Talk:Masturbation

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)

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)

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)

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 for now: 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

 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)

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)