Talk:Masturbation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Masturbation article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Masturbation is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top	This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives
November 2004 – April 2005 May 2005 – March 2006 April 2006 – July 2006 May 2006 – January 2007

Contents 1 Spam 2 Images 3 Condensing short sections 4 Definition of "masturbation" 5 Sexual intercourse and voyeurism are not the same things 6 Needs more facts, I think. 7 "Masturbation can be a form of autoeroticism" 8 The {{cleanup}} tag 9 Wicca 10 Anti-Masturbation Patent Links 11 Religious views on masturbation 12 Male Masturbation Video-Animation 13 Masturbation vs. Autoeroticism 14 the washing machine 14.1 The (treadle-operated, non-motorized) sewing machine 15 Risks -> reduces interest in partner? 16 Needs some factual evidence 17 What about semi-protection? 18 Mountain Dew 19 Prone masturbation 20 This Needs Adding 21 POV 22 TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

[edit] Spam

The bottom link to "The worlds largest masturbation blog" links to a spam/advertising site. Can someone remove it please? http://www.masturbatorblog.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schneider100 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Already done-and good ridance!24.14.33.61 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

[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)

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)

I can always make time for masturbation!! Wait, I didn't mean that like it sounded...or did I? Take care, Johntex\^talk 05:09, 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)

Is this definition even accurate? It includes a bunch of activities you can do with a partner. It should be restricted to solo action, with "mutual masturbation" being an exception along the lines of "simulating the actions of masturbation in the presence of a partner". (ie, masturbation only in name) Etymologically, it means one thing--but in practice it means what you do by yourself.

The secondary definition has been taken as the main definition. Today autoeroticism is the main definition.

When you are naked in bed with a woman and she is rubbing her crotch on your leg, according to this article she is masturbating. Few would agree, and they are all asleep. 12.41.40.20 18:56, 27 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 sexual devices meant for the use of playful use such as sex toys or other objects of use in a sexual fun filled way of fun sex toyability and non-genital stimulation. The old sentence had several problems:

1. It assumed that all masturbation was self-masturbation. But it's not; one can masturbate another person, and this is not autoeroticism.
2. 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.
3. 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)

On the contrary, most people consider masturbation to be autoeroticism only. Your single source (Merriam-Webster) is outdated. Instead, let's explore the boundary between masturbation and partnersex. Is masturbating while listening to your neighbors through the wall really masturbation? Is masturbating while listening to your partner on the telephone really masturbation? Is masturbating while watching each other really masturbation? What if you are touching other parts of each other while masturbating, what shall we call that? All these questions are much more interesting than insisting on the antiquated definition of masturbation as any kind of stimulation besides penetrative or oral sex.

We are in need of an autoeroticism merge, considering the rest of the article is and should be about autoeroticism. 12.41.40.20 19:19, 27 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)

[edit] Religious views on masturbation

I think it would be both very interesting and beneficial to create a separate article for Religious views on masturbation. For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of the new article at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me so far. Good luck with getting people who know their way around their religion's written information to add plenty of refs and citations. It had become a big section in this article and it'll be good just to be able to reference it from here. --Nigelj 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Male Masturbation Video-Animation

This may or may not be of interest. It is in the wikimedia commons.--68.88.196.111 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Male masturbation

Well, it is worth discussing. I am not advocating putting the image in. But, it makes me wonder, how is a still image of a male masturbating in the masturbation article encylopedic, and a moving image of it "pornography" and "not legal"? In establishing guidelines, as we are doing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, this kind of disctinction needs to be discussed and determined. In my mind, I think it is likely that some people will be offended, and we desire to avoid that, but also, that it is not, in any way "pornographic". Since nearly every male in the English speaking world (and so english Wikipedia) masturbates nearly every day (2-7 times a week anyway), is it that it is recorded, or depicted that makes it offensive? It does not (in my opinion) meet the standard for "obscene", and therefore, not illegal. So again, why is a still image of this okay in this article, and a moving image of the same thing, not okay?? Atom 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If as you say, "nearly every male in the English speaking world masturbates nearly every day", then why do they need to see someone else doing it? Do you masturbate frequently but not know how to?

You and all of us are not editors for people who only hold to liberal sensibilities, but are editors for the full range of people globally who read Wikipedia. We live in a very diverse world where people range from very conservative to very liberal in their sensitivities and sensibilities. It is simply foolish and likely of motivation from mere prurient interest to seek to illustrate masturbation by any method except that which is least likely to offend the most people. Male masturbation would clearly be considered pornographic to a great many people and I cannot see how it could be legal on Wikipedia without requiring age verification. No one needs for knowledge sake to view a video of a man masturbating to learn about the subject, and it is a sick mind who would not be concerned to have their 13-year-old daughter view the video. Verbal descriptions of masturbation and artwork is all that is needed. "Not for the one or the few but for the many" must be the guiding principle. CyberAnth 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the word "pornographic" is completely subjective, and as such, has no meaning. The legal term would be "obscene", which the image is not. Does the image add to the quality of the article? That would be subjective. I gather that your opinion is that verbal descriptions and artwork are sufficient. I would guess because it may be your view that those two things are sufficiently descriptive, but least likely to offend. Which makes some sense. If we aren't going to strictly use the objective measures available (is it legal, does it add value to the article) and need to get into subjective, then what kind of common denominator (or random) set of subjective values should we use? You imply that global readership should affect this. As the majority of the (potential global) readers are not white and not christian, I think your values of a conservative christian male may not be the best measure. (not to say that mine are any better, in that regard). If we are going to use U.S./U.K. predominant values, well, that leans more towards christian views, but not towards conservative views.

The community standards that we in Wikipedia follow is that we don't censor content (not to say that editorial decisions are not important). It does say that we don't remove something because a conservative christian might think it was pornographic. A conservative christian would think pretty much anything related to sex is pornogrpahic. This being a good example, as it is an image of a male masturbating, masturbation probably being the most common sexual event or human activity now, and throughout the history of humankind, perhaps only surpassed by eating or sleeping. It is a natural, normal biological activity, and not something that most people in your community, or in the Wikipedia community would call sexually deviant, unusual, abnormal, or perverted. There are no other people in the video, no words, no plot, no innuendo. It is as basic an educational as one could get. It doesn't even demonstrate ejaculation, or show semen (which although also perfectly normal, would be something else that someone could claim was pornographic.) It is about as erotic or exciting as a video of the dissection of a frog. Yet, you, a conservative christian, suggest that it is pornography.

The problem here is that there are established community standards for Wikipedia, and your common community standards are more conservative. So, you want to change Wikipedia to meet your communities subjective community standards. The more rational approach would be if you were to change your community standards while in in our community, or choose not to visit a community where the values are so much more "liberal" than your own.

Atom 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop stereotyping me.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#When_possible.2C_avoid_images_that_are_likely_to_offend states,

Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used.

And below that quote is a section indicating that Artwork is preferred over photographs.

The above are Wikipedia community standards. Also have a look here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Masturbation.jpg

In what way would artwork such as at an earlier version of this article or, better yet, something like this, and descriptions be a detriment to the article compared with the graphic video? Do you perhaps need to have it very explicitly illustrated for you how to place your hand in a circle, place it around your penis, and stroke up and down? Is there something difficult to understand or unclear to you about that description?

So who exactly is the one trying to change community standards here?

CyberAnth 05:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree, it's rather obvious it's not a resort to a unilateral declaration of what is the right standard but a resort to the provided guidelines. Chensiyuan 09:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally, I don't mean any offense. I don't intend to stereotype you. My comments are based on your words, not on any other factor. So, my apologies if it is taken that way.

The Wikipedia guidelines you reference are a work in progress, and a result of my efforts with a few other people. So, they are still in progress, and also they are guidelines (which means they help to guide those who choose to adopt -- and not policy).

The video loop was not provided by myself, it only brought up the conversation where I asked the legitimate question as to how others perceived the video loop as being different than a still image of the topic. The loop was on a talk page, and not on the main article. It had been removed from the talk page, along with the anon users comments. (Which was innapropriate).

No one has suggested using the video in the article itself (yet). My offering discussion of the topic was intended to work through guidelines and policy before someone does that.

When I was discussing community standards, it was to suggest that there is an existing community standard here of not censoring, that Wikipedia is not mean't to be safe for work, or to be safe for school children. So, when you express things like "would clearly be considered pornographic" when it isn't, and "a sick mind who would not be concerned to have their 13-year-old daughter view the video" I have to say that people who feel that way have a wrong understanding or misperception of what Wikipedia is.

Atom 13:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly did not see the proposed part of that. Right now it looks like many of prurient intent are weighing in on the matter. Let us hope that more sane heads prevail. CyberAnth 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to including the male masturbation video until some kind wikipedian donates a female masturbation video. And it should include a "washing machine". (see below) 12.41.40.20 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

APatcher 4 Feb. 2007

I have been following this page and the talk section for quite some time, but this is the first time I have posted anything, so please excuse me if I have made a mistake here.

As far as having a picture or video of masturbation on the Wikipedia masturbation article, I just don't see why it is necessary. In my opinion, this is the reason why we have "External Links". Simply put, external links can cover information that can not be completely explained (or would be problematic) in the Wiki article itself. The JackinWorld.com (already listed) and the AdvancedMasturbation.com (already listed) sites both have illustrations and pictures within their content pages. They have been listed in the masturbation article for quite a while because they do cover a lot of what we can't. Those sites also have appropriate and clearly stated warnings for this type of "debatable" content on the home page. Even those sites do not put illustrations or pictures on the home page. Instead, the home page has a very clear warning about what the content will be if the user chooses to click on a link. If there is a picture on the Wikipedia site, then how could we appropriately warn people? I personally don't think those types of pictures are pornographic or offensive, but there is a controversy with unclear parameters here. Therefore, the issue is "borderline" and "debatable". What I think we should try to avoid is having people come to Wikipedia and encountering an "unpleasant surprise" -- especially since the quality of this Wiki article would NOT be diminished in any way by excluding genital masturbation pictures, videos, or illustrations. Since we have resource links where people can find visual examples, the pictures and the controversies surrounding them is not necessary on Wikipedia. APatcher 09:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Masturbation vs. Autoeroticism

This article seems muddled. Ostensibly it takes the definition of masturbation to be "manual sexual stimulation" whether solo or partnered. However, some of the content (like the stuff on sex toys and prostate health) talks about masturbation as if autoeroticism were meant.

I've just taken the section called "autoeroticism" out of the article on the unusual topic of "autosexuality" (which means being sexually attracted to yourself, a la Narcissus), and made a separate autoeroticism article -- which was until now a redirect to autosexuality.

I think the "sex by hand" material on this page ought to be disentangled from the "sex with yourself" material, and the latter moved to autoeroticism.

I also think handjob and fingering (sexual act) ought to be merged here or just made redirects if they contain no notable content. Okay? DanB†DanD 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation is sexually stimulating oneself by touch and including the use of inanimate objects. With a partner, one might refer to a handjob as "masturbating" but only colloquially in reference to the self-action. (If you can "jack off", another person can "jack you off", for example.) Fingering would typically only be referred to as "masturbating" if that was a method that the woman preferred to use on herself.

[edit] the washing machine

In the female section, it is noted that a woman can rub against objects, including a "washing machine". Clearly barefoot-in-the-kitchen sexism. What's next, masturbating while cooking dinner or doing the dishes?

I think that the washing machine specifically warrants a mention because many washing machines (particularly older models) vibrate during the spin cycle. Also, please sign your posts. This link explains how:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages Thank you. Asarelah 00:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that enjoyability is the test of inclusion. We are not giving masturbation tips, but rather documenting the phenomenon. That being said, if you can find a source about a number of women who have used a washing machine and what their experiences were like, it would be good to note it. (Off-topic, consider you are dealing with machinery, water, electricity, detergents and bleach; overall maybe not the best way to get off.) Mainly, the point is that motorcycles vibrate too--I'm sure there are other arbitrary sex-neutral examples that can be used in the absence of any facts.

As it stands, the reader is assumed to naturally understand that women do the laundry, and so might masturbate on a washing machine. You and I did it, and heard other people did too; but that's far from science, far from encyclopedic. It reads like a dirty old congressman's fantasy about what women do during the day while the men are at work, and should be cleaned up. 12.41.40.20 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Far more people own washing machines than motorcycles, and many single women have access to washing machines. I honestly can't think of any other large object that a person can sit on that vibrates. I've seen plenty of pro-female masturbation websites that reccommend this practice, however, I have not seen one that mentions how common it is. Then again, I haven't seen statistics on the use of vibrators either, but that hardly means that mentioning the use of vibrators is unscientific. Asarelah 18:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen dood I've seen it with my own two eyes, it's not sexism. Women do it. 71.68.15.163 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference to masturbating by rubbing against a vibrating washing machine was great! I've certainly done it. It is healing (not to mention informative) to see a topic (masturbation) that is so culturally charged treated in such a neutral manner, and the specific references are wonderful. Some of us have wondered whether we're the only ones doing something. (For the record, I'm a woman whose sexual experiences have been with women, and I certainly am no barefoot-in-the-kitchen housewife!)

[edit] The (treadle-operated, non-motorized) sewing machine

IIRC somewhere in Havelock Ellis there's a passage about seamstresses in early-1900s sweatshops sitting in just the right position while operating the treadle (of the non-motorized sewing machine). He says that from time to time observers would hear one sewing machine in the group suddenly speed up. I'm not going to put this in the article unless I can find a proper reference... which it's not likely that I'll be able to do... but if anyone has a copy of Havelock Ellis at hand and knows where to look, I'd be interested in knowing if my recollection is correct.

(It was a long time ago. It was my Dad's copy of Havelock Ellis. Some boys find their dad's girlie magazines, some find his copy of Havelock Ellis). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Truly amazing, this Internet thing. It's in Project Gutenberg, ebook #13610:

The early type of sewing-machine, especially, was of very heavy character and involved much up and down movement of the legs; Langdon Down pointed out many years ago that this frequently produced great sexual erethism which led to masturbation.[207] According to one French authority, it is a well-recognized fact that to work a sewing-machine with the body in a certain position produces sexual excitement leading to the orgasm. The occurrence of the orgasm is indicated to the observer by the machine being worked for a few seconds with uncontrollable rapidity. This sound is said to be frequently heard in large French workrooms, and it is part of the duty of the superintendents of the rooms to make the girls sit properly.[208]

"During a visit which I once paid to a manufactory of military clothing," Pouillet writes, "I witnessed the following scene. In the midst of the uniform sound produced by some thirty sewing-machines, I suddenly heard one of the machines working with much more velocity than the others. I looked at the person who was working it, a brunette of 18 or 20. While she was automatically occupied with the trousers she was making on the machine, her face became animated, her mouth opened slightly, her nostrils dilated, her feet moved the pedals with constantly increasing rapidity. Soon I saw a convulsive look in her eyes, her eyelids were lowered, her face turned pale and was thrown backward; hands and legs stopped and became extended; a suffocated cry, followed by a long sigh, was lost in the noise of the workroom. The girl remained motionless a few seconds, drew out her handkerchief to wipe away the pearls of sweat from her forehead, and, after casting a timid and ashamed glance at her companions, resumed her work. The forewoman, who acted as my guide, having observed the direction of my gaze, took me up to the girl, who blushed, lowered her face, and murmured some incoherent words before the forewoman had opened her mouth, to advise her to sit fully on the chair, and not on its edge.

"As I was leaving, I heard another machine at another part of the room in accelerated movement. The forewoman smiled at me, and remarked that that was so frequent that it attracted no notice. It was specially observed, she told me, in the case of young work-girls, apprentices, and those who sat on the edge of their seats, thus much facilitating friction of the labia."

—Ellis, Havelock (1927), Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume I,; Auto-Erotism: A Study of the Spontaneous Manifestations of the Sexual Impulse; section I; "The Sewing-machine and the Bicycle"

Erethism? ... "Abnormal irritability or sensitivity of an organ or a body part to stimulation." You learn a new word every day... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Risks -> reduces interest in partner?

Is there any research to suggest that masturbation "risks" reducing sexual desire to one's partner? Or in some way reduces effort afforded to them for sexual activities? So far, there seems to be no mention of these risks, if indeed there is any truth to them. --Rebroad 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also am interested in such research. My own work has led me to a tentative theory or two about the effects of masturbation on a man's ability to achieve and sustain an erection in normal relations with his wife. In pastoral ministry over the past 35 years, I have had discussions with a number of couples, ranging in age from 35 to about 60 years old, who came for help relating to the husband's loss of interest in relations, or his inability to be aroused and/or sustain an erection. With some men I asked about practices of masturbation and use of pornography. Most readily admitted frequent masturbation, though most would not discuss pornography lest their wife should hear of it. (This question has almost disappeared since the rise of viagra.)

During this same time I heard older men in their late 60's or 70's speaking of how their sex lives had improved with retirement due in part to more available time, or taking more time at it.

My theory is that the mind may develop something like pleasure paths, in which it naturally goes down the most frequently used paths, or the preferred one, or most intense memory. Thus, the mind becomes accustomed to being stimulated by a lubricated hand and the sight of perfect bodies in glossy print, and/or on video websites. When this man then comes to the wife, who has probably gained a number of pounds and too many sags, he cannot be aroused by this visual. If an erection is acheived through foreplay, he may not sustain the erection because his normal pleasure is by hand.

The corresponding theory is that if a man becomes truly chaste after marriage, has high quality relations with is wife, not engaging in any sexual thought or action that is not with his wife, and if he is in good health, he will enjoy good sex into his senior years.

I admit to bias in these theories. My faith would predispose me to such thinking. I also am interested in true science on any subject.

I suspect there is no research on this topic. How does a scientist find a control group of subjects to study for many years who will willingly subscribe to the chaste life? People who espouse chastity may be less likely to participate in a study like this.

At any rate, I will read with interest any thoughts you have on my theories.

[[[User:Apprentice2him|Apprentice2him]] 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[User:Apprentice2him|Apprentice2him]] 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs some factual evidence

Masturbation involving both a man and a woman (see mutual masturbation) can result in pregnancy only if semen contacts the vulva.

Now, I am aware that yes, you can get pregnant this way, but I know that it is a very low chance, as alot of sperm can die outside the body before it makes its way in, and even then, chances are rare. Can we get any cites for this on percentages or something similar? Just to avoid any girls screaming how they can get pregnant by sitting on a toilet seat, or something similar. Disinclination 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What about semi-protection?

I'm really tired of wading every day through all those edits made by unregistered vandals. Should the article be semi-protected?.. Alexander Iwaschkin 11:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys if you to see heavy vandalism, please report at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Carlosguitar 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mountain Dew

I reverted the following edited paragraph:

Religions vary broadly in their views of masturbation, from completely impermissible to encouraged as a way to achieve greater spirituality. If your religion is against masturbation, It is said that drinking Mountain Dew, will reduce your sperm count and stop frequent urges and make it a lot easier to stop.

I really didn't think this unsourced nonsense needed to be discussed prior to editing. --Evb-wiki 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted some vandalism, and apparently chose the wrong previous version. I stand correct, my apologies. Atom 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prone masturbation

The links section contains a link to a site at http://healthystrokes.com; I'd like to suggest either removing this link, or placing a notice next to it advertising its unreliability. The site is pernicious. While appearing to offer detailed and serious advice, it relies on spurious sources, and is written anonymously and insensitively. The site is about prone masturbation, which it refers to, bizarrely, as 'traumatic masturbatory syndrome'. It claims masturbating prone causes sexual dysfunction, and that one can become a "normal male" by refraining from masturbation and sex for weeks or months. There is just one journal article referred to in support, and this is a study of only four men. Extra support is provided by an unofficial internet survey of just 119 people. The advice given is not the mainstream view of doctors. Incredible claims are made, such as "Males who masturbate face down, if they can have intercourse at all, are limited to the missionary position." Wikipedia isn't responsible for the content of external websites, but it shouldn't point people towards an apparently credible source of misinformation, and one that could cause unnecessary suffering. 86.143.153.34 01:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. --Nigelj 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Asarelah 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I masturbate in the prone position as well as many other ways. I don't believe in so called "TMS"

APatcher 4 Feb. 2007

I have done a fairly large amount of research on the so called "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome" as it is stated on that site in question. The condition is a real issue, but it affects very few men (even those who masturbate in the prone position). That particular site and the articles on the site are not clear. In addition, the actual article is not really an article for the general public. The article should only be approached by someone who has significant studies and/or professional experience related to human sexuality. When I read that article, I can tell it was written by a person "in the field" for other people who work "in the field". Having said that, I personally do not think the article is very good anyway. The title is misleading. Probably someone was just trying to get recognition in the human sexuality field, and this may have been one of their first tries at a thesis paper. Most likely the author did not reach their goal with this article. They probably just sold the rights to it for a low price. APatcher 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There's some history here from long, long ago. There used to be an article at traumatic masturbatory syndrome (now redirected to this article), created by the editor of healthystrokes.com (not Lawrence Sank, the author of the paper). A few of us (with scientific, though mostly not specifically medical science backgrounds) looked into the topic and decided that the single paper, which hasn't apparently been referenced in the literature since, and a few extremely scattered references in other places, did not an established syndrome make. We even contacted Dr. Sank personally (he's a clinician) to see whether he was aware of any follow-up work based on his paper. In the end, we managed to get the article deleted and left a one-sentence link to Sank's paper and the healthystrokes site in this one.

If you've got a better reference to point to, make the substitution. --Robert Merkel 05:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This Needs Adding

By masturbating a human is essentially having sex with themselves. As they are the same sex as themselves and related to themselves, masturbating can be considered a homosexual and incestuous act. So it is ironic that there are humans who have a disdain for homosexuals and homosexuality and yet masturbate believing it "affirms" their heterosexuality. In fact it just shows they have homosexual urges and are either homosexual or bisexual.

STOP reverting my correct edit. It IS true that masturbating is having sex with oneself which makes it a homosexual act and incestuous act!

Is this a joke? You're not really trying to be serious are you? In the first place masturbation is not a homosexual act, intrinsically. Secondly, until you have legitimate, respected citations of sources that agree with your ridiculous "correct" edit it has no place on this page. Period. Wikipedia isn't opinion.

--Aylwinatrix Wednesday Feb 7, 07

It is not a joke and I am being serious. Wikipedia should report the facts, and this is a fact. It is not my fault if you are in denial of your true sexuality. If you masturbate you are showing you have homosexual urges and are either homosexual or bisexual. Furthermore, I have no idea why you, or anyone, would wish to degrade themselves by doing this.

When did I ever say in this, or any other post, that I masturbate? All I ever wrote about was the rules of Wikipedia, which is to post only information that is pertinent, and well-researched. Wikipedia does not exist to post unverifiable opinion. If what you say is a "fact" it should be very easy to find sources that support this "fact". If you can find independent sources that back your opinion, then feel free to post that information. If you can't then you should expect to have your edits be reverted. Also your inferences about me are quite personal and offensive. I plan on reporting you to the moderators of this site. I never removed any of your meritless posts, I only explained to you why they are continually removed.

--Aylwinatrix 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Aylwinatrix

That person is either crazy or trying to be a smart ass. Masturbation is clearly not homosexual or bisexual in a true sense and it's not the least degrading. And why do some people have such issues with pleasure? If you never masturbate, it's like being super rich but never buying anything. CerealBabyMilk 10:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually masturbating is degrading for the same reason Immanuel Kant gave. I am not crazy nor I am trying to be a "smart ass". I am simply telling the truth; it is not my fault if you can't handle the truth that it is degrading etc. As for "pleasure", just as masturbating feels good does not mean it is morally acceptable. There are many who find rape pleasurable (the rapist), however the human being raped does not find it enjoyable. Just as something feels good, does not make it morally right. Aylwinatrix - you need to relax, seriously. Something is not determined to be a "fact" just as the majority believe it; just like something is not untrue simply as it is only believed by a minority. The majority of humans believe in a Supreme Being - but this does not mean such a thing exists. Just like the majority may not find masturbating to be degrading and a homosexual act; but the truth is that it is degrading and a homosexual act.

Yep. It's either crazy or that's George W. Bush. Maybe it's both. --Evb-wiki 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not crazy or George W. Bush. Why are you assuming I am male? I know that you are all getting angry as you are in denial. You can not accept the fact that something you all do (masturbating) is actually degrading and that you have homosexual urges.

[QUOTE]I should like to regretfully report vandalism by 86.135.39.79.The anonymous user has been warned several times. In addition to this, when I attempted to explain why his posts were deleted, and what he should do to avoid their deletion, he became personally insulting, in specifically homophobic way. While I am heterosexual, these attacks were all the same offensive, und unwarranted. Pages he continually vandalize include masturbation and suicide . Thanks very much, --Aylwinatrix 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Aylwinatrix[QUOTE]

1. Where have I insulted you? If I did it was not deliberate. 2. Why are assuming I am male? You use "he". 3. How am I being homophobic?

Why are you assuming everyone who reads and/or edits this page masturbates. I mean, you read and edit this page, and you don't mast-- . . . oh . . . um, maybe you do.--Evb-wiki 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What is it with you crackers?

86.135.39.79, I'm not going to continue in this exchange with you any more. Anyone's personal opinions on objective truth are irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Its entries must be cited by other sources as being verifiable, otherwise they are likely going to be removed. It truly isn't personal, Wikipedia simply has specific standards. I hope your future posts meet these standards. And you were intentionally trying to be insulting to provoke a reaction from me. You assumed I masturbate, and also insinuated that because of this, I am homosexual, bisexual or incestuous. These statements are quite personal, uncivil, and completely inappropriate for this site. Furthermore, your implication is that homosexuality is a negative trait, especially if you are using it alongside incest. If you're looking for a fight, you won't get one. All I am doing is following the rules of Wikipedia, which are clear and easy to follow for many of us. Aylwinatrix 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Aylwinatrix

I love you guys. CerealBabyMilk 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is about masturbation, not homosexuality... :P CerealBabyMilk 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states that: "Tissot argued that semen was an "essential oil" and "stimulus" that, when lost from the body in great amounts, would cause "a perceptible reduction of strength, of memory and even of reason; blurred vision, all the nervous disorders, all types of gout and rheumatism, weakening of the organs of generation, blood in the urine, disturbance of the appetite, headaches and a great number of other disorders.'" - Ellen G. White was also a firm believer that masturbation a detremental act to ones' health. She believed that one's diet had a direct correlation with one's urge to masturbate. She claimed that a bland diet consisting of vegtables, wheat breads, and water would lead to a diminished urge to masturbate and thus would lead to a healthier and more fulfilling life. (Numbers, "Sex, Science, and Salvation", page 208)

APatcher 4 Feb. 2007

As far as definitions are concerned, I have always seen it blatantly stated or implied that homosexual actions and incest actions involve another person. In other words, "It takes two to tango". However, single-person masturbation could be clinically considered a "homoerotic" activity since it does involve the same genitals of the same person. That does not necessarily mean it defines the sexual orientation of a person in any way. Unfortunately, bringing this issue up in the Wiki article would cause quite a bit of misunderstanding unless we start listing definitions of "homosexual activity" and "homoerotic activity" and then define the subtle differences in these definitions. Also, resources are not consistent with these definitions, so citing them would cause others to debate and cite contrary sources. This would very quickly cause the article to stray from the topic. APatcher 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV

If this article is neutral, than Britain was neutral in WWIIErik the Red 2 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

Would you care to be a little more explicit as to where you see a problem? The Wednesday Island 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)