Talk:Masturbation/Archives/2008/April

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.

Contents

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)

Why is there strong support to avoid offending people who are sensitive to sex, while there is no support for the same with regards to violence, blood and gore? I'm sensitive to the latter (which I pointed out on the IED page, to which the reply was a picture of a severed arm by one of the main contributors; apparently, this was considered civil), as are many people, but not the former, as many people aren't. And where would this consensus have been reached? One wishes WP would have a consistent policy on pictures, rather than the current hipocrisy.
As a case in point, with regards to your "shock effect" point, please refer to Vitrectomy, and consult its talk page, whose comments (apart from mine) include "horrific", "shocker" and "seriously making me consider staying blind".
A picture would add as much to the article as the picture used in the Football article does for that; it clearly illustrates the topic, and is something that, judging by the article, 81% of the male readers and 55% of the female readers will have done by the age of 15 years. How bad can it be?
Zuiram 02:10, 1 April 2007 (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.

Copyright is not an issue. If noone else is willing to donate a picture of themselves, I might do it if a consensus is reached that the article should have one on the page; no face, though, I'm not comfortable with identifiability. There should be a female contribution as well. Ideal would be a couple for the top of the page, and gender specific under the appropriate headings. Zuiram 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What we need for this page are some anatomically correct, medical-type images for this page that display what masturbation is in an appropriate, clear, and educational manner. We have stuff ranging from old paintings (which are utterly useless unless you want to study art history) to hand drawn illustrations which are essentially goofy porno doodles scanned out of the back pages of some horny teenager's composition notebook. Panzer-Kavalier 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


I don't think still images would illustrate masturbation very well. If we really want to display masturbation accurately, we should get videos. Obviously, they should be done tastefully and with the intent to educate. They would only have to be a few seconds long, or just long enough so people get the idea of it, not that they don't already know. CerealBabyMilk 07:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This can't be said enough - drawings are NOT sufficient. Wikipedia is not censored. That's one of the most important rules wikipedia has. There is no NPOV excuse for using drawings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ran4 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

i do believe in a free and informing WikiPedia and I support the spreading of knowledge. But every encyclopedia has its own limit. What is right to show and what is not? Is it right to show pornographic content to inform readers of an example of porn? Shouldn't we then also show an example of the uses of drugs? What about child pornography, necrophilia, violence, gore etc.? Should we post graphic pictures to inform? No! There is a limit, and personally I think the limit was exceeded when someone uploaded such graphic pictures of a man and a woman masturbating. I don't want to sound like a crybaby but: "Think of the children!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.89.235 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not censored for anyone, including "the children". There are, indeed, limits on objectionable images being placed on Wikipedia, but they aren't based on what you personally find objectionable. Wikipedia policy clearly states that "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and 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." So yes, the article on pornography may contain explicit pornographic images, but, since child pornography, for instance, is illegal in Florida, it may not be included in Wikipedia. Whatever your personal feelings may be, those images are considered appropriate based on Wikipedia policy, and thus should not be removed. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

vision

Can masturmation dammage you eyesight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.206.111 (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and if it did, the article would have mentioned it. Article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article. Splintercellguy 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that masturbation causes no physical harm. Asarelah 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
No if it did then I would be blind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornwoman2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
What if you hit yourself in the eye?72.78.154.193 (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wash it out, quick. Seriously. It stings. Petitphoque (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary Purpose - Birth Control

I cannot provide any studies as evidence to back up my theory - but I think an evolutionary purpose of masturbation especially among human/ape males is birth control. A male and female may be involved in sexual intercourse but to prevent another potential childbirth which could be very taxing for the family or community, the male may still finish relieving his sexual tension by masturbating. There may be some sort of cause/effect relationship between human/ape male masturbation and the lack of the Estrous cycle in female humans/apes. Human/ape females may have adapted their sexual cycle to be more flexible because of the male's ability to choose when he fertilizes the female - namely through the deferment of fertilization by masturbation. This overall change - the ability for the male to masturbate and the female to be sexually active at any time in her cycle - results in an overall more flexible way of sexual reproduction.

This is also relevant in the scenario of viewing masturbation as an 'anti-rape' mechanism. This is probably an oversimplification, but as humans/apes evolved into communal social habitats where cooperation became more advantageous for survival in many cases, masturbation became an important mechanism in regulating male sexual tension without disrupting families or potential families through rape.

I have always considered that of all human faculties, the one which most forcefully contradicts the theory of natural selection is the ability to masturbate. If ever there was a faculty which would impede pro-creation it is the one which allows a sex life on one's own.
It is interesting to surmise as to "why" humans can masturbate but in all honesty, can you really believe that something which assists the avoidance of sexual intercourse can have a survival advantage for the species?
Or to look at it from another angle, what if humans had a tendancy to self-castrate? Would you say it would cause less instability through less tension and eliminate rapes and stabalise societies? Or would you just reason that it would plainly go against the survival of the species and be naturally selected out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That is because you are assuming incorrectly that evolution occurs through pro-creation when in fact it is not. It is through pro-survival. Reproduction is a means of achieving a greater chance of survival, however this is not always the case given a certain point in time.
In all honesty something that assists in the avoidance of sexual intercourse can have a survival advantage for the species. That is why condoms and birth control have value in our society (i.e. people buy them). The ability to defer the time when sexual intercourse takes place is a great evolutionary advantage - this is perfectly clear in the case when a 16 year old girl gets pregnant in high school with her boyfriend in a "fling" relationship. The mother, child and family have less of a chance of survival now for many reasons. The mother, being young is not as emotionally/intellectually/financially mature as she could be - and this could certainly have ill-effects on the child. There is a chance for birth complications because of the young age of the mother - which could affect both the mother and child. The father has a greater chance to abandon the family because of his inclination to believe that this family will fail.
Self-castration is completely different from masturbation. Castration has a permanent effect. Whereas masturbation is only temporary. If, after castration you were able to grow a new reproductive organ at will, then basically they would be the same thing.
Masturbation allows for the choice of when you sexually reproduce, whereas castration leaves you with no choice after the act has taken place.
However, I must say that nature already does have a propensity (not sure if it's a tendency) to castrate many species - humans included. One of those ways is the adaptation of homosexually oriented offspring. In many ways the birth of homosexually oriented offspring can be an evolutionary advantage and in other ways it can be a disadvantage. It does not really give you as much of a choice (you could go against your own will), when it comes to sexual reproduction, compared to a heterosexually oriented offspring who can masturbate. However, a homosexually oriented offspring will be likely to avoid sexually reproductive acts and instead be more likely to use their time and energy on other productive activities which are useful from a survival perspective.
The same can basically be said for those heterosexually oriented individuals who opt not to have children and instead focus their time and energy elsewhere because they believe it is more beneficial that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.54.96 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Sexual reproduction is a great means of survival, however if the cost is too high then it may not always be the best choice. It is better to wait and improve your surrounding environment until the cost is affordable. Broodle 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that the talk page is a place to discuss ways to improve the article, not a place for general discussion of the article's topic. Thanks. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Images

There are several offensive images in this article that ought to be removed. If not I will be forced to blank the page. 91.108.225.161 00:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored
Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point
If you blank the page then I will be "forced" to unblank it. -MBlume 09:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
While I don't agree with the editor's opinion or approach, I do think that some of the material on this and other sex-related topics is from exhibitionists just looking for a quick thrill, and as such is not quite appropriate for the project. On the other hand, beggars can't be choosers. — NRen2k5(TALK), 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Exessive Masturbation and Prostate Health

The human body naturally produces testosterone, which is a hormone that induces hypertrophy and is found in amounts in men that are 8-10 times on average that found in women and is a main male hormone. Hypertrophy is the increase of the size of an organ or in a select area of the tissue and is the main aim of the heavy weight lifting done by bodybuilders. It is suggested that overmasturbation burns/transforms too much testosterone into dihydrotestosterone(DHT) http://www.4-men.org/malehairloss.html , which even though is more potent than testosterone does not have a significant effect on hypertrophy. Dihydrotestosterone(DHT) however is linked with Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Check the following link http://www.seniornet.org/php/default.php?PageID=6053 The following link states that Dihydrotestosterone is responsible for the overgrowth of prostate tissue that produces BPH. Hence it is also a possible cause of Prostate Cancer. The same is also claimed in the following site under the 'Prevention' heading and the dark green box above it: http://www.naturalelixir.com/prostate.html , the Prostate Cancer and Brilliance heading also links DHT to prostate cancer. This claim is the reason why many medications aim at treating BPH by inhibiting DHT. The following links are also in support of this claim: http://www.atihealthnet.com/pages/prostatin2.html http://www.atihealthnet.com/pages/prostatin2.html 'under the Enter the Herbs heading' http://www.buy-avodart.com/buy-avodart/Avodart_Dutasteride_Prostate_Enlargement.asp

Many claims have been made regarding other Risks of masturbation that have probably contained myth. The following site ( http://www.herballove.com/library/resource/overmas/fatal.asp?source=googleSite&gclid=CKC47r2ZyIkCFQtkYQodZhxmvQ ) has a very interesting title that says: Fatal Consequences of Excessive Masturbation It says Excessive Masturbation can cause a big change in body chemistry which inturn has side-effects such as :

Fatigue. Feeling tired all the time 
Lower back pain 
Stress / Anxiety 
Thinning hair / Hair Loss 
Soft / Weak Erection 
Premature Ejaculation 
Eye floaters or fuzzy vision 
Groin / Testicular Pain 
Pain or cramp in the pelvic cavity or/and tail bone

I suggest a section similar to this one is added to the article. pcp111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcp111 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. These websites are quackery. Masturbation is not harmful, in fact, it decreases the risk of prostate cancer. No reliable medical journal would back up these claims. Asarelah (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Asarelah. Not one of those websites are scientific. Gillyweed (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Add to Article: Information About Masturbation in Art, Film and Culture

I am an anonymous user, so I cannot edit this article as it is locked. I would, however, like to see a section discussing the portrayal of masturbation in culture, such as mainstream (non-pornographic) films. Hollywood has been extremely conservbative depicting masturbation scenes as opposed to sex scenes in film. The only portrayals of female masturbation in film that I can readily think of are:

Jennifer Jason Leigh in Single White Female - negative portrayal as she plays a character who is insane

Erika Anderson in Zandalee - negative portrayal as the character is using masturbation in this brief scene to humiliate her husband because he is failing to pleasure her as she desires

Naomi Watts in Gross Misconduct - negative portrayal as she is insanely obsessed with male character in this Australian film

Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive - someone negative as she is involved in obsessive lesbian liaison

Cruel Intentions 2 - somewhat negative portrayal as so-called good girl who would not normally masturbate is tricked into pleasuring herself whilst learning to ride a horse in an attempt to humiliate her

Ludivine Savignier in Swimming Pool - somewhat more positive but the girl is portrayed largely as a seductress, masturbating in front of a man in order to arouse him

Anne Hathaway in Havoc - Negative portrayal of masturbation as the film depicts the story of a good girl gone bad wanting to emulate an American gang lifestyle and is masturbating solely for the purpose of making a home porn video

Sharon Stone in Sliver - somewhat more positive depiction as heroine is masturbating in the privacy of her own bath whilst unknowingly being spied upon.

Maggie Gyllenhall in Secretary - more positive depiction of masturbation as sexual relief for female

Shannon Elizabeth in American Pie - fairly positive depiction as it is shown as natural aspect of young female behaviour. Again, it involves male voyeurism on female subject but sensitively handled.

Linda Speciale in Screwballs - early positive portrayal of female masturbation in this lowbrow teen comedy. The main female, portrayed as a very chaste character, is shown to fantasise about having sex with her teddy bear whilst she is in bed at night. She is not portrayed as a hypocrite for being both chaste and having a life of rich sexual fantasy and masturbation.

Chyler Leigh in Not Another Teen Movie - for a parody of teen comedies, this film opens with a fairly positive portayal of female masturbation. In the scene, she is shown in her bed, masturbating with a vibrator until her family and friends burst into wish her a happy birthday. The scene indicates from the beginning that one can be a film's heroine and be a masturbator.

Lady Chatterley - both the Marina Hands and Sylvia Kristel versions feature masturbation in a fairly positive way. Sylvia's film may be borderline soft pornography, depending upon one's definitions.

Toxic Avenger - very much a lowbrow comedy film. Masturbation is purely for laughs/titillation.

Apparently, Pleasantville and James Joyce's Women feature masturbation in a positive way but I have not seen either. Tara Fitzgerald apparently masturbates on a bed in In a Dark Place. I have heard a male stimulates a female's clitoris in Rambling Rose but do not have details of this either.

Non-English language films are, surprisingly, little better. Possibly the most realistic and positive depiction of female masturbation is from Renee Soutendijk in De Flat, which shows an older woman pleasuring herself in the bath in a natural, non-exploitive way.

The Japanese Weather Woman series uses masturbation for titillation.

Victoria Abril uses a toy in the bath tub in Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! in a non-exploitive, realistic scene.

So far, these examples are all ones that show masturbatory behaviour by females in films. Does anyone know of any examples whereby female characters discuss masturbation in a frank and serious way?

To summarise, on the whole, films depicting masturbation as a natural part of life for females are very rare in Hollywood. Characters who masturbate are sometimes sexually obsessed (Gross Misconduct and Single White Female) or masturbation is used as a weapon for humiliation (Zandalee, Cruel Intention 2) or seduction (Swimming Pool). It seems that teen comedies, though often using masturbation for cheap jokes, actually provide some of the most positive portrayals of female self-pleasuring in examples such as American Pie and Not Another Teen Movie.


Male masturbation scenes are, surprisingly, more numerous in films from American Beauty, to The Piano, to Sirens, to Fast Times at Ridgemont High showing it as a normal part of male behaviour. Perhaps this reflects the greater willingness for males to discuss the subject, whilst, for females, it remain taboo? A detailed list of male scenes is on this discussion board forum [1]

Often male masturbation is linked to voyeurism and spying on females, the most extreme and negative example being in the remake of Psycho in which the mentally ill man watches the woman undress as he masturbates, before killing her.


If you feel this information that I have provided is worthy of inclusion in the article, can you please wikify it and add it? Thanks. Special:Contributions/ 10:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Excellent contribution. This should definitely be added to the article by someone. Also, in popular music, there are some songs that deal with the issue of masturbation. My Ding-a-Ling by Chuck Berry, I Touch Myself by the Divinyls and, I suspect, some songs by Madonna. Let's also not forget the woman from Gong, Gilli Smyth, who actually masturbated in the recording studio to create the background sounds on some of their albums, such as Camembert Electrique. "Pictures of Lily" by the Who, is a song about a boy masturbating to porn. Also, the song, "Smut", by the famous Australian band Skyhooks, is about a man masturbating in a cinema, hiding his genitals in a packet of Twisties he has in his lap!
Another thing that should definitely be added to the article is the October 1972 censorship of Philip Roth's novel "Portnoy's Complain" in Australia. It was banned due to its masturbation references. The censorship led to public outcry at the time. 202.138.16.143 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Abbie Cornish in Somersault and Reese Witherspoon in Fear are both masturbated by men. There is a deleted scene of Scarlett Johanssen being fingered on the DVD of Love Song for Bobby Long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.56.6 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


I forgot to mention that The Whitlams' song, "You Sound Like Louis Burdett", features masturbation references in its lyrics. 210.50.60.74 (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I copied the above to the new article Depiction of masturbation. It needs more wikification, and extensions.--Patrick (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for that. I have started to clean up the new article and wikify it a little. Help is needed, though! I hope we have some more contributors as I think the references we have are only just scratching the surface. 210.50.56.32 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


There is already a debate on the new page as to whether it should be merged into the main article or not. Feel free to add your opinions. Talk:Depiction_of_masturbation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.56.32 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I thought it would deserve a separate page like Depictions of nudity. The page is rather long now.--Patrick (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Not all this information needs to be here, and a new article certainly is not needed. Grsz11 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
A list of actresses masturbating on screen is hardly encyclopedic. It seems more like a list of movies for every 13 year old heterosexual male to go and rent. I fail to see the relevance.72.78.154.193 (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Songs include:

Rosie by Jackson Browne Dream by Everly Brothers Good Vibrations by Beach Boys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin324la (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Which image is better?

I think we only need one image of a female masturbating. Which one is a better portrayal? I can't decide. Opinions? Which image should be kept? нмŵוτнτ 17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the photographs are, quite simply, unnecessary. I do not state this merely because I am partial to the view of some corpulent fellow's exhibitionism, but, they are simply excessive. Moreover, every image seems to benefit someone in some way, thus turning Wikipedia into a market. The one female image is of an amateur pornographic model (advertising herself), the other female of a contemporary 'artist's' work (advertising his work), and the male photograph of some perverse exhibitionist who, most certainly, adores polluting my screen with his phallus. For reasons such as this I deem the English wikipedia inordinately horrid. The sketches suffice -- this is unnecessary. The article was sufficient prior to this plague of pornography. But, 'Oh! Oh!', quoth the prepubescent wikipedian, 'Tis for the better of the encyclopedia!' How? The sketch shows a photograph of a man with a dick in his hand, as does the sketch. What the hell is the difference? No other language has this problem. The German and French onanistic pages are well crafted. Only the promiscuous and perverse Americans! -- Grammaticus VII (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Every image on Wikipedia has the name of its creator attached. There is no other area where anyone suggests that a Wikipedia image should be rejected merely because it should happen to be created by someone whose career is in the same field. If you find the English Wikipedia merely distasteful, that is hardly a reason to remove information which might be useful to somebody else. It seems to me that the pictures give useful information on the subject which is necessarily hidden by the abstraction of the drawings, and I am very much in favour of keeping them. This does not fall under any definition of either "perverse" or "promiscuous" that I am aware of. And I am not an American, I'm English. The Wednesday Island (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum, it's not only the English Wikipedia which uses these pictures-- see nl:Vingeren, fi:Itsetyydytys, ro:Masturbare, ms:Pelancapan. The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Keep It's a very long article, there's absolutely not too many pictures. The drawing could be changed to a photograph, but it's not that important. The photograph is essential! Ran4 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that any image is nescecary. I mean neither image shows a proper view of masturbation because not everyone masturbates that way. Those Images are like just, meant to show eroticism in the least offensive way popular I guess, but seriously lol. I know that myself, and friends, boyfriends, and girlfriends I've had do not masturbate, laying on their back, faces in exstacy, lightly rubbing or jerking, while head tilted back. 69.207.42.15 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The pictures don't show anyone with a head tilted back? They also show the most common forms of masturbation. While you & your friends don't do it the way pictures, this is how most females and males masturbate. However, everyone is different and likes different things. The article simply sticks to the most common, simple ones. нмŵוτнτ 18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed trolling & personal attacks from the following comment. нмŵוτнτ 22:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC):
They are unnecessary. Why must the English wikipedia be the sole encyclopedia to display such promiscuous photographs as these. -- Grammaticus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.77.245 (talk • contribs)
Delete, I agree. The illustrations are just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalco (talk • contribs)
Wait, delete what? нмŵוτнτ 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
My previous comment was in response to Grammaticus (a comment which has been deleted by hmwith). He said that the photographs are unnecessary and I agree. The illustrations suffice. He made the point that the English wikipedia is the only one that does this. Hmwith, what are you achieving by keeping these here? You seem to be fighting tooth and nail to keep these photographs on here. -- Nalco (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am against censorship here. The actual images clearly show what these illustrations cannot. I don't have any personal feelings here. I simply make sure that the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy is enforced throughout the encyclopedia, on this article (& other articles including possible offensive imagery of the human body, such as Prince Albert piercing), as well as articles about religious figures, such as Muhammad & Bahá'u'lláh. There's no reason for these images to be censored. Also, note that I restored the IP's comment after you left this message (while removing the trolling parts). нмŵוτнτ 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I am also against the attempt at censorship. What the French wiki contains is not my concern, because I don't speak French. Whether the English part of wiki is unique or not is also irrelevant. The pictures are as tasteful as a picture of masturbation could be, and the ad hominem that the individuals in the photos are perverts simply because they depict something which 9 out of 10 people do is unnecessary. So is the suggestion that my opinion is "prepubescent" simply because I disagree with you. If you don't want to see pictures of people masturbating, maybe you shouldn't type "masturbation" into a search engine, and willingly access an uncensored website on the matter. Unless you have a perverted poltergeist in your computer, you're quite capable of not accessing the things you don't want to see.72.78.154.193 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Considering we have drawn images of the act, why do we did ANOTHER set of images? Personally I think the creaters of the real images just wanted an excuse to post their privates online to a wider audience... which is very pathetic really... Stabby Joe (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This issue has been considered at great length, above this comment and below, and the decision has always been to keep the images. Whether the people in the photos were paid, or stimulated, or simply gratified to participate in wikipedia is irrelevant. The policy of wiki is that when info is placed on the page, the people who wish to remove it have to fulfill the burden of proof to do so, not the other way around. People keep asking the defenders of the images to point out what extra use the pictures may be, rather than providing a sufficient reason for taking them down. As has been stated many times on this page, the argument that the pictures are gratuitous is not a valid reason for removing them, since doing so under such a rationale would be an act of censorship. Besides, the main reason the pictures are getting so much fire from people is precisely the reason for keeping them: they are clearer than the drawings. If the drawings were as clear as the picture, then perhaps the photos would be unnecessary. But then I'm sure the censorshipniks would have a beef with the drawings being "too explicit." Round and round and round we go...72.78.20.31 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. The number of images is not excessive, and both the photographs and the drawings are informative. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that images, even supposedly objectionable images, should only be used when strictly necessary. Whatever the motives of the people who posted the images, whatever the article may contain in other languages, and where ever any individual's scruples may lie, it still remains that the images in this article are useful and informative. Few of the arguments for deletion of the photographs are actually based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and just about all of them are quite transparent attempts to distract from the main issue: censorship. Wikipedia is still not censored. Seriously guys, it says it at the top of the page. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures

This site is supposed to be a resource for obtaining knowledge. Pornography does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRAGOMIROV (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed at some length, and the general consensus has been that the need to illustrate the topics of our articles accurately overrides the need to avoid upsetting someone's sensibilities. Indeed, part of obtaining knowledge is finding out what something looks like, and I would rather a child find out here than in an alley somewhere. Please see our policy Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not censored, and feel free to ask if you have any further questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
What the hell is wrong with a penis and naked female? You have surely seen one of them at least daily throughout your life, depending on your gender. Take that fundie shit elsewhere dragrimrov, we don't need censorship on the internet, this isn't NBC. (74.183.138.133 (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Needs more pictures

just an observation... can we get some more pictures? perhaps detailing female masturbation? Maybe we could even switch them up every day or 2. Thanks in advance! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.138.133 (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Switch them every day or two? Grow up. Asarelah (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Overmasterbation needs to be added to this article.

I have just been diagnosed with it. It is a serious condition. I am now not able to erect, i have blurred vision, and pain in my testicles. Over master bating can happen if you do it more then 3 times a week. this includes sex etc. It happens over time when the body's nutrients deplete. I was completely unaware this even existed until it happened to me. People really need to be informed on this issue. I hope that you will include this in a section of the encyclopedia. There are many more really bad side effects that can occur over time... people NEED to know about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.129.146 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoever "diagnosed" you with this is a quack, assuming that he's even a doctor. There is no such thing as "overmasturbation". Virtually all doctors agree that masturbation is harmless and will not make you sick, even if you do it every day. You haven't depleted your body's nutrients, you're just sick with something. Asarelah (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

IMPORTANT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of medical advice. Wikipedia does not, and can not, offer any medical advice of any kind. — Becksguy (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've spanked it twice a day for the last 15 years. I have 20/20 vision, and I'm far from svelt. 72.78.155.165 (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)