citation, but the reference can be read online. I removed it for the following reasons:
There is no way that the manual can be read to say that anal or any other masturbation can be a cause of the listed mental disorder, or even that fecal incontinence in general can be the result of any kind of masturbation. The connection between the feces to be found and activities of the disordered patients is quite clear from the cited text, and it is quite clearly not what the removed text above said. -- Nigelj ( talk) 12:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Anal masturbation is its own page, and what needs telling about it can be told there. We don't mention at the top of sex that you can't get pregnant through anal sex, even though it feels wonderful. Blessings!! DeistCosmos ( talk) 21:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
References
In the General benefits and risks section is a sentence: "EU Nations include masturbation in their sex education and promote the practice. (see above)" While all that seems to be there above is: "Masturbation is considered normal when performed by children, even in early infancy.[28] In 2009, the UK Government joined the Netherlands and other European nations in encouraging teens to masturbate at least daily. An orgasm was defined as a right in its health pamphlet. This was done in response to data and experience from the other EU member states to reduce teen pregnancy and STIs (STDs), and to promote healthy habits.[32]"
Proposal: instead of speaking in general about (all) EU nations, change the wording to "Some EU nations". Even better would be to name the respectful countries as they are, because the meaning (just as the list) of "EU member states" is subject to change over time. Education and therefore sexual education is subject to internal politics/policymaking and changes of these policies, possibly with huge differences both within a given state in a few years course and, in between the individual member states. 94.69.232.4 ( talk) 21:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
For the cultures linked to the Bible or the Koran, that sexual activity is considered as sin, to such a point that the mutilation of its specific organs: the clitoris and the foreskin, if frequently realized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.111.4.73 ( talk) 09:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The following text that I added was deleted by Flyer22:
Some masturbators report that they find masturbation to be more pleasurable, producing more consistent, quicker, or more intense orgasms, than sexual intercourse. [1] [2] [3]
I'm not as experienced with Wikipedia as most of you, but it seems to me this point should be made in the article somewhere. I don't know how to handle it. I did not intend for the sources I cited to be taken as reviewed publications; they were first-person reports (goaskalice is a third-party source, arguably, though not one with academic credentials). Perhaps what I was doing was thus original research, which I know is prohibited. I'm not going to go looking for some third-party source for this (and I don't know where to start, though I could probably figure it out). But I think the article is poorer without it. deisenbe ( talk) 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
1) Where in the article should it go? Should it be a new section? 2) Under WP:Reliable sources I find the following statement: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". Does this not apply? deisenbe ( talk) 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
References
In this article, in the two sections named "Female" and "Male," at least three photographs currently used to illustrate masturbation make use of models whose pubic hair has been removed. I understand that there may be various reasons for this, but it gives an unbalanced and non NPOV view of the prevalence of such shaving.
On Earth today, and throughout human history, adult masturbation has overwhelmingly involved genitals which were not shaved and which thus had a full growth of pubic hair.
Widespread shaving of pubic hair is a relatively recent practice, one which could not possibly have been popular in most cultures in most times and places. Its prevalence would be hard to estimate, but I do not think anyone would seriously argue that more than a few percent, at most, of the world's people regularly shave their pubic hair.
Therefore, to give an unbiased view, I strongly suggest that these photos should be replaced with others which do show public hair. Dratman ( talk) 01:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the picture with the vibrator in vagina can be problemetic to minors, we should either remove or have an confirmation dialogue that the viewer is not a minor. Best regards Tzcan ( talk) 04:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
please,remove this article.this article is not a community standards at all. PutiChik ( talk) 06:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"The ancient Indian Hindu text Kama Sutra explains in detail the best procedure to masturbate; 'Churn your instrument with a lion's pounce: sit with legs stretched out at right angles to one another, propping yourself up with two hands planted on the ground between in them, and rub it between your arms'."
The citation given for this quote does not directly quote the actual text of the kama sutra, but indirectly through another book. I brought up the actual Kama Sutra in gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27827/27827-h/27827-h.htm and simply using the search-in-page function of Firefox, "churn your instrument" yields no results within the text. now, this could just mean that the quote is from a different translation than the one on Gutenberg (gutenberg has the 1883 translation by British orientalist Sir Richard Francis Burton) However, while I have not thoroughly read the whole text from top to bottom I have skimmed over the whole thing, I think, pretty thoroughly; and found nothing of the sort. Someone needs to find a better citation that quotes this directly from a translation, or else remove the quotation as an apparent misquote. 70.198.131.190 ( talk) 07:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Source 44 ( http://www.salon.com/2000/05/09/masturbate/) is unreliable, even stating within it that "Johanson did not offer any specific statistics for this claim — nor did she refer to videos of masturbating babies or other physical evidence — but her line of reasoning is this..."
Please remove this source. Danke :) Fazza faz ( talk) 04:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article claims that masturbation lowers blood pressure. The source for this information does not support this, but rather claims that penile-vaginal intercourse lowers blood pressure, whereas masturbation increases blood pressure.
Please update the "general benefits" section with this information. Fazza faz ( talk) 04:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)I deleted all the inline-flagged MEDRS non-compliant citations that cited medical statements as well as one uncited medical statement from this page revision section: Special:permalink/667319430#Compulsive masturbation. I've requested input from WT:MED on the deletion of all these primary/nonmedical sources and the uncited medical statement. Some of the remaining sources are slightly outside the WP:MEDDATE range, but I left those alone.
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 13:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy about this deletion of long-standing material from this section. No reason was given, although a hat-note link to Sexual addiction was added. The first paragraph removed was the one that made a clear statement that masturbation does not cause any form of mental disorder. This may seem an obvious statement, but I think a surprising number of English speakers worldwide may be happy to come here and see an well-sourced, unequivocal statement to that effect - despite whatever their aunt, mother or other adult may have told them in the past. I see nothing in the new hat-note-linked article that makes a similar point. The second paragraph removed made the point that there is still "discussion between professionals and other interested parties as to whether such a thing as sexual addiction really exists." Maybe this is what the other editor didn't like, but again the statement is well sourced. I shall reinstate the deletions of content per WP:BRD, and maybe @ Seppi333: would like to come here and explain why they think this material has to go. -- Nigelj ( talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a talk page - I'm not going to cite myself, especially because what I said is literally where I said it was cited in my statement above: ΔFosB. My "reading" of "sexual activity" as inclusive of masturbation follows directly from what sexual activity, "sexual reward", and/or "sexual experience" refers to - these are blanket terms for a class of stimuli or a property of those stimuli, just like "psychostimulants" and "opiates" are a class of stimuli. If you want a single summary source, this dissertation covered the state of research in 2012: [9]. Since then, most of the more recent research has gone into the neuroepigenetic mechanisms in addiction and therapeutic potential of histone-modifying enzyme inhibitors for addiction in general. I don't feel like elaborating on this further though, so I'm just going to leave it at that; you don't have to like or even understand what I'm saying, but you will respect the conclusions of medical reviews. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Lol? Nigel, I provided that link for you to have as a reference for the state of research because it was comprehensive and specific to sexual addiction. I've never cited that source on wikipedia and I don't plan to because a dissertation is a primary source. My explanation above was merely for your education, not my intent to add text to the article; consequently, I don't have to give you a single source to back up my statements because this is a talk page, not an article. You've already been informed where you can find medical reviews which support my statement, so fetch them yourself if you want them.
All the article refs I removed aren't MEDRS-compliant for reasons I've already stated in my edit summary. If you decide to push this and revert me, we can bring this issue to the attention of
WT:MED and you can learn how strictly
WP:MEDRS is applied by medical editors. Otherwise, we can leave it as is and simply link to the article where this content is actually covered in the hatnote.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, medicines which would cure addiction through neuroepigenetics are bleeding edge research, but are they medical consensus?
"there is biochemical evidence for it"- no, there's addiction biomarker evidence for it. Disease biomarkers are used in lab tests - they're real medical diagnostics. It's not the hand-wavy bullshit the DSM shovels every few years.
I'm not even going to respond to the claims about WP:V WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - these article policies; WP:TPG - that's for talk pages. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu Seppi333 While it is fine for you two to have this discussion here, can you at least allow the section on compulsion in the article to reflect what probably 99.9% of people expect/need to see? Viz: Is there such a thing? Is it dangerous? Is there a limit to what is healthy? If (as seems probable) there is no scientific medical consensus then by all means state the different positions but I really don't think that this section of this article is an appropriate place for a critique of medical diagnoses sources. Btljs ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary section text
|
---|
The DSM-5, an American diagnostic classification system, stated in 2013: 'Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders.' [1] The director of the United States National Institute of Mental Health discussed the invalidity of the DSM-5's classification of mental disorders, writing: [2]
The flawed and arbitrary nature of the DSM addiction classifications has also been criticized by medical researchers who actively study addiction pathophysiology. [3] A 2014 systematic review on sexual addiction discussed this lack of available evidence, indicating that, "a lack of empirical evidence on sexual addiction is the result of the disease's complete absence from versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". [4] According to the same systematic review, sexual addiction is a diagnosable behavioral addiction with prevalence rates for it and related sexual disorders ranging from 3 to 6%. [4] Other medical reviews that from 2011 and 2012 came to the same conclusion that compulsive sexual behavior constitutes an addiction. [5] [6] References
|
These are paywalled. I'm hosting these papers on an external site for a short time. If you want to replace the content that was deleted in this section, these are suitable references (current medical reviews) with which to expand it. They're the only 2 reviews on pubmed that are relevant to the topic and which are reasonably current.
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 12:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
218.191.191.160 ( talk) 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I notice that there are images of a man and a woman masturbating manually. However, there is an image of a woman using a device, while there is no such image of a man using a device. I feel that we could balance this by adding an image of a man using an artificial vagina. Drewmike ( talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed these images; if anyone wants to know about these *ahem* devices, then they are free to see on the vibrator (sex toy) or fleshlight pages and see for themselves. The images used on this article are illustrative enough. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) (email) 13:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I offered some sources for this claim. Some of the offered sources are better than others. E.g. Szasz does not directly state that the shift in medical consensus was due to evidence, but to anyone who asks why it changed the reply is: evidence. Also, the issue has spilled from the realm of medical claims to realm of history of medicine and history of sexuality, which are fields not strictly covered by WP:MEDRS, so input from historians, sociologists and psychologists is also welcome. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS covers sources speaking synchronically, but it does not cover sources speaking diachronically. Yet they all speak of medical consensus. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
E.g. books by Ronald Numbers aren't unreliable sources because they are written as history. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The claim about the evidence for masturbation being healthy is not just a synchronic claim, it also has historical significance. E.g., the works of Kinsey, Masters and Johnson could be seen as dated in some respects, but they have historical significance, as historians and sociologists have pointed out. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Section 7.3: Pregnancy it states:
"Solo masturbation, or masturbation involving individuals of the same gender, cannot produce pregnancy."
I propose the word "gender" be changed to "sex". Transgender individuals can be of opposite sex, but also of the same gender, and therefore run the risk of pregnancy. Gender implies identity, whereas sex implies biology. While use of the word gender is acceptable, it is not ideal. Consider revising.
Knighthsilgne (
talk)
15:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize that 1) Wikipedia is not censored, 2) a proposal to limit graphic images failed in 2005, and 3) Wikipedia has a disclaimer that its content may be offensive or objectionable. Some images currently used in this article are rather graphic/explicit. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that "material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."
If anyone has any less astonishing or less graphic images that could be used in this article, I believe it would be an improvement, and be less shocking to many readers. Consider the article on condoms. It has an illustration of a man putting on a condom, rather than graphic photographs of a man doing so. Jenglish02 ( talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: Also see the #Photos, with and without device section above for continued image talk. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Mr.Bob.298, per what is stated above in this section about these images being unnecessary. Mr.Bob.298 or others, exactly why should these extra images be included? I won't heavily challenge these images being in this article or WP:Edit war over them being included, mainly because I am not significantly invested in this article, but I see no need for their addition in the least. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
If one wants to counter by stating that it's best to show a woman masturbating by inserting her fingers or a dildo into her vagina as another method of masturbation, so that stimulation of the vulva/clitoris is not the only visual presentation of female masturbation in the article, I can counter with the fact that just like men usually masturbate by physically stimulating their penises only, women usually masturbate by physically stimulating their vulvas only. Furthermore, dildo use is not nearly as popular in real life as it is portrayed in the media. And, yes, I can provide WP:Reliable sources for my assertions in this paragraph, if anyone thinks that I am just giving my personal opinion on all of this. I really see no need for three images to show three different ways a woman can masturbate, while we just have the one illustration of a man masturbating. An illustration of the most common way for both genders is enough. Text and WP:Wikilinks take care of the rest. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I have posted this information before in the article but one of the contributors removed it because it does not apply to most people.
Based on my experience, masturbation works best if...
1.) the genital has no strands of hair (Best if the strands hair is removed permanently. If he cannot afford to do that, plucking or waxing them will do.),
2.) done in an air conditioned room, and
3.) accompanied with
baby oil (Must use
rubbing alcohol on areas where baby oil will be applied to prior to using baby oil) as lubricant (In the event that baby oil will not work as expected later on in one's life as the first time it was used for masturbating,
K-Y Jelly will be the next best.).
Luigi.a.cruz ( talk) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that the "Health benefits"/"Health effects" section of the article is the best place to be putting the image that has the heading "The Two Paths", which is a 19th-century engraving that basically suggests that masturbation will lead to a gradual degradation that is guaranteed to ruin one's life. In my opinion, the pictures are among the first things that will catch the eyes of people -- including hypochondriacs and people raised by religious families, who are concerned about "self-abusing" and the long since disproven disorders said to stem from this perfectly harmless practice -- when they visit this article. The image can be left in if need be, but at least it should be moved to the "History and society" section. Admiral.Mercurial ( talk) 01:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Why no images? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:24, 13 January 2016 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal , "an article should not read like a "how-to" style" and therefore the entire "Techniques" section should not be allowed. Please delete it, you would not find this in any other encyclopedia. I also fail to see that it is necessary, along with the graphic images (what are they telling us anyway?). People will come to the article primarily for medical questions, they will not be coming here for advice, and even if they are, the page should not provide it.
Describing to the reader how other people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_source and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) , please remove original research sources (e.g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00851611 , or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15961213 and all the other original research studies), and the content that they are used to support. Also please note that although many sources are not the original research studies themselves, they are not suitable according to the second quoted rule as sources (e.g. newspapers, blogs, non scientific web publication sites)
Please remove unreferenced content, such as, but not limited to:
Done Sourced or removed.
ChrisGualtieri (
talk)
12:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I removed the image of Teresa of Ávila and that was reverted with a hostile attack, which is completely baseless and shows a misunderstanding of my given reason. The reason I gave was that it is unnecessary and certainly not critical to have a painting of a depiction of a saint on this page and in this fashion. It is not about the creator; but this image is chosen without meaning and purpose relevant to the page that cannot be expressed with another... one that doesn't demean a historical figure. We don't allow this on the Muhammad page; so we shouldn't allow it here. I and many of our readers would find it equally offensive to see any other religious or political leader depicted in such form for an example. ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
The image is inspired from the theory that St Teresa had in fact an earthly orgasm instead of her alleged divine contact with God. Since her experience happened as a dream during sleep, it is very possible that her dream was an orgasm, but I think that masturbation was obviously not involved as you would have to be awake to do this. And anyway, a more famous work http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teresabernini.JPG shows better the described event, there is an angel with a spear. Correct me if I am wrong, but the word masturbation can only be applied if the saint was alone and doing these thing alone. I agree that this image does not add anything to the page, and also that the artist's interpretation is outspoken interpretation. However, the real photographs of people masturbating I consider to be potentially more offensive to most people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.142 ( talk) 09:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
I do not see a consensus to remove the image in the discussion above, and it has been removed. This is not the way Wikipedia works. If several people disagree with one person, for good reasons, actions are not then decided by who put in the last word. The image should be restored. It should be obvious, in a section called 'Paintings and drawings', that the inclusion of a picture depicting masturbation is about the fact that there is a famous historical picture in existence, not about the details of the artist's intention. -- Nigelj ( talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
I noticed earlier that ChrisGualtieri ( talk · contribs) removed this image again today, and I have reverted it back in again. Various editors commented above a month ago, but as I said at 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC), there was no consensus for removal, indeed I would say that the clear consensus was to keep the image, which has been on this page in one form or another for some years, if I recall correctly. -- Nigelj ( talk) 21:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The Chinese term is 自慰, which literally means "from comfort.""to "The Chinese term is 自慰, which literally means "self comfort."or "console oneself"", since the word "自" here means "self" and not "from". here is a link for the word definition http://www.nciku.com/search/cc/detail/%E8%87%AA%E6%85%B0/71901 221.207.122.190 ( talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit removes several statements from the WP:LEDE, which is meant to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". As it stands, what was left is mostly about "contention ... taboo ... religions ... sin ... conservative ... stigma ... restricted ... private ... illegal", followed by a brief mention of "assisted reproduction" and "animal masturbation", and then we're back to repeating "religions ... sin" again. This is not a reasonable summary of the article. The fact that this edit was made under the summary "Edit request. change" baffles me. Which discussion above, precisely, reached a consensus to make these changes? -- Nigelj ( talk) 19:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
As late as the seventeenth century in Europe the practice was commonly employed by nannies to put their young male charges to sleep.
This statement is cited to the book "The Tyranny of Pleasure" on page 22. However, the statement has no source in the book. It is wedged between two sourced statements. Is printing something in a book that is unsourced good enough to make it to wikipedia?
Here is an online link to the book. http://m.friendfeed-media.com/c3f606ba7f49d9f9aa9785dcfc6d0b0a6fa9cd0c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.76.250 ( talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm requesting a change I guess. Not sure how Wikipedia works. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.129.76.250 (
talk)
08:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
As the article stands right now, the lede has absolutely no mention of dolls or robots. [edit: neither lede nor body] The entire article doesn't contain a single mention of the word 'robot'. I have made persistent efforts ( most recent) toward rectifying this, but each time my edits have been reverted. Rationale for the removal included the view that I was adding original research and that my additions were not WP:LEDE compliant in that there was no mention of robots within the body of the article. For editors who strive to increase the quality of Wikipedia, it is clear to me that the most helpful action to take for these valid criticisms, instead of simply hitting the 'revert' button, is this:
- Statement in lede is unsupported.
Fix: Flag as needing a reference. (I found a great book with a single googling.)
- Lede is discussing a topic that is not discussed in the article's body.
Fix: Add a statement or two into the body.
I realize that these approaches to fixes require putting in a little more effort, but that's the direction that leads to higher quality articles instead of preserving the gaping holes in them.
Last point: If there's an edit instability regarding the quality of an article, it is clear to me that the best place to initiate a Talk discussion is on the article's Talk page and not any particular User's Talk page (ie: mine). This way other editors who care about the issue in question are not required to go hunting around in order to get up to speed on whatever disagreements had transpired. Now if the issue is that a particular user is vandalizing an article, then that would be an excellent reason to open a discussion on the UserTalk page and keep the article Talk insulated from irrelevant noise. Vybr8 ( talk) 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I've scoured all 10 archives as well as the entire revision history of this article all the way back to its creation way back in 2001, and I am absolutely astounded to find not a single mention of robots or dolls ...other than the single edit where 'sex doll' was added to the 'see also' section (without discussion).
Once again, I will highlight the fact that the very first sentence in the sex doll article says "masturbation". Something is either broken over on that article, or it is broken here on this article. Vybr8 ( talk) 05:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
"No causal relationship is known between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder."
This is a categorical statement of fact. It is also false.
There is sound peer reviewed research over the last decade which suggests statistically relevant connections between incidence of prostate cancer and quanta of masturbation at various ages, and/or psychological/neurological/hormonal and inter-human relational harm from excessive masturbation. The studies are well reported in the wider media and I am happy to provide scientific references if you are interested.
The best that could be said is that "There was a general consensus until the end of the last century based on an assumption that all activities leading to ejaculation were of equal physiological effect to males, and therefore harmless, but that assumption is now being re-examined. Some recent research has shown statistically relevant connections between incidence of prostate cancer and quanta of masturbation at various ages, and/or psychological/neurological/hormonal and inter-human relational harm from excessive masturbation."
Legalisfortis ( talk) 10:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Some sources set out below and while on reflection the "bald claim" is false - paragraph below is closer to the true position.
"There has been, and still is, a general consensus that all masturbation is harmless. The assumption is that sexual activity and orgasm are natural human functions and all behaviour and activities that led to orgasm have outcomes of equal psychological and physiological effect. That assumption is now being re-examined and some recent research indicates statistically relevant connections between the incidence of prostate cancer and prostatitis, apparently dependent on the frequency of masturbation at various ages, and quite different physiological, endocrinal and psychological outcomes when partnered intercourse and orgasm is compared with orgasm induced by masturbation.”
< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16095799 > < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19016689 > < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284056 > Legalisfortis ( talk) 15:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
The point is still that the bald universal "No causal relationship is known" claim is false and should be moderated. Somehow. I am open to suggestions.
This piece below is from an influential secondary source you all will recognise and speaks the idea that there is a universal positive consensus. There needs to be a moderation of the existing sentence to uphold the truth. < http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201209/rethinking-the-wonders-adult-masturbation>
Can someone explain to me how the tildes are meant to work...? Is it like so:
~~Peter~~ or so Legalisfortis ( talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Now about debunking such claims:
In the collection's introductory chapter, Eli Coleman describes how Kinsey's research half a century ago was the first in a series of studies to challenge widely prevalent cultural myths relating to the 'harmful' effects of masturbation, revealing the practice to be both common and non-pathological. Subsequent research, outlined by Coleman in this chapter, has shown masturbation to be linked to healthy sexual development, sexual well-being in relationships, self-esteem and bodily integrity (an important sexual right). As such, the promotion and de-stigmatization of the practice continue to be important strategies within sexology for the achievement of healthy sexual development and well-being.
The collection concludes with two surveys among US college students. The first of these was based on limited quantitative questions relating to masturbation. The findings suggest that masturbation is not a substitute for sexual intercourse, as has often been posited, but is associated with increased sexual interest and greater number of partners. The second of these surveys asks whether masturbation could be useful in treating low sexual desire, by examining the relationship between masturbation, libido and sexual fantasy.— Kate Wood, Masturbation as a Means of Achieving Sexual Health by Walter Bockting; Eli Coleman, Culture, Health & Sexuality, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Mar., 2005), pp. 182-184
Quoted by Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
He asserted that masturbation is healthy by ‘‘for example, lessening the likelihood of developing prostate cancer, improving mood, developing sexual interests, and perhaps even ridding oneself of tired sperm’’ (p. 219). However, these unreferenced claims contrast sharply with the best available empirical evidence.
— Rui Miguel Costa, Masturbation is Related to Psychopathology and Prostate Dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012), Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:539–540, doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-9956-0
Stengers and Van Neck follow the illness to its fairly abrupt demise; they liken the shift to finally seeing the emperor without clothes as doctors began to doubt masturbation as a cause of illness at the turn of the twentieth century. Once doubt set in, scientists began to accumulate statistics about the practice, finding that a large minority and then a large majority of people masturbated. The implications were clear: if most people masturbated and did not experience insanity, debility, and early death, then masturbation could not be held accountable to the etiology that had been assigned it. Masturbation quickly lost its hold over the medical community, and parents followed in making masturbation an ordinary part of first childhood and then human sexuality.
— Lisa Z. Sigel, Masturbation: The History of the Great Terror by Jean Stengers; Ann Van Neck; Kathryn Hoffmann, Journal of Social History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Summer, 2004), pp. 1065-1066
The medical profession isn’t convinced. Every doctor and psychologist I spoke with informed me that “there’s no evidence” to link masturbation to sexual performance, and that it’s an oversimplification to think that frequent masturbation is the cause of delayed ejaculation. According to Stephen Snyder, a sex therapist in Manhattan, it’s “most often not the case.” Darius Paduch, a professor of urology and reproductive medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College, went so far as to say that ejaculation leads to greater fertility. “In our practice, we pretty much make men achieve an erection at least three to four times a week,” he says. Paduch also cited studies that found that men who ejaculated multiple times a week faced less risk of erectile dysfunction later in life. There’s also the body’s natural process of elimination: Many anti-masturbators start having wet dreams.
— Emily Witt, Hands Off, New York. 4/22/2013, Vol. 46 Issue 12, p28-31. 4p.
It is a well known scientific fact that if you go too long without having an orgasm, your balls will explode and the pain will kill you. DeistCosmos ( talk) 23:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Question. What does any of the above have to do with masturbation? Ought it not to be applied to orgasm? If a man has three orgasms a day every day of his adult life, it can not possibly medically make any difference if all are in the course of conjugal intercourse, or by that man's own hand. DeistCosmos ( talk) 23:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
I have stated what appears in DSM-IV-TR, now it's time for DSM-5 (searched for keyword "mastur"):
So, Brody is exposed as not representing the medical consensus and Costa as willfully misrepresenting it. If Brody would be mainstream, this would be reflected in DSM-5, which was published in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association (earliest Brody paper cited inside the Costa article was published in 2009, it had four years to produce a revolution in medicine). Accordingly Brody and Costa should be considered WP:FRINGE in respect to establishing medical facts upon Wikipedia and citing them should be regarded as WP:Advocacy. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
p. 694 pornography mentioned in sexual masochism disorder
p. 696 pornography mentioned in sexual sadism disorder
p. 698, 699 pornography mentioned in pedophile disorder
p. 797 pornography disqualified as a possible internet use disorder, in the context of internet gaming disorder which does not amount to a recognized disorder, but to a condition for further study
Nowhere in DSM-5 masturbation in itself and/or pornography in itself constitute health problems. MythBusters would say that Brody and Costa are busted. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to include the following in section 7.4 Problems for males:
After ejaculation, some men experience physical and cognitive symptoms characterized as Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS). [1]
KalleVomDach ( talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Alot of this article are the opinions of hedonistic people. It is not genetically good for a male person to waste his time masturbating whenever he could be out in the world breeding women. The good and the bad of masturbation is born out of genetic proliferation. Good equals a male person going out in the world doing things to gain the favor of a woman and then the male person breeding her. Bad equals a male person wasting his time masturbating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.184.232 ( talk) 17:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
In the without constipation and overflow incontinence subtype, feces are likely to be of normal form and consistency, and soiling is intermittent. Feces may be deposited in a prominent location. This is usually associated with the presence of oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder or may be the consequence of anal masturbation. Soiling without constipation appears to be less common than soiling with constipation.
— DSM-5, p. 358
307.7 Without Constipation and Overflow Incontinence. There is no evidence of constipation on physical examination or by history. Feces are likely to be of normal form and consistency, and soiling is intermittent. Feces may be deposited in a prominent location. This is usually associated with the presence of Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder or may be the consequence of anal masturbation. Soiling without constipation appears to be less common than soiling with constipation.
— DSM-IV-TR, p. 117
Elimination disorders all involve the inappropriate elimination of urine or feces and are usually first diagnosed in childhood or adolescence. This group of disorders includes enuresis, the repeated voiding of urine into inappropriate places, and encopresis, the repeated passage of feces into inappropriate places. Subtypes are provided to differentiate nocturnal from diurnal (i.e., during waking hours) voiding for enuresis and the presence or absence of constipation and overflow incontinence for encopresis. Although there are minimum age requirements for diagnosis of both disorders, these are based on developmental age and not solely on chronological age. Both disorders may be voluntary or involuntary. Although these disorders typically occur separately, co-occurrence may also be observed.
— DSM-5, p. 355
Most children with the disorder become continent by adolescence, but in approximately 1% of cases the disorder continues into adulthood.
— DSM-5, p. 356
The event must occur at least once a month for at least 3 months (Criterion B), and the chronological age of the child must be at least 4 years (or for children with developmental delays, the mental age must be at least 4 years) (Criterion C).
— DSM-5, p. 358
I have just removed the following phrase from a very prominent position in the second paragraph of lede of this article:
It does not say so in the citation, but the reference can be read online. I removed it for the following reasons:
There is no way that the manual can be read to say that anal or any other masturbation can be a cause of the listed mental disorder, or even that fecal incontinence in general can be the result of any kind of masturbation. The connection between the feces to be found and activities of the disordered patients is quite clear from the cited text, and it is quite clearly not what the removed text above said. -- Nigelj ( talk) 12:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Anal masturbation is its own page, and what needs telling about it can be told there. We don't mention at the top of sex that you can't get pregnant through anal sex, even though it feels wonderful. Blessings!! DeistCosmos ( talk) 21:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
References
In the General benefits and risks section is a sentence: "EU Nations include masturbation in their sex education and promote the practice. (see above)" While all that seems to be there above is: "Masturbation is considered normal when performed by children, even in early infancy.[28] In 2009, the UK Government joined the Netherlands and other European nations in encouraging teens to masturbate at least daily. An orgasm was defined as a right in its health pamphlet. This was done in response to data and experience from the other EU member states to reduce teen pregnancy and STIs (STDs), and to promote healthy habits.[32]"
Proposal: instead of speaking in general about (all) EU nations, change the wording to "Some EU nations". Even better would be to name the respectful countries as they are, because the meaning (just as the list) of "EU member states" is subject to change over time. Education and therefore sexual education is subject to internal politics/policymaking and changes of these policies, possibly with huge differences both within a given state in a few years course and, in between the individual member states. 94.69.232.4 ( talk) 21:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
For the cultures linked to the Bible or the Koran, that sexual activity is considered as sin, to such a point that the mutilation of its specific organs: the clitoris and the foreskin, if frequently realized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.111.4.73 ( talk) 09:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The following text that I added was deleted by Flyer22:
Some masturbators report that they find masturbation to be more pleasurable, producing more consistent, quicker, or more intense orgasms, than sexual intercourse. [1] [2] [3]
I'm not as experienced with Wikipedia as most of you, but it seems to me this point should be made in the article somewhere. I don't know how to handle it. I did not intend for the sources I cited to be taken as reviewed publications; they were first-person reports (goaskalice is a third-party source, arguably, though not one with academic credentials). Perhaps what I was doing was thus original research, which I know is prohibited. I'm not going to go looking for some third-party source for this (and I don't know where to start, though I could probably figure it out). But I think the article is poorer without it. deisenbe ( talk) 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
1) Where in the article should it go? Should it be a new section? 2) Under WP:Reliable sources I find the following statement: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". Does this not apply? deisenbe ( talk) 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
References
In this article, in the two sections named "Female" and "Male," at least three photographs currently used to illustrate masturbation make use of models whose pubic hair has been removed. I understand that there may be various reasons for this, but it gives an unbalanced and non NPOV view of the prevalence of such shaving.
On Earth today, and throughout human history, adult masturbation has overwhelmingly involved genitals which were not shaved and which thus had a full growth of pubic hair.
Widespread shaving of pubic hair is a relatively recent practice, one which could not possibly have been popular in most cultures in most times and places. Its prevalence would be hard to estimate, but I do not think anyone would seriously argue that more than a few percent, at most, of the world's people regularly shave their pubic hair.
Therefore, to give an unbiased view, I strongly suggest that these photos should be replaced with others which do show public hair. Dratman ( talk) 01:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think the picture with the vibrator in vagina can be problemetic to minors, we should either remove or have an confirmation dialogue that the viewer is not a minor. Best regards Tzcan ( talk) 04:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
please,remove this article.this article is not a community standards at all. PutiChik ( talk) 06:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
"The ancient Indian Hindu text Kama Sutra explains in detail the best procedure to masturbate; 'Churn your instrument with a lion's pounce: sit with legs stretched out at right angles to one another, propping yourself up with two hands planted on the ground between in them, and rub it between your arms'."
The citation given for this quote does not directly quote the actual text of the kama sutra, but indirectly through another book. I brought up the actual Kama Sutra in gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27827/27827-h/27827-h.htm and simply using the search-in-page function of Firefox, "churn your instrument" yields no results within the text. now, this could just mean that the quote is from a different translation than the one on Gutenberg (gutenberg has the 1883 translation by British orientalist Sir Richard Francis Burton) However, while I have not thoroughly read the whole text from top to bottom I have skimmed over the whole thing, I think, pretty thoroughly; and found nothing of the sort. Someone needs to find a better citation that quotes this directly from a translation, or else remove the quotation as an apparent misquote. 70.198.131.190 ( talk) 07:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Source 44 ( http://www.salon.com/2000/05/09/masturbate/) is unreliable, even stating within it that "Johanson did not offer any specific statistics for this claim — nor did she refer to videos of masturbating babies or other physical evidence — but her line of reasoning is this..."
Please remove this source. Danke :) Fazza faz ( talk) 04:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article claims that masturbation lowers blood pressure. The source for this information does not support this, but rather claims that penile-vaginal intercourse lowers blood pressure, whereas masturbation increases blood pressure.
Please update the "general benefits" section with this information. Fazza faz ( talk) 04:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)I deleted all the inline-flagged MEDRS non-compliant citations that cited medical statements as well as one uncited medical statement from this page revision section: Special:permalink/667319430#Compulsive masturbation. I've requested input from WT:MED on the deletion of all these primary/nonmedical sources and the uncited medical statement. Some of the remaining sources are slightly outside the WP:MEDDATE range, but I left those alone.
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 13:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm not happy about this deletion of long-standing material from this section. No reason was given, although a hat-note link to Sexual addiction was added. The first paragraph removed was the one that made a clear statement that masturbation does not cause any form of mental disorder. This may seem an obvious statement, but I think a surprising number of English speakers worldwide may be happy to come here and see an well-sourced, unequivocal statement to that effect - despite whatever their aunt, mother or other adult may have told them in the past. I see nothing in the new hat-note-linked article that makes a similar point. The second paragraph removed made the point that there is still "discussion between professionals and other interested parties as to whether such a thing as sexual addiction really exists." Maybe this is what the other editor didn't like, but again the statement is well sourced. I shall reinstate the deletions of content per WP:BRD, and maybe @ Seppi333: would like to come here and explain why they think this material has to go. -- Nigelj ( talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is a talk page - I'm not going to cite myself, especially because what I said is literally where I said it was cited in my statement above: ΔFosB. My "reading" of "sexual activity" as inclusive of masturbation follows directly from what sexual activity, "sexual reward", and/or "sexual experience" refers to - these are blanket terms for a class of stimuli or a property of those stimuli, just like "psychostimulants" and "opiates" are a class of stimuli. If you want a single summary source, this dissertation covered the state of research in 2012: [9]. Since then, most of the more recent research has gone into the neuroepigenetic mechanisms in addiction and therapeutic potential of histone-modifying enzyme inhibitors for addiction in general. I don't feel like elaborating on this further though, so I'm just going to leave it at that; you don't have to like or even understand what I'm saying, but you will respect the conclusions of medical reviews. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 23:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Lol? Nigel, I provided that link for you to have as a reference for the state of research because it was comprehensive and specific to sexual addiction. I've never cited that source on wikipedia and I don't plan to because a dissertation is a primary source. My explanation above was merely for your education, not my intent to add text to the article; consequently, I don't have to give you a single source to back up my statements because this is a talk page, not an article. You've already been informed where you can find medical reviews which support my statement, so fetch them yourself if you want them.
All the article refs I removed aren't MEDRS-compliant for reasons I've already stated in my edit summary. If you decide to push this and revert me, we can bring this issue to the attention of
WT:MED and you can learn how strictly
WP:MEDRS is applied by medical editors. Otherwise, we can leave it as is and simply link to the article where this content is actually covered in the hatnote.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Similarly, medicines which would cure addiction through neuroepigenetics are bleeding edge research, but are they medical consensus?
"there is biochemical evidence for it"- no, there's addiction biomarker evidence for it. Disease biomarkers are used in lab tests - they're real medical diagnostics. It's not the hand-wavy bullshit the DSM shovels every few years.
I'm not even going to respond to the claims about WP:V WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - these article policies; WP:TPG - that's for talk pages. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 04:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu Seppi333 While it is fine for you two to have this discussion here, can you at least allow the section on compulsion in the article to reflect what probably 99.9% of people expect/need to see? Viz: Is there such a thing? Is it dangerous? Is there a limit to what is healthy? If (as seems probable) there is no scientific medical consensus then by all means state the different positions but I really don't think that this section of this article is an appropriate place for a critique of medical diagnoses sources. Btljs ( talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Unnecessary section text
|
---|
The DSM-5, an American diagnostic classification system, stated in 2013: 'Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders.' [1] The director of the United States National Institute of Mental Health discussed the invalidity of the DSM-5's classification of mental disorders, writing: [2]
The flawed and arbitrary nature of the DSM addiction classifications has also been criticized by medical researchers who actively study addiction pathophysiology. [3] A 2014 systematic review on sexual addiction discussed this lack of available evidence, indicating that, "a lack of empirical evidence on sexual addiction is the result of the disease's complete absence from versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". [4] According to the same systematic review, sexual addiction is a diagnosable behavioral addiction with prevalence rates for it and related sexual disorders ranging from 3 to 6%. [4] Other medical reviews that from 2011 and 2012 came to the same conclusion that compulsive sexual behavior constitutes an addiction. [5] [6] References
|
These are paywalled. I'm hosting these papers on an external site for a short time. If you want to replace the content that was deleted in this section, these are suitable references (current medical reviews) with which to expand it. They're the only 2 reviews on pubmed that are relevant to the topic and which are reasonably current.
Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 12:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
218.191.191.160 ( talk) 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I notice that there are images of a man and a woman masturbating manually. However, there is an image of a woman using a device, while there is no such image of a man using a device. I feel that we could balance this by adding an image of a man using an artificial vagina. Drewmike ( talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I have removed these images; if anyone wants to know about these *ahem* devices, then they are free to see on the vibrator (sex toy) or fleshlight pages and see for themselves. The images used on this article are illustrative enough. – Zumoarirodoka (talk) (email) 13:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I offered some sources for this claim. Some of the offered sources are better than others. E.g. Szasz does not directly state that the shift in medical consensus was due to evidence, but to anyone who asks why it changed the reply is: evidence. Also, the issue has spilled from the realm of medical claims to realm of history of medicine and history of sexuality, which are fields not strictly covered by WP:MEDRS, so input from historians, sociologists and psychologists is also welcome. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS covers sources speaking synchronically, but it does not cover sources speaking diachronically. Yet they all speak of medical consensus. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
E.g. books by Ronald Numbers aren't unreliable sources because they are written as history. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The claim about the evidence for masturbation being healthy is not just a synchronic claim, it also has historical significance. E.g., the works of Kinsey, Masters and Johnson could be seen as dated in some respects, but they have historical significance, as historians and sociologists have pointed out. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 16:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Section 7.3: Pregnancy it states:
"Solo masturbation, or masturbation involving individuals of the same gender, cannot produce pregnancy."
I propose the word "gender" be changed to "sex". Transgender individuals can be of opposite sex, but also of the same gender, and therefore run the risk of pregnancy. Gender implies identity, whereas sex implies biology. While use of the word gender is acceptable, it is not ideal. Consider revising.
Knighthsilgne (
talk)
15:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I realize that 1) Wikipedia is not censored, 2) a proposal to limit graphic images failed in 2005, and 3) Wikipedia has a disclaimer that its content may be offensive or objectionable. Some images currently used in this article are rather graphic/explicit. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that "material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."
If anyone has any less astonishing or less graphic images that could be used in this article, I believe it would be an improvement, and be less shocking to many readers. Consider the article on condoms. It has an illustration of a man putting on a condom, rather than graphic photographs of a man doing so. Jenglish02 ( talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Note: Also see the #Photos, with and without device section above for continued image talk. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I reverted Mr.Bob.298, per what is stated above in this section about these images being unnecessary. Mr.Bob.298 or others, exactly why should these extra images be included? I won't heavily challenge these images being in this article or WP:Edit war over them being included, mainly because I am not significantly invested in this article, but I see no need for their addition in the least. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
If one wants to counter by stating that it's best to show a woman masturbating by inserting her fingers or a dildo into her vagina as another method of masturbation, so that stimulation of the vulva/clitoris is not the only visual presentation of female masturbation in the article, I can counter with the fact that just like men usually masturbate by physically stimulating their penises only, women usually masturbate by physically stimulating their vulvas only. Furthermore, dildo use is not nearly as popular in real life as it is portrayed in the media. And, yes, I can provide WP:Reliable sources for my assertions in this paragraph, if anyone thinks that I am just giving my personal opinion on all of this. I really see no need for three images to show three different ways a woman can masturbate, while we just have the one illustration of a man masturbating. An illustration of the most common way for both genders is enough. Text and WP:Wikilinks take care of the rest. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I have posted this information before in the article but one of the contributors removed it because it does not apply to most people.
Based on my experience, masturbation works best if...
1.) the genital has no strands of hair (Best if the strands hair is removed permanently. If he cannot afford to do that, plucking or waxing them will do.),
2.) done in an air conditioned room, and
3.) accompanied with
baby oil (Must use
rubbing alcohol on areas where baby oil will be applied to prior to using baby oil) as lubricant (In the event that baby oil will not work as expected later on in one's life as the first time it was used for masturbating,
K-Y Jelly will be the next best.).
Luigi.a.cruz ( talk) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that the "Health benefits"/"Health effects" section of the article is the best place to be putting the image that has the heading "The Two Paths", which is a 19th-century engraving that basically suggests that masturbation will lead to a gradual degradation that is guaranteed to ruin one's life. In my opinion, the pictures are among the first things that will catch the eyes of people -- including hypochondriacs and people raised by religious families, who are concerned about "self-abusing" and the long since disproven disorders said to stem from this perfectly harmless practice -- when they visit this article. The image can be left in if need be, but at least it should be moved to the "History and society" section. Admiral.Mercurial ( talk) 01:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Why no images? Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 08:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)