Talk:Masturbation/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Masturbation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
Law?
In the Law section one finds this: "In a 1640s law code for the Puritan colony of New Haven, Connecticut in the 17th century "blasphemers, homosexuals and masturbators" were eligible for the death penalty.[62]". Not having access to the source of this citation, I'd want to know its literal text; 'homosexual' in any case is a 19th century word that never could have been used in the 17th century, but what then is the word used for 'masturbators'? Glatisant (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- The source is no help in answering this question: it says Blasphemers and homosexuals faced execution, as did masturbators, in New Haven, and fornicators were whipped, a punishment from which, revealingly, gentlemen were excluded (page 41 of the 1995 edition). The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- I can't find any copy of the law code online, but you might also like to know that a man named William Plaine was executed in New Haven in 1646 for sodomy, and his charges included having "corrupted a great part of the youth of Guilford by masturbations, which he had committed, and provoked others to the like above a hundred times", so it's not unlikely that the word used was "masturbation". The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- Allright, and is that the exact 1646 text, not a paraphrase as the 1995 text appears to be? It certainly would be a very early use of the word. Glatisant (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Collapsible DIVs
Censorship is evil and Wikipedia is not censored, but I believe we ought to enable readers to choose for themselves what individual images in the article they want to see or print out. This is not censorship, this is giving readers options and capabilities to control what they see. It helps to retain more Wikipedia readership, also, because we all know there are some people out there who get offended by things as simple and as natural as a nude body, and if these people cannot choose to hide some images then Wikipedia may lose readership, which is a bad thing. It also helps people who read Wikipedia at work not to be mistaken and fired for reading porn or whatever their manager might think. For all these reasons, but most importantly for empowering the individual reader to choose for themselves what to see on their screen and what to print on paper, I introduced collapsible nav divs which are expanded (visible) by default but include a "show/hide" link above the image which when clicked causes the image to be hidden (and if re-clicked to be shown again). This way the article is as before, with the images visible by default, but with the added capability that our readers who for whatever reasons are disturbed by nude bodies can now hide these images from their screens or their printouts, without creating any problems for the rest of us. I consider this a great improvement and I would recommend to add this capability to other similar images across the wiki as such a capability has the potential to enable easily-offended people read our encyclopedia and get to know about the world and their bodies without feeling uncomfortable. NerdyNSK (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- If you are at work and reading about Masturbation then the non-pornographic images on this page are you last concern. If you have children and they are reading about Masturbation on wikipedia rather than talking to you then you have bigger problems than images on Wikipedia. We had a facility to hide all images, but that was removed. WP:NOTCENSORED is clear, the images stay. If what you propose is hiding the images (in any way) without that being a settings change then I oppose. Darrenhusted (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did not censor anything, I just left the images as they were before, only adding a "show/hide" link (default is show) which when clicked hides the image from the user who clicked the link. That's all. There is no reason to oppose this. I am going to reinstate the change I made after a few days unless I see more opposition here. There is no reason to deny individual users the ability to hide a picture from their monitors. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- There was a function which hid pictures then uses had to click on them to view them, there was a debate about that function (on some other pages and centrally) and consensus was to show the images and let users change their setting to view or hide the images. Look through the history of this page and you will see numerous attempts to hide the images, the consensus is to show them. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- That consensus is totally unrelated with what I propose here. I agree to show the images, but I want to enable individual users to not see them if they don't want. Adding a "show/hide" link which defaults to show is not censorship, it is respect for the freedom of other individuals. I *want* to show the pics, but I also want to not *force* anyone see the pics if they don't like them. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- There was a function which hid pictures then uses had to click on them to view them, there was a debate about that function (on some other pages and centrally) and consensus was to show the images and let users change their setting to view or hide the images. Look through the history of this page and you will see numerous attempts to hide the images, the consensus is to show them. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to hear from others what they think. The version that I propore reinstating is this and I suggest the revert of this edit which removed my improvement. The reason what I did is an improvement is that it merely adds an additional functionality to the article, without removing anything and without changing anything. The article is just as before, with the images shown by default, only that with my change the reader can click a link and hide the pic. I don't do this because I dislike such pics, I only do this because I believe the reader must choose for themselves what to see and what not to see. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- To understand my way of thinking about this, consider some people who are raised in societies where their bodies and body functions are seen as something to be ashamed of. These people may not have lots of education and may not know a lot about their bodies and sexual or other functions. Sometimes they may feel afraid of asking questions about their bodies, and as a result they remain uneducated. When these people get to know Wikipedia and access an article which is about the human body or of its many functions, including sexuality, then they may see an image they haven't seen before and feel offended or otherwise disturbed, and this may cause them to leave Wikipedia and not read the article. As a result, they remain uneducated, Wikipedia loses readership, and Wikipedia fails in its mission to educate the world, including the third world. This might happen because, I think, here in Wikipedia we have a very western-based POV on what constitutes an acceptable image and how it should be shown. We are open and enlightened people here and we don't like hiding things, but we have to understand that in other parts of the globe, where education is crucial and often Wikipedia is the only free resource these people can access (if they have Internet), people may have different ideas about images, and if we present images to them in a way which is acceptable to us (the modern western POV on acceptable images, morality, etc) but not to them (maybe because they have a religious-based POV or they may live in a society where even viewing such pics accidentally could cost these people a lot) then we are doing a diservice to these people. We must enable Wikipedia to be read by all cultural groups, and for this reason we must offer customisation options. The collapsible div is the simplest such customisation, where the user who thinks they are offended or are in danger by these pics can click a link above the pic and hide it immediatelly from their screen. This can help us retain readership: the same person, perhaps someone from the third world where education and morality is different than in the west, who would leave a page without reading it because it contained images that disturbed them, would now be able to click the "show/hide" link thus hiding the pic and be able to continue reading and educate and enlighten themselves, getting to know more about things that in their societies and culture they might be taboo. If we can do this, then we will have succeed in our educational mission, and I believe collapsible divs is the way forward for bringing education on potentially taboo matters to everyone on this planet whatever their culture or society. If we don't offer such a facility, then we risk having our articles read only by people like us who don't get offended by simple pics, thus losing readership and failing to educate people across the globe. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I did not censor anything, I just left the images as they were before, only adding a "show/hide" link (default is show) which when clicked hides the image from the user who clicked the link. That's all. There is no reason to oppose this. I am going to reinstate the change I made after a few days unless I see more opposition here. There is no reason to deny individual users the ability to hide a picture from their monitors. NerdyNSK (talk) 01:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
here in Wikipedia we have a very western-based POV because this is the English language Wikipedia. This can help us retain readership readership is not an issue, an accurate encyclopedia is. that in their societies and culture they might be taboo some religions don't allow pictures of their gods, or even the word to be written (they go for g-d), but we do not censor our articles to meet a single religious viewpoint. I suggest you read WP:NOTCENSORED. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- What I propose is not related to censorship and therefore the policy you cite does not concern the issue we discuss as it is totally unrelated. Censorship is hiding things. What I am doing is to enable people to control what they see on their screens. There is no reason not to give options to people. Have you actually seen the version of the masturbation article in which I included the "show/hide" link? have you clicked on the link to see how beautifully it works? It shows the pic by default, but it enables puritans to hide them from their screens without affecting the rest of us. This is a good thing because it respects the freedom and individuality of our users. Forcing someone see something we know they may not like is not a good thing. The way it is now we make people either not read the article at all or set up their user account or their system to not display pics, which is not a good solution. Enabling people to show and hide pics on their screen while reading an article is the way to go. By the way there are other reasons to do this that are unrelated to people's POVs on morality: I did exactly the same on the CERN article because I did not want to force anyone see a pageful of maps if they didn't like to (see the article). Some users may prefer to read the text, others may prefer to get the same information from maps, so I put the same information on maps but with a "show/hide" link, so if someone doesn't want to have so many maps on their screen they can hide them. What's so bad about including a "show/hide" link here? NerdyNSK (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- As for pictures of gods or the name of god related to religions that don't like showing pictures of their god or their names, I would certainly support a solution where readers of such articles could customise the article on-the-fly on their own screen (without affecting others) if such a thing could be done easily. The article would include the god pics and the god name by default and everyone would see them everytime the article loads, but if someone was distrurbed by them then they could click a special link similar to the "show/hide" link for the pics and change the rendered article on their screen to conform to their own POVs. You have to understand that showing god pics and including the god name is itself a POV and we should not force POVs on people unless we don't want other people to read our encyclopedia. Allowing readers to selectively access and read parts of an article and selectively hide specific parts of articles from their own view is not censorship, it is empowering readers to choose for themselves what to read. Censorship is forced hiding or deleting things decided by some authority other than the users, so I cannot see how you consider a "show/hide" link censorship. Maybe you do this because you are afraid that if you allow a "show/hide" link today then someone else may come tommorow and change the default from "show" to "hide" or something like that. Except this, I cannot comprehend your opposition to the show/hide link as I propose it, except if you don't seek maximum readership for our encyclopedia. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Also note that the same "show/hide" link, implemented in exactly the same way, is used in our nav templates and all of Wikipedia is full of them as most articles related to geography or series of articles include at least one such nav template, many having as many as three or four. If you consider a "show/hide" link here censorship then would you consider the "show/hide" link in nav templates censorship too? I don't think so. The link serves the purpose to enable users not see something they may not like. In the case of nav templates this is because they take lots of screen real estate and some users might not be interested to see other articles in the same series, so many nav templates have a "show/hide" link to give readers control over what they see on their own screens. Note that the "show/hide" link does not have a memory, ie the same user will later have to click the link again when they reload the article. Including a "show/hide" link respects the autonomy of users, but not including such a link when we know that a large percentage of our readers would want it means that we force them to see something they may dislike, which is pure evil. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- As for pictures of gods or the name of god related to religions that don't like showing pictures of their god or their names, I would certainly support a solution where readers of such articles could customise the article on-the-fly on their own screen (without affecting others) if such a thing could be done easily. The article would include the god pics and the god name by default and everyone would see them everytime the article loads, but if someone was distrurbed by them then they could click a special link similar to the "show/hide" link for the pics and change the rendered article on their screen to conform to their own POVs. You have to understand that showing god pics and including the god name is itself a POV and we should not force POVs on people unless we don't want other people to read our encyclopedia. Allowing readers to selectively access and read parts of an article and selectively hide specific parts of articles from their own view is not censorship, it is empowering readers to choose for themselves what to read. Censorship is forced hiding or deleting things decided by some authority other than the users, so I cannot see how you consider a "show/hide" link censorship. Maybe you do this because you are afraid that if you allow a "show/hide" link today then someone else may come tommorow and change the default from "show" to "hide" or something like that. Except this, I cannot comprehend your opposition to the show/hide link as I propose it, except if you don't seek maximum readership for our encyclopedia. NerdyNSK (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- I think that hiding the link instills the notion that it is somehow vulgar or wrong. It is that same reason that pictures let's say of a penis, usually has the man fully naked, or that in nude resorts you are not allowed to wear underwear or lingerie, or undergarments in public. Undergarments are made to hide the private area, so wearing something like that in public is like doing something wrong in public. So they tell you to wear pants or shorts. Just as a hidden picture makes it seem like it's unacceptable or NSFW. It'd be like having censor black boxes in national geographic native pictures. They don't do it because censoring adds a negative stigma. So no you don't give a choice to a wikipedia user to see it or not. If they go into adult topics they should be able to handle it. If you're shocked into leaving you will most likely not be the kind of person that would like an unbiased source anyway (meaning you won't like the way wiki tries to present everything, including satanism, masturbation, porn, sex, and such without negative connotations). Either way a dictionary doesn't change a words meaning to please people and get more people to read it. Someone wanted to censor pictures in the holocaust page. Said the pictures were too horrible and bloody. Then too it was disrespectful to try to "pretty up" the holocaust. You can't "pretty up" sex. Next we'll have a picture of a married couple holding hands in the "sexual intercourse" page to demonstrate it. Next time notice in a health ed classes that the people are always naked when there's a picture of a genital. In my opinion the picture of a man masturbating needs to be removed and one of a person not wearing clothes doing it should be added to remove biased negativism. The only time those show/hide tools should ever be added is when a page is too picture heavy for slower computers, and we hide the big ones to help them out. Not to censor. 24.91.140.27 (talk) 18:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- I moved the male masturbation photo further down in the article because I thought it seemed too in-your face for a lead image. If the male masturbation photo were a full body view comparable to the female photo, it would make sense to have it side-by-side with the female one. A better question might be why there isn't a close-up on a masturbating woman's genitals for the female section of the article.
- What I propose is not related to censorship and therefore the policy you cite does not concern the issue we discuss as it is totally unrelated. Censorship is hiding things. What I am doing is to enable people to control what they see on their screens. There is no reason not to give options to people. Have you actually seen the version of the masturbation article in which I included the "show/hide" link? have you clicked on the link to see how beautifully it works? It shows the pic by default, but it enables puritans to hide them from their screens without affecting the rest of us. This is a good thing because it respects the freedom and individuality of our users. Forcing someone see something we know they may not like is not a good thing. The way it is now we make people either not read the article at all or set up their user account or their system to not display pics, which is not a good solution. Enabling people to show and hide pics on their screen while reading an article is the way to go. By the way there are other reasons to do this that are unrelated to people's POVs on morality: I did exactly the same on the CERN article because I did not want to force anyone see a pageful of maps if they didn't like to (see the article). Some users may prefer to read the text, others may prefer to get the same information from maps, so I put the same information on maps but with a "show/hide" link, so if someone doesn't want to have so many maps on their screen they can hide them. What's so bad about including a "show/hide" link here? NerdyNSK (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Nudity in see also section
Someone should add nudity to the see also section of the article.
- Explain. Animeronin (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Header image missing?
I believe all the other editors concerned with improving this article noticed that the image header with the caption "Masturbating Amy.jpg" was removed. The tag is still there, but the image is gone. I believe its original source, from WikiCommons, has been deleted. I suggest we either
retrieve the imageget a new one, possibly
one that doesn't raise alarm bells from the so-called "moralists"one that "forgets they ever existed", i.e. shows the details
Vote begins. --Animeronin (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Socialy not accepted
The article doensn't say that masturbation is socialy not accepted. There should be a section about social reaction and acceptance at least in western culture. --164.73.32.3 (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
- If you look closer, you will find some historical commentary - especially in the area of medicine. But I agree (on a skim inspection) that there is no material concerning negative attitudes that exist to this day. Maybe this is because masturbation is conceptualised as a "sexual" act, involving, as it does - arousal and stimulation of the genital organs. Thus, whilst not being persecuted as an ill in and of itself, masturbaton is still under the reign of generic antisexualism. forestPIG(grunt) 18:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Animation
- Do you think you could make an animation of a girl masturbating? I think this will help people understand how people masturbate.68.55.102.17 (talk) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
- All contributions are considered (but may not be used). Merely asking doesn't make a contribution out of thin air. The Wednesday Island (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
- I think the description is itself sufficient. --Animeronin (talk) 00:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Evolutionary utility section first sentence
"Masturbation may increase fertility during intercourse."
This first sentence is out of place, fragmented, and there is no citation (unless it is implying the later citations 33-37)
I won't make any changes personally this moment, but I would suggest that someone fix it or I'll try and incorporate it more appropriately into the section later. Ex: "Masturbation plays an evolutionary role in that it can increase fertility during intercourse, for example, it can...(diverge into info about females and males)". (Except worded better than the way I just put it).
Aspiring chemist (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Broken lead image
For some reason, the media engine doesn't like the lead image. As a result (at least for me), the page fails to display properly. The first few sentences of text in the article are not showing up anymore (as of this diff). I have tried purging the cache to no avail. I am going to remove the lead image until someone who knows what is going on can fix the problem. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Anal Masturbation
I deleted the part about anal masturbation. It cannot exist because there are no nerves in the gastrointestinal tract that would create an orgasm.
Kdp2004 (talk) 02:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- There is a whole article about it, all you did was delete the link. To say it doesn't exist is an argument from ignorance. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Let's call it the "tickle sensation"
Most people are not able to "tickle" themselves, even if they are very susceptible to it. But MOST people receive a lot more pleasure when someone else takes over the same job, and even if they are MUCH less... hmm... experienced. Even with my wife... it feels a lot better when she does it, even though I know the best way to do it... . I think this falls into that category too. 97.103.81.29 (talk) 01:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- No the present title of the article is accurate. --Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 05:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Video
Could any of these videos from Commons, all recently uploaded, be included in the article. I would propose the lower right which has sound and includes the orgasm as it also illustrates the sexual excitation and the release which is at the core of the masturbation experience. __meco (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
- (yawn) Really, meco, do you really need instruction? Are either of these of you by any chance?
- We don't include videos on how to cook or how to change spark plugs.
- As a suggestion, take the video over to this on-line encyclopedia, where they'll be pleased to publish it.
- Hmm. Perhaps I was immoderate. I have a vision of 11-year-olds giggling with their laptops under the covers.
- But my question still stands: Do we really need instruction?
- I'm sure 11-year-olds *are* giggling at this, but we need to evaluate what needs to go into this article despite of that. My thought is not to include video as an instructional device, but as an informational element for those who needs that. Most males don't, but still many may for a variety of reasons lack a good comprehension of what the act of masturbation *is* and importantly how it is experienced. Many will have moral, ethical or otherwise objections to go to pornography for this education. We should provide it as a matter of fact. One thing I agree with many other editors about is that these graphics need not be displayed in one's face by default but should be hidden behind collapsible frames so that people without having to fear imminent embarassment could read the article's text and when convenient and appropriate study the visuals. __meco (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
- Although the image is not as gratuitous as porn, the ejaculation was quite impressive and perhaps too much for young eyes. I have to agree with Meco and hold these back. Trevor100a (talk) 07:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Usually I find myself on the other side of the argument, but in this instance, my feeling is that the video is gratuitous and exists solely to shock or be salacious.
For example, Wikipedia doesn't include videos of how to eat or how to sneeze, which are other normal body functions.
I'm concerned, not that 11-year-olds will learn about sex, but, after viewing something this hideous, will be scarred for life, unable to attempt normal sexual relations without this image blazoned upon their minds. This could force unsuspecting victims to join monasteries and convents in droves.
I also question if you aren't the one in the video or the one who made the video, hmm?
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I too must protest that there even is a video. It simply isn't necessary to show a video with sound in order to explain masturbation. A cartoon diagram or sequence would suffice, I'm sure there are some somewhere. But surely the video should be deleted, the justification:lewdness ratio is way off.
- Kst447 (talk) 01:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- I merely proposed this for inclusion because Commons happened to have these videos, and I can think of no better place for such videos than here. As for deleting these videos, they are uploaded to Commons, and you will see there that WP:NOTCENSORED is as strongly advocated there as it is here. __meco (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your insinuation is non-sequiturial as the inclusion of video should be debated independently of who has uploaded the videos. Your argument also makes you appear oblivious of WP:NOTCENSORED as well as my points of argument immiediately above your comment. I'm pretty sure that if Commons had videos of people sneezing or eating, people would propose that they also be included in various articles. __meco (talk) 11:15, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you, meco. WP:NOTCENSORED mentions shock sites, which this falls under. There's no instruction here, only two people getting off, (a) the guy with the small genitals in the video and (b) the person who uploaded it, a double whammy of self-gratification. A flasher in a raincoat is more instructive– and more honest.
- Therefore, who posted the video is germane, because it reveals motive and motivation. (self-promotion? conflict of interest?)
- The real question is whether the vid augments Wikipedia, and in my not-so-humble opinion, it doesn't. Sound? Who the hell cares. Video? For something everyone knows how to do? Why not videos on how to pick your nose?
- Finally, the vid is hideous, not something I'd want to wstch after a full lunch, or anytime for that matter. I have the impression you're madly giggling with the 11-year-olds while the rest of us waste our time with this.
- And in that you're not the first participant in this discussion to throw WP:AGF out the window and completely unfoundedly appeal to motive.
- I see no rational coherence in your argument, merely your stating your opinion that you are offended by the aesthetics of the videos. __meco (talk) 08:16, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- This video is like saying if a guy's a couch potato with a pot belly and unattractive penis, do this 'cause you ain't got a chance at getting a girl. Is that the message?
- When you justify inclusion with WP:NOTCENSORED and I point out the same policy brings up shock sites, you assume bad faith? Puh-leese. And let's not discuss who's offended and who isn't, because you slapped a warning on my talk page saying you are offended.
- So far we agree there's zero æsthetics. No one has pointed out any educational value or any other merits only that you like the 'sound'. As far as I can tell, the only 'value' is shock value, which is forbidden. Whereas you bring up appeal to motive, you forget that motive is at the heart of self-promotion and conflicts of interest that is being referred to.
- Deflecting tough questions by throwing up chaff is not helpful. When it's pointed out the video has no educational value, changing the argument to it has 'informational value' is a distinction without a difference.
- Thus far, your central argument appears to be "many (males) may for a variety of reasons lack a good comprehension of what the act of masturbation *is* and importantly how it is experienced." What male over the age of 6 are we talking about?
I think the video is a bit too much. It's too graphic to be purely educational. Perhaps it would be better suited to the entry on ejaculation? --71.158.221.237 (talk) 04:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- What do you find unattractive about his penis? (And why do you call it small? It seems to be within the normal range of variation.) I think that showing people with real, everyday bodies is more encyclopedic than trying to find some model. Also, why do you think this is only aimed at males? Even if ALL males know how to masturbate-- which you haven't shown, and which you appear to believe happens in only one way-- it's entirely possible that a female person might want to know how male masturbation happens. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- To clarify, I quoted Meco who argued that "many (males) may for a variety of reasons lack a good comprehension", whereas I suggested his target audience was 11-year-olds.
- Yes, females might be interested, but an external link would be more appropriate so viewers of either gender don't feel slapped in the face with it. It's supposed to be an encyclopedia, not get-your-jollies.com. Unless I missed it, I don't believe there's a video of female masturbation. THAT would be useful, finding the little girl in the boat. And fellatio? Where's the video how to do that? Most of what's on the web is sadly inexperienced. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual.
- 1) You are misquoting me.
- 2) You are arguing against the one video which I suggested on grounds of aesthetics. As for your frequent resorting to fallacious argument, this one constitutes a straw man, because my proposal is that one of the three videos be chosen with a mere suggestion of the one which you chooses to base an argument against. I also find it, as does User:The Wednesday Island above, quite odd that you seem to balk at the suggestion that a highly ordinary, not attractive middle-aged man be presented.
- 3) Self-promotion? By whom?
- 4) You write above: "When you justify inclusion with WP:NOTCENSORED and I point out the same policy brings up shock sites, you assume bad faith? Puh-leese. And let's not discuss who's offended and who isn't, because you slapped a warning on my talk page saying you are offended." I did not justify inclusion with WP:NOTCENSORED. I rebuked those who wanted to censor citing that policy. Should I assume ANYTHING but bad faith on your part when you repeatedly suggest that:
- I also question if you aren't the one in the video or the one who made the video, hmm?
- Then after I posted a warning on your user talk page against personal attacks (not because I'm offended, but because such conduct poisons the environment) you go on with:
- I have the impression you're madly giggling with the 11-year-olds while the rest of us waste our time with this.
- Then after I posted a warning on your user talk page against personal attacks (not because I'm offended, but because such conduct poisons the environment) you go on with:
- 5) And you also appeal to ridicule. You obviously are pretty geared up by this, but your lack of balanced arguments and use of numerous fallacies in your emotional arguments isn't bringing this discussion one bit further. __meco (talk) 09:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- Your assumptions about me are erroneous. "pretty geared up" seems to apply to the position of wanting a bad vid on Wikipedia.
- We're done here. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 16:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
For those who are interested, there's a discussion regarding whether to delete this video here:
For the record, that deletion request discussion in Commons was closed as Keep on 11-13-08. — Becksguy (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Why isn't the video taken off of the page until a decision is reached on how useful or offensive it is? --92.2.207.208 (talk) 07:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- Offensive? See WP:CENSOR. — neuro(talk) 07:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I normally just try and make small changes and not get involved in these discussion, but the "NOT CENSORED" crowd is going a little overboard. For the record: NO, I am not offended by the pictures, NO, I don't think they're going to scar little children, and NO, I do not think they are needed. Especially the video. I have gone through college level Bio and a little anatomy, where this subject was explained quite nicely without full color Hustler pictures. Those arguing for inclusion, who keep screaming "NO Censor, No Censor," stop and think about why this pictures are needed when there are alternatives that suffice. SirChuckB (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. The deletion of this video is of great importance because, if the video remains, we will see battalions of exhibitionists loading their videos onto wikipedia as well. The video is unnecessary and is scarcely education. A chimpanzee masturbates safely without video guidance. I'm sure that any human being can do so as well. -- Ambrosiaster (talk) 01:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Retrograde ejaculation
A somewhat controversial ejaculation control technique is to put pressure on the perineum, about halfway between the scrotum and the anus, just before ejaculating. This can, however, redirect semen into the bladder (referred to as retrograde ejaculation). If repeated on a regular basis, this technique could cause long term damage due to the pressure put on the nerves and blood vessels in the perineum.
This "long term damage" claim surely deserves a citation? I can find none on this page or the retrograde ejaculation page it links to —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.68.20.86 (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Advertisement for Masturbation
This article seems more an advertisement for masturbation than a mere scholarly article on it. If it is to have balance, then either all the "selling" of masturbation as a good and healthy thing needs to be removed, or balanced by possible negative consequences of masturbation or excessive masturbation. I am not one of those people who thinks masturbation is going to send someone straight to hell, but I do recognize that the article is unbalanced and violates NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.226.96.190 (talk) 18:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- There are sourced statements which show why masturbation is a positive practice. If you can find any sourced negative statements, please let us know about them. The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
"She Bop" reference
I would question the claim that the song "She Bop" was so explicitly pro-masturbation that it required a parental advisory sticker. I had the album back in the day, and it was most definitely released before the advisory sticker was created - in fact, the article on "She Bop" lists it as one of the songs that led to the creation of the label. Unfortunately, I can't edit because it's locked. Could someone with an account make the call? 67.160.139.209 (talk) 07:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Aether22's addition of the photographs
I agree with User:Aether22 that the article's lack of photographs makes it stand out as unusual. I think the photos they have chosen are a fair representation without being gratuitously showy, and I express my support for their inclusion. The Wednesday Island (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I am in an edit war for something I consider more important, there is actually a fair bit of consensus for keeping the images it seems however it has been removed and I won't be the one to put it back at least not this time simply because I want to restrict my edit waring quota. But I encourage someone to restore them at least until the talk page consensus shift. Aether22 (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I will try to restore them as appropriate. Incidentally, we need some image for the lead in order to reach GA status. The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've already restored them & made sure they are the default thumb size. hmwithτ 22:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Technique
The male masturbation technique illustrated may merit a mild cautionary modification/edit along the lines: "A common male masturbation technique is simply to hold the penis with a loose fist and then to move the hand up and down the shaft until orgasm and ejaculation take place. The eventual penis shape evolves in boys during erection. During intense stimulation this technique can easily result in the application of sufficient force to result in minor but permanent distortion or bending of the erect adult penis. This distorting effect, which is cosmetic and has no practical impact, can be seen in the photograph.
A technique that reduces or avoids the prospect of eventual penile distortion caused during childhood is to place just the index finger and thumb around the penis about halfway along the penis and move the skin up and down" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timpo (talk • contribs)
- Note: I moved the preceding comment to a new section, as it did not concern the previous topic. hmwithτ 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Do you have any citations for that? The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Image in introduction
The Wednesday Island brought up a great point. The introduction needs an image. Any ideas on which image we should use? One of a female? One of a male? I think a photograph would illustrate it best, but a detailed drawing could also suffice. Any opinions? hmwithτ 22:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I will reply here in hope of making one reply for both. First the reason I put the images up with a reduced thumbnail size is because some people will object and a smaller size may discourage their objection, it is a compromise because edit wars are annoying and because you do not need a very large image to illustrate these subjects so if it reduces offense then why not? I won't put back to previous size but wait for support of the idea. As for a main photo I think the same issue applies, top of the page is more in your face and those who find photos of masturbation in the masturbation article will likely take more issue to them being placed there. Look personally I think the videos (viewable in archived talk) are Ok but as long as some find these contents offensive/inappropriately arousing/pornographic etc then it might be best for a compromise. I will note that I have seen articles go overboard and have too many images too (breasts at one point had an overstocked gallery, not that I was offended). Aether22 (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- Whether or not certain people are offended is irrelevant. Different cultures are offended by different things. Some are offended by depictions of Muhammad, some by violence and gore, and some by parts of the human body. Wikipedia is an uncensored, illustrated encyclopedia. Images are used to help educate the reader. Wikipedia has a specific content disclaimer, which sufficiently warns that it may contain controversial or objectionable content. If you would like to further discuss this subject in general, join discussion of the policy on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not. Let me know if you have any other questions, hmwithτ 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I think there should be a picture showing the different techniques because you never know if this is a kid who doesn't know what she/he is doing and just needs something to guide them. Now a days some kids don't feels too comfy on talking to there parents. I would understand that. They probably hear there friends talking and just want to know how to do it. So I'm all for more pictures and information on this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reptarqueen89 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think that an effort should be made to discourage exhibitionists. Diagrams over photographs, are, imo, preferable. Jtrainor (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Images
The female picture doesn't really show masturabtion well. And I think that the male one should be a 2 or more frame GIF. 74.179.114.56 (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
- How could the female picture show it better? Are you calling for animation there too, or something else? The Wednesday Island (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
- Animations are difficult, because we still need the images to look good in printed versions of the page. If that will work, then great. Go for it. hmwithτ 18:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the female one is a bit rubbish (actually a lot rubbish) and doesn't really add to the article at all. As for the male one, we don't usually put animations on articles but what could happen is that an animation could be added as a link in a static images description Such as is done in the Spaghettification article. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:31, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Popular music references =
Editors could add "Rosie" by Jackson Browne to the list of popular songs —Preceding unsigned comment added by David.beav (talk • contribs) 07:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
New study
"However that benefit seems to be age related as a 2008 research has show that frequent masturbation, of about two to seven times a week, at the ages of 20s and 30s, increases the risk of having prostate cancer. While frequent masturbation, once a week, at the age of 50s decreases the disease risk.[41]"
Two objections: 1. This is just badly written, from a grammatical standpoint. 2. That study does NOT conclude that masturbation increases risk of prostate cancer in any age group, nor that it decreases this risk in any age group. It did find CORRELATION between these, but it did not propose any causal link! This is probably the most common and unfortunate errors that is made in reporting on statistics, and it's done by major news agencies all the time. In this case, for example, it is possible that higher androgen levels in certain individuals predisposes them toward both higher chance of prostate cancer and higher rate of masturbation. This would mean that you would be more likely to find prostate cancer in men who masturbate a lot, but it does NOT imply that the masturbation causes the cancer. A proposed rewrite:
"However, this benefit may be age related. A 2008 study concluded that frequent masturbation, at a rate of about two to seven times a week, between the ages of 20 and 40, is correlated with higher risk of developing prostate cancer. On the other hand, masturbation at a rate of once per week, in one's 50s, was found to be correlated with a lower such risk.[41]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.65.91 (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Done (link). In the future, it is quicker to use the {{editprotected}}template to request an edit be made on a protected page. hmwithτ 22:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Pornographic photographs
What about Green Day's Longview for music about masturbation. Sorry if I am not doing this right- I am new. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.30.161 (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Why is there pornograåphiv photographs in the article? Isn't it enough that the text is pornographic? Those of you who are in favour for showing the pornographoic photographs will be the reason why we'll have Sharia Laws soon. (Where are all the christians?) minutz3 (talk) 10:45, 11 October 2008 (ECT)
- If you consider the text to be pornographic then you'll likely consider any good illustration of the text to be pornographic too - and if pornography offends you one has to wonder why you're looking at the article at all. I find the article to be generally educational and the illustrations add to that educational aspect. -- SiobhanHansa 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Some people would see pornograhphy in tealeaves. If you find it so offensive, read a different article and not one about masturbation. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- How on earth do porographic pictures, not that the ones in this are are, lead to Sharia? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
- Some people would see pornograhphy in tealeaves. If you find it so offensive, read a different article and not one about masturbation. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
CAN YOU PLEASE REMOVE THE GRAPHIC IMAGES? WHAT PURPOSE DO THEY SERVE? I came to this page from the article on the history of medicine. Imagine that a 12 year old were to be assigned that topic . . . and they follow the link and see those images? Isn't the text enough?
Poweranni (talk) 06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)Anne
- I'm sorry, Mrs Lovejoy, but the argument of "won't somebody please think of the children" is not a reason to censor this article. If you have a 12 year old then I would expect you to monitor their internet activities. There is an option to block photographs on all user's settings, this has been discussed to death. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the images are unnecessary and too many. These images can be replaced with drawings as an example this and many other articles. Wikipedia is not censored but that's no reason to serve pornography. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I think the images should stay, Wikipedia deals in facts, and the facts are as depicted... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.4.11 (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
An article about masturbation on wikipedia should resemble one in a medical textbook--there is a different tone to different images that makes them appropriate or not. I think some of the images here are not necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashreb (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- I completely agree with removal of the particularly 'strong' pictures. While I agree these images represent some scientific merit, the science isn't the focus in some of these photographs. Where are the images that are similar to diagrams, where the scientific nature is at the forefront? The only times I think the need for completely scientific nature can be ignored is when history of the subject is the focus. I think the people who support these pictures have lost sight of the reputation of Wikipedia as a research resource, and instead are wrapped up in this more on the basis of freedom of speech. Thesoftbulletin82 (talk) 04:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is NOT CENSORED. And I would never apolgise for defending freedom of speech. No argument presented here gives any sound reason fro removing the pictures. If you think they are pornographic then don't look at them. If someone is "researching" masturbation then they should expect to see images illuminating the subject. Otherwise, change you settings. The images are here by consensus, if you want to you can try to have them removed at commons (you won't succeed), or you could throw up a vote here (you won't win). I suggest you move on. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Especially against ridiculous "think of the children" assholes.
I think we should loose the images! These pictures simply need to go. If illustrations will help out, I can generate some (I'm an artist). Illustrations will have the exact same effect without making the site an X-rated porn site, and you know it! If there is something special about these pics, I can model illustrations after them, otherwise I can create depictions that will be informative without showing real human sexuality. Let me know; I really want to help out!--Brallion (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Ridiculous think of the children assholes? Real mature. I love the inflated aura of importance that the contributors and editors of wikipedia attribute to themselves. If drawings are good enough for the medical community (and I doubt one could find a medical doctor who is not familiar with masturbation) then why is it necessary here? I would challenge you to attempt to give a professional presentation, even in the medical or scientific community, with these images (especially the first, the male image could almost be arguably clinical.) There is definitely no need for the woman's face to be shown, and furthermore the image does not even illustrate female masturbation from a technical standpoint, it is merely pornography designed to sexually excite someone who is attracted to females. If a drawing can do the same job as a graphic image, and is much more acceptable in a wider variety of situations, it is only logical that the drawing be used because it will add more utility to the article. Changing to drawings would legitimize the article in such a way that it could be used in a much broader setting; as is one would be hard pressed to use this article anywhere but in their own home. Wikipedia is not censored, but that does not mean that its editors must disregard discretion in the name of some libertine ideal. Toned down images, or even drawings, would greatly add to the utility of the article, and none of you will argue that seeing this particular picture of a woman masturbating is clearer than a picture; at least admit that this is not about the article but what you wish to be permissible here. Stop hiding behind your censorship ideals, and your attitudes toward children are terrible. You are blaming the victim, much like saying that a child abduction is due to the parents lack of supervision when you are the one dragging them in an unmarked van. We would all do our best to protect our children, but it is not necessary to increase the risk when no utility is provided in return. Whiteknight521 (talk) 01:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I want to add my vote against the pictures. I think this all started with the painting of the monk which is of an inflammatory nature. This inspired someone to make the article even more inflammatory. If someone needs graphical instruction on masturbation, they can go to one of the many masturbation instruction websites. Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, and even if it were, diagrams would suffice. When pages of Wikipedia have to be considered not safe for work, its usefulness decreases dramatically. Fulltruth (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Here's a sample of what I can generate, illustration-wise. It's just simple line-art. I can also do colored and shaded pictures (which will have much more detail than this). I'm thinking about making a series of pics showing the process from erection, to masturbation then ejaculation. Would there be interest in such a set of pics? I tried to make this man look ethnically unspecific, incorporating a verity of features. If he seems to favor one particular ethnicity, let me know and I can tweak the picture.--Brallion (talk) 23:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
- I support this idea. Looks like someone (I don't know who, as I didn't bother looking into the history thoroughly) has removed almost all pictures from the article, so there's enough room for your creation there. (I scaled down the image on the left a bit)--Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 16:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I wish to throw in my two penny's worth in to the pictures debate. There should be pictures, I don't see the problem with illustrating what is describes on the page, but they should be restricted to the act itself, no need for 'full body pictures'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
I found that the Simple English version of this article makes use of two suitable illustrations for male and female masturbation. Could someone with access please add them under the corresponding headers? I also suggest that the image Male_masturbation.png be added to the top of this article as there is currently none there. Even with these images added I think this article will come across as a censored kiddie version image-wise. Kind of like a funny cartoon teaching fire saftey.
Nakerlund (talk) 12:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
It seems truly odd looking at this page the way it clearly is censored. Obviously there must be a balance between filling the article with more media than is required (and possibly media that appears pornographic though most of the removed images and video was not pornographic) and having an article that may either look conspicuously empty due to censorship. Personally I felt that the videos may well have enlightened some people on what masturbation looks like but as I am not one of those people I can not say. However removal of all photographs seems odd, the above diagrams are better than just using works of art (which is it's self not very encyclopedic) but are not really enough and are less clear.
I am going to replace the images and if enough other people agree for them to remain.
Also I may note that children have genitalia too and they look at and touch so 'think about the children' arguments are more about parents than kids except where the parents have made the kids scared of such but they are not likely to search out this page. Aether22 (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC) In reply to minutz3 (top post) I do not find the text to be pornographic, I guess that is in the mind of the beholder, after all legs on tables used to be covered. But you act as though it is somehow wrong that a page on the subject of self sexual stimulation may be potentially sexually stimulating. Should people researching masturbation be surprised to see non-pornographic images depicting the act? Of course not. but they may be surprised to find Wikipedia is censored after all. Aether22 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not sure of the present status, but prior abuse, excesses, and lack of judgment caused photos and videos to be removed. I believe the impetus wasn't to censor the article, but to set encyclopedic standards which had gone missing. The article had become a MySpace/FaceBook for playing with genitals instead of a serious article.
- Frankly, I've lost track of what or where new standards are supposed to be, but the idea was to stop childish 'gaming' of the article.
- --UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- I respect that but Abeyance does mean temporarily, why not set it at this level and resist changes to increase or decrease (censor) the image content, There are without these no photos, now the way I have set it there are in effect 2 tasteful non-pornographic (as much as can be without being poor quality or "ugly") photos of reduced size, the article no longer looks like it is conspiciously missing content. Please comment on the level of photography present under my edit and tell me if you think it is too much. Or did the Abeyance come with a specified duration I am unaware of?Aether22 (talk) 08:33, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- My concern is we've been down this road before, pushing the limits until even an administrator got slapped down. If there's any takers, I'm willing to bet the article gets its knuckles rapped again. Weren't we supposed to come up with guidelines?
These real life pictures are just wrong, especially the one showing an a man masturbating. Has Wikipedia any decency, who cares if Wikipedia is not censored, this just cant be some hollow headed mantra we simply repeat. Any one who Masturbates does not need to see these photos, any one who doesent know of human sexuality should not see these real life photos. If someone really wants to see porn there is a wide swath of places where you can see it, Wikipedia should not be one of them. I was hoping this article would of been more scientific, less how to. But never the less lets bring Wikipedia back to the decent Encyclopedia it once was. --Zaharous (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just wrong: please tell us why they are just wrong. There must be some reason other than your own say-so. especially the one showing a man: Why? this just cant be some hollow headed mantra: no, it's site policy. If you want the policy changed, this page isn't the place to argue it. any one who doesent know of human sexuality should not see these real life photos.: again, why? I would have thought that anyone who didn't know about it and who comes to a page specifically about it would presumably like to learn about it. If someone really wants to see porn: does this imply that you believe these photos are pornographic? Please justify this assertion. The Wednesday Island (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- its Just wrong in my eyes because its not "decent", showing the man because it shows an action rather than just a photo. We should not show these pictures to those who know not of human sexuality, for we want to save the facts of life for when the time is right. Yes I do believe that these photos are unnecessarily pornographic, unlike the artistic non realistic pictures. We should not tell preteen children the details of sexuality. I certainly hope pre teen children do not want to see shaved private parts. Im not saying The policy should be changed, we should publish classified CIA documents (they have done some seriously messed up stuff). Im saying that these Pictures have no need to be seen by those who already know of them. These pictures can be offensive to many ( in other words quite Libertine). I find these pictures disturbing, I think at least a significant minority agrees with me. I hope I have explained myself properly thanks. --Zaharous (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- If parents would prefer their young children do not view educational images of certain human activities, they should monitor their kids' internet use, perhaps not allowing them to view uncensored, illustrated encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. hmwithτ 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- You are right but, many people dont see the disclaimer (its at the bottom in very small text) , and to me these pictures were unprecedented. --Zaharous (talk) 00:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- If parents would prefer their young children do not view educational images of certain human activities, they should monitor their kids' internet use, perhaps not allowing them to view uncensored, illustrated encyclopedia. Please see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. hmwithτ 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- We get similar reactions on the pages of genital piercings, Muhammad, and Virgin Killer. Different people are offended or upset by different things. WP is used worldwide, and we don't cater to any one, specific culture. hmwithτ 01:20, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
- ARE YOU PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM SOME FORM\OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER, OR ARE YOU STUPID OR ARE YOU JUST PLAIN DOWNRIGHT HYPER-SEXUAL??... The fact that the images received so much discussion clearly underlines the fact that they are MORALLY wrong, not illegal. So typical of free-speech liberal crap-mouthed idiots... You are ruining Wikipedia, you imbeciles!! Wikipedia is an excellent enclyclopedia and I honestly doubt Jim Wales, even if he has allowed no-censorship, would agree to such images. And all that absolute horse's shit about wikipedia is for all, and the aura of respect and education you speak with, Darren-God-knows-what-your-name-is, and "why did you com here in the first place" is a a double edged weapon. I too can say the same thing. If you want to know about masturbation so much you, if you are a horny bastard, or interested in general knowledge, or a researcher, then it would be more appropriate to read this already pornographic text, and check out google images, something which is impossible to censor as it is not a Wiki... Your case is the same as many political mischiefs going on nowadays, like for example Israel's refusal to admit their horrific war crimes, or even the notion of them disliking the Palestinian people, until recently. So, I completely agree with Whiteknight about that you cannot show this in a scientific conference, an it has no clinical use, or significance. Even more, the only people who need to learn about this are children, that is why we think of them. You don't see a thirty year old man researching masturbation for an article for example, and if he does, he CERTAINLY does not need the images to "educate him". I would like also to point out that i wouldn't have used this offensive language unless i noticed that you wise-ass bastards, especially the Darren fellow, are too thick-skulled to understand politely, and I would also like to point out that it is in the policy in Wikipedia's guidelines to discourage greatly any flames or edit wars, and your demeaning disregard to our request (especially considerinfg that not all yourselves are high-proffesion holders within Wikipedia's community, and that we all have equal opinions, and that you are just the same us in the level of thought, even much less when it comes to interacting with other people) will continue to start flames over this topic unless someone does something. Therefire, I have DECIDED to remove this bullshit and any other pornographic material (pictures only) from other Wikipedia articles, and if your horny asses cannot withstand this act of deprivation of "scientific and medical knowledge and learning" (by the way, for any imbecile who agrees with the pictures, I suspect you are not only horny but stupid, so I would like to point out that quotation marks are for sarcasm or cynicism) i suggest tha you paste DIAGRAMS at the very END of the page with a notice in the introduction referring to that, at least to discriminate between mischievious children (whom i doubt would find pleasure from these three or four silly pictures, when pornography on the internet and in the west is as easy as typing) and the more realistic and common case of children who are accidentally linked to this, or are curious and shocked with full-frontal (or should i say lower) nudity. I have also written a critical letter to Jimmy Wales requesting the deltion of this rule, so that this doesn't become wikipedia's downfall...
- P.S. Your case is also like that of many lawyers and criminals who find some kind of loop hole in the law and then hypocritically claim their good virtue...
- Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walid Osama (talk • contribs)
Please do not seek to impose your own personal views on this page without discussing it first. This issue has been discussed many, many times in the past. Okay, from the top. I'll number them to make discussion easier.
- ARE YOU PEOPLE SUFFERING FROM SOME FORM\OF PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDER, I suffer from a psychological disorder, yes. I don't believe this is relevant. I can't speak for the other editors.
- OR ARE YOU STUPID Evidently I'm not, but I don't see why this is relevant.
- OR ARE YOU JUST PLAIN DOWNRIGHT HYPER-SEXUAL?? No.
- The fact that the images received so much discussion clearly underlines the fact that they are MORALLY wrong, not illegal. Some people wanted them removed, some people wanted them kept. Why does this show that they're morally wrong?
- So typical of free-speech liberal crap-mouthed idiots... This is an insult, and therefore not worth answering.
- You are ruining Wikipedia, you imbeciles!! This is your opinion and bears no more weight than mine.
- Wikipedia is an excellent enclyclopedia and I honestly doubt Jim Wales, even if he has allowed no-censorship, would agree to such images. I hear you're writing to him. Do let us know how that goes.
- And all that absolute horse's shit about wikipedia is for all, and the aura of respect and education you speak with, Darren-God-knows-what-your-name-is, and "why did you com here in the first place" is a a double edged weapon. I too can say the same thing. If you want to know about masturbation so much you, if you are a horny bastard, or interested in general knowledge, or a researcher, then it would be more appropriate to read this already pornographic text, and check out google images, something which is impossible to censor as it is not a Wiki... I can't follow your argument here. You don't seem to have given a reason why it's more important for any of these people to do these things instead of reading Wikipedia; you have merely asserted it. This holds no water.
- Your case is the same as many political mischiefs going on nowadays, like for example Israel's refusal to admit their horrific war crimes, or even the notion of them disliking the Palestinian people, until recently. You are perilously close to tripping over Godwin's law here.
- So, I completely agree with Whiteknight about that you cannot show this in a scientific conference, an it has no clinical use, or significance. Again, you assert but you do not prove. Why would photographs of masturbation be out of place in a conference on, say, sexology?
- Even more, the only people who need to learn about this are children, that is why we think of them. Fine, and so?
- You don't see a thirty year old man researching masturbation for an article for example, and if he does, he CERTAINLY does not need the images to "educate him". I'm a little over thirty and I've done research for this article. What about it?
- I would like also to point out that i wouldn't have used this offensive language unless i noticed that you wise-ass bastards, especially the Darren fellow, are too thick-skulled to understand politely, and I would also like to point out that it is in the policy in Wikipedia's guidelines to discourage greatly any flames or edit wars, and your demeaning disregard to our request (especially considerinfg that not all yourselves are high-proffesion holders within Wikipedia's community, and that we all have equal opinions, and that you are just the same us in the level of thought, even much less when it comes to interacting with other people) will continue to start flames over this topic unless someone does something. You were the one who began an edit war instead of a civil discussion.
- Therefire, I have DECIDED to remove this bullshit and any other pornographic material (pictures only) from other Wikipedia articles, and if your horny asses cannot withstand this act of deprivation of "scientific and medical knowledge and learning" (by the way, for any imbecile who agrees with the pictures, I suspect you are not only horny but stupid, so I would like to point out that quotation marks are for sarcasm or cynicism) i suggest tha you paste DIAGRAMS at the very END of the page with a notice in the introduction referring to that, at least to discriminate between mischievious children (whom i doubt would find pleasure from these three or four silly pictures, when pornography on the internet and in the west is as easy as typing) and the more realistic and common case of children who are accidentally linked to this, or are curious and shocked with full-frontal (or should i say lower) nudity. You may have decided, but Wikipedia is not your personal fiefdom, nor is it mine. We discuss things here, in a civil manner. This has happened before, and there's no reason why it can't happen again. This doesn't mean that you're entitled to throw a tantrum if you end up not getting your way.
- I have also written a critical letter to Jimmy Wales requesting the deltion of this rule, so that this doesn't become wikipedia's downfall... Again, let us know how it goes.
- P.S. Your case is also like that of many lawyers and criminals who find some kind of loop hole in the law and then hypocritically claim their good virtue... Again, insults are not worth responding to.
I think that covers it. The Wednesday Island (talk) 02:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
My view- Wikipedia is not censored, wikipedia is not censored, no really wikipedia is not censored. (it bears repeating because it's so important). All arguments about "think of the children" and "you are a bunch of immoral whatevers" should simply be ignored. Wikipedia is an encylopedia, it's aim is to provide high quality neutral information. For me there is no question that this article should contain images, for the same reason that all our other articles contain images - pictures convey information in a way that text fails to do, so no pictures will lead to a less informative article.
Having said that, the exact images we have on the article certainly is up for debate. Every single one needs to be of high quality and needs to add to the article. There is certainly room for considering more genteel sensibilities as there are clearly quite a number of people who are shocked and indeed offended by seeing images on this page. I know from other pages (penis for example) that there is a tendancy to react to calls for censorship by adding even more images, there is also, among some, a bit of a thrill to have a picture of them doing "rude things" up on wikipedia! I think commons has had to say in effect "we have enough of these now, no more please" for certain types of image because they were getting so many submissions!
So each and every picture needs to justify it's own inclusion in the article (true for all pics really but especially important in articles where people might take offense) Theresa Knott | token threats 06:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Here's my two pence: pictured are a vagina and a penis. We've all got either one or the other and I certainly don't find my penis or anybody elses offensive. As regards young people visiting this article I struggle to see the problem - the article is about masturbation, why is it a step too far to have a couple of photographs of what the article discusses?.
In short, calm down prudes - keep your skewed concept of morality off my internet.62.136.205.110 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know what to say, so much has been discussed here, about masturbation. Wikipedia is not censored and the main image illustrating masturbation is a drawing from 1916. Sex ed really needs to be put back into ALL schools. One person here said he/she has a problem with EVEN the text. So the pictures are only one focal point for some. If one has a problem with the topic of masturbation, whether is textualized in Wikipedia or gleamed from a medical perspective, then you need to skip the topic of MASTURBATION altogether. I have a feeling the subject and/or discussion of Masturbation is more offensive than photographs, the photographs are just the easy target to pounce on. But to make a long story short, if y ou have a problem with this article just skip this article altogether and never come back. If you're a parent of school age kids then you know you can control their internet browsing. If they go to a friend's house or use an outside computer they'll probably run into this article and maybe, just maybe, learn something. Koplimek (talk) 19:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
masturbate for peace(Diggnation)
on a live Diggnation in Los Angeles (epp 186) Alex Albrecht said "beat one out it will save the world","there would be so much more peace if some one masturbated", "masturbation is like taking a good dump" Kevin Rose also said "instead of throwing a grenade just masturbate" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamweard (talk • contribs) 06:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry if I'm late on this....
I may be jumping into this late, and maybe this has already been discussed in the past, but a lot of people have written quite a bit -- not all of it completely readable -- so I'm hoping someone has the patience to just answer this one more time for me.
Has the community already reached some kind of consensus on whether it's better to have semi-graphic photos such as the ones posted or whether it's better to have something more clinical?
I'm not really a fan of the arguments that I've seen on either side of this. On one hand, there seem to be some puritans who are aghast at the possibility of their children stumbling across this content. They obviously need to monitor their children's Internet activity, and their arguments instinctively makes me want to join the other side, but on the other side, all I'm picking up is that in an article about masturbation you should have photos of masturbation and that anything short of that is censorship.
I get that, but I wonder whether the article wouldn't be better served by something less salacious when the pictures are having a deleterious impact on the credibility of the article. I'd also note that the editors of penis, vagina, sexual intercourse, fellatio and cunnilingus have managed to resist the urge to go over the top.
—Bdb484 (talk) 07:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- As opposed to pages of body parts (vagina and penis), masturbation is an action. It's more difficult to capture with a diagram. Every article is a different story, but, in this article, many feel that images of the act of masturbation help provide the reader with more information that cannot be gathered from text. It certainly helps help the reader understand the topic more clearly. On the other hand, I haven't been aware of any "less graphic" alternatives to actual photographs that can accomplish as much (as far as educational value goes) as actual photographs can. In comparison to the other articles you mentioned, sexual intercourse is not only about humans, and it has several photographs of the act (similar animal masturbation images could also potentially be useful for this article), and the oral sex articles (fellatio and cunnilingus) have detailed, realistic images of those acts, which could possibly work here if the quality was high enough. hmwithτ 20:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
- I think your last sentence sums up what could probably be a solution to this controversy. We have an editor on the page who is offering to create those images, which I think we should take a look at. I think there needs to be a middle ground here, because we seem to have one group opposed to any depiction or mention of sex acts, while another group seems to be in opposition for ideological -- but well-intentioned -- reasons that may not actually serve Wikipedia well.
- I've asked the cunnilingus artist to work something up that might be agreeable.
- —Bdb484 (talk) 05:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I shouldn't laugh... I just couldn't help it, sorry. :-p --Nigelj (talk) 16:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- If the artist can capture everything (for both sexes) that photographs can, I don't think many people will object. We'll have a look at them when completed. hmwithτ 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Just am opinion, but I think there's a moral argument for the pictures to stay. If you're worried about children, then keep them away from the internet altogether - it is awash with exploitative porn. The pictures here, as far as I can tell, are from people who have volunteered to show us their bits. I'd much rather that than commercially produced pictures. It's a very good example of the value of public domain/Creative Commons licencing. And why should a drawing be taken as less offensive than a photo? That's a parody of prudishness, surely. --89.242.182.91 (talk) 23:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
- Irrelevant. Wikipedia should not be in the business of catering to exhibitionists. Jtrainor (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, very relevant. Wikipedia should not be in the business of censorship. We're simply putting this conversation on hold until we have options to debate. We're not saying that the actual photographs should go. hmwithτ 19:32, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying Wikipedia is censored, but surely a scholarly diagram is preferable in an encyclopedia. Jtrainor (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. As a diagram would do the same job, I'd push for that if someone can find a good one. Hobit (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not saying Wikipedia is censored, but surely a scholarly diagram is preferable in an encyclopedia. Jtrainor (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with the removal of the picture. The diagram is not as clear; wikipedia aims to inform, and the image showed the process clearly, with its two frames. For example, I know a male who, the first time he had sex, was traumatized when his foreskin was pulled back over the glans - he simply didn't know that was possible, and thought he'd 'broken' it. I think people are not considering this from an independent perspective, they are asking for the image to be replaced out of some form of personal offense taken at the image, or other such views, which goes against policy. If this were an article about a banana, would you really be objecting to a picture of one being peeled? -- Chzz ► 13:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- OK, so, nobody is screaming about this at the moment; to me it's perfectly clear that the picture is far more informative than the sketch; I disagree that there was a consensus prior to previous switch so, I've changed it back. Please note that this is in the spirit of WP:BRD; if it requires further discussions, then let's do that here. -- Chzz ► 08:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The photograph, in this case, is much more informative. This diagram does not capture all of the information that the photograph does, and, therefore, has less enclyclopedic/educational value. As with every article on Wikipedia, the most informative image available should be in the article. hmwithτ 16:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
- I think there is no problem with the picture. I am not offended about naked pictures of masturbation on a masturbation article. I find it informative and I think it gives a better example then a drawing or animation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseCrow (talk • contribs)
If anyone can make a more detailed picture or even better an animation please do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiseCrow (talk • contribs)
I have replaced the photograph of the man masturbating. Personally I would prefer a drawing, but any image should clearly show what's happening and the weird shadow thing that replaced it was far from informative. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know why it got replaced. There was no consensus to do so, and removing the image went against Wikipedia policy (WP:CENSOR). hmwithτ 14:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Live photographs are definitely more educational than diagrams. I believe there is no doubt about that, seeing the nature of the subject the the multitude of aspects that cannot be depicted in a diagram such as colors and skin pull. There are millions of people out there, both young and older, who need the raw truth on such an uncommonly personal subject, both to educate and allow them to make decisions for themselves based on reality. ----stingafurt
MUCH OBJECTION AND CONTROVERSY ON THIS SUBJECT IS ON WHETHER OR NOT IT IS "SELF-ABUSE."
I am 50 now, but recall an extremely anxiety-ridden youth. Without a lie, without trying to embelish, and without encouraging the practice, I state the fact that I used to masturbate regularly from ages 12 to 33, at least once every two days. Such high anxiety is, I believe, counter-productive to a youth's emotional development. I always found episodes to be addictively relaxing, but also guilt-ridden, hence more anxiety... and so it continued until I could stop it with my Faith at a much older age. If I could have been spared the guilt perhaps I wouldn't have been such a "basket-case" in my youth. Being agoraphobic along with body dismorphic disorder only served to increase the anxiety, and so also the episodes out of need for relief from my emotional pain. I always felt I was punishing myself with these episodes for being, in my view then, compared to everyone else, defective. This could simply be labelled "immaturity" if not for the many external causes which I will not bother mentioning here. What I needed was a brother, or a dad, to compare myself much more closely, privately, and correctly with. Although I now regard masturbation not only as self-abuse, but wrong personally, I find I am still over-sexed and susceptible to the temptation. I suspect that this is a matter of accidental emotional self-conditioning or self-training. I hope this helps someone! ----stingafurt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stingafurt (talk • contribs) 22:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're certainly entitled to your views, but this isn't really the forum for their discussion. This page is for conversations regarding the Wikipedia entry on the subject, not for unburdening oneself.PacificBoy 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting that your "solution" (not a very effective one, by the sounds of it) was to try and change your behaviour, rather than change your attitude and stop feeling guilty about it. But as mentioned above, this is not an appropriate place to be discussing it. If you were trying to make the point that some mention of "self abuse" should be added to the article, I suspect you will find very little support. PollyWaffler (talk) 03:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Masturbation criticism
There is no critic part in this article.
I think that there should be a part about problems that are sometimes connected with masturbation.
And I doesn't mean religion or "sinful" stuff. I mean a part about psychological problems that can arise when one doesn't controll himself/herself and goes into addiction. Or problems with ejaculation through normal sexual intercourse (as far as I know two types of them can arise when men masturbates for a long period of time regullary and doesn't have any sexual contact with any partner: too quick ejaculation or impossibility of ejaculation in other way than by masturbation).
These problems aren't very often. But I think it would be great if the article would say about it and maybe someone would find out some statistics and more information about it from scientific sources (or against them if I'm not right) - also for example when the situation becomes pathological or when it coud be qualified as addiction from the medical and psychological point of view (so it would be helpful for people that think that have problem with or caused by masturbation).
I'm not an sexuologist nor studying sexuology nor very interested in this area so I won't try to write part about problems. But I just give an idea to consider.
--213.199.198.245 (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
- Find a reliable source. False balance and equal weight are not the same as NPOV. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Redirection
Yes I would like to know why the term "chronic masturbation" leads me to this article, it is very important and deserves its own article, also i sort of had my hopes up and now im a little disappointed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.240.0.231 (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Spank the Monkey ?
Is it appropriate for the search term "spank the monkey" to redirect here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.130.90.209 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Simulacrum?
Techniques > Male
"Another common technique is to lie face down on a comfortable surface such as a mattress or pillow and rub the penis against it. This technique may include the use of a simulacrum, or artificial vagina."
http://www.spankwire.com/articles/80823/CD-Girls-Hot-Girl-Masturbating.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.199.137 (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Is simulacrum an appropriate term in this context? I get what the sentence is trying to say, but it's not really a clear explanation. I'd reword it but I'm not sure how... "artificial vagina or other props."? ;-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by PollyWaffler (talk • contribs)
Philosophical Arguments
Not to nitpick, but I have a couple minor issues with the discussion of Kant in this section. 1) I don't think that his argument against masturbation is -- at least not primarily -- an a posteriori one. And 2)No mention is made here of the "contra-purposiveness" and "unnaturalness" of masturbation.
1) I don't think that Kant makes any a posteriori (experience based) arguments against masturbation here. His comment that the immorality of masturbation "occurs to everyone immediatly" isn't his argument against masturbation. It seems to me that here he is just stating his conclusion and pointing out -- as he often does -- that the common people are fairly good at knowing their moral duties even if they don't know the philosophical arguments for them.
Kant's argument is the following: "by [masturbation] the human being surrenders his personality (throwing it away) since he uses himself merely as a means to satisfy an animal lust." This is a clear violation of the second formulation of the categorical imperative -- treat all of humanity as an end in itself and never a mere means to an end. This appears to me to be a logical deduction from the nature of masturbation and the categorical imperative, not an argument from experience.
2) Kant spends a good deal of time in this discussion (Metaphysics of Morals 6:424-6:427) talking about natural and unnatural use of ones lust. The natural end of sexual love, for Kant, is the preservation of the species. But "Lust is called unnatural if one is arroused to it not by a real object but by his imagining it, so that he creates one, contrapurposively; for in this way imagination brings forth a desire contrary to nature's end." I think that the charge of counterpurposiveness may be necessary for making the above description of masturbation appear plausible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.21.171.253 (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
- Since you seem to have a good understanding of the issue - and more importantly a verifiable and citable argument about it - please feel free to be bold and improve the article in this area. Due to the article being 'semi-protected', you may need to create a user account, and maybe get some practice on some other less controversial articles first (I'm not sure of the exact rules that will allow a new user to edit this one) --Nigelj (talk) 12:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Good this article is here
So many times a controversial or even politically incorrect article is frowned upon or just deleated. Glad the article deals with this in a medical sexual way. Wondering if more referance could be made to new types of autoerotic devices? There was (is?) a technique where sexualy stimulated areas of the body are linked to a PC screen stimulation is given while watching a Erotic film. But really perhaps links to sites where this toopic is treated on a clinical level? Thanks!(datedPMsnsetTU08180921stcntDr.EdsonASndre'JohnsonDDULC"X") —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoCalKid (talk • contribs) 02:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
External links
- FunFeelings.com Provides healthy and honest answers about masturbation for kids, parents and adults —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carver187 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
NOW magazine survey
I think the citation of the "NOW magazine survey" is unappropriated, it's not a scientific source (unreliable), too much information was based to it (two paragraphs)(unbalanced) and is country specific. I suggest removing it.--Nutriveg (talk) 12:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
- That's a good point, And not only was the source not scientific, the survey was non-scientific. Please proceed with your suggested edits. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
'Compulsive' masturbation bias
I'm worried about recent edits like this and this. They not only left this section internally contradictory but also were unsupported by the cited sources and were made without discussion or edit comment.
In the first case, User:Nutriveg completely reverses the meaning of the paragraph from saying, "Frequent masturbation presents no physical, mental or emotional risk" and there is no any such recognised illness as "Compulsive Masturbation" to asserting, "Compulsive masturbation ... is a sign of an emotional problem and needs to be addressed by a mental health specialist." This is not a fact that is by any means recognised by mental health professionals or mental health organisations. Nutriveg made the change with the comment "As by the referenced source", but in fact that statement contradicts the referenced sources.
In the second edit, Nutriveg removes a list of examples of damaging addictive behaviours and adds a sentence beginning "Compulsive masturbation is..." in its place. This is done without any editorial comment and in contradiction to the cited source.
The thrust of this section has always been similar to that of the two articles in its 'See also' (even before those articles existed). That is, that the concept of Compulsive Masturbation is crank medicine, usually propagated by those with either a financial or religious interest in 'curing' it. Any editor who would like to put the point of view of those interests into this section would have no trouble finding commercial, religious and ill-informed websites by the score to back them up, but we would have to argue the reliability and due-weight of these sources against the mainstream health professionals that we have at present. This is only a small section that refers the reader to main articles.
If we're going to give coverage to the 'proponents' of these views and discuss the purported existence of this 'mental illness', then we are going to do it in addition to the points already made in the article, not by replacing those with the new coverage, that is for sure. So, if Nutriveg, or any other editor would like to propose some text here which would give coverage to these fringe views regarding this new mental illness, let them propose it here before adding to the article. Thank you.
--Nigelj (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hi,
- That first edit was an exact copy of the source already present in the article, you can find that exact phrase in the end of the "No Physical or Mental Harm" section of that text. Removal of "but masturbation can be used to relieve boredom or stress" was because it was about general masturbation, not compulsive, and WP:OR. The additional change of "consider the causes of the boredom or of the stress" to "consider the causes of that compulsive behavior" was by the definition of the behavior present in the source that introduces the section and also to remove WP:OR that consider compulsive masturbation as symptom of (a single cause): "boredom and stress".
- In the second edit, an unreferenced phrase was replaced by another one, referenced by a scientific article. That definition is, again, clear in the source.
- "Compulsive Masturbation" is a term widely present in medicine literature and I don't why you define it as a "concept of crank medicine" nor where you get the premise that a specific POV reflect only and always "financial or religious interest in 'curing' it".
- I didn't use nor proposed the use of any "commercial, religious and ill-informed websites" as source, so I don't see where you get that assumption either.
- There is no detailed coverage of "Compulsive Masturbation" by a specific Wikipedia article, so I think that section is the best place for discussing that term and presenting the associated POVs.
- Beyond the proper citation of a source already present in the article, where I just corrected the citation, my edits were in the sense of defining "Compulsive Masturbation" as a symptom of other diseases, not a "new mental illness".
- If you feel that a specific POV wasn't well represented by my edits, please readd then with appropriate sources, just removing other POVs because you classify them as bias won't help at all.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nutriveg. Someone telling you that you were wrong and you contradicting them does not amount to a consensus on your part, so putting your previous stuff back with the comment "As by talk page" is disingenuous. --Nigelj (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- If you abandoned the discussion, while showing presence by editing other Wikipedia articles, Silence implies consent.
- Simply attacking me of "disingenuous", is not valid reasoning for objection. Please address my justifications expressed above.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
- Nutriveg. Someone telling you that you were wrong and you contradicting them does not amount to a consensus on your part, so putting your previous stuff back with the comment "As by talk page" is disingenuous. --Nigelj (talk) 21:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
cut vs uncut techniques
I was interested to read a description of masturbation techniques for uncut males in the article (Male) which was totally outside my experience, me being an uncut male who masturbates. Quote below:
"When uncircumcised, stimulation of the penis in this way comes from the "pumping" of the foreskin, in which the foreskin is held and slid up and down over the glans head, which depending on foreskin length, is completely or partly covered, and then uncovered, in a rapid motion. During this time, the glans itself may widen and lengthen as the stimulation continues, becoming purplish in colour, while the rapid sliding motion of the foreskin over the glans reduces friction."
I have to say that not only am I totally unfamiliar with this technique but that I think it impossible. The foreskin simply cannot move up and down the penis shaft in this way. It can be moved down to uncover the glans, but I bet that no one can move it back up simply by pushing the skin on the shaft upwards. As any uncircumsized man knows, getting the foreskin back up takes quite a bit of care and effort. Actually, getting it DOWN can take a bit of effort. In my case and I think in the case of just about ALL uncut males, the hand does not move across the skin at all, but stimulates the layers UNDER the skin. The foreskin stays either up or down, but it certainly does not cover and uncover the glans with each masturbatory stroke. Uncut males have a lot more penis skin than cut males. I have the impression that whoever wrote this was a circumsized male himself, and was simply making this up. The problem with a lot of articles like this is that heterosexual males simply do not know what other men do in the privacy of their beds, whereas heterosexual women do. For example, women have told me that uncut males masturbate faster than cut males, and also have a faster sexual rhythm in bed. It’s the sort of thing even an experienced man may know nothing about. Perhaps women who give their partners “hand jobs” or homosexual men could throw more light on this topic. Notthere (talk) 05:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- It can be moved down to uncover the glans, but I bet that no one can move it back up simply by pushing the skin on the shaft upwards.: I can attest from personal experience that it's certainly possible. The Wednesday Island (talk) 05:58, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'll believe it when I see it. Notthere (talk) 06:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sadly, I'm not going to post a video. The Wednesday Island (talk) 12:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Oh come on, we're all friends here. No need to be shy...
I've logged out to protect privacy. I am female but can attest from experience with an ex that the technique described certainly is possible at least with some men. My ex did have a tight foreskin which never fully retracted, so when it was retracted as far as it could, part of the glans was still covered. However, the article is illustrated with photographs showing the glans fully exposed then mostly covered, and there is no reason to believe that the pictures or the description of what is happening in them are not genuine. I do think that the article should be reworded to make it clear that only some uncircumcised males are able to use this technique. Wikipedia articles on sexual matters are often read by inexperienced teenagers, and as someone above mentioned, heterosexual males might know little or nothing about the sexual techniques and abilities of other males, so we should make it clear that such differences between individuals are perfectly normal. 87.112.83.197 (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- I think in these few sentences about the foreskin, sliding it and stuff about a so-called 'gliding action', this article became for a time a pawn in some part of a great anti/pro circumcision debate. I think Notthere has it right with "in the case of just about ALL uncut males, the hand does not move across the skin at all, but stimulates the layers UNDER the skin." Male masturbation is all about stimulating tissues under the skin of the penis, it is not about doing this that or the other to the foreskin. Obviously, citable references are preferable, but I would support any edit that reduced the present emphasis on the foreskin and the skin of the penis in general and made this more clear. --Nigelj (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
- Op notthere back. A lot of people underestimate just how much extra penile skin an uncut male has. When the foreskin is pulled down, there is considerable wrinkling, and the shaft can look like a gnarled old tree, unless it is fully erect. When it is erect, the glans swells up, and it is a bit of a fiddle to get the foreskin back up, unless it is highly oiled. I am straight, but I got a lot of info from "liberated" women who had had multiple partners, some cut and others not so. People like that are in a very privileged position to learn what the differences are between such men. And one lovely lass explained to me that giving a hand job to an uncut man was quite different to giving one to an uncut man. In the latter case, the man's penis has more available skin, and the hand does not move across the skin, but stimulates the tissue underneath. Also, the glans of an uncut male is very tender and moist, being continually protected by the foreskin, and kept moist in its little incubator. I have described it a bit like an eyeball, except without the pain an eyeball feels when it is touched. Nevertheless, the glans of an uncut male looks much redder and is MUCH more sensitive than that of an uncut male's, whose penis tip spends decades rubbing up against his underclothes. Perhaps that is why, anecdotally, uncut males masturbate more, and are more prone to premature ejaculation. I would encourage more women to write in and tell us of what there experiences with men on this level have been like. Notthere (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)