Talk:Masturbation/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →

Contents

Why is that Duck STILL up here?

If it's really that important, move it to a "List of Atypical Masturbation Aids" page or something. It can only serve to confuse those who don't already know what masturbation is. I thought it was a joke when I first saw it. Clearly others did too, as it was previously removed for supposed vandalism. The image wouldn't even be that bad if it were properly warranted. Different types of vibrators are NOT relevant to this article, and even if they were, I see no picture of a normal vibrator for comparison, nor is there any indication that this isn't just a regular bath toy aside from the caption. Since the originator doesn't seem to be backing down from the stance that it indeed belongs here, I am petitioning either an adjustment of the image, or [more preferably] the removal of it entirely.

Bias towards masterbation vs. partner sex

The article seems to imply that daily masturbation is not considered frequent and then it is totally normal in a consistent sexual relationships and marriage. I disagree. It does state that masturbation decreases allot during a sex relationship but smudges the facts a little eluding to a daily basis The article needs a study done as to exactly how much less a person masturbates when in a relationship from a more reliable source in addition to NOW magazine. And I still doubt that most teens masturbate daily.
Other points:
This just shows Wikipedia's extremist viewpoints from people, for example, who are extreme masterbators with a wild or more extereme lifestyle. Gosh I hope Wikipedia isn't an extremist sandbox.

Etymology

I don't know the etymology of masturbation nor do I know if it derives form the word mezea. However there is no such a Greek word; neither for "penises" nor for anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.124.141.250 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-31 08:21:34 (UTC)

See [1] and [2]; however, I would quite like to see a citation for that being an etymology for the word. —xyzzyn 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
What is this "believed by many", anyway? Who are these many who believe it to derive from this Greek word-- actually, who is even one authority? Everything I've ever checked derives it from Latin (either manus + stuprare or manus + turbare). I think, unless someone comes up with a citation, we need to change it. The Wednesday Island 23:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Stupid article?

It is articles like this, that show the advantage Wikipedia has over other "authoritative" encyclopedias. The range and extent of information available in this page the the peer reviewed and objective evolution of this page without the political and religious overtones, provide something which is probably more representative than any source on topics such as this in recorded history. - User:aenertia - June 2006

It's "articles" like these that make Wikipedia a laughingstock as an alleged "encyclopedia." What a joke!
You're entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia will always be a work in progress. I'd be interested in knowing who thinks Wikipedia is a "laughingstock"...other than yourself? User:WallyFromColumbia 09:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
So why did you look it up? What did you expect? JFW | T@lk 21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
You could also have the temerity to sign your post instead of leaving it anonymous.--Aml830 06:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Good comeback JFW. It is stupid to search for a certain page by typing the pages name in to get to it, you were looking for it, see? If you didn't want to see it you would never have seen it.

This kind of article is what shows the greatness of Wikipedia, why should this not be here. Just as if you dont like eating at Mcdonalds you dont have to go there, the same is thrue for this. If you are offended by this article, for whatever reason, masturbation stealing your soul, etc. Then you do not have to view it. Hence next time you see a title on a subject which you do not feel is in line with your fascist views, feel free to leave wikipedia or move on to a page more suitable for you.--Fabio 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
No kidding. People who act like this don't seem to realize why they were given genitals in the first place. Only a sadistic Creator would give His creations gonads, then demand that they not use them. --M.Neko 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Brody Articles, Prominent Health Warnings, Etc.

I believe that the statement is supported by the research cited in the "Health and Psychological Effects" section. Additionally, the use of the large hand and stop sign icon serves to draw the reader's attention to the summary warning, and to the "Health and Psychological Effects" section which it links to. John254 02:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's primary commandment is to present information with a neutral point of view. The information you incorporated into the article is that you believe masturbation is harmful, and you presented two articles whose veracity strikes me as particularly concerning, given the massive amounts of data that speak otherwise. However, because of the sheer fact that they present an opposing point of view to the massive amount of medical and psychological data out there presenting a viewpoint that masturbation is physically and psychologically beneficial, they do deserve a place in this article. However, they do not deserve a big bright neon sign pointing to their existence in the article. Such a big bright neon sign is not used to convey far more established "health risks" for other articles on Wikipedia, and furthermore, the sign's presentation is massive bias. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • replies) 03:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
To follow up on this, Wikipedia's belief on minority views such as yours are described in its undue weight policy. You believe masturbation is harmful. That's fine, and that opinion deserves a place in the article. However, it doesn't deserve a big bright neon sign in the article. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • replies) 03:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I've removed the Brody references altogether. It appears that John254 misread the article in question. See quote [3]:
"Volunteers who'd had [penile-vaginal intercourse] but none of the other kinds of sex were least stressed, and their blood pressure returned to normal faster than those who'd only masturbated or had non-coital sex. Those who abstained had the highest blood-pressure response to stress (Biological Psychology, vol 71, p 214)."
In other words, people who actually had sex recovered better than people who masturbated from a stressful situation -- but people who did nothing had it worst. Furthermore, the other article has nothing to do with obesity — if I'm reading it right, it's not that masturbation makes you fat, it's that slimmer people have more sex. From Brody's abstract [4]:
"Slimmer waist (in men and in the sexes combined) and slimmer hips (in men and women) were associated with greater [penile-vaginal intercourse]. Slimmer waist and hips were associated with rated importance of intercourse for men. Noncoital partnered sexual activity had a less consistent association with slimness."
Based on the above, I've removed the links and references altogether. I'd also ask editors to take administrative note that John254 was the one who added the pornfree.org Christian ministry link. I think that link deserves to stay in the article and deserves to stay there unadulterated, but I think the fact that John254 added it, mis-sumarized the material at the above links, and then attempted to put a very large warning directing people to his missumary shows very clearly his bias. — WCityMike (talk • contribs • replies) 03:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Reliance on the abstracts of articles, without reading the articles themselves, may not be the best way to verify claims concerning them. Due to space constraints, abstracts frequently omit vitally important details about experimental results. Therefore, I am quoting from the first article itself:
The intercourse-only group also had lower blood pressure values than subjects who had intercourse but also had one or more days of masturbation and/or partnered sexual behavior in the absence of penile-vaginal intercourse. This pattern of results has several implications. First, there are important differences between intercourse and other sexual behaviors, with only intercourse being associated with indices of better physical and mental health (Brody, 1997, 2002b, 2003). Second, differences are not simply due to some social effect (sexual activity with another person versus in the absence of another person), because the blood pressure reactivity difference between intercourse and masturbation was comparable to the difference between intercourse and partnered sexual behavior in the absence of penile-vaginal intercourse. Third, engaging in masturbation or even partnered sexual behavior in the absence of penile-vaginal intercourse on some days might detract from the benefits of intercourse. (Brody, Stuart "Blood pressure reactivity to stress is better for people who recently had penile-vaginal intercourse than for people who had other or no sexual activity" Biological Psychology, Volume 71, Issue 2, February 2006, Page 218)
These results support my statement that "a recent study found that masturbation partially reversed the anxiolytic effects of sexual intercourse." Biological Psychology is a respected, peer-reviewed journal, and citations to it can easily be verified. Paper copies can readily be accessed free of charge at many academic libraries open to the general public. It can be freely accessed electronically by students at universities that subscribe to it, and from computers located at such universities. I claim that properly referenced material which accurately describes the sources that it cites should not be removed merely because verifying it would require some technique other than accessing an unrestricted web page.
Furthermore, even the abstract for the second article clearly states that "Slimmer waist and hips were associated with less masturbation (in men and in the sexes combined)." [5] This supports my statement that "another study found that frequency of masturbation is positively correlated with obesity."
I therefore propose returning the material about Brody's studies to the Health and Psychological Effects section, and to the References. However, attempting to place a health warning at the top of the article was a mistake. John254 22:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Based on what you quote above, I've restored Brody's first remark into the record. I still maintain you're juxtaposing the cause and effect of the second. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 23:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the neither the 2004 Brody study, nor my statement about it, indicate anything about the existence or direction of a causal relationship. Language such as "associated" or "positive correlated" simply means, in this context, that people who are obese tended to masturbate more than those of more normal weights. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon. Perhaps obese people had more difficulty attracting sexual partners, and thus had to resort to masturbation. Alternatively, perhaps masturbation produces some effect on the nervous system or metabolism that causes obesity. The plausibility of this explanation would be suggested by 2006 Brody study and the previous studies cited therein, which all have found that, in a biological sense, other sexual behaviors, including masturbation, are simply quite different from normal intercourse. Or, perhaps some psychological disturbance causes both obesity and an increased frequency of masturbation. The bottom line is that the 2004 Brody study doesn't show what causes what. So why is it of interest? In addition to suggesting an area in need of additional research with more controlled studies and independent random assignment of participants, the study suggests that masturbation and obesity are currently an area of concern. If my statement about the study seems to miss the point, the relevant sentence from the abstract itself could be quoted. John254 23:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Since you seem to have a copy of the article, could you please provide further support with regards to your statement that "the study suggests that masturbation and obesity are currently an area of concern"? As it stands, if there's no causal relationship between it, then it's really not notable enough to go in the article, at least IMHO. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 00:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Correlation is not causation! Many people who masturbate have/use refrigerators. Does this mean that refrigerators are in some way linked to masturbation? Is this a "[current] an area of concern"? No, in the same way that masturbation and obesity aren't. Where is the evidence that these two apparently unrelated factors are giving "cause for concern"? What form is this concern taking? That people will masturbate more, or that masturbation leads to obesity? Evidence would seem to prove that masturbation has no ill effects . I find it hard to believe that masturbation could actually give rise to obesity, wouldn't teenagers everywhere be obese if this was the case?ErikWhite 15:51, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it would be ideal if we had properly designed experimental studies on this subject. By randomly assigning participants to masturbation or no masturbation conditions, and monitoring their physical and mental health in a double-blind fashion, the health effects of masturbation could be rigorously established. However, it appears that no such studies currently exist. The state of medical knowledge on this subject has been derived entirely from epidemiological studies. Thus, in Hurlbert & Whittaker, 1991, higher levels of self-esteem were not rigorously established to have been caused by masturbation. Instead, the study merely established a positive correlation between masturbation and level of self esteem, from which, by exclusion of confounding factors, a causal relationship was inferred. All of the research we currently have in the health effects section is of this nature. The concern, of course, over Brody 2004, and the reason it isn't currently included in the article, is that the author wasn't willing to venture an inference of causation, because he thought that there were multiple reasonable explanations of the observed correlation between masturbation and obesity. As for masturbation and obesity being an area of concern in contemporary medical science, I think the mere fact a study which examined their correlation was performed, that a correlation was found, and that the study was published in a credible peer-reviewed journal demonstrates that some portion of the medical community does regard masturbation and obesity as an area of concern. Moreover, correlation at least suggests causation. For instance, the relationship between smoking and lung cancer observed in the 1940s lead to extensive further research, and strong evidence of the health hazards of smoking -- all of which were established epidemiologically, since it would have been unethical to direct participants to smoke in controlled studies.
My critique of Hurlbert & Whittaker, 1991, and the reason I believe that Brody 2006 is a more accurate assessment of the effects of masturbation on mental health is that Hurlbert & Whittaker used a subjective self-report measure of self-esteem, which might be biased by the participants. In contrast, Brody 2006 employed an objective physiological measure of mental health, "blood pressure reactivity to stress".
The putative masturbation habits of teenagers and their general lack of obesity does not exclude the hypothesis that masturbation causes obesity, any more than ice cream can be excluded as a cause of obesity simply because teenagers frequently consume it without ill effects. Teenagers generally have much higher rates of metabolism than adults, and generally avoid obesity no matter how unhealthy their diets, or how sedentary their lifestyles. Also, co-occurrence is not correlation. The fact that "Many people who masturbate have/use refrigerators" does not establish that people who own refrigerators engage in more masturbation than those who do not own refrigerators. John254 05:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have returned Brody 2004 to the article. If "Sometimes sex therapists will recommend that female patients take time to masturbate to orgasm, especially if they have not masturbated before." is sufficiently noteworthy to be included in the article without a reference, then a study in a peer-reviewed journal like Brody 2004 is of exemplary noteworthiness in comparison. John254 05:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the Brody material has been put into a section called "Health and psychological effects", at the very top of a sub-section called "Risks" [my emphasis]. This clearly tells readers that these statistical correlations are being put forward by Wikipedia as important cause-and-effect risks, which is not the concensus: this is a minority viewpoint, based on one researcher's recent studies, with no known follow-up work. I think the Brody research should be given it's own little sub-section like we did some time ago with the research claiming that prone masturbation and pillow-humping were death-defyingly harmful. (Although I now see that that's been incorporated back into the end of "Risks".) Maybe just move Brody stuff to after that? --Nigelj 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article mentioned that moderate obesity is associated with increased masturbation. That is, "The frequency of masturbation may be positively correlated with obesity. (Brody, 2004)." Perhaps this simply means that a group of healthy and well nourished persons masturbate more. No surprise there... selection bias or cofactor? Obesity IS associated with earlier sexual development (early puberty) so masturbation would then start earlier... and the earlier you start the more you tend to enjoy it from that point forward. That's actually a good thing, healthy, unless you believe masturbation is bad for some fictitious reason. However, why focus on obesity and not other factors. Other factors have an even greater influence.
Homosexuals tend to masturbate more often, whether or not they are in a relationship. According to the following article, autosexual behavior (solo masturbation ) is higher in this group and actually goes up with a partner. [Source- "Sexual behavior in lesbian and heterosexual women: relations with menstrual cycle phase and partner availability." Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2002 May;27(4):489-503]. Bisexuals as well as couples who engage in swinging also tend to masturbate more often. [Source- "Perceived sexual satisfaction and marital happiness of bisexual and heterosexual swinging husbands."] I believe this is as much due to an open acceptance of masturbation by this group as it is an stronger need to release more often. Some studies I came across (but forgot where) suggest these sub-populations are simply more sensitized to it and therefore receive more sensation and pleasure than others from stroking and orgasm. In any case, both are further evidence that masturbation is not simply something you do when you lack a companion and there are many factors that influence it.
--Trevor100a 15:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


People who like sex, are open minded about sexuality, and who participate with others who like sex or are open minded about sex tend to have sex more often, including masturbating more frequently. All of the groups you mentioned fit into that category. Atom 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"masturbating prone responsible for serious sexual problems"

I masturbated by rubbing my penis against my bed almost every day, for at least 11 years. I have two children whom I engendered after this period. I have no erectile problems and continue to experience orgasm.

Since Sank "speculated" that prone masturbation caused these problems, based on only 4 individuals, and there is no research to back it up, we should delete this "risk" or modify this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.150.7 (talk • contribs)


I agree with the above statement. More research needs to be done to put that on this site. I have deleted the section because this data is not updated or adequate.

Proposed Removal of Unreferenced Material in Masturbation techniques Section

It appears that most of the material in the Masturbation techniques section is entirely unreferenced, in violation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, and possible original research by the author, in violation of Wikipedia:No original research. I therefore suggest that such unreferenced material be removed from the article. John254 02:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While it is always important to source material, especially when it is debatable or contested, you have arbitrarily removed large amounts of common-sensical material. I don't think that going around the Wikipedia removing statements of the order of "water flows downhill" is the best use of our time here. Haiduc 10:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Much of the material in the Masturbation techniques section is not common knowledge to most people. Consider the following quote from the Female subsection, for example:
"A few women can orgasm spontaneously, after experiencing prior sexual arousal, due to intellectual stimulation alone, for instance listening to certain pieces of music. Often, these mental triggers have associations with previous instances of arousal and orgasm. Some women claim to be able to orgasm spontaneously by force of will alone, but that ability, if it exists at all, may not strictly qualify as masturbation as no physical stimulus is involved."
The section treats phenomena that by its own description is outside the ordinary life experiences even of most women. If such material is not attributed to a credible source, it is either hearsay or original research by the author, both of which are listed in Wikipedia:Common knowledge as material that should not be included in articles without appropriate reference(s).
Other parts of the Masturbation techniques section appear to constitute unreferenced medical claims, which are also discouraged by Wikipedia:Common knowledge. For instance, consider the following from the Female subsection:
"Sometimes sex therapists will recommend that female patients take time to masturbate to orgasm, especially if they have not masturbated before."
Given that there is at least some evidence to be found in contemporary research that masturbation is hazardous to human health (See study by Brody, 2006 in Risks subsection of Masturbation#Health_and_psychological_effects and Brody, 2004), I think that it is particularly inadvisable to issue pro-masturbation health claims without citing credible sources. Also, I note that my statements about Brody, 2004 stand removed from the article even though I accurately described findings from the study, simply because the results were deemed to be insufficiently strong to warrant inclusion in the article. Certainly, if the findings about the health risks of masturbation found in Brody, 2004 don't merit inclusion in the article, it hardly seems reasonable to state pro-masturbation health claims without citing any research at all.
Aside from being replete with numerous unreferenced claims that are not common knowledge, the Masturbation techniques section suffers from an additional deficiency. The presentation of a long, unreferenced description of various methods employed for masturbation, though presented in outwardly neutral language, is more characteristic an instruction manual for masturbation than an encyclopedia article. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information Additionally, given the significant contemporary opposition to masturbation, the inclusion of a masturbation instruction manual, without an analogous manual on avoiding masturbation, is implicitly POV. John254 03:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Based on the rationale described above, I am removing the two quoted passages from the Masturbation_techniques section. John254 03:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This edit was reverted for lack of sufficient discussion, the "avoidance of masturbation" is a far fringe conceit that does not deserve equal time. Haiduc 10:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Quite apart from the issue of how common opposition to masturbation is, I believe that unreferenced medical claims and unreferenced esoteric knowledge are blatantly inconsistent with both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia:Verifiability and should not be included in the article. Thus, I suggest that at least the passages I have quoted above be removed. John254 19:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I would not be adverse to putting {{fact}} tags after the quoted sentences, but I would not support removal. There is nothing exceptional about doctors suggesting masturbation to their patients, I have come across that information myself elsewhere ages ago (in the context of the suggestion being made surreptitiously by prescribing vigorous massage of the vaginal lining with a placebo cream). Please do not remove material simply because you are not familiar with the topic. Haiduc 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
that guy is wrong guys do it all the time —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkness88 (talk • contribs) 01:05, 1 July 2006
There are now about 8 cited references in the section that had the cleanup tag above it (as well as copious wikilinks cross-referencing with other well-written and properly referenced articles). I can't find any more {{fact}} tags in the section, so I propose removing the cleanup tag now. Has anybody got any objections to so doing? --Nigelj 20:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, a week has gone by, so I've removed the inclusion from the article. --Nigelj 15:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Protected page

I think this page should be protected. 63.23.70.57 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Girls masturbate every day?? Bullshit or what??

The article says girls masturbate once a day...is it bullshit or just i have never meet the right girls yet? None of my girlfriends, mostly collage students, would admit that!

Masturbating is socially deviant. Skinnyweed 09:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not all girls, since not all guys masterbate everyday either. Depending on the person frequency will vary. Coldpower27 05:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

What skinneyweed said. 63.23.68.145 00:18, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


Hi. Is this picture appropriate for the article? [6]. 63.23.68.145 00:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No --mboverload@

Now thats just pornography, Hence not appropriate though it would be funny to see what would happen if that was added(if not just immediatly removed). The uproar it would cause, lol. --Fabio 02:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There are definitely some girls who masturbate every day. Some of my former girlfriends have admitted that they do. However, masturbation is generally a bit less common in females than males (Kinsey, Hite etc) and so the number of girls who masturbate every day would be less than males who do so. Bobble2 07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)Bobble2
I don't think it's less common... I think girls are some how convinced it's 'bad' or 'dirty' and they're much less likely to admit it.
The above statement is correct. For males, in Western societies, although it is socially deviant, both men and women make it more acceptable for men to talk about all sexual activity then for women. The only proof we have that men masturbate more is from surveys and due to my above statement, we already know that more men are going to admit they masturbate than women will, but I firmly believe that women masturbate just as much as men, but society requires them to be a lot more quiet about their sexual desires and not speak about them as much.

I agree with the above statement, just as studies have found that women will, when asked lie about the number of sexual partners they have been with (stating they have been with less partners). In order to appear to conform to societies/male view of a women not being promiscuous. This same principal can be applied to masturbation, where by women will be misleading when asked about there masturbation habits. often either stating that they "do not masturbate" or "do not masturbate very often". Furthermore just as studies have dismantled the myth of womens lower numbers of sexual partners. So shall the myth of "Women masturbating less then men" be proved wrong.--Fabio 02:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Women do not masturbate as much as men, surveys conducted in anonimity have concluded that. Unfortunately the female population is rapidly becoming more and more sickly perverted and many girls now masturbate more than they have in the past. Hopefully though, this trend will not continue. Editor18 08:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, refrain from using derogatory terms and unrelated comments on talk pages. -- tasc wordsdeeds 08:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Women are more discrete about their masturbation and do not talk about it as much as men tend to, but studies have shown that women, on the average, masturbate as often as men. The average varies with age with the teens through 20's being higher than younger and older ages. In those age ranges an average of once a day is about right. Contrary to your opinion, masturbation is normal and healthy activity that has occured throughout the ages. I'd say that it is likely that your daughter masturbates about the same frequency that your sister, mother and grandmother did at a similar age. Atom 14:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually even in this wiki page it is conveyed that females masturbate less than males. Contrary to my opinion is what? Your opinion? No thank you, you state that almost as a fact when it is only your opinion as well. Fortunately no, neither of them conduct onanism as they are all deeply religious and moral people.Editor18 20:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Removed whacking/obesity correlation

I fail to see how the fact that people who are overweight masturbating more has to do with a risk. I'd think it would be pretty hard to find a partner. =D --mboverload@ 07:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing, I'm actually sure they are correct. However I fail to see how the fact that fat people masturbate more has any relevance to the topic. --mboverload@ 11:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Relevancy to what topic? It is obviously relevant to the article on Masturbation. Haiduc 11:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
But how is it relevant to RISK? --mboverload@ 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Oh! I missed that one. Thanks for moving the info. Haiduc 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
No problem =D --mboverload@ 03:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
The only, ONLY, real reason that fat people would masturbate more is because, simply, most fat people can't get laid. This has nothing to do with obesity, it only has to do with cultural norms (fat=not attractive) or what is attractive or not. Not attractive-->can't get laid-->Masturbate. Obesity has is not caused by, nor does it directly initiate masturbation. 216.205.211.118 03:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Images of masturbation

This article is not a showcase for classical erotic art, you know. As part of encyclopedia dedicated to educating the public, this article should feature anatomically correct images of female and male masturbation. The old sketches of masturbation were informative yet not pornographic, and should therefore not have been removed. The current images are unencyclopedic, unscientific, and do not accurately visualize the act of masturbation. Sheesh, there are more explicit images in adolescents' guides to puberty. -- WGee 03:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that these images are in any way unencyclopaedic. Nor do I find them unexplicit. What could be more explicit?! If compared with the images posted here before, these are neither more nor less erotic. They are however much richer, both visually as well as culturally, and thus are of far greater interest and far more informative than the able but somewhat sterile illustrations they replaced. Haiduc 03:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't censored. --mboverload@ 03:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Citing "Wikipedia isn't censored" doesn't really solve anything. We as editors can choose to put in or take out any content we choose. That is not censorship. Force10 17:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
They are however much richer, both visually as well as culturally, and thus are of far greater interest and far more informative than the able but somewhat sterile illustrations they replaced. The purpose of this article is not to showcase classical culture or stunning pieces of art; its purpose is to educate readers (who we assume are uninitiated) about masturbation. People come to this article to research masturbation, not to learn about or be captivated by erotic classical art. The "sterile illustrations" were rightly sterile and very fitting for an encyclopedia. And in no way do I view classical paintings (which are full of distracting, whimsical effects that make the act of masturbation hard to make out) as more informative than anatomically correct, succinct sketches. -- WGee 02:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not share your difficulty in making out what is going on in the masturbatory scenes you are presumably referring to. Nor is anyone else, judging from the input here so far. Nor do I share your exclusionary view towards masturbation as being somehow analyzable in vitro. Everything humans do is a social and cultural phenomenon and the attempt to "de-culture" masturbation is a mistake. Finally, I take exception to your suggestion that this article is used to "showcase" anything other than the practice of pleasuring oneself. The juicy vagina rubbed by the woman in the kimono is every woman's vagina. That rather large dick stroked by a willing boy is . . . need I say it? I do not draw the distinctions you seem to between this or that culture. It is all culture. It is all humanity. And if we are going to write about this particular aspect of humanity, far better we use art that is exceptional than art that is mediocre. It is this which raises the level of Wikipedia, not clinical reductionism. Haiduc 03:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The present images are not anatomically correct and realistic: that is my primary concern. Keep the classical art if you want to, but don't use "culture" as an excuse to exclude life-like images that aren't to your artistic taste. The images are supposed to be informative above all else; their artistic quality is peripheral.
Showcasing exceptional art is not what raises the level of Wikipedia; rather, the quality of this encyclopedia is enhanced by succinct, informative, professional prose and images. Thus, how can you justify the exclusion of anatomically correct images in an article that aspires to be a sceintific point of reference? Ever wonder why we don't represent the penis with solely classical art? Ever wonder why the images in university biology textbooks are of real life? So what is your rationale for excluding realistic images of masturbation?
--WGee 03:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we do not seem to be so far apart after all. It comes down to the artistic representation you like versus the one I like. You feel that the images I removed were more illustrative, I feel otherwise. I removed the old ones because having both sets would have been redundant, and I felt these new images to be way superior - clearer, more interesting, more varied, and yes, more beautiful. I still do, but I will not oppose you if you choose to add the others back in. And I do not agree with you about the "anatomical correctness" bit. It seems a bit of a red herring to me. All we are doing is comparing one artistic representation against another, after all. Haiduc 01:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My "anatomical correctness" argument is not a red herring; it was always the principal component of my complaint. They may be sketches, but I'm sure you'll agree with me that they are more realistic than your proposed alternative. It doesn't matter if the classical paintings are more interesting, varied, or beautiful; the fact remains that they are not realistic and thus do not properly depict masturbation. I'm glad, though, that you're willing to accept the inclusion of the sketches. -- WGee 03:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I re-inserted the sketches. Not sure how you want to arrange them, but I'm satisfied with the present arrangement. -- WGee 03:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I didn't realize you were talking about images such as these, I support their inclusion. --mboverload@ 03:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
The images are fine as they are. As for realism, in this case I think an element of subjectivity is unavoidable. And I am glad we were able to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction. Haiduc 04:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that it would be appropriate to include an photo image of male masturbation as there is currently a very appropriate one for female masturbation. Any objections? User:Svartulfr1 17:48, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Techniques

I added and edited a paragraph in Female to read as follows:

"Some women and men masturbate by inserting objects into the urethra, such as urethral sounds. This practice is known as "sounding" [7]. Sometimes other objects are used (e.g. ball point pens, glass thermometers), although this is a potentially dangerous technique which can cause injury and infection [8]."

Even though I opened with "women and men", I kept it in Female because I could think of no other place to put it and feel it's fine where it is. Thoughts? Ideas? - Jaguara said OWWWWCH! at 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I found the new para before I found this note. I already moved it to the top part of 'Techniques' before it splits into 'Male and 'Female', which is fine. I toughened up the language a bit: looking though the references it doesn't seem common and mostly gets mentioned in medical stuff re the injuries it can cause, so I tried to reflect this. --Nigelj 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Real Picture

Don't you all think that the Masturbation article needs a real picture of a man and/or woman masturbating?

Do you have any idea how many people would complain, i myself believe there should be some, but having to deal with all the complaints isnt really worth it.--Fabio 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Only if it's a hot women. Seriously, there's no way you could keep a guy whacking off up there. --mboverload@ 02:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

?? I hope that comment was a joke. Seriously, is the point of this article to help people satisfy there "needs"? No, its an encyclopedia. I think if there was an Image of a man/women masturbating, that was public domain or had the proper tagging, no matter what they look like, it might be better than the drawings. But that all depends on if the Image is tagged properly. Personally, I find no differance between the pictures of the penis any different from a picture of a man holding it. 209.214.140.196 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Personally I agree that an actual photographic image of a male and female masturbating would be appropriate for this article. It would be better than simple sketched images. They would need to be tasteful. Personally, I think that the current actual image of a female masturbating is a good example of this. User:Svartulfr1 17:54 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it appears that the image of a real woman masturbating was removed. Personally, I found the picture appropriate for an uncensored encyclopedia project. It was just a typical woman masturbating. It wasn't a picture from a pornographic site or anything like that. It was not obscene. Also, I do think that there should be a picture of a man masturbating as well. The sketches just don't seem to be adequate for their purpose. Lets do this the right way... The one who did the edit and removed the picture wants to discuss this before adding more pics. People adding more pics at this point will likely just result in a revert war. Therefore, lets talk it out and come to a consensus now. User:Svartulfr1 5:20 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I just solved your dilemma. Instead of using offensive, pornographic images, I've uploaded an enactment/demonstration of the posture. It's better than the drawings and doesn't have the taboo of showing someone masturbating. This is a photo I created myself. Personally, find masturbation offensive and I did this to help ease some consciences. (I just got my wikipedia account-- what a way to start off, eh?) (My upload is "Enactment of Human Male Masturbation.jpg") We'll see how it works out. -- User:678901 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Enactment of Human Male Masturbation.jpg
No problem, the art image has gotten alot of support, as have the line drawings. None of them are taboo, or pornographic (see below). We can add your image to the list of others (below) and see what people think. Atom 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Atomaton has removed my image. He says to get consensus first. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a democratic way of doing things around here (I'm new). I added it to "The new image" topic below (Is this what you referring to?) -- 678901 21:17, 31 August 2006.

Yes, pictures are needed, even of a natural human behavior, as bad as that may be for those in denial of themselves. --Trevor100a 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg

There really is nothing to debate. Wikipedia's policy is to not censor things like this. It doesn't matter if you're offended by real penises. If it's relevant, then it belongs here, social taboos be damned. I don't mean to come across as an asshole, but it's simply ridiculous to keep removing images of real penises in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored --AnonymousOrc 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is another picture,i believe these pictures are great for teens who want to learn how to masturbate:[URL=http://img402.imageshack.us/my.php?image=image002po4.jpg][IMG]http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/1758/image002po4.jpg


Thanks for offering your image, Trevor. I note that the image has no tag showing it's copyright status, and will be deleted soon if you don't fix that.

It's a picture of himself.

Cut from Religion section

I removed the sentence from the Religion section that said Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism ignore masturbation, because it was inaccurate. The article speaks to Buddhism's views not two paragraphs down, and Unitarian Universalist sexual education (AYS-About Your Sexuality, and later OWL-Our Whole Lives) actively incorporate discussion about masturbation as normal and healthy.72.200.191.145 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Law

"Masturbation is universally legal"; I'm certain this is incorrect. See elsewhere in the page where it talks about the Islamic views on masturbation, and apply to Islamic countries. I've heard on one news source about it even having "beheading" as the penalty, however that particular instance may have been a fiction, as it was immediately followed by "but they didn't say which head". --81.174.210.207 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC) (User:Whitepaw, not logged in too lazy).

Those may not be "laws", but that doesn't mean they even bother with legal rules in many islamic countries. --mboverload@ 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Discusssion re {{split}} tag

At 14:56 on 27 July 2006, Logan.aggregate tagged this page with a template suggesting that it be split into separate articles accessible from a disambiguation page. He made the edit comment "This page is obviously too long". The template suggests that the matter be discussed on the article's talk page, and he added the anonymous comment, "This page is not an encyclopedia entry, it's an exhaustive diatribe. Seriously, somebody's compensating" at the top of this talk page.

Do others feel the need to discuss the issue? The page is currently 48 KB long, including 11.4 KB (11,625 B) of references, citations and cross-references at the end. WP:SIZE suggests a max page size of 32 KB, but says, "this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles exist which are over 32 KB of total text" It also makes a point about "readable prose", which "excludes: external links, further reading, references, footnotes, see also, and similar sections; tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting". None-the-less, some sections could be moved off into sub-articles, if a consensus wants that. --Nigelj 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

A week has gone by and nothing heard, so I've removed the template from the article. --Nigelj 15:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Does masturbation really make you blind?

I don't know how something done to your genticals can have an effect on your eyes.

DOES IT?

No, it doesn't. talk to JD wants e-mail 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
If it made you blind, the porn industry would be unable to survive (how can a blind person watch porn?). Old wive's tale. 216.205.211.118 03:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Intellectual masturbation

want an article on intellectual masturbation, cheers.

  • one small article from Everything2 [9]

Teens

This article needs to be expanded and have a section about teens and masturbation in this article.

So Be bold, and write it! We look forward to your contributions. --Mnemeson 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Teen masturbation is very common

^You dont say/sarcasm. I think that a section on this is important since a lot of adults forget what it was like to be a teen and seem to think that no child would masturbate, although the reality is that even by the age of 12, nearly everyone masturbates, and very frequently.

The new image

Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg has been removed from this page twice in the last 24 hours by anon users. I am adding this section to the talk page so that if they think it's unencyclopedic they can come and talk about it rather than just deleting it unilaterally. For myself, I think it's a good and clear illustration of what we're talking about and that it should stay. Whether it stays or not, though, I'd rather it was discussed rather than simply deleted without discussion. The Wednesday Island 16:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason why WP should be censored, and the picture clearly illustrates the topic. Thanks to the contributor (User:Ti mi) and to those trying to improve the article in this way. --Nigelj 23:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
That picture does not serve any purpose. There are already other images which show man and woman masturbating. This picture only shows a woman with her legs spread wide open, and her hands on her vagina...this does not add any value. We don't need to add anything extra like this. What next, a picture of a man masturbating? Outsider2810 04:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course. When a suitable photograph is found, or contributed. --Nigelj 19:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally I disagree with the removal of the picture. It was not an obscene picture. It is certainly more appropriate than a sketch. It was a picture similar to what you might find in a textbook on human sexuality for a course in college. Certainly, you would not likely find that in a regular encyclopedia. However, it is my understanding that this encyclopedia project is supposed to be uncensored and different in scope. Why put a sketch of something that you can just as easily add an actual photo of a real person doing? If that picture served no purpose then what purpose do the other pictures serve, including both the sketches and the other artistic renderings? Also, why not add a picture of a man masturbating? It seems absurd and superficially moralistic to not place real pictures of both where there are currently sketches and artistic renderings. I think we should either include real pictures of remove all of the images all together. User:Svartulfr1 5:28 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, I respect that viewpoint, but may I just say that personally, I would find the photo an unnecessary distraction from the article (sue me, I'm a heterosexual male, I can't help it). For whatever reason, I find the sketches and artworks less so. And I don't think I'd be Robinson Crusoe in that.
I, personally, would prefer that images like this are kept in links, so that I have to make a deliberate decision to view them. But, rightly or wrongly, that position has not been accepted. But what I would request is that if a decision is made to use the image, could you please not place it right at the top of the article where it's the first thing the eye will be drawn to when opening the article on the browser? In other words, don't make a spectacle of the image--Robert Merkel 05:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I too am a heterosexual male, but did not find the image distracting at all. I enjoy sexuality as much as the next guy... I mean, why else would I be eyeing this article as opposed to an article on Mormonism or something of the like? However, I think that if we are going to have a scholarly approach towards something of this nature we don't need to turn it into a porn page, but we should use some real pictures or none at all. I always thought the use of drawings in text books in my early college years were silly. I was happy to see that they added some real ones in later years. I wonder what the real issue is here? Anyone care to enlighten me? If you want to read the article on masturbation you will read it, pictures of not. If you are looking at it and find that you enjoy looking at the pictures, then why does that matter really? I would, however, say that a compromise would be placing ALL of the images on a separate link, like "images of masturbation" or something like that. Or the images could be lower down in the article. You are right in that it does not need to be the centerpiece of the article. User:Svartulfr1 06:35 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've given it some thought, and I think that the two drawings are representative of the article pretty well, and I'm not sure anything else is necessary. Neither they, nor the pictures of real persons help the article by showing historical or technical attributes of the article. Probably only one drawing would be sufficient to make the point. I suppose if we did that someone would complain. Also, we could reverse the order with woman first and them man, which might be nicer. There is also another drawn image of a womanmasturbating that I like better than this one see image, see: .

Also, there are others ,, , ,

If we want with just one intro image, to visually introduce the article, this one might be better


Others I do not prefer include: Image:(5).jpg Image:Erectpeniswhilemasturbating.jpg Image:Femmasturbation.JPG Image:IMG129.jpg Image:Man masturbates2.jpg100px

Image:Enactment of Human Male Masturbation.jpg

I am going to try the Klimt Muhler version, and let's see how long it flies until we get reverted by someone who is offended by artwork?

Atom 12:43, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If really needed, I can always make a drawing out of Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg, but I have a pronounced preference for the photograph, which is, practically by definition, more faithful to reality. It is also illustrative, neither prude nor vulgar, and depicts a beautiful human being. Congratulations and thanks to User:Ti mi for this. Rama 13:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


I like this image best to represent female masturbation: Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg and I am not picky about which one is used for male masturbation, but illustrates it pretty well. I prefer real photos to sketches. What is the point really of just a sketch versus the real thing? User:Svartulfr1 15:32 25 August 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that people perceive a drawing as art, and a picture as potentially, Pornography. *shrugs* Maybe try a drawing of your favored photo? My guess at how others may perceive the photo you prefer is that erotica is in the eyes of the beholder, and some others might consider it obscene. I know we don't censor, but that doesn't change peoples feelings. Also, perhaps, because it is a photo, and her face clear, some people may feel embarrassed (like they are invading her privacy), and don't feel that way with art, or a line drawing. Others may feel it is erotica (because they are aroused byt he photo) rather than informed (as they might with a technical/medical drawing). Informational is our goal, and not erotica. Atom 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
How about this compromise: We could keep sketches and drawings on the article itself and place a link to images of masturbation which include actual photos? That makes everyone happy except for the censors who would prefer to just keep it all unavailable... User:Svartulfr1 16:38 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Atom-- her face isn't clear, she's turned away from the camera. I would far rather have real photos than sketches. If you went to look at Dog, would you rather have actual photos of dogs, or a bunch of sketches of artists' interpretations of dogs? The Wednesday Island 17:47, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I am with you! Real photos are ALWAYS preferable! I personally would like to replace all the sketches with real photos whereever possible, regardless of how offensive it might be to some people. I am VERY opinionated and not very open-minded. So, I get offended by some things people say or do that I disagree with. But that doesn't mean I think they should be censored! People need to learn to just DEAL with it! User:Svartulfr1 15:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, of course dog is a noun, and it is only natural to want to know what object is being referred to in that case. Masturbation, is not a noun (person, place or thing) and so a picture showing it is less important. (To Masterbate = Verb) Verbs describe action. So, what needs to be given to be informational is a description of the action. Ideal would be a video of the action described. Since the focus is on describing the action, and various aspects (technique) of the action, a picture is only informational, and whether they are male or female isn't important (unless you are in a section discussing differences between male and female as relates to the topic). To make an article interesting, it should lead off with one graphic that directly relates to the topic for people with more concrete thinking, and for visually oriented understanding. So our graphic should be interesting, but not distract by being unrelated, or cause people to be distracted thining about erotica or pornography. The pictures we are considering aren't pornographic by most peoples standards. It would be hard to visualize what kind of picture that accurately describes masterbation could be pornographic.

The reason that we don't want a potentially erotic image is not because of censorship, but because we want the visually oriented person to instantly recognize what the topic is without being distracted in other ways. The reaosn I like the current (Klimt Muhler) version is because it is one image, and the sex of the person isn't important, and yet anyone seeing it instantly understand the topic, and yet even the most prudish person would likely not find it offensive. Atom 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation is a noun. Please go and learn what a noun is. The Wednesday Island 23:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
mas·tur·bate
PRONUNCIATION: mstr-bt
VERB: Inflected forms: mas·tur·bat·ed, mas·tur·bat·ing, mas·tur·bates

INTRANSITIVE VERB: To perform an act of masturbation.
TRANSITIVE VERB: To perform an act of masturbation on.
ETYMOLOGY: Latin masturbr, masturbt-.
"Masturbate" is a verb. "Masturbation" is a noun. This article is called Masturbation. You said that "masturbation" was not a noun. That is false. (Do note that I actually largely agree with you about what should be done about the picture; I'm just pointing out your terminological error.) The Wednesday Island 00:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg is a good image, and i'd say photos rather than sketches are always best, as has been said by numerous users above. I actually think a sketch seems more pornographic, in that it's drawing attention to the fact that this is a naughty taboo subject, too obscene to be shown in real life, which is nonsense, it's just a subject lke any other. I much prefer the honesty of a photo: 'yeah she's masturbating, she had her photo taken, so what, get over it.' There should be a similar image for male masturbation, none of those above are as tasteful as Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg, but i'd suggest using one of those if they're the best available. Do we need to have some sort of vote to reinstate the image? Will that work?Spute 22:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

We want to start the article with *one* visually descriptive image. In the section describing male and female masturbation, that is where the sex specific image would go. Atom 22:49, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the article should have both a photo of a woman masturbating and a photo of a man masturbating. In the current version, there isn't even a drawing of a man masturbating alone (except the satyrs, but they're not even human!). Masturbation techniques.jpg should be the lead image, since it's the best photo we have. Mushroom (Talk) 22:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Here, here... One visually descriptive image (a real image) for both male and female masturbation! I agree. The art can be kept in the article too though if you want. Why not have pictures of verbs as well as nouns when possible? And for that matter adjectives as well. Anyways, I think we should make a decision (even though it will likely come under debate again in the future). User:Svartulfr1 23:04 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, one photo is sufficient to introduce, that's my opinion. As for hurrying to a decision, we have gotten some input in only 24 hours, there is no need to hurry. Give it a few more days, let's see if there is a clear consensus. Maybe a few more pictures worthy of consideration will surface? Atom 00:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me, as of today, as if people have taken dust thrown up by this discussion as an opportunity to remove, not just one, not two, but three images from the article, without any concensus to do so here. --Nigelj 19:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah! Annoying eh? It is really pretty annoying that people come on here and decide that Wikipedia should be censored now... Svartulfr1 02:37 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that one of our responsibilities is to create an article that, while informative, is also visually and esthetically pleasing. The new Klimt drawing is quite lovely, and communicates the meaning and form and function of the act quite well, even better than the large photograph of the blushing woman. Haiduc 03:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I followed the advice of some of the users that intervened by sending me messages encouraging me to upload my photo to commons.wikimedia.org. Thanks to all of you. <http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Geil31f.jpg> Ti_mi 17:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Now we just need to get that image back in the article. I think it belongs there more than any of the other images that are currently there or which have been debated about being there. Svartulfr1 02:35 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Enactment of Human Male Masturbation.jpg

I have an image to consider. This is not actually a man masturbating, but is a demonstration of the posture. Yours for consideration. [See topic "Real Picture" above.] -- 678901 21:17, 31 August 2006.

I see that the images have been added now. Are these the ones everyone is happy with? I'm not too crazy about the male picture (Man masturbates.jpg). It doesn't seem to demonstrate well enough, which is what I think you would want for an encyclopedia. The clothes seem to get in the way, too. Something else to consider: the process will be a little different depending on whether or not the individual is circumcised. Should we consider two male photographs? Also, if you could explain why you do and do not like certain photographs, it would be a little more helpful. -- 678901 20:18, 5 September 2006. <-- Removed and re-added.

The consensus reached here through discussion seems to have been totally useless since anonymous users as well as user Future either insert images never discussed or delete was has been restored, notably Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg. The image itself has been deleted altogether from the data base by user JoshuaZ with the consequence that it is no longer visible here and that the whole section of discussing the "New Image" has become pointless. This is vandalism in a most irritating way. In the meantime, I have deleted all images in the controversial first section on masturbation. CarlosLuis 2:25, 6 September 2006.

If a consensus is reached here to include the image, I will undelete it and make a post to WP:AN as such. Please be aware that including actual photographs leads very close to foundation issues and that Jimbo has intervened in similar situations in the past. Also if enough users think it will be helpful to see the image in question, I will undelete it in the interest of furthering discussion. JoshuaZ 04:16, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
That would be most helpful to the discussion here. Otherwise, if we don't have a more precise policy on risk photos, all pictures here in Talk:Masturbation should be deleted for now, since all of them, as far as I can determine form their history here, have been uploaded under similar circumstances than Image:Masturbation techniques.jpg. CarlosLuis 4:48, 6 September 2006.
The image should be undeleted (I thought that you couldn't undelete images... has that changed?), as it was inappropriate to delete it in the first place. Discussion regarding it's suitability can hardly procede when people cannot view it. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
An admin can undelete the image eventually, or it can be re-downloaded. There is discussion on the admin pages, and I suspect, further up the line regarding explicit images where the persons identity can be discerned, but we have no way to know if they have given permission or not for their image to be used. So, we are on wait mode for that image. If someone would like to suggest other alternative images, we could discuss that in the interim. I advocate the existing image by Klimt, as it is taseteful and immediately brings the subject to mind in a non-erotic, non-offensive way. Atom 20:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


What about images in motion, .gifs and such? Robert 23:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I got my photo fixed (it took me long enough). I had lost the original and had to redo the enactment. I think the second picture came out better anyway; I had more of an erection this time and I grasped further down, so you get a better picture of what is happening. -- 678901 19:15, 19 September 2006

Enactments shouldn't be considered "risk photos" (Like the photos CarlosLuis described). Perhaps we should get a few more to choose from, let everyone decide on a male and female photo, then add them to the page as linked photos (perhaps with a warning). Lets make this as much an encyclopedia as possible with the contents being as tasteful as possible! -- 678901 13:37, 20 September 2006

  • We really should continue to show only the illustrations. Actual photographs will cause many people to view the entry as pornographic and that would harm our overall credibility and hence our misssion. Drawings are more encyclopedic and that is what people will expect from an encyclopedia. Johntex\talk 21:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, but with linked photos the viewer does not have to view the photo if he/she doesn't want to. Illustrations/ancient art can still be used. We are just discussing whether or not photographs should be added in addition (for educational purposes). And, I propose that we should NOT provide a photograph of an individual actually masturbating. That is why I provided an enactment and propose that enactments be used. They are more descriptive than an illustration, and they are not images that can be considered by some illicid sexual acts. At most they are nudity, which given the circumstances, is permissible for an encyclopedia article. -- 678901 22:08, 20 September 2006

This discussion of images applies to numerous other articles, most of the sexology and sexuality oriented. I have begun a discussion of the broader topic on Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines to have people participate in working on a guideline consensus (not a policy, or rules, as that hasn't been possible in the past). Having a consensus of people who have hashed this out and agreed on some guidelines will help in the future to combat against the types of problems we have had in the past. (Prudish people pushing their POV, Trolls trying to create controversy, Vanity images, etc.) Of course it won't be a solution to all problems, and they will still need to be dealt with on a case by case basis, but there really isn't a need to rehash the entire barrel of pickles on every image on every sexuality based page, and then again when someone tries to change an image. Atom 02:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

New Appearance (continuation of "New Image")

-- To solve the problem of undecided content, content that encourages vandalism, viewers being exposed to things they don't want to be exposed to and to expand the informativeness with more descriptive illustrations.


I've been giving this a lot of thought and I think the article needs to be redone in its presentation a little. Here is what I'd like to see. Tell me if others agree. Lets see if we can provide all of the content in a manner that doesn't encourage vandalism.

Goal:

*To be as sensitive as possible

*No photographs of people actually masturbating (photographs demonstrating the position are fine). Illustrations and art are also good. <- no "risk photos"

*To provide as much information as possible (clear visuals are a must).

*To choose pictures 'most' everyone is happy with.

The problem with this kind of thing is that not everyone can be happy with the decisions reached, and there is nothing stopping the unhappy people from having their way. Please be courteous and stand down of your idea is overruled.


Minor change in structure:

  • 1) A warning at the top of the page: "Warning! This page contains content of an erotic nature. Proceed with discretion." or something to that effect.
  • 2) A clear visual for both male and female (position enactment or illustration)
  • 3) ALL pictures placed further down (so viewers have a chance to see the warning first) or linked pictures.
  • 4) All linked sites should be categorized by erotic content or not.

Give feedback and we can work on this together.

Pictures to include: This is a scratch board below. Change it if you have a better suggestion and explain why you think your suggestion is better. After the pictures have remained for a while we can conclude that it is what everyone has decided on. -- 678901

Main topic

Female

Male Image:Enactment of Human Male Masturbation.jpg

Masturbation frequency, age and sex

Masturbation in history and society Image:Masturbating satyr, amasis painter.JPG

Hinduism

Medical attitudes

Masturbation Aids (if this topic is to be)

[User:678901|678901]] 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


First, I want to say that I think we have already found a balance with the way that the article is now. I don't know that we need to talk about changing it.

Second, I appreciate the way that you are approaching the issue, in an attempt to find a consensus more toward your position. I'm not certain that we disagree substantially, but some of the things suggested above I'm not entirely in disagreement with.

Third, Wikpedia has standards on this. Although it is dfficult to find, and intepretation is subjective, there is guidance, and we should follow that.

  • Wikipedia is not censored "...some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies..."
  • Shocking_images "Words and images that might be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by other Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available."
  • "Overall stand of the Wikipedia on pornography"
  • "Graphic and potentially disturbing images" A proposal rejected by the Wikipedia Community
  • What is a troll Relevant to people trying to disrupt Wikipedia by the use of controversial images.

Fourth, you suggest the following things:

    • A warning at the top of the page: "Warning! This page contains content of an erotic nature. Proceed with discretion." or something to that effect.
No warnings are needed, Wikipedia is not censored. Masturbation is not something erotic or shameful.
    • A clear visual for both male and female (position enactment or illustration)
We need a good lead image, such as the one that exists now (Klimt). In each of the sections (male/female) we can have an image/illustration specific to that sex.
    • ALL pictures placed further down (so viewers have a chance to see the warning first) or linked pictures.
Wikipedia is not censored. Masturbation is normal and healthy. Treating it as if it were shameful, or an erotic image makes people think that is is shameful, or erotic, when it is not. We should treat it like any other human behavior.
    • All linked sites should be categorized by erotic content or not.
No need. Wikipedia is not censored. Any external link should only be there for supporting facts in the main article, and meet Wikipedia standards. Links to commercial sites, or erotic/pornography sites are not relevant or applicable to the article.
    • To be as sensitive as possible
We should accurately represent the topic. We should keep within the existing Shocking_images policy
    • No photographs of people actually masturbating (photographs demonstrating the position are fine). Illustrations and art are also good. <- no "risk photos"
People simulating masturbation(demonstrating) or people photographed "actually" masturbating, what's the difference? As long as the photo adds clarity and value to the point made, and the quality of the article, it should make no difference. Masturbation is normal, and not something that is erotic or pornographic.
    • To provide as much information as possible (clear visuals are a must).
Clear visuals that demonstrate a point are essential, I agree. The primary point for any image in ant article is whether it isd relevant to the article, and whether it is the best image available to illustrate the text and point being made.
    • To choose pictures 'most' everyone is happy with.
Not relevant. We need to remain NPOV, and we need to try our best on consensus. But, consensus should be based on how an image adds to (or does not add) to the quality of the article or not. It should not be based on whether someone finds it embarrasing.

Atom 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Atom,

I'm not saying that we should claim that the article is erotic/shameful. We can reword the warning. I'm just saying we should give people a heads-up before they dive into an article that has content of this nature. There are countless millions of people out there who would disagree with your view of masturbation being okay and would consider it erotic. We should be sensitive to them and not try to impose views on them like 'masturbation is okay' or 'masturbation is not okay.'

You may not say that there is any difference in a photograph demonstrating a position and a photograph of some one masturbating, because your view is that it is okay. But, again, lets be sensitive to people who do not share your views, to them there IS a big difference. One is a sexual act, and the other is nudity.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should consider all the views and try to be as neutral as possible. And it may require a little notice at the top of the page so that people know what they are going to see before they themselves choose to view the page. There is actually some controversy here whether most of us want to admit it or not.

You want to keep within the Shocking_Images policy: You yourself called this a natural human behavior and not including adequate illustrations would "cause the article to be less informative" in my opinion. I'll bet that most people here feel the same way. The topic is "Masturbation" which is an action that has two types of occurrences: Male and Female. I'd say that an image of some sort would help clarify that. Also, by including linked photographs we help remove some of the shock of these Shocking_Images, further complying with the policy.

You also talked about how the image should be the best image to illustrate the point. This is why I favor enactments. Actual photographs are controversial and could have the taboo of someone performing a sexual act; enactments of someone demonstrating the pose are less controversial (though I do admit there are still probably some who would find it offensive); and next comes drawings, which are not very descriptive, but could be an alternative if nothing else works out. Showing a photograph of someone in a position (an actual position used in masturbation) seems to be the best trade-off. The enactments can be accurate, more descriptive than a drawing and not have the effect of knowing that the individual in the photograph is performing a sexual act. This is for education alone. If you were trying to educate a group of college students, studying sexuality and foreign to the idea of masturbation (if it were possible). would you A) Masturbate in front of them, B) Show them what it looks like, but not perform the act in front of them, or C) Show them a sketch of something that could give them a vague idea of what might be happening. I assume that everyone would choose C. Now, if you take the embarrassment out of the equation, and remove all social consequences, and it was a purely educational event, very possibly B) would be more informative. Most people would agree, though, that A) is not even an option. The primary objective of Wikipedia is education. Pretending that the readers are your students helps keep things in perspective.

You also said that we should not consider whether or not a photograph is considered embarrassing, but we should just use what adds to the article. If it was just that the photo is embarrassing, it would be okay. But these photos can be considered offensive. We SHOULD consider whether or not a photograph is considered offensive. You, yourself, seem to hold this view with your comment of following the Shocking_Images policy. -- 678901 22:29, 21 September 2006

Perhaps a better warning would be: "Warning! This page contains content that may not be suitable for everyone. Wikipedia is not censored; proceed with discretion." -- 678901

I understand what you are trying to get at, and I respect it. My concern though, is that the defintion of obscene, offensive, or even embarrassing is subjective, and differs on a person by person basic, and can be affected by culture, religion, age, gender, and any number of other factors. Even if we were to agree (which is not likely on Wikipedia) to follow the lowest common denominator, we would likely still have people complain. Even were we to agree that the criteria were 1) No Pornographic images, 2) Must have direct applicability to the topic, and 3) The best image we have available to illistrate the point, we run into the subjectivity issue. In the U.S. (Wikipedia servers in State of Florida) it isn't important if it is offensive or embarrasing, it can't be obscene. Obscene, unfortunately, is a subjective interpretation. For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

My assumption is that you are operating on good faith, with the best interests of Wikipedia here. I find that numerous people go into Wikipedia and feel that it is important that they impose their moral values and perspectives on others, and try to hold others to those values. Assuming that your intention is different, and that you are trying to make the best quality article while offending people as little as possible, there have to be some agreed upon policy or standards Wikipedia wide, not just for this article. (I edit all of the sexology and sexuality articles, and this issue is relevent to numerous articles, including Clitoris, Penis, Anus, Breast, Orgy, Kama Sutra, Creampie (sexual act), BDSM, Scrotum, Pegging, Fellatio, Cunnilingus, Dildo, Anal beads, Sexual Intercourse, mutual masturbation, Anal-oral contact, deep throat, tribadism, and frot among others. Again, see Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images and how it failed to resolve anything. In fact, the majority (33-4) voted for "Do nothing now, as there's not really a problem now. Revist this if it ever becomes a widespread problem that can't adequately be handled on a case by case basis on individual article talk pages as it is now. Policy should only ever be developed on an as needed basis, as excessive policy is both wasteful and harmful. Shane King 00:54, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC) "

As you point out, certainly Wikipedia:Profanity#Shocking_images is a guideline we want to try and follow. Remember that we all use WIkipedia under Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer, which includes "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy. ". Clearly if we feel an image will add quality to the article, and we have a selection of images available, we should gain consensus on whichof those images best illustrates the point, while having the least possibility of offending. That will continue to be a case by case analysis.

Atom 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

No warning is necessary, we do not need to cater to people who are embarrassed about sex. Nor do we need to reorganiza and modify images wholesale - when better ones come along let's by all means include them, but I saw no such images in the group above. Haiduc 00:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it appears that the majority will not want a warning. I guess it goes along with the uncensored thing, that people should proceed through the whole wikipedia knowing what they might expect. I think it would be a good idea, but if most of you feel the same way I'll back off from pushing for it. But I still think that using actual masturbation photographs is a bad idea. Wikipedia has policies. If we can't agree on the type of photographs we should use the sketches.

  • 1) I think most of us agree that there should be a descriptive illustration for Male and Female. The current pictures are pieces of ancient art, which provide little education towards the action of masturbation.
  • 2) The illustrations SHOULD conform to Wikipedia's standards, namely the Shocking_images policy

About the obscene variable. Atom, you said the images are permitted for science. Would education be too much of a stretch? If not, the order of obscene is: actual photograph, enactment photograph, sketch. And we should choose one kind of illustration that is the best balance between informative and obscene.

  • 3) If there is no way we can make an image fit into the non-obscene category then we must include a sketch.

If you have a better idea for the images to use, please change the image in the scratch board I made above. Then, we'll talk about it. Most of it is the current state of the article. I've changed a few things (example: I think the extra chastity belt is redundant). Now, modify them and we'll discuss them.

I think we're clear that there are two main groups here: The group that says any image that adds to the topic goes, and the group (mainly me) that says we cannot do that because Wikipedia has set standards; call them standards to be offensive or not. <-- I'm sorry but that's how I see it! Keep posting comments this is what the discussion is for.

But Atom is right about obscenity being an important consideration. -- 678901

I disagree that the art is not illustrative; on the contrary, it is quite graphic and gets the point across not only from the physical but also from the emotive aspect. As such it communicates much better than the static photographs that have been submitted to date. Haiduc 02:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
There are several in the "Real Picture" topic who disagree and say that pictures are far better than drawings. -- 678901 14:18, 26 September 2006.

Someone just put up a new picture. This is not what we have agreed upon. -- 678901

Vandalism by 71.99.136.40 at 17:54, 27 August 2006

Some unpleasant character blanked a lot of important information from this article - including nearly all of the references and citations (so, for an anon, they knew what they were doing ;-) - in one big edit yesterday. Nobody seeemed to notice and so it was not reverted at the time. Instead, well-meaning people have been tidying up and trying to make sense of what's left. I'm just looking through the other edits since the vandalism with a view to reverting the whole article back to before that edit - I've tried putting it back bit-by-bit and it's too hard, especially including edit conflicts with people trying to tidy the remainder while I try to reinstate! --Nigelj 20:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've done my best to put the article back together again. Is there some way that admins, or someone, can investigate an IP address and see if it's likely to be un-logged-on regular user who's trying to hide their real ID? I have a suspicion that this vandalism was too clever for a normal anon, especially following the recent fuss from some users who wanted to delete large chunks of the article due to an alleged lack of citations and references for the material in it, then all the work I did adding a dozen or so new citations for existing material. Maybe I'm just being paranoid. But we must all be vigilant to revert all vandalism quickly, before it gets this complicated. --Nigelj 20:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I will keep my eyes on the article more carefully. To be honest, I have been paying more attention to the talk page of late. Thanks for letting us know. Not sure what the admins can do, but we should be able to watch out for vandalism and revert it quickly enough. Svartulfr1 20:58 28 August 2006 (UTC)
What is going on here? Within a day, User:Atomaton has carefully removed all the referencs and citations, and most of the images, again. Does this page need protection? --Nigelj 18:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Don't panic. Just a mangled intermediate edit that you fixed before I could. Please, my apologies. I had no desire to undo your good work. Atom 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I just spent a few minutes cleaning out all the commercial crap regarding Tenga and inserting references to other relevant pages that area already in Wikipedia. Click, and bam, its all reverted. So, yes, I think this page definitely needs to be protected, and furthermore this character who is doing these needs to have his wings clipped.

Male Masturbation Aids

I had a user complain about my earlier edit removing the fleshlight when the Tenga was left in.

I created a section at the end, for reference, and put them there, and took them out of the main article.

I'm not convinced that they need to be there(at the end) either, but thought I would try to be fair. The argument is that these devices are a tool for helping men masturbate. (as if we/they need any more help!?)

Let's see if the new section lasts, or is vaporized. Either way, no concern to me. Atom 21:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Several people have complained about various edits putting in Fleshlight, Tenga and other male masturbation aids. The latest one moved Fleshlight into the references because it was notable enough to have a wikipedia article, and then delete the other, Tenga, as commercial spam. I really don't care, but if these are valid aids, and many people use them, let's find the way that we can refer to them without commercial spam, all agree, and do it that way rather than removing them and re-adding them. Atom 21:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with having the Fleshlight reference in that special section you created. But not the Tenga links, because they are outside the Wikipedia. If Tenga is really notable or worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, let whoever cares enough create a page for it and let that page survive or be deleted on its own merits. IMHO sneaking in these links to Tenga is a way around the requirement that material on Wikipedia should be notable (sorry, I'm not enough of a wiki-expert to reference the rules requirement directly). We all know whats really going on here. Nowadays Wikipedia traffic is very valuable and leads to lots of sales. And Wikipedia shows up in the first results for many google searches so having your product mentioned on Wikipedia is a great way to get traffic. The Fleshlight page has already survived two concerted attempts to delete it, and thus is notable by concensus. Let's apply the same standard to all products.

And either way, a *SINGLE LINK* to Tenga is all that should be allowed, if even that.

On second thought, isnt this inevitably gonna lead to a special section being created for Female Masturbation Aids? And then the floodgates will really open with a lot of products fighting for having a reference or link in that section.... You may want to consider that.

Sheesh, never mind. :) That didnt survive very long.

Also it looks like the multiple (I count 3) links to Tenga are still there? So do you want to have an edit war? I'm up for it and I feel completely justified. user:192.18.43.10


First of all, when anonymous users who aren't registered make changes, many wikipedians are suspicious that it is yet another vandalism attempt. My suggestion is that you would gain more credibility if you signed in and created a user page for yourself. Another point is, if you aren't aware of how to sign your name after your comments, people wonder about your credibility as an editor, and your familiarity with the Wikipedia rules. Just put four tildes after your comments, please. "~~~~

Secondly, both the Fleshlight and the Tenga are commercial products. Fleshlight has no special notability. It is true that it has a wikipedia page, and that's nice, but doesn't make it non-commercial.

There is alot of information that is referenced in the various external links sections of hundreds of articles that are not notable. Notability is not required in order for it to be listed as an external reference, or under a See Also or similar. Some consensus on notability is required for it to have its own wikipedia article.

If we are going to have some commercial products listed, as long as it seems a valid benefit, and on topic, and we aren't pointing to a commercial site, I don't see the problem. The fleshlight and tenga references both do not point to commercial sites. The Fleshlight point to the Wiki article, and the Tenga points to a web Blog where it is reviewed (no place to purchase).

OR we could just decide, per your rationale, to not allow any references to commercial products. I'm not sure what your issue is with the Tenga, as it looks like a pretty cool competitor to the Fleshlight. Once it is less new, I'm sure it will be as notable as with Fleshlight is, as they are essentially the same product. (Although the Tenga has a cooler design, IMO).

In any event, words like (and I am quoting) "So do you want to have an edit war? I'm up for it and I feel completely justified." don't fit into the wikipedia rules. Please see Wikipedia:Five_pillars. I have put it, and some other useful stuff on your web page at User:192.18.43.10. I also think Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette are beneficial.

Generally when there is a difference of opinion on things, we allow BOTH perspectives to be expressed, and then see if we can use the talk page to gain consensus.

Please feel free to leave me a message on my talk(User_Talk:Atomaton) page if I can be helpful in assisting you. Atom 21:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


I think a brief discussion of both male and female masturbation aids is appropriate with links to appropriate articles in Wikipedia where available. We don't need to provide links to company webpages where toys can be purchased. If people want to buy toys, they can find them without Wikipedia's aid well enough, but certainly some discussion of masturbation aids is both relevant and appropriate for this article to be complete. Svartulfr1 02:38 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I find it strange that Wikipedia contributions are judged by whom they come from rather than on content. Is Wikipedia evolving into a reputation system now? Why then even support anonymous editing? My contributions were on-topic and according to all the guidelines that I know (I probably don't know all the guidelines). I expressed my opinions as best I could, and I stated that I feel strongly about being in the right here, so that it would lead to either a civil discussion or an edit war. I offered to take up the civil discussion alternative :)

My rationale for allowing links or disallowing them is simple. If you think something should be linked to, from Wikipedia, IMHO it should be notable and significant, and so these things justify it having a Wikipedia page of its own. Therefore the logical conclusion is that if you want to link to Tenga's product page, you should really confine those links to Tenga's own Wikipedia page and link instead from here to that Wikipedia page. I'm not opposed to links to commercial sites, but a link from this page to *one* particular commercial site designed to sell *one* particular product, is IMHO out of place and invites an inevitable edit war where other product proponents will claim the right to have *their* link also represented. I don't think we want to go there.

And no, I'm not going to bother to register, because that would just strengthen your argument that contributions from named members are somehow more valuable, an argument I find really strange and at odds with Wikipedia's whole approach.192.18.43.11 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the anonymous user from 192.18.43.11, the Tenga should have its own wikipedia page and all links to Tenga sites should be from that page. I'd welcome seeing more resources about Tenga, such as is it suited to the American market, who distributes it here, and so on. Start your own page, and link from here, by all means! 209.233.24.218 01:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


This section in the beginning, re "mutual masturbation", is confusing: "either by oneself or by another" -- is that really "BY another" or "WITH another" ? Surely a handjob wouldn't count as "autoeroticism"?

Archiving

I've started an archive at April 2006 – July 2006 but haven't had a chance to finish. Add as you will. -- BillWeiss | Talk 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous bias vandalism

I just removed the half-sentence from "though this is" to "support it" as it was inserted by an anonymous user (yes, like me) without giving sources. So I deducted that it was very biased pro-circ and deliberately vandalizing the article. After all, let's not forget that masturbation was the reason circumcision was installed as a national habit in the US in the first place. So pro-circers cannot have a word in this article, I believe. Not without citing good sources that is.

The sentence now reads: "Although there are countless masturbation techniques for men, uncircumcised males are said to have more sexual arousal than circumcised males due to the rubbing of the foreskin on the glans."

If anybody feels like deleting that, too, because it admittedly sounds more like hearsay than good WP style, I have no objection. But the other part of that sentence definitely had to go, I believe:

"though this is a widely disputed claim with only mild anectdotal evidence to support it."

Terms like "widely disputed" and "mild anecdotal" (even spelt incorrectly through to the very last previous version) are clearly not NPOV.

The insertion of the deleted part was made 10:19, 25 August 2006 under IP 67.183.117.8

87.78.178.102 16:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalism, but it was vague and unsourced, like the rest of the sentence. I've removed the sentence completely. Jakew 16:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You know very well what you are doing. It's not quite vandalism, of course not. You wouldn't indulge in that, would you? But you didn't bother about the much more vague and unsourced second part of the sentence, either. So do not pretend to be a good Wikipedian, because you are not! You actually only deleted the sentence when and *because* it disturbed you in that latest form. You should be ashamed of hiding behind Wikipadia ideals for your aggressive POV pushing. And I still suggest you should take an outtime from working on even faintly circumcision-related articles like Gliding action for at least a few weeks. 87.78.184.150 18:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
May I assume from your bizarre accusations that you have nothing further to say about the content changes? Jakew 18:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Didn't I give you something to chew on already? Please answer my earlier posting instead of saying nothing. You did delete that sentence the instant you found it to be too anti-circ. Proof of this is that you didn't change it before I deleted the second part of the sentence, which was way pro-circ biased and even vaguer, as I said. Now answer, will you please? 87.78.184.150 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was sitting in my hollowed-out volcano, stroking my white cat and idly plotting world domination. Then I saw that it had become too anti-circ, so I threw a handful of prisoners into the piranha tank in a fit of rage and immediately resolved to correct the problem. ;-)
Actually, I don't think I had actually read the sentence before your edit showed up in my watchlist. Sorry to be so boring. Please feel free to discuss this further at the appropriate place, if you like. Jakew 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The appropriate place is protected from editing. But alright, I'm sorry for blaming you of pushing POV here, that was overeager and somewhat stupid of me. 87.78.153.226 13:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't see anybody the bad consequences of masturbation

Hello people wake up! I post here a website which - in my opinion - shows the truth of masturbation. Please consider it and make a link to this page. Even if you don't believe it maybe someone will. It can help many people to face the truth about this "vice". I'm not a vandal and/or crazy, please consider it. I'd experienced it on myself. Thanks.

http://www.anael.org/english/masturbation/index.htm

P.S. Wikipedia masturbation is the first page which opens when you seek 'masturbation', so it could be helpful.

11:36 AM, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, because there are no bad "consequences"?

I like this quote from your web site best, I think, "Vice of masturbation totally ruins the brain's potency. It is necessary to know of an intimate relation between semen and brain. It is necessary to semen the brain and to brain the semen. To semen the brain is possible by transmuting the sexual energy, sublimating it, turning it into brain's potency. In this form we can semen the brain and brain the semen".

That says it all! Clearly it is robbing us of vital fluids. (Not constructive, but I simply couldn't resist.) Somegeek 18:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Atom 12:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's sad but true...

"Onanism"

I note that "onanism" redirects here, which it maybe shouldn't - I'm aware that some people use the word to mean masturbation, but doesn't it actually refer to the wasting of seed (i.e. any kind of non-procreative male orgasm)? This was kind of an obessession in late C19 France, which I'm currently working on, see. Ajcounter 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it referse to disobeying god and being struck down. Onanism, has nothing to do with masturbation, or "spilling seed". (See Onan). "Onan was required by the tradition of levirate marriage to marry Er's widow Tamar. According to Genesis 38:7-9, when he had sexual intercourse with Tamar he "spilt his seed upon the ground" because the resulting child would be considered his late brother's, not his. In response to this transgression, God killed Onan. The transgression was disobeying God, not spilling his seed upon the ground"

OK... so why would the word "onanism" exist at all? Wouldn't it be called "eveism"? Clearly, this isn't the sense of the term: I'm not interested in it as a theological concept, but as a piece of social terminology, which definitely refers to some misuse of the male reproductive function. But whatever. Ajcounter 07:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Onan's historical error was as stated above by the annonymous Bible-reader, but the word "onanism" means masturbation, wrongly or not. --Scix 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Onanism is linked to masturbation. Masturbation unless based on a fantasy of your bride is a sin, and the term for that sin is onanism. Editor18 08:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures

While I do not oppose the use of paintings, carvings et cetera in the article, I can not find a reason why there would be no accurate/real pictures of masturbation. --A Sunshade Lust 22:53, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Probably for the same reasons people are trying to remove photos of semen from semen, poop from human feces, and penises from penis -- often citing "I don't want to have to look at that" despite only seeing it if they look it up... I find it mystifying. --Scix 01:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
It's a shame that even without censorship, wikipedia is blocked from giving the most informative images based on people's sensibilities. --A Sunshade Lust 23:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Our mission to be informative is only hurt if we get a reputation as the place to go for pornography. As to people "...only seeing it if they look it up..." that statement misses several key points: (1) people looking up "semen" or "masturbation" or "autofelatio" for the first time may have no idea at all what the term means. Therefore, it is wrong to say that they should expect what they get. (2) We have the ability to make and word link to any article. So, someone may follow a link here that does not even give the name of the article. (3) If you check other serious reference works, you will find that they generally do not have pictures that would be considered pornographic to a mainstream audiance in much of the world. Therefore, people have a reasonable expectation not to view pornographic images in a mainstream reference work. Johntex\talk 00:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
    • People go to dictionaries for definitions and encyclopedias for in-depth information. We should be able to safely assume that people searching for "masturbation" on Wikipedia understand what the word means. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think we can safely assume that at all. More and more people simply go to Google for their information, or to their Wikipedia search window in the browser add-in. You also have not addressed the question of internal links, or of precedent for reference works not to deal in pornographic images. Johntex\talk 00:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
        • I didn't deal with all the issues that you raised because they didn't all interest me. I countered one specific point, and I believe I did so accurately. I continue to maintain (regardless of your assertion about google/search bar searches) that people do not (in general) search for things in Wikipedia as basic as sexual functions if they have no conception of the meaning of the words. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see us getting a reputation for pornography anytime soon. I haven't seen any pornography on Wikipedia, and I edit all of the sexology and sexuality pages. Maybe Wikipedia will get a reputation like National Geographic had at one time, but that is okay. The images are normal, healthy images of sexuality, not porn. Maybe someone will learn something? Atom 00:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

  • We have dozens of articles on porn stars, porn movie companies, etc. If we allow images of sexual acts, then we throw open the door for all of those articles to also have images illustrating them. Porn may or may not be normal and healthy. That is not the issue. The issue is whether it belongs in a mainstream encycolpeodia, or whether people shoould go elsewhere to get their porn. Johntex\talk 01:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
The issue is whether a photo is appropriate and informative. Wether it is "porn" is an entirely subjective and context-affected decision you must make for yourself. --Scix 05:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
No, you are leaving out the question of the reputation to the project. It does us no good to be informative if schools/parents/work-places around the world choose to block us a purveyors of porn, or if individual readers take us less seriously because we decide to use 1 or 10 full color photographs of a sexual act when they are not truly needed. The question of what is "porn" is subjective and contex-affected, but so too is what is "informative" or "POV". We are reasonable people and we can and do make judgement calls on these issues all the time. Saying "porn" is subjective changes nothing. Johntex\talk 11:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Johntex, I think your points are misplaced here. If you want to pursue this point, you need to start at a much higher level. If you look at WP:NOT, you will see that it is an official policy that Wikipedia is not censored. Arguing with a few individual hard-working editors of this page will not change that policy, however much time you put into doing so. You need to lobby the senior policy-makers of the whole WP project if you want them to change that policy. I'm sure they'll welcome your comments. --Nigelj 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I am very familiiar with WP:NOT having been involved with it for almsot 2 years. "WP:NOT censored" is a legal notice that no centralized Wikipedia authority reviews every post before it is made. Therefore, we cannot guarnatee that ANY article, be it Masturbation or Christianity or George Bush is, at any given time, free of pornography or slader or inaccuracies or hate speach, or anything else. "WP not censored" is not an excuse for us to include pornographic images, it is merely a disclaimer sayign that we do not guarantee none of them have appeared. Johntex\talk 00:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Johntex, thanks for your assistance on our guidelines. I think I look at "Wikipedia is not censored" differently than you do. I agree that a portion of it is a disclaimer or warning to readers about content. But, the last portion is "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted."
Hence our discussion about guidelines. My read of this paragraph is "articles may" (permission) not "articles could" (warning/conditional) "if they are relevant to the content" (and they give an example to be clear) "and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies" Per our discussion and WIP at WIP-image-guidelines, policies like:
Finally, "nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." That means what I have talked about elsewhere ad nauseum, The first amendment to the constitution, and the supreme court ruling regarding that, called the Miller test (SLAPS). The Florida law can be less restrictive to free speech, but not more restrictive than the Miller test, and is defined in Florida Statute 847 titled "obscenity".
There is a wide variety of content that "may" be included in a Wikipedia article. Things that are not allowed (by Wikipedia policy, or by the Federal or Florida interpretation of obscenity (both SLAPS)) include things not relevant to the article, and also things that are "obscene" (by the Federal/Florida SLAPS test, not by individual interpretation). Every thing else, a broad range of things, is open to editorial interpretation. Relevance has priority. A picture of a penis in the Betty Crocker article is probably not relevant, as is a picture of a Gekko, and not allowed. Neither is pornography, and neither is relevant. We could come up with a wide variety of images that would meet the SLAPS standard as "obscene". And even if directly applicable to the article, they would not be allowed.
In summary, what I am saying is that WP:NOT does not mean "We can't guarantee that all of Wikipedia is censored and safe for you to view". it says "It is not our policy to censor anything. We guarantee that we have not censored it, and don't allow censorship." There is entirely different text at Wikipedia:Content_disclaimer whose purpose is what you describe. Atom 02:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Atom, it does seem we read it differently. With regard to relevance, I do agree that context plays a big role. A photo of bare breasts would be acceptable on the breast article so long as the photo is clinical in nature and not designed to be titilating. (What is titilating, you might ask? Well, for example, to have the breasts smeared in whipped cream would be wrong.)
With regard to the term "censorship" - if a set of editors working on an article choose not to include a picture, for whatever reason, that is not censorship. It is not censorship if it is our own choice, as opposed to something regulated by a governmental or central authority. We can choose to remove any picture we want to and it would not be censorship - it would be an editorial decision. Johntex\talk 15:04, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, a photo of breasts smeared with whipped cream would be inappropriate because it is less encyclopedic than the existing photo for the breast article, the potential titilation factor notwithstanding. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Surely being needlessly titilating is a big part of what makes it less encyclopedic. Johntex\talk 20:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Not especially, no, IMO. Plenty of people would find the existing photo at breast titilating. It's less encyclopedic to show the whipped cream because it's not terribly illustrative or informative of the topic at hand. Most breasts don't have whipped cream on them most of the time, and covering them in whipped cream is not an essential part of any inherent functionality of the breast. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:03, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
But some breasts DO have whipped cream on them, so what is wrong with showing a picture of each type of breast - whipped cream covered and plain? Johntex\talk 23:42, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Nothing. The problem would come if we used ONLY the whipped cream one. Of course, if we only show two pictures, I would argue that a better "second" image would be one of an infant breast-feeding. Perhaps a good third one would feature a nipple ring, etc. I'm not saying that there's no place for the whipped cream photo, but that on the breast article, there would be numerous "better" (in terms of higher encyclopedic value) photos that should be utilized "first". Now, if we had a whipped cream fetish article, the whipped cream breast photo would be perfect as a lead image. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

We are working on guidelines for images on sexology and sexuality articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines. Johntex is one of the people participating. The first thing mentioned is that Wikipedia does not Censor. We do have editorial choices in choosing images that are best for the quality of the article, while minimizing the risk of offending people. The reputation of Wikipedia is that it is "real" about "real" things, and does not censor. Not censoring, and allowing illegal images are entirely different things. For one user a picture of a male anus (see anus may offensive. For someone else, a picture of a woman may be offensive. Neither are pornographic, or illegal in the United States. Given a choice of images, the image the portrays the concept of the sectio of the article, while minimizing the potential for offense should be chosen. Atom 20:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Mark Foley scandal and traumatic masturbatory syndrome

According to news reports of IM conversations reprinted on Wikipedia, the page Foley communicated with masturbates in the face-down position, making him a practitioner of "traumatic masturnatory syndrome" as described in this article. Should this be noted somewhere? This is the first "famous" practitioner of TMS that has been reported, even if he is still anonymous.4.156.84.92 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

TMS doesn't seem to be taken seriously in the current scientific community. Also, I would dispute that this is the first famous practioner of the behavior described in the TMS articles. There are numerous references in literature that predate these IM logs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Really, Dante? Who else? I am clueless. 4.156.84.106 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

How many people masturbate?

The article doesn't say what percentage of people (male/female) masturbates overall! It only says how many start at a particular age, not how many start at all. Paranoid 08:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

For "healthy" people between 15 and 50, probably the absolute majority ar least once or a few times every month, (although I heard that many girls have been "traumatized" being told it was shameful) 惑乱 分からん 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Even a washing machine

"Standing up, the corner of an item of furniture, or even a washing machine, can be used to stimulate the clitoris through the labia and clothing."

Uncircumcised vs intact

Brian Hamilton's assertion that uncircumcised is wrong is itself flawed. "Intact" is a weak, non-specific word - read as "nothing's happened" whereas "uncircumsised" is a much stronger term, asserting that it is circumcision that is being discussed, not general wear and tear, or getting it caught in your zip. With regard his suggestion that the word implies that it should have happened, but didn't, that is simply wrong: if your football/baseball team has an uninterupted string of victories, do you read that as meaning that they should have lost a game, but didn't? If a broadway show is "Unmissable" do you understand that to mean that it should be missable, but manages to escape missability? If your Wikipedia edits are "unmisstakable" does that mean that by some fluke your ordinary, misstakable edits are distinct from the next guys? No uncircumcised accurately emphasises the point that circumcision has not taken place. --Bilbo B 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is at Talk:Penis#"Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised"—Chidom talk  19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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:

  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)

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)

Wicca

My brief description was typo'd: I meant that it doesn't talk about masturbation specifically. Disinclination 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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!)

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)

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)