Talk:Masturbation/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 13

Does masturbation curve the penis?

See my talk page (I was a teenage wanker) for the candid tell-all story. But this article does not mention that chronic masturbation over a period of years can bend the penis, which is a crime against aesthetic concerns, and can also lead to a diminution in performance. Indeed, one of the photos in the article suggests the subject is suffering from just such a condition, albeit not as severe as it is in some men. In some men the penis virtually bends at 90 degrees. The story of my teenage years tells how I diagnosed and treated myself for this incipient condition, and some months later was rewarded with a tool you could use as a plumb line, or a statue of David or something. All joking aside, this is a matter which has never received the attention it should. Notthere (talk) 05:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Find some reliable sources, and then we can add it. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

actually a curvature of the penis is quite natural, the penis curving is a sign that a male is very relaxed while sexually arosed because when the penis is erect it's actually in a relaxed state. the purpose for a curved penis is infact to stand and deliver. lol thanks TLC and the anatomy of sex.96.3.141.210 (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pictures

Not that I object, but are the pictures of people masturbating really necessary? After all, the vast majority of adolescents and post-adolescents among us know what it looks like! Just wondering... Jubilee♫clipman 01:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe they are necessary. I think it's a case of someone wanting to show off to their friends so they got the pictures added. And ran around screaming "Hey look this is so cool look at how I'm masturbating on wikipedia!". Aaron Myles Landwehr (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, take a look at this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richiex . That is the talk page of the guy who added the picture of his penis. Looks like he has a fetish for getting his penis posted all of the place. So I'm not really sure why it wasn't removed. Aaron Myles Landwehr (talk) 21:30, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of removing these pictures. Wikipedia is not censored, of course, and it's quite probable that a lot of the readers of this article don't know much about masturbation ... many people will reach adulthood without ever learning much about the opposite sex's reproductive anatomy, other than bare essentials, and for that matter some people don't know much about their own. This is an educational article and the pictures in it are educational as well. It would be excessive if we had a whole gallery for pictures like that, but having just one is not doing any harm. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:48, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree the pictures should stay. I don't think the motivation of the individual who uploaded the pictures is actually relevant. The pictures themselves are relevant to the article, of educational value, and of good technical quality. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 03:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed Wikipedia is uncensored. But, I fail to see how some of the pictures are really educational. The one of the woman masturbating is a static image with no motion so it really doesn't convey much about masturbating other than someone touching their genitals. And simply reading the article tells you that particular information and more so exactly what is the picture adding educationally that is missing from a articles text? Visualization of the act? On the same note, I also don't think that the female picture can be described as having good technical quality because it fails to show the reader much information other than it involves touching oneself. On the other hand, the pictures of the penis do convey "better" male masturbation since they show motion through the use of two images. In summation, if we are going to keep the pictures for educational value then they should have more educational value than simply showing a static image of someone with their hand on their stuff because that doesn't really clarify or show something that the text doesn't convey equally well. Aaron Myles Landwehr (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I will concede that the female masturbation photo has somewhat less illustrative and educational value than the 2 photos depicting male masturbation. The conversation above about "cut vs uncut techniques" above makes it clear that the penis pictures do have educational value in this article. The female picture might not impart much information beyond what the reader may already know or learn from reading the text, but it should be noted that even females often don't know what it looks like from that angle. I also think that removing only the female photo might invite accusations of sexism. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The New Scientist link is an April-fool joke. It should be removed. I can't do so since the page is semi-protected. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. A bit of research enabled me to track down the report the New Scientist page is referring to, but because I don't have access to Elsevier journals, I can't view it:

[1]

If you Google for "Ejaculation as a Potential Treatment of Nasal Congestion in Mature Males" you can find lots of references to it. That doesn't mean that the science is correct, but it does seem that it is not a deliberate April Fool's prank. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a case in which it would be proper putting a content disclaimer, since the page certainly falls into the category of things that should be filtered. As you may read: "# 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."
[2] --87.16.65.144 (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Both images are inappropriate for Wikipedia. They should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.146.50.102 (talk) 08:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Videos

Why not add videos, there is for male, and female Markstar (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The female one's not really explicit enough to add anything particularly useful to the article. The male video takes a while to load (or maybe it's just my ancient 'puter that's slow) but does have more illustrative and educational value. In principle I have no objection to the addition of videos. As the box above points out, Wikipedia is not censored. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Contains. The male video in particular is quite educational, it explicitly shows the process in real time. Since Wikipedia is not censored, I support at least considering adding them. 71.113.46.38 (talk) 05:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

i want to ask its masturbation is bad for health or not ? and how many time we can do in one week? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.69.42.3 (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the male video is fine. 72.83.107.212 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Androcentrism

The health and physiological effects section is miserably androcentric. Please organize the info so it's easier for the reader to find info that applies to themself!71.221.251.150 (talk) 00:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

graphic nature of this entry

I understand and accept that wikipedia is not censored, and I do not object to the graphic nature of the pictures posted. However, when I opened an article in wikipedia, i did not expect a penis staring me in the face. Could we put some sort of warning or disclaimer at the top of the page, so that people who don't actually want to see pictures of genitalia can navigate away? 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you'll get used to it: if you look up words like 'Masturbation' in WP, that's exactly the kind of thing you'll see, as we're not censored. --Nigelj (talk) 10:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? You're viewing an article about masturbation. What did you think it would contain? (And if you didn't know, it contains information to educate you.) 72.83.107.212 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Pumping technique"

I found out on the pumping technique that if you continue to keep going, sperm flies out. Should we add this and why does it happn? .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by The hacking master (talk • contribs) 07:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Pic, inappropriate?

The autofellatio pic. No, not because it's graphic, but simply because it's an article on masturbation, and not really that directly relevent. I could see having the pic (or a different one) on the autofellatio page, but is it really needed here? 07:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.226.104.188 (talk)

Music

Pink's song U + UR Hand references masturbation throughout the song —Preceding unsigned comment added by Magicandmyth (talk • contribs) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Pumping technique"

I found out on the pumping technique that if you continue to keep going, sperm flies out. Should we add this and why does it happn? ....

...no this should not be added...--98.21.143.81 (talk) 23:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Common misconception

Insofar as I have seen, there is no sound medical literature to link male masturbation with worsening vision. Still, enough people have heard such a thing that perhaps the Article should mention it as a common misconception. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

You are certainly correct that there is no such link. There are also no links to any of the other purported 'ills' either: buck teeth, stunted growth, premature ejaculation, nocturnal emissions, curly hair, hairy hands... It's always been a disaster to encourage all and sundry to add their own favourite euphemisms, songs, best-evers etc to this article. Have you or anyone else got a definitive statement about any of this in a reliable reference that we can quote and link to? Doing so keeps such sections under control - if it's not in our ref, we can just delete it. My favourite counter-argument remains, "Well, I'm only going to do it until I need glasses". --Nigelj (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that we can have a section on misconceptions about masturbation, as long as we're clear that these things are not actually true. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent songs

I propose that we delete the following unreadable, unwieldy, uncited and therefore unverifiable sentence from the article:

More recent popular songs include "I Touch Myself" by the Divinyls, "Dancing With Myself" by Billy Idol, "Everyday I Die" by Gary Numan,"You're Makin' Me High" by Toni Braxton, "Touch of My Hand" by Britney Spears, "Orgasm Addict" by the Buzzcocks, "Longview" by Green Day, "Wow, I Can Get Sexual Too" by Say Anything, "Fingers" by P!nk, So Happy I Could Die by Lady Gaga, "Masturbating Jimmy" by The Tiger Lillies and "When Life Gets Boring " by Gob.

I have no idea if any or all of these songs are relevant to the subject, or whether people are now just using this well-read article either to slander or to promote their most (or least) favourite bands, or just to add jokes to show that WP is easy to edit. Is anyone going to object to its removal? --Nigelj (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think this might be a relic of an article called List of songs about masturbation, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (5th nomination). No opinion on whether it's verifiable or not; lots of songs are deliberately ambiguous in lyrics, but some aren't. —Soap— 21:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I didn't know about that AfD. It seems to me that all the reasons given for deletion in that discussion apply here to our sentence. I see listcruft, tivia, original research, unreferenced... all true here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference for Fingers for now. Would a hidden note stating that any new additions must be referenced help? There may be some original research issues with interpretation of song lyrics, but I don't think anyone would question whether songs with titles like I Touch Myself and Masturbating Jimmy refer to masturbation. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 04:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Image removed

For several reasons, I have removed this image for the second time:

File:Masturbation art.jpg

Image of a man, masturbating.

This article is a target for people adding their own personal masturbation images, and I think this is another case of the same thing.

In general we pick images for this article from the Mediawiki Commons. Editors adding their own creative works is highly discouraged, and is seen as wp:OR. In general, editors should add material from reliable sources, and not contribute their own original ideas or artwork.

The second problem with the image is that the article already has too many images IMO, and another image of a male masturbating is not needed. The image offered, a work of art, a pixelized photo it would seem, lacks clarity and so it is very hard to see what is going on. The purpose of a good image in the article is for the reader to quickly have an idea of the topic at a glance. I don' feel that this applies to the image offered in this case. The image, not pointilism, but possible a photo reworked with Photoshop is more abstract. Abstract art lacking clarity of detail may have artistic value for some, but doesn't add clarity to the topic of the article.

I believe the person adding the image to the article is the author/creator of the image, a new editor userMaximus Artisticus, who also has contributed another of his own images File:Anal masturbation with dildo.jpg to the anal masturbation article. He may be the subject in both images as far as I can tell.

I mean no personal offense to the contributor, but we could easily gather a gallery of hundreds of self created masturbation photos in this article if we were not selective.

If we were do feel that yet another male masturbation photo was needed (and personally, I don't), then we could choose any of the images below that would show the topic with better clarity Atom (talk) 04:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• 
• File:Jerk-off.jpg
• File:MaleMasturbation.jpg
• 
• 
• File:Sexuality men.jpg
• File:Flesh0.jpg
• File:HNI 0065.JPG

A disclaimer and custodial records

Last time I checked any form of sexual content (especially explicit photos) had to have a disclaimer that says only 18 year old can view this page and also that custodial records must be kept showing that everyone photographed is 18. So the pictures may come into question by current US laws. So how is Wikipedia's policy towards current laws. One other note I am questioning if the photos are original research.--118.91.39.193 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you not think that if there was a problem then it would have been addressed by now. You probably should look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#Applicable Law. Wikipedia is produced by the members and according to that section it would be up to the person uploading the picture to make sure they have the necessary documentation. As for viewing would the law not differentiate between images intended to titillate and those used for educational purposes? something lame from CBW 05:11, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

No it is just noone has reported it yet. Furthermore, many websites that allow user submitted content still have to keep custodial records and have been shut down for not doing so. In addition, a disclaimer is needed because of the explicit photos. Even nude art sites have disclaimers to show that the sites are specifically for adults. I hope this page is specifically marketed towards adults because if it is not then Wikipedia would be marketing adult material towards children, which would violate the Protect Act. In addition, you have not addressed the possibility that the photos themselves are original research.--118.91.39.193 (talk) 06:24, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the online/offline fuss about one particular image, File:Virgin Killer.jpg which was not removed, I find the idea that nobody has reported Wikipedia for all the other images hard to believe. I'm also a bit surprised that Wikipedia's general counsel, User:MGodwin, hasn't bothered to bring it up. I take it you are a lawyer, and are much more versed in this than User:MGodwin? Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Volunteer response team and direct your concerns there. Anyway, why do you feel that any of the images are OR? I think that it's kind of sad that the US laws can't tell the difference between pornography and File:Michelangelos David.jpg. When I was a kid, 11 or 12, in the late 1960s in the UK I had a Ladybird Books. The book was aimed at young people, was about the human body and included four drawings of naked people, male and female adults and children. The book was on sale openly and could be purchased by anyone. Of course at that age I would not have been able to purchase what were then called "skin" or "nature" magazines. something lame from CBW 14:06, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It is a general policy of the Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons where images are held, that these are not censored for minors. The Commons does adhere to the law as it applies in Florida. I believe the law mentioned in the sexology image guidelines was considered a problem for a while until it got thrown out by the US courts. These guidelines have never been accepted and are just a discussion document, unfortunately one that has grown out of date since they were last seriously edited. Some people who come across these pages are upset that they are accessible by the young: they should not be; educational material is not adult; people need access to safe sex information before they start to experiment. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the claim that this is for educational purposes. The use of sexually explicit photos (not drawings) can not be claimed as educational purposes unless it is teaching or training something. Even then since Wikipedia is not an authority figure like a doctor or another expert, then the claim of educational purposes can be shot down. If I was to have a blog that was complete with sexually explicit photos and have knowledge minors will access it, my site can violate the Protection Act. See since this is an encyclopedia then one can be pretty sure that minors will go on for research. To play it safe it may be an option to stick to drawings, with these at least it has been verified by the court that this is protected speech plus many science books use only drawings. Furthermore, I can make the claim the photos are original research.--118.41.30.102 (talk) 09:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't this discussion be more fruitful at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not where policy such as WP:NOTCENSORED can be discussed with people who have the legal background? Here, we just follow policy - if you want the policy changed, this is not the place. --Nigelj (talk) 10:07, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You are discussing your legal theory about Wikipedia, and this is not the ideal place for that as Nigelj said. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is, indeed considered to be a valid educational tool as well as a reference. It does not claim to be authoritative, nor to be "expert" in nature, and does not need to in order to succeed at being encyclopedic. Also, "sexually explicit" is not a legally meaningful term. What you may mean to say is that you feel that it fits the legal definition of "obscene". I assure you that it does not meet the Florida definition of obscene, nor the Federal statue definition of obscene. Both are dominated by the Miller test. There are in fact many images on Wikipedia that are sexually explicit though, and the ones that I am aware of also are legally acceptable, and are not obscene. There are no federal or Florida laws that prohibit minors from seeing either nude images or sexually explicit material.

The now defunct and unconstitutional Child Online Protection Act[3] which would not have prohibited these images for minors. It was based on the also defunct and unconstitutional Communications Decency Act, which also would not have prohibited these images. In COPA, IMO, the key element is that it prohibited "...makes any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any material that is harmful to minors shall be fined not more than...". Their definition of harmful: " The term “material that is harmful to minors” means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is obscene or that—

(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;

(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

That section C part is the Miller test I referred to earlier.

The reason that this law is unconstitutional is largely because the definition of "community standards" is too broad and undefinable.

Articles on Wikipedia, including this article, have literary, artistic, political and scientific value. To fail the Miller test, someone would need to demonstrate that Wikipedia as a whole (or possibly the article as a whole) failed to demonstrate having any literary, artistic, political or scientific value. With more than three million articles in English, with nearly every article demonstrating one or more of those traits, that would seem unlikely.

Also, I will point out that Wikipedia is not a Communications provider, as listed in that bill. Also, the problem that it would be extremely difficult to show that Wikipedia was "harmful to minors". On top of that, Wikipedia does not make its information available "for commercial purposes."

Honestly, do you think that, taken as a whole, that Wikipedia "is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest"? Or taken as a whole, "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors"?

Even from the limited perspective of this one article, do you think those things apply?

Atom (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

This is simple. Sexually explicit photos have been defined for the purpose to apeal to or pander to the sexual gratification of another. This can be scientifically and legally proven. The use of sexually explicit photos does not have literary, artistic, politicial, or scientific value for minors. If that was true pornography, which is considered by a lot of people as an art, would be an artistic value for minors. Still the government says no one shall market that material towards children. That is why pornography sites have a disclaimer saying "this is intended for adults, if you are not please close immediately." Sure it is still accessible by a minor but at least there is a disclaimer that states it is intended for adults. This disclaimer gives legal protection against prosecution. As Wikipedia does not put disclaimers, then they can be subject to prosecution. As for the custodial records, all sites with sexually explicit photos have to have custodial records, which Wikipedia does not also. You are welcome to look this up for yourself.--118.41.30.102 (talk) 07:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This can be scientifically and legally proven. is simply false. I think this is just a case of Wikipedia:I just don't like it. That said, I do disagree with using photographs to illustrate sexual acts if other good illustrations are available: such photographs are associated with disreputable parts of the web and the associations can carry over in the mind of the viewer. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

You state your legal theory of what "Sexually Explicit" photos are, and yet that does not agree with Florida state, or Federal law. It does not agree with Wikipedia policies. The point of the Miller test is that if the photo has literary, artistic, political or scientific value, it is inherently *not* obscene. You try and turn it around to say that if a photo "appeals or panders to the sexual gratification of another" that this makes it inherently obscene, and therefor lacking in literary, artistic, political or scientific value. The reason that we have the first amendment is to protect us from people like you.

The reason that pornography sites have a disclaimer warning is that they are marketing pornography. Their custodial records are required by 18 USC 2256 and 2257, the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act is to protect against child pornography. It specifies record-keeping requirements for those wishing to produce sexually explicit media, and imposes criminal penalties for failure to comply. This is intended to ensure that no person under the legal age is involved in such undertakings. None of these rules apply to Wikipedia at this time, as Wikipedia does not produce sexually explicit material for commercial purposes, and does not allow sexually explicit photographs of minors, even though Wikipedia is not censored.

You say that Wikipedia does not have disclaimers, although there is a disclaimer link on the bottom of every single page of Wikipedia. (See Disclaimers) On that General Disclaimer page is a link to the Risk Disclaimer, the Medical Disclaimer, the Legal Disclaimer and the Content Disclaimer. The content disclaimer, among other things, warns "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." The images in this article are scientific in nature, educational, and include pictures of human anatomy. Atom (talk) 01:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Atom you don't believe actual photos of masturbation is sexually explicit photos. I am sorry to say they are sexually explicit and so you said yourself that the disclaimer is used for that purpose. Also, Wikipedia itself is targeted for minors. In addition, you say that Wikipedia does not have child pornography photos. I do believe there is a photo of a real prepubescent child nude (not an illustration) that is in bondage with the title "Virgin Killer". Which recently Wikipedia archived so no more comments could be made. --211.220.23.15 (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Defining masturbation

I can totally imagine, and sympathize with, the probable reasons for locking the article. But before an article is locked, it ought to be at least triple-checked for painfully obvious clumsiness of style or ideas, like that shown in the definition offered in the article's very first sentence: "Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, often to the point of orgasm." In fact, of course, masturbation refers to something notably--and this is the point of the word--more narrow than that: among the many, many varieties of "sexual stimulation of a person's genitals, often to the point of orgasm", there is that stimulation we call "sexual intercourse." However that's defined (ordinariy, I'd guess, as something like "stimulation of the genitals through male insertion of the penis into the female reproductive tract"), "sexual intercourse" is precisely what masturbation is most essentially defined against. As the definition in the first sentence stands, "masturbation" is asserted to include sexual intercourse, along with all the other, valid (actually "masturbatory") manners of "stimulation of a person's genitals..."

Will somebody please, please fix the problem? And, before precluding edits to a page--make very, very sure that this kind of awkwardness doesn't occur? Thanks. (Sorry to sound like a jerk--but it is, after all the opening sentence, which is customarily where you want to make super-sure that you make a good impression, as by get things right... it may require a little intellectual exertion, but hardly mental acrobatics, to actually phrase a correct (narrower) definition.)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.161.14.221 (talk • contribs)

I added non-penetrative.--Patrick (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

And I removed it. Female techniques mentions insertion of both fingers and vibrators/dildoes.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

NHS Sheffield pamphlet

Does anyone have a link to the actual pamphlet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tisane (talk • contribs)

This was originally added with a normal signature but it did not appear due to a glitch caused by an unclosed "gallery" tag. —Soap— 10:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Tisane, although the media coverage it generated is noted in this report of theirs, http://www.sheffield.nhs.uk doesn't seem to have a downloadable copy on it that I can find. --Nigelj (talk) 22:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Premature ejaculation

"The origin of PE lies in teen age masturbation which causes over sensitization of Penile nerves(which takes the sexual nervous reflexes from penis to brain and vice versa)" Dr Anil Kumar MBBS DPM http://www.laksuwa.com/laksuwa/content/use-screw-technique-complete-control-premature-ejaculation-without-medicines

Could we add this to the article?

Another thing that ought to be added, is the dangers of TMS (Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome). It afflicts an estimated 5% of the male population, and isn't even mentioned on the article. TMS is essentially the result of masturbating while prone. Here is a reference: http://www.healthystrokes.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ogre44444 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I came here specifically to find out whether TMS is "real" or not. It certainly seems so. It's crazy that there absolutely no mention of it here. 218.251.42.248 (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

"Problems for males" section

"Also, in males, excessive masturbation may lead to impotence or weak erections" None of the sources for this ludicrous-sounding claim are in any way scholary. A Chinese Acupuncture book talking about the "gate of life"? A website selling "herbal-remedy's" for all health problems ever known to mankind? wtf? With such sources the sentence should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.185.201.66 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I removed the last two sources, since they were clearly not medical authorities, but I would rather hold off for someone who has more than a Google Books snippet view to speak about the others. However, if no one shows up before long, they should be removed too (and with it the sentence they are being used to support). —Soap— 22:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

None of those sources meet WP:RS for such extraordinary medical advice. If such research were to come to light in mainstream medicine, those are not the places we would find it published and discussed. The sentence and its sources were added by one user on 8 - 9 May this year, and I didn't notice them at the time. I've removed it. Thanks for the heads-up. --Nigelj (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead links

many of the source-links are 404, please remove them --79.224.250.121 (talk) 21:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent research

I'm surprised that there is no reference to the recent research by a team from Edinburgh University in collaboration with UCLA. I think the guy leading it as a Prof. Winkman or Winkelman (?). Aparently there is something behind the old wives tale that masturbation produces hair growth on the palms of hands - except it's not the palms it's the fore-arms. They studied 100 women who used their fingers to masturbate more than 5 times a week and found "above average" hair growth compared to two control groups - women who used vibrators and women who claimed not to masturbate. I think the hypothesis was that there was a connection between excessive short jerky movements of the hand and nearby follicle growth. someone should look into this. Valuarr (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

'Normal' or 'regular'?

Made a small edit from "is known between normal masturbation" to "is known between regular masturbation" in the second paragraph of the introduction. The word "normal" leaves open the interpretation that there is a such a thing as "abnormal masturbation," and that such masturbation may be bad for one's health. LogosDiablo (talk) 03:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed that there is a section for this type of explanation when the edit is being made. Apologies. LogosDiablo (talk) 03:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. That's OK. I had a good look and removed the word altogether. Are you aware that 'regular' has a different meaning or usage in UK English compared to American English? It doesn't matter because both meanings are unnecessary in this sentence: There is no evidence of masturbation causing mental illness, whether or not it is: 'regular' in the sense of normal, not weird or unusual (AmE); or 'regular' meaning according to a repeating schedule, not just whenever you fell like it(BrE). The whole of section 6: Health and psychological effects is about this and is fully referenced. --Nigelj (talk) 08:35, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikification needed

It is stated in various places in this article that masturbation is viewed as an acceptable practice. I propose that these statements be changed to state that masturbation is accepted my many cultures, religions, and societies, though not all. As others have said, I feel this article seems to sell masturbation and advertise it as a healthy and acceptable practice that everyone should adopt. I don't suggest that the information promoting masturbation be removed. Rather, I advise that it be made clear throughout the article that this acceptance of masturbation is not unanimous. Information on the views of cultures unaccepting of masturbation is very brief and also needs to be made more thorough to help balence this out. WP is here to inform, not advertise popular beliefs. We need thorough amounts of creditable information to support all views on the subject. A lack of information implies that it doesn't exist, in this case, falsely.Sk8r dan man (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any WP:V verifiable WP:RS reliable sources that tell us exactly which cultures and societies regard masturbation as unhealthy? Have a look at those two links to see what kind of sources are useful and why. Also have a look at Religious views on masturbation (as linked from Masturbation#Religious views) as some of what you are looking for may be covered in more detail there, and just briefly summarised here, per WP:SIZE. --Nigelj (talk) 11:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

To Sk8r, could you give examples of passages in which you feel that there is bias? Youre right that we shouldnt be inserting opinions, but Im not seeing any of that in the main text other than possibly the very short cultural attitudes section. —Soap— 10:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Masturbation by either sex is strictly forbidden. Some men who masturbate lost their hand and forearm due to nerve damage, a neurological condition. That is why some people say they should have their right hand amputated because it looks grotesque. The damage is irreversable. Now for women the same condition can arise but it is much more rare since usually two women masturbate together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.67.134.92 (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There's not a sentence of your reply which doesn't have a serious problem. Who strictly forbids masturbation? Can you give me details of these men whose nerves are damaged? Who is saying they should have their right hand amputated? What reason do you have for believing that women masturbate in pairs more often than alone? The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

plzz..tell about the actual figures,that a boy/girl can masterbate in a week or month.After knowing the actual figure which can not harm the guys,they are not suffering from the harms of masterbation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.200.70.112 (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, fix of a dead link, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 15 # ^ Koedt, Anne (1970). "The Myth of the Vaginal Orgasm". Chicago Women's Liberation Union. http://www.cwluherstory.org/classic-feminist-writings/myth-of-the-vaginal-orgasm.html. Retrieved 2006-07-29. [dead link] I found the page if you want to fix the link, http://www.cwluherstory.org/myth-of-the-vaginal-orgasm.html 128.113.251.71 (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. —Soap— 12:42, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

images?

um, i think that showing images of a woman masturbating is technically porn. I mean, people who are getting off by going to wikipedia... signed by DrStrangelove64 —Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC).

We have a Porn section if it interests you. This is an encyclopedia of human knowledge. --mboverload@ 01:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Um Ok, so a woman masturbatins is porn but a man masturbating is not? Use your logic, gay men and women get off on naked images of men just like gay women and men get off on images of naked women. Besides to pull one and not the other is one sidedness. Both images or neither, and i would prefer both because it shows act which this article is about. Naked women and men are not porn until it is on a porn site. To refer to all images of naked women as porn is demeaning to the naked female form. Just as many kinds of porn can be demeaning. They should not show men and hide women, it implies their is something to be ashamed of. There is not anything to be ashamed of. -sixshooter500 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.40.204.208 (talk) 01:14, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This image needs a disclaimer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2257 if the page is going to be accessed in the United States.66.223.147.56 (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would we need a disclaimer when this is not pornographic material? This is purely educational thus no record keeping requirements are needed. Dreammaker182 (talk) 04:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Wiki is one of those sites run by people who just want to do whatever they think will "shock" the Establishment. Having pictures of people masturbating isn't doing anything to enhance the article; they're just there to be of "shock" value. Yes, wiki does have a pornography section, which proves wiki is more about shock than important knowledge. No credible encyclopedia whose intention is substantive knowledge would have an entire section devoted to pornography. I do not mean pornography as a concept but the pornography industry. Wiki just promotes pornography, having pages and links to pornographic material and actors. Are any of those actors of note, for example, that they need their own wiki page? Of course not. But this is an "encyclopedia" which devotes pages to swear words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.20.5.177 (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. You can find plenty of information about masturbation under the Human sexuality article in the Encyclopedia Britannica (the de facto standard for print encyclopedias). They don't have pictures, but then the EB doesn't tend to have pictures for anything else either unless it's absolutely necessary, because in a print encyclopedia, saving space is extremely important. —Soap— 12:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I must agree that graphic images (especially "Masturbating with a vibrator.jpg") are needlessly graphic and titillating. Wikipedia is commonly used by middle- and high-schoolers who should not be subjected to these graphics under normal circumstances. If wikipedia insists on allowing graphic sexual images, then there should be at minimum a warning on the header of the entry that warns viewers of graphic content. Google has a "safe search" option. Until a more family-friendly image policy is instituted, perhaps wikipedia should do the same. Mr.brad.goodwin (talk) 23:02, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Period. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The graphic images should be altered. The images do not add any value to the article. Where images are needed, it would be best to follow the standard exhibited by all of the other sexuality pages which is to use animated models or drawings. The "not censored" policy is intended to prevent information from being censored, not to be a banner for shocking content that is relevant to the article in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmodcm (talk • contribs) 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Text

I am not sure who wrote it, but I think that the first sentence, if you can call it that, under "Techniques" should be removed. The offending sentence is as follows, "YOU FUCKING WIERD ASS SICKOS GO GET LAID PERVERTS."Scholar121 (talk) 02:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Odd the vandalism was 2 days and reverted almost instantly yet you were able to see it. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 10:00, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was just looking at the page and the offending sentence is still there. It really is a shame that someone would make such a comment on what is an otherwise well thought out and non-offensive article. I can only hope that this person who apparently has such low self esteem that they must put done those who, as they are obviously not, are comfortable with their own bodies and value their sexual health can get help.

No scientific evidence connecting mental disturbance with masturbation

I believe that statement is in error. I think a while ago it was found that masturbation in inappropriate situations often occurs in children and teenagers suffering from reactive attachment disorder. Could someone check that?--213.196.219.163 (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The text reads: "There is no scientific evidence of a causative relationship between masturbation and any form of mental disorder. Excessive or compulsive sexual behavior is generally understood to be a symptom rather than a cause." Your statement that people "suffering from" a disorder tend to masturbate in "inappropriate situatuion" does not contradict that statement.--IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that sentence, wouldn't it be simpler to say, "There is no scientific evidence of masturbation causing any form of mental disorder"? --Nigelj (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

POV

Wikipedia is meant to be an enyclopaedia, recording matters without condemnation or endorsement. The definition refers to masturbation as having "been celebrated in art worldwide since prehistory. While there was a period (spanning between the late 18th and early 20th centuries) when it was subject to medical censure and social conservatism, it is considered a normal part of healthy life today". This is very POV and ostentatiously promoting the practise, as well as using "social conservatism" inaccurately (it wasn't just conservatives who felt masturbation was both wrong and sick). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 01:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you prove that? We would need to see some kind of reliable verification of your claims in order to add it into the main text of this article or that of History of masturbation. —Soap— 02:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Er…yeah, no. Sorry, Mr/s self-righteous anti-gay not very bright (or willfully-obtuse) anonymous IP editor, but this—like all other legitimate encyclopædias—is based on facts and science, not religious fairytales. You're certainly entitled to believe whatever you will, but your belief in dogma does not imbue it with veracity or render it factual. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Pornography is only for men?

Under male masturbation it says that men might also "enhance their fantasy" by watching pornography, however due to the absence of this in the female part it seems that pornography is a "men only" thing. The wording could be better too, although pleasantly unoffensive and subtle I think pornography can also provide the fantasy or even be considered as being at the scene (not even participating in it actively). Pornography relating to masturbation should probably get its own section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.53.113.198 (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Harmful effects

Why is there no specific section dedicated to the harmful effects of masturbation as there is to the beneficial effects? For instance, most professional male athletes are forbidden to masturbate by their trainers before a match because masturbation weakens the strength of the body. Additionally, many people describe a weakened sense of mental ability subsequent to masturbation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

These assertions need reliable medical sources before they can be added to the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

And, 71.190.195.15 (talk · contribs), because the "harmful effects" of masturbation are completely fictional, no such reliable support will be forthcoming. And that is why there is no specific section dedicated to the "harmfull effects" of masturbation. This is an encyclopædia, not a book of fairytales. Also, new comments go at the bottom of a talk page, not at the top, and we pick one- to three-word section head titles, not complete sentences that screw up the TOC and page format. Please behave coöperatively, thanks. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann; You are very rude. I would hardly call the work of Samuel-Auguste Tissot fairytales and he is portrayed negatively without citing sources. There are many obvious negative side effects from excessive ejaculation (which can be done through excessive masturbation). I am not going to waist time arguing with you, just another House MD wannabe jerk off loser. You obviously have not read any of Gerald Schroeder's work, or you would not be equating dogmatism to fairytailes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 00:03, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly care what you think of what you perceive to be my manners. What you think is "obvious" is irrelevant to this facts-based encyclopædia we're writing, because the standard for inclusion of material on Wikipedia isn't what we know (or believe, or prefer, or think we understand of what we've read) but what we can prove and support with citations of reliable sources. I am delighted you've no plans to argue. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann: Sources can be brought from anywhere. I brought one from Samuel-Auguste Tissot (I could also bring from Maimonides or Schroeder) that you chose to ignore or downplay. The vast majority of sources quoted on wikipedia are from websites that are sketchy at best. All that matters is how many and how dedicated people are to have their beliefs heard. Looking at your history, you are obviously more dedicated to this website than I am, so this page will remain the way you like it. Good luck, because beyond wikipedia you probably don't have much going for you.....and House MD won't be on tv forever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.190.195.15 (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Gosh, anonymous IP editor, I thought you said you weren't going to argue. Are you saying you've changed your mind? If so, you'll have to come up with something a lot more relevant than an ignorant 18th-century view. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Excessive Masturbation: Myths and Warnings

There appear to be numerous references on the web along the lines that "excessive" masturbation (especially among teenage boys) can cause real and long lasting erectile dysfunction (as opposed to the penis simply getting tired). Is there any truth to these warnings, or are they simply modern variations of the going blind/hairy palms myths? Given the widespread nature of these warnings, I wonder if the truth, whatever it is, should be specifically mentioned in the article.

I also notice this sentence in the introduction: "Excessive stimulation can result in over production of sex hormones and neurotransmitters such as acetylcholine, dopamine and serotonin.". This, too, sounds like some form of warning, but there is no mention of what the consequences of this over production might be. Mandolamus (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The content was sourced to 4-men.org, which is not a reliable source for medical information. In accordance with Wikipedia's very strict guidelines, I've removed it. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. —Soap— 18:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

100% support the removal. The 4-men.org page doesn't even cite the supposed study. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I also support the removal. I have done extensive study on this subject on the Web and in print books (as well as through formal education). While excessive masturbation is often problematic, it is extremely difficult to diagnose in young people. In addition, the so-called "effects" of excessive masturbation are often incorrect on many websites including the one listed above. The real problems with excessive masturbation have to do with psychological issues when it comes to relationships or lack of them. What most people do not realize is that excessive masturbation, if compulsive, is a sexual addiction. There is no differentiation between sexual orgasm and masturbatory orgasm when it comes to physiological effects on the body (i.e., neurotransmitters). There has never been a conclusive study on the issue of excessive masturbation to my knowledge when it comes to masturbation in and of itself. It is also important to remember that certain things can be the cause of excessive masturbation rather than the effect. This is true for most of the hormonal issues that are often quoted in texts. APatcher (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Photos needed?

i believe a description of what masturbation is should be sufficient to explain it. as in child pornography does not need photos to explain it. What we seem to have here is exhibitionists that want their private acts viewed in public. I move, that the photos are removed from this section. Overseer19XX (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

allow me to clarify, the three photos i am referring to are the ones under technique, female, and male. those are considered hardcore pornography and are unnecessary in this entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Overseer19XX (talk • contribs) 22:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You personally may consider the images "hardcore pornography", but that doesn't make them so. Wikipedia's standard for inclusion of images is not what you personally believe or prefer; we work by consensus here. I notice you are a new editor with very few edits made as yet. There's nothing wrong with that; we've all got to start somewhere, but by all appearances (your user page, your comments here and elsewhere) you appear to be on something of a crusade, That's not how we do things here.If you feel you can make a solid case, based on Wikipedia protocol and precedent, that the photos should be removed, by all means make your well-referenced case here on the talk page and let's see how the consensus develops. But if you are on a crusade, be advised you will not gain much of any traction with it; Wikipedia has robust mechanisms and protocols to limit the damage to the project that results from crusaders. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

If i make a vaild point, there is nothing wrong with a person with a mission. If we did not each have a reason to be here, none of us would be here.please keep your responses limited to the discussion at hand, this is not a forum. What is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_pornography, exactly what it says it is. Hardcore pornography is a form of pornography that features explicit sexual acts. masturbation is such an act. I move for removal, based on these facts. so far unopposed.Overseer19XX (talk) 13:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I base the argument for removal on two facts. First it fits the description of hardcore pornography listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardcore_pornography.Hardcore pornography is a form of pornography that features explicit sexual acts. Second it violates this law,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_by_region#Restriction "Pornographic materials may not be made available to minors." Seeing as how there is no protection of the photo's from minors it violates the laws of Flordia in the USA.Overseer19XX (talk) 17:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Masturbation is masturbation. It is your view that masturbation is "an explicit sexual act." I won't argue that masturbation isn't a sexual act and I doubt anyone will. However, what remains is that "explicit" is hardly defined, and images depicting masturbation are not necessarily pornography even though you view them as such. I may be going out on a limb here, but I feel fairly confident based on Scheinwerfermann's comment above you have opposition already. I will further this by making my own view of the matter official. I oppose this motion on the grounds that these images are being used for the purpose of illustrating the concept at hand and are thus not pornographic. Lost on Belmont (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Overseer, if you have a look through the talk page archives you'll see that this has been dicussed before and consensus has been to keep the photos, which are deemed educational rather than pornographic. I don't think it's likely that consensus will swing the other way now, although I absolutely respect your right to ask. You should be aware that, according to very firmly established policy, wikipedia is not censored. The question for editors to consider is whether the pictures add anything of value to the article, and I believe that they do and thus ought to stay. As to the legal issues, that's someone else's problem: the Wikimedia Foundation has access to expert legal advice, and if they thought the photos or their usage were illegal they would act accordingly. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 18:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

By your own link you have stated "Content that is judged to violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, or that violates other Wikipedia policies (especially neutral point of view) or the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will also be removed." As i have stated, pornography must not be made accessible to minors. perhaps we should define explicit? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explicit 1

a : fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent <explicit instructions> b : open in the depiction of nudity or sexuality <explicit books and films> Overseer19XX (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Images are permitted and encouraged if they are relevant and provide visual information, both of which the images in this article are. Who do we protect by removing the images? If a minor is looking at an article about masturbation, then it is entirely within the scope of probability that that minor is capable of looking at a website containing pornography. Actually, if anything, a lack of images here may even encourage minors to look elsewhere (i.e. on porn sites) if they were simply curious to see an image of masturbation. --TBM10 (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

MY personal thinking of what might bring a child to an encyclopedia, be it an online one, is pure curiosity. Perhaps an 8 year old child heard the word at school. Comes to Wikipedia, as many children will do, and looks it up. A description would be sufficient in an encyclopedia. If they so wish to go out looking for pornography they can, but i doubt they would come here to find it. However you have not countered the law regarding children being prevented from viewing, as that alone is reason enough to remove the images. Overseer19XX (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The opening line of Wikipedia's own article on pornography describes it as "the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction." The images in this article are not portrayed for the purpose of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction, therefore they are not pornographic. --TBM10 (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Because it is not intended to produce a response, it is no less pornographic. the line needs to be drawn, i say we draw it at art, and leave it there. You do not need photos of an act to demonstrate the act.Overseer19XX (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As previously mentioned, there have already been countless discussions on this and agreed consensus to keep the images despite individuals such as yourself desperate to censor something which is not censored by design. There is much more harmful content out there than Wikipedia's masturbation article, so please let's just leave it there. --TBM10 (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a perennial discussion on multiple such topics. People for using the pictures will mostly argue using Wikipedia's policies, most often WP:CENSOR. People against the pictures will usually do no more than claim the moral high ground. We thank you for your concern, Overseer19XX, but this is not going anywhere.--Atlan (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of computer programs available for parents to obtain that prevent young children from accessing pages like this. One of them is called Net Nanny. There are many others. Additionally, masturbation is almost a universal experience. The vast majority of children have fondled their genitals, even at very young ages. There is nothing here that a child will not eventually and naturally experience in their lifetime. It is unfair to compare the masturbation page to the child-porn page. Obviously they won't post pictures of child-porn. It's an illegal activity, and it is not a universal experience. Hard-core porn and the other examples of pages that do not offer pictures are also not universal realities.

The presence of children on the Internet is not a justifiable reason for censorship or for changing policy within this article. The United States Supreme Court has made a ruling on this issue. I realize Wikipedia is a world-wide site, but I think the U.S. Supreme Court ruling had more time and research put into it compared to other jurisdictions. To paraphrase, the ruling stated that not everything on the Internet should be made suitable for children. The Internet does not broadcast like television and radio. For a person to reach a topic, they must actively click a link or investigate the keyword on a search engine.

If the child has been tricked to come to this page, then the place where the trickery is taking place should be held responsible. APatcher (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Their are probobly plenty of people who want to read the article for academic purpuses but can't becouse of the uglieness of the immages, in that sence thay probobly do more do dicorage education, than educate.--J intela (talk) 10:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should get some immages of decapitation for the exicution article or of human vivisection for that article, thiers a point beyound which immages are simply unessery and only serve to repell.--J intela (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

For that matter whay dont we show detailed immages of abortion in that article, it is not about cencorship or protecting minors it is about teasts and respecting others sensibilities even if you think them Irrational. I don't wish to have to see those immages and I'm soure you wouldn't wish to see immages of human vivisection.--J intela (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If an academician, researching this topic, cannot disregard pictures they don't like, I would advise them to try another profession. What it really sounds like is that you don't like the pictures and are fishing for a reason--any reason--to exclude them. Thankfully, that is not likely to work here. I hate censorship--in any form--and I'm so glad Wikipedia doesn't allow someone else to decide what I can and cannot see!

And, J intela, I don't think pictures of judicial decapitations would be a bad thing. Human (or animal) dissection (human vivisection would be illegal, BTW) might be interesting--and more educational than drawings--in certain situations, too. Hell, in school, I used to eat my lunch while dissecting. It's not for everyone but it didn't bother me (or most of my Anatomy labmates) one bit.

I won't force anyone to look at something they don't want to see, but I'll defend to my dying breath my right to see what I want to see and read what I want to read. And, with all due respect, I'll thank you to keep your nose out of my reading/viewing list.

By the way, I could figure out all your spelling save "teasts". What is that? — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 12:45, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much. Overseer, you're defining a phrase according to your personal taste (sorry, teasts), and demanding the entire site adopt it. The point of pornography is to sexually excite the viewer, and it's laughable to say that doesn't matter. It seems you're balking at the idea of displaying nude humans being touched for any reason. --King Öomie 15:02, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Are the photos really necessary?

Considering Wikipedia is popular site which is most certainly used by minors, it has nothing to do with censorship. I just don't think its right images should be so freely exposed to so many on the World Wide Web. I appreciate where an image is available which demonstrates what the article is about, then it should be on the page - but I find this distasteful and bordering on needless. I wouldn't mind if it was just nudity but I'm surprised it doesn't fit into the category of a sexual act, so how are they allowed to be on this page? Stevo1000 (talk) 15:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it has everything to do with censorship. If you look around, you'll find that there are plenty of illustrations of sexual acts as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:06, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

There is some talk about putting up an image filter that people could opt in to: m:Image filter referendum. —Soap— 02:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Additional terms in lede

Nmatavka (talk · contribs), the terms you added (twice) to the lede may have been used historically, but they are certainly not neutral and are quite inflammatory in the here-and-now world. Moreover, your assertion that self-pollution is a "valid medical term" will need a great deal of reliable support that I doubt you will find. If you would like to contribute discussion of these terms to the article, find or start an appropriate subsection within the article where they can be explicated in their historical, etymological, and cultural context. Proceed thoughtfully and discuss your proposed changes here on the talk page before making them; this what we're working on is a highly-charged topic and unilateral changes of the type you made are generally short-lived. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm actually thinking it would be interesting to mention the language used historically to describe masturbation, which tells us a lot about cultural attitudes. Some dictionaries from the early 20th century define masturbation as "self-abuse" and/or "self-pollution" (I think the latter makes it sound like some sort of substance abuse) without explaining the matter any further!

I'm not really sure where this information best fits into the article though. Maybe the section "Euphemisms" could be headed "Euphemisms and dysphemisms" and could include these terms. Contains Mild Peril (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I think self-abuse is still a euphemism in origin even if we don't think of it that way today. Actually, even masturbation is probably a euphemism in origin, so maybe we could just discuss all of the words and come up with a different title for the section. —Soap— 12:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm…how do you reckon masturbation to be a euphemism…? It's of Latin derivation, and seems to have rather non-euphemistic roots. Perhaps rather than a Euphemisms section, what we need is a Terminology section. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Masturbari ("to excite") is likely a euphemism for ma(n)stuprari ("to defile"). But I didn't mean to get sidetracked, and I agree "Terminology" would be a good title for the section. —Soap— 12:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that I went ahead and added the terms and changed the title. Any objections, let me know. —Soap— 01:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Masturbationbothhands.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Masturbationbothhands.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions What should I do?
	Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect date for ink drawing by Zichy towards bottom of article

Zichy died in 1906 and the article cites the drawing as being from 1911. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.64.209 (talk) 08:38, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

== excessive masturbation can lead to RSI or repetetive strain injury ==masturbation and rsiJim6677 (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Many people have suffered permanent injury from too frequent and over enthusiastic auto-erotic activity. Stem cell cures are becoming available,http://www.regenexx.com/ but this caveat is well worth being mentioned. (talk) 11:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you have a reliable source to back up that claim, we can't say that in the article. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 09:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"Stem cell cures" for chafing? --King Öomie 13:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Pear pimples for Hairy Fishnuts? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

regarding the 'reference' above - you are aware that that is a case study related to mental disorders, aren't you? The next in the series http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/humanbody/mind/articles/disorders/gallery/gallery_case2.shtml is about a poor soul who likes to be known as 'Stalking Cat' and has managed to get surgery to give himself feline characteristics. Not wishing to spoil anyone's natural and indeed necessary love of their pets, do you think he deserves a new subsection in cat? Otherwise others may heedlessly end up the same as him, before stem cell cures are available. --Nigelj (talk) 13:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Mutual masturbation

Picker78 (talk · contribs) has deleted and appears to be prepared to edit-war over deleting the whole section and all mentions of Mutual Masturbation. The repeated deletion is in contravention of WP:BRD. There are adequate cites in the article that use and explain this term. --Nigelj (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Mutual masturbation has nothing to do with masturbation, it is non-penetrative sex. The word "masturbation" is only used as a euphemism, just because handjob and fingering are similar to the way a male or female masturbates. Mutual masturbation is actually handjob and fingering, which of course is non-penetrative sex, not masturbation! Mutual masturbation is not about two people sitting opposite to each other and masturbating without touching one another, this is nonsense! If no contact exists, this is simple masturbation, no matter how close two persons are to each other. No contact = Masturbation. Contact = "Mutual masturbation" (euphemism for handjob and fingering) = Non-penetrative sex. I hope you understand the difference! If you still don't get it, here is a website that maybe explains it a little better: http://www.teensadvisor.com/teen-dating/mutual-masturbation.html -- Picker78 (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

That is your opinion, but it is by no means an unassailable fact. Your persistent unilateral deletion of content is not acceptable; you need to stop it right now. You have been issued a final warning for your disruptive behaviour; if you carry on pushing your POV with unilateral content deletions, you will likely soon be blocked. This present discussion is the right place to talk the matter over and see how consensus develops. That is how we operate here, by consensus. The consensus may develop in accord with your opinions and preferences, and it may not. My present thought is that you will not likely win this one; "mutual masturbation" is a well-established term that does not meet the definition of "euphemism". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe Picker78 is right. If two or more people sit in the same room masturbating (themselves), there is nothing "mutual" in it. This is called - simply - masturbation, there is no need for a different or extra term. So, if we all agree that "mutual masturbation" is restricted in meaning to stimulate one another (and not stimulate oneself), then yes, we are talking about a non-penetrative sex act (i.e. handjob, fingering) and the word "masturbation" is only used as a euphemism, simply because handjob and fingering look like the most common way a person masturbates. I too believe that "mutual masturbation" falls under non-penetrative sex (just like frottage etc.) and it has no place in this article. -- Lonesome Warrior (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you saying that there is no such phrase in use in the English language as mutual masturbation? I find that hard to believe as we have two references in this article that use the term in their title, and two external links at Non-penetrative sex (where Mutual masturbation redirects). If the phrase exists, and is in common use, it needs discussion in this article and elsewhere where it is relevant. For a much better understanding of the range and variety of mutual masturbation scenarios that are common, practical and possible, please see the articles and the references. --Nigelj (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is a phrase as "mutual masturbation", like there are phrases as "manual intercourse", "mammary intercourse" etc. which in fact are only euphemisms. If they were not euphemisms, then "manual intercourse" or "mammary intercourse" would be included in the Sexual intercourse article, not the Non-penetrative sex article. I mean, there are many "intercourses" that are not intercourses and there are many "masturbations" that are not masturbations at all. The references you are talking about are highly disputable. I can find you many more references that, talking about "mutual masturbation", only mean mutual handjob, footjob and fingering, which of course are NON-PENETRATIVE SEX. And something else: People tend to confuse the terms "masturbation" and "non-penetrative sex", which are two different things. Masturbation is the stimulation one does to oneself (in any different way) and not the stimulation done by the hands. The stimulation done by the hands of another person is NON-PENETRATIVE SEX, just like footjob, frottage, mammary intercourse and so on. People tend to confuse terms because there are different sexual acts that resemble to each other, but they are definitely not the same! --Lonesome Warrior (talk) 15:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but if you'll direct your gaze here, you'll see the phrase is widely and truly in use non-euphemistically. So far you have presented no reliable support for your assertion that the term is euphemistic and does not warrant coverage in this article—it remains merely your opinion. Which you are welcome to hold, but without proper support for it you won't gain much traction in an effort to build consensus for deleting apposite, supported content from this article. Also, it certainly looks like a good idea for you to keep in mind that sock puppetry is not allowed, just in case you were thinking of doing it. Capisce? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

As I suspected, "Lonesome Warrior" was a sockpuppet of Picker78, whose vandalism I have once again reverted from the article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C16:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, Picker78 was indefinitely blocked pretty quickly. I would have weighed in sooner, after seeing someone revert him on the Non-penetrative sex article, but you guys seemed to have it well under control. Feel free to alert me if something like this comes up again. Flyer22 (talk) 17:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong definition of masturbation!

Masturbation is synonymous to auto-eroticism. There is no such thing as "self masturbation", because masturbation can ONLY be "self". "Contact mutual masturbation" (handjob etc.) is NOT masturbation, it is non-penetrative sex. The way the article puts it, it is like all non-penetrative sex is actually masturbation, which is completely wrong. Non-penetrative sex (handjob, footjob, mammary intercourse etc.) is NOT masturbation. Masturbation is only when someone stimulates his or her OWN genitals. -- Picker78 (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just fixed it, I think it is much more accurate and realistic now. -- Picker78 (talk) 10:05, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The term "Masturbation" is also commonly used to refer to someone doing an activity only for self pleasure. Does not necessarily sexual or stimulation of genitals. "it's just masturbation" --99.231.147.169 (talk) 05:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2011

The fifth paragraph in the "Benefits" section is in the <pre> style. The space should be removed between the end of the {{cquote}} and the sentence that starts with "That is" or the sentence should start a new paragraph. 66.158.157.155 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Bible and masturbation

I think it is clear for any thinking person that the act described by the Bible is actually coitus interruptus, not masturbation. The reference from Coogan was required by WP:VER, but he is very far from being the only one who thinks so, in fact he expresses the consensus. There's not much to doubt about that, so it is not a matter of what "some modern scholars" believe, but a matter of reading and comprehending your own Bible translation. This is a factual claim, not an opinion; Coogan states it as a fact, not as an interpretation. The Bible does not use the word masturbation or any other synonym of it or any expression which could mean it, in fact there is not a single Bible verse mentioning masturbation or describing the act of masturbating. It is only a matter of using the proper English words for what the text says. If some have used their own imagination to guess that the Bible referred to masturbation, this is simply what their imagination has added to the clear text. I saw old porn films wherein actors were cumming before the camera without masturbating, so it is physically possible to commit coitus interruptus without masturbating. In fact, thinking that Onan's story refers to masturbation is a gross error of misinterpreting a written text. No matter what theologians had to say on this issue in the past, they were not using the text of the Bible but they were speaking as theologians, not as interpreters of the written text. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Confirmed by a Catholic tract declared error-free by a book censor and approved by a bishop at [4]. See also J. Harold Ellens, Sex in the Bible: a new consideration, p. 48 at [5]. Also confirmed at [6]. Epiphanius of Salamis agrees according to John M. Riddle, Contraception and abortion from the ancient world to the Renaissance, p. 4 at [7]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPINOUT, when the section Masturbation#Religious views became quite large, it was split out and became an entire article at Religious views on masturbation. I haven't personally helped to develop and maintain that article, but I suspect that the level of detail you are discussing may be better placed there, where I'm sure you'll also find other knowledgeable and enthusiastic editors with whom to discuss the details. As with other sections whose main content has been spun out in this way, we link the {{main}} article, and need to keep the remaining summary in this article short so that this article remains a manageable size. For this reason, I have just moved some detailed material from this article to Talk:Religious views on masturbation#Material from top-level article --Nigelj (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from PaulKharusPaul, 13 August 2011

Please remove the picture of St. Teresa masturbating. It contributes nothing to the article and is highly offensive. PaulKharusPaul (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. See also WP:NOTCENSORED. ^Avic_ennasis @ 03:34, 13 Av 5771 / 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I second the motion to remove that dump painting of 'St. Thereas' and the photos of human genitalia. I have kids who are minors. This is pretty lame to say you need consensus to remove content that is clearly inappropriate for the larger community- bluejaguar

Sorry, no. Your status as a parent is irrelevant. If you fear they might see something you don't want them to see, exercise your authority and responsibility as a parent and control their exposure to aspects of the world you deem inappropriate. You haven't any right or grounds to be making high-handed pronouncements about what is appropriate for the "larger community". —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:41, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

In all seriousness, claiming that a notable historical representation of the subject "adds nothing" to the article is quite weak. And if your children are on the internet unsupervised, finding something offensive on Wikipedia is hardly a worst-case scenario. If they'd GOOGLED 'Masturbation' instead of searching for it here, they'd have gotten material significantly more visual, and less historically informative. --King Öomie 15:58, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

How about the fact that there is no real evidence or reason to believe that the ecstasy of St. Teresa of Avila has anything to do with masturbation. The two are unrelated and as such, it is unnecessary and inappropriate to have the image on Wikipedia. -KharusPaulKharus

I know that this photo shouldn't be censored, but it is pretty much not important to the article and historically inaccurate- that art was intended as a satire to Catholicism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.89.97 (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

 Not done Our WP:NOTCENSORED policy is pretty clear. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

How can you even entertain the notion that a painting that very obviously depicts a woman masturbating has nothing to do with masturbation? Unless you mean the "ecstasy" part. Unless she's ecstatic because her stock portfolio is blowing up, and the scene in the picture is totally unrelated, there MIGHT be a connection between the piece and the article's subject. --King Öomie 14:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it should be removed.Micro2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC).

WP:NOTCENSORED? Yes, that's a policy, and a pretty clear cut one. I don't think it's relevant to the point though. The image should describe the subject but not distract from it. My first inclination was to click on the article of Saint Teresa to see what, if anything, she had to do with masturbation. Maybe the patron saint of abstinence, and it was therefore implied that she must have frequently done this? Maybe martyred for doing something and the artist's interpretation was that she was doing this? Of course I found nothing of the sort.

So what is the point of adding Saint Teresa masturbating with a dildo? I see absolutely none. If the article were satire or anti-Catholicism or erotic art — sure, that is relevant. Masturbation#Religious_views??? Eh, maybe. But in the Benefits section? That just seems like some immature prank.

Would you put the goatse.x image for the article on anus? Or BME Pain Olympics for the article on penis or man? Or a screenshot from 2Girls1Cup for lesbians? I know I sure as hell wouldn't if I were editing these articles. These images on these articles would be unnecessary to describe the topic, would distract from it, and would probably unnecessary offend people (e.g., most lesbians would scream (rightfully so) that this is a poor representation of lesbians.

It's not that the image has *nothing* to do with masturbation, but that Wikipedia can really do better. Charcoal or pencil sketches from anons would do just fine, after this image is essentially that anyway. The article history has several such examples. Ufwuct (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

There's room for more illustrations. If you know of good ones, please suggest them on this page. If we reach the point where there are too many illustrations, photographic and from the world of art, then we will discuss which are the most useful in the article. --Nigelj (talk) 22:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If I were to read only your post, I would guess that you were responding to someone that asked if they could add more pictures to the article ... if only there were room. So I'm a bit puzzled.

Unless of course you're obliquely suggesting that we should add more pictures - as many as possible - in an effort to crowd this one out... that way it becomes a bland discussion on format and not a heated one about content. Ufwuct (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Autoeroticism and mutual masturbation in the lede

At 01:07 we had

A. Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism. Masturbation with a partner, called mutual masturbation, is also common. Masturbation is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm, though many use it as an alternative to sexual intercourse with no risk or extremely low risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

At 08:17 79... changed this to

B. Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism. Masturbation is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner, though some use it as an alternative to sexual intercourse with no risk or extremely low risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Masturbation with a partner is called mutual masturbation.

By 09:45 Dionisia Bekri had changed it to

C. Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism. Masturbation is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner, though many use it as a means to avoid pregnancy (coitus interruptus) or as an alternative to sexual intercourse with no risk or extremely low risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases. Masturbation with a partner is called mutual masturbation.

At 13:57 Lost on belmont changed it to

D. Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. The act when performed with a partner is called mutual masturbation and can be used as a means to avoid pregnancy or as an alternative to sexual intercourse as it poses little to no risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases.

Since then, 79... has changed it back to C, and I have changed it back to D.

Now, these sentences are uncited here in the WP:LEDE. Therefore, either they must not be challengeable (WP:V says, "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation"), or they must be a summary of something that is covered in more detail and is fully cited elsewhere in the article. The only citations in the section Masturbation#Mutual masturbation are [8] and [9].

What are we trying to say here? I propose that the main points are

1. to introduce and distinguish the terms autoeroticism and mutual masturbation
2. to define the former, solo masturbation, as "performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner"
3. to state that the latter, masturbation with a partner, is "a means to avoid pregnancy or an alternative to sexual intercourse with no risk or extremely low risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases"

We must remember gay couples of both genders, the old, the young, the able-bodied and not, the married, unmarried and the casual. I think one of the points we are not making is that solitary masturbation also avoids pregnancy and STDs - that may be true but is so obvious it doesn't really need a place in the lede. So which is the best version? --Nigelj (talk) 22:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As the one who wrote version D, I am clearly in favor of it. I rewrote it that way to combine sentences that were clunky on their own, avoid the use of the word "masturbation" to start off multiple sentences in the same paragraph, and to reword "no risk or extremely low risk" to flow better. Since the lede has been restored to version D, it has been edited again, and then had the "benefits" section removed entirely. I've put it to a modified form of version D (without the benefits), but I believe the reasons for/why should appear in the lede as in version D and possibly expanded. Lost on Belmont (talk) 14:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Because this matter is still being edited over I'm going to discuss the new changes here to avoid an Edit War.

We have two versions being swapped

Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. The stimulation can be performed manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. Masturbation with a partner, called mutual masturbation, is also common and can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse.

vs.

Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. The stimulation can be performed manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually performed in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. The act when performed with a partner is called mutual masturbation and can be used as can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse.

In the first case, the main points against are the fact that the word "masturbation" is used to open sentences 1, 2, and 4, which is, stylistically, not good writing. Another issue is the phrase "is also common," which we don't have a cite for. (If we can get one, great! Otherwise this needs to remain unsaid.)

In the second case, the argument against is the use of the word "performed," which appears in sentences 2, 3, and 4.

I'll argue that "performed" isn't as glaring because it occurs in various points in each sentence, and that all we do is change the word "performed" in one or two cases to synonyms.

How about: Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation of a person's own genitals, usually to the point of orgasm. The stimulation can be achieved manually, by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods. Masturbation is a common form of autoeroticism and is usually done in order to experience sexual pleasure or orgasm in the absence of a partner. The act when performed with a partner is called mutual masturbation and can be used as can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse. Lost on Belmont (talk) 01:24, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It turns out that the Dionisia Bekri username and several IP addresses in the 79.107.x.y range were being used by a well-known disruptive user. (see Talk:Non-penetrative sex#Dry humping: Same meaning as NPS or just a type of NPS?, User:Dionisia Bekri, Special:Contributions/79.107.9.21, etc) This makes some of the above discussion, and some recent edits to the article, relatively meaningless. I have tried to simplify the relevant text and tidy up the lede. --Nigelj (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)