Talk:Masturbation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Catholicism section

"however when done with no marriage or confines involved, does not penalize those performing the act"-Is there a source for that? --72.49.61.223 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not correct...see the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

Anyone care to explain why?--72.49.57.155 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

New ideas

(1) Anybody know what's the optimum masturbation rate healthwise and waiting to catch a decent woman ? Ok indivudal differences are hight etc. but my idea is based on the fact that most (probably all) organs have an optimum solicitation rate, for example : if you don't use your muscle they get weaker and weaker, if you don't use your neurons the degenerate, if you don't submit your bones to strong forces they get spongy (astronauts), etc. the principle at work seem to be some sort of biological optimisation based on use, and it's also valid for overuse! If you train your muscle too much, you get injuries etc. So what about the sexual apparatus ? They must be an optimal use, and sleeping erections are probably there to assure that everythings are ok, or even to give it a bit or training (sleeping ejaculations probably too). If linking that with prostate health and the integrity of ejected DNA, it becomes qzuite complicated, thanks for your though! And this is not any mental masturbation!

(2) Read a few times that masturbation lower the testosterone concentration, actually not very surprising feeling-wise I mean calmer and at least able to think about something else for a few hours! Also the masturbation being often the stigmate of the rejected male the hormonal association seems logical! What about mastubation visual helpers (visualisation of women, pornography, etc) seems that it pushes the level of testosterone up ?

(3) feel free to push me a bit lower, but I did not know how else I could get enough attentions ?

Rather un-encyclopedic. Image issues

This definition has some surprisingly unencyclopedic bits.

The entire section on Humor and Masturbation is misplaced here. Death has also long been the subject of humor. So has sex. Yet neither of those definitions has an extensive entry on relevant humor. Humor pertaining to masturbation should go somewhere under sexual humor. It does not belong here.

The list of euphemisms is also out of place; they belong under euphemisms. Again, the definition for death doesn't mention "kicking the bucket" anywhere, and the one for sex is similarly void of phrases like "making the beast with two backs", or even "fucking".

a general thought is that humor helps to make a taboo practice more acceptable. I think this topic needs to be taken lightly, lest it fall prey to a firestorm the same way more "weighty" topics, like abortion, do. --Whiteknight 01:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Lastly, either the picture of female masturbation needs to be removed, or a picture of male maturbation should be added. I'm undecided on which of those two solutions would be best, but either would be better than depicting only female masturbation. 157.181.71.7 05:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does not really seem you feel the content is unencyclopedic, only its placement here within this article, is that right?

That's correct. I ought to have phrased it better. There is, I think, a place for both masturbation humor and masturbation euphemisms in Wikipedia; I just don't feel that they should be under masturbation.

I think it is an interesting point that there is a section on humor here but not at sex. However, many people would probably prefer to add such sections to sex and death rather than delete the content here. I think covering both humor pertaining to masterbation and humor pertaining to sex in a sexual humor article could be a good idea. Certainly the article on masterbation is starting to get a little long.

I think the list of euphemisms could also go into sexual humor or, even better, into sexual euphemisms.

You could 'be bold' and make the move, but people tend to get a little touchy about big changes like that, especially on actively edited and potentially controversial article such as this one can be. I suggest you start a vote here on each of the content moves.

That seems appropriate. I'll do that, thanks!

As to the picture, there was a very rough consensus (above) to remove an existing image of male masturbation that was deemed too pornographic and not sufficiently informative for an encyclopedia. At one point the Samurai image was place higher, but again there was a rough consensus reached (above) that the lead image should be of solo masturbation, since that is the main focus of the article (as opposed to group or mutual masturbation) Johntex 06:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I read the controversy. I feel the Samurai picture is fine where it is; it is more relevant down in the cultural context part. As a useful and practical image of masturbation, it wouldn't be very good. As I see it, we have three choices:

1) To delete the picture of female masturbation, and have no realistic masturbation pictures at all.

2) To add a somewhat stylized drawing of male masturbation, to match the current picture on female masturbation.

3) To replace the picture of female masturbation with something more photorealistic (and useful), and add something similar for male masturbation.

If it were wholly up to me, I'd go with option 3. I feel that option 2 might perhaps be a better compromise, though.157.181.71.7 02:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

More images (male masturbation, better female...) will be coming if I find some time (or if someone else takes on him to produce some). Rama 07:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My advise is we should stick with the line drawings. They seem to offend fewer people than photos. I know some would argue that avoiding offense is not our mission but I think those people miss an important point. Our mission is mainly to spread knowledge. If a photo causes people to react badly to Wikipedia then we have harmed our mission. Therefore, I vote for choice 2 above. As you say, it is a good compromise, and I think that makes it the best solution all around. Johntex 20:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I *STRONGLY* disagree. I think that the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia STRONGLY outweighs *ANY* need to pander to individuals who feel offended by graphic photographs that factually exhibit subject matter related to an article. If someone "reacts badly" to an encyclopedia because it visually, accurately depicts a subject with a photograph then that person shouldn't have been researching that topic to begin with. Masturbation is a SEXUAL ACT, and a photograph depicting a SEXUAL ACT is inherantly SEXUAL. You said it yourself: "Our mission is mainly to spread knowledge:" if someone is offended by that mission being executed in the most explicit sense, they don't belong here. Would you suggest we remove photographs of the human penis under penis because they might offend someone? Pacian 14:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am suggesting that we keep in mind the adage don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is not some experiment on free thought or a campaign to make sexually explicit material accepted by more people. It is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Encyclopedias avoid showing material that is overly explicit because it would harm their mission. How many school libraries do you know that would keep a set of encyclopedias if they contained graphic photographs of sexuals acts? You say, "if someone is offended by that mission being executed in the most explicit sense, they don't belong here." There are two fallacies in that statement:

1. The first is that you assume the person being offended is the reader. This may not be the case. If Wikipedia contains graphic images, schools, parents, public libraries, etc will tend to restrict access to their students, children, and patrons. Those people will lose the option of coming to this page to learn anything at all about masturbation. We need to seek the optimum solution. Adding a photo that is very marginally more informative would not make up for thousands or millions of people being blocked from the article entirely.
2. The second is that you ignore the reality of the US legal system. Wikipedia does not contain any warning advising of explicit content, nor any check of minimum age. Posting explicit images here under those conditions is to invite prosecution by the State of Florida or other jurisdictions where Wikipedia is hosted or available. You can't just ignore the realities of the world to go off on some crusade for inclusiveness. Johntex 16:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. The danger of public libraries censoring information is probably only given in states like the US where there are high moral ambiguities. I'm glad to know that the public libraries in Europe, i.e., are less eager to withheld knowledge. This is a problem in the US where the principle of "security-by-obscurity" is also even used in education. IMHO a very dangerous practice, especially for things like sexuality. But don't forget, that wikipedia is a global encyclopedia which is not only read by the US audience. Wikipedia cannot try to accomodate every moral aspect of every country. That would make wikipedia useless, if you consider policies like Northern Korea or China. One strenght of wikipedia is, that things can be published in a democratic way, as the world sees it, not as a few individuals of some major Encyclopedia publisher in some country like the US sees it. If a public library chooses to do censorship, then it's not wikipedia's fault. It's the library's fault.

That adage is morally based, and there is no place for any set of moral standards in a FACT-based encyclopedia. I'm sorry but your statements are biased and unfactual, whereas mine are not. I do not have any interest in offending or not offending people; my only interest is in including relevant documents and information in an encyclopedia. If a library or public school chooses to prohibit access to wikipedia because it contains a photograph of a male penis being masturbated chances are they would prohibit access because it has an article about masturbation - period. It is NOT the function of an encyclopeida to consider the consequences of what effect the contents therein have on people providing that said content is relevant, factual, and unbiased.

I choose not to respond to your comment about the legal issues of the situation because, with as much respect as possible, they are so non-sequitorial and ill-educated that I would have to go into EXTENSIVE explanations as to why you're wrong. I encourage you to properly educate yourself on the facts of the matter. Suffice to say (once again) that people know exactly what they are doing when they research a topic in an encyclopedia: looking for information. Any child obtaining information or photographs related to a topic that they should not have been accessing were obviously not being properly supervised, and the party responsible for that is their legal guardian. Pacian 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello Pacian, if your comments above reprsent what you consider "as much respect as possible" it will be interesting to see how you behave when you intend to be insulting. How do you justify your comments that my arguments in favor of maximizing our mission are "biased and unfactual"? Please explain what bias it is you are accusing me of.

As to your statement "It is NOT the function of an encyclopeida to consider the consequences of what effect the contents therein have on people...", I disagree. If the effect of the content is that the dissemination of knowledge is harmed rather than helped, then we have failed. This is pretty simple to understand.

Interestingly enough, you provide assistance to my argument by saying children should be better supervised so they don't come across pornographic images. That is exactly the argument that parents and administrators will use to block access to Wikipedia if it is found to include such images. Johntex 23:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As a simple follow up (and i'm sorry if i missed mention of this particular topic among all the discussions and arguments on this page), i would like to consider the readers who genuinely do not know how to masturbate. images about masturbation do not need to be graphic or photographic to aid in the learning process. People looking to learn masturbation should have some images to facilitate that learning, but we do not need to supply pornography on wikipedia. --Whiteknight 02:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vote: What should be done with the section on masturbation humor and euphemisms?

Please add your votes!

a) Delete them. They have no place in an encyclopedia.

b) Move them to their own sections (sexual humor and euphemisms or sexual euphemisms), and add links.

• 157.181.71.7
• B - Move them to their own articles with links. This helps create focused articles of manageable size, and also allows better exploration of these important topics. Johntex 20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move. Delete would be better option but then this stuff would get recreated again and again. Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move them, with perhaps a sentence or two in the main article. If the resulting articles don't come up to snuff them delete them. --Robert Merkel 03:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move them to a general Sexual humour article with a 'Euphemisms' section (the rest of that article may take some managing!! :-) or to a Sexual euphemisms article. --Nigelj 14:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move. The euphemisms section needs to be drastically trimmed. Some of the items there (such as wanking) aren't euphemisms of any kind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move. A small number would be useful to illustrate the concept but this huge recitation (some of which I doubt anyone has actually uttered) detracts from the seriousness of the page.Doug22123 17:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Move.--198 23:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

c)Leave them alone.

• Leave. no sense splitting up multiple fascets of the same conversation unless the humor and euphamism sections explode to require more space then is reasonable. as things stand, those sections are relatively petite. --Whiteknight 01:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Leave--BMF81 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

Addendum: it is also important to note that there is a significant amount of humor, and several euphamisms at the Oral Sex artical. all the humor and euphamisms here are integrated into the text of the artical however, and are not given a dedicated section. this might be an interesting compromise. --Whiteknight 02:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

See Sexual slang - it contains around a hundred euphemisms for masturbation, and many for oral sex as well. -Willmcw 02:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've moved them to Sexual slang, which seems to be in keeping with the above poll. -Willmcw 00:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Delete the entire page, its in bloody bad taste. This entire topic is nothing more than playground for advanced adolescents with a preoccupation for sexual chatter. For the love of Humanity, if you are all so obsessed with the subject, go have sex, and leave the writing to those who are able to think without seeing images of zippers and shiny objects floating around. If you are can't, send a letter to Hustler, I guarantee you they would be fascinated. Any, I repeat, any attempt at a discussion of what is tasteful and what is not regarding such a topic is at least vulger, and very probably a sign of advanced idiocy.

Image of male penis

Prometheuspan 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) You guys have been suckered. This image is somebodies way of making a statement soapbox of the article versus circumcision. I think that the way to handle this realistically is to cover the problem of circumcision, not show a suckerpunch image which doesn't show how any male actually masturbates and is a tricky prank to demonstrate why circumcision is a bad idea. Prometheuspan 04:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously there is debate on whether or not this image belongs here. Now it seems somehow the image is not showing in the article even though the link is still in the body of the article and there is nothing in the history showing it was removed. It seems to me like there is potential for an edit war here and I'd like to know firstly, what's going on, and secondly, get a vote on the issue at hand. No pun intended. Pacian 22:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC). more importantly, i want the out of the gate jerker to feel like it's ok, normal, and not something to hide. the benefits i went without. 4 years of feeling out of sorts when all along i was right in time. unfair.

This has already been argued on numerous articles with the decision not to include sexually explicit photos. We should stick with that policy. No explicit photographs U$er 23:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Check out penis, clitoris, vulva and the like. The last guy who tried to remove the clitoris picture ended up being arbcommed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I did not state my point clearly. I don't consider photographs of human genitals on their own to be sexually explicit. I should have said No sexually explicit photographs I don't object to photographs of the human body, or parts of the human body, if they are clinical in nature. I do object to them if they are sexually explicit. At that point, we are no longer an encyclopedia, we are smut. U$er 23:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on this. This is an article about masturbation and the photograph is of masturbation. The smut is in the eye of the beholder. You see smut, I see a chap giving his willy a good hard polishing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too fond of the line drawings and the photos are far worse. Let's not peddle pornography. Force10 01:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you saying that, for you, pictures of sex acts are ipso facto pornography, or is there something particular about the pictures we are using? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd say all pictures of sex are ipso facto pornography. I would not consider R Rated depictions of sex to be pornograpic, but that would not include an errect penis. Force10 01:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That is an interesting comparison. I think even "R Rated" images could be problematic here. To see an R Rated movie in the US, you have to be accompanied by a parent/guardian if you are under 18. That cuts out a lot of people that could benefit by learning what this article has to say about masturbation (please see my arguments above). Johntex 01:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I vote against the photo for the reasons I describe in detail above. Briefly, I think we want to make the best possible information available to the most possible people. In my view, too many people will block us or have a negative view of us if we have these types of photos. Therefore, they do more harm than good. Johntex 01:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the old "we'll scare the poor dears off" argument. Isn't that a bit patronising? What about the kids who will come here because we have a picture of a man wanking? There are two sides to that coin. I say include the picture because it makes the article better. Nobody is forced to download, let alone look at, the picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I think you misunderstand me. I'm more concerned about the person who controlls the "poor dears" access. They may not allow them to have access. Also, please note the legal arguments I make in the section above. Johntex 02:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have an issue with the current picture of male masturbation that goes beyond the offensive/non-offensive debate. I encourage all male Wikipedians to try and emulate that picture, with particular reference to hand position. As the proud owner and operator of a penis, I'm pretty sure nobody masturbates like that. I just gave it a shot, and damn near dislocated my shoulder.

Thus, there are two possiblities, either of them making the picture ineligible, IMO. The first (more likely) one is that the man in the picture is not masturbating himself; the hand belongs to someone else. The difference between the skin colour of the hand and the rest of the man's body makes this likely. The second possiblity is that the man is demonstrating some highly advanced masturbation technique.

To sum up: any picture of male masturbation should be a "typical" one, much like the one of female masturbation. From this perspective, the picture in the article is flawed. 157.181.71.7 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with a photo of someone masturbating, but that particular photo is weird. I agree the hand in the photo is likely not that of the owner of the penis. Someone appears to be gripping that penis strongly, not masturbating it. Moncrief 04:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I quite agree that this image is a bit too funky and should go. Get a line drawing or something, but this pic is just stupid. Someone is just showing off their works. I don't watch this article or anything, but I think you should just get rid of it. --DanielCD 18:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I can unequivocally. put an end to this debate right now. The copyright holder of the photograph in question is me. The photographer of the photo in question is me. The uploader of the photograph in question is me. And I can state with 100% assurance that the hand gripping the penis in the photograph belongs to the same person as the penis does. So then, I guess that makes this particular branch of the discussion a non issue. Pacian 19:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is going to be a satisfactory picture of male masturbation, within the context of something that someone here at wiki is likely to have copyright control over? It seems like nothing is going to satisfy everybody which is why the semantics and idiotic bickering need to be STOPPED in favor of clear thinking on the issue. A penis being masturbated is a penis being masturbated. Pacian 19:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I still say get rid of it. It makes a mockery of this site plus it's plain stupid. If you must, make a line drawing; it's not that hard and there are excellent drawing programs available. --DanielCD 20:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is that really how you masturbate, Pacian? It seems kind of backwards. Also, I'm not opposed to a photo but people do read Wikipedia at work and they could get fired for viewing that photo at work if caught. Now, reading an article on "masturbation" is asking for it in a sense, but it's also true that people don't generally expect to see photos that graphic on this site. I'm really not sure what the answer is. Perhaps we could make a LINK to that photo (or another similar one), labeling above the link that it is a not-work friendly photo of an erect penis. Moncrief 20:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree wtih DanielCD and Moncrief that this photo is not very representative of how the average male masturbates. There may be men who do hold their hand in this position, just as their probably are men who use chicken salad as a lubricant for masturbation. But listing chicken salad as a sexual aid or showing this photo as a representative act of masturbation would both be misleading to the reader. Pacian, this is no judgement on the sexual practices of the person you photographed. If he finds that comfortable more power to him. Johntex 21:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is no consensus to remove the image, and I'm sick and tired of the bluenoses and Mrs. Grundys who keep trying to bring down this encyclopedia. Speak for yourselves, quit trying to hide behind "the children". If you object, be brave and say so. Until you get a petition from some parent who is offended, your contention that you're protecting the children is bogus. We have had this discussion over and over again, it's gotten old. Find something more constructive to do. RickK 21:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

I agree the photo is kind of strange. That's not the way I do it. Err...anyway...be it that image or another, why not put a disclaimer at the top of the page? I have vague memories of this happening with other articles. Or give the option at the top of the page to see the article with images or without. Jez 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The more I look at that photo, the more I object to it not because it's graphic, but just because it doesn't seem like a reasonable way for one to masturbate. I can't quite imagine how that works from that position and with that sort of grip. If we are to have a graphic photo of that nature, could we have one that is a bit more authentic-looking? Moncrief 21:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Masturbation being essentially a movement, it is obviously difficult to represent it with a static image. Perhaps a better photograph could be found, but in the mid-time, I see absolutely no reason to remove this one from the article, especially in such a hastiness. Rama 21:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a third person present, someone masturbating the penis while Pacian watches with this camera. The hand is not moving, it just has a hard grip on that penis. Perhaps the person is falling or something and just grabbed the penis because it was the only thing around. Or perhaps the whole thing was a type of play-acting sexual masturbation-type thing, and someone is roll-plaing someone else falling and gripping the penis firmly to keep from pseudo-falling. The again, the grip doesn't look very strong. But it doesn't have to be if you are doing roll-playing sex. Perhaps it should go under Roll-playing sex. --156.101.1.5 21:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wonder why RickK and Pacian get so worked up about this that they call arguments they disagree with "idiotic bickering" (as Pacian claims) or label those that have a different point of view to be "bluenoses and Mrs. Grundys" (as RickK claims)? What happened to discussing the facts at hand? Fact: Wikipedia is not Wikiporn. Fact: The image is bizarre. Conclusion: the image should not be here. Force10 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can't see how these "facts" could help solve the matter. Wikipedia is not Wikiprude either, so let us drop this sort of arguments, they can only come to the rescue of a decision already taken. The fact that the image does not show the absolutely canonical form of masturbation does not make it a danger (like, for instance, the now deleted incorrect image which was initially on Heimlich manoeuver), so I do not see why we should remove it in emergency while we wait for a better one. Rama 22:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm getting worked up because this is falling hard on the heels of the Kate Winslett and Autofellatio nonsense, and it's just more of the same. I'm seeing Wikipedia becoming more and more bowdlerized by people who keep insisting, "oh, no, it doesn't offend me, but it might, just might offend somebody else down the road, so we should get rid of it. Never mind that this is an encyclopedia, and that it's odd that we should try to write an article about masturbation that doesn't even show a picture of the act. RickK 23:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Attempting to summarize the opinions so far

If you object to my interpretation of your comments below, please feel free to move/remove your name, or clarify your position. Force10 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In favor of keeping this photograph in this article

• Pacian
• RickK
• Tony Sidaway
• Rama
• Davenbelle — sure.
• Trilobite — picture of masturbation in an article about masturbation: fine by me.

202.191.106.230 05:20, 19 April 2006 (UTC) You can't edit real life to suit your needs, the images stay (user: JayKeaton)

• Dmn — absolutely, this is an encyclopaedia, not a children's storybook.
• APatcher — Stuff like that stays. I was a DMOZ.org editor from 1999-2002 for the Society/Sexuality category. That Wiki Masturbation page is listed by DMOZ.org (and thereby in the Google Directory) in a "general" category at http://dmoz.org/Society/Sexuality/Masturbation and ranked number one in Google at http://directory.google.com/Top/Society/Sexuality/Masturbation/ . Believe me, if we try to child-proof, work-proof, or school-proof the Internet, we're actually just preventing adults from accessing free information. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of webmasters not having to child-proof. Besides, a kid is more likely to be damaged by what goes on in an unmonitored AOL chat room or online message board than any picture of the human anatomy or human sexual text. And if you're at work, I really think you should save the masturbation research for your own time. In addition, if people can freely access the information they want to know from a legitimate source when it comes to sex and sexuality, they are less likey to be fishing around the WWW for skewed free-porn and pay-porn sites, which usually depict extreme cases and misrepresentations of human bodies and body parts.

In favor of removing this photograph from this article

• U$er
• Force10
• Johntex - Against any explicit photograph.
• 157.181.71.7
• DanielCD - Quite in favor of removal
• Hedley 15:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Mike Rosoft 16:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• 198 23:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
• JDG 01:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
• dab

• • Jez I'd like to clarify that I'm in favour of replacement, not simple removal.

I removed my own name from the list above (I don't advocate outright removal and I'm of half a mind to add my name to the other list because I don't appreciate being spoken for and having my words misconstrued). Moreover, I don't read everyone else on that list - including the unregistered user - as advocating removal of that photo. Many of them are just commenting and throwing out ideas and options. Moncrief 21:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Moncrief. I'm sorry I offended you. I did not mean to speak for you or anyone else. I am just trying to summarize what it seems people are saying. I understand there are a variety of opinions here - including some that want no photo, some that think a photo is ok but not this photo, etc. That is why I tried to be very specific saying "this photograph" and "this article". Force10 22:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I size the opportunity to point out that, although this is not officially a vote, voting is not encouraged in Wikipedia; we work by consensus, not by democracy. This way is intended to encourage reasonable middle-term solutions and explanations rather then enforce solutions with which a large minority could disagree -- it also saves the hassle of raising campaigns. Rama 22:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the substitution images but it is ludicrous to argue that they are less-offensive (or less a danger to anyone who might view them in terms of inappropriateness or tastefullness" than the image presented before. I concede only to logic, not to opinion or emotion tinted blathering. Someone even stated "Fact: the image is bizarre"; here's a fact: that's your OPINION, not a fact. If it is the general consencus that the image is not typical of what a human male penis looks like while being masturbated, by all means, the change is just fine by me. But I will not kow-tow to moralistic, sychophantic arguings about upholding some kind of status or pristine orientation that wikipedia does not set out to accomplish. Wikipedia is an all-encompassing encyclopedia of knowledge, and that includes the frank discussion and depiction of sexually explicit topics. For the record, by the way, the type of male masturation depicted is both common and normal. Visit [Backhand Masturbation] for an explanation as well as - GASP! WARNING!!! - an explicit animated gif deisplaying the technique fully. This is just a great example of the fact that just because a hundred people have never heard of something or think it's "bizarre" doesn't make them right. AND - as a final statement, for perhaps the tenth time now, I have not asserted at any time that the penis in the picture in question was mine, so quit referencing it as if it is until such time as you are A: told by me in person, or B: see mine in person and think you've made a positive ID. I wash my hands of it now. (Pun intended.) Pacian 04:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Has it occurred to you that your assertion the image is not bizarre or is or is not anything else is also OPINION?? What sort of <deleted> blathers on about the distinction between opinion and fact, then goes right on elevating his own opinion into some higher dimension? You have one voice, I have one voice and I assure you the voices on Wikipedia that want this cruft gone are in the great majority. No doubt this will come to a general vote soon and even if the rules of the vote are skewed in your favor (as have been past votes on individual images), I'm pretty sure the 2/3 majority will be there to send you packing. That day can't come soon enough. Who was it who said something like "The one really unforgivable thing is poor taste?". Get this peripubescent schlock out of our project. JDG 05:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your backwards logic reeks of ignorance. I never asserted that the image was not bizarre, only that it was appropriate for the article. The first amendment of thc constitution of the United States of America was created SPECIFICALLY to protect unpopular opinions, including the most tasteless ones. There is nothing "peripubescent" about a photograph of an erect male penis (in fact it may very well be stipulated that such an image is quite the opposite.) THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MORALITY IN A FACTUAL TEXT. Your opinion on the matter, and in fact any opinion on the matter (be it 99.999% of the contributors) is completely irrelevant. Where does it end? Should we take all of the textbooks of human biology and remove any reference to genitals? Should we go and get a copy of the esteemed classic novel "Ragtime" and remove the reference to one character's "great filamented spurts of jism that traced the air like bullets and then settled slowly over Evelyn in her bed like falling ticker tape"? And so on, and so on... I cannot continue restating the same thing over and over again because you are going to continue to disagree and have a complete lack of understanding on the issue at hand, which is that the *ONLY* criteria for inclusion of material in a factual text are thus: A.Is it relevant? B: is it factual? C: is it's inclusion beneficial? - any other considerations are irrelevant. The fact that you don't understand this makes you the one who does not belong here, my friend, and lest you think otherwise, I have been a steady contributor for well over a year now and I am not exiting any time soon. And now, in all seriousness, I am done with the conversation. Feel free to ejaculate additional nonsense in a continuation of your desperate need to have the last word. (Oh no - I said ejaculate!!!) Pacian 06:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't believe that an explicit photography of masturbation is appropriate to be included in an encyclopedia article. At the very most, replace it with a link. Wikipedia is not a repository of pornography. (Does ANY other encyclopedia prominently feature similar material?) Consider this a provisional vote, since I haven't seen the photo yet. - Mike Rosoft 16:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture Change

I have changed the picture to a line drawing with a slightly more conventional technique. hopefully this will pacify everybody and we can go back to doing something important Fuzz 22:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In favor I think this picture works well. Ambush Commander 22:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Much Better This is at least as informative, and less likely to cause problems. Johntex 23:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Fuzz. This does help. Cartoon pornography can still be considered pornography, but this is a big improvement. Force10 23:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the drawings pornography, as they don't seem particularly titillating. Thanks to user:Rama for creating them and to whoever for adding them. They are much better than photographs, for a number of reasons. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:09, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks, Fuzz, great job. Strongly in favour of keeping the current pictures. 157.181.71.7 01:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, these drawings are good. Tasteful, clinical, and informative. --Deathphoenix 01:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A non-explicit drawing is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I approve of the change. - Mike Rosoft 16:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The penis is backwards. I don't know what the previous picture was, but this image shows the underside of the glans facing up. I tried changing it but it was reverted. Comments? BiomechZero 23:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Edit by Warbler1

I have reverted the image edit by User:Warbler1, on the grounds that this is evidently a contentious issue, and as such an edit of this form should be discussed before it is made. Warbler1 makes a good point, that the second line drawing is unnecessary, however, this is not the way to deal with it, in my opinion.

I think that the best solution is to attempt for a degree of equality in the images. If a close-up lind drawing of a male masturbating is to be included, one should be included for a female, however I feel that this is less contentious than if a photograph is included. If a photograph of a male masturbating is included, one must be included of a female, otherwise we risk losing NPOV over the images.

Sorry if I put the picture up without discussing, and agree that it should be discussed. Personally, though, I think the image (Image:Masturbation.jpg) is rather better and more natural than the other one that was up. Warbler1 9 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)

Once More Into The Breach

Not to re-ignite this fairly mundane debate, but do we really need not one but two poorly done male images? The second one, besides being utterly crap, really adds nothing to the article. brenneman^(t)(c) 11:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Argumentations

Just want to add my voice to those calling for exclusion of all sexually explicit images. Call me a prude, call me a censor, call me a reactionary, call me whatever. If you want to see a closely reasoned argument for why this stuff is just stupid and counterproductive, let me know and I'll schedule you. Meanwhile, I want this to be a serious encyclopedia. Why don't you boys like TonySidaway and RickK start a spinoff like "WikiSex" and then lobby back here to include links to it from Wikipedia? This cruft has always been quarantined into some place it's understood one should not invite kids. This holds for towns that allow adult bookstores and it's going to have to hold for self-respecting `net neighborhoods. Stop bringing our work down. Kids are a vital part of our audience, many times more important than the randy slacker demographic and whoever else might find this drek "useful". If the cruft enthusiasts can't be put down completely, I suppose we'll have to get along with the drawings. But the line MUST be drawn at these photos. JDG 03:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JDG, it's an article about masturbation. I mean, it's not as if people are inserting photos of penii in articles about daisies or the Easter Bunny. Moncrief 05:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Moncrief, I'm aware of the article subject. It doesn't matter. The community needs to make a judgment on (GASP) moral grounds, and also on the basis of taste. Yes there are those who get themselves into a knot at the mere mention of the word "morality". Fine, if Wikipedia is to be a purely amoral thing, it can choose that direction. I'll leave and many, perhaps most, of the best contributors will leave... But I don't think this will happen. We have the numbers to carry off this value judgment. It is up to us to choose what a serious encyclopedia is. Full on illustrations of sex acts simply offend most people, particularly when they are using a resource they have assumed does not include such material. The TonySidaways and Pacians of the world can smirk and steam all they like, their vituperations don't change the numbers involved: this is how most people react. We don't want to drive them away. We want to provide them this tremendous resource. It's a value judgement and we need to choose not to offend, to be a serious reference and to let material like this go to some other project in which users will see what's coming before it's in their faces. JDG 06:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All I can say is that you'd better not look at the articles for vulva, clitoris and penis if you feel that way. Moncrief 06:05, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

I've seen them and if I were Jimbo I would have stepped in and mandated drawings in a strict clinical, textbook style. But I can live with these depictions of static anatomy. I understand there are a lot of meek well-off white boys who like to spice up their lives by being cyberanarchists in the monitor's glow involved in this project and I'd like to accomodate them. It's when you move into sex acts that you've crossed a Rubicon. This is where the line must be drawn for Wikpedia to avoid total rejection in schools, libraries and academic and professional circles. The advocates of this stuff are very simply torpedoing us in our most important audiences and we can't let their little cyber-radical acts bring the whole thing down JDG 06:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

replace "moral" with "taste" and I'm with JDG. We know the numbers people. We'll get a majority opposing explicit images of sex acts, but not an 80% majority. Try to find a solution with this situation in mind, rather than trying to sneak through yet another poll. If you have no taste, you have no business picking encyclopedia images for articles on sex acts. Leave it to people with some taste and imagination, and there can be very nice solutions. the attitude "it's not 'smut', you puritan porn-basher! the smut is in your mind, liberate yourself and enjoy our pictures" is childish and insincere. dab (ᛏ) 06:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And again, this is where these types of edits are extremely dangerous. Please, kindly refer me to where the line of "good taste" has been so clearly defined that I may fully understand. Truly, I am of the opinion that the photograph that began this debacle is completely tasteful in every way. This is not some "cyberanarchistic" (eye roll) act; I am simply of the emphatic opinion that photographs of an act of sex is not in poor taste, especially the photograph in question. Perhaps I would understand the outrage if the photograph were of something extreme, but then, again, where is the line? Who decides? If the idea is for the community here at wikipedia to decide, then let them...(and clearly in this instance they have!) But let's stop throwing around such definitive statements as to insinuate that any one person here has the hard-line grasp on what is deemed tasteful or not. I recall not so long ago that libraries were trying to decide if the now highly respected photographic works of Robert Maplethorpe should be allowed in the library, and people like JDG said no. Now that has changed, and I don't see anyone boycotting the libraries. Pacian 06:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You've got to be joking. The American arts world is still trying to recover from the backlash to Maplethorpe and co-reprobates of the 80s and 90s. Public funding of the arts is still far below pre-80s norms, with most of the drop coming in the Clinton years. "Highly respected"?? You need to stop taking the prevailing views of those you happen to hang out with and inflating them about ten-thousand fold so you can pawn them off as cultural norms. Your strictly fringe application of the 1st Amendment above is another example of this. You'll get to see just how small you are when the project-wide vote on sexually explicit images in Wikipedia takes place. JDG 07:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have a very US-centric point of view here. Wikipedia is a multi-national project, and you should be well aware that a majority of Western coutries are far less prude than the "moral majority" which is so vocal in the USA. Also, here is no particular reason to single out sexuality as the one "shocking" subject; there are certainly Muslims who could be shocked that we have depictions of living beings on WIkipedia, yet it would be extremely negative to remove all such illustrations, even though they are in direct contradiction with their faith.

Also, even though there is a very vocal minority which keeps refering to "some people" who will get shocked, or that "in some cases", or to "children", I still have to actually see one single occurence of someone getting honestly shocked. I suggest that we tsay on a practical approach of the subject and let aside hypothetical cases which could be understood as to only retroactively give excuses for a decision already taken for pseudo-moral reasons. Rama 09:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Rama, the "enlightened Europeans" argument doesn't wash here. Your laxity over there is a passing trend and there's little reason for the rest of us to join a fad that's almost run its course. Your example involving Muslims is likewise far from compelling. It's understood that Wikipedia is a secular, basically rationalist compendium and no one is trying to spin it into any other orientation, conservative Muslim or otherwise. What we're talking about here are minimum standards for serious publications targeted at general audiences. Those standards very obviously and rightly preclude photographs of sex acts. I think you know this and you're just letting a sort of tendentious "free speech" logic interfere with your common sense. No one is trying to ban this stuff from the universe. We're just saying it's inappropriate for a project like this and it's inclusion here will gravely hurt us in our mission to be a widely used reference work. JDG 18:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"It's understood that Wikipedia is a secular, basically rationalist compendium and no one is trying to spin it into any other orientation, conservative Muslim or otherwise." Is it? Well then what are you doing trying to spin it into some kind of irrational conservative Censorpedia? You also seem happy to assume that your own ideas about what's acceptable are shared by all but the most deliberately provocative, as evidenced by your dismissal of several hundred million of us deviant Europeans with our passing moral laxity. Not everyone shares your sense of moral outrage at seeing a picture of masturbation in an article which aims to describe the subject. "Those standards very obviously and rightly preclude photographs of sex acts." Do they? It's not obvious to me at all that a photo of a sexual act should be precluded from appearing in an article about a sexual act. Your arguments are faulty and we've heard them all before. Can I ask you if you yourself are offended or shocked by this image, or are your efforts to remove it motivated by some concern for other people, who you assume will be shocked by it? Because if these shocked people exist, there don't seem to be very many of them. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You attack my statement "Those standards very obviously and rightly preclude photographs of sex acts." But what did these standards refer to in my post? They referred to "serious publications targeted at general audiences". Now, before I go on to utterly nullify your other absurdities, will you please tell me the name of a serious publication targeted at general audiences which includes photos of sex acts? JDG 08:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Anne Hooper's Kama Sutra [1] has, is very wide-spread, and is not an isolated case. Rama 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, for general audiences. JDG

Yes, absolutely, general audiance. Anne Hooper's Kama Sutra is on sale in supermarkets and advertised in the displays of book shops. It is by no means an "adult" book. Rama 09:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Really this is a pretty offensive form of ethnocentrism or cultural bigotry. Because your fallen country allows this stuff in supermarkets all the rest of us should follow suit. Kama Sutra is by every means an adult book... To be generous, I'll go with a definition of "General Audience" that doesn't include junior highschoolers (12 and 13 year olds). So we need to aim for acceptability for 14, 15 year olds. One of the standard uses of an encyclopedia is to help kids with their homework. No publication I'm aware of that includes 14 year olds in its audience uses sexually explicit photos. JDG 22:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My dear fellow, you don't even know what country I live in, you probably haven't ever visited it, and I find your way of assuming it "fallen" particularly ridiculous; I can therefore only advise you to continue on this rethorics if you want to save other people the burden of demonstrating that you are out of your mind, and off the topic in particular.

This being said, and since you want to re-define "general audiance" as "suitable for 14 year olds, I advise you to have a good look through the "sexual education" series of any good bookshop. I used to have some when I was a kid myself, so I am quite confident that you won't waste your time there. Rama 10:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

My dear fellow, I have since been notified that your country is Switzerland. I have indeed visited it and in fact nearly 1/4 of my DNA is Swiss. The "fallen" remark was a bit of a game, as I consider all nations "fallen". If you want to see real ad-hominem cruft, look to statements like one editor saying "you are out of your mind" to another.... What would you like me to say? I am extremely unimpressed with European public policy on these matters. I'm not a rightist, I'm a centrist. I have some optimism that Switzerland, France, Italy and maybe even someday the Netherlands and Sweden will understand what is truly needed for healthy societies and will change their orientations. It will consist largely of showing people like Rama what's what. A daunting task indeed but hopefully not impossible. JDG 16:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

I am not certain that I understand what you are coming at. You are welcome to apply for the citizenship of any European country you like, Switzerland included, and start a political carreer there. Judging by your comments, you will be in a moralist far-right party and might even have some degree of audiance there. But this is the talk page of the Masturbation article of Wikipedia. So I would really suggest that you save your ideas of what a proper society is for further debate where it will be appropriate, and either contribute useful ideas here, or stop wasting everybody's time. Rama 17:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

yada,yada,yada. As a Wikipedian I go back to early `02. In terms of sheer research and writing, there are not many that have contributed more (I'm not very active with User:Talk stuff but if you look at contrib history and FA action on articles primarily authored by me, you'll see this is so). Lately I've been getting into some tussles over things like Templates and Policies and if my mood is right I may go activist on a few issues, though it would be a shame to get caught up in that stuff longterm, as researching/writing must be the bedrock activity here. In my recent forays into debates on policy and suchlike, I am running into a surprising number of users who get into idle arguments, throw around ad-hominem phrases, show a high degree of intolerance, arrogantly state others are "wasting everybody's time" and then accuse those they are debating of what?-- of getting into idle arguments, throwing around ad-hominem phrases, showing a high degree of intolerance and arrogantly stating others are "wasting everybody's time". So it will go, I guess. It has its amusing moments. JDG 17:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the rational encyclopedia, is a serious publication targeted at general audiences! Again, who is it you're trying to protect from mental scarring here? Are you offended by masturbation or are you concerned for the poor dears? It is a little tiresome when this argument has to be had all over again every time an "objectionable" picture is inserted into an article. The policy is that Wikipedia is not censored. Check the content disclaimer. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, do you think your arguments are any less repetitive and tiresome? And Wikipedia policy on this is far from settled, contrary to your claim. The content disclaimer will always need to warn against potentially offensive images because of the different sensitivity thresholds of different people and societies. The disclaimer specifically mentions only two types of potentially offensive material that articles may contain: graphical depictions of violence and depictions of human anatomy. Photos of sex acts cannot be termed "depictions of human anatomy" alone, thus nothing in the content disclaimer supports you in the current debate. As for "The policy is that Wikipedia is not censored"-- where do you get that? It's nowhere in the content disclaimer. Are you saying any image whatsoever will be allowed on Wikipedia? How about a severed human head, its mouth stuffed with severed genitalia? Obviously, this would be censored. And just as obviously your description of standing policy here is wrong... If I can devote the time, I will soon be working toward giving that policy more definition. My hope is that effort will lead to a massive landmark vote that will free us from all these repetitive arguments on each new piece of cruft. I'm afraid after that vote you'll be pining for the good old days. JDG 22:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Wikipedia is a laic and rationalist project. This makes the definition of "minimum standards for serious publications targeted at general audiences. Those standards very obviously and rightly preclude photographs of sex acts" a little bit problematic. I see nothing rationalist in deciding a priori that sex-related images will be particularly offensive per nature, while photographs of, say, weapons, are not.

It is very obvious that the arguments against including photographs of sexual acts are most of the time weak ("some people will get shocked" --who ?, "inclusion here will gravely hurt us in our mission to be a widely used reference work") and sometimes contradictory (such images have been said to be both insignificant and susceptible of traumatising people).

I certainly do feel that some sort of common sense and taste should be part of what is supposed to be shown or not (the photographs of Abu Grahib are an interesting problem, they are both sickening and very important to the strength of the article), but deciding that all sexually explicit photographs should be excluded from Wikipedia is clearly irrational. It is also obvious that photographs make the article more rich, and therefore logical to include them.

Since this seems to uterly exasperate a very vocal minority of users, the solution of drawings (which I see inferior to photograph -- and I've never quite understood why people who shold see photographs as "offensive" tend to see drawings as less so) seems an acceptable compromise; yet, an attempt to ban all sexually explicit images, or to decide that the avoidance of sexually explicit photographs is a matter of principle, seems highly harmful to me. Rama 07:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

JDG, I do not quite understand the following statement of yours, could you please clarify? "Fine, if Wikipedia is to be a purely amoral thing, it can choose that direction. I'll leave and many, perhaps most, of the best contributors will leave... But I don't think this will happen." Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be amoral? Hasn't it chosen that direction from the very outset? If Wikipedia is supposed to have morality, why doesn't it state that "Hitler is evil", for example? Surely that's something with which all moral people would agree?

Obviously, I'm against shock value. I think the photograph was more useful than the current line drawings, but the difference is not great, and I think this level of compromise is appropriate. But I'm really uncomfortable at the thought of Wikipedia self-censoring itself. Could you please give us a cite where a non-Wikipedian argues that there's too much smut on Wikipedia? It would, I think, be useful to gauge whether this (alienating people) is a real and serious issue. 157.181.71.7 13:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello dab, there is no need for an 80% majority to decide on a version of an article. This is not a vote for deletion of the article or the image, where a supramajority is needed. This is simply an editing decision. There is no reason to set a disproportionally higher burden for one version or the other. A simple majority is enough to decide on a version of an article. Johntex 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is incorrect. Wikipedia is not a democracy. A simple democracy is not enough for a decision to be taken; ideally, a compromise solution suiting all parties should be adopted. In practice, it sometimes happens that it is impossible to reach absolute consensus, and in such cases, majorities in the order of magnitude of 80% can be reputed satisfacting. But a simple majority is clearly not enough (be it only that it would be far too easy for ill-intentioned parties to "highjack" articles). Rama 15:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Rama. I agree that ideally, a compromise solution suiting all parties should be adopted. That is why the line drawing is a reasonable compromise. (and I see you have added some new ones as well). However, I believe you are mistaken in your interpretation about what happens if that fails. Please site your source for a majority in the order of ~80% to be needed for a change to an article. In the case of changing an article, as opposed to deleting an article, neither viewpoint can enjoy the presumption of being in the right. By your same argument, it would be too easy for ill-intentioned parties to "hijack" articles. You can't assume that the "hijack" is in one direction or the other. Johntex 15:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the pictures in the article now are lovely, and very appropriate to this article, which they illustrate very well. Of course all pictures must be explicit, whether they're illustrating a motor car, a tin opener, or masturbation, otherwise how could they possibly be useful in an encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE. Rama, JDG and others, this is not the place to discuss what society should or should not be like, or what values or morality it should have or not have, or which societies are "fallen" or not. There are other online forums for this, if necessary.

There are a number of topics in which we have to balance the need for accurate and descriptive representation of reality (which includes elements that some people are embarassed about) with the sensitivity of many, or with other concerns such as Wikipedia being accepted in schools or whatever. These are delicate topics, without even going into the problems of society as a whole.

Now for my personal opinion: these are many societies that are embarassed about discussing or depicting various acts, parts of the anatomy, people or objects. We have already have the members of one religion objecting to a photograph of their prophet, which they deem to lack respect for him; others object to the graphical depictions of sexual acts, etc.

It seems impossible to content all such requests without severely bowdlerizing Wikipedia. As a consequence, there will always be people who think we exceed the limits of "bad taste", "decency" or "morality". This is inevitable.

I'd therefore prefer the debate to stick to objective concerns, focusing on the objectives of Wikipedia (which is to provide information formulated from a neutral point of view to people). For instance, we may consider the following factors:

• Accuracy: obviously, pictures and videos are good for depicting acts, in general.
• Offense: would people consulting this article be shocked by the contents? (I note that this is a sex-related article, so presumably, people should not be shocked by sexual content; but, on the other hand, one may want to read about some topic without it being shown in the face; i.e. we write about landmines without showing the bleeding wounds of anti-personnel mines).
• Accessibility: would explicit content lead to the banning or restriction of Wikipedia from certain locales?

These are topics that we should discuss. One thing I also would like to avoid in the discussion is fictional cases:

• "Do we also have to apply the laws of Iran or Saudi Arabia?"
• The hypothetic 9-year-old who goes on pages discussing sex topics and is shocked. (I asked around, and apparently Wikipedia has only received 2 emails about explicit pictures seen by real children, both of which were results of vandalism. Given that Wikipedia is a very important site, this seems to show that few "real life" users and parents actually have experience significant problems in that matter.)

So, in a nutshell: I would like the discussion to stick to real problems and solutions, not to go into societal reform or fancy hypotheses. Thanks. David.Monniaux 19:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

There have certainly been more complaints than that about explicit images in general - although, as far as I can remember, all were related to vandalism. Of course, I only get some of the Foundation mail, some is replied to by Jimbo or the board directly - so there may have been others I'm not aware of. I don't think this is really a good measure of opinion actually. For such a large site, we have a rather small amount of mail, there are too many other ways of expressing opinions - with the wiki itself as well as mailing lists and IRC - very few people actually find and use the email addresses. And those that do, tend to be those that don't understand Wikipedia anyway -- sannse (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen either anybody complaining about real children having seen explicit content on the talk pages etc. (but, admittedly, I don't monitor those topics, nor do I often browse the complaints on village pump).

Admittedly, there can be reasons for this. My impression is that a kid who ends up on an explicit article will have to have looked for it — you don't end up on "sodomy" by accident, I think. I don't see parents complaining that their kid willfully researched a sexual topic and ended up on sexually explicit material — sounds too much like admitting that their kid is not the little innocent angel that they pretend he or she is. The same applies to teachers probably — would somebody admit that they left a bunch of 9 year olds surfing on the Internet (on which there's some unfiltered content far worse than WP, probably), then complain that they found mature content?

Still, I'd prefer if we stuck to real complaints by real people. David.Monniaux 11:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd have problems if someone insisted on, say, inserting pictures of people ski-ing in the nude in an article about ski-ing. An article about sunbathing, it would be acceptable because many people sunbathe in the nude. So I think it comes down to appropriateness. This applies to violence and sex as well as to simple nudity.

On children, I think that sooner rather than later someone will come along and produce a mirrored subset of Wikipedia suitable for children--or rather, parents who don't want their children to see this or that. The Wiki environment really isn't suitable for unsupervised children. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think David.Monniaux and Tony Sidaway raise some very important issues. I agree with them on certain points.

• I agree with David that we don't necesarily need to take into account all possible jurisdictions and opinions. I also agree with the thought that many complaints do not reach us for all the reasons cited above. However, the laws of the United States and Florida apply to this project whether anyone has complained or not. And they apply no matter what the topic of the article is. If we violate those laws, the next "complaint" we get could come from a state prosecutor or federal agency in the form of legal charges.
• I agree with Tony that different images will be appropriate for an article about a sexual topic than for a non-sexual topic. But that still leaves us with deciding exactly what is appropriate for these different types of articles. In this, we need to be guided by what the law says, as well as what is likely to serve the greatest number of readers in the greatest way.
• I disagree with the assertion that we shouldn't consider hypothetical examples. Planning for the future always involves hypotheticals and probabilities. We need to plan for our future vs just reacting to what has happened in the past. The key is that we need to ask ourselves if the hypotheticals represent realistic likelihoods, and do they lead us to make the best overall decision for the project.
• I also disagree that a person who comes to a sexually orientied page should expect or be prepared to see sexually explicit images. Imagine somone who has used a traditional (dead tree) encyclopedia. It would not feature a photograph of a man masturbating, so why would they expect to see one here? Imagine someone who is encountering the word autofellatio for the first time? The context may not be enough for them to figure out what the word means. They could go to that article without even realizing it is on a sexually explicit topic. As is often pointed out (sometimes by the same people who claim that worrying about US laws is too American-centric) not all of our readers are native English speakers. These people could easily be shocked if they went to that page and saw a photo of someone performing that sex act. Before anyone objects on grounds that there is no harm in shocking people, I hasten to point out that the fact of the law indicates otherwise if this is a minor encounting sexually explicit material. These are hypothetical, but realistic examples of how our choices in images can adversly affect the goals of the project. Johntex 16:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well I'm pretty sure that none of the pictures we're displaying in context need worry us on legal grounds. Wikipedia has legal staff to deal with that kind of thing and they'll let us know if there's a problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you are correct about the images we currently have displayed. However, I don't believe that would be the case for the photo that was removed. It would be nice if the powers that be would have the legal staff make a very clear statement of what is or is not acceptable. Otherwise, I don't think we can take much comfort from the thought that "they'll let us know if there is a problem". I seriously doubt we are paying a lawyer to periodically look at each page for problems. Johntex 17:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we have to consider the legal framework of the jurisdictions that can realistically prosecute the Foundation, its regional chapters, their officers or contributors (which probably excludes Iran, but includes Florida and the US federal government). This, however, is based on legal criteria, not on opinions about what could possibly be shocking to (sometimes hypothetical) people. While what is shocking or not differs between cultures, sub-cultures, and people, we can at least go to firmer grounds by simply considering the relevant legal frameworks.

I also agree about the probabilities and hypothetical examples. My point is that, given the huge traffic that Wikipedia gets, we apparently do not receive complaints about real minors having seen sexually explicit material by accident (except vandalism); to me, this indicates that the event is rare.

As for encountering stuff by accident: I agree that one may look up a word without even knowing that it has sexual meaning (though I think that most people, including minors, looking up sexual words do so knowing they have a sexual meaning, without necessarily knowing the details). I personally support putting pictures etc. in a position in the article or in sub-pages such that it's difficult to reach them without knowing very well that one is looking at sexually explicit material. I note that we have a "spoiler warning" message, we could have a "sexually explicit material ensues" message.

I would like opinions from US legal experts, but I reckon that if a minor willfully gets access to explicit material after being told about the expliciteness of the material, then there is no grounds for complaint.

I would also know what the criteria applied by US jurisdictions. As far as I know, "pornography" is defined differently from "sexually explicit material"; it is sexually explicit material that has a goal of exciting prurient interest in the reader. Merely showing genitals or a penis, or a clinical depiction of a sexual act, is not pornography by this definition.

But, see — we agree on the basics: we have to go back to discussion on objective factors (legal factors that could reasonably affect the project, etc.) and leave aside societal rants. Thanks! David.Monniaux 06:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Agreeing fully with David.Monniaux's of the matter, I'd like to expose a technical point about drawings and photogaphs.

The use of drawings, as opposed to photographs, seems to be universally accepted (any correction or nuance about this ?); from this, clear-line drawings could be seen as a good compromise, in that it might appropriately illustrate the article and avoid shocking the people who dislike photographs.

However, we can already see some limitations to drawings; for instance, in the autofellatio article, the clear-line drawing seems unrealistic -- and therefore gratuitous; but it was drawn from a photograph. In some other cases, drawings might be unrealisable for some reason, like in the (non-sexual) case of burn. These are just examples, other cases might arise.

The "exclusion of all sexually explicit images" has been alluded to here. Obviously, it is unlikely that a consensus would ban clear-line drawings (Chances are that this suggestion was refering to photographs anyway). In the light of the examples above, and with the reserve that we can resort to linking and such, I suggest that we ponder the matter very carefully, considering all technical issues, should we design any form of policy which might limit our ability to include any suitable media deemed needed to illustrate articles. Rama 06:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply put a link to the picture(s) on the page with an appropriate warning. At least that way people who are looking up masturbation expecting text and medical diagrams wont have it 'shoved in their face' the moment the page loads and will have to make a conscious decision to go further. 195.92.168.167 03:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

What would Johnson do?

A prudish lady once accosted the learned Samuel Johnson shortly after publication of his monumental dictionary of the English language.

Said she, "Dr. Johnson, I am distressed that your dictionary contains so many vulgar words."

Replied Johnson, 'Madam, I am immeasurably distressed that you actually looked them up!"

• An irrelevant aside. -Willmcw 19:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
• Oh no, I think it's wonderfully relevant. We get a few self-appointed morality crusaders who usually start off by saying that they're normally the last person to advocate censorship, but...

Oh my god, Johnson story, that is beautiful! --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I object to the statement that what we have here is "a few self-appointed morality crusaders". Perhaps I am misunderstaning your post.

• Are you applying this label to everyone who wants to exclude a particular image? If so, then you are mistaken. For example, I am not a self appointed morality crusader. A look at my edits should show this. I only attempt to make the project better. You are welcome to disagree with my interpretation of "better" but it is clear from the commentary here on this page that many people have similar (certainly not identical) views to mine.
• Alternatively, do you mean to say that only some of the people arguing against including an image fit your description of moral crusaders? If this is the case then I suggest you try to be more clear in who you are describing. Your post above seems to imply that that once you dismiss a small handful of moral crusaders, there are no other objections to the image. Is that what you mean to say? If so, then you are understating the amount of opposition to inclusion.
• Either way, your post seems unfortunate. You seem to be either painting people unfairly with a broad brush, or you downplaying the the fact that there are a lot of people here who do not accept inclusion of the image. Johntex 17:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

• To clarify, no I don't read your posts as morality-based at all. Rather, you seem to think that there is a legal problem. There isn't. I do get rather tired of reading objections based on hypothetical problems (and even, in your case, false claims that a rough consensus exists--as when you falsely claimed that there was one that the photograph was pornographic. In a phrase, I'm tired and I welcome the humor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
• Hi Tony, thanks for your clarification. We will have to disagree on the legal issue until someone issues authoritative guidelines. Until then, I stand by my assertion that Florida law would be against displaying these types of images to people under the age of 18. I also stand by my previous claim that there was a rough consensus against the previous photograph. But perhaps I need to clarify what I meant by rough consensus. I was just counting up the number of people who had written for and against its conclusion. I don't remember the numbers, but the majority was (and is) in favor of removing the image. I chose the phrase "rough consensus" since I just made an informal count and since the number of comments was small. The term "majority" might have been a better choice. Johntex 14:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

There's a simple solution about that problem: get legal advice from somebody knowledgeable in Florida and US law. I'll try asking Jimmy Wales, because of his activities with Bomis he probably has appropriate legal counsels. David.Monniaux 16:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

US TV broadcasting stuff

I removed this section because it seems to be about prudery in US broadcasting rather than masturbation per se, and the people involved are in general (Pamela Anderson excepted) unknown outside the USA.

It was reported that on his night-time show once, a guest of Dick Cavett's was talking in some medico-techno-jargon about male genitals. Cavett interjected, "I don't quite grasp that!" The segment was censored from the videotape and never aired. Another time, he said that a particular male guest was unable to be there, because "He's suffering from Portnoy's Complaint!" That novel had spoken of masturbation extensively. Censored again!

Broadcast rules are a bit more flexible nowadays. On a visit to the David Letterman show in 2004, Pamela Anderson said she had not been dating for awhile. Letterman naively asked her how she was coping. She responded, "There's not a square corner left anywhere in my house!" This rendered the usually unflappable Letterman speechless and red-faced for a minute or so while the audience hooted.

Dennis Miller, in the last installment of one of his earlier attempts at a talk show, was asked by a guest what his next plans were. He said, "It's back to chronic masturbation!"

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd be curious if smeone could explain what Anderson said, by the way... Rama 07:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure either. Perhaps she meant Square (slang). Шизомби 04:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

For reference, I believe she was insinuating that she masturbated by rubbing her genitals against the square corners of objects in her house (tables, chairs, whatever). The joke being that she's done it do much that she's in fact sanded them down.70.70.210.215 03:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Smartbomb

Rubber duck?

Prometheuspan 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC) I for one find the rubber duck to be a very good choice for this article. Prometheuspan 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is the deletion of this highly out-of-place image being reverted? Even if vibrators are being de-dramatized, a typical vibrator doesn't look a thing like this; why would you have it featured in an article that explains what masturbation generally consists of?

this duck is not made of rubber. The image is not "highly out-of-place", and a significant proportion of vibrators do not look like Frankenstein's prick cut off and plastified. And yes it does have an incidence on how women will look at the thing. Rama 06:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The image was deleted again, with "Vandalism out" as the comment. I have reverted it -- the image is certainly not vandalism, regardless of how controversial it is. --me_and 2 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)

A user with no experience of vibrators who navigates to this page will be extremely mislead by a picture of a rubber duck in the absence of any other photos. it should be removed or replaced.

The picture is neither vandalism nor controversial, it is just out of place. You can buy inflatable sheep and even stranger things to assist you in solitary sex - how about a couple of pictures of stuff like that? I really can't think of a single good reason as to why that stupid duck should be here.

Advanced Masturbation External Link

The resource Pacian suggested above, I found it rather interesting. Shouldn't an external link to it be added?, the homepage of such website is text-only so an 'explicit-images' warning shouldn't be required. The URL is as follows. http://advancedmasturbation.com/ I am not going to put this article in my watchlist, so I'd ask the next person who sees this to please add the link if he finds it would add an extra value to the article. I, personally, think it would do. I must also add, regarding the above discussion on wheter to add explicit images to the article or not... shouldn't those photographs be included, but in the shape of a text link to the photograph?. I took the idea from the Autofellatio article, as seen at 31 May 2005. (Note: I read THE WHOLE discussion) Pentalis 31 May 2005.

Judaism

The Jewish view on masturbation has been completely misrepresented. The Talmud (Niddah 13a) is unequivocal in its condemnation of masturbation, and Onan is cited as a source for Divine disapproval, not because of coitus interruptus but because his semen was spilt; whether this was due to manual or vaginal stimulation is irrelevant. This is codified in all the major sources of Jewish law (e.g. Shulkhan Arukh E.H. 23:1), so there is no need to weasel about implicit acceptance etc etc. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Joseph was supposed to have 12 tribes like Moses. Because he spilt 10 drops of semen, he only had 2 tribes.

Corn flakes

The idea that eating cornflakes would discourage masturbation is one that I've known of for a while, but I've been having a minor debate about whether this is actually true, and would appreciate another source for that, if anyone knows of one. --me_and 2 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)

I read in a book called The Little Book of Bad Taste that 'Dr. Harvey Kellog invented his breakfast cereal to be an antidote to masturbation'. It cause a lot of laughs amongst my peers, but unfortunatly I cannot vouch for the book's accuracy, and I do not have it to hand at this moment. But I have heard of this claim before. Lady BlahDeBlah 17:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Like many Christian conservatives before and since, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg believed that masturbation, and in fact all sexual excess, was sinful -- "sexual excess" here defined as "sex for anything beyond reproduction". For instance: after marrying, Kellogg chose to spend his honeymoon sequestered from his wife, valiantly striving to complete his his influential book Plain Facts for Old and Young: Embracing the Natural History and Hygiene of Organic Life (1892). Talk about your dull, soggy flakes.

Kellogg himself seems to have solved the problem by redirecting his attentions to an obsessive fascination with cleansing the bowels. For Kellogg, the tube linking anus to lips was a seething quagmire of pollution, poisoning the mind and spirit as well as the body. Kellogg, a vegetarian himself, recommended abstaining from flesh and spicy foods, augmenting the diet with plenty of fiber, drinking lots of water, and irrigating with regular enemas of water with a yogurt chaser. And as director of the Battle Creek Sanitarium, Kellogg had ample license to apply his approach to many captive well-to-do neurotics in need of mental restablizing.

source: http://www.rotten.com/library/sex/masturbation/kelloggs-cornflakes/

As recently as the 1960s fellow students were stating as true that our college put "saltpeter" in the food to prevent masturbation. This urban legend has quite a venerable (stop giggling, that's "venerable," not "venereal") history.[2] At the time this one seemed to be false on the face of it, as the chemical in question had not been known as "saltpeter" for... I dunno, half a century anyway. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Saltpeter? Isn't that gunpowder? What do they think people do; masturbate with non-safety matches? Lady BlahDeBlah 23:35, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Saltpeter is potassium nitrate, and is one of the ingredients in gunpowder, specifically the oxidizing agent. It's also a meat preservative; it says here[3] that

Curing agents impart that distinctive color and flavor to hams, bacons, bolognas, wieners, and the like. Those agents are sodium nitrate, sodium nitrite, potassium nitrate, and potassium nitrite. Sodium nitrate and nitrite are common to the USA, while potassium nitrate and nitrite are still used in Europe and not used significantly in the USA. The compound potassium nitrate is commonly called saltpeter. This ingredient is sometimes called for in old family recipes, but is expensive, hard to find, and readily replaced with either sodium nitrite (common) or sodium nitrate (less common).

Dpbsmith (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Law question.

In Western countries masturbation tends to be legal, even by children, as long as nobody else is involved and no image is made.

Does that imply that masturbation is illegal in some parts of the world? Or was. Such a thing I find hard to believe. --Arm

Yes, generally on religious grounds. For example (the only one I can think of) the Christian bible states that "seed should not be spilled on the ground", which is generally interpreted as forbidding masturbation. --me_and 8 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)

That being said, would any one mind deleting the "Maturbating a fast-breaker in Islam", or should I just delete it? This is certainly not correct, as masturbation is stricktly forbidden in Islam. I think the person who wrote it misinterperted it, the sheik is basically saying that one should disregard sexual pleasure even more in the sacred month of rammadan then in any other month. --Maliki 786 18 December 2005 23:35 (UTC)

Something being a sin does not neccessitate that it breaks a fast. For example, robbing someone may be a sin, but it doesn't mean it invalidates the fast. Such is not the case with masturbation. It may be considered a sin twelve months of the year, but during a fast, it is a sin and it breaks your fast. Pepsidrinka 06:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah but doesn't need whole section on it, does it? Then should we add that food breaks a fast to the Food article too. --Snakes 06:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it should... if this article were about food. However, it is about masturbation, and the section is about masturbation in Islam, more specifically during fasting. If you don't think it merits a section, summarize it into the Religion section. However, don't completely eliminate the information. And also, the use of {{fact}} can be used when you don't see a citation. Pepsidrinka 06:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why any Muslim would want to insert this. I am not one so I don't know, but it sounds offensive. I don't think it's a regular method to break fast and I have never heard of it. --Snakes 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It really shouldn't matter if someone wants it in there or not. The topic at hand is masturbation, and more specifically, in religion. This surely fits the criteria. A fast in islam does not mean one has to abstain from food and water. Sexual desires are very much a part of it. So for you to say it is not a usual way to break a fast is POV. Pepsidrinka 07:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well it isn't a usual way. I have never heard of it and there are no sources. Are you a Muslim? --Snakes 07:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Saying it is or isn't a usual way is very POV. Saying there are no sources just specifies that the other means may be either more mainstream or more common. It does not neccessitate that it itself is not "usual."Pepsidrinka 23:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai's reversions

User:Mikkalai keeps reverting the {{linkimage}} link to Image:Masturbation.jpg, saying "This man is not masturbating, just showing his cock", and "the man in the photo is not masturbating. Prove it." May I ask what proof would be appropriate? A video, perhaps? I have images of the result, if that would help him. Regardless, the image is quite obviously one of masturbation, and I don't know what Mikkalai thinks masturbation looks like. I relalize I've been bold by editing the page itself, but the discussion about the use of images seems to have stagnated. My proposal was to place the image in a {{linkimage}} box, like the autofellation image. What are people's opinions? Warbler1 9 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)

Nothing can help me. If you cannot produce and unambiguous image, it is not my problem.

The image is quite obviously a guy holding his dick for an unknown reason. May be he is a dick fetishist or a flasher, or narcissist, may be he wants to pee upon himself (and this is not a joke; some people suggest to use the urine for medical purposes), whatever. This is an encyclopedia article, and the images must clearly display the topic in question. If you cannot prove it is related, the image is out.

I don't care whether you show linked or full screen; the only my requirement is that the image should be encyclopedic, i.e., it must show what the aricle talks about. The deleted images do not. mikka (t) 20:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. What do you mean the picture's ambiguous? The guy in the line drawing is "just holding his dick" as well. Is he a "dick fetishist"? The guy in the photograph, I assume Warbler1 (it says ("selfpic"), is obviously masturbating. If you're just trolling, however, let's start being serious. Please stop deleting photos and drawings, and stop re-arranging all the images. - Madd4Max 21:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Before throwing accusations about trolling, it is usually recommended to inspect user's contributions first. I have neither history of trolling, nor of antisexual censorship.

Botticelli. Masturbating in the wind

"What do you mean?" It means that the picture does not provide a clue what exactly happens there. If someone learns about masturbation from this article, then watching at half of pictures or statues of Venus or Eve they will conclude that Venus and Eve are masturbating (as you know, in Middle Ages they used to draw these gals with one arm covering her private parts). I am aware that other images are not better, but unlike possible trolling I don't delete them, because I understand that it is reasonable to show at least something. But several unhelpful pictures are useless. And the guy on the foto is not obviously masturbating. To the variants I listed above I may add that he is getting ready to be straddled by a woman. And with a bit of sexual experience one may provide even more explanations. Of course, if the authors of this article know nothing else... mikka (t) 04:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

if the authors of this article know nothing else...

Comments such as this are not helpful. Please keep personal attacks out of Wikipedia. If you can't find consensus without them, don't try and find consensus at all. --me_and 19:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

If someone who likes to see a picture of penis takes a dirty joke for a personal attack, it cannot be helped, dear you_and. mikka (t) 21:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Why not simply put a link to the picture(s) on the page with an appropriate warning. At least that way people who are looking up masturbation expecting text and medical diagrams wont have it 'shoved in their face' the moment the page loads and will have to make a conscious decision to go further.195.92.168.167 03:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Masturbation: Frequency, Age and Sex

the inclusion here of comments regarding results of the Canadian Now magazine survey seems very random considering the volume of worldwide research on this topic through history. Wikipedia should be representative, the respondents to the quoted survey represent a tiny and very specific number of people. For reasons of cultural bias this paragraph should be removed.

-

I also agree that the quoted survey not only has the "cultural bias" mentioned, but that the survey's chosen sample completely misrepresents the whole of even Canada—it was announced only to readers of a specific magazine (presumably oriented to interestingly edgy topics), and has no regard for an even or random sample. Michael Lipik 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Another law question

• Masturbation in a public place, and in cases where somebody else is unexpectedly confronted with it, is usually considered lewd and lascivious behavior, or at least indecent exposure. According to some historic chronicles, it has not always been so.

Does anybody have any idea what "historic chronicles" are being referred to? It's a very mysterious assertion. -Willmcw 00:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

I once heard in a philosophy reading that a prominent Greek philosopher would often masturbate in Athens walking around. It was perhaps greeted with surprise, but was not considered lewd or illegal. I can't recall his name, but it was not Socrates. Ichelhof 05:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC) It was Diogène !!!

Attitudes to FEMALE masturbation?

The "Medical attitudes" section seems almost exlusively to deal with male masturbation, and ought to be expanded (by someone more knowledgable than me on the subject) to include (for instance) the treatment of hysteria with genital stimualtion and the Freudean attitudes towards clitoral and vaginal orgasms. I think. --Birdseed 22:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point. You'll find there is a discussion in "Vibrator", but it should also be here, or linked in such a way that readers will know they can find more there. Cheers, -Willmcw 19:14, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Very Satanic entry

This entry doesn't talk enough about how God hates anyone that performs this evil act

If you have a sourced quote from God to that effect then go ahead and add it. -Willmcw 07:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Though, of course, only if they were made in peer-reviewed journals. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 10:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

<Demi> Peer-reviewed by whom? The other Gods?

Your god hates everyone, repressed guy. Wait, isn't this the year 2005? Have I travelled back in time? --80.58.9.42 16:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I heard God is a major wanker. --Tothebarricades 17:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls. 24.54.208.177 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh thank you dear fellas, I haven't laughed this hard in days.Dabljuh 05:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Point out EXACTLY where the word masturbation is anywhere in the Bible. Stupid fundy.

You stating that God "hates that evil act" isn't veriable (cannot be proven), so therefore shouldn't really be on the article. Though perhaps, the fact that some "religious people think that their gods think that is evil" could fit, but I'm thinking that's already there on the article. If not, feel free to put that in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.120.80.165 (talk • contribs) .

Delete anon edits with no citations???

So, Johntex, is this some new Wikipedia policy? I thought the new edits, particularly the ones in the Female section were fine - it's nice to get some more work on that section. I think if you look at other sections of this article, they're a bit short on citations at the moment, so we'd all better beware your axe! Somebody who knows their way around better than me may be able to supply a link here to a policy page called something like 'Don't bite the newbies' - I think it's probably relevant here. --Nigelj 17:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Diaper/Fetish-specific information

I've removed the two paragraphs (+misc.) specific to masturbation with diapers. There are simply too many fetishes to include them all in this article. Some people masturbate using toy stuffed animals. Others use various food products. The list goes on and on. There isn't room to include all of the possibilities without changing the topic of this article from masturbation to a list of fetishes (which already exists in another article). Any fetish-specific masturbation info belongs in the article on that fetish, not in the article about masturbationl. --Icarus 06:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I concur. In a similar matter, I propose that the article shouldn't become a "how-to" manual. There are countless techniques imaginable, and any attempt to describe them in detail would quickly become either salacious or boring. I don't know where verifiability or NPOV would fit in. The external links can cover the "nuts and bolts". If editors want to create a "how-to" manual then Wikibooks is the appropriate location-Willmcw 09:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for reverting the first time they were removed (by User:222.153.110.109)... seeing an anon edit on recent changes, blanking paragraphs, with no edit summary, immediately registers high on my vandalismometer, usually followed by a quick click of the revert button... Edit summaries are your friend.  :) Bushytails 17:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

No worries, I'm the same way! When I was an anonymous editor, I didn't understand the predjudice against anonymous editors... How naive I was, lol! --Icarus 18:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Wow... Real vigilantes..? Right here..? --Nigelj 18:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Guilt, etc.

Andycjp has made several recent edits ephasizing the possibility of a person experiencing guilt about masturbating and deemphasizing the current mainstream medical view that masturbation is a healthy, harmless part of human sexuality. He may be on to something. I would welcome a section on negative contemporary medical views and one on possible psychological reactions, as a way to more fully present the wide variety of views and experiences people have around masturbation. In the meantime, I have reverted those edits as, without sources to back them up, they appear to be giving undue weight to minority views. Like I said, though, I for one would welcome a section that allowed those views to be incorporated into the article in a manner that allowed further elaboration on the reasons a person might feel guilt or be otherwise psychologically harmed by masturbation. --Icarus 04:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

some changes to the Masterbation#Law section

There is some information that I added to the Masterbation#Law section that has been edited further. To me, it seems like the changes really mangled things and reduced the quality of the content. I might just be taking things personally though, and I wanted to check with others.

In my local legal jurisdiction, displaying ones genitals in public is "indecent exposure", and public sexual gratification of the genitals (either through masterbation or public sexual intercourse) is "lewd and lascivious" behavior. (The authorities will likely charge someone for indecent exposure even though they could be also charged for the more serious crime). My first problem with the way things currently read is that way separate links are given for the word lewd and the word lascivious implies that they are two separate things. Legally, the term "lewd and lascivious" is a single item, similar to the legal terms "cease and desist" or "breaking and entering". The single term may be look like it is composed of english words, but it really has a separate legal definition. Then the addition of the term "dissolute" behavior, which I don't think has any specific legal definition. Even worse is the addition of the "both of which are misdemeanors". The link I added to the Massachusetts General Laws shows "Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior" as being a felony in that state.

Am I being overly senstive here? Or were the changes to that section really destrimental?

I'm not a lawyer, but I can see a potential problem here if we are to list or try cater for the all the various laws, by-laws, misdemeanors and case law interpretations of every jurisdiction of the English-speaking world. This isn't a legal how-to, let alone a 'how-to-get-away-with-it-in public'! It might be better not to go there at all, really. My vote would be that the section should be simplified to cover only the most general and universal principles of most laws. Either that or link to a separate article about sex and the law or something like that. --Nigelj 07:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and please sign your posts, e.g with --~~~~ --Nigelj 07:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Your arguments seem to on whether the Law section should be there in the first place, not whether it was at its most accurate before I made my changes, after I made my changes, or after Joy made their changes. I'd be fine if it was taken out entirely. It wasn't too inaccurate before I worked on it, but I feel that the changes made after me decreased the amount of factual information *and* increased the amount of incorrect information. But of course, I might be viewing this emotionally, and so feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. I wouldn't say my complaints are specific to my local jurisdiction. Most states in the United States have laws against "lewd and lascivious" behavior, so my argument that it is different that "lewd" or "lascivious" remains. (and "lewd and lascivious" is a term that I assume predates the founding of the US, so I don't think it is unique to there.) There may be some state by state differences on whether "lewd and lascivious" can cover masterbation (or if it needs a partner), but it is very often not a misdemeaner either.

--68.163.232.196 21:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I made the changes because the phrase "lewd and lascivious behaviour" that was there before was an apparent copy&paste from the Florida law. Other US states, and undoubtedly other English-speaking legal jurisdictions, do not necessarily use the same phrase - in at least one of them I found "dissolute", and others had "indecent". I noted that they were misdemeanours because that noun signifies a lesser offence in the jurisdictions that distinguish misdemeanors from felonies; in jurisdictions that just have variously designated degrees of felonies, the mention of misdemeanours is not particularly relevant, but it's also not really confusing (esp. given that one can click the link and see what is meant by it).

As far as the semantic issue, I did not read all the available legal statutes to verify that it's a lesser offence everywhere, but those that I did read were such so I interpolated. If this was wrong - please correct it.

(I'm not watching this article so notices on user talk page would be appreciated.) --Joy [shallot] 12:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Health and psychological effects

A common belief is that male masturbation reduces penis size. Does anyone know if this is true, and should it be included under "Health and psychological effects"

Under the heading "Health and psychological effects" "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-worth." To simply assert that such-and-such view is held in "many circles" is next to meaningless. I think some references to back up this sentence are needed, otherwise it should be deleted.

Also on the issue of photographs, I was personally very surprised to find pictures that look very much like pornography linked, but to appease those who are for it I would suggest that the hand-drawn examples look a bit more scientific than the photographic examples. Out of respect for those (the majority of?) people who come to Wikipedia expecting to find objective information and not smut, I suggest those explicit photographic examples be deleted.

The photograph issue have been beaten to death. Suffice it to say that the consensus generally seems to be that they stay.--Prosfilaes 19:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Conditions body towards having an early orgasm

The Playboy advisor said awhile back that masturbation conditions the body towards having an early orgasm. Does anyone have the volume/issue date that this appeared in, and also, is there any other confirmation? 24.54.208.177 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

What is a late orgasm? Or a right-on-time orgasm for that matter? --Her girlfriend 00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation is better known as wanking.

Masturbation is better known as wanking. A masturbater is often known by the slang term 'wanker'. - (Aidan Work 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC))

• ...in the UK and some commonwealth countries... --Oldak Quill 21:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

better images?

These images don't really get the point across. Can we find better pictures? Images involving assistive devices (vibrators/dildos/butt plugs) would add to the article too. Videos would be great though i've never figured out how to watch anything ogg -69.110.10.32 06:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In the films of sex we have seen that people involne in the sex for fifteen minutes but we are not able more than five minutes. so what is the actual time for man orgasm.

The images at the moment (simple vague line drawings) are worthless. I think ANY images here are worthless, since everyone knows what masturbation is, so what is the point of illustrating it, for aliens? Any image graphic enough to truly show masturbation is likely to offend some people, any image inoffensive anough to stick around is likely to be pointless. So let's just get rid of them altogether. Personally, I don't find any such images offensive, but I definitely do find them pointless and unnecessary. Sometimes a picture is NOT worth a thousand words, and in fact detracts from the serious intent of the article. I should mention that I have more or less waded through the arguments above - I'd rather not rehash them; I feel I'm making a new point. Graham 10:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Who is this 'everyone' you are referring to? Encyclopedias are there to provide knowledge for people who want it. It has to be assumed that the people who are reading it have no prior knowledge of what the article is about, so that all the basics are covered, and this applied to a definition as well. Since masturbation is a physical action, it can be difficult to describe in words correctly and so a picture is needed. If you have a source citing a worldwide survey on 'What is masturbation?' with everyone providing the correct answer then use it, otherwise simply asserting that 'everyone knows what masturbation is' is just asserting your opinion.Humpelfluch

Obviously it's my opinion, but it's equally obvious it's more or less true. Masturbation is pretty much instinctual for all human beings, nobody needs a poorly drawn illustration to show them how. I have no problem with a lengthy article on the topic, but let's keep a line between a sensible article and gratuitous titillation - the drawings serve no purpose for the former. I do sometimes think people write articles for aliens; some subjects are part of our common consciousness though you wouldn't think so to read about them. Masturbation is one such, though because of people's attitudes to it, the sorts of sources you demand don't exist. Why that should be is a more interesting question. Incidentally, LOOK at the drawings you're defending - they are so poor they don't actually show anything worthwhile - so if there really is anyone reading this who doesn't know how to masturbate, these drawings aren't going to help them. Graham 05:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The images aren't to teach people how to masturbate. Most people have trouble either finding a penis on their body or finding a vagina on their body, so manipulation of that body part is probably not instincual. If they're so poor they don't actually show anything worthwhile, how would they be titillating? I fail to understand why pictures illustrating the words are so much more offensive.--Prosfilaes 06:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say they were offensive, I said they were worthless. I don't find them offensive, only useless. "Most people have trouble..." I assume you're joking. Ha-ha... Have you ever observed a newborn? It's probably one of the first things they touch, apart from their mouths. Graham 11:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not joking; are you honestly saying that most newborns grab their penis in one hand and their vagina in the other?--Prosfilaes 19:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Most newborns are not born with one of each, so that would indeed be difficult. However, in the more usual case where they have one or the other, it is common to see them touching them. To come back to your point: "Most people have trouble either finding a penis on their body or finding a vagina on their body" is blatantly, hilariously, false. MOST people have no trouble whatsoever. In fact I'd go as far as to say if you can't identify your own genitals, then you are probably both blind and limbless. If you want to have a sensible discussion about the worthless linedrawings in the article, then I'd suggest you stop trying to argue from such an obviously silly point of view. Graham 05:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not false; re-read it very carefully. Most people have trouble with either (a) finding a penis on their body or (b) finding a vagina on their body. I would not assume that most young women have an detailed knowledge of how guys masturbate, and vice-versa.--Prosfilaes 06:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving aside your odd interpretation of English, are you trying to say the drawings are for the benefit of the opposite sex? Since this isn't written for children under four, I think it's pretty safe to assume that most readers realise that the genitals of the opposite sex are located in the same place as their own. Your arguments are a complete red herring. My point is, the drawings are worthless and invite ridicule. They devalue the article, let's get rid of them. Graham 09:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I find one thing very odd about the full-body drawings at the top of the article: their heads are dangling off the bed (or whatever they are lying on). Although I am not associated with the Kinsey Institute at IU, I would be surprised if more than a tiny percentage of people masturbate with their head lower than their torso. I complement the artist who drew those otherwise fine tasteful pictures, but I suggest that they be redrawn in a way that reflects a more-frequently-used body position for masturbation. —optikos 00:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Even by children

"even by children" is important, I think, because in western countries, at least, many things sexual related to children are forbidden. (Edit comment by User:Flata)

But on the other hand, there are no laws against anything a sufficently young child does, and even older children are treated more leinently. In the field of sex, in many places, a child can have sex with another child where an adult would be charged with statutory rape. There are fewer laws as to what children can do sexually than as to what adults can.--Prosfilaes 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

80.72.34.150 on 'Health and psychological effects'

Over the last few days, an anonymous editor at 80.72.34.150 has had a concerted effort at rewriting the Health and psychological effects section with a great many references and citations. Sounds great? Well, following some of his links and reading some of his speculation based on the material, I'm not so sure.

He seems to be worried about our "ability to resist transient sexual tension". He can tell us the reason that "may be hypothesized [as] the neuroendocrine reason for low sense of self-worth and guilt ... after masturbation". He has some material about the benefits of "acute abstinence". He seems to have evidence that "masturbation may lead to negative mood, low libido and tiredness". If men touch their nipples, "This activity thus may lead to body feminization, gynecomastia and (rarely) lactation". Etc, etc - there's lots more...

He has a link called 'data' to a page where there is none ( data) and many of his other high-faluting links require costly subscriptions to see the main medical research texts. It will take a lot of work to validate all of the surprising new anti-masturbational findings that he has added. I suggest we revert the whole lot out - say, back to Firefox's Revision as of 21:11, 1 January 2006 - and put it all here for peer review until it is ready for the main article.

What do others think? --Nigelj 18:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can see that.--Prosfilaes 19:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Hrm

• 1. Which information is false (exactly)? Almost every sentence is accompanied by a reference from reliable medical journal (contrary to many other pieces of info on thr page). The abstracts are for free and work fine on my computer (Pub Med, google scholar also should work). Almost every library has access to full versions, so if you want to read the full versions, you can do it for free as well (like I did).
• 2. "He seems to be worried about our "ability to resist transient sexual tension"" - are you trying to insult somebody with this sentence? Relax Nigelj. Please concentrate on the informations.
• 3. "He seems to have evidence that "masturbation may lead to negative mood, low libido and tiredness"" - but this information (about tiredness) was there before. Nothing new really. Only references added. What's worrying in that?
• 4. ""This activity thus may lead to body feminization, gynecomastia and (rarely) lactation"" - This paragraph only refers to the text: "Members of both sexes may also enjoy touching, rubbing, or pinching the nipples while masturbating.", which was there before.
• A) Prolactin level (no doubt about it) increases about 100% after touching nipples according to medical sources. Read any article about it. I explain:
• B) Prolactin and estradiol (E2) are the main causes of gynecomastia.
• C) Please READ the content 'male lactation' page before criticizing
• D) gynecomastia may be seen as a feminine trait. As well as other traits caused by low testo. But I removed the word.
• 5. 'Data' link changed to BBC, (some time ago it was ok) - thanks for info.
• 6. "It will take a lot of work to validate all of the surprising new anti-masturbational findings that he has added". Why do you consider the text 'anti-masturbatory'? (btw, why do you prefer forcing everyone to add 'pro-masturbatory' info only, even if it's fake?) No need to verify, in fact, in all serious medical journals the info HAD already BEEN validated, selected and checked before it was printed (it takes usually 6-12 months for the editors). Anyway, it can be validated again, np.
• 7. "I suggest we revert the whole lot out". I suggest let's talk. (Stanazollo 19:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)) (formerly known as 80.72.34.150)

First place, a lot of the material is original research. To say "other scientists suggest that masturbation increases prolactin blood levels [3]. Prolactin surges are usually related to evocation of humiliating experiences and depression [4]." is original research because you're combining cites in original ways. As Wikipedia's founder says on the WP:NOR page, "Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new ... the same thing applies to history". Likewise, combining 4A) and 4B) doesn't lead to 4. You have to cite the connection. Likewise the link on "it is not inconceivable that in zinc-deficient or vitamin A-deficient environments excessive male masturbation could have caused night blindness" doesn't mention masturbation at all.

Furthermore, one study doesn't a fact make; even it being published doesn't mean that it's widely agreed with. It has definitely not been validated; peer reviewers read the report, not rerun the experiments. We should where possible be working from the widely-held understnading, not cutting edge (and inherently slightly controversial) research. (That's WP:NPOV; the common censensus should be first and foremost.)

Just as importantly, you changed the tilt of the article. There's too much material on each study; one study doesn't deserve a large paragraph in the middle of the article on masturbation. And central to this complaint is the fact that "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-worth." has one sentence, has no cites and no mention of studies. If that's the majority opinion, it needs more text.

Likewise, the whole sexual addiction section is controversial. Even if compulsive masturbation is part of sexual addiction, there's no evidence of causation. Without a definition of compulsive, it's of little help; almost everyone masturbates, so sex addicts masturbate. Is it at a higher frequency, and if it is, does that mean anything more then people who like sex like to masturbate? The fact that you cite the number of suicides is noteworthy, because it's irrelevant but looks bad. And without a definition of what sexual addiction means, the numbers are just meaningless statistics. I suspect most people labeled sexual addicts are depressed, which could mean the stats are just random correlations.

As a whole, it fails to reflect general medical consensus, and puts way too much support on individual studies and original research, most of which seems to be biased against masturbation.--Prosfilaes 20:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I cannot agree with most accusations you've written. With respect for your individual opinon on masturbation (which, according to what you've written, seems biased FOR and is not NEUTRAL), there are few things in physiology that have more proof than the fact that masturbation induced orgasm increases prolactin level. Please go to any medical data base, eg. free Pub Med: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed and type for instance 'prolactin orgasm'. These are not 'individual studies' for sure, if you read medical not daily press (where I agree the evaluation of masturbation is biased to the right or left depending on the journal editors) you would know that serious medical press is not ideologically biased, and the "World Journal of Urology" where the abstinence article was published is certainly not. (anyway, it's obvious that abstinence is related to increased libido, isn't it?)

I have loads of information to add in that section that would explain the controversial issues. The previous version of the section contained many cliches taken from... I don't know from what sources, Men's health?, Cosmopolitan? I assume.

I'm glad you've said: "And central to this complaint is the fact that "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-worth." has one sentence, has no cites and no mention of studies. If that's the majority opinion, it needs more text.". I agree 100%. That 'circles' thing is a part of the old version of the section. As i said, the old version contained hardly any cites. I left it, because contrary to your attitude, I'd like to preserve OBJECTIVITY of the article, presenting DIVERSE opinions. There is no such thing as one, unisono, opinion or 'The General Medical Consensus' in the issue. The world is complex. Readers deserve reliable information, not simplified and biased according to the point of view of one or two editors.

"peer reviewers read the report, not rerun the experiments". You suggest there is some mischievous conspiracy in the 'medical circles'? I think there is no. The data is reliable.

"Wikipedia ought not create novel theories of physics by citing the results of experiments and so on and synthesizing them into something new ... the same thing applies to history". Likewise, combining 4A) and 4B) doesn't lead to 4. You have to cite the connection.". 1) I described the connection, because the authors of the article cited 35 articles connected with this issue that had been conducted earlier. 2) Again... It's some peculiar absurd to force some artificial connections, since often 4A) and 4B) doesn't lead to 4. Nothing to add. Hence the text should contain both. Which one you'd like to randomly erase, A or B?

"Likewise the link on "it is not inconceivable that in zinc-deficient or vitamin A-deficient environments excessive male masturbation could have caused night blindness" doesn't mention masturbation at all" - this paragraph is not mine, as many others in the section. I won't speak for their authors. I just left them. Most of the fishy, biased, subjective, poorly documented information in the section is not mine. What i'm trying to do for hte last 2 days is to improve the page with objective, reliable, medical information. Stan 21:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What's there right now is crap. It reads like one of those random lists of pop culture, except for the fact that you have to have a medical degree to understand it. An encyclopedia article needs to be coherant, unified and written for a broad audience. I don't care which paragraphs are yours. Readers deserve comprehendable articles; at this level, I think that takes importance over pedantic accuracy.

I don't care about prolactin. As an esoteric detail, I don't think it has any business in this article. You can't just toss things out and let the readers form conclusions. Either tell us that touching nipples causes gynecomastia or leave it out.

If there is no medical consensus, it all needs to be ripped out. In that case, we need to describe all sides coherantly and as opinions, not facts.

When I said "peer reviewers read the report, not rerun the experiments", I meant just that. Peer reviewers do not verify. How you stretch that into a conspiracy is beyond me. And no, the data is not reliable. Published scientific articles frequently turn out to be wrong, and medicine, dealing with living humans who refuse to live in controlled environments, is one of the worst. We have no business or need to be working with material that's not commonly accepted, and that includes almost anything published in research journals that hasn't made its way to the secondary literature.

This is not your article, and editing the text is not vandalizing. --Prosfilaes 01:15, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

What's there right now is crap. It reads like one of those random lists of pop culture. - You exaggerate. Anyway, it's not a big deal to put these paragraphs together (whatever that means, beacuse separate paragraphs do serve as separate space for different issues within one section. See for example 'Humour and masturbation' section - there is hardly any semantic connection between them, see any other page. That's why I consider your contention a bit illogical. Don't get me wrong, but I have the impression you're trying to criticize everything new in that section, and since I wrote the well documented truth, you're generating dozens of pretexts to erase it because it simply doesn't fit your actual stereotype in the subject), I'll try to do it today or tomorrow.

(...)except for the fact that you have to have a medical degree to understand it(...). - Basically, I learned endocrinology in primary school during biology lessons (maybe because we had a lot of fun then). At present I'm writing my MA paper in biological psychology. I agree that those people who were bored to death during biology should also understand at least the conclusions closing each paragraph. I suggest the following pattern of each paragraph: a) subject, b) description of relations with the main topic of the section, data, proof, etc c) conclusions.

(...)I don't care which paragraphs are yours.(...) - You mean that if I want to add some information I must check all the links and all the data on the whole page even if they aren't mine? Ok, but it will take me some time.

I don't care about prolactin. As an esoteric detail, I don't think it has any business in this article. - well, you should care. It's important to take care of one's health. Prolactin is one the most important hormones in your bloodstream. From your school lessons you probably remember that prolactin, LH+FSH, testosterone are the main hormones regulating sexual function in male (but I assume you don't care about esoteric testosterone level either). Prolactin inhibits HPGn axis (GnRH-LH/FSH-Testo), it has receptors in testicles and can lead to hypogonadism when its levels are high for long period of time. Prolactin has also it's role in the limbic system influencing motivational and affective processes. With dopamine in hypothalamus it regulates the 'power-depression' affective axis, where dopamine stimulates the 'power' emotion (you feel this emotion eg. when you take control over your actions, or after drinking coffee, etc), on the contrary, high prolactin levels are often seen during stress, depression, dysphoria (depression+negative tension often with anger)...

You can't just toss things out and let the readers form conclusions. Either tell us that touching nipples causes gynecomastia or leave it out. - I can enhance that paragraph, but the main conclusion is already there. if the stimulation is interpreted by the brain as an infant-type stimulation (with the emotion of bliss - which may be added to the bliss from the genitalia. by the way, pedophilia works the same - every normal man feels bliss when touching and taking care of an infant, but if he connects this pleasure with sexual arousal, he will have bigger orgasm. Oxytocin and betaendorphins are mainly involved in these processes) and the person has general genetical inclination to mammary glands enlargement (eg. relatively high estradiol level), prolactin increases to about 200-250% of the basal level, and if the procedure is repeated for a long period of time - it may cause gyno. Please read male lactation.

If there is no medical consensus, it all needs to be ripped out(...). 1) There is no doubt that orgasm (both masturbation and coitus induced) increases prolactin in both sexes. 2) There is no doubt, that testosterone is engaged in the regulation of the sexual drive tonus with feedback-like mechanism. Owing to natural selection of animals process - increasing testo was a pressure for the male to improve his position in the group (which facilitates coitus) and to have sex (and pass his genes further). Since these are dangerous behaviors (fighting for a territory, females and position in the male hierarchy may cause injuries or even death) evolution generated feed-back mechanism which relies on the principle that if a male had sex (especially in species that 'prefer' monogamy) the testosterone level is depressed, the male becomes less expansionistic (oxytocin also works here) and can take care of the female and then look after children. There are at least two ways to observe this evolutionary heritage. 1) very high testosterone levels begin to fall after +- 20 yr of age in human male (and so called free testosterone even faster). 2) men who live with wives and children have, according to Peter Gray's many researches published eg. in popular 'Science Now' (november 2005), up to 50% lower testosterone levels than the group of bachelors with the same mean age. But there are not only correlations to prove it. German scientists group from Hannover and Essen conducted an experiment (which I inserted in the health section) where it took only 3 weeks of abstinence for the participants to observe that levels of their testosterone increased by about 25%(!).

Published scientific articles frequently turn out to be wrong, and medicine, dealing with living humans who refuse to live in controlled environments, is one of the worst.. Nope. Psychology of personality is the worst one, I assure you, I know what I'm saying.. Medicine and physiology are not bad, and when you engage statistical methods you can estimate what is signficant and what is not within a reasonable error range (usually 5%).

We have no business or need to be working with material that's not commonly accepted(...) - the only people who don't accept these changes are you and Nigelj. And the only reason why you don't accept them is because you're pro-masturbatory not neutral editors. During last 3 days loads of people have read it, some even helped to correct spelling errors. Frankly speaking, I put all the info there, because I believe people have right to know the truth. I don't give a damn whether the truth is 'anti-masturbatorial' or 'pro-masturbatorial'. Both of you want to delete it, only because it's inconsistent with your personal ideology. I strongly disapprove of such behaviour and by means of discussion I'll try to convince you to let me contribute.

short cite from the article from Science Now: "High testosterone levels can turn men into aggressive bullies, but a new study finds that low levels may transform them into cuddly daddies. Married men were found to have less testosterone than single men, and even less once a baby arrived.

Don Juans and dead-beat dads give men a bad rap, considering that the males of 95% of mammal species never pair-bond or help raise young. What is it that makes men as caring as they are? One theory holds that testosterone is the key. While high levels of the hormone are associated with aggressiveness, lower-than-normal levels spur parenting behaviors in some animal species. For example, in male white-throated sparrows, testosterone levels go up during mating and then plummet when it's time to help raise chicks. Among humans, cross-sectional studies of North American men have suggested that testosterone may dwindle as soon as men have children. But critics charge that attitudes to fatherhood vary widely between cultures, so it may be premature to generalize.

Expanding the research into Asia, a team led by Peter Gray, a biological anthropologist at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, conducted a study of men in Beijing, China. The researchers recruited 66 bachelors, 30 married men without children, and 30 fathers, all between the ages of 21 and 38. The men spit into a cup once in the morning and once in the afternoon, to control for the fact that hormone levels vary with the time of day. (Testosterone is present in nearly all bodily fluids.) They also filled out a detailed questionnaire about their recent sexual history and their level of satisfaction with their relationships.

The "civilizing effect" of women may have a physiological basis after all, the team reports this week in Proceedings of the Royal Society: B. Compared to unmarried men of similar age, childless husbands had about 20% lower testosterone levels, and husbands with a child had almost 50% lower levels. These measurements were made in the morning when testosterone levels are at their highest, but statistically significant differences remained in the afternoon. There was not a significant correlation with reported levels of relationship satisfaction.

The study shows that testosterone is involved in wiring men for fathering, says Peter Ellison, a biological anthropologist at Harvard University"(...)"Stanazollo 15:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Your claim of the silent majority is absurd. Most people don't edit. There's lots of articles I look at and shudder, but don't spend the time to edit. There's lots of articles I glance at, fix a grammatical error or spelling error, and don't edit the larger context. There's bots to find just spelling errors; just because they fix a spelling error doesn't mean they read any more context then needed to change the spelling.

You're a scientist. Your writing reads like it, and it's not good encyclopedic style. Nor is your assumption that everyone is familar with prolactin and HPGn axis, because they aren't. On first glance, your writing read like it was written by a crank; a bunch of disconnected sentences combined with a bunch of cites, some of which turned out to not describe what they claimed. I'm sorry if we jumped to conclusions based on that, but this should still read like an encyclopedia article, not a journal article.

No, you can't just add a bunch of paragraphs to the heart of a section and not worry about the rest. It needs to read smoothly and cover the information in a consistent fashion and NPOV manner. --Prosfilaes 20:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with the points made above by Prosfilaes. In the light of this discussion, I have reverted two paragraphs inserted by Stanazollo:

• In one case the only purpose in bringing up prolactin was to make his original-research point that by combining otherwise separate conclusions from separate medical research papers, in his words, "it may be hypothesized that..." masturbation leads to a "...low sense of self-worth and guilt" - an patently absurd POV position to take on such a non-scientific and counter-intuitive basis.
• In the second case that I reverted today, he had introduced a complex piece of medical research on sexual abstinence, that itself concluded, in its own words, that "These data demonstrate that acute abstinence does not change the neuroendocrine response to [masturbation-induced] orgasm". Nonetheless, it was introduced in a way that seemed most designed to bring some discussion on the benefits of abstinence into this article, although it is clearly headed as being about masturbation. The article is too long already by wikipedia standards, so this point, if it needs making at all considering the main conclusion of the researchers themselves, might be better made in an article on sexual abstinence.

In the plethora of edits made by 80.72.34.150/Stanazollo between 21:11, 1 January 2006 (FireFox) and 23:16, 3 January 2006 (Stanazollo), a considerable amount of pre-existing text was also deleted by him. That text itself represented a lot of very hard work and often closely-argued common agreement on the part of a great many previous editors of, and contributors to, this article over the months before he began. With this in mind, I have re-inserted this pre-existing text as appropriate in these two cases.

I am aware that Stanazollo sees himself as something of an authority on neuroendocrinology as well as Christianity and Islam, and I also see that he can quickly become quite uncivil when his contributions are altered ("...stop vandalizing hard work of other people! Why are you behaving like that" and "Who are you to state that..." from his recent edit summaries). Nonetheless, he is clearly very new to Wikipedia (or else is concealing some previous identity/ies?). I am sure he will now have had time to notice the warning on every edit page ("If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it") and to become more familiar with WP's definitions of civility, encyclopedic, NPOV and NOR. I hope he will understand WP's ways of reaching concensus, and the extent of the hard work that has gone on here before his arrival.

It will take a long time to work through all the text he deleted and all the points that he introduced in his two-day 'edit-fest' on this article, and I sincerely hope that he will cooperate while this necessary process proceeds. --Nigelj 17:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Catholicism

Cont from summary - It is only the sin caused before you knew it was wrong that can plausibly be dismissed without confession. Chooserr 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That's a good subtopic for the article on the sacrament. What does it have to do with this? Ruby 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It revolves around masturbation...I thought that was pretty clear. Chooserr 05:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, look, people who look up encyclopedia articles about masturbation are entitled to get information about the practice without having to plow through the finer points of the sacrament of penance. Ruby 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but the view given of the Catholic here is that it is evil and unforgivable, and what makes you so wise as to know what a person would come here for. Someone might come here feeling guilty, or to understand the religious view of the subject. The section is already there - all I did was add two small paragraphs of information that might be valuable. Chooserr 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Odd, calling someone's opinion evil almost sounds like a sort of personal attack--152.163.101.10 05:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I said sounds evil. :) Nice try, Chooserr 05:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little late to the discussion, but it seems like religous views on the subject are fine for inclusion into the article. What is the problem? Force10 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Children

This is odd...It says in the Article that young [male] toddlers will play with their Erect penis while in the crib. I might be naive - being a guy and all - but I though erections started around puberty. Chooserr 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall that being correct. Boys of any age can get erections, it's just ejaculation that comes with puberty. Do you have a source that says otherwise? --Prosfilaes 05:47, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No I don't. I might be wrong but I don't remember anything pre-puberty. Chooserr 05:51, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A simple search found sites on this, like Your Child | Masturbation.--Prosfilaes 06:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Prosf is correct, I recall erections very early.

Prone masturbation and "traumatic masturbatory syndrome"

I didn't originate this. I'm performing a merge-and-redirect from Traumatic masturbatory syndrome. The latter article was mostly the work of User:Doug22123 who operates a website, http://www.healthystrokes.com . I tried to boil it down to essentials. See Talk:Traumatic masturbatory syndrome for much discussion, and the history of the article for various changes in wording and emphasis.

My personal on take on this: Sank, the doctor who coined the term "traumatic masturbatory syndrome" is for real, and he did publish an article in a real journal. There has been very little follow-up study. This is basically one doctor's experience with four patients. But User:Doug22123 has found three or four reasonable sources that suggest there might be something to it. Although User:Doug22123 has clearly been trying to promote a point of view, he has been reasonably cooperative in trying to comply with Wikipedia policy (such as citing sources).

Although his website contains small ads, it strikes me as having a high content-to-ad ratio, and therefore I am including it in external links as a resource on issues with prone masturbation. The "treatment" for the syndrome, if real, is simply learning supine masturbation. Since this treatment does not involve purchasing anything--no herbal remedies, no books, no counselling sessions--I don't think the website is really a money-making scam or anything like that. And it seems to me that, unlike most medical quackery, in this case even if there's nothing to it I fail to see any harm in it.

So, on the whole I think it deserves mention here in this article, but not as an entire separate article until and unless this "syndrome" is much more widely recognized in the mainstream medical community. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Based on this summary, I would say it should be removed from this article too. What we're talking about is a 'syndrome' involving four patients and one doctor. Ever. It has no particular symptoms and requires no particular treatment. I think on the grounds of utter non-notability, it requires no discussion or mention in WP either. --Nigelj 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to mention an important point.

• Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Traumatic_Masturbatory_Syndrome--failed VfD in Fall of 2004 and has existed as an article for over a year.

11 keeps, 19 deletes, one unsigned keep from a logged-in user, two deletes from non-logged-in users.

Because this content is so obviously "on the borderline," I'd like to ask that nobody remove it outright for about a week, say through the end of next weekend—Feb 13--to give people a chance to chime in and discuss it. If it's to be deleted, I'd like to see this done decisively and on the basis of clear consensus, not just edit-warred. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's worth a note, even if highly qualified as to its reliability. It's a syndrome that's discussed on the net and that people might look at Wikipedia for information on.--Prosfilaes 07:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Here is some newly-discovered information from an article, "Conservative Treatment of Primary Phimosis in Adolescents," by Michel Beauge, MD, 1991, tr. by Dr. J.P. Warren:

"Conventionally the pursuit of solitary pleasure is done with the dominant hand closed over the penis making alternate back and forth movement over the shaft, the hand going down towards the pubis, uncovering the glans which the index finger or thumb may now and then stroke lightly, reproducing the sensation of intercourse.

"This exercise results in moving the penile skin in the same way as will occur in vaginal intercourse, and therefore it is a preparation for adult sexual relations. We shall see later that this training is not only mechanical, but also participates in the psychological development of the individual."

Dr. Beauge then goes on to describe a therapy for using an unconventional masturbatory method, which is quite similar to the method proposed for overcoming TMS. Doug22123 05:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Male masturbation survey

In that section, the 47 percent/39 percent (or something along those lines) seems awfully low and misleading. Deckiller 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Images of a sexual Nature

I know its been revisted and talked around in circles and to death, but this is my take on it. An online information resource that takes itself seriously should avoid as a general rule any images. The reason for this is that because this is an informational endeavor, we want to seperate ourselves from the more autoerotic uses of such articles. If Wikipedia versions were bought and private to ones own book, or so forth, this might be a reasonable issue. However, images of Penises and Vulvas abound on the internet without our help, and thus nobody can claim a realistic aspect to "educational" purpose here.

I am, for the record, pro- pornography in general; I think that graphic sexual images are part of a healthy sexual culture, however, the sites which fullfill that need on the _internet_ have allready spammed my hotmail inbox.

recently, the "Naturalism" article was deleted. That was sad, because in some senses it was a good article. Where it failed was exactly that it became a game for puerile people to post images, some of which were arguably on topic and some of which were not.

I'd hate to see this article go, because i think there ought to be an article on masturbation. However, I think that Wikipedia can forego having explicit images, in the interest of maintaining a nuetral atmosphere.

Images that might be more appropriate, if any are needed or useful, are biological cross sections, so that biological terms and labels can be referenced. The images up now serve no useful purpose; they are both poor sketches on the one hand, and lack any objective raw information on the other.

If i didn't have better things to do, I'd rewrite the entire article from scratch. Anybody interested in doing it justice, heres a table of contents.

• 1. Masturbation definition
• 2. Female Anatomy
• 3. Male Anatomy
• 4. Male sexual functioning (How a Penis works in coitus)
• 5. Female sexual functioning (How female genitals work in coitus)
• 6. Male methods of self stimulation
• 7. Female Methods of Self Stimulation
• 8. Dangerous, Problematic, or Crazy styles of Masturbation
• 9. Psychology and Masturbation
• 10. Sociology and Masturbation
• 11. Religious ideaologies and Masturbation
• 12. Related issues
• a. Male Circumcision/ Genital Mutilation
• b. Female Circumcision/ Genital Mutilation
• c. Autoeroticism
• d. Exhibitionism
• e. Erotica
• f. Pornography

Prometheuspan 04:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia avoid pictures and a printed encyclopedia not? The cesspool of the internet, clogged with spam, pop-ups and viruses, is not some place we should force people to go to get educational pictures, nor is it a great way to get educational pictures. I find it slighly unlikely that on the Internet, where as you say there's pornography everywhere, people are going to masturbate to simple B&W drawings.--Prosfilaes 05:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 23:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC) simple answers. 1. Wikipedia is an online resource. Anybody online can use google or another search engine to get any number of pictures or images. Its not like they aren't available. 2. The images currently up don't add any INFORMATION CONTENT. Image 1 could just as easilly be >Woman, laying down, hand on genital area.< Image 2 could just as easilly be > erect circumcised penis with hand wrapped around it.< 3. Actually, the cesspool can be very accurate with appropriate search terms. http://www.noharmm.org/anatomy.htm took less than 10 seconds to find.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=masturbation%2C+educational%2C+anatomical&btnG=Google+Search

4. Because Wikipedia is an open access, free to edit resource, it has to take a more prudent course, or Articles end up spammed with trash.

Encyclopedias should have illustrations, because "a picture is worth a thousand words." The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica has plenty of them. p. 940 of volume 1 has a full-frontal picture of a nude man. It's very similar in style and general presentation to illustrations in this article: a line drawing, explicit in its depiction of the man's genitalia, but not erotic, at least not to me.

I think the present illustrations in this article are very appropriate. Personal reactions will vary. Some will undoubtedly find them prurient, but some would probably find the Britannica's picture prurient—even today, to say nothing of 1911.

I find the illustration of the woman far less arousing than the image we have of Titian's Venus of Urbino, which Mark Twain called "the foulest, the vilest, the obscenest picture the world possesses."

Somewhere between no illustrations at all and the Venus of Urbino, that's where this article's pictures should be and that's where they are. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 03:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Somebody musta reverted or added a bunch of material, cuz the article looks different now than it did. I have stated my opinion, and I think its the right one. Time may prove me right, or it may prove me wrong, but it will be the judge, not you or i.

)

Buddha's Teaching Regarding Masturbation

The existing reference to an article by Mr Winton Higgins has been removed as has the claim that the Eightfold path taught by Gotama Buddha neither forbids nor encourages masturbation. The Eightfold path requires that a man refrain from the voluntary emission of semen. This rule is contained within the lay precept concerning sexual misconduct. It is incorrect to say, as Mr Higgins claims, that this precept concerns only adultery, rape, and other forms of sexual activity involving deception, harmful intent and so on. Sexual misconduct includes the voluntary emission of semen. There is no scriptural basis for Mr Higgins' claims within the orthodox teaching contained in the tipitaka. User:Langdell

I'm sorry, Langdell, but you can't just dump a whole home-made sermon, full of your own original research (WP:NOR) on the alleged commonality of the world's religions, into this artcle un-discussed. So I've pulled it out and put it here for discussion. I've numbered your 'chapters and verses' so that I can start the ball rolling:

--start Langdell's text--

1. In most religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, masturbation is regarded as contrary to the faith.
   
   
2. Many great spiritual masters and religious teachers (including the Buddha and Jesus) taught their disciples that masturbation posed a serious obstacle to liberation (salvation).

---

Interesting, but, untrue. In fact, Taoism, for instance, not only involves masturbation, but a variety of other sex practices that would probably make a westerner Blush. What you have is a list of Apollonian Religions. If we go for the Dionysian Religions, very quickly your argument falls all to pieces. Buddhism has several different branches. Some are anti sex and some are sex neutral.

---

1. The path of higher spiritual knowledge taught by the Vedic seers, the Buddha, and Yogis throughout the ages has always involved the renunciation of carnal pleasure within a lifestyle that is referred to as Brahmacarya (lit. under the tutelage of God).

---

No, actually, all of that is a modern tendency of patrifocal religions. There is even TANTRIC Yoga, so what you are actually doing here is looking at the propaganda spin of westernized Yoga, and calling that Yoga.

---

1. This means the complete renunciation of all intentional sexual activity. In a male aspirant it is extremely important that no voluntary emission of semen occurs.

---

For purposes of modern Psychology, this has all been well debunked. Sexual denial only leads to Psychosexual fixation, and the persons mostl likely to rape or molest are those that are trying to implement some sort of fallacious morality program like the one you describe. In fact, its pretty demonstrable that the problem with Catholic Preists is that they invariably become the victims of their own repressed sexuality, and end up acting out in criminal ways.

Modern Psychology tells us that Masturbation is an evolved and useful biological function. >>MOST<< "World Religions" agree with this, you are only sampling those which you could find to agree with your starting premise.

---

The code of conduct that the Buddha set out for his monks (the patimokkha) places the voluntary emission of semen in the second category of offence (sanghadisesa) after the first (parajika) which includes the most grave offences such as murder. To a contemporary mindset this prohibition may appear to be an ancient superstition that is no longer relevant but in fact it arises rather from an advanced understanding of the physiological principles behind higher spiritual development.

---

Honestly, no. Probably the best thing you could do for your spiritual evolution is accept the reality of your animal nature, and learn to be the adult parent of the shadow. This does not mean locking the shadow in a cage, it means allowing the shadow its time and place and freedom as part of the psyche. Masturbation as one way to achieve orgasm, and orgasm as a consciousness expanding experience tends towards the argument that Masturbation can be integrated meaningfully into a spiritual practice.

---

1. It was for this reason that Jesus taught his disciples: ‘there are those who are born eunuchs; there are those who were made eunuchs, and there are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let he who can receive this message receive it.’ ( Matt;19,12).
   
   

---

There are a lot of total nonsense things in the Bible, and that is one of them. If you really agree, make yourself a Eunich. A Eunich by the way is one who has had their male genitals surgically removed. What he may have meant or actually said was probably something a bit different, and we are now dealing with a mistranslation, like a lot of the worst stuff one runs into with the Bible.

---

1. The manufacture of semen in the body is an extremely energy intensive process using approximately thirty percent of available free energy. When a man no longer loses semen through sexual activity, the energy thus conserved and transformed through yoga (meditation or in Christian spiritual terminology, askesis) can be used to awaken latent faculties which lie dormant in the ordinary person.

---

This is a great argument for learning the Taoist practice of orgasm without ejaculation. This involves some pretty simple techniques, which you can probably find on the net pretty easilly. It goes hand in hand with other Taoist sex practices, Such as genital weight lifting.

---

1. Correspondingly, in women this energy is normally lost in the menses each month. A woman of childbearing age who practises celibacy in conjunction with a meditative practise over a lengthy period of time will remain fertile but no longer experience a menstrual flow.

---

This is not only propaganda, it is a factual error. Again, if you are genuinely interested in knowledge and not just a dumb sheeple zombie spouting nonsense, you might be interested to know that another Taoist practice, and one incorporate into Tantra, is the use of depth biofeedback techniques to quit Menstruation. Amongst those techniques are timing functions for regular sex several days out of each month.

---

1. The transformation of the energy of sexual desire and the energetic potency of the reproductive system is critical to the attainment of liberation (enlightenment) in Taoism, Buddhism, the Vedic religions and is well understood by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as prerequisite to the inheritance of eternal life (in Buddhism called amata – the deathless).
   
   

---

You finally got one right. Yes, transform the psychosexual energies from scond Chakra fixed, and awaken the kundalini force, and bring psychosexual energies into harmony with seventh Chakra.

---

1. To turn specifically to the traditional Christian point of view regarding masturbation it is best understood in the context of the Church’s teaching on the nature and purpose of human sexuality.

---

Which is all a way to create domination, false power, false dominion, steal the common capacity to actually reach divine communion, and replace it with a pyramidal money making scheme. Christians have zero business playing the game of sexual morality, the sexual paradigm of christianity is demonstrably evil and diseased. Prometheuspan 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

---

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states,

1. ‘God is love and in himself he lives a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image.., God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.(2331)
2. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion… Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realised in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death. (2360-61))
   
   Thus, sexual intercourse, within the context of holy matrimony (something quite different from the secular conception of marriage) becomes an integral part of humanity’s spiritual vocation:
   
   ‘The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honourable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify, and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.’ [2362]
   
   
3. A critical word in this passage is ‘chaste’ for chastity is central to the vocation of one who has committed to the Christian faith (indeed any spiritual vocation):
   
   ‘Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being… The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behaviour that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech… Chastity involves an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy.’[2337-2339]
   
   By this account masturbation is considered an offence against chastity:
   
   ‘Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action…For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.’ [2352]
   
   
4. In our highly sexualised culture the great benefits of sexual continence and celibacy are rarely aired publicly and then are presented as something rather odd or unnatural. And yet the prophets and sages that humanity revere have enjoined those who seek to fulfil their higher vocation to practise sexual restraint.
5. Those who are interested to learn more about sexuality and spiritual practise may benefit from reading [The Practise of Brahmacharya] by Swami Sivananda.

--end Langdell's text--

1. It's only Christianity that uses the word faith in this sense, so this assertion seems highly unlikely with regard to the others - that's we we have separate subsections below.
2. Two citations needed - for both teachers independently using these same words (seems unlikely?)
3. Lots of citations needed for this - especially as to how, if they all spoke different languages, they all 'referred to Brahmacarya'
4. 'the complete renunciation of all intentional sexual activity' - this should be in an article about 'all intentional sexual activity', not one on masturbation.
5. In my copy of Matthew's gospel he was talking about divorce at this point, not masturbation - again, wrong article.
6. Pseudo-scientific nonsense - what kind of 'energy' is this? The confusing kind that one can never pin down?
7. Again nonsense - celibate women still have periods. And anyway what about women masturbating? No semen (or magic 'energy fluids') involved in that, and the article is about both sexes equally.
8. 'The transformation of the energy of sexual desire' is not specific to masturbation and is not relevant to those not seeking these promised enlightenments. Should be in a general article about sexuality, but even then is only relevant to those who believe in and are actively seeking one of these 'enlightenments', with the proviso that even then it's not guaranteed to work.
9. Many Christians do not believe that Catholicism speaks for 'the traditional Christian point of view'
10. What are all these numbers - (2331), (2360-61), [2362] etc - they look like citations, but to the normal reader they are meaningless and un-verifiable, they just serve to give some kind of pseudo-respectability to your assertions.
11. Now we've veered onto the subject of marriage - again not the topic of this article, and contradictory to all the stuff above about transforming sperm into vedic energy, and making yourself into a eunuch for Christ rather than wanting a divorce later if it doesn't work out.
12. Chastity? Are you demanding marriage or chastity of the masses? In the real world where many are homosexual and happy to be so, AIDs, cervical cancer and other STDs are a reality for all, and pregnancy is not always wanted, this is becoming offensive.
13. I don't see a 'highly sexualised culture', I see a world going to war under a major worldwide thrust by a vicious Christian-right neo-conservative movement, a movement that is highly funded, extremely powerful especially in the USA, and highly motivated to enforce their views on all. This has no place in a balanced, secular article on masturbation in a secular encyclopedia.
14. This is an encyclopedia, not The Watchtower. We don't set external reading lists for those who'd like to 'learn more' to 'benefit from' - they can follow the links to the rest of the encyclopedia's articles.

Sorry to rant, but I really think this has missed the mark, by a very long way. --Nigelj 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)