Talk:Masturbation/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Masturbation: facts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Women:

• 88% masturbate
• 60% prefer masturbation with hands, 40% with toys
• 38% prefer masturbation with porn
• 76% say sex is better, 24% say masturbation is better, 13.5% say masturbation is better because of better orgasm

Men:

• 96% masturbate
• 90% prefer masturbation with hands, 10% with toys
• 67% prefer masturbation with porn
• 84% say sex is better, 16% say masturbation is better, 3% say masturbation is better because of better orgasm

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-5419683/Masturbation-survey-looks-solo-sex-habits.html

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential quotation marks

Semen is valued and masturbation is seen as a waste of semen and is therefore frowned upon even though frequent ejaculation is encouraged. The capacity and need to ejaculate is developed or nurtured for years from an early age but through fellatio so that it can be consumed rather than wasted.
Would it be justified to put the second "wasted" in quotation marks? Maybe the first one, too? And does anyone else consider the "but through fellatio" part awkward? I would put a dash before it myself, although it's awkward as well.--Adûnâi (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Masturbation over sex

41% of females and 18% of males prefer masturbation ot sex.

http://www.healthystrokes.com/femsurveyresults.html

32.9% of females and 17.4% of males prefer masturbation ot sex.

https://medium.com/@adrianach_20/women-prefer-masturbation-for-better-orgasms-32-9-over-sex-compared-to-men-17-4-4e2b99a7374d — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.132.188 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

These fail WP:RS, let alone WP:MEDRS. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Well it would be nice if you would offer better sources for such information. Do you suppose those studies were just figments of imagination? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.144.117 (talk • contribs) 04:34, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Please WP:SIGN messages. The above sources are not acceptable per WP:RS. Anyone wanting information added to the article needs to find a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Some facts

Among women who both masturbated and had partnered sex, orgasmic pleasure was higher during partnered sex.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30836851

In terms of pleasure associated with the outlets, vaginal and oral intercourse were perceived as equally pleasurable, and both were rated as more pleasurable than manual stimulation or masturbation, which did not differ from each other.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18638007

For both sexes (adjusted for prolactin changes in a non-sexual control condition), the magnitude of prolactin increase following intercourse is 400% greater than that following masturbation. The results are interpreted as an indication of intercourse being more physiologically satisfying than masturbation, and discussed in light of prior research reporting greater physiological and psychological benefits associated with coitus than with any other sexual activities.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16095799

Among men and women, both partnered status and their sexual contentment were more obvious predictors of masturbation than was recent frequency of sex.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28341933

Orgasmic latency during masturbation and partnered sex for women differ significantly, with latencies during partnered sex being substantially longer than masturbation, although women reporting the greatest difficulty reaching orgasm have the longest latencies and are likely to find masturbation more satisfying than women who do not.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30195562

Ejaculation latency time was highest during intercourse (median 8.25 minutes, range 1.32 to 18.31), lower in the laboratory (median 7.22 minutes, range 1.37 to 18.79) and lowest during masturbation (median 4.89 minutes, range 1.08 to 14.19). All 3 scores were highly reproducible within subjects. There was high variability among subjects. However, there was no correlation between penile sensitivity and ejaculation latency time.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17162053

Physiological sexual arousal (genital temperature) and subjective sexual arousal and desire measurements were taken at baseline, after masturbation almost to orgasm, and immediately and 15 minutes after orgasm. In both genders, all measures increased significantly during masturbation, with a greater buildup leading to a more pleasurable orgasm. After orgasm, however, sexual arousal and desire decreased more quickly and consistently in men than in women, thereby replicating Masters and Johnson's (1966) observations. More men than women exhibited resolution of subjective sexual arousal and sexual satiation; their genital temperature also decreased more than women's but did not return to baseline. Women's orgasmic pleasure was related to a postorgasmic decrease in genital temperature but, unexpectedly, the maintenance of subjective sexual arousal and desire.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24588445

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.30.250 (talk • contribs) 11:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS: WP:PRIMARY medical sources aren't for us a source of "facts". About Brody: see Talk:Masturbation/Archive 12#Brody, Talk:Masturbation/Archive 11#Research presenting a negative correlation between the frequency of masturbation and various mental and physical benefits is not presented in the article, Talk:Masturbation/Archive 10#The bald claim that NO causal harm is known from masturbation is false. This is an important error on a "top importance" page on sexuality., Talk:Masturbation/Archive 4#Brody Articles, Prominent Health Warnings, Etc.. In short: Brody is either WP:FRINGE or WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

"medical sources aren't for us a source of "facts"

Why? Is this your own interpretation of Wiki rules? If some sorce describes some facts why wouldn't they been used?

I don't care who is this person, if this is a claim to a single article - ok, let it be so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.47.71 (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is not medical sources, but as he said, WP:PRIMARY sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:29, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

He said as you can see in the previous "medical sources aren't for us a source of "facts". But anyway these pubmed sources just voice the information they have found. What is the problem with that?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.249.7 (talk • contribs) 07:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@37.78.249.7: I think your are confusing facts with individual experimental results. For something to become a scientific fact, it has to go through a rigorous process of verification. As per the other components of the scientific method, this includes reproducibility & peer review. The results of multiple experiments & this external review process results in a secondary source, often called a literature review, systematic reviews, or review article. Since individual experiments or studies can conflict each other or can have errors in their methodology, they often do not count for much until they have been included in a larger review. This is why Wikipedia, as a policy, relies on secondary & tertiary sources, & not primary sources. This is particularly true for articles making medical claims; as Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) states "Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information."

One need to look no further than the RF resonant cavity thruster to see an experiment that produced results that then could not be replicated beyond the experiment's margin of error.

Individual studies do not create scientific facts. Reproducibility and peer reviews are the authority that does establish scientific fact.

Peaceray (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Add image

how to add this image? thumb|Woman fingering with one finger — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.72.214.102 (talk) 04:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

There is no reason to add this animation to the article, which already has numerous images. I see your addition of the same clip to the Fingering (sexual act) has already been reverted quoting WP:GRATUITOUS IdreamofJeanie (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2020

please change "the Masturbation is the sexual stimulation of one's own genitals for sexual arousal or other sexual pleasure," to "Masturbation is the sexual stimulation of one's own genitals for sexual arousal or other sexual pleasure(exept using your sholder that dusen't count)" because i did not do it Nor231 (talk) 19:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: No need for this to be done as it accurately describes what it is; also the shoulder part will not be added. Oportunityketchuplog (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

According to reviews (links below) frequent and idiosyncratic masturbation seem to cause delayed ejaculation. Should be added to the "Health effects" section of the article.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4816679/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5756804/ 46.159.5.235 (talk) 04:48, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done I don't understand why you call those "reviews". Am I missing something? Wikipedia is by default biased against WP:PRIMARY WP:MEDRS. Oh, yeah, got it: one of them says it is a review, but it is not indexed for MEDLINE, which is for us a WP:REDFLAG. I can definitely say those papers aren't reviews in the sense of reviewing the existing medical literature about the correlation between masturbation and delayed ejaculation. They cite far too few sources about such correlation. As I use to say, it is easier to publish in The Lancet than in Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

I call these reviews because these are reviews by definition. If they are not reviews than what are they? They both collect information about causes and treatment of delayed ejaculation. Frequent and idiosyncratic masturbation are called to be causes and changing frequency and style of masturbation is called to be a treatment. Far too few sources? How many sources do you need? You should also take into account that these reviews are made by different people at different times. There are sources showing the existence of a correlation between frequent/idiosyncratic masturbation and delayed ejaculation, and there are no sources that would refute this. So you could at least add a remark about that. Maybe you need direct quotes to see related text? Ok, read.

And maybe you will stop these haughty remarks about "publication in Wikipedia"? Wikipedia is just a collection of links, not more not less. The first link in this article goes to the "Your Guide to Masturbation", comparing to my sources it looks like a yellow press or a garbage. Ye, it's REALLY hard to be published in Wiki. Very funny.

Some men obtain greater pleasure from masturbation than they do with sexual intercourse and may continue deep-rooted habits such as frequent masturbation or using idiosyncratic masturbation techniques. Studies have shown a correlation between DO and men with idiosyncratic masturbation practices (5, 14). Also, with increasing frequency of masturbation the sensitivity of the penis can decline and lead to a vicious cycle where the man increases masturbation force to counteract the declining sensitivity, therefore leading to worsening DO. Vaginal intercourse or orogenital stimulation may not be able to replicate the stimulation achieved through idiosyncratic masturbation and this may result in reduced penile stimulation leading to difficulty achieving an orgasm (5, 14, 26).

Patients with DO have been shown to have higher masturbatory activity, decreased night-time emissions, lower orgasm and intercourse satisfaction scores on the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), as well as higher anxiety and depression scores when compared to controls (27). In a study by Xia et al, they compared 24 patients with primary DO and 24 age-matched controls who had no sexual dysfunction complaints (28). They showed that patients with primary DO had significantly longer IELT (20 vs 5.5 minutes), higher frequency of masturbation, lower nocturnal emissions, and higher rates of anxiety and depression. They also found that although DO patients had normal glans sensation, they reported penile shaft hyposensitivity and hypoexcitability. The patients with DO were also found to more commonly use idiosyncratic masturbation methods.

Unusual masturbation patterns and fantasy life. This theory stated that some men with DE tend to prefer unusual methods of masturbation over heterosexual intercourse with their partner. Perelman and Rowland [14] and Perelman [30] identified 3 factors that disproportionately characterized patients with DE: a) high-frequency masturbation (age-dependent mean of greater than 3 times per week), b) idiosyncratic masturbatory style (masturbation technique not easily duplicated by the partner's hand, mouth, or vagina), and c) disparity between the reality of sex with a partner and their preferred masturbatory fantasy.; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.159.5.235 (talk • contribs)

Ok, the rules of the game: WP:MEDRS postulates two conditions for research: indexed for MEDLINE and being a literature review; sources that are higher (not lower) on the quality scale are allowed. Do note that both conditions have to apply for research articles. Consensus statements by reputable institutions, such as AMA and APA, are even better than literature reviews. WP:PRIMARY sources which kowtow to the medical orthodoxy, as demonstrated by citing WP:SECONDARY sources (or better), are allowed.

The second paper is indeed a review by its own claims (I'm not saying that it is a meta-analysis or a systematic review of literature upon that purported correlation, it just claims bluntly that it is a review on the general topic being discussed). But, there is a problem: it is not indexed for MEDLINE. This is a red flag according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable_sources (medicine)#Predatory journals. So while it is a review (or so it claims), it is suspect according to the rules of the game. The other paper is indexed for MEDLINE, but it is a not literature review. So both fail to enter new, original medical claims, according to the standards of Wikipedia.

A newspaper which renders the position of the named reputable institutions can be trusted to the extent newspapers can be trusted: i.e. not for very detailed scientific knowledge, but about blunt facts as who said what and where.

And you are wrong about that guide: while it is meant as information for a general audience, it is a highly accessed website by WebMD, Inc./The Cleveland Clinic Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. So, it is a source with editorial control, which does not advance novel claims, written by a medical professional seeking to render the existing medical consensus. It is not the sole source for verifying that claim and it has been shown that it kowtows to the medical consensus, as explained by other reputable sources (e.g. Britannica). So, that claim does not stand or fall by only one source. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Go, watch it, all as you wanted - review label, MEDLINE, you can read the full text on researchgate, links below. I think, how many identical sources should I find to make it clear for you, it is shown that highly abnormal masturbation is a predictor for delayed ejaculation in partenered sex.

More likely, men with DE derive greater arousal and enjoyment from masturbation than from intercourse, an “autosexual” orientation that may involve an idiosyncratic and vigorous masturbation style that interferes with the ability to attain orgasm [196–201]. In fact, masturbatory frequency and style may be predisposing factors for DE, as a substantial portion of men who present with coital DE report high levels of idiosyncratic masturbatory activity [197–201]. Disparity between the reality of sex with the partner and the sexual fantasy used during masturbation may inhibit sexual arousal and thus represent another contributor to DE [197,202] and, finally, the evaluative/performance aspect of sex with a partner often creates “sexual performance anxiety,” a factor that may contribute to DE. Specifically, anxiety surrounding the inability to ejaculate may draw the man’s attention away from erotic cues that normally serve to enhance arousal [196].

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22970767/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230840467_Standard_Operating_Procedures_in_the_Disorders_of_Orgasm_and_Ejaculation

There is some data describing men who develop an ‘idiosyncratic style’ of genital stimulation during masturbation, thus disabling his ability to ejaculate during penetrative sexual intercourse. 31,32

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7267859_Retarded_ejaculation-A_review — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.173.0 (talk • contribs)

some data i.e. 2 (two) studies. That does not make it a systematic literature review thereupon. More likely... may involve... may inhibit... may contribute...—these conclusions are tentative, and let's not forget that that study says that masturbation, i.e. masturbatory retraining, is part of the solution, not part of the problem. You failed to show me a meta-analysis. And no, I am not the sole Wikipedian watching this page. You might wonder why the regulars do not side with you. From the horse's mouth: the scientific evidence for aetiology, treatment and outcome is poor. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who read this. I don't know who is agree with me, because nobody writes here. As I undestand the politics of Wikipedia there sholud be no difference between 1 day user and 10 years user. Leave it opened for a week, let other people to answer.

There is a problem - abnormal masturbation, there is a solution - retraining to normal masturbation. That's what studies say. More likely... may involve... may inhibit... may contribute... I met these words all over the Wikipedia, there is no problem using them in the article. For example "Some studies show that frequent masturbation and masturbation in idiosyncratic style can lead to the development of delayed ejaculation. After changing the style and frequency of masturbation, the problem disappears."

I give you studies, you say "it is not a review", I explain that it is a review, you say "they are not in MEDLINE". Now I give you 2 articles with "REVIEW" label and from the sources in your MEDLINE, different years, different sources, same conclusion. And what is now? It still is not enough. 2 studies? 196-201 is 6 studies, for example as you say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.173.0 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps I'm repeating myself, but you showed me no meta-analysis. You also showed me no systematic literature review upon the purported correlation. What you showed me are studies based upon shoddy evidence, which reached tentative conclusions. The evidence for the purported correlation is a load of crap and that's what Wikipedia will keep saying for the near future. The death-grip syndrome never gained much traction among MDs and sexologists. I am quite willing to admit that in 20-40 years there could be evidence for it, but per WP:BALL we aren't there yet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

:Ley, Prause and Finn said that 90% of the studies upon sex addiction are scientifically worthless since they either contain no empirical data (but only value judgments) or if they contain empirical data there is no responsible statistical analysis of such data. So the three authors cannot be blamed for discarding from the review what they considered sub-standard scholarship. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Quoting myself. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"a classic case of Arts Faculty science. Never mind the hypothesis, give me the data, and there aren’t any". Source: Connor, Steve. (2012, November 12). "Human intelligence 'peaked thousands of years ago and we've been on an intellectual and emotional decline ever since'". The Independent. Retrieved December 6, 2012. Quoted from Our Fragile Intellect. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The medical profession isn’t convinced. Every doctor and psychologist I spoke with informed me that “there’s no evidence” to link masturbation to sexual performance, and that it’s an over­simplification to think that frequent masturbation is the cause of delayed ejaculation. According to ­Stephen Snyder, a sex therapist in Manhattan, it’s “most often not the case.” Darius Paduch, a professor of urology and reproductive medicine at Weill ­Cornell Medical College, went so far as to say that ejaculation leads to greater fertility. “In our practice, we pretty much make men achieve an erection at least three to four times a week,” he says. Paduch also cited studies that found that men who ejaculated multiple times a week faced less risk of erectile dysfunction later in life. There’s also the body’s natural process of elimination: Many anti-masturbators start having wet dreams.

— Emily Witt, Hands Off, New York. 4/22/2013, Vol. 46 Issue 12, p28-31. 4p.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:46, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I have disabled the edit request because they are only for cases where there is consensus support or, if the request is for something straightforward that probably does not require active consensus, where there is at least no opposition. Johnuniq (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Ok, a source which debunks that claim: https://www.healthline.com/health/erectile-dysfunction/can-masturbation-cause-erectile-dysfunction Medically reviewed by Timothy J. Legg, Ph.D., CRNP — Written by Tim Jewell on March 22, 2017. Background info: https://rm.edu/rmu-bios/timothy-legg/

Oh, yes: for fringe claims we apply WP:FRIND, which basically means that even lower-quality sources are allowed, as long as they render the mainstream scientific consensus. And the WP:ONUS for novel claims is higher than for the status quo, see WP:REDFLAG. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

REferences

There are a lot of undocumented statements. While they may all be true, not having references is not fitting for a Wikipedia article. 213.109.221.103 (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any specific statement in mind that needs sourcing? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

See also WP:CITELEAD. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Recently removed paragraph about babies and toddlers

I'm talking about this paragraph. I've tracked down the original source from the revision history. It is this. Now that we have the source, should it be put pack in? Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 13:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Greene sells natural cures. I'm afraid he fails WP:MEDRS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, not a reliable source, and seemed to be a dubious claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:57, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

As usual, Wikipedia pushes the secular humanist pov as if it is neutral. It isn't. Unlock please, or rewrite giving greater credence to Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu viewpoints. What your sex ed teacher told you in California is not the whole truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.141 (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a Christian medical science, or an Islamic thermodynamics, or a Hindu statistical mechanics? Nope: science is universal, meaning worldwide. See WP:MEDRS. There are many Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist and Hindu MDs and psychologists who wholeheartedly toe the line of the medical consensus and of the consensus of psychologists. This encyclopedia does not owe allegiance to any religion, nor to agnosticism, nor to atheism. We owe allegiance to mainstream science and the medical orthodoxy. And we won't infect this article with the rabid rants of bigots.

Besides, Wikipedia has the articles Religious views on masturbation and History of masturbation, so I don't understand why you want to insert religious subjective opinions into this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. 36.11.229.141, your objections belong in, and are answered in, other articles as mentioned above. --Yhdwww (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I think the IP conflates the scientific point of view with secular humanism. Kowtowing to mainstream medical science, mainstream psychiatry and mainstream psychology isn't kowtowing to atheism. Many Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus love science, such love isn't restricted to atheists or secular humanists.

Clearly, publicly and unapologetically, Wikipedia is wholly sold out to the academic mainstream. Therefore, inside Wikipedia propaganda for extremist or marginal ideas is done by trolls, misinformed naives, fools and madmen. Such ideas cannot be appreciated by Wikipedia. Most edit wars arise from a profound incapacity to understand what Wikipedia is. Nobody here gives a *** about what you believe (or about what I believe, for that matter). This encyclopedia is based on knowledge, not belief. Nobody here has a problem with newbies, but we do have a problem with cocky tendentious editors.

Theological views upon masturbation are subjective opinions which are neither true nor false. Wikipedia will never say that "masturbation is a sin" would be true, nor will it say that such claim would be false. That's why around here theological views are never on a par with objective facts established through mainstream science. So, we don't consider theological dogmas as true or false, we consider them devoid of truth value. This a religiously neutral encyclopedia, we can't assign truth values to purely theological dogmas since that would mean to endorse or oppose a certain theology, as distinguished from scientific or historical fact. So, we don't endorse purely theological claims, but we do endorse in the voice of Wikipedia broadly academically accepted scientific or historical facts. We don't consider that stuff arrived at through revelations and holy traditions would amount to scientific knowledge. To the same extent that Britannica and Larousse do not claim that Jesus is the acting King of the Universe, nor do they claim that Muhammad would be a false prophet.

There are four primary factors that are used to determine whether evidence amount to scientific knowledge which are whether it has been tested; whether it has been subject to peer review and publication; the known or potential rate of errors; and the degree of acceptance within the scientific community.

— Ajayi Oluwatosin Victor, What does it mean to say that Science knowledge is testable, falsifiable and verifiable?

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. There are two factors which Wikipedians use to determine whether a source is reliable for medical information: WP:MEDRS and WP:FRINGE.

So, to answer the charge, this article is indeed heavily biased for mainstream science, and we will keep it this way.

Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are non-science and Wikipedia will never pretend that the dogmas of those religions would be on an equal par with mainstream science. There is nothing wrong with having a religion, but religions are non-science, so they never establish scientific facts in the voice of the scientific community or of the medical consensus. This article is overwhelmingly based upon the consensus of medical, psychological and sexological researchers, we don't have to ask the clergy in order to know scientific facts. The clergy does not have the power to censor mainstream science, at least as far as it concerns Wikipedia. In science everybody has to play by the rules of science, not those of the theological discourse. Neither the Pope, nor James C. Dobson have the authority to overturn the scientific consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Why it was not removed?

Why did no one delete the painting of the monk after all these years? I thought it would be considered offensive material in Wikipedia since there are a lot of Catholics in Wikipedia who would be shocked to see the painting, the monk is naked and having sex with a woman which is against Catholicism. --Eddiitt0 (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I generally don't care about pictures, but see WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 10:15, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Image is too human centric

This article is too human centric, please Add this image, for illustration of masturbation in animals. 110.137.182.198 (talk) 07:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need this. This topic is mainly regarding humans anyway. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The Definition is Wrong

The definition in the first paragraph is wrong. It excludes sexwork, where the manipulation of one's genitals can be done for profit instead of self-gratification. It could also be forced on a person as a form of humilitation. In short, the goal of the activity should be omitted and only the activity included in the definition.

64.53.222.134 (talk) 12:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of "Traumatic masturbatory syndrome"

• Weak support since WP:MEDRS for and against it are hard to come by. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
  • About "WP:MEDRS against it". First there has to be vidence of it's existance, than something can be discussed. Or in other way every idiot will come up with some new "hypothesis". As I have written higher there was already a discussion and no research appeared since that time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.78.169.5 (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2021

Delete the paragraph about so called "Traumatic masturbatory syndrome"

There was a large discussion about this theme here and the conclusion was that there is no acceptance of this theory.

Also links to the single research works and noname sites do not meet the Wiki criteria 85.174.193.17 (talk) 09:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• It is probably worth a fresh discussion, but the discussion you link to is almost 15 years old, and consensus can change. I think it would require revisiting in an RFC or RFC type discussion. It has two sources (recently updated) instead of one, as it had in 2007. I don't have enough information to have an opinion myself, so I can only speak as to process for removal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Do you really say that some random site "Ask Alice" or something like that can be called "source"? Did you even look at that so called "source"? It only describes the same work from 1998. There is no real new research source since 1998, and that source was already discussed (watch my link upper) and according to that discussion even it's author do not accept it as something serious.
    • I said exactly nothing about the merits. I said you should start a discussion about the edit because the discussion you are using as evidence of consensus is likely too old to be considered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
      • It would be out of date only if there would be any new research. There are no research works since 1998, so the discussion is ok. And even that single work is based on a very small sample (4 observations, according to that discussion). Summarizing what has been said the paragraph should be deleted.
        • That isn't how consensus works here. The status quo is currently inclusion. If you want something removed, you need a discussion is newer than a decade. A new one, perhaps. Anyone can start it, including you, or you can continue to argue, which isn't likely to get you the result you are looking for. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
          • I don't understand your point. There was a discussion, there was a decision, now some noname with account come here write what he/she/it wants and now I have to search for some new data when there can be no new data because there was no new research? I think it is the one who added the paragraph has to search for a new data, and if there is no one - not to publish this paragraph. Or well I could just make an account needed for editing and do all by myself. Don't you feel this is stupid? If the conversation would be in 2015 what would it change? I am not gonna do your work, want to produce delirium - do it, I am tired of local so called "specialists" and their unwillingness to see the point of case.
          • About the discussion. How should it work if nobody will participate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.174.196.69 (talk) 13:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
            • Someone else started it below. But you don't know that "nobody will participate" (and that seems to be proven wrong) until you try. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
              • And? It was almost a month. Is there any effect? Or should write there all the same I have already written? It's stupid. If there was no new research than that discussion is relevant and it does not matter how old it is.

 Note: Closing this request while it's under discussion, per template instructions.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Based on tgeorgescu's reply below, the request, and actually reading that dumb journal article, I've removed the text. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcclendond.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Other sources

Sources for masturbation is healthy. Since I think it is a problem with WP:OVERCITE, I list them here instead of entering them in the article.

There are two sources from Marshall Cavendish, one from Men's Health wherein a full professor speaks, the rest are sex advice from US universities or colleges. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Dancing With Myself?

I don't think Dancing With Myself by Billy Idol is a song about masturbation. I've checked the lyrics (as well as the [article]on this and nowhere does it mention masturbation. The assertion that the song is about masturbation is speculation in my eyes. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.225.61 (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Suggest to delete the post

It is recommended to remove depraved images to protect people from bad influence, especially children and minors! The Catholics Church (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. You might also want to change your username to identify yourself as an individual human being, not a representative of an organization. — The Anome (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I would also recommend for the post to be removed because it may be a teenage male in the first photo that is not an adult Faisv (talk) 21:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The image of which you speak is drawing with an age-indeterminate subject. Not sure of your concern. The only age you can exclude is the elderly, because there are no wrinkles. Peaceray (talk) 01:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

"Touching oneself" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Touching oneself and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 28#Touching oneself until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:06, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Edit request: "Most common technique'"

Male. Is to move the prepuce over the glans. Can that be added please. Thanks Thelisteninghand (talk) 21:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC) Adjusted now. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is this mentioned as a "benefit" ?

"Sexual climax leaves an individual in a relaxed and contented state, frequently followed by drowsiness and sleep."

This is in the "Benefits" section of the article. As far as I can tell, the reason why this is listed as a benefit, is because the citations mention that it can be utilized in good ways. Like being used as a "sleeping pill" However, wouldn't the "drowsiness and sleep" part be rather inconvenient if it was done in the middle of the day when a person needs awareness and wakefulness to do tasks and such? This might be nitpicking, but I have heard some who masturbate compulsively mention this as an issue they experience(d).

I suppose if the effect in question is short-lived, then this is not exactly a negative aspect. I'd like to hear about this. LeonardWKPD (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, we don't go by testimonials, we go by WP:RS. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

In "Risks", this was added: "According to DSM-5-TR, "Delayed ejaculation is associated with highly frequent masturbation, use of masturbation techniques not easily duplicated by a partner, and marked disparities between sexual fantasies during masturbation and the reality of sex with a partner."[112]" But some would see that as a benefit. Maybe the whole sorting of "Health Effects" should be NOT done by "Benefits" or "Risks"? Some of these effects are ambiguous as to risk/reward. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Missing Not added. --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Yup, people who enjoy delayed ejaculation are not those complaining that they suffer of delayed ejaculation. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Should it be one section? Or maybe by "physical", "emotional", and "sexual" ? --Gilgul Kaful (talk) 08:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

• Paingeeri, Jilas (2020-03-16). "What Are the Benefits and Side Effects of Female Masturbation?". Sprint Medical. Retrieved 2023-02-18.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sprintmed (talk • contribs) 09:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Even though this appears on a medical site, it appears to be a blog post by a dental surgeon. I do not think it passes muster as per WP:BLOG & WP:MEDRS. Peaceray (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Can the Images be moved lower down the page?

I understand the case for the somewhat graphic images in this article. I don't think they're inappropriate per se. But would it be possible to move some of the more explicit photos down the page so that the reader doesn't get an eyeful of the real juicy ones the instant they click on the link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.210.106.161 (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello, please see WP:NOTCENSORED. Thanks Blanchey (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

no 2A02:8108:2C0:27C4:6D50:1B5:5D04:6D79 (talk) 20:37, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Manual stimulation?

For my native tongue, I'm having trouble translating "manual sex". In the beginning, I interpreted it to be "sex manual". Can someone show me where in the cited sources "manual sex" is used? Which ones support User:Autisticeditor_20's definition of mutual masturbation? The cited sources use the term "mutual masturbation" and don't split the definition, like Autisticeditor_20 has at multiple articles, including non-penetrative sex. Also, if manual sex broadly includes stimulating oneself or another, it makes Autisticeditor_20's definition even more confusing. "Mutual masturbation" is easier to understand because it automatically indicates the involvement of two people. ~~~~ Javan009 (talk) 12:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the edits, but "manual" is standard English for "performed with the hands": wikt:manual#Etymology 2. This is new to me, but wikt:manual#Etymology 1 suggests that manual, as in a how-to book, is derived from handbook. Johnuniq (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Dear Javan009, is the new source not credible enough? Because I apologize if it is. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Johnuniq. I have a concern that Autisticeditor_20 says that "mutual masturbation" is different than "manual sex". They claim that mutual masturbation "usually means two partners either watching each other stimulate their own genitals or both partners stimulating each other's genitals simultaneously" and that it doesn't refer to a person only fingering another or giving a handjob to another. There's no sources that I've seen for this distinction. In fact, the sources say that fingering and a handjob are both mutual masturbation. There's no requirement that the people must be watching each other while stimulating their own genitals or that both partners must be stimulating each other's genitals simultaneously for this to be called "mutual masturbation." Autisticeditor_20's definition is WP:OR. When I requested a citation for their definition of manual sex at non-penetrative sex, they added a scarleteen.com source. Is that source suitable? Even if it is, it doesn't make the distinction either. Most of the sources use "mutual masturbation". So why change the term to "manual sex", when it seems that support for that term requires sources like scarleteen.com? Autisticeditor 20, what are your explanations? Javan009 (talk) 17:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Please quote some text in an article with a brief statement about why it may be a problem. A difficulty is that there is no central authority that defines terms like "mutual masturbation" and any website with a precise definition is probably very suspect regarding WP:RS. A term like this is very much covered by "it means what I want it to mean". That is, different people will use the term differently. There may be medical references which offer descriptions and advice could be sought at WT:WikiProject Medicine. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand your confusion about manual (adjective), which means, "using the hand", and manual (noun) which means, a guidebook. The manual in this article, uses the meaning "by hand". As far as edits by Autisticeditor_20, I wouldn't worry too much about them. They have been doing a lot of edits lately, which are not an improvement to the article, and which have been reverted. Mathglot (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Mathglot. Is my source for this new section as well as the section itself I created acceptable enough? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Never mind Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Ken R. Wellls

@David Gerard: Wells got published at Healthline, but it is in fact from the Gale Encyclopedia of Children's Health, 2006. I consider that Gale is more reliable than Britannica (more recent content, caters to professionals). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Do we have another copy of the text? 'Cos healthline.com is blacklisted. Or we could just ref the original without a link - David Gerard (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Done. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

excellent, thank you!

I have suggested not using a bot to clear up after Healthline, 'cos it seems the sort of source where every usage is gonna require human judgement. Even as it should really be removed as nowhere near an RS, let alone a MEDRS - David Gerard (talk) 23:03, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Songs about masturbation

"Masturbation Blues" by David Allan Coe 2601:3C3:8300:5D7E:ED55:918F:BDE7:2F79 (talk) 01:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Johann Geiger Portrait of Mutual Masturbation

Is the portrait of the monk offensive to Catholic Wikipedians? --Ernne (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:CENSOR. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

"Knocking one out on your pillow" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Knocking one out on your pillow has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 February 4 § Knocking one out on your pillow until a consensus is reached. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)