Talk:Masturbation

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)

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)

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)

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)

The pictures are no good. The two female pictures only show their reproductive organs, but I think it would be more tastefull to show a complete person in the act of masturbating. Also no need to show two cunts where one would suffice. The guy masturbating is tasteless, and obviously made by an exhibitionist, with hits trainers halfway down....
I personally would like to see instead some masturbation pictures of non-whites. And why are both female pictures not available at their flickr source anymore? That I find dodgy CC-wise. -- eiland (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This is a joke edit, right? --King Öomie 23:39, 28 March 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)

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)