Talk:Masturbation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Archives |
|---|
[edit] A possible "Fountain Of Youth"?
I have been experimenting on masturbation and I have been looking much younger than my age of 32, and my appearence looks like I'm in my early 20s. I think all men and women should try this and see if they feel like this could be a "Fountain Of Youth" to living longer.
i think you suck pervert -some one else
Lots of people masturbate o.o OMGLiquid 11:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Images
While it is patently true that wikipedia is not censored, there is some strong support amongst editors of Sexuality articles to use "linkimage" when adding pictures of a graphic sexual nature. This allows us to keep content that is appropriate to the article, while minimizing the "shock effect" to readers of a ...sensitive...disposition. In keeping with this informal guideline, I have added the linkimage template to "Girl masturbating at a nude beach". Doc Tropics 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- That's pretty clearly a commercial porn photo, I think. It's metadata says, "Copyright holder girlmastrub@ing.net" I don't really believe the uploader's assertion that 'girlmastrub' has emailed him to ask him to add her photos to WP! I think it'll be deleted soon. --Nigelj 20:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll definitely take your word on copyvio issues; it's a subject I don't know enough about yet. My first impulse was to delete it myself, but it looked like a good-faith effort, so the linkimage seemed like a good idea. Doc Tropics 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Linkimage is a good compromise, IMHO. Ppe42 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- I'll definitely take your word on copyvio issues; it's a subject I don't know enough about yet. My first impulse was to delete it myself, but it looked like a good-faith effort, so the linkimage seemed like a good idea. Doc Tropics 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Nigelj, it happened exactly the way you don't believe it with the amendment that the uploader asked for the permission to put my photos to WP... as the object of your talk doesn't exist here any longer, there's no need to keep any trace (my email address) here as well, so i edited the email address (and i won't sign this comment for the same reason)... if you still have a doubt i'm the one who has been in question, you may write to the email address that has been altered, i also insist you change my name and real email address to the suggested patterns in all versions of this page.
[edit] Condensing short sections
There are currently four sections to this article that each contain no more than two sentences of prose. They are mainly just pointers to other articles, so I am condensing them down into the "See also" section so that we avoid these short, choppy sections. Johntex\talk 04:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good. I'm surprised you could tear yourself away from your football highlights video and Jevan Snead long enough to get that done : ) Doc Tropics 05:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Definition of "masturbation"
I'm about to rewrite the definition that begins this article, which currently states that masturbation requires "manual excitation". This is not true: people can masturbate by inserting objects, by using vibrators, by rubbing against objects (or other people), and so on. In fact, the article describes these methods a little further down, under the heading "Masturbation techniques." I will base my definition on the one in Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary but I will, of course, significantly reword it. Eric-Albert 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sexual intercourse and voyeurism are not the same things
Currently, this article contains the following sentence: Masturbation and sexual intercourse are the two most common sexual practices, but they are not mutually exclusive (for example, many people find the sight of their partner masturbating highly erotic). Both parts of the sentence are true, but I don't see the connection between the first part and the part in parentheses. For that matter, I don't see why it's necessary to say that masturbation and sexual intercourse "are not mutually exclusive" -- yes, it's true, but why are we pointing it out? I'm tempted to delete this sentence altogether; can folks explain why it should stay? Eric-Albert 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Articles like this often end up with so much nonsense layered in, that what had been clear prose becomes a jumble of semi-coherent sentence fragments. In this case I think you can be BOLD with rewrites; just keep using informative edit summaries to explain. Thanks for taking this in...hand : ) Doc Tropics 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Edit made. Thank you for the support! Eric-Albert 00:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Needs more facts, I think.
Much of this article is biased and needs cleanup. Please fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.68.24.225 (talk • contribs).
- It would help if you could be more specific. There was some excellent work done here recently, and the article is much improved, but certainly not perfect. Which statements are biased? Which sections still need cleanup? Doc Tropics 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Masturbation can be a form of autoeroticism"
The summary section of this article now contains a sentence similar to the above. The old sentence was [Masturbation] is part of a larger set of activities known as autoeroticism which also includes the use of sex toys and non-genital stimulation. The old sentence had several problems:
- It assumed that all masturbation was self-masturbation. But it's not; one can masturbate another person, and this is not autoeroticism.
- It assumed that using sex toys was not masturbation. But a vibrator is a sex toy, and using one meets Merriam-Webster's (and now this article's) definition of masturbation.
- It assumed that non-genital stimulation was not masturbation. I don't think this article is currently clear about this. But I expect that many experts would consider, say, nipple manipulation that led to orgasm to be masturbation.
For these reasons, I rewrote the sentence. It now says little; its main purpose is to provide a link to the "autoeroticism" page. We can decide later if this link is important enough to keep the sentence at all. Eric-Albert 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The {{cleanup}} tag
Can the person who added the tag make some comment here about what was troubling them? If not, can we assume that they meant it as some kind of joke (mastubation -> dirty -> clean up afterwards?) and remove it. --Nigelj 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I removed the cleanup tag. It was placed there by an IP whose recent edits demonstrate a certain lack of clarity regarding how WP actually works. If someone wishes to replace the tag, it would be appropriate to provide comments here regarding the specific issues that need to be addressed. Doc Tropics 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- Thanks, Doc. --Nigelj 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wicca
My brief description was typo'd: I meant that it doesn't talk about masturbation specifically. Disinclination 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Anti-Masturbation Patent Links
None of those links seem to work. But with the new Google Patents Search feature (http://www.google.com/patents), someone with some patience can correct each of those links. whysanitynet 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
