![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
See my talk page (I was a teenage wanker) for the candid tell-all story. But this article does not mention that chronic masturbation over a period of years can bend the penis, which is a crime against aesthetic concerns, and can also lead to a diminution in performance. Indeed, one of the photos in the article suggests the subject is suffering from just such a condition, albeit not as severe as it is in some men. In some men the penis virtually bends at 90 degrees. The story of my teenage years tells how I diagnosed and treated myself for this incipient condition, and some months later was rewarded with a tool you could use as a plumb line, or a statue of David or something. All joking aside, this is a matter which has never received the attention it should. Notthere ( talk) 05:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not that I object, but are the pictures of people masturbating really necessary? After all, the vast majority of adolescents and post-adolescents among us know what it looks like! Just wondering... Jubilee♫ clipman 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe they are necessary. I think it's a case of someone wanting to show off to their friends so they got the pictures added. And ran around screaming "Hey look this is so cool look at how I'm masturbating on wikipedia!". Aaron Myles Landwehr ( talk) 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, take a look at this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex . That is the talk page of the guy who added the picture of his penis. Looks like he has a fetish for getting his penis posted all of the place. So I'm not really sure why it wasn't removed. Aaron Myles Landwehr ( talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The New Scientist link is an April-fool joke. It should be removed. I can't do so since the page is semi-protected. Whitebrightlight ( talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a case in which it would be proper putting a
content disclaimer, since the page certainly falls into the category of things that should be filtered. As you may read: "# Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."
[2] --
87.16.65.144 (
talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Both images are inappropriate for Wikipedia. They should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.50.102 ( talk) 08:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not add videos, there is for male, and female Markstar ( talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
i want to ask its masturbation is bad for health or not ? and how many time we can do in one week? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.69.42.3 (
talk) 06:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the male video is fine. 72.83.107.212 ( talk) 19:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The health and physiological effects section is miserably androcentric. Please organize the info so it's easier for the reader to find info that applies to themself! 71.221.251.150 ( talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand and accept that wikipedia is not censored, and I do not object to the graphic nature of the pictures posted. However, when I opened an article in wikipedia, i did not expect a penis staring me in the face. Could we put some sort of warning or disclaimer at the top of the page, so that people who don't actually want to see pictures of genitalia can navigate away? 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're viewing an article about masturbation. What did you think it would contain? (And if you didn't know, it contains information to educate you.) 72.83.107.212 ( talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I found out on the pumping technique that if you continue to keep going, sperm flies out. Should we add this and why does it happn? .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hacking master ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The autofellatio pic. No, not because it's graphic, but simply because it's an article on masturbation, and not really that directly relevent. I could see having the pic (or a different one) on the autofellatio page, but is it really needed here? 07:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.104.188 ( talk)
Pink's song U + UR Hand references masturbation throughout the song —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicandmyth ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I found out on the pumping technique that if you continue to keep going, sperm flies out. Should we add this and why does it happn? ....
...no this should not be added...-- 98.21.143.81 ( talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Insofar as I have seen, there is no sound medical literature to link male masturbation with worsening vision. Still, enough people have heard such a thing that perhaps the Article should mention it as a common misconception. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we delete the following unreadable, unwieldy, uncited and therefore unverifiable sentence from the article:
I have no idea if any or all of these songs are relevant to the subject, or whether people are now just using this well-read article either to slander or to promote their most (or least) favourite bands, or just to add jokes to show that WP is easy to edit. Is anyone going to object to its removal? -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
For several reasons, I have removed this image for the second time:
This article is a target for people adding their own personal masturbation images, and I think this is another case of the same thing.
In general we pick images for this article from the Mediawiki Commons. Editors adding their own creative works is highly discouraged, and is seen as wp:OR. In general, editors should add material from reliable sources, and not contribute their own original ideas or artwork.
The second problem with the image is that the article already has too many images IMO, and another image of a male masturbating is not needed. The image offered, a work of art, a pixelized photo it would seem, lacks clarity and so it is very hard to see what is going on. The purpose of a good image in the article is for the reader to quickly have an idea of the topic at a glance. I don' feel that this applies to the image offered in this case. The image, not pointilism, but possible a photo reworked with Photoshop is more abstract. Abstract art lacking clarity of detail may have artistic value for some, but doesn't add clarity to the topic of the article.
I believe the person adding the image to the article is the author/creator of the image, a new editor userMaximus Artisticus, who also has contributed another of his own images File:Anal masturbation with dildo.jpg to the anal masturbation article. He may be the subject in both images as far as I can tell.
I mean no personal offense to the contributor, but we could easily gather a gallery of hundreds of self created masturbation photos in this article if we were not selective.
If we were do feel that yet another male masturbation photo was needed (and personally, I don't), then we could choose any of the images below that would show the topic with better clarity Atom ( talk) 04:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Last time I checked any form of sexual content (especially explicit photos) had to have a disclaimer that says only 18 year old can view this page and also that custodial records must be kept showing that everyone photographed is 18. So the pictures may come into question by current US laws. So how is Wikipedia's policy towards current laws. One other note I am questioning if the photos are original research.-- 118.91.39.193 ( talk) 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No it is just noone has reported it yet. Furthermore, many websites that allow user submitted content still have to keep custodial records and have been shut down for not doing so. In addition, a disclaimer is needed because of the explicit photos. Even nude art sites have disclaimers to show that the sites are specifically for adults. I hope this page is specifically marketed towards adults because if it is not then Wikipedia would be marketing adult material towards children, which would violate the Protect Act. In addition, you have not addressed the possibility that the photos themselves are original research.--
118.91.39.193 (
talk) 06:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a general policy of the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons where images are held, that these are not censored for minors. The Commons does adhere to the law as it applies in Florida. I believe the law mentioned in the sexology image guidelines was considered a problem for a while until it got thrown out by the US courts. These guidelines have never been accepted and are just a discussion document, unfortunately one that has grown out of date since they were last seriously edited. Some people who come across these pages are upset that they are accessible by the young: they should not be; educational material is not adult; people need access to safe sex information before they start to experiment. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
First, the claim that this is for educational purposes. The use of sexually explicit photos (not drawings) can not be claimed as educational purposes unless it is teaching or training something. Even then since Wikipedia is not an authority figure like a doctor or another expert, then the claim of educational purposes can be shot down. If I was to have a blog that was complete with sexually explicit photos and have knowledge minors will access it, my site can violate the Protection Act. See since this is an encyclopedia then one can be pretty sure that minors will go on for research. To play it safe it may be an option to stick to drawings, with these at least it has been verified by the court that this is protected speech plus many science books use only drawings. Furthermore, I can make the claim the photos are original research.-- 118.41.30.102 ( talk) 09:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You are discussing your legal theory about Wikipedia, and this is not the ideal place for that as Nigelj said. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is, indeed considered to be a valid educational tool as well as a reference. It does not claim to be authoritative, nor to be "expert" in nature, and does not need to in order to succeed at being encyclopedic. Also, "sexually explicit" is not a legally meaningful term. What you may mean to say is that you feel that it fits the legal definition of "obscene". I assure you that it does not meet the Florida definition of obscene, nor the Federal statue definition of obscene. Both are dominated by the Miller test. There are in fact many images on Wikipedia that are sexually explicit though, and the ones that I am aware of also are legally acceptable, and are not obscene. There are no federal or Florida laws that prohibit minors from seeing either nude images or sexually explicit material.
The now defunct and unconstitutional Child Online Protection Act [3] which would not have prohibited these images for minors. It was based on the also defunct and unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, which also would not have prohibited these images. In COPA, IMO, the key element is that it prohibited "...makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than...". Their definition of harmful: " The term “material that is harmful to minors” means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that—
(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
That section C part is the Miller test I referred to earlier.
The reason that this law is unconstitutional is largely because the definition of "community standards" is too broad and undefinable.
Articles on Wikipedia, including this article, have literary, artistic, political and scientific value. To fail the Miller test, someone would need to demonstrate that Wikipedia as a whole (or possibly the article as a whole) failed to demonstrate having any literary, artistic, political or scientific value. With more than three million articles in English, with nearly every article demonstrating one or more of those traits, that would seem unlikely.
Also, I will point out that Wikipedia is not a Communications provider, as listed in that bill. Also, the problem that it would be extremely difficult to show that Wikipedia was "harmful to minors". On top of that, Wikipedia does not make its information available "for commercial purposes."
Honestly, do you think that, taken as a whole, that Wikipedia "is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest"? Or taken as a whole, "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors"?
Even from the limited perspective of this one article, do you think those things apply?
Atom ( talk) 17:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is simple. Sexually explicit photos have been defined for the purpose to apeal to or pander to the sexual gratification of another. This can be scientifically and legally proven. The use of sexually explicit photos does not have literary, artistic, politicial, or scientific value for minors. If that was true pornography, which is considered by a lot of people as an art, would be an artistic value for minors. Still the government says no one shall market that material towards children. That is why pornography sites have a disclaimer saying "this is intended for adults, if you are not please close immediately." Sure it is still accessible by a minor but at least there is a disclaimer that states it is intended for adults. This disclaimer gives legal protection against prosecution. As Wikipedia does not put disclaimers, then they can be subject to prosecution. As for the custodial records, all sites with sexually explicit photos have to have custodial records, which Wikipedia does not also. You are welcome to look this up for yourself.-- 118.41.30.102 ( talk) 07:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Atom you don't believe actual photos of masturbation is sexually explicit photos. I am sorry to say they are sexually explicit and so you said yourself that the disclaimer is used for that purpose. Also, Wikipedia itself is targeted for minors. In addition, you say that Wikipedia does not have child pornography photos. I do believe there is a photo of a real prepubescent child nude (not an illustration) that is in bondage with the title "Virgin Killer". Which recently Wikipedia archived so no more comments could be made. -- 211.220.23.15 ( talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I can totally imagine, and sympathize with, the probable reasons for locking the article. But before an article is locked, it ought to be at least triple-checked for painfully obvious clumsiness of style or ideas, like that shown in the definition offered in the article's very first sentence: "Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, often to the point of orgasm." In fact, of course, masturbation refers to something notably--and this is the point of the word--more narrow than that: among the many, many varieties of "sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, often to the point of orgasm", there is that stimulation we call "sexual intercourse." However that's defined (ordinariy, I'd guess, as something like "stimulation of the genitals through male insertion of the penis into the female reproductive tract"), "sexual intercourse" is precisely what masturbation is most essentially defined against. As the definition in the first sentence stands, "masturbation" is asserted to include sexual intercourse, along with all the other, valid (actually "masturbatory") manners of "stimulation of a person's genitals..."
Will somebody please, please fix the problem? And, before precluding edits to a page--make very, very sure that this kind of awkwardness doesn't occur? Thanks. (Sorry to sound like a jerk--but it is, after all the opening sentence, which is customarily where you want to make super-sure that you make a good impression, as by get things right... it may require a little intellectual exertion, but hardly mental acrobatics, to actually phrase a correct (narrower) definition.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.14.221 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone have a link to the actual pamphlet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisane ( talk • contribs)
"The origin of PE lies in teen age masturbation which causes over sensitization of Penile nerves(which takes the sexual nervous reflexes from penis to brain and vice versa)" Dr Anil Kumar MBBS DPM http://www.laksuwa.com/laksuwa/content/use-screw-technique-complete-control-premature-ejaculation-without-medicines
Could we add this to the article?
Another thing that ought to be added, is the dangers of TMS (Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome). It afflicts an estimated 5% of the male population, and isn't even mentioned on the article. TMS is essentially the result of masturbating while prone. Here is a reference:
http://www.healthystrokes.com/ —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ogre44444 (
talk •
contribs) 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"Also, in males, excessive masturbation may lead to impotence or weak erections" None of the sources for this ludicrous-sounding claim are in any way scholary. A Chinese Acupuncture book talking about the "gate of life"? A website selling "herbal-remedy's" for all health problems ever known to mankind? wtf? With such sources the sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.201.66 ( talk) 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
many of the source-links are 404, please remove them -- 79.224.250.121 ( talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there is no reference to the recent research by a team from Edinburgh University in collaboration with UCLA. I think the guy leading it as a Prof. Winkman or Winkelman (?). Aparently there is something behind the old wives tale that masturbation produces hair growth on the palms of hands - except it's not the palms it's the fore-arms. They studied 100 women who used their fingers to masturbate more than 5 times a week and found "above average" hair growth compared to two control groups - women who used vibrators and women who claimed not to masturbate. I think the hypothesis was that there was a connection between excessive short jerky movements of the hand and nearby follicle growth. someone should look into this. Valuarr ( talk) 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Made a small edit from "is known between normal masturbation" to "is known between regular masturbation" in the second paragraph of the introduction. The word "normal" leaves open the interpretation that there is a such a thing as "abnormal masturbation," and that such masturbation may be bad for one's health. LogosDiablo ( talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It is stated in various places in this article that masturbation is viewed as an acceptable practice. I propose that these statements be changed to state that masturbation is accepted my many cultures, religions, and societies, though not all. As others have said, I feel this article seems to sell masturbation and advertise it as a healthy and acceptable practice that everyone should adopt. I don't suggest that the information promoting masturbation be removed. Rather, I advise that it be made clear throughout the article that this acceptance of masturbation is not unanimous. Information on the views of cultures unaccepting of masturbation is very brief and also needs to be made more thorough to help balence this out. WP is here to inform, not advertise popular beliefs. We need thorough amounts of creditable information to support all views on the subject. A lack of information implies that it doesn't exist, in this case, falsely. Sk8r dan man ( talk) 09:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Masturbation by either sex is strictly forbidden. Some men who masturbate lost their hand and forearm due to nerve damage, a neurological condition. That is why some people say they should have their right hand amputated because it looks grotesque. The damage is irreversable. Now for women the same condition can arise but it is much more rare since usually two women masturbate together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.134.92 ( talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
plzz..tell about the actual figures,that a boy/girl can masterbate in a week or month.After knowing the actual figure which can not harm the guys,they are not suffering from the harms of masterbation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.70.112 ( talk) 16:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} 15 # ^ Koedt, Anne (1970). "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm". Chicago Women's Liberation Union. http://www.cwluherstory.org/classic-feminist-writings/myth-of-the-vaginal-orgasm.html. Retrieved 2006-07-29. [dead link] I found the page if you want to fix the link, http://www.cwluherstory.org/myth-of-the-vaginal-orgasm.html 128.113.251.71 ( talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
um, i think that showing images of a woman masturbating is technically porn. I mean, people who are getting off by going to wikipedia... signed by DrStrangelove64 —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC).
Wiki is one of those sites run by people who just want to do whatever they think will "shock" the Establishment. Having pictures of people masturbating isn't doing anything to enhance the article; they're just there to be of "shock" value. Yes, wiki does have a pornography section, which proves wiki is more about shock than important knowledge. No credible encyclopedia whose intention is substantive knowledge would have an entire section devoted to pornography. I do not mean pornography as a concept but the pornography industry. Wiki just promotes pornography, having pages and links to pornographic material and actors. Are any of those actors of note, for example, that they need their own wiki page? Of course not. But this is an "encyclopedia" which devotes pages to swear words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.5.177 ( talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I must agree that graphic images (especially "Masturbating with a vibrator.jpg") are needlessly graphic and titillating. Wikipedia is commonly used by middle- and high-schoolers who should not be subjected to these graphics under normal circumstances. If wikipedia insists on allowing graphic sexual images, then there should be at minimum a warning on the header of the entry that warns viewers of graphic content. Google has a "safe search" option. Until a more family-friendly image policy is instituted, perhaps wikipedia should do the same. Mr.brad.goodwin ( talk) 23:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The graphic images should be altered. The images do not add any value to the article. Where images are needed, it would be best to follow the standard exhibited by all of the other sexuality pages which is to use animated models or drawings. The "not censored" policy is intended to prevent information from being censored, not to be a banner for shocking content that is relevant to the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmodcm ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure who wrote it, but I think that the first sentence, if you can call it that, under "Techniques" should be removed. The offending sentence is as follows, "YOU FUCKING WIERD ASS SICKOS GO GET LAID PERVERTS." Scholar121 ( talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just looking at the page and the offending sentence is still there. It really is a shame that someone would make such a comment on what is an otherwise well thought out and non-offensive article. I can only hope that this person who apparently has such low self esteem that they must put done those who, as they are obviously not, are comfortable with their own bodies and value their sexual health can get help.
I believe that statement is in error. I think a while ago it was found that masturbation in inappropriate situations often occurs in children and teenagers suffering from reactive attachment disorder. Could someone check that?-- 213.196.219.163 ( talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to be an enyclopaedia, recording matters without condemnation or endorsement. The definition refers to masturbation as having "been celebrated in art worldwide since prehistory. While there was a period (spanning between the late 18th and early 20th centuries) when it was subject to medical censure and social conservatism, it is considered a normal part of healthy life today". This is very POV and ostentatiously promoting the practise, as well as using "social conservatism" inaccurately (it wasn't just conservatives who felt masturbation was both wrong and sick). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 01:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Under male masturbation it says that men might also "enhance their fantasy" by watching pornography, however due to the absence of this in the female part it seems that pornography is a "men only" thing. The wording could be better too, although pleasantly unoffensive and subtle I think pornography can also provide the fantasy or even be considered as being at the scene (not even participating in it actively). Pornography relating to masturbation should probably get its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.113.198 ( talk) 01:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no specific section dedicated to the harmful effects of masturbation as there is to the beneficial effects? For instance, most professional male athletes are forbidden to masturbate by their trainers before a match because masturbation weakens the strength of the body. Additionally, many people describe a weakened sense of mental ability subsequent to masturbation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 ( talk) 18:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Scheinwerfermann: Sources can be brought from anywhere. I brought one from Samuel-Auguste Tissot (I could also bring from Maimonides or Schroeder) that you chose to ignore or downplay. The vast majority of sources quoted on wikipedia are from websites that are sketchy at best. All that matters is how many and how dedicated people are to have their beliefs heard. Looking at your history, you are obviously more dedicated to this website than I am, so this page will remain the way you like it. Good luck, because beyond wikipedia you probably don't have much going for you.....and House MD won't be on tv forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 ( talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be numerous references on the web along the lines that "excessive" masturbation (especially among teenage boys) can cause real and long lasting erectile dysfunction (as opposed to the penis simply getting tired). Is there any truth to these warnings, or are they simply modern variations of the going blind/hairy palms myths? Given the widespread nature of these warnings, I wonder if the truth, whatever it is, should be specifically mentioned in the article.
I also notice this sentence in the introduction: "Excessive stimulation can result in over production of sex hormones and neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, dopamine and serotonin.". This, too, sounds like some form of warning, but there is no mention of what the consequences of this over production might be. Mandolamus ( talk) 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
i believe a description of what masturbation is should be sufficient to explain it. as in child pornography does not need photos to explain it. What we seem to have here is exhibitionists that want their private acts viewed in public. I move, that the photos are removed from this section. Overseer19XX ( talk) 22:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
allow me to clarify, the three photos i am referring to are the ones under technique, female, and male. those are considered hardcore pornography and are unnecessary in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Overseer, if you have a look through the talk page archives you'll see that this has been dicussed before and consensus has been to keep the photos, which are deemed educational rather than pornographic. I don't think it's likely that consensus will swing the other way now, although I absolutely respect your right to ask. You should be aware that, according to very firmly established policy, wikipedia is not censored. The question for editors to consider is whether the pictures add anything of value to the article, and I believe that they do and thus ought to stay. As to the legal issues, that's someone else's problem: the Wikimedia Foundation has access to expert legal advice, and if they thought the photos or their usage were illegal they would act accordingly. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films> Overseer19XX ( talk) 18:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Their are probobly plenty of people who want to read the article for academic purpuses but can't becouse of the uglieness of the immages, in that sence thay probobly do more do dicorage education, than educate.-- J intela ( talk) 10:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should get some immages of decapitation for the exicution article or of human vivisection for that article, thiers a point beyound which immages are simply unessery and only serve to repell.-- J intela ( talk) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For that matter whay dont we show detailed immages of abortion in that article, it is not about cencorship or protecting minors it is about teasts and respecting others sensibilities even if you think them Irrational. I don't wish to have to see those immages and I'm soure you wouldn't wish to see immages of human vivisection.-- J intela ( talk) 10:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Considering Wikipedia is popular site which is most certainly used by minors, it has nothing to do with censorship. I just don't think its right images should be so freely exposed to so many on the World Wide Web. I appreciate where an image is available which demonstrates what the article is about, then it should be on the page - but I find this distasteful and bordering on needless. I wouldn't mind if it was just nudity but I'm surprised it doesn't fit into the category of a sexual act, so how are they allowed to be on this page? Stevo1000 ( talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Nmatavka ( talk · contribs), the terms you added ( twice) to the lede may have been used historically, but they are certainly not neutral and are quite inflammatory in the here-and-now world. Moreover, your assertion that self-pollution is a "valid medical term" will need a great deal of reliable support that I doubt you will find. If you would like to contribute discussion of these terms to the article, find or start an appropriate subsection within the article where they can be explicated in their historical, etymological, and cultural context. Proceed thoughtfully and discuss your proposed changes here on the talk page before making them; this what we're working on is a highly-charged topic and unilateral changes of the type you made are generally short-lived. — Scheinwerfermann T· C06:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Masturbationbothhands.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
Zichy died in 1906 and the article cites the drawing as being from 1911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.64.209 ( talk) 08:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
== excessive masturbation can lead to RSI or repetetive strain injury == masturbation and rsi Jim6677 ( talk) 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Many people have suffered permanent injury from too frequent and over enthusiastic auto-erotic activity. Stem cell cures are becoming available,
http://www.regenexx.com/ but this caveat is well worth being mentioned. (
talk) 11:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Picker78 ( talk · contribs) has deleted and appears to be prepared to edit-war over deleting the whole section and all mentions of Mutual Masturbation. The repeated deletion is in contravention of WP:BRD. There are adequate cites in the article that use and explain this term. -- Nigelj ( talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe Picker78 is right. If two or more people sit in the same room masturbating (themselves), there is nothing "mutual" in it. This is called - simply - masturbation, there is no need for a different or extra term. So, if we all agree that "mutual masturbation" is restricted in meaning to stimulate one another (and not stimulate oneself), then yes, we are talking about a non-penetrative sex act (i.e. handjob, fingering) and the word "masturbation" is only used as a euphemism, simply because handjob and fingering look like the most common way a person masturbates. I too believe that "mutual masturbation" falls under non-penetrative sex (just like frottage etc.) and it has no place in this article. --
Lonesome Warrior (
talk) 13:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
As I suspected, "Lonesome Warrior" was a sockpuppet of Picker78, whose vandalism I have once again reverted from the article. — Scheinwerfermann T· C16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Masturbation is synonymous to auto-eroticism. There is no such thing as "self masturbation", because masturbation can ONLY be "self". "Contact mutual masturbation" (handjob etc.) is NOT masturbation, it is non-penetrative sex. The way the article puts it, it is like all non-penetrative sex is actually masturbation, which is completely wrong. Non-penetrative sex (handjob, footjob, mammary intercourse etc.) is NOT masturbation. Masturbation is only when someone stimulates his or her OWN genitals. -- Picker78 ( talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have just fixed it, I think it is much more accurate and realistic now. -- Picker78 ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The term "Masturbation" is also commonly used to refer to someone doing an activity only for self pleasure. Does not necessarily sexual or stimulation of genitals. "it's just masturbation" -- 99.231.147.169 ( talk) 05:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The fifth paragraph in the "Benefits" section is in the <pre> style. The space should be removed between the end of the {{cquote}} and the sentence that starts with "That is" or the sentence should start a new paragraph. 66.158.157.155 ( talk) 05:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is clear for any thinking person that the act described by the Bible is actually coitus interruptus, not masturbation. The reference from Coogan was required by WP:VER, but he is very far from being the only one who thinks so, in fact he expresses the consensus. There's not much to doubt about that, so it is not a matter of what "some modern scholars" believe, but a matter of reading and comprehending your own Bible translation. This is a factual claim, not an opinion; Coogan states it as a fact, not as an interpretation. The Bible does not use the word masturbation or any other synonym of it or any expression which could mean it, in fact there is not a single Bible verse mentioning masturbation or describing the act of masturbating. It is only a matter of using the proper English words for what the text says. If some have used their own imagination to guess that the Bible referred to masturbation, this is simply what their imagination has added to the clear text. I saw old porn films wherein actors were cumming before the camera without masturbating, so it is physically possible to commit coitus interruptus without masturbating. In fact, thinking that Onan's story refers to masturbation is a gross error of misinterpreting a written text. No matter what theologians had to say on this issue in the past, they were not using the text of the Bible but they were speaking as theologians, not as interpreters of the written text. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the picture of St. Teresa masturbating. It contributes nothing to the article and is highly offensive. PaulKharusPaul ( talk) 01:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. See also
WP:NOTCENSORED.
Avic
ennasis @ 03:34, 13 Av 5771 / 13 August 2011 (UTC)I second the motion to remove that dump painting of 'St. Thereas' and the photos of human genitalia. I have kids who are minors. This is pretty lame to say you need consensus to remove content that is clearly inappropriate for the larger community- bluejaguar
How about the fact that there is no real evidence or reason to believe that the ecstasy of St. Teresa of Avila has anything to do with masturbation. The two are unrelated and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to have the image on Wikipedia. -KharusPaulKharus
I know that this photo shouldn't be censored, but it is pretty much not important to the article and historically inaccurate- that art was intended as a satire to Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.89.97 ( talk) 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
At 01:07 we had
At 08:17 79... changed this to
By 09:45 Dionisia Bekri had changed it to
At 13:57 Lost on belmont changed it to
Since then, 79... has changed it back to C, and I have changed it back to D.
Now, these sentences are uncited here in the WP:LEDE. Therefore, either they must not be challengeable ( WP:V says, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"), or they must be a summary of something that is covered in more detail and is fully cited elsewhere in the article. The only citations in the section Masturbation#Mutual masturbation are [8] and [9].
What are we trying to say here? I propose that the main points are
We must remember gay couples of both genders, the old, the young, the able-bodied and not, the married, unmarried and the casual. I think one of the points we are not making is that solitary masturbation also avoids pregnancy and STDs - that may be true but is so obvious it doesn't really need a place in the lede. So which is the best version? -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Because this matter is still being edited over I'm going to discuss the new changes here to avoid an Edit War.
We have two versions being swapped
Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. [1] The stimulation can be performed manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. [2] Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. Masturbation with a partner, called mutual masturbation, is also common and can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse.
vs.
Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. [1] The stimulation can be performed manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. [3] Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. The act when performed with a partner is called mutual masturbation and can be used as can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse.
In the first case, the main points against are the fact that the word "masturbation" is used to open sentences 1, 2, and 4, which is, stylistically, not good writing. Another issue is the phrase "is also common," which we don't have a cite for. (If we can get one, great! Otherwise this needs to remain unsaid.)
In the second case, the argument against is the use of the word "performed," which appears in sentences 2, 3, and 4.
I'll argue that "performed" isn't as glaring because it occurs in various points in each sentence, and that all we do is change the word "performed" in one or two cases to synonyms.
How about: Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. [1] The stimulation can be achieved manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. [4] Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually done in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. The act when performed with a partner is called mutual masturbation and can be used as can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse. Lost on Belmont ( talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
It turns out that the Dionisia Bekri username and several IP addresses in the 79.107.x.y range were being used by a well-known disruptive user. (see Talk:Non-penetrative sex#Dry humping: Same meaning as NPS or just a type of NPS?, User:Dionisia Bekri, Special:Contributions/79.107.9.21, etc) This makes some of the above discussion, and some recent edits to the article, relatively meaningless. I have tried to simplify the relevant text and tidy up the lede. -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 13 |
See my talk page (I was a teenage wanker) for the candid tell-all story. But this article does not mention that chronic masturbation over a period of years can bend the penis, which is a crime against aesthetic concerns, and can also lead to a diminution in performance. Indeed, one of the photos in the article suggests the subject is suffering from just such a condition, albeit not as severe as it is in some men. In some men the penis virtually bends at 90 degrees. The story of my teenage years tells how I diagnosed and treated myself for this incipient condition, and some months later was rewarded with a tool you could use as a plumb line, or a statue of David or something. All joking aside, this is a matter which has never received the attention it should. Notthere ( talk) 05:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Not that I object, but are the pictures of people masturbating really necessary? After all, the vast majority of adolescents and post-adolescents among us know what it looks like! Just wondering... Jubilee♫ clipman 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe they are necessary. I think it's a case of someone wanting to show off to their friends so they got the pictures added. And ran around screaming "Hey look this is so cool look at how I'm masturbating on wikipedia!". Aaron Myles Landwehr ( talk) 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Actually, take a look at this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex . That is the talk page of the guy who added the picture of his penis. Looks like he has a fetish for getting his penis posted all of the place. So I'm not really sure why it wasn't removed. Aaron Myles Landwehr ( talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The New Scientist link is an April-fool joke. It should be removed. I can't do so since the page is semi-protected. Whitebrightlight ( talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I think this is a case in which it would be proper putting a
content disclaimer, since the page certainly falls into the category of things that should be filtered. As you may read: "# Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy."
[2] --
87.16.65.144 (
talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Both images are inappropriate for Wikipedia. They should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.50.102 ( talk) 08:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not add videos, there is for male, and female Markstar ( talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
i want to ask its masturbation is bad for health or not ? and how many time we can do in one week? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
202.69.42.3 (
talk) 06:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the male video is fine. 72.83.107.212 ( talk) 19:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
The health and physiological effects section is miserably androcentric. Please organize the info so it's easier for the reader to find info that applies to themself! 71.221.251.150 ( talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
I understand and accept that wikipedia is not censored, and I do not object to the graphic nature of the pictures posted. However, when I opened an article in wikipedia, i did not expect a penis staring me in the face. Could we put some sort of warning or disclaimer at the top of the page, so that people who don't actually want to see pictures of genitalia can navigate away? 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Seriously? You're viewing an article about masturbation. What did you think it would contain? (And if you didn't know, it contains information to educate you.) 72.83.107.212 ( talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
I found out on the pumping technique that if you continue to keep going, sperm flies out. Should we add this and why does it happn? .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hacking master ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
The autofellatio pic. No, not because it's graphic, but simply because it's an article on masturbation, and not really that directly relevent. I could see having the pic (or a different one) on the autofellatio page, but is it really needed here? 07:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.104.188 ( talk)
Pink's song U + UR Hand references masturbation throughout the song —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicandmyth ( talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
I found out on the pumping technique that if you continue to keep going, sperm flies out. Should we add this and why does it happn? ....
...no this should not be added...-- 98.21.143.81 ( talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Insofar as I have seen, there is no sound medical literature to link male masturbation with worsening vision. Still, enough people have heard such a thing that perhaps the Article should mention it as a common misconception. The Mysterious El Willstro ( talk) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
I propose that we delete the following unreadable, unwieldy, uncited and therefore unverifiable sentence from the article:
I have no idea if any or all of these songs are relevant to the subject, or whether people are now just using this well-read article either to slander or to promote their most (or least) favourite bands, or just to add jokes to show that WP is easy to edit. Is anyone going to object to its removal? -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
For several reasons, I have removed this image for the second time:
This article is a target for people adding their own personal masturbation images, and I think this is another case of the same thing.
In general we pick images for this article from the Mediawiki Commons. Editors adding their own creative works is highly discouraged, and is seen as wp:OR. In general, editors should add material from reliable sources, and not contribute their own original ideas or artwork.
The second problem with the image is that the article already has too many images IMO, and another image of a male masturbating is not needed. The image offered, a work of art, a pixelized photo it would seem, lacks clarity and so it is very hard to see what is going on. The purpose of a good image in the article is for the reader to quickly have an idea of the topic at a glance. I don' feel that this applies to the image offered in this case. The image, not pointilism, but possible a photo reworked with Photoshop is more abstract. Abstract art lacking clarity of detail may have artistic value for some, but doesn't add clarity to the topic of the article.
I believe the person adding the image to the article is the author/creator of the image, a new editor userMaximus Artisticus, who also has contributed another of his own images File:Anal masturbation with dildo.jpg to the anal masturbation article. He may be the subject in both images as far as I can tell.
I mean no personal offense to the contributor, but we could easily gather a gallery of hundreds of self created masturbation photos in this article if we were not selective.
If we were do feel that yet another male masturbation photo was needed (and personally, I don't), then we could choose any of the images below that would show the topic with better clarity Atom ( talk) 04:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
Last time I checked any form of sexual content (especially explicit photos) had to have a disclaimer that says only 18 year old can view this page and also that custodial records must be kept showing that everyone photographed is 18. So the pictures may come into question by current US laws. So how is Wikipedia's policy towards current laws. One other note I am questioning if the photos are original research.-- 118.91.39.193 ( talk) 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
No it is just noone has reported it yet. Furthermore, many websites that allow user submitted content still have to keep custodial records and have been shut down for not doing so. In addition, a disclaimer is needed because of the explicit photos. Even nude art sites have disclaimers to show that the sites are specifically for adults. I hope this page is specifically marketed towards adults because if it is not then Wikipedia would be marketing adult material towards children, which would violate the Protect Act. In addition, you have not addressed the possibility that the photos themselves are original research.--
118.91.39.193 (
talk) 06:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
It is a general policy of the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons where images are held, that these are not censored for minors. The Commons does adhere to the law as it applies in Florida. I believe the law mentioned in the sexology image guidelines was considered a problem for a while until it got thrown out by the US courts. These guidelines have never been accepted and are just a discussion document, unfortunately one that has grown out of date since they were last seriously edited. Some people who come across these pages are upset that they are accessible by the young: they should not be; educational material is not adult; people need access to safe sex information before they start to experiment. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
First, the claim that this is for educational purposes. The use of sexually explicit photos (not drawings) can not be claimed as educational purposes unless it is teaching or training something. Even then since Wikipedia is not an authority figure like a doctor or another expert, then the claim of educational purposes can be shot down. If I was to have a blog that was complete with sexually explicit photos and have knowledge minors will access it, my site can violate the Protection Act. See since this is an encyclopedia then one can be pretty sure that minors will go on for research. To play it safe it may be an option to stick to drawings, with these at least it has been verified by the court that this is protected speech plus many science books use only drawings. Furthermore, I can make the claim the photos are original research.-- 118.41.30.102 ( talk) 09:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
You are discussing your legal theory about Wikipedia, and this is not the ideal place for that as Nigelj said. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is, indeed considered to be a valid educational tool as well as a reference. It does not claim to be authoritative, nor to be "expert" in nature, and does not need to in order to succeed at being encyclopedic. Also, "sexually explicit" is not a legally meaningful term. What you may mean to say is that you feel that it fits the legal definition of "obscene". I assure you that it does not meet the Florida definition of obscene, nor the Federal statue definition of obscene. Both are dominated by the Miller test. There are in fact many images on Wikipedia that are sexually explicit though, and the ones that I am aware of also are legally acceptable, and are not obscene. There are no federal or Florida laws that prohibit minors from seeing either nude images or sexually explicit material.
The now defunct and unconstitutional Child Online Protection Act [3] which would not have prohibited these images for minors. It was based on the also defunct and unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, which also would not have prohibited these images. In COPA, IMO, the key element is that it prohibited "...makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than...". Their definition of harmful: " The term “material that is harmful to minors” means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that—
(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and
(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."
That section C part is the Miller test I referred to earlier.
The reason that this law is unconstitutional is largely because the definition of "community standards" is too broad and undefinable.
Articles on Wikipedia, including this article, have literary, artistic, political and scientific value. To fail the Miller test, someone would need to demonstrate that Wikipedia as a whole (or possibly the article as a whole) failed to demonstrate having any literary, artistic, political or scientific value. With more than three million articles in English, with nearly every article demonstrating one or more of those traits, that would seem unlikely.
Also, I will point out that Wikipedia is not a Communications provider, as listed in that bill. Also, the problem that it would be extremely difficult to show that Wikipedia was "harmful to minors". On top of that, Wikipedia does not make its information available "for commercial purposes."
Honestly, do you think that, taken as a whole, that Wikipedia "is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest"? Or taken as a whole, "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors"?
Even from the limited perspective of this one article, do you think those things apply?
Atom ( talk) 17:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
This is simple. Sexually explicit photos have been defined for the purpose to apeal to or pander to the sexual gratification of another. This can be scientifically and legally proven. The use of sexually explicit photos does not have literary, artistic, politicial, or scientific value for minors. If that was true pornography, which is considered by a lot of people as an art, would be an artistic value for minors. Still the government says no one shall market that material towards children. That is why pornography sites have a disclaimer saying "this is intended for adults, if you are not please close immediately." Sure it is still accessible by a minor but at least there is a disclaimer that states it is intended for adults. This disclaimer gives legal protection against prosecution. As Wikipedia does not put disclaimers, then they can be subject to prosecution. As for the custodial records, all sites with sexually explicit photos have to have custodial records, which Wikipedia does not also. You are welcome to look this up for yourself.-- 118.41.30.102 ( talk) 07:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Atom you don't believe actual photos of masturbation is sexually explicit photos. I am sorry to say they are sexually explicit and so you said yourself that the disclaimer is used for that purpose. Also, Wikipedia itself is targeted for minors. In addition, you say that Wikipedia does not have child pornography photos. I do believe there is a photo of a real prepubescent child nude (not an illustration) that is in bondage with the title "Virgin Killer". Which recently Wikipedia archived so no more comments could be made. -- 211.220.23.15 ( talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
I can totally imagine, and sympathize with, the probable reasons for locking the article. But before an article is locked, it ought to be at least triple-checked for painfully obvious clumsiness of style or ideas, like that shown in the definition offered in the article's very first sentence: "Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, often to the point of orgasm." In fact, of course, masturbation refers to something notably--and this is the point of the word--more narrow than that: among the many, many varieties of "sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, often to the point of orgasm", there is that stimulation we call "sexual intercourse." However that's defined (ordinariy, I'd guess, as something like "stimulation of the genitals through male insertion of the penis into the female reproductive tract"), "sexual intercourse" is precisely what masturbation is most essentially defined against. As the definition in the first sentence stands, "masturbation" is asserted to include sexual intercourse, along with all the other, valid (actually "masturbatory") manners of "stimulation of a person's genitals..."
Will somebody please, please fix the problem? And, before precluding edits to a page--make very, very sure that this kind of awkwardness doesn't occur? Thanks. (Sorry to sound like a jerk--but it is, after all the opening sentence, which is customarily where you want to make super-sure that you make a good impression, as by get things right... it may require a little intellectual exertion, but hardly mental acrobatics, to actually phrase a correct (narrower) definition.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.14.221 ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone have a link to the actual pamphlet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisane ( talk • contribs)
"The origin of PE lies in teen age masturbation which causes over sensitization of Penile nerves(which takes the sexual nervous reflexes from penis to brain and vice versa)" Dr Anil Kumar MBBS DPM http://www.laksuwa.com/laksuwa/content/use-screw-technique-complete-control-premature-ejaculation-without-medicines
Could we add this to the article?
Another thing that ought to be added, is the dangers of TMS (Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome). It afflicts an estimated 5% of the male population, and isn't even mentioned on the article. TMS is essentially the result of masturbating while prone. Here is a reference:
http://www.healthystrokes.com/ —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Ogre44444 (
talk •
contribs) 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
"Also, in males, excessive masturbation may lead to impotence or weak erections" None of the sources for this ludicrous-sounding claim are in any way scholary. A Chinese Acupuncture book talking about the "gate of life"? A website selling "herbal-remedy's" for all health problems ever known to mankind? wtf? With such sources the sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.201.66 ( talk) 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
many of the source-links are 404, please remove them -- 79.224.250.121 ( talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm surprised that there is no reference to the recent research by a team from Edinburgh University in collaboration with UCLA. I think the guy leading it as a Prof. Winkman or Winkelman (?). Aparently there is something behind the old wives tale that masturbation produces hair growth on the palms of hands - except it's not the palms it's the fore-arms. They studied 100 women who used their fingers to masturbate more than 5 times a week and found "above average" hair growth compared to two control groups - women who used vibrators and women who claimed not to masturbate. I think the hypothesis was that there was a connection between excessive short jerky movements of the hand and nearby follicle growth. someone should look into this. Valuarr ( talk) 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Made a small edit from "is known between normal masturbation" to "is known between regular masturbation" in the second paragraph of the introduction. The word "normal" leaves open the interpretation that there is a such a thing as "abnormal masturbation," and that such masturbation may be bad for one's health. LogosDiablo ( talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
It is stated in various places in this article that masturbation is viewed as an acceptable practice. I propose that these statements be changed to state that masturbation is accepted my many cultures, religions, and societies, though not all. As others have said, I feel this article seems to sell masturbation and advertise it as a healthy and acceptable practice that everyone should adopt. I don't suggest that the information promoting masturbation be removed. Rather, I advise that it be made clear throughout the article that this acceptance of masturbation is not unanimous. Information on the views of cultures unaccepting of masturbation is very brief and also needs to be made more thorough to help balence this out. WP is here to inform, not advertise popular beliefs. We need thorough amounts of creditable information to support all views on the subject. A lack of information implies that it doesn't exist, in this case, falsely. Sk8r dan man ( talk) 09:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Masturbation by either sex is strictly forbidden. Some men who masturbate lost their hand and forearm due to nerve damage, a neurological condition. That is why some people say they should have their right hand amputated because it looks grotesque. The damage is irreversable. Now for women the same condition can arise but it is much more rare since usually two women masturbate together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.134.92 ( talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
plzz..tell about the actual figures,that a boy/girl can masterbate in a week or month.After knowing the actual figure which can not harm the guys,they are not suffering from the harms of masterbation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.70.112 ( talk) 16:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
{{ edit semi-protected}} 15 # ^ Koedt, Anne (1970). "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm". Chicago Women's Liberation Union. http://www.cwluherstory.org/classic-feminist-writings/myth-of-the-vaginal-orgasm.html. Retrieved 2006-07-29. [dead link] I found the page if you want to fix the link, http://www.cwluherstory.org/myth-of-the-vaginal-orgasm.html 128.113.251.71 ( talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
um, i think that showing images of a woman masturbating is technically porn. I mean, people who are getting off by going to wikipedia... signed by DrStrangelove64 —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC).
Wiki is one of those sites run by people who just want to do whatever they think will "shock" the Establishment. Having pictures of people masturbating isn't doing anything to enhance the article; they're just there to be of "shock" value. Yes, wiki does have a pornography section, which proves wiki is more about shock than important knowledge. No credible encyclopedia whose intention is substantive knowledge would have an entire section devoted to pornography. I do not mean pornography as a concept but the pornography industry. Wiki just promotes pornography, having pages and links to pornographic material and actors. Are any of those actors of note, for example, that they need their own wiki page? Of course not. But this is an "encyclopedia" which devotes pages to swear words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.5.177 ( talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
I must agree that graphic images (especially "Masturbating with a vibrator.jpg") are needlessly graphic and titillating. Wikipedia is commonly used by middle- and high-schoolers who should not be subjected to these graphics under normal circumstances. If wikipedia insists on allowing graphic sexual images, then there should be at minimum a warning on the header of the entry that warns viewers of graphic content. Google has a "safe search" option. Until a more family-friendly image policy is instituted, perhaps wikipedia should do the same. Mr.brad.goodwin ( talk) 23:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
The graphic images should be altered. The images do not add any value to the article. Where images are needed, it would be best to follow the standard exhibited by all of the other sexuality pages which is to use animated models or drawings. The "not censored" policy is intended to prevent information from being censored, not to be a banner for shocking content that is relevant to the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmodcm ( talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure who wrote it, but I think that the first sentence, if you can call it that, under "Techniques" should be removed. The offending sentence is as follows, "YOU FUCKING WIERD ASS SICKOS GO GET LAID PERVERTS." Scholar121 ( talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I was just looking at the page and the offending sentence is still there. It really is a shame that someone would make such a comment on what is an otherwise well thought out and non-offensive article. I can only hope that this person who apparently has such low self esteem that they must put done those who, as they are obviously not, are comfortable with their own bodies and value their sexual health can get help.
I believe that statement is in error. I think a while ago it was found that masturbation in inappropriate situations often occurs in children and teenagers suffering from reactive attachment disorder. Could someone check that?-- 213.196.219.163 ( talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is meant to be an enyclopaedia, recording matters without condemnation or endorsement. The definition refers to masturbation as having "been celebrated in art worldwide since prehistory. While there was a period (spanning between the late 18th and early 20th centuries) when it was subject to medical censure and social conservatism, it is considered a normal part of healthy life today". This is very POV and ostentatiously promoting the practise, as well as using "social conservatism" inaccurately (it wasn't just conservatives who felt masturbation was both wrong and sick). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 ( talk) 01:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Under male masturbation it says that men might also "enhance their fantasy" by watching pornography, however due to the absence of this in the female part it seems that pornography is a "men only" thing. The wording could be better too, although pleasantly unoffensive and subtle I think pornography can also provide the fantasy or even be considered as being at the scene (not even participating in it actively). Pornography relating to masturbation should probably get its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.113.198 ( talk) 01:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Why is there no specific section dedicated to the harmful effects of masturbation as there is to the beneficial effects? For instance, most professional male athletes are forbidden to masturbate by their trainers before a match because masturbation weakens the strength of the body. Additionally, many people describe a weakened sense of mental ability subsequent to masturbation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 ( talk) 18:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
Scheinwerfermann: Sources can be brought from anywhere. I brought one from Samuel-Auguste Tissot (I could also bring from Maimonides or Schroeder) that you chose to ignore or downplay. The vast majority of sources quoted on wikipedia are from websites that are sketchy at best. All that matters is how many and how dedicated people are to have their beliefs heard. Looking at your history, you are obviously more dedicated to this website than I am, so this page will remain the way you like it. Good luck, because beyond wikipedia you probably don't have much going for you.....and House MD won't be on tv forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 ( talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
There appear to be numerous references on the web along the lines that "excessive" masturbation (especially among teenage boys) can cause real and long lasting erectile dysfunction (as opposed to the penis simply getting tired). Is there any truth to these warnings, or are they simply modern variations of the going blind/hairy palms myths? Given the widespread nature of these warnings, I wonder if the truth, whatever it is, should be specifically mentioned in the article.
I also notice this sentence in the introduction: "Excessive stimulation can result in over production of sex hormones and neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, dopamine and serotonin.". This, too, sounds like some form of warning, but there is no mention of what the consequences of this over production might be. Mandolamus ( talk) 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
i believe a description of what masturbation is should be sufficient to explain it. as in child pornography does not need photos to explain it. What we seem to have here is exhibitionists that want their private acts viewed in public. I move, that the photos are removed from this section. Overseer19XX ( talk) 22:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
allow me to clarify, the three photos i am referring to are the ones under technique, female, and male. those are considered hardcore pornography and are unnecessary in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX ( talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Overseer, if you have a look through the talk page archives you'll see that this has been dicussed before and consensus has been to keep the photos, which are deemed educational rather than pornographic. I don't think it's likely that consensus will swing the other way now, although I absolutely respect your right to ask. You should be aware that, according to very firmly established policy, wikipedia is not censored. The question for editors to consider is whether the pictures add anything of value to the article, and I believe that they do and thus ought to stay. As to the legal issues, that's someone else's problem: the Wikimedia Foundation has access to expert legal advice, and if they thought the photos or their usage were illegal they would act accordingly. Contains Mild Peril ( talk) 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films> Overseer19XX ( talk) 18:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Their are probobly plenty of people who want to read the article for academic purpuses but can't becouse of the uglieness of the immages, in that sence thay probobly do more do dicorage education, than educate.-- J intela ( talk) 10:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps we should get some immages of decapitation for the exicution article or of human vivisection for that article, thiers a point beyound which immages are simply unessery and only serve to repell.-- J intela ( talk) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
For that matter whay dont we show detailed immages of abortion in that article, it is not about cencorship or protecting minors it is about teasts and respecting others sensibilities even if you think them Irrational. I don't wish to have to see those immages and I'm soure you wouldn't wish to see immages of human vivisection.-- J intela ( talk) 10:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Considering Wikipedia is popular site which is most certainly used by minors, it has nothing to do with censorship. I just don't think its right images should be so freely exposed to so many on the World Wide Web. I appreciate where an image is available which demonstrates what the article is about, then it should be on the page - but I find this distasteful and bordering on needless. I wouldn't mind if it was just nudity but I'm surprised it doesn't fit into the category of a sexual act, so how are they allowed to be on this page? Stevo1000 ( talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Nmatavka ( talk · contribs), the terms you added ( twice) to the lede may have been used historically, but they are certainly not neutral and are quite inflammatory in the here-and-now world. Moreover, your assertion that self-pollution is a "valid medical term" will need a great deal of reliable support that I doubt you will find. If you would like to contribute discussion of these terms to the article, find or start an appropriate subsection within the article where they can be explicated in their historical, etymological, and cultural context. Proceed thoughtfully and discuss your proposed changes here on the talk page before making them; this what we're working on is a highly-charged topic and unilateral changes of the type you made are generally short-lived. — Scheinwerfermann T· C06:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Masturbationbothhands.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
|
Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 12:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC) |
Zichy died in 1906 and the article cites the drawing as being from 1911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.64.209 ( talk) 08:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
== excessive masturbation can lead to RSI or repetetive strain injury == masturbation and rsi Jim6677 ( talk) 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Many people have suffered permanent injury from too frequent and over enthusiastic auto-erotic activity. Stem cell cures are becoming available,
http://www.regenexx.com/ but this caveat is well worth being mentioned. (
talk) 11:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Picker78 ( talk · contribs) has deleted and appears to be prepared to edit-war over deleting the whole section and all mentions of Mutual Masturbation. The repeated deletion is in contravention of WP:BRD. There are adequate cites in the article that use and explain this term. -- Nigelj ( talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I believe Picker78 is right. If two or more people sit in the same room masturbating (themselves), there is nothing "mutual" in it. This is called - simply - masturbation, there is no need for a different or extra term. So, if we all agree that "mutual masturbation" is restricted in meaning to stimulate one another (and not stimulate oneself), then yes, we are talking about a non-penetrative sex act (i.e. handjob, fingering) and the word "masturbation" is only used as a euphemism, simply because handjob and fingering look like the most common way a person masturbates. I too believe that "mutual masturbation" falls under non-penetrative sex (just like frottage etc.) and it has no place in this article. --
Lonesome Warrior (
talk) 13:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
As I suspected, "Lonesome Warrior" was a sockpuppet of Picker78, whose vandalism I have once again reverted from the article. — Scheinwerfermann T· C16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Masturbation is synonymous to auto-eroticism. There is no such thing as "self masturbation", because masturbation can ONLY be "self". "Contact mutual masturbation" (handjob etc.) is NOT masturbation, it is non-penetrative sex. The way the article puts it, it is like all non-penetrative sex is actually masturbation, which is completely wrong. Non-penetrative sex (handjob, footjob, mammary intercourse etc.) is NOT masturbation. Masturbation is only when someone stimulates his or her OWN genitals. -- Picker78 ( talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I have just fixed it, I think it is much more accurate and realistic now. -- Picker78 ( talk) 10:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
The term "Masturbation" is also commonly used to refer to someone doing an activity only for self pleasure. Does not necessarily sexual or stimulation of genitals. "it's just masturbation" -- 99.231.147.169 ( talk) 05:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The fifth paragraph in the "Benefits" section is in the <pre> style. The space should be removed between the end of the {{cquote}} and the sentence that starts with "That is" or the sentence should start a new paragraph. 66.158.157.155 ( talk) 05:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it is clear for any thinking person that the act described by the Bible is actually coitus interruptus, not masturbation. The reference from Coogan was required by WP:VER, but he is very far from being the only one who thinks so, in fact he expresses the consensus. There's not much to doubt about that, so it is not a matter of what "some modern scholars" believe, but a matter of reading and comprehending your own Bible translation. This is a factual claim, not an opinion; Coogan states it as a fact, not as an interpretation. The Bible does not use the word masturbation or any other synonym of it or any expression which could mean it, in fact there is not a single Bible verse mentioning masturbation or describing the act of masturbating. It is only a matter of using the proper English words for what the text says. If some have used their own imagination to guess that the Bible referred to masturbation, this is simply what their imagination has added to the clear text. I saw old porn films wherein actors were cumming before the camera without masturbating, so it is physically possible to commit coitus interruptus without masturbating. In fact, thinking that Onan's story refers to masturbation is a gross error of misinterpreting a written text. No matter what theologians had to say on this issue in the past, they were not using the text of the Bible but they were speaking as theologians, not as interpreters of the written text. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the picture of St. Teresa masturbating. It contributes nothing to the article and is highly offensive. PaulKharusPaul ( talk) 01:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. See also
WP:NOTCENSORED.
Avic
ennasis @ 03:34, 13 Av 5771 / 13 August 2011 (UTC)I second the motion to remove that dump painting of 'St. Thereas' and the photos of human genitalia. I have kids who are minors. This is pretty lame to say you need consensus to remove content that is clearly inappropriate for the larger community- bluejaguar
How about the fact that there is no real evidence or reason to believe that the ecstasy of St. Teresa of Avila has anything to do with masturbation. The two are unrelated and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to have the image on Wikipedia. -KharusPaulKharus
I know that this photo shouldn't be censored, but it is pretty much not important to the article and historically inaccurate- that art was intended as a satire to Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.89.97 ( talk) 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
At 01:07 we had
At 08:17 79... changed this to
By 09:45 Dionisia Bekri had changed it to
At 13:57 Lost on belmont changed it to
Since then, 79... has changed it back to C, and I have changed it back to D.
Now, these sentences are uncited here in the WP:LEDE. Therefore, either they must not be challengeable ( WP:V says, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"), or they must be a summary of something that is covered in more detail and is fully cited elsewhere in the article. The only citations in the section Masturbation#Mutual masturbation are [8] and [9].
What are we trying to say here? I propose that the main points are
We must remember gay couples of both genders, the old, the young, the able-bodied and not, the married, unmarried and the casual. I think one of the points we are not making is that solitary masturbation also avoids pregnancy and STDs - that may be true but is so obvious it doesn't really need a place in the lede. So which is the best version? -- Nigelj ( talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Because this matter is still being edited over I'm going to discuss the new changes here to avoid an Edit War.
We have two versions being swapped
Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. [1] The stimulation can be performed manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. [2] Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. Masturbation with a partner, called mutual masturbation, is also common and can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse.
vs.
Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. [1] The stimulation can be performed manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. [3] Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. The act when performed with a partner is called mutual masturbation and can be used as can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse.
In the first case, the main points against are the fact that the word "masturbation" is used to open sentences 1, 2, and 4, which is, stylistically, not good writing. Another issue is the phrase "is also common," which we don't have a cite for. (If we can get one, great! Otherwise this needs to remain unsaid.)
In the second case, the argument against is the use of the word "performed," which appears in sentences 2, 3, and 4.
I'll argue that "performed" isn't as glaring because it occurs in various points in each sentence, and that all we do is change the word "performed" in one or two cases to synonyms.
How about: Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. [1] The stimulation can be achieved manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. [4] Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually done in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. The act when performed with a partner is called mutual masturbation and can be used as can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse. Lost on Belmont ( talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
It turns out that the Dionisia Bekri username and several IP addresses in the 79.107.x.y range were being used by a well-known disruptive user. (see Talk:Non-penetrative sex#Dry humping: Same meaning as NPS or just a type of NPS?, User:Dionisia Bekri, Special:Contributions/79.107.9.21, etc) This makes some of the above discussion, and some recent edits to the article, relatively meaningless. I have tried to simplify the relevant text and tidy up the lede. -- Nigelj ( talk) 20:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |