Talk:Masturbation

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)

'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)

Dead links

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

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)

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

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)