![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
"however when done with no marriage or confines involved, does not penalize those performing the act"-Is there a source for that? -- 72.49.61.223 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not correct...see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
(1) Anybody know what's the optimum masturbation rate healthwise and waiting to catch a decent woman ? Ok indivudal differences are hight etc. but my idea is based on the fact that most (probably all) organs have an optimum solicitation rate, for example : if you don't use your muscle they get weaker and weaker, if you don't use your neurons the degenerate, if you don't submit your bones to strong forces they get spongy (astronauts), etc. the principle at work seem to be some sort of biological optimisation based on use, and it's also valid for overuse! If you train your muscle too much, you get injuries etc. So what about the sexual apparatus ? They must be an optimal use, and sleeping erections are probably there to assure that everythings are ok, or even to give it a bit or training (sleeping ejaculations probably too). If linking that with prostate health and the integrity of ejected DNA, it becomes qzuite complicated, thanks for your though! And this is not any mental masturbation!
(2) Read a few times that masturbation lower the testosterone concentration, actually not very surprising feeling-wise I mean calmer and at least able to think about something else for a few hours! Also the masturbation being often the stigmate of the rejected male the hormonal association seems logical! What about mastubation visual helpers (visualisation of women, pornography, etc) seems that it pushes the level of testosterone up ?
(3) feel free to push me a bit lower, but I did not know how else I could get enough attentions ?
This definition has some surprisingly unencyclopedic bits.
The entire section on Humor and Masturbation is misplaced here. Death has also long been the subject of humor. So has sex. Yet neither of those definitions has an extensive entry on relevant humor. Humor pertaining to masturbation should go somewhere under sexual humor. It does not belong here.
The list of euphemisms is also out of place; they belong under euphemisms. Again, the definition for death doesn't mention "kicking the bucket" anywhere, and the one for sex is similarly void of phrases like "making the beast with two backs", or even "fucking".
Lastly, either the picture of female masturbation needs to be removed, or a picture of male maturbation should be added. I'm undecided on which of those two solutions would be best, but either would be better than depicting only female masturbation. 157.181.71.7 05:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I choose not to respond to your comment about the legal issues of the situation because, with as much respect as possible, they are so non-sequitorial and ill-educated that I would have to go into EXTENSIVE explanations as to why you're wrong. I encourage you to properly educate yourself on the facts of the matter. Suffice to say (once again) that people know exactly what they are doing when they research a topic in an encyclopedia: looking for information. Any child obtaining information or photographs related to a topic that they should not have been accessing were obviously not being properly supervised, and the party responsible for that is their legal guardian. Pacian 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a simple follow up (and i'm sorry if i missed mention of this particular topic among all the discussions and arguments on this page), i would like to consider the readers who genuinely do not know how to masturbate. images about masturbation do not need to be graphic or photographic to aid in the learning process. People looking to learn masturbation should have some images to facilitate that learning, but we do not need to supply pornography on wikipedia. -- Whiteknight 02:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please add your votes!
Addendum: it is also important to note that there is a significant amount of humor, and several euphamisms at the Oral Sex artical. all the humor and euphamisms here are integrated into the text of the artical however, and are not given a dedicated section. this might be an interesting compromise. -- Whiteknight 02:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Sexual slang - it contains around a hundred euphemisms for masturbation, and many for oral sex as well. - Willmcw 02:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete the entire page, its in bloody bad taste. This entire topic is nothing more than playground for advanced adolescents with a preoccupation for sexual chatter. For the love of Humanity, if you are all so obsessed with the subject, go have sex, and leave the writing to those who are able to think without seeing images of zippers and shiny objects floating around. If you are can't, send a letter to Hustler, I guarantee you they would be fascinated. Any, I repeat, any attempt at a discussion of what is tasteful and what is not regarding such a topic is at least vulger, and very probably a sign of advanced idiocy.
Prometheuspan 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) You guys have been suckered. This image is somebodies way of making a statement soapbox of the article versus circumcision. I think that the way to handle this realistically is to cover the problem of circumcision, not show a suckerpunch image which doesn't show how any male actually masturbates and is a tricky prank to demonstrate why circumcision is a bad idea. Prometheuspan 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Check out penis, clitoris, vulva and the like. The last guy who tried to remove the clitoris picture ended up being arbcommed. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree on this. This is an article about masturbation and the photograph is of masturbation. The smut is in the eye of the beholder. You see smut, I see a chap giving his willy a good hard polishing. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too fond of the line drawings and the photos are far worse. Let's not peddle pornography. Force10 01:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I vote against the photo for the reasons I describe in detail above. Briefly, I think we want to make the best possible information available to the most possible people. In my view, too many people will block us or have a negative view of us if we have these types of photos. Therefore, they do more harm than good. Johntex 01:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have an issue with the current picture of male masturbation that goes beyond the offensive/non-offensive debate. I encourage all male Wikipedians to try and emulate that picture, with particular reference to hand position. As the proud owner and operator of a penis, I'm pretty sure nobody masturbates like that. I just gave it a shot, and damn near dislocated my shoulder.
Thus, there are two possiblities, either of them making the picture ineligible, IMO. The first (more likely) one is that the man in the picture is not masturbating himself; the hand belongs to someone else. The difference between the skin colour of the hand and the rest of the man's body makes this likely. The second possiblity is that the man is demonstrating some highly advanced masturbation technique.
To sum up: any picture of male masturbation should be a "typical" one, much like the one of female masturbation. From this perspective, the picture in the article is flawed. 157.181.71.7 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove the image, and I'm sick and tired of the bluenoses and Mrs. Grundys who keep trying to bring down this encyclopedia. Speak for yourselves, quit trying to hide behind "the children". If you object, be brave and say so. Until you get a petition from some parent who is offended, your contention that you're protecting the children is bogus. We have had this discussion over and over again, it's gotten old. Find something more constructive to do. Rick K 21:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I agree the photo is kind of strange. That's not the way I do it. Err...anyway...be it that image or another, why not put a disclaimer at the top of the page? I have vague memories of this happening with other articles. Or give the option at the top of the page to see the article with images or without. Jez 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wonder why RickK and Pacian get so worked up about this that they call arguments they disagree with "idiotic bickering" (as Pacian claims) or label those that have a different point of view to be "bluenoses and Mrs. Grundys" (as RickK claims)? What happened to discussing the facts at hand? Fact: Wikipedia is not Wikiporn. Fact: The image is bizarre. Conclusion: the image should not be here. Force10 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you object to my interpretation of your comments below, please feel free to move/remove your name, or clarify your position. Force10 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In favor of keeping this photograph in this article
202.191.106.230 05:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC) You can't edit real life to suit your needs, the images stay (user: JayKeaton)
In favor of removing this photograph from this article
I size the opportunity to point out that, although this is not officially a vote, voting is not encouraged in Wikipedia; we work by consensus, not by democracy. This way is intended to encourage reasonable middle-term solutions and explanations rather then enforce solutions with which a large minority could disagree -- it also saves the hassle of raising campaigns. Rama 22:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the picture to a line drawing with a slightly more conventional technique. hopefully this will pacify everybody and we can go back to doing something important Fuzz 22:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted the image edit by User:Warbler1, on the grounds that this is evidently a contentious issue, and as such an edit of this form should be discussed before it is made. Warbler1 makes a good point, that the second line drawing is unnecessary, however, this is not the way to deal with it, in my opinion.
I think that the best solution is to attempt for a degree of equality in the images. If a close-up lind drawing of a male masturbating is to be included, one should be included for a female, however I feel that this is less contentious than if a photograph is included. If a photograph of a male masturbating is included, one must be included of a female, otherwise we risk losing NPOV over the images.
Not to re-ignite this fairly mundane debate, but do we really need not one but two poorly done male images? The second one, besides being utterly crap, really adds nothing to the article. brenneman (t) (c) 11:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Just want to add my voice to those calling for exclusion of all sexually explicit images. Call me a prude, call me a censor, call me a reactionary, call me whatever. If you want to see a closely reasoned argument for why this stuff is just stupid and counterproductive, let me know and I'll schedule you. Meanwhile, I want this to be a serious encyclopedia. Why don't you boys like TonySidaway and RickK start a spinoff like "WikiSex" and then lobby back here to include links to it from Wikipedia? This cruft has always been quarantined into some place it's understood one should not invite kids. This holds for towns that allow adult bookstores and it's going to have to hold for self-respecting `net neighborhoods. Stop bringing our work down. Kids are a vital part of our audience, many times more important than the randy slacker demographic and whoever else might find this drek "useful". If the cruft enthusiasts can't be put down completely, I suppose we'll have to get along with the drawings. But the line MUST be drawn at these photos. JDG 03:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have a very US-centric point of view here. Wikipedia is a multi-national project, and you should be well aware that a majority of Western coutries are far less prude than the "moral majority" which is so vocal in the USA. Also, here is no particular reason to single out sexuality as the one "shocking" subject; there are certainly Muslims who could be shocked that we have depictions of living beings on WIkipedia, yet it would be extremely negative to remove all such illustrations, even though they are in direct contradiction with their faith.
Also, even though there is a very vocal minority which keeps refering to "some people" who will get shocked, or that "in some cases", or to "children", I still have to actually see one single occurence of someone getting honestly shocked. I suggest that we tsay on a practical approach of the subject and let aside hypothetical cases which could be understood as to only retroactively give excuses for a decision already taken for pseudo-moral reasons. Rama 09:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
JDG, I do not quite understand the following statement of yours, could you please clarify? "Fine, if Wikipedia is to be a purely amoral thing, it can choose that direction. I'll leave and many, perhaps most, of the best contributors will leave... But I don't think this will happen." Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be amoral? Hasn't it chosen that direction from the very outset? If Wikipedia is supposed to have morality, why doesn't it state that " Hitler is evil", for example? Surely that's something with which all moral people would agree?
Obviously, I'm against shock value. I think the photograph was more useful than the current line drawings, but the difference is not great, and I think this level of compromise is appropriate. But I'm really uncomfortable at the thought of Wikipedia self-censoring itself. Could you please give us a cite where a non-Wikipedian argues that there's too much smut on Wikipedia? It would, I think, be useful to gauge whether this (alienating people) is a real and serious issue. 157.181.71.7 13:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello dab, there is no need for an 80% majority to decide on a version of an article. This is not a vote for deletion of the article or the image, where a supramajority is needed. This is simply an editing decision. There is no reason to set a disproportionally higher burden for one version or the other. A simple majority is enough to decide on a version of an article. Johntex 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the pictures in the article now are lovely, and very appropriate to this article, which they illustrate very well. Of course all pictures must be explicit, whether they're illustrating a motor car, a tin opener, or masturbation, otherwise how could they possibly be useful in an encyclopedia? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 19:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE. Rama, JDG and others, this is not the place to discuss what society should or should not be like, or what values or morality it should have or not have, or which societies are "fallen" or not. There are other online forums for this, if necessary.
There are a number of topics in which we have to balance the need for accurate and descriptive representation of reality (which includes elements that some people are embarassed about) with the sensitivity of many, or with other concerns such as Wikipedia being accepted in schools or whatever. These are delicate topics, without even going into the problems of society as a whole.
Now for my personal opinion: these are many societies that are embarassed about discussing or depicting various acts, parts of the anatomy, people or objects. We have already have the members of one religion objecting to a photograph of their prophet, which they deem to lack respect for him; others object to the graphical depictions of sexual acts, etc.
It seems impossible to content all such requests without severely bowdlerizing Wikipedia. As a consequence, there will always be people who think we exceed the limits of "bad taste", "decency" or "morality". This is inevitable.
I'd therefore prefer the debate to stick to objective concerns, focusing on the objectives of Wikipedia (which is to provide information formulated from a neutral point of view to people). For instance, we may consider the following factors:
These are topics that we should discuss. One thing I also would like to avoid in the discussion is fictional cases:
So, in a nutshell: I would like the discussion to stick to real problems and solutions, not to go into societal reform or fancy hypotheses. Thanks. David.Monniaux 19:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we have to consider the legal framework of the jurisdictions that can realistically prosecute the Foundation, its regional chapters, their officers or contributors (which probably excludes Iran, but includes Florida and the US federal government). This, however, is based on legal criteria, not on opinions about what could possibly be shocking to (sometimes hypothetical) people. While what is shocking or not differs between cultures, sub-cultures, and people, we can at least go to firmer grounds by simply considering the relevant legal frameworks.
I also agree about the probabilities and hypothetical examples. My point is that, given the huge traffic that Wikipedia gets, we apparently do not receive complaints about real minors having seen sexually explicit material by accident (except vandalism); to me, this indicates that the event is rare.
As for encountering stuff by accident: I agree that one may look up a word without even knowing that it has sexual meaning (though I think that most people, including minors, looking up sexual words do so knowing they have a sexual meaning, without necessarily knowing the details). I personally support putting pictures etc. in a position in the article or in sub-pages such that it's difficult to reach them without knowing very well that one is looking at sexually explicit material. I note that we have a "spoiler warning" message, we could have a "sexually explicit material ensues" message.
I would like opinions from US legal experts, but I reckon that if a minor willfully gets access to explicit material after being told about the expliciteness of the material, then there is no grounds for complaint.
I would also know what the criteria applied by US jurisdictions. As far as I know, "pornography" is defined differently from "sexually explicit material"; it is sexually explicit material that has a goal of exciting prurient interest in the reader. Merely showing genitals or a penis, or a clinical depiction of a sexual act, is not pornography by this definition.
But, see — we agree on the basics: we have to go back to discussion on objective factors (legal factors that could reasonably affect the project, etc.) and leave aside societal rants. Thanks! David.Monniaux 06:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Why not simply put a link to the picture(s) on the page with an appropriate warning. At least that way people who are looking up masturbation expecting text and medical diagrams wont have it 'shoved in their face' the moment the page loads and will have to make a conscious decision to go further.
195.92.168.167
03:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
A prudish lady once accosted the learned Samuel Johnson shortly after publication of his monumental dictionary of the English language.
Said she, "Dr. Johnson, I am distressed that your dictionary contains so many vulgar words."
Replied Johnson, 'Madam, I am immeasurably distressed that you actually looked them up!"
Oh my god, Johnson story, that is beautiful! -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed this section because it seems to be about prudery in US broadcasting rather than masturbation per se, and the people involved are in general (Pamela Anderson excepted) unknown outside the USA.
-- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
For reference, I believe she was insinuating that she masturbated by rubbing her genitals against the square corners of objects in her house (tables, chairs, whatever). The joke being that she's done it do much that she's in fact sanded them down. 70.70.210.215 03:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Smartbomb
Prometheuspan 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) I for one find the rubber duck to be a very good choice for this article. Prometheuspan 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is the deletion of this highly out-of-place image being reverted? Even if vibrators are being de-dramatized, a typical vibrator doesn't look a thing like this; why would you have it featured in an article that explains what masturbation generally consists of?
The image was deleted again, with "Vandalism out" as the comment. I have reverted it -- the image is certainly not vandalism, regardless of how controversial it is. -- me_and 2 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
A user with no experience of vibrators who navigates to this page will be extremely mislead by a picture of a rubber duck in the absence of any other photos. it should be removed or replaced.
The picture is neither vandalism nor controversial, it is just out of place. You can buy inflatable sheep and even stranger things to assist you in solitary sex - how about a couple of pictures of stuff like that? I really can't think of a single good reason as to why that stupid duck should be here.
The resource Pacian suggested above, I found it rather interesting. Shouldn't an external link to it be added?, the homepage of such website is text-only so an 'explicit-images' warning shouldn't be required. The URL is as follows. http://advancedmasturbation.com/ I am not going to put this article in my watchlist, so I'd ask the next person who sees this to please add the link if he finds it would add an extra value to the article. I, personally, think it would do. I must also add, regarding the above discussion on wheter to add explicit images to the article or not... shouldn't those photographs be included, but in the shape of a text link to the photograph?. I took the idea from the Autofellatio article, as seen at 31 May 2005. (Note: I read THE WHOLE discussion) Pentalis 31 May 2005.
The Jewish view on masturbation has been completely misrepresented. The Talmud (Niddah 13a) is unequivocal in its condemnation of masturbation, and Onan is cited as a source for Divine disapproval, not because of coitus interruptus but because his semen was spilt; whether this was due to manual or vaginal stimulation is irrelevant. This is codified in all the major sources of Jewish law (e.g. Shulkhan Arukh E.H. 23:1), so there is no need to weasel about implicit acceptance etc etc. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Joseph was supposed to have 12 tribes like Moses. Because he spilt 10 drops of semen, he only had 2 tribes.
The idea that eating cornflakes would discourage masturbation is one that I've known of for a while, but I've been having a minor debate about whether this is actually true, and would appreciate another source for that, if anyone knows of one. -- me_and 2 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
I read in a book called The Little Book of Bad Taste that 'Dr. Harvey Kellog invented his breakfast cereal to be an antidote to masturbation'. It cause a lot of laughs amongst my peers, but unfortunatly I cannot vouch for the book's accuracy, and I do not have it to hand at this moment. But I have heard of this claim before. Lady BlahDeBlah 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Like many Christian conservatives before and since, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg believed that masturbation, and in fact all sexual excess, was sinful -- "sexual excess" here defined as "sex for anything beyond reproduction". For instance: after marrying, Kellogg chose to spend his honeymoon sequestered from his wife, valiantly striving to complete his his influential book Plain Facts for Old and Young: Embracing the Natural History and Hygiene of Organic Life (1892). Talk about your dull, soggy flakes.
Kellogg himself seems to have solved the problem by redirecting his attentions to an obsessive fascination with cleansing the bowels. For Kellogg, the tube linking anus to lips was a seething quagmire of pollution, poisoning the mind and spirit as well as the body. Kellogg, a vegetarian himself, recommended abstaining from flesh and spicy foods, augmenting the diet with plenty of fiber, drinking lots of water, and irrigating with regular enemas of water with a yogurt chaser. And as director of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, Kellogg had ample license to apply his approach to many captive well-to-do neurotics in need of mental restablizing.
source: http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/masturbation/kelloggs-cornflakes/
As recently as the 1960s fellow students were stating as true that our college put "saltpeter" in the food to prevent masturbation. This urban legend has quite a venerable (stop giggling, that's "venerable," not "venereal") history.
[2] At the time this one seemed to be false on the face of it, as the chemical in question had not been known as "saltpeter" for... I dunno, half a century anyway.
Dpbsmith
(talk)
19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
In Western countries masturbation tends to be legal, even by children, as long as nobody else is involved and no image is made.
User:Mikkalai keeps reverting the {{ linkimage}} link to Image:Masturbation.jpg, saying "This man is not masturbating, just showing his cock", and "the man in the photo is not masturbating. Prove it." May I ask what proof would be appropriate? A video, perhaps? I have images of the result, if that would help him. Regardless, the image is quite obviously one of masturbation, and I don't know what Mikkalai thinks masturbation looks like. I relalize I've been bold by editing the page itself, but the discussion about the use of images seems to have stagnated. My proposal was to place the image in a {{ linkimage}} box, like the autofellation image. What are people's opinions? Warbler1 9 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
Why not simply put a link to the picture(s) on the page with an appropriate warning. At least that way people who are looking up masturbation expecting text and medical diagrams wont have it 'shoved in their face' the moment the page loads and will have to make a conscious decision to go further. 195.92.168.167 03:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
the inclusion here of comments regarding results of the Canadian Now magazine survey seems very random considering the volume of worldwide research on this topic through history. Wikipedia should be representative, the respondents to the quoted survey represent a tiny and very specific number of people. For reasons of cultural bias this paragraph should be removed.
-
I also agree that the quoted survey not only has the "cultural bias" mentioned, but that the survey's chosen sample completely misrepresents the whole of even Canada—it was announced only to readers of a specific magazine (presumably oriented to interestingly edgy topics), and has no regard for an even or random sample. Michael Lipik 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody have any idea what "historic chronicles" are being referred to? It's a very mysterious assertion. - Willmcw 00:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I once heard in a philosophy reading that a prominent Greek philosopher would often masturbate in Athens walking around. It was perhaps greeted with surprise, but was not considered lewd or illegal. I can't recall his name, but it was not Socrates.
Ichelhof
05:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It was Diogène !!!
The "Medical attitudes" section seems almost exlusively to deal with male masturbation, and ought to be expanded (by someone more knowledgable than me on the subject) to include (for instance) the treatment of hysteria with genital stimualtion and the Freudean attitudes towards clitoral and vaginal orgasms. I think. -- Birdseed 22:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This entry doesn't talk enough about how God hates anyone that performs this evil act
Your god hates everyone, repressed guy. Wait, isn't this the year 2005? Have I travelled back in time? -- 80.58.9.42 16:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. 24.54.208.177 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh thank you dear fellas, I haven't laughed this hard in days. Dabljuh 05:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Point out EXACTLY where the word masturbation is anywhere in the Bible. Stupid fundy.
So, Johntex, is this some new Wikipedia policy? I thought the new edits, particularly the ones in the Female section were fine - it's nice to get some more work on that section. I think if you look at other sections of this article, they're a bit short on citations at the moment, so we'd all better beware your axe! Somebody who knows their way around better than me may be able to supply a link here to a policy page called something like 'Don't bite the newbies' - I think it's probably relevant here. -- Nigelj 17:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the two paragraphs (+misc.) specific to masturbation with diapers. There are simply too many fetishes to include them all in this article. Some people masturbate using toy stuffed animals. Others use various food products. The list goes on and on. There isn't room to include all of the possibilities without changing the topic of this article from masturbation to a list of fetishes (which already exists in another article). Any fetish-specific masturbation info belongs in the article on that fetish, not in the article about masturbationl. -- Icarus 06:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Andycjp has made several recent edits ephasizing the possibility of a person experiencing guilt about masturbating and deemphasizing the current mainstream medical view that masturbation is a healthy, harmless part of human sexuality. He may be on to something. I would welcome a section on negative contemporary medical views and one on possible psychological reactions, as a way to more fully present the wide variety of views and experiences people have around masturbation. In the meantime, I have reverted those edits as, without sources to back them up, they appear to be giving undue weight to minority views. Like I said, though, I for one would welcome a section that allowed those views to be incorporated into the article in a manner that allowed further elaboration on the reasons a person might feel guilt or be otherwise psychologically harmed by masturbation. -- Icarus 04:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There is some information that I added to the Masterbation#Law section that has been edited further. To me, it seems like the changes really mangled things and reduced the quality of the content. I might just be taking things personally though, and I wanted to check with others.
In my local legal jurisdiction, displaying ones genitals in public is "indecent exposure", and public sexual gratification of the genitals (either through masterbation or public sexual intercourse) is "lewd and lascivious" behavior. (The authorities will likely charge someone for indecent exposure even though they could be also charged for the more serious crime). My first problem with the way things currently read is that way separate links are given for the word lewd and the word lascivious implies that they are two separate things. Legally, the term "lewd and lascivious" is a single item, similar to the legal terms "cease and desist" or "breaking and entering". The single term may be look like it is composed of english words, but it really has a separate legal definition. Then the addition of the term "dissolute" behavior, which I don't think has any specific legal definition. Even worse is the addition of the "both of which are misdemeanors". The link I added to the Massachusetts General Laws shows "Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior" as being a felony in that state.
Am I being overly senstive here? Or were the changes to that section really destrimental?
-- 68.163.232.196 21:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
A common belief is that male masturbation reduces penis size. Does anyone know if this is true, and should it be included under "Health and psychological effects"
Under the heading "Health and psychological effects" "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-worth." To simply assert that such-and-such view is held in "many circles" is next to meaningless. I think some references to back up this sentence are needed, otherwise it should be deleted.
Also on the issue of photographs, I was personally very surprised to find pictures that look very much like pornography linked, but to appease those who are for it I would suggest that the hand-drawn examples look a bit more scientific than the photographic examples. Out of respect for those (the majority of?) people who come to Wikipedia expecting to find objective information and not smut, I suggest those explicit photographic examples be deleted.
The Playboy advisor said awhile back that masturbation conditions the body towards having an early orgasm. Does anyone have the volume/issue date that this appeared in, and also, is there any other confirmation? 24.54.208.177 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Masturbation is better known as wanking. A masturbater is often known by the slang term 'wanker'. - ( Aidan Work 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
These images don't really get the point across. Can we find better pictures? Images involving assistive devices (vibrators/dildos/butt plugs) would add to the article too. Videos would be great though i've never figured out how to watch anything ogg - 69.110.10.32 06:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
In the films of sex we have seen that people involne in the sex for fifteen minutes but we are not able more than five minutes. so what is the actual time for man orgasm.
Leaving aside your odd interpretation of English, are you trying to say the drawings are for the benefit of the opposite sex? Since this isn't written for children under four, I think it's pretty safe to assume that most readers realise that the genitals of the opposite sex are located in the same place as their own. Your arguments are a complete red herring. My point is, the drawings are worthless and invite ridicule. They devalue the article, let's get rid of them. Graham 09:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
But on the other hand, there are no laws against anything a sufficently young child does, and even older children are treated more leinently. In the field of sex, in many places, a child can have sex with another child where an adult would be charged with statutory rape. There are fewer laws as to what children can do sexually than as to what adults can.-- Prosfilaes 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Over the last few days, an anonymous editor at 80.72.34.150 has had a concerted effort at rewriting the Health and psychological effects section with a great many references and citations. Sounds great? Well, following some of his links and reading some of his speculation based on the material, I'm not so sure.
He seems to be worried about our "ability to resist transient sexual tension". He can tell us the reason that "may be hypothesized [as] the neuroendocrine reason for low sense of self-worth and guilt ... after masturbation". He has some material about the benefits of "acute abstinence". He seems to have evidence that "masturbation may lead to negative mood, low libido and tiredness". If men touch their nipples, "This activity thus may lead to body feminization, gynecomastia and (rarely) lactation". Etc, etc - there's lots more...
He has a link called 'data' to a page where there is none ( data) and many of his other high-faluting links require costly subscriptions to see the main medical research texts. It will take a lot of work to validate all of the surprising new anti-masturbational findings that he has added. I suggest we revert the whole lot out - say, back to Firefox's Revision as of 21:11, 1 January 2006 - and put it all here for peer review until it is ready for the main article.
What do others think? -- Nigelj 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with the points made above by Prosfilaes. In the light of this discussion, I have reverted two paragraphs inserted by Stanazollo:
In the plethora of edits made by 80.72.34.150/Stanazollo between 21:11, 1 January 2006 (FireFox) and 23:16, 3 January 2006 (Stanazollo), a considerable amount of pre-existing text was also deleted by him. That text itself represented a lot of very hard work and often closely-argued common agreement on the part of a great many previous editors of, and contributors to, this article over the months before he began. With this in mind, I have re-inserted this pre-existing text as appropriate in these two cases.
I am aware that Stanazollo sees himself as something of an authority on neuroendocrinology as well as Christianity and Islam, and I also see that he can quickly become quite uncivil when his contributions are altered ("...stop vandalizing hard work of other people! Why are you behaving like that" and "Who are you to state that..." from his recent edit summaries). Nonetheless, he is clearly very new to Wikipedia (or else is concealing some previous identity/ies?). I am sure he will now have had time to notice the warning on every edit page ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it") and to become more familiar with WP's definitions of civility, encyclopedic, NPOV and NOR. I hope he will understand WP's ways of reaching concensus, and the extent of the hard work that has gone on here before his arrival.
It will take a long time to work through all the text he deleted and all the points that he introduced in his two-day 'edit-fest' on this article, and I sincerely hope that he will cooperate while this necessary process proceeds. -- Nigelj 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Cont from summary - It is only the sin caused before you knew it was wrong that can plausibly be dismissed without confession. Chooserr 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is odd...It says in the Article that young [male] toddlers will play with their Erect penis while in the crib. I might be naive - being a guy and all - but I though erections started around puberty. Chooserr 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't originate this. I'm performing a merge-and-redirect from Traumatic masturbatory syndrome. The latter article was mostly the work of User:Doug22123 who operates a website, http://www.healthystrokes.com . I tried to boil it down to essentials. See Talk:Traumatic masturbatory syndrome for much discussion, and the history of the article for various changes in wording and emphasis.
My personal on take on this: Sank, the doctor who coined the term "traumatic masturbatory syndrome" is for real, and he did publish an article in a real journal. There has been very little follow-up study. This is basically one doctor's experience with four patients. But User:Doug22123 has found three or four reasonable sources that suggest there might be something to it. Although User:Doug22123 has clearly been trying to promote a point of view, he has been reasonably cooperative in trying to comply with Wikipedia policy (such as citing sources).
Although his website contains small ads, it strikes me as having a high content-to-ad ratio, and therefore I am including it in external links as a resource on issues with prone masturbation. The "treatment" for the syndrome, if real, is simply learning supine masturbation. Since this treatment does not involve purchasing anything--no herbal remedies, no books, no counselling sessions--I don't think the website is really a money-making scam or anything like that. And it seems to me that, unlike most medical quackery, in this case even if there's nothing to it I fail to see any harm in it.
So, on the whole I think it deserves mention here in this article, but not as an entire separate article until and unless this "syndrome" is much more widely recognized in the mainstream medical community. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention an important point.
11 keeps, 19 deletes, one unsigned keep from a logged-in user, two deletes from non-logged-in users.
Because this content is so obviously "on the borderline," I'd like to ask that nobody remove it outright for about a week, say through the end of next weekend—Feb 13--to give people a chance to chime in and discuss it. If it's to be deleted, I'd like to see this done decisively and on the basis of clear consensus, not just edit-warred. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is some newly-discovered information from an article, "Conservative Treatment of Primary Phimosis in Adolescents," by Michel Beauge, MD, 1991, tr. by Dr. J.P. Warren:
"Conventionally the pursuit of solitary pleasure is done with the dominant hand closed over the penis making alternate back and forth movement over the shaft, the hand going down towards the pubis, uncovering the glans which the index finger or thumb may now and then stroke lightly, reproducing the sensation of intercourse.
"This exercise results in moving the penile skin in the same way as will occur in vaginal intercourse, and therefore it is a preparation for adult sexual relations. We shall see later that this training is not only mechanical, but also participates in the psychological development of the individual."
Dr. Beauge then goes on to describe a therapy for using an unconventional masturbatory method, which is quite similar to the method proposed for overcoming TMS. Doug22123 05:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In that section, the 47 percent/39 percent (or something along those lines) seems awfully low and misleading. Deckiller 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I know its been revisted and talked around in circles and to death, but this is my take on it. An online information resource that takes itself seriously should avoid as a general rule any images. The reason for this is that because this is an informational endeavor, we want to seperate ourselves from the more autoerotic uses of such articles. If Wikipedia versions were bought and private to ones own book, or so forth, this might be a reasonable issue. However, images of Penises and Vulvas abound on the internet without our help, and thus nobody can claim a realistic aspect to "educational" purpose here.
I am, for the record, pro- pornography in general; I think that graphic sexual images are part of a healthy sexual culture, however, the sites which fullfill that need on the _internet_ have allready spammed my hotmail inbox.
recently, the "Naturalism" article was deleted. That was sad, because in some senses it was a good article. Where it failed was exactly that it became a game for puerile people to post images, some of which were arguably on topic and some of which were not.
I'd hate to see this article go, because i think there ought to be an article on masturbation. However, I think that Wikipedia can forego having explicit images, in the interest of maintaining a nuetral atmosphere.
Images that might be more appropriate, if any are needed or useful, are biological cross sections, so that biological terms and labels can be referenced. The images up now serve no useful purpose; they are both poor sketches on the one hand, and lack any objective raw information on the other.
If i didn't have better things to do, I'd rewrite the entire article from scratch. Anybody interested in doing it justice, heres a table of contents.
Prometheuspan 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) simple answers. 1. Wikipedia is an online resource. Anybody online can use google or another search engine to get any number of pictures or images. Its not like they aren't available. 2. The images currently up don't add any INFORMATION CONTENT. Image 1 could just as easilly be >Woman, laying down, hand on genital area.< Image 2 could just as easilly be > erect circumcised penis with hand wrapped around it.< 3. Actually, the cesspool can be very accurate with appropriate search terms. http://www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm took less than 10 seconds to find.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=masturbation%2C+educational%2C+anatomical&btnG=Google+Search
4. Because Wikipedia is an open access, free to edit resource, it has to take a more prudent course, or Articles end up spammed with trash.
Prometheuspan 03:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Somebody musta reverted or added a bunch of material, cuz the article looks different now than it did. I have stated my opinion, and I think its the right one. Time may prove me right, or it may prove me wrong, but it will be the judge, not you or i.
The existing reference to an article by Mr Winton Higgins has been removed as has the claim that the Eightfold path taught by Gotama Buddha neither forbids nor encourages masturbation. The Eightfold path requires that a man refrain from the voluntary emission of semen. This rule is contained within the lay precept concerning sexual misconduct. It is incorrect to say, as Mr Higgins claims, that this precept concerns only adultery, rape, and other forms of sexual activity involving deception, harmful intent and so on. Sexual misconduct includes the voluntary emission of semen. There is no scriptural basis for Mr Higgins' claims within the orthodox teaching contained in the tipitaka. User:Langdell
--start Langdell's text--
Interesting, but, untrue. In fact, Taoism, for instance, not only involves masturbation, but a variety of other sex practices that would probably make a westerner Blush. What you have is a list of Apollonian Religions. If we go for the Dionysian Religions, very quickly your argument falls all to pieces. Buddhism has several different branches. Some are anti sex and some are sex neutral.
No, actually, all of that is a modern tendency of patrifocal religions. There is even TANTRIC Yoga, so what you are actually doing here is looking at the propaganda spin of westernized Yoga, and calling that Yoga.
For purposes of modern Psychology, this has all been well debunked. Sexual denial only leads to Psychosexual fixation, and the persons mostl likely to rape or molest are those that are trying to implement some sort of fallacious morality program like the one you describe. In fact, its pretty demonstrable that the problem with Catholic Preists is that they invariably become the victims of their own repressed sexuality, and end up acting out in criminal ways.
Modern Psychology tells us that Masturbation is an evolved and useful biological function. >>MOST<< "World Religions" agree with this, you are only sampling those which you could find to agree with your starting premise.
The code of conduct that the Buddha set out for his monks (the patimokkha) places the voluntary emission of semen in the second category of offence (sanghadisesa) after the first (parajika) which includes the most grave offences such as murder. To a contemporary mindset this prohibition may appear to be an ancient superstition that is no longer relevant but in fact it arises rather from an advanced understanding of the physiological principles behind higher spiritual development.
Honestly, no. Probably the best thing you could do for your spiritual evolution is accept the reality of your animal nature, and learn to be the adult parent of the shadow. This does not mean locking the shadow in a cage, it means allowing the shadow its time and place and freedom as part of the psyche. Masturbation as one way to achieve orgasm, and orgasm as a consciousness expanding experience tends towards the argument that Masturbation can be integrated meaningfully into a spiritual practice.
There are a lot of total nonsense things in the Bible, and that is one of them. If you really agree, make yourself a Eunich. A Eunich by the way is one who has had their male genitals surgically removed. What he may have meant or actually said was probably something a bit different, and we are now dealing with a mistranslation, like a lot of the worst stuff one runs into with the Bible.
This is a great argument for learning the Taoist practice of orgasm without ejaculation. This involves some pretty simple techniques, which you can probably find on the net pretty easilly. It goes hand in hand with other Taoist sex practices, Such as genital weight lifting.
This is not only propaganda, it is a factual error. Again, if you are genuinely interested in knowledge and not just a dumb sheeple zombie spouting nonsense, you might be interested to know that another Taoist practice, and one incorporate into Tantra, is the use of depth biofeedback techniques to quit Menstruation. Amongst those techniques are timing functions for regular sex several days out of each month.
You finally got one right. Yes, transform the psychosexual energies from scond Chakra fixed, and awaken the kundalini force, and bring psychosexual energies into harmony with seventh Chakra.
Which is all a way to create domination, false power, false dominion, steal the common capacity to actually reach divine communion, and replace it with a pyramidal money making scheme. Christians have zero business playing the game of sexual morality, the sexual paradigm of christianity is demonstrably evil and diseased. Prometheuspan 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
--end Langdell's text--
![]() | 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 4 | Archive 5 |
"however when done with no marriage or confines involved, does not penalize those performing the act"-Is there a source for that? -- 72.49.61.223 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
This is not correct...see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
(1) Anybody know what's the optimum masturbation rate healthwise and waiting to catch a decent woman ? Ok indivudal differences are hight etc. but my idea is based on the fact that most (probably all) organs have an optimum solicitation rate, for example : if you don't use your muscle they get weaker and weaker, if you don't use your neurons the degenerate, if you don't submit your bones to strong forces they get spongy (astronauts), etc. the principle at work seem to be some sort of biological optimisation based on use, and it's also valid for overuse! If you train your muscle too much, you get injuries etc. So what about the sexual apparatus ? They must be an optimal use, and sleeping erections are probably there to assure that everythings are ok, or even to give it a bit or training (sleeping ejaculations probably too). If linking that with prostate health and the integrity of ejected DNA, it becomes qzuite complicated, thanks for your though! And this is not any mental masturbation!
(2) Read a few times that masturbation lower the testosterone concentration, actually not very surprising feeling-wise I mean calmer and at least able to think about something else for a few hours! Also the masturbation being often the stigmate of the rejected male the hormonal association seems logical! What about mastubation visual helpers (visualisation of women, pornography, etc) seems that it pushes the level of testosterone up ?
(3) feel free to push me a bit lower, but I did not know how else I could get enough attentions ?
This definition has some surprisingly unencyclopedic bits.
The entire section on Humor and Masturbation is misplaced here. Death has also long been the subject of humor. So has sex. Yet neither of those definitions has an extensive entry on relevant humor. Humor pertaining to masturbation should go somewhere under sexual humor. It does not belong here.
The list of euphemisms is also out of place; they belong under euphemisms. Again, the definition for death doesn't mention "kicking the bucket" anywhere, and the one for sex is similarly void of phrases like "making the beast with two backs", or even "fucking".
Lastly, either the picture of female masturbation needs to be removed, or a picture of male maturbation should be added. I'm undecided on which of those two solutions would be best, but either would be better than depicting only female masturbation. 157.181.71.7 05:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I choose not to respond to your comment about the legal issues of the situation because, with as much respect as possible, they are so non-sequitorial and ill-educated that I would have to go into EXTENSIVE explanations as to why you're wrong. I encourage you to properly educate yourself on the facts of the matter. Suffice to say (once again) that people know exactly what they are doing when they research a topic in an encyclopedia: looking for information. Any child obtaining information or photographs related to a topic that they should not have been accessing were obviously not being properly supervised, and the party responsible for that is their legal guardian. Pacian 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a simple follow up (and i'm sorry if i missed mention of this particular topic among all the discussions and arguments on this page), i would like to consider the readers who genuinely do not know how to masturbate. images about masturbation do not need to be graphic or photographic to aid in the learning process. People looking to learn masturbation should have some images to facilitate that learning, but we do not need to supply pornography on wikipedia. -- Whiteknight 02:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Please add your votes!
Addendum: it is also important to note that there is a significant amount of humor, and several euphamisms at the Oral Sex artical. all the humor and euphamisms here are integrated into the text of the artical however, and are not given a dedicated section. this might be an interesting compromise. -- Whiteknight 02:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Sexual slang - it contains around a hundred euphemisms for masturbation, and many for oral sex as well. - Willmcw 02:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
Delete the entire page, its in bloody bad taste. This entire topic is nothing more than playground for advanced adolescents with a preoccupation for sexual chatter. For the love of Humanity, if you are all so obsessed with the subject, go have sex, and leave the writing to those who are able to think without seeing images of zippers and shiny objects floating around. If you are can't, send a letter to Hustler, I guarantee you they would be fascinated. Any, I repeat, any attempt at a discussion of what is tasteful and what is not regarding such a topic is at least vulger, and very probably a sign of advanced idiocy.
Prometheuspan 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) You guys have been suckered. This image is somebodies way of making a statement soapbox of the article versus circumcision. I think that the way to handle this realistically is to cover the problem of circumcision, not show a suckerpunch image which doesn't show how any male actually masturbates and is a tricky prank to demonstrate why circumcision is a bad idea. Prometheuspan 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Check out penis, clitoris, vulva and the like. The last guy who tried to remove the clitoris picture ended up being arbcommed. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree on this. This is an article about masturbation and the photograph is of masturbation. The smut is in the eye of the beholder. You see smut, I see a chap giving his willy a good hard polishing. -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too fond of the line drawings and the photos are far worse. Let's not peddle pornography. Force10 01:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I vote against the photo for the reasons I describe in detail above. Briefly, I think we want to make the best possible information available to the most possible people. In my view, too many people will block us or have a negative view of us if we have these types of photos. Therefore, they do more harm than good. Johntex 01:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have an issue with the current picture of male masturbation that goes beyond the offensive/non-offensive debate. I encourage all male Wikipedians to try and emulate that picture, with particular reference to hand position. As the proud owner and operator of a penis, I'm pretty sure nobody masturbates like that. I just gave it a shot, and damn near dislocated my shoulder.
Thus, there are two possiblities, either of them making the picture ineligible, IMO. The first (more likely) one is that the man in the picture is not masturbating himself; the hand belongs to someone else. The difference between the skin colour of the hand and the rest of the man's body makes this likely. The second possiblity is that the man is demonstrating some highly advanced masturbation technique.
To sum up: any picture of male masturbation should be a "typical" one, much like the one of female masturbation. From this perspective, the picture in the article is flawed. 157.181.71.7 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove the image, and I'm sick and tired of the bluenoses and Mrs. Grundys who keep trying to bring down this encyclopedia. Speak for yourselves, quit trying to hide behind "the children". If you object, be brave and say so. Until you get a petition from some parent who is offended, your contention that you're protecting the children is bogus. We have had this discussion over and over again, it's gotten old. Find something more constructive to do. Rick K 21:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I agree the photo is kind of strange. That's not the way I do it. Err...anyway...be it that image or another, why not put a disclaimer at the top of the page? I have vague memories of this happening with other articles. Or give the option at the top of the page to see the article with images or without. Jez 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wonder why RickK and Pacian get so worked up about this that they call arguments they disagree with "idiotic bickering" (as Pacian claims) or label those that have a different point of view to be "bluenoses and Mrs. Grundys" (as RickK claims)? What happened to discussing the facts at hand? Fact: Wikipedia is not Wikiporn. Fact: The image is bizarre. Conclusion: the image should not be here. Force10 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If you object to my interpretation of your comments below, please feel free to move/remove your name, or clarify your position. Force10 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In favor of keeping this photograph in this article
202.191.106.230 05:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC) You can't edit real life to suit your needs, the images stay (user: JayKeaton)
In favor of removing this photograph from this article
I size the opportunity to point out that, although this is not officially a vote, voting is not encouraged in Wikipedia; we work by consensus, not by democracy. This way is intended to encourage reasonable middle-term solutions and explanations rather then enforce solutions with which a large minority could disagree -- it also saves the hassle of raising campaigns. Rama 22:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have changed the picture to a line drawing with a slightly more conventional technique. hopefully this will pacify everybody and we can go back to doing something important Fuzz 22:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted the image edit by User:Warbler1, on the grounds that this is evidently a contentious issue, and as such an edit of this form should be discussed before it is made. Warbler1 makes a good point, that the second line drawing is unnecessary, however, this is not the way to deal with it, in my opinion.
I think that the best solution is to attempt for a degree of equality in the images. If a close-up lind drawing of a male masturbating is to be included, one should be included for a female, however I feel that this is less contentious than if a photograph is included. If a photograph of a male masturbating is included, one must be included of a female, otherwise we risk losing NPOV over the images.
Not to re-ignite this fairly mundane debate, but do we really need not one but two poorly done male images? The second one, besides being utterly crap, really adds nothing to the article. brenneman (t) (c) 11:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Just want to add my voice to those calling for exclusion of all sexually explicit images. Call me a prude, call me a censor, call me a reactionary, call me whatever. If you want to see a closely reasoned argument for why this stuff is just stupid and counterproductive, let me know and I'll schedule you. Meanwhile, I want this to be a serious encyclopedia. Why don't you boys like TonySidaway and RickK start a spinoff like "WikiSex" and then lobby back here to include links to it from Wikipedia? This cruft has always been quarantined into some place it's understood one should not invite kids. This holds for towns that allow adult bookstores and it's going to have to hold for self-respecting `net neighborhoods. Stop bringing our work down. Kids are a vital part of our audience, many times more important than the randy slacker demographic and whoever else might find this drek "useful". If the cruft enthusiasts can't be put down completely, I suppose we'll have to get along with the drawings. But the line MUST be drawn at these photos. JDG 03:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have a very US-centric point of view here. Wikipedia is a multi-national project, and you should be well aware that a majority of Western coutries are far less prude than the "moral majority" which is so vocal in the USA. Also, here is no particular reason to single out sexuality as the one "shocking" subject; there are certainly Muslims who could be shocked that we have depictions of living beings on WIkipedia, yet it would be extremely negative to remove all such illustrations, even though they are in direct contradiction with their faith.
Also, even though there is a very vocal minority which keeps refering to "some people" who will get shocked, or that "in some cases", or to "children", I still have to actually see one single occurence of someone getting honestly shocked. I suggest that we tsay on a practical approach of the subject and let aside hypothetical cases which could be understood as to only retroactively give excuses for a decision already taken for pseudo-moral reasons. Rama 09:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
JDG, I do not quite understand the following statement of yours, could you please clarify? "Fine, if Wikipedia is to be a purely amoral thing, it can choose that direction. I'll leave and many, perhaps most, of the best contributors will leave... But I don't think this will happen." Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be amoral? Hasn't it chosen that direction from the very outset? If Wikipedia is supposed to have morality, why doesn't it state that " Hitler is evil", for example? Surely that's something with which all moral people would agree?
Obviously, I'm against shock value. I think the photograph was more useful than the current line drawings, but the difference is not great, and I think this level of compromise is appropriate. But I'm really uncomfortable at the thought of Wikipedia self-censoring itself. Could you please give us a cite where a non-Wikipedian argues that there's too much smut on Wikipedia? It would, I think, be useful to gauge whether this (alienating people) is a real and serious issue. 157.181.71.7 13:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello dab, there is no need for an 80% majority to decide on a version of an article. This is not a vote for deletion of the article or the image, where a supramajority is needed. This is simply an editing decision. There is no reason to set a disproportionally higher burden for one version or the other. A simple majority is enough to decide on a version of an article. Johntex 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the pictures in the article now are lovely, and very appropriate to this article, which they illustrate very well. Of course all pictures must be explicit, whether they're illustrating a motor car, a tin opener, or masturbation, otherwise how could they possibly be useful in an encyclopedia? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 19:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE. Rama, JDG and others, this is not the place to discuss what society should or should not be like, or what values or morality it should have or not have, or which societies are "fallen" or not. There are other online forums for this, if necessary.
There are a number of topics in which we have to balance the need for accurate and descriptive representation of reality (which includes elements that some people are embarassed about) with the sensitivity of many, or with other concerns such as Wikipedia being accepted in schools or whatever. These are delicate topics, without even going into the problems of society as a whole.
Now for my personal opinion: these are many societies that are embarassed about discussing or depicting various acts, parts of the anatomy, people or objects. We have already have the members of one religion objecting to a photograph of their prophet, which they deem to lack respect for him; others object to the graphical depictions of sexual acts, etc.
It seems impossible to content all such requests without severely bowdlerizing Wikipedia. As a consequence, there will always be people who think we exceed the limits of "bad taste", "decency" or "morality". This is inevitable.
I'd therefore prefer the debate to stick to objective concerns, focusing on the objectives of Wikipedia (which is to provide information formulated from a neutral point of view to people). For instance, we may consider the following factors:
These are topics that we should discuss. One thing I also would like to avoid in the discussion is fictional cases:
So, in a nutshell: I would like the discussion to stick to real problems and solutions, not to go into societal reform or fancy hypotheses. Thanks. David.Monniaux 19:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we have to consider the legal framework of the jurisdictions that can realistically prosecute the Foundation, its regional chapters, their officers or contributors (which probably excludes Iran, but includes Florida and the US federal government). This, however, is based on legal criteria, not on opinions about what could possibly be shocking to (sometimes hypothetical) people. While what is shocking or not differs between cultures, sub-cultures, and people, we can at least go to firmer grounds by simply considering the relevant legal frameworks.
I also agree about the probabilities and hypothetical examples. My point is that, given the huge traffic that Wikipedia gets, we apparently do not receive complaints about real minors having seen sexually explicit material by accident (except vandalism); to me, this indicates that the event is rare.
As for encountering stuff by accident: I agree that one may look up a word without even knowing that it has sexual meaning (though I think that most people, including minors, looking up sexual words do so knowing they have a sexual meaning, without necessarily knowing the details). I personally support putting pictures etc. in a position in the article or in sub-pages such that it's difficult to reach them without knowing very well that one is looking at sexually explicit material. I note that we have a "spoiler warning" message, we could have a "sexually explicit material ensues" message.
I would like opinions from US legal experts, but I reckon that if a minor willfully gets access to explicit material after being told about the expliciteness of the material, then there is no grounds for complaint.
I would also know what the criteria applied by US jurisdictions. As far as I know, "pornography" is defined differently from "sexually explicit material"; it is sexually explicit material that has a goal of exciting prurient interest in the reader. Merely showing genitals or a penis, or a clinical depiction of a sexual act, is not pornography by this definition.
But, see — we agree on the basics: we have to go back to discussion on objective factors (legal factors that could reasonably affect the project, etc.) and leave aside societal rants. Thanks! David.Monniaux 06:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
Why not simply put a link to the picture(s) on the page with an appropriate warning. At least that way people who are looking up masturbation expecting text and medical diagrams wont have it 'shoved in their face' the moment the page loads and will have to make a conscious decision to go further.
195.92.168.167
03:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
A prudish lady once accosted the learned Samuel Johnson shortly after publication of his monumental dictionary of the English language.
Said she, "Dr. Johnson, I am distressed that your dictionary contains so many vulgar words."
Replied Johnson, 'Madam, I am immeasurably distressed that you actually looked them up!"
Oh my god, Johnson story, that is beautiful! -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 11:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
I removed this section because it seems to be about prudery in US broadcasting rather than masturbation per se, and the people involved are in general (Pamela Anderson excepted) unknown outside the USA.
-- Tony Sidaway| Talk 23:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
For reference, I believe she was insinuating that she masturbated by rubbing her genitals against the square corners of objects in her house (tables, chairs, whatever). The joke being that she's done it do much that she's in fact sanded them down. 70.70.210.215 03:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Smartbomb
Prometheuspan 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) I for one find the rubber duck to be a very good choice for this article. Prometheuspan 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Why is the deletion of this highly out-of-place image being reverted? Even if vibrators are being de-dramatized, a typical vibrator doesn't look a thing like this; why would you have it featured in an article that explains what masturbation generally consists of?
The image was deleted again, with "Vandalism out" as the comment. I have reverted it -- the image is certainly not vandalism, regardless of how controversial it is. -- me_and 2 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
A user with no experience of vibrators who navigates to this page will be extremely mislead by a picture of a rubber duck in the absence of any other photos. it should be removed or replaced.
The picture is neither vandalism nor controversial, it is just out of place. You can buy inflatable sheep and even stranger things to assist you in solitary sex - how about a couple of pictures of stuff like that? I really can't think of a single good reason as to why that stupid duck should be here.
The resource Pacian suggested above, I found it rather interesting. Shouldn't an external link to it be added?, the homepage of such website is text-only so an 'explicit-images' warning shouldn't be required. The URL is as follows. http://advancedmasturbation.com/ I am not going to put this article in my watchlist, so I'd ask the next person who sees this to please add the link if he finds it would add an extra value to the article. I, personally, think it would do. I must also add, regarding the above discussion on wheter to add explicit images to the article or not... shouldn't those photographs be included, but in the shape of a text link to the photograph?. I took the idea from the Autofellatio article, as seen at 31 May 2005. (Note: I read THE WHOLE discussion) Pentalis 31 May 2005.
The Jewish view on masturbation has been completely misrepresented. The Talmud (Niddah 13a) is unequivocal in its condemnation of masturbation, and Onan is cited as a source for Divine disapproval, not because of coitus interruptus but because his semen was spilt; whether this was due to manual or vaginal stimulation is irrelevant. This is codified in all the major sources of Jewish law (e.g. Shulkhan Arukh E.H. 23:1), so there is no need to weasel about implicit acceptance etc etc. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Joseph was supposed to have 12 tribes like Moses. Because he spilt 10 drops of semen, he only had 2 tribes.
The idea that eating cornflakes would discourage masturbation is one that I've known of for a while, but I've been having a minor debate about whether this is actually true, and would appreciate another source for that, if anyone knows of one. -- me_and 2 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
I read in a book called The Little Book of Bad Taste that 'Dr. Harvey Kellog invented his breakfast cereal to be an antidote to masturbation'. It cause a lot of laughs amongst my peers, but unfortunatly I cannot vouch for the book's accuracy, and I do not have it to hand at this moment. But I have heard of this claim before. Lady BlahDeBlah 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Like many Christian conservatives before and since, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg believed that masturbation, and in fact all sexual excess, was sinful -- "sexual excess" here defined as "sex for anything beyond reproduction". For instance: after marrying, Kellogg chose to spend his honeymoon sequestered from his wife, valiantly striving to complete his his influential book Plain Facts for Old and Young: Embracing the Natural History and Hygiene of Organic Life (1892). Talk about your dull, soggy flakes.
Kellogg himself seems to have solved the problem by redirecting his attentions to an obsessive fascination with cleansing the bowels. For Kellogg, the tube linking anus to lips was a seething quagmire of pollution, poisoning the mind and spirit as well as the body. Kellogg, a vegetarian himself, recommended abstaining from flesh and spicy foods, augmenting the diet with plenty of fiber, drinking lots of water, and irrigating with regular enemas of water with a yogurt chaser. And as director of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, Kellogg had ample license to apply his approach to many captive well-to-do neurotics in need of mental restablizing.
source: http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/masturbation/kelloggs-cornflakes/
As recently as the 1960s fellow students were stating as true that our college put "saltpeter" in the food to prevent masturbation. This urban legend has quite a venerable (stop giggling, that's "venerable," not "venereal") history.
[2] At the time this one seemed to be false on the face of it, as the chemical in question had not been known as "saltpeter" for... I dunno, half a century anyway.
Dpbsmith
(talk)
19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
In Western countries masturbation tends to be legal, even by children, as long as nobody else is involved and no image is made.
User:Mikkalai keeps reverting the {{ linkimage}} link to Image:Masturbation.jpg, saying "This man is not masturbating, just showing his cock", and "the man in the photo is not masturbating. Prove it." May I ask what proof would be appropriate? A video, perhaps? I have images of the result, if that would help him. Regardless, the image is quite obviously one of masturbation, and I don't know what Mikkalai thinks masturbation looks like. I relalize I've been bold by editing the page itself, but the discussion about the use of images seems to have stagnated. My proposal was to place the image in a {{ linkimage}} box, like the autofellation image. What are people's opinions? Warbler1 9 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
Why not simply put a link to the picture(s) on the page with an appropriate warning. At least that way people who are looking up masturbation expecting text and medical diagrams wont have it 'shoved in their face' the moment the page loads and will have to make a conscious decision to go further. 195.92.168.167 03:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
the inclusion here of comments regarding results of the Canadian Now magazine survey seems very random considering the volume of worldwide research on this topic through history. Wikipedia should be representative, the respondents to the quoted survey represent a tiny and very specific number of people. For reasons of cultural bias this paragraph should be removed.
-
I also agree that the quoted survey not only has the "cultural bias" mentioned, but that the survey's chosen sample completely misrepresents the whole of even Canada—it was announced only to readers of a specific magazine (presumably oriented to interestingly edgy topics), and has no regard for an even or random sample. Michael Lipik 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
Does anybody have any idea what "historic chronicles" are being referred to? It's a very mysterious assertion. - Willmcw 00:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I once heard in a philosophy reading that a prominent Greek philosopher would often masturbate in Athens walking around. It was perhaps greeted with surprise, but was not considered lewd or illegal. I can't recall his name, but it was not Socrates.
Ichelhof
05:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
It was Diogène !!!
The "Medical attitudes" section seems almost exlusively to deal with male masturbation, and ought to be expanded (by someone more knowledgable than me on the subject) to include (for instance) the treatment of hysteria with genital stimualtion and the Freudean attitudes towards clitoral and vaginal orgasms. I think. -- Birdseed 22:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
This entry doesn't talk enough about how God hates anyone that performs this evil act
Your god hates everyone, repressed guy. Wait, isn't this the year 2005? Have I travelled back in time? -- 80.58.9.42 16:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. 24.54.208.177 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh thank you dear fellas, I haven't laughed this hard in days. Dabljuh 05:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Point out EXACTLY where the word masturbation is anywhere in the Bible. Stupid fundy.
So, Johntex, is this some new Wikipedia policy? I thought the new edits, particularly the ones in the Female section were fine - it's nice to get some more work on that section. I think if you look at other sections of this article, they're a bit short on citations at the moment, so we'd all better beware your axe! Somebody who knows their way around better than me may be able to supply a link here to a policy page called something like 'Don't bite the newbies' - I think it's probably relevant here. -- Nigelj 17:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the two paragraphs (+misc.) specific to masturbation with diapers. There are simply too many fetishes to include them all in this article. Some people masturbate using toy stuffed animals. Others use various food products. The list goes on and on. There isn't room to include all of the possibilities without changing the topic of this article from masturbation to a list of fetishes (which already exists in another article). Any fetish-specific masturbation info belongs in the article on that fetish, not in the article about masturbationl. -- Icarus 06:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Andycjp has made several recent edits ephasizing the possibility of a person experiencing guilt about masturbating and deemphasizing the current mainstream medical view that masturbation is a healthy, harmless part of human sexuality. He may be on to something. I would welcome a section on negative contemporary medical views and one on possible psychological reactions, as a way to more fully present the wide variety of views and experiences people have around masturbation. In the meantime, I have reverted those edits as, without sources to back them up, they appear to be giving undue weight to minority views. Like I said, though, I for one would welcome a section that allowed those views to be incorporated into the article in a manner that allowed further elaboration on the reasons a person might feel guilt or be otherwise psychologically harmed by masturbation. -- Icarus 04:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There is some information that I added to the Masterbation#Law section that has been edited further. To me, it seems like the changes really mangled things and reduced the quality of the content. I might just be taking things personally though, and I wanted to check with others.
In my local legal jurisdiction, displaying ones genitals in public is "indecent exposure", and public sexual gratification of the genitals (either through masterbation or public sexual intercourse) is "lewd and lascivious" behavior. (The authorities will likely charge someone for indecent exposure even though they could be also charged for the more serious crime). My first problem with the way things currently read is that way separate links are given for the word lewd and the word lascivious implies that they are two separate things. Legally, the term "lewd and lascivious" is a single item, similar to the legal terms "cease and desist" or "breaking and entering". The single term may be look like it is composed of english words, but it really has a separate legal definition. Then the addition of the term "dissolute" behavior, which I don't think has any specific legal definition. Even worse is the addition of the "both of which are misdemeanors". The link I added to the Massachusetts General Laws shows "Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior" as being a felony in that state.
Am I being overly senstive here? Or were the changes to that section really destrimental?
-- 68.163.232.196 21:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
A common belief is that male masturbation reduces penis size. Does anyone know if this is true, and should it be included under "Health and psychological effects"
Under the heading "Health and psychological effects" "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-worth." To simply assert that such-and-such view is held in "many circles" is next to meaningless. I think some references to back up this sentence are needed, otherwise it should be deleted.
Also on the issue of photographs, I was personally very surprised to find pictures that look very much like pornography linked, but to appease those who are for it I would suggest that the hand-drawn examples look a bit more scientific than the photographic examples. Out of respect for those (the majority of?) people who come to Wikipedia expecting to find objective information and not smut, I suggest those explicit photographic examples be deleted.
The Playboy advisor said awhile back that masturbation conditions the body towards having an early orgasm. Does anyone have the volume/issue date that this appeared in, and also, is there any other confirmation? 24.54.208.177 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Masturbation is better known as wanking. A masturbater is often known by the slang term 'wanker'. - ( Aidan Work 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC))
These images don't really get the point across. Can we find better pictures? Images involving assistive devices (vibrators/dildos/butt plugs) would add to the article too. Videos would be great though i've never figured out how to watch anything ogg - 69.110.10.32 06:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
In the films of sex we have seen that people involne in the sex for fifteen minutes but we are not able more than five minutes. so what is the actual time for man orgasm.
Leaving aside your odd interpretation of English, are you trying to say the drawings are for the benefit of the opposite sex? Since this isn't written for children under four, I think it's pretty safe to assume that most readers realise that the genitals of the opposite sex are located in the same place as their own. Your arguments are a complete red herring. My point is, the drawings are worthless and invite ridicule. They devalue the article, let's get rid of them. Graham 09:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
But on the other hand, there are no laws against anything a sufficently young child does, and even older children are treated more leinently. In the field of sex, in many places, a child can have sex with another child where an adult would be charged with statutory rape. There are fewer laws as to what children can do sexually than as to what adults can.-- Prosfilaes 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Over the last few days, an anonymous editor at 80.72.34.150 has had a concerted effort at rewriting the Health and psychological effects section with a great many references and citations. Sounds great? Well, following some of his links and reading some of his speculation based on the material, I'm not so sure.
He seems to be worried about our "ability to resist transient sexual tension". He can tell us the reason that "may be hypothesized [as] the neuroendocrine reason for low sense of self-worth and guilt ... after masturbation". He has some material about the benefits of "acute abstinence". He seems to have evidence that "masturbation may lead to negative mood, low libido and tiredness". If men touch their nipples, "This activity thus may lead to body feminization, gynecomastia and (rarely) lactation". Etc, etc - there's lots more...
He has a link called 'data' to a page where there is none ( data) and many of his other high-faluting links require costly subscriptions to see the main medical research texts. It will take a lot of work to validate all of the surprising new anti-masturbational findings that he has added. I suggest we revert the whole lot out - say, back to Firefox's Revision as of 21:11, 1 January 2006 - and put it all here for peer review until it is ready for the main article.
What do others think? -- Nigelj 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree with the points made above by Prosfilaes. In the light of this discussion, I have reverted two paragraphs inserted by Stanazollo:
In the plethora of edits made by 80.72.34.150/Stanazollo between 21:11, 1 January 2006 (FireFox) and 23:16, 3 January 2006 (Stanazollo), a considerable amount of pre-existing text was also deleted by him. That text itself represented a lot of very hard work and often closely-argued common agreement on the part of a great many previous editors of, and contributors to, this article over the months before he began. With this in mind, I have re-inserted this pre-existing text as appropriate in these two cases.
I am aware that Stanazollo sees himself as something of an authority on neuroendocrinology as well as Christianity and Islam, and I also see that he can quickly become quite uncivil when his contributions are altered ("...stop vandalizing hard work of other people! Why are you behaving like that" and "Who are you to state that..." from his recent edit summaries). Nonetheless, he is clearly very new to Wikipedia (or else is concealing some previous identity/ies?). I am sure he will now have had time to notice the warning on every edit page ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it") and to become more familiar with WP's definitions of civility, encyclopedic, NPOV and NOR. I hope he will understand WP's ways of reaching concensus, and the extent of the hard work that has gone on here before his arrival.
It will take a long time to work through all the text he deleted and all the points that he introduced in his two-day 'edit-fest' on this article, and I sincerely hope that he will cooperate while this necessary process proceeds. -- Nigelj 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Cont from summary - It is only the sin caused before you knew it was wrong that can plausibly be dismissed without confession. Chooserr 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
This is odd...It says in the Article that young [male] toddlers will play with their Erect penis while in the crib. I might be naive - being a guy and all - but I though erections started around puberty. Chooserr 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I didn't originate this. I'm performing a merge-and-redirect from Traumatic masturbatory syndrome. The latter article was mostly the work of User:Doug22123 who operates a website, http://www.healthystrokes.com . I tried to boil it down to essentials. See Talk:Traumatic masturbatory syndrome for much discussion, and the history of the article for various changes in wording and emphasis.
My personal on take on this: Sank, the doctor who coined the term "traumatic masturbatory syndrome" is for real, and he did publish an article in a real journal. There has been very little follow-up study. This is basically one doctor's experience with four patients. But User:Doug22123 has found three or four reasonable sources that suggest there might be something to it. Although User:Doug22123 has clearly been trying to promote a point of view, he has been reasonably cooperative in trying to comply with Wikipedia policy (such as citing sources).
Although his website contains small ads, it strikes me as having a high content-to-ad ratio, and therefore I am including it in external links as a resource on issues with prone masturbation. The "treatment" for the syndrome, if real, is simply learning supine masturbation. Since this treatment does not involve purchasing anything--no herbal remedies, no books, no counselling sessions--I don't think the website is really a money-making scam or anything like that. And it seems to me that, unlike most medical quackery, in this case even if there's nothing to it I fail to see any harm in it.
So, on the whole I think it deserves mention here in this article, but not as an entire separate article until and unless this "syndrome" is much more widely recognized in the mainstream medical community. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I forgot to mention an important point.
11 keeps, 19 deletes, one unsigned keep from a logged-in user, two deletes from non-logged-in users.
Because this content is so obviously "on the borderline," I'd like to ask that nobody remove it outright for about a week, say through the end of next weekend—Feb 13--to give people a chance to chime in and discuss it. If it's to be deleted, I'd like to see this done decisively and on the basis of clear consensus, not just edit-warred. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is some newly-discovered information from an article, "Conservative Treatment of Primary Phimosis in Adolescents," by Michel Beauge, MD, 1991, tr. by Dr. J.P. Warren:
"Conventionally the pursuit of solitary pleasure is done with the dominant hand closed over the penis making alternate back and forth movement over the shaft, the hand going down towards the pubis, uncovering the glans which the index finger or thumb may now and then stroke lightly, reproducing the sensation of intercourse.
"This exercise results in moving the penile skin in the same way as will occur in vaginal intercourse, and therefore it is a preparation for adult sexual relations. We shall see later that this training is not only mechanical, but also participates in the psychological development of the individual."
Dr. Beauge then goes on to describe a therapy for using an unconventional masturbatory method, which is quite similar to the method proposed for overcoming TMS. Doug22123 05:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
In that section, the 47 percent/39 percent (or something along those lines) seems awfully low and misleading. Deckiller 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I know its been revisted and talked around in circles and to death, but this is my take on it. An online information resource that takes itself seriously should avoid as a general rule any images. The reason for this is that because this is an informational endeavor, we want to seperate ourselves from the more autoerotic uses of such articles. If Wikipedia versions were bought and private to ones own book, or so forth, this might be a reasonable issue. However, images of Penises and Vulvas abound on the internet without our help, and thus nobody can claim a realistic aspect to "educational" purpose here.
I am, for the record, pro- pornography in general; I think that graphic sexual images are part of a healthy sexual culture, however, the sites which fullfill that need on the _internet_ have allready spammed my hotmail inbox.
recently, the "Naturalism" article was deleted. That was sad, because in some senses it was a good article. Where it failed was exactly that it became a game for puerile people to post images, some of which were arguably on topic and some of which were not.
I'd hate to see this article go, because i think there ought to be an article on masturbation. However, I think that Wikipedia can forego having explicit images, in the interest of maintaining a nuetral atmosphere.
Images that might be more appropriate, if any are needed or useful, are biological cross sections, so that biological terms and labels can be referenced. The images up now serve no useful purpose; they are both poor sketches on the one hand, and lack any objective raw information on the other.
If i didn't have better things to do, I'd rewrite the entire article from scratch. Anybody interested in doing it justice, heres a table of contents.
Prometheuspan 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Prometheuspan 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) simple answers. 1. Wikipedia is an online resource. Anybody online can use google or another search engine to get any number of pictures or images. Its not like they aren't available. 2. The images currently up don't add any INFORMATION CONTENT. Image 1 could just as easilly be >Woman, laying down, hand on genital area.< Image 2 could just as easilly be > erect circumcised penis with hand wrapped around it.< 3. Actually, the cesspool can be very accurate with appropriate search terms. http://www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm took less than 10 seconds to find.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=masturbation%2C+educational%2C+anatomical&btnG=Google+Search
4. Because Wikipedia is an open access, free to edit resource, it has to take a more prudent course, or Articles end up spammed with trash.
Prometheuspan 03:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Somebody musta reverted or added a bunch of material, cuz the article looks different now than it did. I have stated my opinion, and I think its the right one. Time may prove me right, or it may prove me wrong, but it will be the judge, not you or i.
The existing reference to an article by Mr Winton Higgins has been removed as has the claim that the Eightfold path taught by Gotama Buddha neither forbids nor encourages masturbation. The Eightfold path requires that a man refrain from the voluntary emission of semen. This rule is contained within the lay precept concerning sexual misconduct. It is incorrect to say, as Mr Higgins claims, that this precept concerns only adultery, rape, and other forms of sexual activity involving deception, harmful intent and so on. Sexual misconduct includes the voluntary emission of semen. There is no scriptural basis for Mr Higgins' claims within the orthodox teaching contained in the tipitaka. User:Langdell
--start Langdell's text--
Interesting, but, untrue. In fact, Taoism, for instance, not only involves masturbation, but a variety of other sex practices that would probably make a westerner Blush. What you have is a list of Apollonian Religions. If we go for the Dionysian Religions, very quickly your argument falls all to pieces. Buddhism has several different branches. Some are anti sex and some are sex neutral.
No, actually, all of that is a modern tendency of patrifocal religions. There is even TANTRIC Yoga, so what you are actually doing here is looking at the propaganda spin of westernized Yoga, and calling that Yoga.
For purposes of modern Psychology, this has all been well debunked. Sexual denial only leads to Psychosexual fixation, and the persons mostl likely to rape or molest are those that are trying to implement some sort of fallacious morality program like the one you describe. In fact, its pretty demonstrable that the problem with Catholic Preists is that they invariably become the victims of their own repressed sexuality, and end up acting out in criminal ways.
Modern Psychology tells us that Masturbation is an evolved and useful biological function. >>MOST<< "World Religions" agree with this, you are only sampling those which you could find to agree with your starting premise.
The code of conduct that the Buddha set out for his monks (the patimokkha) places the voluntary emission of semen in the second category of offence (sanghadisesa) after the first (parajika) which includes the most grave offences such as murder. To a contemporary mindset this prohibition may appear to be an ancient superstition that is no longer relevant but in fact it arises rather from an advanced understanding of the physiological principles behind higher spiritual development.
Honestly, no. Probably the best thing you could do for your spiritual evolution is accept the reality of your animal nature, and learn to be the adult parent of the shadow. This does not mean locking the shadow in a cage, it means allowing the shadow its time and place and freedom as part of the psyche. Masturbation as one way to achieve orgasm, and orgasm as a consciousness expanding experience tends towards the argument that Masturbation can be integrated meaningfully into a spiritual practice.
There are a lot of total nonsense things in the Bible, and that is one of them. If you really agree, make yourself a Eunich. A Eunich by the way is one who has had their male genitals surgically removed. What he may have meant or actually said was probably something a bit different, and we are now dealing with a mistranslation, like a lot of the worst stuff one runs into with the Bible.
This is a great argument for learning the Taoist practice of orgasm without ejaculation. This involves some pretty simple techniques, which you can probably find on the net pretty easilly. It goes hand in hand with other Taoist sex practices, Such as genital weight lifting.
This is not only propaganda, it is a factual error. Again, if you are genuinely interested in knowledge and not just a dumb sheeple zombie spouting nonsense, you might be interested to know that another Taoist practice, and one incorporate into Tantra, is the use of depth biofeedback techniques to quit Menstruation. Amongst those techniques are timing functions for regular sex several days out of each month.
You finally got one right. Yes, transform the psychosexual energies from scond Chakra fixed, and awaken the kundalini force, and bring psychosexual energies into harmony with seventh Chakra.
Which is all a way to create domination, false power, false dominion, steal the common capacity to actually reach divine communion, and replace it with a pyramidal money making scheme. Christians have zero business playing the game of sexual morality, the sexual paradigm of christianity is demonstrably evil and diseased. Prometheuspan 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
The
Catechism of the Catholic Church states,
--end Langdell's text--