Talk:Erotic sexual denial

Too gender specific?
The section on ruined orgasms mentions how the technique is usually used by a woman on a man. I think this needs to be changed. Women can experience ruined orgasms too and Im pretty sure gay people can get involved in the orgasm-ruining action also. Plus, it can be a solo act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.136.148 (talk) 01:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Recently added and removed site link
This text was added and removed (because the URL didn't work): * Orgasm Denial in context of Female Domination

The correct URL is actually http://www.yesmistress.org/male-orgasm-denial.htm (I won't add back the corrected link myself, but I thought I'd toss it up here to see if anyone else wants to...) AnonMoos 11:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the site it appears to be non-notable and adds nothing beyond what is in the article but I ended on this page by random so what the fuck do I know. I bow to someone who knows what they are talking about. --Charlesknight 11:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

IP 66.27.70.252 speaks
So how do you moderators scan the pages so fast. Why do you guys come back to this page so much? Are your lives that uninteresting?


 * Most of us are not "moderators" (the correct term is "administrators" in any case), and the marvelous magic feature in question is called a "watchlist" (if you ever established an actual Wikipedia account, you could have one too...). AnonMoos 10:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I just don't understand the big deal about not letting me put these three sites on there.


 * See External links, along with my earlier comments above. Mdwh 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with Mdwh. Atom 23:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers a valuable service to me. I would like people to come to my site and Wikipedia is a great way to get people interested in erotic sexual denial to come to it. My issue with the administrators is if anybody can edit the paper, then anybody can edit the rules. I don't think that by any means am I disabiding by the rules. The page that I have is an erotic denial website. I have people that email me everyday because they are locked up by the lock on my site, and people are generally gracious. I have adwords to get traffic to the site, and I have advertisements to pay for the advertsiing.

As some of you might know, my site is always improving as I have a stable of men helping me on the site. I would like assistance on my site into formatting my site to Wikipedia's standards to leave a link on here. If this is done, I will drop all advertising on my site, and drop adwords.

I would very much like to put my site on here, and it is becoming a burden to come to the site everyday to redo the edits. Please tell me here how my page can abide by Wikipedia standards.

Thanks, Katrina User:katrina


 * As I said on your talk page, the link you are adding is a commercial web site. Also, Wikipedia policy is that you should not add a web siter that you are personally affiliated with.  You have added your web site, and had it removed, like 20 times now.  The policy has been explained on your wikipedia talk page, and above (See what User:Mdwh says).  If you keep adding it, you will be blocked by an admin.  Atom 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear anonymous IP 66.27.70.252 a.k.a. User:Mskatrina, my comment of "15:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)" is still quite relevant:


 * "If you had taken some time to find out how and why things are done in Wikipedia (instead of viewing Wikipedia as a convenient tool to gain free publicity for your site), then you would have spared a lot of wasted effort, both by yourself and other people on Wikipedia."


 * P.S. Your account name is "Mskatrina" not "katrina"... AnonMoos 13:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

This is pretty straight forward - there is nothing on your site that makes it vital to the article - therefore it's not needed by the article and thus myself and other editors will remove it on sight and eventually someone will add it to the spam blacklist. --Charlesknight 17:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Other links
I am not an administrator of wikipedia, however I've taken the responsibility to remove the folowwing external links (I would explain this in the summary, but I made a mistake as for the link to the Verifiability and Reliable sources):

http://theworldofdenial.blogspot.com/

http://www.tantalism.org/

http://www.chastity-uk.co.uk/

http://www.angelfire.com/id2/Hawaii/MaleCh.html

The first three do not have any importance to this particular topic (in addition, they are blogs or start pages of sites; how can they be of importance to an encyclopedia?). I have some doubts though on the last link, as at the very bottom of the page there is said something like "everything stated above is a personal opinion of Dr. ... and cannot be used as a professional advice". I hope I've done right. Siliconov 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * We're in general happy to use any sources, provided they seem to be credible, reliable, and verifiable. The quality of the source is an integral part of that assessment, and in general one should try to source from more solid sources not less solid ones. However on subjects like this, the websites of those who practice the subject or seem to be recognised in their subcommunities as speaking with a credible voice, may well form a notable viewpoint which needs representing, and whose sources are their own statements online. In other cases, online websites are the better source. We draw a line at citing websites in order to promote their owners interests, with the view that if a website has a genuine benefit to an article, other editors will judge this, not the owner or affiliated parties. Hope this helps. As for your four, I think the last of them is interesting (it's one I've seen before) and would convey much of the subject to third parties; the point is, one doesnt cite websites "just because they're there". there needs to be some considered thought if they're beneficial for encyclopedic purposes. See WP:LINKS as well. Hope this helps. FT2 (Talk 01:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks, I'll keep that in mind! and I'll just place the link back. Siliconov 07:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I originally suggested tantalism.org as it is literally the only website focusing on erotic female sexual denial, however I definately can't comment on it from NPOV as I have been a member since it was founded and I probably spend more time chatting there than anywhere else, so I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether or not to put it back in Restepc

Medical warnings
One of you experts should mention that all that pooling of blood for an extended time is not without danger and can cause a varicocele in men. 76.7.95.112 19:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

is this article serious!?!?
So semen builds up each week making necessary to milk it?! And if you don't do it then nocturnal emissions will occur!? Or else psychological and emotional impact!??!?!?! How many men have actually read this? You don't have to be a biologist to know how false these claims are. Being a man is enough... -- 02:45, 28 September 2007) 200.7.17.84


 * I don't know about every week, but not ejaculating for a long period of time can lead to a significant medical problem, as has been documented medically. AnonMoos 14:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion nomination
I don't particularly understand the deletion nomination, since if an article is a legitimate topic of interest (which this is), and it's not filled with patent nonsense (which this isn't), then an article is not usually deleted just for being unsourced (however desirable sourcing may be). AnonMoos 09:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to this article being deleted, this subject is much bigger than a lot of people think, it would be insane for wikipedia not to have an article on it. Due to the nature of the subject the vast majority of potential sources will be of a type not usually approved of on wiki, pretending the subject doesn't exist or isn't worth mentioning would be a frankly stupid way of dealing with this problem. Restepc 19:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
 * expect it up for deletion every once in a while, as with every human sexuality article that anyone individually feels does not particularly appeal to them. try to make them stronger in between to discourage it. there must be more in the way of "mainstream" fiction, for one thing. DGG (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Why?
The article fails to adequately deal with the question of why one would want to engage in these practices. I'm sure there are valid reasons... aren't there? Okay, well, maybe I'm not so sure there are valid reasons... rowley (talk) 20:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Why do people engage in BDSM generally? AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I imagine they do it because it turns them on. Sexual fetishes don't have to make logical sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.28.130 (talk) 00:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

How to
The last paragraph of the "Long term denial" subsection has recently become a sort of how-to guide, which is not really desirable... AnonMoos (talk) 21:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous.
This entire article is way off-base. It tells me first of all that there is a rumor that one can ejaculate without an orgasm... Generally claims that ludicrous need some sort of citation to make it look like they're true. Secondly, a denied orgasm is not referred to as "blue balls"; "blue balls" may or may not take place when you retain an erection for a long period of time, there is in fact no such thing as the practice of "blue balls". Incredibly lacking in citations overall. In reference to the "super-orgasms" and "weak orgasms" spoken about... I have no clue what you're getting at. That's gonna need even heavier citation than the rest before anyone in their right mind believes it. DiscreteBeyondreason (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no first-hand experience or authoritative medical knowledge of "prostate milking", but there's enough different people who talk about their own experiences that it's hard to imagine it's a complete hoax; there's also a Wikipedia article Prostate_massage... AnonMoos (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * When did I use the term "prostate milking", exactly? DiscreteBeyondreason (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "Ejaculation without an orgasm" is pretty much synonymous with "prostrate milking". AnonMoos (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ahem. (Prosate milking) "In such cases, the purpose of the massage is to temporarily reduce the level of sexual arousal in the male recipient by prompting the release of the prostatic fluid that was accumulated during the period of time in which the male had not ejaculated." The subject has not, according to the wording of this tidbit I found on that article, ejaculated without orgasm. The prostatic fluid has been released; this is not the definition of ejaculation. Check the Wikipedia article for the full process. There's a very big difference between the two, primarily that no matter from any other glands is expelled and that contractions do not necessarily take place. Anyway, I'd prefer not to get into a big fight over this. I would just like to see you get the article cited with reliable sources, even though it's kind of difficult to do so on a lot of sex-related articles like this. P.S: Saying "release of prostatic fluids" is synonymous to "ejaculation without an orgasm" is kind of like saying "methane" is synonymous to "fractional distillation". DiscreteBeyondreason (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Long Term Denial
"Subjects can be kept in denial indefinitely (periods around two to four weeks each time are often quoted as being safe subject to proper skincare and regular checking). " What does denial have to do with skincare? I think this is a cut-and-paste error from chastity belts that is no longer in this paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.48.154 (talk) 00:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant "related" topics
There doesn't appear to be much of a point to the links to the sex magic page and eroto-comatose lucidity. These links lead to only vaguely related and marginal topics that appear to have been added for partisan (if not sectarian) self-advertising purposes. Note this is one of the things that separate wikipedia from reliable sources. A revision of their relevance (or lack thereof) is therefore advised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.101.241.6 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's just the "see also" list at the bottom of the article; feel very free to edit it... AnonMoos (talk) 02:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Male pictures
Most of the pictures are male related of almost the same thing as if the topic is a male one. Orgasm and sexual denial is actually a very large part of female submission and in fact a part of almost every BDSM action in some form. Biofase flame | stalk 15:25, 26 May 2023 (UTC)