Talk:Masturbation

Edit request on 2 November 2012

Add to Techniques:Male section: Commonly, males may use a piece of clothing (especially a sock) to to aid in the practice of masturbation. This gives a unique pleasurable sensation when using the right kind of gentle fabric while providing the benefit of convenient cleanup. Pauska Sock (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/127?m=416967#416967 isn't a reliable source. benzband (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Age limit

is there an age limit for masterbation?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.108.163 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Age? Well I can only tell you about myself. When I was 5 years old, I went into hospital for a hernia operation and they stuck plasters over my penis, and I could not wank. I wanted to, but I could not. Then when I wanted to pee, I got the nurses to re-do the plastering for me. The nurses did not realize that males pee out of their penises. No... I could not believe it either and as I have said, I was only 5. Now I am well over 60 and still wanking. There you have it. Technut (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, a medical leaflet for teenagers published by the National Health Service says "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". By "orgasm" NHS means masturbation. A newspaper article about this leaflet is quoted in this Wikipedia article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I entered this site to get to know about views on masturbation in history, and it felt weird to see enormous pictures of penises and clitorises. Maybe this article could be more on topic, and less about porno eyesore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.182.158 (talk • contribs)

no sry ! some people are glad that their penises and pussys on wikipedia. They get horny and masturbate while thinking about how people read this article. And the people who prevent other users from removing the useless picture suffer from a mental illness. So really sry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.27.200 (talk • contribs)

I'm wondering if it is possible to create two pages for this article, a picture version and a picture-less version. I am not a prude, I like the text of this article and would like it to be freely read. Despite my lack of prudeness, I really can't get over how distracting the pictures are. I completely believe pictures are a necessary part of wikipedia, and even this article, but I would simply like to see a major editor give this some consideration. The picture version could even be the default, and a pictureless version offered at the beginning of the article. Or vice versa. Again, I am no prude and I do not find anything in this article disgusting, but I can't escape an extreme feeling of some form of voyeurism or something. Please, at least give this some thought. --Vgp0012 (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've moved some images to relevant sections and reduced their sizes per WP:IUP and MOS:IMAGES as larger sizes do nothing to help readers understand the article better, and also serve as potential distractions for editors like you. Besides, the pussy shots and dick close-ups are probably better quality than most of the images hosted in WP; reduced size doesn't reduce viewing quality. You can use external tools/WP gadgets to disable images on all or certain urls/articles, but creating 2 versions would be content-forking. - M0rphzone (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I too think some of the pictures should be deleted, including the first one. Teenagers probably come to this article often, and exposing pornography to minors is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.3.109 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 January 2013‎

Wikipedia is not censored. And you need to recall that this is a global encyclopaedia. Your concerns about illegality may apply in some parts of the world, but not in others. Then there is the question of whether a picture explaining something that's already described in text is, firstly, pornography, and secondly, any different in effect from that text. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean it's not illegal. There needs to be proof put up here that the people in those pictures are of people over the age of 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats are against the rules. You must either retract and disavow your threat, or it will be done for you AND you will be blocked from editing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Then there needs to be proof that the pictures depict people over the age of 18. I edited the comment, but it still does not change the fact that there is a possibility that the people in this pics might be minors.

Pornography is defined by the law as images intended to arouse those who see them. Sorry, but there's nothing illegal here in the regards of 'pornography'. Also, what you've put there could still be constituted as a threat (I want proof type). gwickwire^talk_edits 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, showing pics of people pleasuring themselves absolutely constitutes pornography. Because you say it isn't doesn't make it true. I changed my comment so it doesn't give an explicit legal threat, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some sort of proof put up here showing that the people in this pics aren't over the age of 18. It doesn't matter what other countries have to say about pics of children. All that matters is the laws of the jurisdiction in which the pics are viewed. ANY picture of a person under the age of 18 in a state of undress is legally defined as child porn in the US. If you don't believe it, then ask those who are rotting in prison for that exact thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Citation needed much? Explain all the topless female toddlers then. But I agree that any images should be of persons over the age of consent where the servers are hosted (i.e. in the US) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the definition of pornography, someone might want to fix its new definition at the Pornography article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the grossly ill-informed IP (who's from Texas, which explains a lot), the Coppertone company has been publicly displaying "child porn" for the last 50 or 60 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice personal attack which I believe goes against Wikipedia policy. Don't be mad because you couldn't get me banned. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You withdrew the legal threat, thus averting your block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And that burns you up too doesn't it? So what do you have to say about your personal attack? Maybe I should take a page from your book and demand that you delete or disavow your personal attack. But I'm an adult so I'll ask you as an adult to be one and delete it. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You did what you were required to do. Mission accomplished. As regards your other complaint, if you think that being from Texas is shameful, well, that's your problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I did it because I chose to. Do you honestly think that an IP would have stopped me from editing? It's just a simple matter of resetting my IP address and continuing to do what I wish to do unless they decide to ban an entire ISP with millions of users which would be completely asinine. And yes, I consider what you said shameful and a personal attack and will be dealt with as such.76.31.155.94 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be ashamed to be from Texas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ashamed. You're the one making personal attacks which goes against Wikipedia policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk • contribs) 17:22, January 23, 2013

Censorship and legal threats are also against policy. And I haven't made any personal attacks. I've known many Texans, and most of them are reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"According to the grossly ill-informed IP (who's from Texas, which explains a lot)" That is exactly what you said. That is a blanket and statement and personal attack which is against Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I'm from Texas too! On a serious note, you are free to contact whatever law enforcement agency you wish to. However, you should be advised you're wasting your time and money, as our legal team (User:WMF Legal to contact) reviews all of our policies with legal implications very thouroughly, and if we were doing something illegal, they'd chime in and stop it. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at the images in question (I assume the IP is concerned about the photos and not the art) and I highly doubt that they are "under 18". The two women are clearly over the age limit and the male is stated to be 29. No children here. --Auric talk 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP likely means that pubescents and late adolescents under 18 can have pubic hair or look like they have had pubic hair (meaning that they shaved), and we can therefore not know how old these individuals are; after all, all we see are the genitals. It's probably why the age of the male, whose genitals are shaven, was made clear. Maybe if these were genitals of old people, that would be easier to detect and the IP wouldn't be concerned at all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally, someone here with some sense. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See the description page of the male masturbating image. "Wikimedia Commons is not obligated to keep these records and is not responsible for failure to acquire records by content reusers." Sorry, but there's no need for Wikimedia Commons to keep the records, nor seek them. It's upon those who reuse the image to keep the records. I guarantee you that WMF Legal made that statement themselves, or at the very least approved it before it went up on all of these kinds of images. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because they they say their not responsible doesn't make it so. You are responsible for all content you host or use on your website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the team of paid highly trained lawyers seems to think otherwise. I think I'd trust them anyday over yourself, no offence. Like I said, if you have an issue with it, contact the legal department through User:WMF Legal and the information on that page. gwickwire^talk_edits 06:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that this is Wikipedia where anyone can say or do anything, I highly doubt these are "highly trained" legal professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They're not editors. They're employeed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Pornography is defined as as intention to cause arousal. These images are intended to be educational, not sexual. Thus, they are not pornography. Doubt all day long, we don't care. You lack the credentials to make the judgement call, and we trust the people we know have the credentials (WMF legal) and their the voices we're going to listen to. If you have a legal concern, contact them. You voiced a concern, we explained that we had professionals and experts in the law review the matter. There is nothing else for you to do. Your doubt isn't going to convince us to ignore legal opinions from paid lawyers. Your opinion just doesn't measure up to theirs in our eyes. Sorry, now go away. @Bugs: I'm from Texas too :P --v/r - TP 15:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to go away. I don't have to go away. Just because you like to put up smut of people whose age is not verifies does not mean that I have to go away. I will stay here as long as I wish thank you very much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 17:22, January 23, 2013

I would personally prefer line drawings to be displayed (Mammary intercourse being a good example imho), and would strive for those objecting to the pictures to help make them. This article should a useful education point. Why shouldn't teenagers learn about what masturbation is, why it happens, and why they shouldn't feel ashamed and in the dark about it? I don't particularly like the current set of pictures, but then I don't like looking at pictures of Anne Widdecombe either. Each to their own. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, they like to put up smut using the image of people whose age is not verified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk • contribs) 17:22, January 23, 2013

If you keep it up, you'll be blocked for disrupty and WP:POINTY editing. Stop now. Contact legal, or stop. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Then stop responding and I won't respond back. Others are just as guilty for keeping this up. It takes two to tango. If you want someone to go away, why do you keep responding to them? That's all I'm asking. I'm just airing my concerns. Last time I checked, this is a TALK page. If an actual admin asks me to stop, then I'll move on. Also, according the articles you cited, it says specifically that stuff like this should be discussed in the articles talk page which I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

IP, could you stop saying "smut", "smut", "smut" - we get it that you don't like the pictures. See Help:Options to hide an image for how you can get rid of them. There is a way of I told you a way you could resolve this dispute amicably for everyone, by creating better images, such as you would see in a scientific textbook, albeit one that requires far more hard work. I'm not a fan of porn, and it makes me physically sick sometimes, but that's my problem and nobody else's. I think if you go deliberately looking for information on masturbation (and there's no other way you could be here), then I'm surprised at what else you'd expect to find there. Anyway, I'm done here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the organization I advocate for brought this to my attention. I will also be visiting other pages that have these images. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

On "If an actual admin asks me to stop, then I'll move on." - Upthread, TParis, an administrator check here told you to "go away". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP is edging toward legal-threat territory again. Actually, it's pretty clearly trolling, so it might be just as well to archive this entired section, and keep the IP from further painting himself into a corner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope...not making a legal threat. Also, what about the personal attack that you made which is against wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's see... I said you were "grossly ill-informed", which is clearly true. I said you were an IP from Texas, which is true. And as some Texans are known for extremist viewpoints, your being from there could explain a lot about your behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to justify it. You know it was a personal attack. The article on Wikipedia on personal attacks even proves that it was an ad hominem attack. But looking at some of the stuff on your talk page and the debate over your failed admin-ship, I'm not surprised by your behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Everything I said about your behavior was valid. And if you continue to make threats against wikipedia editors, you will be smacked down like any other troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making any threats. I'm pointing out your personal attack which is against wikipedia policy. What threat am I making against you? Is pointing out your personal attack which is against Wikipedia policy considered a threat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You are not threatening me. In fact, you are not even capable of threatening me. However, you are/were threatening wikipedia. But as noted below, your complaints are groundless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not according to the Wikipedia article regarding personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Pay attention, I say, pay attention, son: Your complaints about the pictures are groundless... as noted below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that the IP is now on a 1-week block. Recommend closure of this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the original poster's points: 1. websites containing pornography are not required to be age-restricted under U.S. law, although many sites do so voluntarily; 2. as a noncommercial provider we are not required under U.S. law to keep records of the ages of persons in pornographic photos (read the definitions of primary and secondary producer at Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act#Allied_administrative_law_.282257_Regulations.29); 3. there is no plausible reason to believe the images depict minors; 4. images of nude minors are permitted under the law if they are not lascivious or obscene. These images have already been carefully reviewed and they are legal for us to host and display. We will not remove the images for legal reasons. You may, if you wish, consider such factors as the remote possibility that the photos could depict minors as a factor in selecting which images to display, but please do so with reference to alternative images, not as part of a request to remove the images altogether - this article very clearly benefits from media such as images. Dcoetzee 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, given the illegality of child pornography (especially that of prepubescents), I'm not sure what you mean by "websites containing pornography are not required to be age-restricted under U.S. law." If you mean that U.S. law doesn't explicitly make clear that websites containing pornography shouldn't include child pornography, it's clear that they shouldn't just by the fact that hosting child pornography can get the website owner (or owners) in legal trouble. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He means we aren't required to ask age before we let someone see the page. Not age of 'actors' or 'models' :) gwickwire^talk_edits 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant, sorry. :-) Dcoetzee 22:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Caught

Should there be a sentence about people being caught masturbating? Pass a Method talk 00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that even relevant aside from some personal fetish that some may have? It's trivia and you should know that. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that's a fetish (so if we can source it we can build a section) and being caught can be a huge taboo in certain societies (also would need references to be added) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Being caught in the act, and/or ways to avoid being caught in the act, might be a significant topic if reliable sources can actually be found about being caught masturbating specifically, rather than just the more general aspects that go along with getting caught in any similar situation. (Remember that there are a lot of similar things that have similarly social results: getting caught having sex in a hidden location; getting caught being a peeping Tom (voyeurism towards someone who didn't consent); or even getting caught with a finger up the nose. And as for it being a fetish: Some people have a fetish for being caught doing sexual things in general; I don't know if masturbation specifically has enough reliable information to make it distinct.) However, what we don't need on Wikipedia is any more original research "essays" full of users' own ideas about how getting caught must feel like. We also don't need a laundry list of "in popular culture" instances; some of the bigger examples could be added if this specific topic already has other high-quality information to supplement it. (I can think of two well-known examples in American culture: the fictional pool scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and Paul Reuben's movie theater incident in real life.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Endorphins

I just reverted an addition to the compulsive masturbation section that used this ref to make a point that orgasm leads to "a drug like dependency" on endorphins, which under that heading implied that this was related to compulsive masturbation. This is so wrong, on so many levels. Sure, the cited article is about endorphins and includes that phrase, but the rest of the connections were entirely WP:OR. --Nigelj (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, are you an expert? I'm not, but I don't think you can doubt that orgasm and the release of chemicals in the brain has to do with compulsive masturbation and/or sex addiction. Regardless, the quality and type of refs on this subject are quite poor, and I don't think there are many reliable sources available besides specific medical studies on this, which are few and far between. Have you found anything? - M0rphzone (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is not to be an expert, but to summarise and represent fairly what reputable and reliable sources do say about the topic. Not to add what "you don't think I can doubt" where you see fit. WP:V --Nigelj (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood. What I meant is: please explain what's wrong about the sentence, and what actually happens in the brain. And I'm assuming your previous answer means that you are an expert on this topic, or at least more than I am. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't have to be experts in anything, they quote reliable sources instead. See WP:VER for details. Come back with a reliable source and then edit. It has to fulfill all conditions stated at WP:RSMED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research and original synthesis are not tolerated inside Wikipedia. You have to obey these rules if you want that your edits won't get reverted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You've been here since 2002, and one would think you'd know how to assume good faith first. I know what WP:OR and WP:SYNTH says, so don't drop [[WP:POLICY]] links on me. The ref used will be replaced with a reliable ref, but what I'm asking is for Nigel to explain why the sentence wrong, not whether or not he's an expert. Alternatively, then can you explain to me why the sentence is wrong? - M0rphzone (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help with nocturnal emission

The page nocturnal emission is closely related to this page but poorly watched, and I lack the time to moderate it and the expertise to develop it effectively (it needs more references and scientific information). I'd appreciate any help anyone watching this article can provide on that one. Thank you! Dcoetzee 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)