Talk:Anal masturbation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Content[edit]

Who in the hell wrote this?

man, what an encyclopedia...

laying eggs?

Check the history tab to see thwe writers. Yes Wikipedia is unlike many other encylopedias. We don't restict content as long as it factual and neutral. Theresa Knott (taketh no rest) 18:48, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Congratulations! This page won "Cruel Site of the Day" (www.cruel.com) on September 20, 2004. Thunderbunny 04:30, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Defecating eggs can give one the impression that one is "laying eggs" can add a fun fantasy or role-playing dimension to the experience" LOL! I don't even want to know who wrote that. :P


There should also be an inclusion of the metric equivalent to inches.

Approximate conversion added.

read this!!![edit]

D A N G E R

Urologe A. 2003 Jan;42(1):78-9. Prostate massage with unwanted consequences. Case report [Article in German]

Buse S, Warzinek T, Hobi C, Ackerman D. Klinik fur Urologie, Kantonspital St. Gallen, Switzerland.

We report a case in which a regular prostate massage (chronic prostatitis) turned into a life-threatening event. After the prostate massage, an enormous periprostatic hemorrhage developed. During hospitalization the patient developed an embolic insult to the lungs. To our knowledge no other cases have been published. This report shows the potentially serious consequences, and we conclude that any pain after prostate massage needs further diagnostic steps (ultrasound, CT scan).

PMID 14655640 [PubMed - in process]

Eggs??[edit]

"Small hardboiled eggs can usually be safely inserted in the rectum and defecated as feces."

Eggs?? With or without a shell?? References of people who actually do this, please. I only see stuff like this. - Omegatron 20:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

See the last two rows of pictures: http://www.anal-lab.com/a/harumi17/. Caution: Pornographic. AlexQ 22:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)( LINK DOESN'T WORK)[reply]


Wow. That is one crazy ass bitch. Well, I don't think it should be on here. It's not common, you can't just add something on here because a few crazy people have done it unless those instances are notable. That would be like me putting a doorknob up my butt and adding it to this article as something that can be done, just because someone has done it doesn't make that notable. Munchmuchmunch? (talk) 05:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, not a guide[edit]

This egg part and so on needs REMOVED, or at least re-written. It is not an anal masturbation manual.

Wikibook[edit]

Ok, some of this needs a rewrite. I mean, "Men who wish to stimulate the prostate should insert a butt plug and then gently angle it toward the navel before rubbing back and forth." Good advice, I'm sure, but hardly encyclopedic. An encyclopedia does not give advice, it lists facts. -- Ec5618 10:43, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

The feeling of wanton abandon and dirtiness in pushing outward in this manner has been reported to be an important aid in the enjoyment of anal sex or anal masturbation.

This is a shitty article. "Reported" by whom? And stop giving advice! 70.21.236.100 04:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could write "Some men stimulate the prostate by inserting a butt plug and then gently angleing it towards the navel before rubbing back and forth" if they have a reference of something like this. Munchmuchmunch? (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shitty article hahaha lmao :-)

frequency[edit]

I'm currently involved in a debate on a forum regarding the connection between the practice of anal stimulation and sexual orientation. This article would have been most helpful if it included data regarding the frequency of males who have experimented with anal stimulation at some point in their lives.

On an unrelated note, who crawled out from under a rock to nominate this for deletion? 129.63.172.14 18:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

small animals[edit]

I recently added 'small animals' to the description of devices used for anal masturbation. Apparently this addition was thought of as a joke. My post was not meant to be a joke, however. There are several documented accounts of people using small animals for this purpose. I am not a proponent of this act and personally find it distasteful but a simple google search indicates it is a semi-common practice. As such, I feel it should be reflected in the wikipedia article. I do understand the point-of-view that it can be seen as a joke though humor was not my intention. I feel it should be replaced but as I am new to wikipedia I won't immediately do so. Thank you. What are your opinions on this? 72.255.28.130 16:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i think this should be added as it is a practice many use.12.171.239.2 23:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I also think this should be added. These are good points and should be addressed within the article. 72.255.37.66 23:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't fall under the scope of this article; if it belongs anywhere, it's un the Bestiality article. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 08:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Gerbilling. I think some mention, whether it's a myth or not, would be appropriate. -- zzuuzz (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you honestly suggesting adding an urban legend into a serious article? -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an urban legend. people actually do this. i have seen it. i've been involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.68.118.2 (talk) 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...not as a small animal I hope :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.72.215 (talk) 14:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is not masturbation. The first line of the masturbation tells us that "Masturbation refers to sexual stimulation, especially of one's own genitals and often to the point of orgasm, which is performed manually, by other types of bodily contact (except for sexual intercourse), by use of objects or tools, or by some combination of these methods." (my emphasis). Small animals are neither objects or tools, nor are they parts of one's body. If the practice really existed, it would be Bestiality, not masturbation. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 10:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jedi, i disagree, the people who do this do not consider this an act of sex with animals but an act of sex using animals. Therefor i will revert this to include the statement. There are several comments in favor here on the discussion page and it is a legitimate practice. 72.255.87.131 01:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Animals do not fall under the heading of "objects or tools". Please do not keep re-adding this urban legend. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no one is saying that animals are objects or tools but if you really look at it an animal certainly can be a tool. think of a horse carrying a buggy, tool. think of an ox pulling a plow, tool. This is not an Urban Legend, you are wrong there. This is truly a semi-common practice. I do not keep re-adding this, I happened upon it and happen to agree with the so many others opinions that clearly outnumber yours. And one has to wonder why you care so much about Anal Masturbation and how it is or is not done. Please don't be offended if I decline shaking your friend if we ever happen to meet my friend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.255.47.48 (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The users (or possibly the same user, as they are all commenting without being logged on) listed above aren't exactly reputable - looking through their contributions lists reveals a number of vandalism warnings. The fact remains that there have been NO reputable citations provided, whereas there are several that state that this is an urban legend (Snopes, Urban Legends, The AFU & Urban Legends Website among others) If a reputable source can be found, then feel free to add this "fact". Until then, I will continue to revert. -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 14:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi all, I couldn't help but notice the discussion above and have to say, i have heard of this, though i have never done this. here are a few websites that you can site:
It is certainly not cool to do this, as the above sites relay. But it is done. sadly. and grossly. and it is done with enough frequency (as shown in the citations) that it should be mentioned in the article. It would be irresponsible not to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.54.178 (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well I don't think any of those sites qualify as "reputable" and in any case they are all discussing bestiality, not masturbation.
Your links:
-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 11:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that is just your opinion, several other people differ from yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.54.178 (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with opinion. None of those web pages can be cited in this article for the reasons I've given. Have a look at WP:SOURCES for more information on reputable sources.-- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 16:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph.....[edit]

Is this an encyclopedia or a "how to" manual? This paragraph strikes me as odd and extremely POV, like an instructional . . . and it has no references:

"Since the anus does not produce natural lubrication, it is important to apply lubricant to the anal area before insertion of any object. Many people report that they have tried anal insertion, whether by a toy or a penis, but have not repeated the experience due to painful sensations; these sensations were most likely induced by the lack of the usage of a lubricant. In order to increase the chances of pleasant and pain-free insertion, it is important to understand that at rest, the muscles of the sphincter are contracted (clenched) for the retention of waste, so in order to receive a foreign object, it is useful to push outward as if defecating. This opens the sphincter and allows for much easier and pain free insertion. At first it may feel strange to do this in a non-defecation context, but providing that the rectum is empty of waste this will not result in any undesired or unexpected expulsion of fecal matter, one can push without fear. Whether new or experienced, the importance of lubrication cannot be overstated. The initial insertion should take place very slowly and gradually to allow the muscles time to adjust to the introduction and presence of a foreign object."

I am removing it, as it isn't referenced and seems highly based on some editor's opinion. If it could be worded differently and sourced and not read like a personalized sex manual, then I could see something about the dangers of unlubricated insertion would be needed, but this just seems a bit too POV. ExRat (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


picture[edit]

I removed the pornographic picture of a girl putting a dildo in her anus. whok (talk) 13:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I removed the picture. It's totally inappropriate.whok (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this section to the bottom, as new sections go at the bottom. That aside, you have been reverted several times already by other editors as you have no consensus for your edits, and indeed, your edits violate policy. Please see WP:NOTCENSORED.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is of a person masturbating anally. The article is called "anal masturbation". That seems to be inherently appropriate. As this is an encyclopedia, and it is on topic, the image is not pornographic, but rather, educational. Note that pornography is described in Wikipedia as "is the portrayal of explicit sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual excitement and erotic satisfaction." I'll give you that the subject is explicit sexually. But the purpose seems to be educational or documentary, and not for the purpose of sexual excitement or erotic satisfaction. Atom (talk) 03:03, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replace it with a drawing. The current picture has been produced for the purposes of stimulation and is therefore pornographic.whok (talk) 03:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting opinion. What leads you that perception? I saw nothing in the image that indicated what purpose it was created. In fact I think it was intentionally created for educational purposes. (Use within the encyclopedia) And how would a drawing be different? How would you know whether the artist drew it intending to arouse people, or for educational purposes? Is it pornographic is *you* find it exciting or arousing? Or if *someone* might find it exciting? Are you saying that if it is sexually explicit, then it is inherently pornographic? Atom (talk) 03:41, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN. The file says nothing of the kind, so cite your sources for that remark that the image is meant for stimulation, otherwise your your argument holds no weight.— Dædαlus Contribs 04:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A self-shot picture of the shaved genital region of a young woman is pushing the definition of "educational" to it's breaking point. I don't have to "cite my sources" to prove that the image is meant for stimulation - it is absolutely clear that that is the intention behind it. The picture is completely unnecessary and totally outside of the remit of this website. Based on your argument I could provide pictures of every sex act in wikipedia and, as long as I state they're educational, they would be ok to use. This is clearly an unsupportable position. Remove the picture, please.whok (talk) 08:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having checked your shortcuts to WP:BURDEN and WP:OR it is clear that they are referring to items published on the article pages themselves, not the discussion pages. You should both visit WP:PR0N in order to realize that the image violates the following: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not." As such, this image needs to be removed. whok (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a policy, it's an essay. WP:NOTCENSORED is a policy, however. The image isn't going to be removed just because you don't like it, or think that it's meant for stimulation. The facts of the matter are:
  • You have no evidence besides your opinion that this image is meant to be erotic.
  • This image is backed by policy.
  • Consensus is against you.
I'm glad you're discussing things, but you aren't going to get your way.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as said, it may be 'clear' to you, but that is your opinion. You have no idea what the person was thinking when they took that picture, and you therefore cannot say that you know anything about it. So yes, you do have to cite your sources to prove your stance, otherwise, it is just your opinion. You cant' state something as fact when you really don't know. It doesn't work like that here.— Dædαlus Contribs 09:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, although "not censored", has removed many images that have violated the profanity WP:PROFANITY guidelines. The picture is not necessary to the article and should not be here. I repeat: Based on your argument I could provide pictures of every sex act in wikipedia and, as long as I state they're educational, they would be ok to use. This is clearly an unsupportable position. Respond to this please. Also, this image is NOT backed by policy. How can I flag this to bring attention to the wider community. I guarantee the consensus will be with me. whok (talk) 12:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me assure you that having discussed this topic many times before on many articles, that the consensus is not with you. The consensus is with wp:notcensored. There are indeed a number of other articles within the realm of sexology and sexuality that have sexually explicit images. penis, ejaculation, pregnancy, masturbation, anal sex, hardcore pornography and autoerotica for instance. None of these images are obscene. All of them are encyclopedic and illustrate only the topic of that article. Some people have expressed that they are offended by the images because they are sexually explicit. Atom (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having visited the flickr photostream of the girl who took the photo [[1]] I would state, without reservation, that these photographs are pornographic in nature and I have deleted the picture again. whok (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For further evidence to support the deletion please visit [[2]]. This flickr webpage clearly shows the photograph in its original, pornographic context.whok (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't agree with your assessment. First the links you gave were a collection of nude and semi-nude images of a woman. None of them were pornographic. None of them were even as explicit as the photo in this article.
But, suppose they had been very explicit photos, maybe if even some of them had been obscene. How would that effect the use of this image in this article? The intent of the photographer when the pictures were taken, nor the assumptions of viewers of the intent of the picture has anything to do with the use of the image in other contexts. Had it been published in a pornographic magazine, and then properly use din this article, that would still be okay. I think most people (including myself) would agree that the image in this article is sexually explicit. (while the ones at the link you gave on Flickr were not.) The image in the article is the issue at this point. That image is not obscene. We do not censor. The objective criteria primarily used on Wikipedia (our community standards) is that an image must illustrate well the topic of the article. If we had or have a better image that illustrates the topic, then that prospective image might be better than the existing one. An image of a gopher would not be appropriate in the article on anal masturbation. And image of two people having intercourse would not be appropriate on this article either. Whether the image is, or is not sexually explicit is not a valid criterion. The Profanity guidelines suggest that we should not try to offend people. The not censored guidelines override that. If you have an image that illustrates this topic well, but is less likely to offend some viewers, then please present it. I feel that not having an image would reduce the understanding of the topic. I think it is handled in an encyclopedic view.
I think the issue her might be that you keep insisting that this image is pornographic. You are, of course, entitled to your perspective, but not to force that on others. Keep in mind that even if it were pornographic, that would not preclude it from being in Wikipedia just on that basis alone. The not censored guideline does not mean that no image can be removed or deleted. It is merely that whether an individual likes an image or not, or may be offended by an image or not is not valid criterion. Valid criteria is whether an image is on topic in an article, and whether that image is the best available to illustrate the topic. There are a number of images in Wikipedia that people could possibly be offended by. Wikipedia disclaimers warn users that they could be exposed to offensive content (See Content disclaimer). The fact that someone may be offended by an image, or that an image is not safe for work, or that children might see an image are all not valid.
This image can be removed, or exchanged for a different image, by a consensus of editors. You asked how you could bring this image to the attention of others. This can be done by using a Request for Comment. If you like, I will start one for you if you are uncertain. I would be glad to help you understand how Wikipedia works. Just let me know. We also have a policy about reverts called the three revert rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts (as defined below) on a single page within a 24-hour period." This is generally called edit warring, and it is what is happening on this article. I would like you to continue discussing your concerns on the talk page, rather than disrupting the article again. I recognize that you are a relatively inexperienced editor, and rather than asking for a block, I'd prefer if we can talk through the issue. Atom (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this image should be kept unless a better one is found.
I disliked this picture since I figured it originated from a copyrighted porn source. However, the Flickr stream appears to be all amateur photography of the same model (suggesting this is an original work, and not someone's pr0n collection), and licensed for free use (thus suited for Wikimedia Commons, and Wikipedia). The evidence presented by whok demonstrates to me this is a legitimate free-use work suited for Wikipedia. As for the work being "pornographic", that is both debatable and irrelevant. If a consensus of editors of this articles agree this image is helpful (and not just decorative or appealing, for instance), then it should be kept. The article is plainly not crowded with such images in some attempt to create a porn gallery—in fact, this is the only image of actual anal masturbation in the article.
Incidentally, if you want these images deleted, that discussion should be taken up on Commons, not here. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sense a shifting of goalposts here. I appreciate that wikipedia is not censored but, as we all know, this does not mean "anything goes". The image in question was produced, as is clear in its original context, for the purposes of stimulation (the fact that such material could be deemed educational is irrelevant). As we have seen the image "should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate" and this is NOT the case. The article loses nothing from its omission! Just to be clear - I am not a prude or some kind of anti-pornography campaigner (I happen to think the flickr photostream is beautiful in places) but simply a concerned user of this site. I didn't trawl the pages looking for something to get angry and incensed about, I arrived at the page and found the picture to be totally inappropriate. I realize that this is just my own opinion but I am struggling to grasp how this image is defendable. I am also concerned about my removal of the picture being labelled as disruptive. The picture should be removed until consensus is reached. Can we at least agree on that point? I wont remove it again but can someone please inform me how to discuss this in a wider arena? I am, as is clear, new to this and I genuinely want to be a useful part of this process. whok (talk) 00:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The motives of the person taking the image is not important. The fact that it is educational (for the purposes of this encyclopedia) is important. Looking at the Flickr source, it does not seem to be from a pornographic source. None of the images (topless or nude shots) are pornography. If if it were, that would not change the fact that it adds to the article. A person can understand, at a glance, what the topic is. You call it inappropriate, which mystifies me. The article topic is anal masturbation, and here we have an image of anal masturbation. Nothing else. No second party involved. No other activity displayed except the topic. How could it *not* be described as directly appropriate for this topic? I can see how a different prospective image of a male, or two or more person activity could be less directly on topic. It is hard (for me) to visualize a photo that could be *more* on topic, or *less* potentially objectionable while showing the topic accurately.
As for the term disruptive, I meant nothing personal. The term used in Wikipedia when someone edit wars by removing something over and over even when several other people disagree is that this type of warring is disruptive to the article. The normal method is called the be bold, revert, discuss cycle. Your first removal was being bold. Perfectly acceptable. You then explained your actions on the talk page. Also, appropriate. When your removal was reverted, that meant it was time to go to the talk page and work it out with other editors. And you are doing that now. The other two removals were the issue. Atom (talk) 01:39, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear on something here, stop stating that you know this image was created for stimulation. You are not the photographer, there is nothing on the original file page that says anything close to that, so stop acting like you know something. This is your opinion. Again, your opinion cannot be interpreted as fact. So stop acting like it is.— Dædαlus Contribs 02:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Atom it is much appreciated. Dæ have you looked at the photostream? I find it strange that you could come to the conclusion that the many images of nudity, masturbation and the licking of one's own breasts (for example) are not produced for the purposes of stimulation. Anyway, take it easy on the bold font - it smacks of someone losing their cool because they're clearly in an indefensible position. whok (talk) 06:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then cool it on the my opinion is fact nonsense. It smacks of someone losing their cool because they're clearly in an indefensible position.
As you may note above, the entire upper sentence links to our policy on no personal attacks. Comment on content, not contributors. We have several core policies here. WP:OR is one of them. You cannot pass off your opinion as fact. The bold was to add stress to the words, as, after a third paragraph of you expressing your opinion as fact, it quite clearly wasn't getting to you that that isn't the case.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I'm cool. Would like a response on the content-based issues I have previously mentioned though 1) what appears to me to be pornographic content on the photostream (it is my contention that it was produced for the purposes of stimulation not education) and 2) my earlier request that the photograph in question be removed until the issue is settled as this seems to be the sensible way around (although I could be wrong on that too).whok (talk) 06:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is porn, it's appropriate regarding the subject of the article, and it's copyright-compliant regarding wikipedia standards. As to the photo being removed, given that you are the only one arguing your stance, I don't see why we should appease you. Lastly, if the photo was to be removed, I would like to see you provide something better.— Dædαlus Contribs 06:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, and I'm adding bold here so you'll see it easier, please indent your posts. Adding a single : before your posts indents them several spaces to the right. Adding two, :: does the same as the former, but 'times two'. And so on and so forth.
Below is an example:
First post
:Reply to first post
::reply to first post's reply
::second reply to first post's reply
:::reply to second reply to first post's reply
{{od|::::}}Out indent.

Different post
:etc
::etc
:::etc.
This will come out as:

First post

Reply to first post
reply to first post's reply
second reply to first post's reply
reply to second reply to first post's reply

Out indent.

Different post

etc
etc
etc.


So again, please indent your posts when you reply to someone. It makes following the conversation easier.
Also, the above works the same with bullets, achieved by typing a *.— Dædαlus Contribs 07:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help with how to organize my replies, etc. I do find your choice of language interesting. I am not demanding the photo is removed. I am requesting it is removed. Also, it is absolutely irrelevant to my stance that I don't have a replacement picture. The picture is (or isn't) inappropriate independently of there being a replacement.whok (talk) 09:26, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is great that we can communicate civilly without name calling. What Daedalus is saying is that your dislike or judgment of the image (as not appropriate) is not a valid reason to remove the picture. However, you having a better picture could be a valid reason. So far all I have seen is that you don't like the image. You say that it is not appropriate in Wikipedia. Your reasoning seems to be that it is (in your view) pornographic. Although others have differing opinions and have told you why, that hasn't changed your opinion. (which is fine). But more important, your opinion that it is pornographic is not (within Wikipedia policies) a sufficient reason either. Trying to accommodate you, others tell you what criteria is considered valid. Rather than running with those things, you reassert that you think it is pornographic again.
Valid criteria for removing the picture would be if the image was not appropriate for the article for a variety of quality reasons. For instance, if it was not on topic (a picture of Dick Cheney, for instance.) If it were low quality (grainy and out of focus). If there were already three other images of the same thing in the topic, and this image did not add anything new. If it was on topic, but did not give clarity (the image had other elements that someone unfamiliar with the topic might confuse for the topic. Such as another person in the image masturbating.) If the image were obscene (likely to fail the miller test in the state of Florida.) If the person in the image were a child (violation of child protection laws.) If you presented another picture that was not (in your view) pornographic, and illustrated the topic better (in other editors views). All of these would be reasons that other editors would take seriously.
Other editors will not take seriously reasons such as "I don't like it", or "It is pornography", or "Wikipedia is Not safe for work or "Children might see this." See ( Arguments to avoid).
In Wikipedia, we value images in an article very highly. We look for a lede image so that when someone opens an article, they (hopefully) at a glance, understand the topic being presented. A picture is worth a thousand words. Some people are more visually oriented and quality images in an article that make the article easier to understand and comprehend are invaluable.
In my opinion, the image in this article succeeds at those things without being obscene or offensive. At a glance someone knows exactly what "Anal Masturbation" is without reading a word. Although the image is sexually explicit, it is not offensive. It only illustrates the specific topic, without extra details in the picture that could confuse someone.
We do not desire to offend anyone. Consider that some people would be offended because the image is of a woman, and shows part of her body. Some would be okay that it is of a woman, but that it shows the wrong parts of her body. Some would be offended because they believe that self-pleasuring is immoral. Some would be offended because it sexualizes women, as it shows only her genitals, but not her face, a kind of objectification. Some would be offended because she is using a toy, and not her fingers. which they think is wrong. Some would be offended because they think the purpose of women is to please men, and not themselves. Some people might be offended because they think any kind of sexuality other than procreation is immoral. Consider that we choose to face a topic objectively and do our best to give the facts related to the topic without trying to filter the content based on social, cultural or religious reasons. Adults can view the facts and apply their own filters. Atom (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I need to stand down on this issue for the time being. I still firmly believe (and yes, I know that it's just my opinion) that the picture is highly inappropriate and should be removed. It is, in my opinion, offensive, pornographic and unnecessary. I agree that pictures are extremely valuable but compare this current picture with other pages that carry explicit images. For the most part sexual acts are covered with drawings (or artistic works from different historical periods) and NOT by some young people taking erotic pictures of themselves for recreational purposes. The picture as it is at the moment stands out very clearly as being in a different category altogether. In my opinion. whok (talk) 12:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures and other original visual deportations of anal masterbation should not be deleted. They provide a much needed reference this people that are trying to find accurate information of anal penetration. --The Educated 10:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brow276 (talk • contribs)

Unnecessarily pornographic pictures should not be included. That being said, I wouldn't have removed that picture if it hadn't been spammed to articles where it is clearly inappropriate. In this case, the primary purpose of illustration could be met by drawings or artistic works, as noted by whok above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Calm down, the picture, "The Educated" alias Brow276 has uploaded, is a plain copyvio. Like all other uploaded pictures of that "value" user, deletion debates have started, mostly because of other putative copyvios. --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: is the current photograph on this page appropriate?[edit]

Is the photograph accompanying this article appropriate in an encyclopedic context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Wideheadofknowledge 00:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anal masturbation picture[edit]

Can I please be redirected to the picture that was being disputed a month prior to me reading this article? LaRouxEMP (talk) 08:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Me too!! 203.160.115.101 (talk) 05:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anal sex to pregnant???? ROSHAN KARKI RK 007 (talk) 11:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anal masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anal masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DC EXTENDED UNIVERSE[edit]

D.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.199.16 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anal_masturbation&oldid=1198659888"