Talk:Religious views on masturbation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Orthodox Judaism

In Babylonian Talmud Tractate Nidah 13a, it says "a woman who frequently puts her hand below to check, she shall be praised. A man who does this, may his hand be cut off". Make of this what you will. I don't know whether or not this should be in the article. Valley2city 08:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting. Interestingly ambiguous, too! CyberAnth 05:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The woman is checking to make sure she has not started menstruation, for behavior during menstruation is subject to many taboos. A man

has no need to do the like. The most he need check is whether he has had a seminal emission overnight, which would make him ritually impure. See the tractate more generally. DGG 04:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hinduism

You have a lot of quasi-accurate material on Tantrika views on sex. This is not masturbation. That which you are referring to is known as kaama-kalaa: the junction of siddha and yogini. This does sometimes refer to the sexual act, however, there is no siddha-yogini in the act of masturbation. ॐ नमःशिवाय Śaiva Sujīt सुजीत ॐ 05:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to improve and expand this article. The material was originally taken from masturbation. I confess I am largely unlearned about Hinduism in these areas. The article needs a subject expert like you appear to be. CyberAnth 05:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Protestantism

I think you may have difficulty finding many sources that will be "pro-masturbation". If you do, I doubt that they will be from well-known or widely-used sources. I could be wrong, of course. BenC7 06:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.
James Dobson considers it part of normal adolescent exploration and strongly urges parents not to shame their children over the act lest they have marital difficulties later because of shame over their sexuality. At the same time, he realizes it becomes an addiction and an escape from intimacy for some and of course argues against it in that case.
Richard Dobbins in Teaching Your Children the Truth About Sex takes a similar approach. His overall approach is one of "neither condemn nor condone" the act. He looks at it multifactorally to determine its ethics. He gives a lot of advise to parents in the matter.
Herbert J. Miles in Sexual Understanding Before Marriage also takes a similar approach. He views the act as a controlled tool of sexual self-control for single males and advises them in that way, while also pointing males to nocturnal emissions. His view toward single females in the matter is different per their biology and lack of semen buildup, and he urges young women to wait to experience their first orgasm with their husband, while not making it a sin if they masturbate.
Both Dobbins and Miles go so far as to discuss what they feel is Biblically permissible for people to imagine while masturbating. Dobbins says fathers should urge their sons, if they masturbate, to imagine their future wife, and never some girl they may know. Miles suggests single males pray before masturbating, thanking God for the gift of their sexuality and keeping Him in mind while achieving self-release.
Ed Wheat instructs on mutual masturbation in marriage, see http://www.amazon.com/Love-Life-Every-Married-Couple/dp/0310214866/sr=8-1/qid=1166772650/ref=sr_1_1/002-3657703-4961632?ie=UTF8&s=books
Evangelical based therapeutic approaches to masturbation addiction suggest counselors place counselees on a schedule, e.g., they may masturbate 3 times per week at set times in private but no go beyond that. Over and above than a prohibitionist position, this is viewed as part of a Biblical, realistic, and effective approach to facilitating counselees to overcome a masturbatory addiction.
In general, it seems to me that reputable, balanced evangelicals realize the Bible could have but did not specifically condemn that act, and so make it a Romans 14 issue, i.e., a matter of conscience for individual believers: that the believer should not violate his or her conscience, but also realizing the conscience is fallible and may be either rightly or wrongly trained.
All condemn the act if done in lust, to pornography, or if it becomes an addiction or an escape from intimacy.
Most view it as at least having the potential to be a tool of sexual self-control, not only for singles but married persons when they may be separated from their spouse. The Marriage Bed is a very reputable evangelical web organization that I think has a very sane approach to the matter along these lines. They conclude "that a loving God designed masturbation as a 'stop gap' measure for those who do not have a spouse", see http://www.themarriagebed.com/pages/bible/app/masturbation/mastdiscuss.shtml
In my studies of the subject thus far, it is more the people on the fringes of evangelicalism who take a complete (and completely unrealistic, I think) prohibitionist stance on the matter, although I obviously am still studying the matter and could be wrong. If you have any sources you can add, please do, even if it is just some links or books you can add here. I am particularly interested in sources that may be reputable who take a prohibitionist stance on the matter.
Well, sheesh, look what you done! You went and made me already write part of the article section. :-)
I intend to later branch from this current project to create Christian views on masturbation. I think the issue is very important, because Christians just do not talk about it much and have no opportunity to see diverse Christian views and their rationales laid out on the matter.
CyberAnth 07:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Catholicism

I would be willing to work on a re-write of the Catholic section based on the CCC. The teaching of the CC on masturbation is more nuanced than it appears here. A lot of damage is done based on a poor understanding of the Church's teaching on this subject.EastmeetsWest 18:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do. That would be just great! CyberAnth 19:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The previous treatment was accurate but in my opinion jumped directly to the "bottom line" without sufficient context. It may need some more tweaking. Please let me know if there is anything more I can do. EastmeetsWest 22:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The last paragraph on the Roman Catholic teaching on masturbation I think is susceptible to misreading and may be inaccurate. Would appreciate an expert interpretation of the teaching. 69.140.173.15 18:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Drawing board

Image:Onan_(film,_1963).jpeg
Screen shot of the film Onan (1963), directed by Takahiko Iimura.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2146946_ITM - Promoting 20/20 vision: a Q & A ministry to undergraduates

[edit] UserSpace articles in categories

Articles in userspace should NOT be in categories. The use of templates should include appropriate mechanisms to prevent userspace articles being added to categories.

Under current wikipedia conventions if this article is seriously intended to be in the encyclopedia the best place to work on it, is in the encyclopedia where it can more easily be bought to the attention of the general editing community.Garrie 22:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert of edits

I'm not sure why you reverted what look to me to be good copyedits. I'm not going to get in an edit war, but I'd like to discuss what the issues are.

  • In the Painting by South African artist Anton Brink, I felt that the text was too long for a caption. The point of the story of Onan, is of course that Onan was Slain by god for disobecience. Your caption says "Painting by South African artist Anton Brink entitled "Conflict (Onan)". As suggested by Brink's painting, views on masturbation in Judaism and Christianity have often been conflicted by the story of Onan in Genesis 38:1-10. Onan did coitus interruptus while consummating his Levirate marriage (Yibbum) and was slain by God. This has sometimes been extended to mean that male masturbation is prohibited by God."

Which was too long. So, by trimming off the editorial comment at the end "This has sometimes been extended to mean that male masturbation is prohibited by God" Which is not the point of the artwork at all, and just someones opinion." I made it much shorter. If you could give a reference as to what makes you think that the point of the artwork is to express that god does not want man to masturbate, I would appreciate it.

  • The secton on Roman Catholicism was taken from another article. But, someone at some point had added onto the end some uncited OR "Consequently, all other sexual activity including masturbation, homosexual acts, acts of sodomy and sex outside of marriage and the use of artificial contraception as morally disordered as they frustrate the intention of God "written" in the design of the human body.[citation needed] "

It was controversial unough that someone else added a call for a citation, that had not been met. The "frustrate the intention of God "written" in the design of the human body" is complete nonsense, and not listed in the writings of the cathlic church as far as I have seen.

The Church teaches that Manichaeism, the belief that the spirit is good while the flesh is evil, is a heresy. Therefore, the Church does not teach that sex is sinful or an impairment to a grace-filled life. As God created the human body in his own image and likeness, and because he found everything he created to be "very good,"[1] then the human body and sex must likewise be good. The Catechism teaches that "the flesh is the hinge of salvation."[2] However the Church does teach that sexuality outside of marriage is a capital sin because it violates the purpose of human sexuality to participate in the "conjugal act" before one is actually married. The conjugal act "aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul" (Catechism 1643) since the marriage bond is to be a sign of the love between God and humanity (Catecism 1617).

(See Roman_catholicism#Human_life_and_sexuality)

I'm not sure why you added an unreferenced tag to the secular humanism section, as the entire article, for the most part is unreferenced, and not just that section.

  • The last section, "Because Onan's punishment was so much more severe, they argue that the spilling of semen was the relevant offense.[citation needed]" is entirely OR. It is true that orthodox judaism feels that the sin of Onan may have been the spilling of seed, and not disobedience to God. But, this statement says neither. Is says that someone's logic is that it could not likely be for "refusing a levirate marriage" as the punishment for that is minor, compared to death, which may be true, but the point is that, the punishment for Onan was more severe because his sin was not in "refusing a Levirate marriage", but for directly disobeying God. You as a biblical scholar certainly know this. Please see the onan article. I agree that there are people on both sides of this issue, but the way it is expressed here is not correct. My edit was to stick to the facts, and avoid the controversy. The alternative is to discuss and document, along with citations, the different views, in order to be NPOV. We can do that if you like, but trying to force one view (a mistaken view) that the story of Onan is about the spilling of seed, and that the spilling of seed prohibits masturbation won't fly. The misconception that the story of Onan had something to do with masturbation began in the 1700's, and was not viewed that way previously.

I'd appreciate it if, rather than reverting my edits wholesale, that you would discuss your views or your disagreement in the talk pages, as I am doing first. Atom 02:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, I reverted your edits because they utterly screamed that they came from an editor that is terribly, terribly uninformed about this topic. Each point in your post above, which twists and re-twists things, further confirms this. No offense, but I added numerous of your statements to my ongoing list on my user page, Examples of lamest content I have found on Wikipedia. I did not name your name. You can look at my replies there. CyberAnth 04:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Well at least you've commented as to what your reasoning is. My point as stated above is that the bible says nothing for or against masturbation (in the hebrew bible, or the new testament). The quote in Genesis regarding Onan is interpreted many ways by many people. (For instance, "spilling of seed", disobeying God, not following the laws of Levirate marriage) Only the most conservative regard it as related to masturbation. Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the view that masturbation is proscribed is a minority perspective with other views that should be presented. One could argue that the comment regarding Onan is only historical, as it is from the hebrew bible, and pre-Christ, the relevance of the bible entirely is debatable, but those things aren't relevant here.
Certainly I agree that Catholic dogma is against most sexuality. My point was not that the paragraph was mistaken that Catholicism is against masturbation, but mistaken in it's expression. The teaching of the Catholic church, the origin of it's current catechism, that all forms on non-procreative use of the penis and vagina are a "grave offense to the sagacious plan" is Thomas Aquinas, 1200 years after Christ, and not biblical in origin. That view, echoed by Pope Paul in "Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics". His statement is similar to the quote in the article, and what was said above, but that is a misquote, and in fact really is synthesis and someones interpretation. What he said was more along the lines of

"the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes 'the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love.' All deliberate exercise of sexuality must be reserved to this regular relationship."

Masturbation was regarded as acceptable by the Catholic church, as was a number of other sexually related things, prior to Pope Leo XI in 1054, when it was condemned for the first time. Perhaps that is when the story of Onan was first mis-interpreted, this is not an area that I know a great deal about, as you pointed out.
Pope Pius XI, gave this interpretation of Genesis:

Wherefore it is not surprising that the Sacred Scriptures themselves also bear witness to the fact that the divine Majesty attends this unspeakable depravity with the utmost detestation, sometimes having punished it with death, as St. Augustine recalls: "For it is illicit and shameful for a man to lie with even his lawful wife in such a way as to prevent the conception of offspring. This is what Onan, son of Judah, used to do; and for that God slew him" (cf. Gen. 38: 8-10).

from "Encyclical on Christian Marriage, Casti Connubii" in 1930.

So, it was clearly his view that Onan was slain for having non-procreative intercourse. An "authoritative" interpretation that does not attribute the sin of Onan to masturbation.
The current Catechism of the Catholic Church says "...that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.' 'The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.' For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of 'the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved'" which is much more similar to the quote given. It would be great for the article, in the Catholicism section, as it is a direct quote from current Catholic dogma, rather than the opinion or interpretation of others. (In fact I think I will change the article to reflect that in a bit.)
Now, that is only regarding the Catholic church, and so has to taken in that context. There are a great many people who have strong opinions about that topic. (both within and without Catholicism). But that also is not the topic here.
Judaism, and the Hebrew bible are the source for the one comment intepreted to be regarding spilling of seed, which is also often interpreted as applying to Masturbation. The breadth of Judaism differes widely, as you know, from Orthodox, to conservative, to reformed to Humanistic, and is a broad spectrum of belief. They have no central leader, such as the pope, and no central dogma that adherents must follow, but only the interpretation of a vast array of Rabbi's who give opinions on various matters. Opinions by Rabbi's regading masturbation vary across the spectrum from more conservative in nature than Catholicism, to as liberal as any liberal christian church. Whether it is interpreted as forbidden (more common) or allowed (less common) the interpretation is still that Onan's sin was in not consumating the levirate marriage as directed by God, or in "spilling of seed" (in the context of avoiding getting his brother's wife pregnant.)

Atom 16:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

You continue to use many words to display your complete proclivity to twist and re-twist things you have apparent ignorance over. CyberAnth 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Apparently your use of "twist and re-twist things you have apparent ignorance over" means the same thing as "have a different point of view on". I'm not sure how exactly quoting the CCC explicitly, Pope Paul or Pope Pius XI could be seen as twisting or apparent ignorance. If you mean that it seems that your view, and my view are different, and not likely to find common agreement soon, then I would agree with that. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. I'd prefer to just present the facts in the article. The Catholic Churches position on Masturbation is, per each of my comments above, clearly a matter of public record.
We are both advocates of providing sources and citations for things expressed as facts in articles, as well as NPOV. Those also happen to be Wikipedia policy. If we both continue to do that, there should be little ground for future controversy. Atom
Leaving the content dispute aside, I'd like to make an observation. Both CyberAnth and Atom appear to be making good faith efforts to improve the article, but from different perspectives. That said, I feel I need to caution CyberAnth that describing another editor as having apparent ignorance of the subject, of having a proclivity to twist and re-twist things, of writing the lamest content I have found on Wikipedia, and of being terribly, terribly uninformed is, to my mind, uncivil, and seems more likely to engender a flame war than to achieve a consensus about editing the encyclopedia. It can be awfully difficult to keep cool in a conflictl (it is for me), but it's the only way to achieve progress in a consensus-based project. --Ssbohio 01:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict Onan

The image appears to be Copyrighted image. The justification listed is that it is here for fair use. My understanding of is that it can only be used for fair use if the artwork itself is the subject of review, or criticism. Using it to illustrate an article that reviews or criticizes something else is not fair use. We should respec the intellectual property of the artist and remove this image. Atom 17:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh this is comical. The user removes material that would allow it to be used as fair use and then gripes that it does not meet fair use. CyberAnth 19:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. With or without the caption, it is not fair use. As I just said, fair use would allow for critical review or comment of the artwork itself. If you show clip of a current movie, and then proceed to review that movie, that is fair use of that clip, and you are not violating copyright by doing so. The appropriate use for his image in a context of fair use would be if you were comparing or contrasting the work of the artist with their other work, or with the work of other artists with the same genre. Using the artists work to illustrate an encylopedic article about religious views of masturbation does not say anything about the qualities of the artwork, and as such is not a critical review of that artwork. Atom 19:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I took a drive by the image in question & considered how it was used in the article. Under Wikipedia's new, tighter fair use rules, this image would be fair use if it could not be replaced by a free alternative to the same effect, and if the image were being included to make critical comment upon the painting itself, or to illustrate the particular technique or school applicable to the artwork. In this case, none of these apply. The image of the painting is being used to illustrate a concept in this article, a use which falls outside of Wikipedia's fair use policy. I checked the edit history of the article and didn't find an edit by Atom that removed a valid fair use rationale from the article, but I might have missed something. Are there diffs pointing to the removal of the fair use rationale? --Ssbohio 02:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is the diff[1] that CyberAnth was referring to. I think the image is visually interesting, but it is clearly copyrighted. Atom 03:30, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the link to the diff came through. --Ssbohio 05:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I really put it in this time. Atom 12:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem. I did review that diff, but I don't see how it establishes fair use under policy. The fair use of an image like a painting would exist where the painting is what's being discussed. For example, I could claim fair use of an image of the Mona Lisa in an article about the painting, but not to illustrate a Smile in a different article. If an illustration of the "sin of Onan" is desired, a free image should be created. Free images don't have to meet the restrictions of fair use images. --Ssbohio 04:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
A quick search resulted in finding a free image of Onan. THis may not be the best image for this article, but it demonstrates that free equivalents are out there. --Ssbohio 04:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Yet that does not even slightly have the Conflict connotation that Brink's work does. Thus it does not even illustrate the point. CyberAnth 02:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As the artist, I find it weird that I haven't been contacted about any of this - I discovered this site (unfortunately too late too see my pic!) purely by chance! Frankly, I have no objection to the use of any of my works in this manner. that is the purpose of art, to illustrate concepts, ideas, arguments without words. Art does not exist merely to be discussed as art by a few pompous intellectuals: if it does not speak on a gut level, it is worthless. To use my work in this way, all I require is a formal request for permission: the work is otherwise offered free for non-commercial purposes. Please feel free to continue using my work in the present context. -- anton brink (kwodg@yahoo.com) 155.232.128.10 11:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anton. I uploaded to this article the image of Conflict (Onan) from http://www.southafricanartists.com/ShowArtist.asp?ID=69&WorkID=362 under a Fair Use rationale, which I still think is acceptable. This piece is fantastic, by the way, unique in the world to illustrate the point in this context. CyberAnth 02:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I like the image very much. We would like to use it in the article. As it is copyrighted, you would need to release it. Please see Wikipedia:Example requests for permission. From this section "Please don't ask the copyright owner for "permission to use the content on Wikipedia." Many people would grant such permission, but if this occurs, the content must be deleted, as the owner has not licensed the work under the GFDL."

We would also need to relicense the image under GFDL. Also, we need permission from the photographer who took a picture of the artwork. If you should choose to do this, we would be thankful for your contribution. I'll follow up to you in email when I get the opportunity. Atom 02:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what you quoted is not even a policy. It is a help topic that has clearly erroneous information.
For example it states "as the owner has not licensed the work under the GFDL"; and your statement "We would also need to relicense the image under GFDL" - both are completely erroneous.
In point of fact, there are multiple ways something may be licensed and it be used on WP. Here are just two examples besides the GFDL:
  • Creative Commons-Attribution
  • Copyright by [Name of Person]. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that [Name of Person] is attributed as the author and derivatives do not deface the piece in any way.
CyberAnth 03:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

My comment was a quote from the copyright policy Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others and Wikipedia:Boilerplate_request_for_permission. I agree that there are other alternatives possible. I felt it was simplest to point to the policy, as I did, and let him view it for himself. If you'd like the image to be in the article too, you can assist with that. I'll be sending him an email with one of the examples listed in the Wikipedia policy. You could send an email and offer to assist. Atom

I think it is most ethical to ask Brink to release the image under Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat. CyberAnth 04:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that will work if he releases it for any purpose. If he limits the use for non-commercial purposes, then we can't use it.

Also, we need permission from the photographer who took a picture of the artwork. Probably someone at the studio of the website. Or with luck, the artist.[2]. Atom 04:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Buddhist Vajrayana view

I think the statement on masturbation in Vajrayana is not correct; if you wish to keep it like this, the source needs to be cited. rudy 23:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of religions

I've given it some careful thought, and looked at the article as it has been re-ordered (by # of religious adherents) and it doesn't seem right to me. As the topic is Religious views of Masturbation, I had arranged it roughly based on the historical timeline of the religions themselves. Judaism being older than Christianity or Islam, etc. Perhaps I did not have them precisely correct, but I think that that ordering makes more sense when this topic is historical in nature.

A minor point, the current ordering is listed as by # of adherents, giving Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, Taoism, Wicca, Secular Humanists. Our article Major religious groups seems to show Christianity, Islam, No-Religion, Hinduism, Chinese Folk, Buddhism in that order, as do other sources. But still, the previous listing that was historically based along a timeline makes more sense to me. Atom 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for comments

Edit war problems. A user with strong moral feelings regarding the Catholicism section keeps adding unsupported opinion embedded within the reference citation. I'm certain he feels he is doing the "right" thing, but the reference he cites does not support the synthesis and conclusion that he espouses. Also, that POV does not belong embedded in the reference. His POV, supported by citations, is welcome in the article, of course. Request other input as to encouraginf use of cites and references as per Wikipedia policy. Atom 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Older RFC

Non controversial issue, opinions requested.

  • One editor prefers the article listed historically ordered by older religions to newer, as it gives timeline of policies in more of a free flow.See Here
  • One editor prefers ordering by religion, and with religions with more adherents before religions with less adherents in order to present a balance of opinions about masturbation based on numerical predominance.See Here Atom 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

A quick note as to which way you think is better is appreciated:

  • Second option - One, in the first option, the religions are not actually ordered by older religion to newer. That order would be Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Taoism, Islam, and so forth. Two, since these religions' views largely exhibit no meta-story (e.g., there is no connected development or "advancement" of thought from Judaism to Hinduism, for example), there is no real cause for placing them on a timeline. Three, absent a strong rationale and connecting of thought from religion to religion, the predominance argument is really the only way to go. It also avoids the perception of bias that can occur when a readers sees a more minor religion placed ahead of a major one. CyberAnth 04:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: Your suggested ordering would work for me (Judaism, Hinduism, Christianity, Taoism, Islam, and so forth). Didn't Taoism (300 or 400 BC) and Islam (Abraham) precede or equal Christianity(Abraham)? You're the expert on that. Your argument makes (no meta-story, progression) sense to me, as no advancement is clearly evident. Clearly the change from older to newer views are more complex. (interelationships of cultures) I'm not convinced that any ordering is that noticed to readers to think there is bias, especially if (regardless of the end ordering) the ordering is briefly explained. 04:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent changes to Catholic section

I reverted the changes you made because it is basically the opposite POV of the one stated there. Removing that POV and inserting your opposite view is not oppropriate. Also, the references that you gave are not good references. Opinion sites that don't offer any citations don't meet verifiability. Atom 00:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I am backing up Atom on this issue. While it is certainly possible for a section to be written that represents "non-official" Catholic positions on the Catholic view, the verbiage he removed just does not meet that. CyberAnth 01:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the most recent change, which has a better reference. This is not my area of expertise, and I believe that you have a right toyour POV within the article, if you can cite it. The cite you gave seemed to me to be of the best quality this time, but the comments you made weren't (or didn't seem to me) to be within the reference. Also, the reference should be a line of text, not four paragraphs of comments and opinions. If you could summarize your POV, while not removing the other POV of which you do not agree, and give a tight citation, rather than a citation that is a thesis in itself. I understand that you may not agree with the existing opinion that someone has presented, but in order for the article to be NPOV, it needs to have a balance, and have that other opinion as well as yours. Atom 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Please discuss your changes here and we can find a workable solution. Removing a POV you disagree with and replacing it with your own view isn't acceptable. There is a place for your view along side the other POV. Let's discuss it here. Atom 12:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If one of you thinks my reinsertion of official Catholic moral theology on the sin of masturbation or my changes are pov, please correct them. But do not delete them entirely. I have entirely referenced the official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on the deviation of masturbation. That it does not fit into other people's concepts or way of life, is irrelevant. You do not remove entire sections in wikipedia, especially if well referenced as mine are to vatican.va.Smith2006 09:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
Your comments are your opinion. The reference you gave is the vatican, but your stated opinion doesn't seem to be directly from that reference. As there are 1 billion catholics, and any number of conflicting views on the topic (within Catolicism), I don't think that your opinion/POV is anything more than a re-iteration of one conservative viewpoint of many views. The previous POV was not put here by myself. I have just asked you to follow Wikipedia policies by balancing your view with the other view, rather than removing the view that you feel is incorrect. We also asked you to cite your words. By that I think we mean;t finding a citation for the POV you expressed, not just to find a citation somewhat related to your stated POV. Atom 23:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I've edited yet again. Please don't disrupt the article. I'm asking you, yet again, to discuss this rather than being disruptive. I'm concerned about maintaining a quality article, and have no theological position on this. Your more conservative view can be shown, as it is now, but has to be accurate and cited. The biggest issue is not your POV, but the huge citation comments that are not relevant. The cite should cite the source, and not be a platform for making a point. Atom 13:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I have cited Vatican.va-articles which prove this. That is all. You may take out my and underlining, but not the entire section to replace it with "some take a mora conservative view". This has got to do with official Roman Catholic teaching on this matter, not with opinions. Neither mine, nor yours.Smith2006 00:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't take kindly to idle threats in the edit commentary. I've tried to explain numerous times what the problem with your edit is, and how to fix it, as well as fixing it myself to leave your meaning while having it follow Wikipedia policy. I've asked you to discuss it further, which you have declined to do. If you like I can go through the edit line by line to explain the issues. Again, the references should have the reference in it, and not commentary, regardless of wht you feel the commentary says, or its source. If it is meaningful, put it in the article and reference it. Your presented POV, well meaning or not, needs to be backed by persona humana, not merely related in some vague fashion. Quoting persona humana exactly is your safest bet. If you'd like to work through it, rather than continually reverting my proper edits, please discuss it here, or on my talk page. Thank you. Atom 12:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smith2006 disruption

I've asked smith2006 on his personal page to please stop disrupting this article. I have applied Wikipedia policy correctly. I have edited to try and preserve his viewpoint, and yet follow that policy.

The biggest issue is the way that the ref tag is being placed. The ref tag should give a source for a citation, and that's it. Editorial comment does not belong in the ref tag. Here is a link to the article that describes proper ways to use citations (Please see Citations of generic sources)


Here is a quote of the citation given by Smith2006:

</nowiki>[3][4] In case of uncertainty, one is also - in each case - obliged to first go to confession before receiving communion. One may not in every case presume one's own innocence or a reduced responsibility of the grave sin, as Catholic moral theology and the Church's official teaching, clarified in the declaration Persona Humana, say.[5] </nowiki>

The proper citation would be: {{cite web | last =Cardinal Seper | first =Franjo | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = "Persona Humana: Declaration on certain questions concerning sexual ethics" | work = | publisher =The Roman Curia | date = 2005-12-29 | url = http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html | format = | doi = | accessdate = }}

Note that Smith2006 offers this additionally in his reference:

"This opinion is contradictory to the teaching and pastoral practice of the Catholic Church. Whatever the force of certain arguments of a biological and philosophical nature, which have sometimes been used by theologians, in fact both the Magisterium of the Church - in the course of a constant tradition - and the moral sense of the faithful have declared without hesitation that masturbation is an intrinsically and seriously disordered act. (...) But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people's moral capacity. (...) A person therefore sins mortally not only when his action comes from direct contempt for love of God and neighbor, but also when he consciously and freely, for whatever reason, chooses something which is seriously disordered."

And,

But in general, the absence of serious responsibility must not be presumed; this would be to misunderstand people's moral capacity."

And,

In case of uncertainty, one is also - in each case - obliged to first go to confession before receiving communion. One may not in every case presume one's own innocence or a reduced responsibility of the grave sin, as Catholic moral theology and the Church's official teaching, clarified in the declaration Persona Humana

This information should be in the body of the article. In fact some of it is already in the body of the article, referenced under the Cathecism, which Persona Humana referes to. The important point is that it does not go in the reference tag.


I am going to fix this yet again, and hope that Smith2006 does not sirupt by referting, yet again. I have asked for discussion of the issue a number of times. Smith2006 has declined to do this. He seems to feelm for whatever reason that his viewpoint on the subject supersedes following Wikipedia policies. That viewpoint, cited, can be freely expressed, but must be done appropriately, not as opinion embedded into a ref tag. Atom 21:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original Wicca on sexuality

It can be found here: Religious_views_on_sexual_intercourse#Wicca. Try to write something original that specifically pertains to masturbation. Disinclination 05:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure who put it in, but I don;t see a problem with it being there. It is informational and accurate. If someone can make it more specific to the topic, that would be great too. Atom 23:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Atom. I made a big rant elsewhere, but I was too tired to write up a new one. While I do think the information is/was correct, it wasn't specific to the article in general. Disinclination 00:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Romans 14 Issue and The Marriage Bed

Many people won't know what a "Romans 14 issue" is since it is a specifically Christian term heard only in a small subset of contemprorary churches. I think it is best that this particular phrase be removed. It is enough to use "In general, most evangelicals assert that the Bible could have but did not specifically condemn the act, and so make it a matter of conscience for individual believers: that the believer should not violate his or her conscience..." There is no reason to reference the biblical passage as far as I can see.

Also, the last sentence in the Protestantism section seems like a plug for the Marriage Bed website. I suggest that it be removed or further detail out the specific teachings there if they are significant and unique. So many of thse articles seem to simply list plugs for websites. <sigh> :)

Oh, and another thing: Be careful that the protestantism section isn't selling a pro-masturbation-as-a-stop-gap stance. It seems to be heavily weighted in that direction. There are plenty of protestants who believe that all masturbation is sin. The section almost reads like it was written by a Christian for masturbation-as-a-stop-gap selling to a Christian against. ;) - Concerned in Fullerton

[edit] Mormon Section

Mormons mostly discuss masturbation in the context of male masturbation, while female masturbation is considered by context of "impure thoughts".

What does that sentence mean? - Concerned in Fullerton

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/l/Talk%7EReligious_views_on_masturbation_ad98.html"