Talk:Masturbation/Archive 6

Handedness
Add a note that masturbation is a handed phenomenon, just as penmanship is.

under one of the headers it says "Immanuel Cunt" wrote...it should be immanuel kant, with the correct link.

Is it? I was under the impression that people switch hands. Ketsuekigata (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

on animal behaviour
one can;t cite marriam websters for showing animal behaviour. You need to substantiate it with solid evidence from some natural or veterinary journal or psychological texts. please don't remove the citation template --ചള്ളിയാന്‍ 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I Rv'd you - I'll respond. I saw your fact template, so I checked the previous article mentioned and some of its ref's.  It all seemed valid enough so I thought I'd RV and leave a message explaining.  Seems you want more, I've said my peace so I'm leavin it be.  Good luck. -- Shakata Ga Nai  Talk 09:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Citation Issue
"Some doctors will advise those recovering from heart attacks to resume sexual activity (solitary or with a partner) when one is able to climb two flights of stairs without experiencing shortness of breath or chest pain." This was used as a plot device in the movie with Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton. Unless a citation can be found, this should be removed or changed.

That would be "Something's Gotta Give." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.225.141 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

My nursing professors always told us this and i have heard cardiologists say it, but i cant seem to find where it started from. 24.250.136.154 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Time
Just how long should it take to reach the euphoric feeling at the end? About an hour or so? Scorpionman 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Damn, dude! How you doin?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.78.154.193 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

The time required varies from person to person. I have personally witnessed 30 seconds (jealous). I believe that an average would lie between 5 minutes and 20 minutes, if you're not holding back on purpose. I have found that purposely delaying orgasm intensifies it when you finally release. Hm, someone needs to search for a published study on these two areas I bring up here. I would do so myself, but I'm horrible with syntax and would only spend two hours on a date with the Preview button. 74.67.17.22 (talk) 07:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Them there pictures
While I am aware that Wiki is not censored and whatever reservations one might have about that particular issue are typically irrelevant, I do question the need for so many. It seems to me that perhaps just the first two are necessary(provided any of them are necessary). 76.0.91.63 (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's one for a woman, one for a man. They masturbate totally differently, so we need two.  нмŵוτн τ  17:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Myth Section
I feel we should put a section in about the myths about masturbation. I hear so many myths from the internet and from a lot of friends that I would like a section of "These are some common myths, all of which are false" or something like that. I feel that it would be good if we could dispel the false fear that these myths have invoked in many people. Aguy666 01:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Aetherealize (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hairy palms, going blind, what else? 24.108.208.160 (talk) 05:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

POV
If this article is neutral, than Britain was neutral in WWIIErik the Red 2 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2


 * Would you care to be a little more explicit as to where you see a problem? The Wednesday Island 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Judging from his previous comments, his objection is likely along the lines of "yikes, some kid might see this", which is adequately addressed by WP:CENSOR, or "masturbation is intrinsically bad, and this article doesn't reflect that", which is similarly addressed by WP:NPOV. If I'm not right about this, I hope Erik can forgive me for misjudging his objections and explain what the blatant POV issues are supposed to be. Zuiram 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, but also is not a porn page. Thuis article promotes the view that masturbation is a good thing that everyone should do once they are old enough to.Erik the Red 2 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2
 * Yes, that is because it's a fact that masturbating has health benefits. Please educate yourself. Your personal opinion is completely scientifically incompatible (that's universially bad). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ran4 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Grow up and get over your hang-ups...72.78.154.193 (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Article biased towards pro-masturbation
Much of this article seems to suggest that it is healthy to masturbate. It's easy to find text that supports doing it, yet it's very hard to find references to people who believe it is unnatural or unhealthy. Here's a link to an article that argues that masturbation leads to bodily exhaustion, bone deterioration, and even impotence: http://www.anael.org/english/masturbation/consequences.htm. I think this article offers a very interesting point of view that is missed completely by this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zabron (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).


 * That is a religious site; we already discuss negative religious viewpoints. It is not an informed source in psychology, medicine, or biochemistry. The Wednesday Island 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice the link to the main page of Religious views on masturbation.

Concerning your statement that the link I posted above is a religious site and "not an informed source," I definitely agree with the first claim, but the second claim is somewhat ad hominem, as the article does mention prestigious doctors. However, I/we would need to find more sources with more points of view to back an argument along the lines of, "A handful of modern scientists believe that masturbation may lead to bodily exhaustion, bone deterioration, and other drastic side effects."

Some sections of this article look less biased now that I have skimmed a bit more extensively, but I think the argument I posted above would be an interesting addition to the article. Zabron 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would make a better addition to Religious views on masturbation. --Nigelj 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, maybe the reason "it's hard to find references to people who believe it is unnatural or unhealthy" is because there are few such people outside of the religious community? 128.36.87.180 (talk) 20:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are "prestigious" doctors who swear they're in contact with aliens, but hard scientific evidence is something they are never able to produce. The same is true with these pseudoscience sites: they are motivated to pass off scientistic cherry-picking as real science. A quick glance at that website reveals nothing but absurd claims, no facts, and a less-than-expert grasp of the English language.72.78.154.193 (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen any non-religious arguments that support the idea that masturbation is unhealthy. While we should keep to a NPOV view in all things, it simply isn't possible to bring up balanced facts on everything. You can't easily argue a healthy side to suicide using verifiable facts, for example.

I do remember reading over 12 years ago about orgasms producing a lasting effect on the nervous system. Something akin to how sending too much current through an electrical circuit lessens the lifespan of the circuit. I've never been able to find anything about it online later in life or even in the 20 minutes I spent searching just now. Also if this 'damage' is true, all orgasms would cause this damage.74.67.17.22 (talk) 07:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Since the health benefits from masturbating has been tested scientifically with good results, pro-masturbation is obviously what wikipedia should stick with. NPOV doesn't mean "every single opinion should have exactly as much space". People have to realize the difference between science and opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ran4 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Connection between masturbation and premature ejaculation?
Is there any connection between masturbation and premature ejaculation? The Playboy Advisor said a few years ago that its main drawback is that it conditions one to reach orgasm too quickly (i.e. before the woman has a chance to climax)... Captain Zyrain 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of that. In fact, I've read that a man can train himself to last longer using the stop-start method while masturbating though. This link explains how:

http://sexuality.about.com/od/anatomyresponse/ht/controlprematur.htm Maybe it would be good idea to add this to the article? Asarelah 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Huh. I don't really think I'd trust the Playboy Advisor on that. I've also heard the bit about training oneself to last longer, but I think we need a better source than sexuality.about.com before it's added to the article. Ketsuekigata (talk) 05:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Images
While it is patently true that wikipedia is not censored, there is some strong support amongst editors of Sexuality articles to use "linkimage" when adding pictures of a graphic sexual nature. This allows us to keep content that is appropriate to the article, while minimizing the "shock effect" to readers of a ...sensitive...disposition. In keeping with this informal guideline, I have added the linkimage template to "Girl masturbating at a nude beach". Doc  Tropics  19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is there strong support to avoid offending people who are sensitive to sex, while there is no support for the same with regards to violence, blood and gore? I'm sensitive to the latter (which I pointed out on the IED page, to which the reply was a picture of a severed arm by one of the main contributors; apparently, this was considered civil), as are many people, but not the former, as many people aren't. And where would this consensus have been reached? One wishes WP would have a consistent policy on pictures, rather than the current hipocrisy.
 * As a case in point, with regards to your "shock effect" point, please refer to Vitrectomy, and consult its talk page, whose comments (apart from mine) include "horrific", "shocker" and "seriously making me consider staying blind".
 * A picture would add as much to the article as the picture used in the Football article does for that; it clearly illustrates the topic, and is something that, judging by the article, 81% of the male readers and 55% of the female readers will have done by the age of 15 years. How bad can it be?
 * Zuiram 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's pretty clearly a commercial porn photo, I think. It's metadata says, "Copyright holder girlmastrub@ing.net"  I don't really believe the uploader's assertion that 'girlmastrub' has emailed him to ask him to add her photos to WP!  I think it'll be deleted soon.  --Nigelj 20:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely take your word on copyvio issues; it's a subject I don't know enough about yet. My first impulse was to delete it myself, but it looked like a good-faith effort, so the linkimage seemed like a good idea. Doc  Tropics  20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Linkimage is a good compromise, IMHO. Ppe42 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nigelj, it happened exactly the way you don't believe it with the amendment that the uploader asked for the permission to put my photos to WP... as the object of your talk doesn't exist here any longer, there's no need to keep any trace (my email address) here as well, so i edited the email address (and i won't sign this comment for the same reason)... if you still have a doubt i'm the one who has been in question, you may write to the email address that has been altered, i also insist you change my name and real email address to the suggested patterns in all versions of this page.


 * Copyright is not an issue. If noone else is willing to donate a picture of themselves, I might do it if a consensus is reached that the article should have one on the page; no face, though, I'm not comfortable with identifiability. There should be a female contribution as well. Ideal would be a couple for the top of the page, and gender specific under the appropriate headings. Zuiram 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What we need for this page are some anatomically correct, medical-type images for this page that display what masturbation is in an appropriate, clear, and educational manner. We have stuff ranging from old paintings (which are utterly useless unless you want to study art history) to hand drawn illustrations which are essentially goofy porno doodles scanned out of the back pages of some horny teenager's composition notebook. Panzer-Kavalier 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think still images would illustrate masturbation very well. If we really want to display masturbation accurately, we should get videos. Obviously, they should be done tastefully and with the intent to educate. They would only have to be a few seconds long, or just long enough so people get the idea of it, not that they don't already know. CerealBabyMilk 07:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

This can't be said enough - drawings are NOT sufficient. Wikipedia is not censored. That's one of the most important rules wikipedia has. There is no NPOV excuse for using drawings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ran4 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
 * i do believe in a free and informing WikiPedia and I support the spreading of knowledge. But every encyclopedia has its own limit. What is right to show and what is not? Is it right to show pornographic content to inform readers of an example of porn? Shouldn't we then also show an example of the uses of drugs? What about child pornography, necrophilia, violence, gore etc.? Should we post graphic pictures to inform? No! There is a limit, and personally I think the limit was exceeded when someone uploaded such graphic pictures of a man and a woman masturbating. I don't want to sound like a crybaby but: "Think of the children!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.89.235 (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not censored for anyone, including "the children". There are, indeed, limits on objectionable images being placed on Wikipedia, but they aren't based on what you personally find objectionable. Wikipedia policy clearly states that "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the articles about the penis and pornography) and do not violate any of our existing policies (especially neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted." So yes, the article on pornography may contain explicit pornographic images, but, since child pornography, for instance, is illegal in Florida, it may not be included in Wikipedia. Whatever your personal feelings may be, those images are considered appropriate based on Wikipedia policy, and thus should not be removed. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

vision
Can masturmation dammage you eyesight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.206.111 (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, and if it did, the article would have mentioned it. Article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article. Splintercellguy 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I assure you that masturbation causes no physical harm. Asarelah 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No if it did then I would be blind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornwoman2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What if you hit yourself in the eye?72.78.154.193 (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Wash it out, quick. Seriously. It stings. Petitphoque (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary Purpose - Birth Control
I cannot provide any studies as evidence to back up my theory - but I think an evolutionary purpose of masturbation especially among human/ape males is birth control. A male and female may be involved in sexual intercourse but to prevent another potential childbirth which could be very taxing for the family or community, the male may still finish relieving his sexual tension by masturbating. There may be some sort of cause/effect relationship between human/ape male masturbation and the lack of the Estrous cycle in female humans/apes. Human/ape females may have adapted their sexual cycle to be more flexible because of the male's ability to choose when he fertilizes the female - namely through the deferment of fertilization by masturbation. This overall change - the ability for the male to masturbate and the female to be sexually active at any time in her cycle - results in an overall more flexible way of sexual reproduction.

This is also relevant in the scenario of viewing masturbation as an 'anti-rape' mechanism. This is probably an oversimplification, but as humans/apes evolved into communal social habitats where cooperation became more advantageous for survival in many cases, masturbation became an important mechanism in regulating male sexual tension without disrupting families or potential families through rape.


 * I have always considered that of all human faculties, the one which most forcefully contradicts the theory of natural selection is the ability to masturbate. If ever there was a faculty which would impede pro-creation it is the one which allows a sex life on one's own.


 * It is interesting to surmise as to "why" humans can masturbate but in all honesty, can you really believe that something which assists the avoidance of sexual intercourse can have a survival advantage for the species?


 * Or to look at it from another angle, what if humans had a tendancy to self-castrate? Would you say it would cause less instability through less tension and eliminate rapes and stabalise societies? Or would you just reason that it would plainly go against the survival of the species and be naturally selected out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is because you are assuming incorrectly that evolution occurs through pro-creation when in fact it is not. It is through pro-survival. Reproduction is a means of achieving a greater chance of survival, however this is not always the case given a certain point in time.


 * In all honesty something that assists in the avoidance of sexual intercourse can have a survival advantage for the species. That is why condoms and birth control have value in our society (i.e. people buy them). The ability to defer the time when sexual intercourse takes place is a great evolutionary advantage - this is perfectly clear in the case when a 16 year old girl gets pregnant in high school with her boyfriend in a "fling" relationship. The mother, child and family have less of a chance of survival now for many reasons. The mother, being young is not as emotionally/intellectually/financially mature as she could be - and this could certainly have ill-effects on the child. There is a chance for birth complications because of the young age of the mother - which could affect both the mother and child. The father has a greater chance to abandon the family because of his inclination to believe that this family will fail.


 * Self-castration is completely different from masturbation. Castration has a permanent effect. Whereas masturbation is only temporary. If, after castration you were able to grow a new reproductive organ at will, then basically they would be the same thing.
 * Masturbation allows for the choice of when you sexually reproduce, whereas castration leaves you with no choice after the act has taken place.


 * However, I must say that nature already does have a propensity (not sure if it's a tendency) to castrate many species - humans included. One of those ways is the adaptation of homosexually oriented offspring. In many ways the birth of homosexually oriented offspring can be an evolutionary advantage and in other ways it can be a disadvantage. It does not really give you as much of a choice (you could go against your own will), when it comes to sexual reproduction, compared to a heterosexually oriented offspring who can masturbate. However, a homosexually oriented offspring will be likely to avoid sexually reproductive acts and instead be more likely to use their time and energy on other productive activities which are useful from a survival perspective.
 * The same can basically be said for those heterosexually oriented individuals who opt not to have children and instead focus their time and energy elsewhere because they believe it is more beneficial that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.54.96 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sexual reproduction is a great means of survival, however if the cost is too high then it may not always be the best choice. It is better to wait and improve your surrounding environment until the cost is affordable. Broodle 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please remember that the talk page is a place to discuss ways to improve the article, not a place for general discussion of the article's topic. Thanks. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Images
There are several offensive images in this article that ought to be removed. If not I will be forced to blank the page. 91.108.225.161 00:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored
 * Don't disrupt Wikipedia to prove a point
 * If you blank the page then I will be "forced" to unblank it. -MBlume 09:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * While I don't agree with the editor's opinion or approach, I do think that some of the material on this and other sex-related topics is from exhibitionists just looking for a quick thrill, and as such is not quite appropriate for the project. On the other hand, beggars can't be choosers. — NRen2k5 (TALK), 13:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Exessive Masturbation and Prostate Health
The human body naturally produces testosterone, which is a hormone that induces hypertrophy and is found in amounts in men that are 8-10 times on average that found in women and is a main male hormone. Hypertrophy is the increase of the size of an organ or in a select area of the tissue and is the main aim of the heavy weight lifting done by bodybuilders. It is suggested that overmasturbation burns/transforms too much testosterone into dihydrotestosterone(DHT) http://www.4-men.org/malehairloss.html, which even though is more potent than testosterone does not have a significant effect on hypertrophy. Dihydrotestosterone(DHT) however is linked with Benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Check the following link http://www.seniornet.org/php/default.php?PageID=6053 The following link states that Dihydrotestosterone is responsible for the overgrowth of prostate tissue that produces BPH. Hence it is also a possible cause of Prostate Cancer. The same is also claimed in the following site under the 'Prevention' heading and the dark green box above it: http://www.naturalelixir.com/prostate.html, the Prostate Cancer and Brilliance heading also links DHT to prostate cancer. This claim is the reason why many medications aim at treating BPH by inhibiting DHT. The following links are also in support of this claim: http://www.atihealthnet.com/pages/prostatin2.html http://www.atihealthnet.com/pages/prostatin2.html 'under the Enter the Herbs heading' http://www.buy-avodart.com/buy-avodart/Avodart_Dutasteride_Prostate_Enlargement.asp

Many claims have been made regarding other Risks of masturbation that have probably contained myth. The following site ( http://www.herballove.com/library/resource/overmas/fatal.asp?source=googleSite&gclid=CKC47r2ZyIkCFQtkYQodZhxmvQ ) has a very interesting title that says: Fatal Consequences of Excessive Masturbation It says Excessive Masturbation can cause a big change in body chemistry which inturn has side-effects such as : Fatigue. Feeling tired all the time Lower back pain Stress / Anxiety Thinning hair / Hair Loss Soft / Weak Erection Premature Ejaculation Eye floaters or fuzzy vision Groin / Testicular Pain Pain or cramp in the pelvic cavity or/and tail bone

I suggest a section similar to this one is added to the article. pcp111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcp111 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. These websites are quackery. Masturbation is not harmful, in fact, it decreases the risk of prostate cancer. No reliable medical journal would back up these claims. Asarelah (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Asarelah. Not one of those websites are scientific.  Gillyweed (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Please Add to Article: Information About Masturbation in Art, Film and Culture
I am an anonymous user, so I cannot edit this article as it is locked. I would, however, like to see a section discussing the portrayal of masturbation in culture, such as mainstream (non-pornographic) films. Hollywood has been extremely conservbative depicting masturbation scenes as opposed to sex scenes in film. The only portrayals of female masturbation in film that I can readily think of are:

Jennifer Jason Leigh in Single White Female - negative portrayal as she plays a character who is insane

Erika Anderson in Zandalee - negative portrayal as the character is using masturbation in this brief scene to humiliate her husband because he is failing to pleasure her as she desires

Naomi Watts in Gross Misconduct - negative portrayal as she is insanely obsessed with male character in this Australian film

Naomi Watts in Mulholland Drive - someone negative as she is involved in obsessive lesbian liaison

Cruel Intentions 2 - somewhat negative portrayal as so-called good girl who would not normally masturbate is tricked into pleasuring herself whilst learning to ride a horse in an attempt to humiliate her

Ludivine Savignier in Swimming Pool - somewhat more positive but the girl is portrayed largely as a seductress, masturbating in front of a man in order to arouse him

Anne Hathaway in Havoc - Negative portrayal of masturbation as the film depicts the story of a good girl gone bad wanting to emulate an American gang lifestyle and is masturbating solely for the purpose of making a home porn video

Sharon Stone in Sliver - somewhat more positive depiction as heroine is masturbating in the privacy of her own bath whilst unknowingly being spied upon.

Maggie Gyllenhall in Secretary - more positive depiction of masturbation as sexual relief for female

Shannon Elizabeth in American Pie - fairly positive depiction as it is shown as natural aspect of young female behaviour. Again, it involves male voyeurism on female subject but sensitively handled.

Linda Speciale in Screwballs - early positive portrayal of female masturbation in this lowbrow teen comedy. The main female, portrayed as a very chaste character, is shown to fantasise about having sex with her teddy bear whilst she is in bed at night. She is not portrayed as a hypocrite for being both chaste and having a life of rich sexual fantasy and masturbation.

Chyler Leigh in Not Another Teen Movie - for a parody of teen comedies, this film opens with a fairly positive portayal of female masturbation. In the scene, she is shown in her bed, masturbating with a vibrator until her family and friends burst into wish her a happy birthday. The scene indicates from the beginning that one can be a film's heroine and be a masturbator.

Lady Chatterley - both the Marina Hands and Sylvia Kristel versions feature masturbation in a fairly positive way. Sylvia's film may be borderline soft pornography, depending upon one's definitions.

Toxic Avenger - very much a lowbrow comedy film. Masturbation is purely for laughs/titillation.

Apparently, Pleasantville and James Joyce's Women feature masturbation in a positive way but I have not seen either. Tara Fitzgerald apparently masturbates on a bed in In a Dark Place. I have heard a male stimulates a female's clitoris in Rambling Rose but do not have details of this either.

Non-English language films are, surprisingly, little better. Possibly the most realistic and positive depiction of female masturbation is from Renee Soutendijk in De Flat, which shows an older woman pleasuring herself in the bath in a natural, non-exploitive way.

The Japanese Weather Woman series uses masturbation for titillation.

Victoria Abril uses a toy in the bath tub in Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down! in a non-exploitive, realistic scene.

So far, these examples are all ones that show masturbatory behaviour by females in films. Does anyone know of any examples whereby female characters discuss masturbation in a frank and serious way?

To summarise, on the whole, films depicting masturbation as a natural part of life for females are very rare in Hollywood. Characters who masturbate are sometimes sexually obsessed (Gross Misconduct and Single White Female) or masturbation is used as a weapon for humiliation (Zandalee, Cruel Intention 2) or seduction (Swimming Pool). It seems that teen comedies, though often using masturbation for cheap jokes, actually provide some of the most positive portrayals of female self-pleasuring in examples such as American Pie and Not Another Teen Movie.

Male masturbation scenes are, surprisingly, more numerous in films from American Beauty, to The Piano, to Sirens, to Fast Times at Ridgemont High showing it as a normal part of male behaviour. Perhaps this reflects the greater willingness for males to discuss the subject, whilst, for females, it remain taboo? A detailed list of male scenes is on this discussion board forum

Often male masturbation is linked to voyeurism and spying on females, the most extreme and negative example being in the remake of Psycho in which the mentally ill man watches the woman undress as he masturbates, before killing her.

If you feel this information that I have provided is worthy of inclusion in the article, can you please wikify it and add it? Thanks. Special:Contributions/ 10:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent contribution. This should definitely be added to the article by someone.  Also, in popular music, there are some songs that deal with the issue of masturbation.  My Ding-a-Ling by Chuck Berry, I Touch Myself by the Divinyls and, I suspect, some songs by Madonna.  Let's also not forget the woman from Gong, Gilli Smyth, who actually masturbated in the recording studio to create the background sounds on some of their albums, such as Camembert Electrique. "Pictures of Lily" by the Who, is a song about a boy masturbating to porn. Also, the song, "Smut", by the famous Australian band Skyhooks, is about a man masturbating in a cinema, hiding his genitals in a packet of Twisties he has in his lap!


 * Another thing that should definitely be added to the article is the October 1972 censorship of Philip Roth's novel "Portnoy's Complain" in Australia. It was banned due to its masturbation references. The censorship led to public outcry at the time.  202.138.16.143 (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Abbie Cornish in Somersault and Reese Witherspoon in Fear are both masturbated by men. There is a deleted scene of Scarlett Johanssen being fingered on the DVD of Love Song for Bobby Long.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.56.6 (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention that The Whitlams' song, "You Sound Like Louis Burdett", features masturbation references in its lyrics. 210.50.60.74 (talk) 09:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I copied the above to the new article Depiction of masturbation. It needs more wikification, and extensions.--Patrick (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. I have started to clean up the new article and wikify it a little.  Help is needed, though!  I hope we have some more contributors as I think the references we have are only just scratching the surface.  210.50.56.32 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There is already a debate on the new page as to whether it should be merged into the main article or not. Feel free to add your opinions.  Talk:Depiction_of_masturbation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.56.32 (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought it would deserve a separate page like Depictions of nudity. The page is rather long now.--Patrick (talk) 00:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all this information needs to be here, and a new article certainly is not needed. Grsz11 (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * A list of actresses masturbating on screen is hardly encyclopedic. It seems more like a list of movies for every 13 year old heterosexual male to go and rent.  I fail to see the relevance.72.78.154.193 (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Songs include:

Rosie by Jackson Browne Dream by Everly Brothers Good Vibrations by Beach Boys —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin324la (talk • contribs) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Which image is better?
I think we only need one image of a female masturbating. Which one is a better portrayal? I can't decide. Opinions? Which image should be kept?  нмŵוτн τ  17:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe that the photographs are, quite simply, unnecessary. I do not state this merely because I am partial to the view of some corpulent fellow's exhibitionism, but, they are simply excessive. Moreover, every image seems to benefit someone in some way, thus turning Wikipedia into a market. The one female image is of an amateur pornographic model (advertising herself), the other female of a contemporary 'artist's' work (advertising his work), and the male photograph of some perverse exhibitionist who, most certainly, adores polluting my screen with his phallus. For reasons such as this I deem the English wikipedia inordinately horrid. The sketches suffice -- this is unnecessary. The article was sufficient prior to this plague of pornography. But, 'Oh! Oh!', quoth the prepubescent wikipedian, 'Tis for the better of the encyclopedia!' How? The sketch shows a photograph of a man with a dick in his hand, as does the sketch. What the hell is the difference? No other language has this problem. The German and French onanistic pages are well crafted. Only the promiscuous and perverse Americans! -- Grammaticus VII (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Every image on Wikipedia has the name of its creator attached. There is no other area where anyone suggests that a Wikipedia image should be rejected merely because it should happen to be created by someone whose career is in the same field.  If you find the English Wikipedia merely distasteful, that is hardly a reason to remove information which might be useful to somebody else.  It seems to me that the pictures give useful information on the subject which is necessarily hidden by the abstraction of the drawings, and I am very much in favour of keeping them.  This does not fall under any definition of either "perverse" or "promiscuous" that I am aware of.  And I am not an American, I'm English. The Wednesday Island (talk) 23:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * As an addendum, it's not only the English Wikipedia which uses these pictures-- see nl:Vingeren, fi:Itsetyydytys, ro:Masturbare, ms:Pelancapan. The Wednesday Island (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep It's a very long article, there's absolutely not too many pictures. The drawing could be changed to a photograph, but it's not that important. The photograph is essential! Ran4 (talk) 21:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that any image is nescecary. I mean neither image shows a proper view of masturbation because not everyone masturbates that way. Those Images are like just, meant to show eroticism in the least offensive way popular I guess, but seriously lol. I know that myself, and friends, boyfriends, and girlfriends I've had do not masturbate, laying on their back, faces in exstacy, lightly rubbing or jerking, while head tilted back. 69.207.42.15 (talk) 09:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The pictures don't show anyone with a head tilted back? They also show the most common forms of masturbation. While you & your friends don't do it the way pictures, this is how most females and males masturbate. However, everyone is different and likes different things. The article simply sticks to the most common, simple ones.  нмŵוτн τ  18:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I removed trolling & personal attacks from the following comment.  нмŵוτн τ  22:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC) :
 * They are unnecessary. Why must the English wikipedia be the sole encyclopedia to display such promiscuous photographs as these. -- Grammaticus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.159.77.245 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, I agree. The illustrations are just fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nalco (talk • contribs)
 * Wait, delete what?  нмŵוτн τ  16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My previous comment was in response to Grammaticus (a comment which has been deleted by hmwith). He said that the photographs are unnecessary and I agree. The illustrations suffice. He made the point that the English wikipedia is the only one that does this. Hmwith, what are you achieving by keeping these here? You seem to be fighting tooth and nail to keep these photographs on here. -- Nalco (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am against censorship here. The actual images clearly show what these illustrations cannot. I don't have any personal feelings here. I simply make sure that the "Wikipedia is not censored" policy is enforced throughout the encyclopedia, on this article (& other articles including possible offensive imagery of the human body, such as Prince Albert piercing), as well as articles about religious figures, such as Muhammad & Bahá'u'lláh. There's no reason for these images to be censored. ''Also, note that I restored the IP's comment after you left this message (while removing the trolling parts).  нмŵוτн τ  22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I am also against the attempt at censorship. What the French wiki contains is not my concern, because I don't speak French.  Whether the English part of wiki is unique or not is also irrelevant.  The pictures are as tasteful as a picture of masturbation could be, and the ad hominem that the individuals in the photos are perverts simply because they depict something which 9 out of 10 people do is unnecessary.  So is the suggestion that my opinion is "prepubescent" simply because I disagree with you.  If you don't want to see pictures of people masturbating, maybe you shouldn't type "masturbation" into a search engine, and willingly access an uncensored website on the matter.  Unless you have a perverted poltergeist in your computer, you're quite capable of not accessing the things you don't want to see.72.78.154.193 (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Considering we have drawn images of the act, why do we did ANOTHER set of images? Personally I think the creaters of the real images just wanted an excuse to post their privates online to a wider audience... which is very pathetic really... Stabby Joe (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue has been considered at great length, above this comment and below, and the decision has always been to keep the images. Whether the people in the photos were paid, or stimulated, or simply gratified to participate in wikipedia is irrelevant.  The policy of wiki is that when info is placed on the page, the people who wish to remove it have to fulfill the burden of proof to do so, not the other way around.  People keep asking the defenders of the images to point out what extra use the pictures may be, rather than providing a sufficient reason for taking them down.  As has been stated many times on this page, the argument that the pictures are gratuitous is not a valid reason for removing them, since doing so under such a rationale would be an act of censorship.  Besides, the main reason the pictures are getting so much fire from people is precisely the reason for keeping them: they are clearer than the drawings.  If the drawings were as clear as the picture, then perhaps the photos would be unnecessary.  But then I'm sure the censorshipniks would have a beef with the drawings being "too explicit."  Round and round and round we go...72.78.20.31 (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. The number of images is not excessive, and both the photographs and the drawings are informative. There is no Wikipedia policy that states that images, even supposedly objectionable images, should only be used when strictly necessary. Whatever the motives of the people who posted the images, whatever the article may contain in other languages, and where ever any individual's scruples may lie, it still remains that the images in this article are useful and informative. Few of the arguments for deletion of the photographs are actually based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and just about all of them are quite transparent attempts to distract from the main issue: censorship. Wikipedia is still not censored. Seriously guys, it says it at the top of the page. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
This site is supposed to be a resource for obtaining knowledge. Pornography does not belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DRAGOMIROV (talk • contribs) 23:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This issue has been discussed at some length, and the general consensus has been that the need to illustrate the topics of our articles accurately overrides the need to avoid upsetting someone's sensibilities. Indeed, part of obtaining knowledge is finding out what something looks like, and I would rather a child find out here than in an alley somewhere. Please see our policy Wikipedia is not censored, and feel free to ask if you have any further questions. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * What the hell is wrong with a penis and naked female? You have surely seen one of them at least daily throughout your life, depending on your gender.  Take that fundie shit elsewhere dragrimrov, we don't need censorship on the internet, this isn't NBC. (74.183.138.133 (talk) 04:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC))

Needs more pictures
just an observation... can we get some more pictures? perhaps detailing female masturbation? Maybe we could even switch them up every day or 2. Thanks in advance! ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.138.133 (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Switch them every day or two? Grow up. Asarelah (talk) 04:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Overmasterbation needs to be added to this article.
I have just been diagnosed with it. It is a serious condition. I am now not able to erect, i have blurred vision, and pain in my testicles. Over master bating can happen if you do it more then 3 times a week. this includes sex etc. It happens over time when the body's nutrients deplete. I was completely unaware this even existed until it happened to me. People really need to be informed on this issue. I hope that you will include this in a section of the encyclopedia. There are many more really bad side effects that can occur over time... people NEED to know about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.129.146 (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoever "diagnosed" you with this is a quack, assuming that he's even a doctor. There is no such thing as "overmasturbation". Virtually all doctors agree that masturbation is harmless and will not make you sick, even if you do it every day. You haven't depleted your body's nutrients, you're just sick with something. Asarelah (talk) 01:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

'''IMPORTANT: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a source of medical advice. Wikipedia does not, and can not, offer any medical advice of any kind.''' — Becksguy (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've spanked it twice a day for the last 15 years. I have 20/20 vision, and I'm far from svelt.  72.78.155.165 (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

sexual tension is a misleading term
In point of fact, no human or animal being has a tension specifically to do sex. Because if you don't know something, you're not going to want it... this is not finalistic, this is not aimed at something concrete. Testosterone is not a hormone of "urge", it is a hormone of independence; this thing is too much oversimplified, and it leads to ideological conclusions...

Most men don't learn masturbation by themselves, they're somehow "teached" (in opposition to women, who generally learn this from self-experimenting). This is not only because someone tells them "before", but penis is a two-tasks organ, you touch it non-sexually, not suspecting anything; you clean it and most people wouldn't learn orgasm from it; etc. It is strictly cultural (e.g. Western/Christian world is completely libertine comparing to Asians); although today it is present almost everywhere and in many past cultures it was also popular (although of course not as much as today in onanistic times where morality denies all will...). Anyway, it is not so obvious a man will learn it, in fact it is possible (and then necessary) that less than half of man will experience it if specific conditions (similar to some medieval ones) are fulfilled.

Human brain is controlled by humors, but this essentially means by specific neurotransmiters. And this means that we have, to put it simply, "different minds" in different states (of course there is soft transition): so, the effective system of neural connections changes with the change in configuration of neurotransmiters. That is probably because of something about the synapses (like synapses working specifically with such-and-such neurotransmiters or whatever... this needs to be better investigated). So let's call this softly-transitioning minds 'Bases', representing some more or less primitive, more or less chaotic groups of neurons associated with certain neurohormones. I would also say that when a neural connection is going to be made, it is going to be made in various Bases proportionally to the presence of their neurotransmiters at that moment.

It is not the presence of testosterone or appropriate neurotransmiters (let's call them X) linked thereto what causes "sexual tension" in male (the term urge means nothing concrete); rather the fact that they are _bare_, uncivilized, crude, lacking social hormones (which can come either from social relations or from orgasm (oxitocine?): this is the same group of hormones - here is explaination why you might get addicted to dating sites or whatever "pink" (with faces) especially when you don't have orgasms). Most of what we have ever learned bases on these social hormones (which is obvious, because we learn when _someone_ teaches us...), especially in childhood - even the ability to listen, read, generally the reception of impulses, the ability for analysis (especially the deep one); and in opposition to it, the Autonomical Base X is generally very primitive, it reacts like a child, there is much rudimentary chaos (which results in "emotions" like scream, cry, laugh), simplified thought etc. Women, who generally are much more driven by social hormones since their childhood, become weak when they have no people around them for a long time and then they masturbate to get some of them. This is no "urge". When a boy gets 14 years old and he has more of testosterone, and therefore X is even more present, his personality either becomes very sharp and primitive (which is nowadays fought with all possible means...) or he is masturbating because he was somehow learned. If a boy who masturbated very much suddenly stops it (and is able to stop it for some week or so), he suddenly "loses" most contents of his mind: that is because social-base Y is much lowered and pure stupid X rules him. Now, when a man becomes older, throughout all these years the things he does (thanks to Y) more and more exert their shadow (i.e. create connections) on X (basing on the mechanism already described), so X becomes more civilized. And that's why an old man is more able to stop sex: then even if he is alone, he has his baggage. But a women, instead, when she begins to have more and more testosterone, she doesn't automatically want sex, it just sharpens her personality, begins to make it more crude... now you see, why in today's conditions (and in many other epochs!) they prefer then to have sex, especially that throughout years they attached themselves to the pleasure of orgasm more and more. But with time X becomes accustomed and tamed by various sources...

Now you see what I wanted to say: it is not the urge, but the appearance of an (yet!) untamed sphere of independence what in fact happens. This doesn't have to be connected with sex at all! If you, being aroused (because of chaotical primitive way of acting and lack of deeper thought), do various things and then by accident discover sex, then well, but it is not automatic aiming. It is not that "sexual urge increases, so people automatically start masturbating more". They start to be harsh, primitive, bad pupils, for example young boys who didn't masturbate much yet will perhaps like fights, etc. This all follows from independence which is yet immature. BUT if you train it (probably as an anchorite, for most things will lose their meanings for you, whereas people and social hormones are associated with sex in you...), and if your independence becomes well formed (can be hard sitting inside of it!), you can generally be free from masturbation as early as in late 18th year of life (I know it because I achieved it myself), and then keep it for years with no problem. Really feeling no urge, rather total anchorite loneliness. The interests etc., all that the mob now cares about, is very superficial and it is based on social/sexual hormones. - Also, the if Y becomes weak, the intellect becomes much purer and most of superfluous contents disappears, therefore also that what is connected with reception of the very details, detailed search and research, intellectual curiosity, etc. etc., but this is rather due to "erasal" of these things from your mind than due to some positive "clouding". Orgasm doesn't remove the clouding, he brings the main contents back. Anyway, if you manage to organise your life without masturbation - or even better, if you never did it (and I believe there were such people and animals) - and if you don't think about sex (even abstract words can addict! very dangerous!), then you can don't even feel you'd need sex, even though you might be completely incompatible with other people. Anyway, to bring it to an end: THE BEAST IN YOU DOESN'T NEED SEX, IT NEEDS TAMING. (The other thing is attachment to a pleasure, it addicts with another mechanism, because it represents its own base, sucking you with every step into its own world, its own humor different than that of independence - this is the case with women: but then, you need to know that pleasure. When a child starts masturbating, then soon after he starts he enters slightly, but more with every moment, a crude base Z too... that's why he has so little thought then, so simplistic action.)

And these percents. . . Well, very modern way of thinking! I think that the middle-ages, but some ancient tribes too, could very well live in purity; after all, EVERYTHING was arranged for it, even the death of city life, the individualism, ascetism, aristocratic way of life - - (if today there was sport instead of schools and earning!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.114.170.250 (talk • contribs)


 * Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. If you think something should be added to the article, say so and give citations to reliable sources.  If you think something should be deleted from the article, say so and give citations to reliable sources as to why it's not true.  Wikipedia is not a place for fanciful theories.  The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Automated archiving
This talk page is getting huge. Would anyone mind if I pointed User:MiszaBot to clear away some of the debris? The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

None here either, this is one of the biggest talk pages ive ever seen. Sort it :P Alastairthegreat (talk) 21:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Referece needed

 * "Some people masturbate by using machines that simulate intercourse."

While this statement seems obvious I think this article needs a reference or a reference to such a machine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.122.181 (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2007 UTC I'd like to add the following link to the general reference:
 * Masturbation "Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia", Humboldt Universität, Berlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomalf (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Kate Bush
It might be worthwhile to mention under Music, Kate Bush's early song, "(I don't see why I shouldn't) pick the wild flower." It is not a popular song, but Kate Bush is a popular artist who touched on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.55.62 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (NB: "Pick the Rare Flower".) The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless she herself says it is about masturbation, then no. Asarelah (talk) 20:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Removal of links
The preceding links should be removed from "General". 164.107.191.89 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * healthystrokes.com &mdash; Misleadingly represented as a "site about masturbation", but it is actually a site railing against "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome" which doesn't have nearly enough consensus in the scientific literature to go under "general". Reference under the part of the article pertaining to TMS is probably fine. Whether or not TMS is real, I emphasize that healthystrokes.com is NOT a "general" site about masturbation, but a scare site about TMS. So it is miscategorized.
 * aboutmasturbation.com &mdash; The quality of the writing on this site is amazingly poor. About the only thing they get right is the spelling of "masturbation". A linguist may be interested in the bizarre verbiage in the articles, but surely there are better sites to be included under "general". Let us search for others and add them instead. I would do so myself, but the page is protected (and rightly so, given the sort of stuff I've seen in the archives for this talk page).

Video of male cooking his sheet meat
Thanks...... I think..... do we need that video? Is there anyway to verify the age of that penis? It looks pretty bald and child like ( 98.220.16.130 (talk) 06:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC) )

So wikipedia is a porn site?

 * We've been over this a thousand times and your comment is not a constructive one. Not every picture of a sexual act is pornography. The Wednesday Island (talk) 01:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I got it now and I read the rest of the discussion, just wanted to say you're doing an excellent job keep kicking these moralfags asses.


 * I don't understand what a moralfag is or why I or we would want to kick one. We have the very moral goal of trying to write an encyclopedia here.  The Wednesday Island (talk) 01:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The deceit and hypocrisy of the [ http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63590 WorldNetDaily article: Is Wikipedia wicked porn?] is numbing. WND claim to show 'One of the more mild photos featured on Wikipedia in the "striptease" entry.' However, (a) their selection is more explicit that the other photos, which isn't saying much because (b) the area under their black rectangle shows nothing more than the woman's waist and hip. It reminds me of Jimmy Kimmel's routine in which he bleeps out innocent words and lets our dirty minds fill in the blanks.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Spontaneous orgasm
The tone of the article casts doubt on the experiences of women who climax spontaneously, even though the ability is hardly unique and has been well documented by Indiana University's Kinsey Institute and Masters and Johnson. Further, two references are cited. The author's lack of experience in this area shouldn't be allowed to cloud the article, and I have removed the qualifiers "claim" and "if it exists at all".

I do agree with the author's thought that technically since no touching is involved, it might not literally be masturbation, but that's clearly addressed.

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would consider it masturbation, just of the mental type.
 * My Wife has verified it is actually possible.
 * Indeed I made an attempt to correct the article and ended up with a reversion for my efforts.

Hurricane Floyd (talk) 08:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that it's a variation of masturbation. If we start making fine points, would we have to debate whether climax-inducing horseback riding is or isn't masturbation?


 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Male picture - full body and HEAD (the top one)
I would like to see a full body picture of a man jerking off (including his face) such as in the picture of the woman. I find that it is typical in pornography to show the full body and face of a woman but not of a man and because of that it is sexist. It is interesting that this sexism within the porn industry has carried over into an encyclopedia - especially one in a public domain such as Wikipedia which I really respect. Masturbation is a full body experience for men as well as women and I don't think that we should degrade that. (ANY brave men out there willing to release a picture of themselves into the public domain? - I would super respect you if you did, my boyfriend isn't brave enough - I asked!) 154.5.45.156 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can find a full body and head picture in the public domain, then by all means, put it up. Asarelah (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think if he can find them then that's fine, however I don't think it's appropriate to be requesting for editors to submit photos into public domain and then have them included for the article. That's got to violate some kind of Wikipedia policy similar to orginal research right? Tyciol (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Totally agree with you. Placing the pictures side by side, they suggest very strongly that a man is just a penis, which is indeed rather degrading. Not brave enough myself, though. =P Petitphoque (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Regarding this aspect of the accusation, it does not necessarily suggest this. Pictures, their existance and selection sometimes just reflect people's different perspectives in culture. Another potential remedy for the situation rather than finding an equivilent male picture to match the female picture, would be to find an equivilent female picture to match the male picture. Considering that the focus is on human behaviour and not attractive models, it seems more appropriate and focused to the topic. Tyciol (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OP, while it may be 'full body' for many people, it isn't necessarily full body for everyone. Full body or not, the main focus of masturbation in the majority of cases is on the genitals. They are the main topic of the article. The caressing of other parts of the body is covered by other articles such as massage or perhaps more appropriately erotic massage as a topic which focuses on applications specific to erotic excitement rather than for therapy or relaxation. The only areas which might fall outside of this are those involving nipples. Furthermore, despite your claim that it should reflect 'full body', the current image of a female does not have her touching any area of herself besides the genitals, save for the ankle, presumably just to rest the hand on it or to help hold the legs apart for easier access. To reflect what you claim, both images would need to be replaced. Currently, with the focus in the female picture, the rest of her, while indeed lovely, is not a relevant image to the topic. One does not have to be completely or even partially naked to masturbate, one can do it clothed, the reason it is shown without clothes is to give an image of what is being done during the act. The usefulness of images is best served by zooming in on the prime object (genitals) of the subject (masturbation) and is compromised by panning out to show the masturbator's body, which is actually not the main object of the topic at all. Tyciol (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I specifically did not put a full bodied picture of someone masturbating that I had found in public domain because I felt uncomfortable with not being able to ask permission. I didn't want to assume that picture was on the net with permission. My intention was to point out that I felt uncomfortable with the dissimilarity between the two pictures and hope that someone was brave enough to put a picture of themselves up there! I do believe that masturbation is not excluded to just genitals and it can be either a focused or full body experience - this in itself is irrelevant regarding the pictures. I would be pleased with either both pictures being full bodied or both pictures being focused on genitals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.5.45.156 (talk) 07:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Need for pictures
I know Wikipedia isn't censored but are those pictures really needed...? Couldn't the diagrams suffice? *Shudder* --Alreajk (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I think an important question in this is: what are you shuddering about? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Why does it matter what makes someone shudder at the sight of genitals? The fact is many people do indeed shudder. Maybe you feel that people should be able to gaze on erogenous zones without batting an eyelash, but really isn't that using wikipedia to make a political statement? Since the diagrams are plenty informative in and of themselves, why do we feel it's necessary to include photographs which will most likely offend a great number of people reading the site? 140.251.20.95 (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)zack
 * You've assumed more than I said. I didn't say "What makes you shudder at the site of genitals?": I said "What makes you shudder?"  Is it the site of masturbation? of any sexual activity? of genitals? of any erogenous zone?  Some of the people here (including me) have said that the pictures are more illustrative than the sketches-- I think "diagrams" is a rather extravagant word for them-- at the top of the page.  Some of the people here, however, are shuddering.  Why are they shuddering?  What does their shuddering mean, and would  the general population of the world shudder for the same reasons on seeing this page, and how well does that weigh against this page's mission to inform?  We can't really tell or discuss the deeper question at all, if all they say is "*Shudder*". The Wednesday Island (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we going to pretend there's no widely-held taboo on seeing people engaged in sex acts? The answer to the question of "would the general population of the world shudder" is "probably yes". Evidence for this is the plethora of laws that get written in every sort of country defining what is and is not ok to depict in images of the human body, what sexual acts are or are not ok to depict, what age people can or cannot be depicted, what age people can or cannot have access to depictions of others, etc. These laws wouldn't be so widespread or popular if the taboos accompanying them were not so widespread and popular. I'm certainly not saying I personally agree with these taboos (all the time), but I don't see why wikipedia should be a medium used to fight the social mores. As for your second point, what information do you propose is in the photographic images that isn't in the illustrations? 140.251.20.95 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)zack


 * Of course there's some kind of a taboo on seeing people involved in sex acts. The two questions I'm asking are: 1) what kind of a taboo? As you yourself say, there are many laws (and other kinds of rules) in many places.  None of them are quite the same.  If we do use people's taboos as grounds for deciding which pictures should be shown, which are we going for?  Are we going perhaps for the most restrictive (which would at least presumably mean we also aren't allowed to show genitals on the pages about genitals, or the least restrictive, or some kind of average?  And 2) what are the reasons we have pictures at all? (other than that they're needed for FA status, obviously).  It seems to me that the reasons people would want any picture would include: a) how well it illustrates the subject; b) how little it is likely to offend people; c) how little it is likely to arouse people.  I hope we all agree that (a) is an important criterion; I don't think everyone is even agreed that (b) and (c) are important at all compared to (a).  But if they are, clearly tradeoffs will have to be made.  Are (b) and (c) so very important that we would take a severe cut in (a) to accomodate them?  And how are we ever going to get everyone to agree where the correct balance of the three lies? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As to your second question, the diagrams we have (sketches, really) are drawn of the people's entire bodies at a strange viewing angle. Most of the diagram is taken up with white space and of parts of the body not really involved; those parts of the body do not show arousal as a photograph would.  The diagrams show a man, and a woman, lying naked on the ground; the only thing which makes the male picture a picture of masturbation (and so the only thing which makes it at all useful as an illustration of this article) is the man's hand around his penis and the small drop of semen released, which takes up perhaps one faint twentieth part of the whole.  With the female picture the same argument applies, but it's even worse, since the woman's hands are completely covering her genitals and one nipple, which hides most of the information that might be gained from the diagram at all. The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Get out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.66.165.226 (talk) 05:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you be a little more self-explanatory? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The lack of pubic hair makes the male pic seem like child pornography, which is llegal. I think it's ok. Disregard that I suck cocks. Wtroo (talk) 23:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep the pictures, they're freakin' hilarious. Oh, and informative and encyclopedic and stuff. ; ) MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for more female photos
Please post more photos of females masturbating. (98.220.16.130 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC) )
 * Please tell us why; do you think the existing illustrations are missing something? The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It would be better illustrated if the article had photos of women masturbating with 1,2,3 and 4 fingers, perhaps one fisting herself and numerous toys. More photos of females masturbating is absolutely necessary to help better this article ( 98.220.16.130 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) )


 * Why? There's already an article about fisting and a number about various sex toys.  There's no particular difference between the appearance because of the number of fingers used.  Anyway, do you have pictures you're intending for us to use, or is this just idle criticism? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The video of the male masturbating will suffice for now.( 98.220.16.130 (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2008 (UTC) )


 * Please refrain from attempting to turn Wikipedia into a pornographic website.
 * Adult material is included for educational purposes only, there is no legitimate use for an excess of such material.
 * Hurricane Floyd (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Floyd (talk) 08:19, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should only include material that is pertinent to the article, and increases the quality of the article on this topic. Having said that, nothing on this page is pornographic, and hence, more of this material would not be pornographic either.  On a case by case basis, the questions should be whether prospective image or video or material adds to the quality of the article (for instance, by illustrating a currently text only paragraph on a topic) or if a new image illustrates something already shown in a better way than another image (and so replaces it), or whether a new image is redundant, and adds nothing to what has already be discussed in the article.  Atom (talk) 21:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Pornography is in the eye of the beholder.
 * Naked ankles used to pornographic.
 * In Japan pubic hair is obscene but child porn was accepted until around 2000.
 * What exactly do we consider pornographic at the moment and how long until the idea shifts again?
 * I am a supporter of peoples rights to view pornagrphy if they wish, however you would not expect to see a highly detailed article full of porn in a paper bound encylopedia under sexually oriented articles.
 * Hurricane Floyd (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hurricane Floyd (talk) 06:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. What is arousing to some, may not be so to others. Do you "censors" judge the usability of photos added through image quality? The better the quality, the likelier it is pornographic? How is that rational? So it's okay when it does not arouse you or when its quality isn't top-notch, but it has to be requested for deletion if it is high quality and arousing it might be pornographic? You can tell all that from the small photo alone, without any proof or sources? Well, I have a Nokia handphone, and it's only got 2 megapixels but it takes really clear photos in the light. I'm sure many people use their cameraphones to take pictures, and digital cameras as well, with much higher imaging capabilities. Therefore the pictures taken by amateurs or people who just wanna share their photos, which some may or may not consider sexually arousing, explicit, and offensive, could be very high in quality and therefore resemble porn.

I say add more female ejaculation pictures. Oops, I mean add Some... we don't have any at all. Diagrams may illustrate the topic but real photos would be more informative to many of us Wiki-readers. If we have graphic photos and videos of Male Ejaculation and Male Masturbation then there should not be a problem with Female Ejaculation images. Gentlelife (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hurricane Floyd: You appear to be arguing that we can't decide what is or isn't pornography, and then saying that we shouldn't have pornography anyway. The Wednesday Island (talk) 11:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a long debate on this page about the pictures
I'm just wondering: are debates such as that one regularly removed after a time, or has it been censored. Just thought I'd ask, because lots of people, including myself, defended the use of the pictures on the page. We all made some pretty good points, if I do say so myself. I'd hate for the censorshipniks to start up the war again, as it was pretty well settled.Strclybznz (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * All former debates are in the Archives, you can easily link to a specific conversation should anyone try to censor. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think maybe sometime I'll try to make a thematic index. The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that is a goog idea. I have no idea what people have been talking about the pictures here, and I have no time to read everything that has been said. However, if some conversation would still be "open", I might add my opinions there. Archived conversations are unfortunately "closed". Tuohirulla puhu 17:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaced image
Image:Masturbating Amy.jpg was replaced with another image, Image:Masturbating woman.jpg If you go to the commons page for the first image, it does show cc-by-sa-2.0 licensing, but that is incorrect. It is a Flickr image and no confirmation of current licensing is available.


 * The Flickr page for 'Masturbating Amy' said "All rights reserved" when I looked just now. --Nigelj (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that Flickr allows user to change the licencing of an image from cc-by-sa-2.0 to all rights reserved. The FlickreviewR bot checks the licences in a timely fashion. CC licences cannot be revoked, and the green tick from FlickreviewR indicates that the image did have a cc-by-sa-2.0 licence on Flickr when it was checked. Whether the uploader at Flickr had the right to licence the image is another question. William Avery (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Is "Masturbating Amy" that much of a better illustration than "Masturbating woman", anyway? The Wednesday Island (talk) 11:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm open to consensus. The images seem to me to be of equivalent quality. But, we can't use an image if it is "All rights reserved". Yes, a case could be made for someone freely licensing an image as being non-revocable. However, we prefer to avoid court cases, not to find them. Was it originally mislabelled? Was it a processing problem with Flickr? Who knows. If the photographer claims that is is copyrighted, that's a good enough reason to me to not have it on the article. As the replacement image is of similar or better quality, and is freely licensed, then let's keep it ("Masturbating woman"), Atom (talk) 16:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative images
I am well aware that this have been discussed before, but wikipedia is becoming a respectable source of information and such explicit photographs of naked people have the opposite effect. I suggest removing these photographs and replacing them with pictures (NOT photographs) such as paintings or drawings. Please understand you are discouraging not one or two people from viewing the website, but a notable fraction of the human population! Not that pictures would not insult these people, but at least we would hit a middle ground on the international scale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.139.131 (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. If Wikipedia continues to give encylopedic content on articles, including on-topic images in articles, it will gain the reputation of being not censored. Wikipedia does allow a user to turn off images by setting user preferences, if they choose. You may be offended by frank and honest images of sexuality but most people are not. Some people assume any image of sexuality is by default pornographic. That is a perception issue on their part. For instance, the images on this article are directly related to the topic. I don't find them to be erotic, arousing, or pornographic. Your stated concern was that the pictures were explicit photographs of naked people. They are explicit, in that it is a picture of masturbation, the topic. Just like the picture on the Lion article is explicitly a Lion. It has long been established that nudity or nakedness is natural, and not shameful, erotic or pornogrsphic. People with philisophical objections to naked people should avoid Wikipedia, or turn off the images on Wikipedia, as these kind of images exist in many, many articles within Wikipedia. The end result of many people seeing images like this is that they will not automatically consider nudity or sexuality to be erotic or obscene, but as just another natural and normal human process. Respectability comes form people understanding that Wikipedia is open, honest and works hard to be fair and balanced, rather than being unduly influenced by political or religious bias. Atom (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely about Wikipedia being open, honest, and free. That said, I don't want to have to look at some dude jerking off when I just want to read, and I bet most people - regardless of religious or social beliefs - feel the same way. The simple animated pictures that were up before were educational, responsible, and viewable. I don't want to have to WINCE when I get on Wikipedia. I just want information, okay? Yes, nudity is natural, and people SHOULD be comfortable with it - but not everyone is. If people want to post graphic pictures, go to Wikimedia or Boobpedia or something - but Wikipedia is for information, data, written words, not to open people's minds or worldviews, but to satisfy the need for knowledge. We can't expect people to go through hoops if they just want to read and not see pictures of people jerking off. And who gets to decide whose photo goes up there? I suggest reposting the old pictures.

MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think these photos provide a clearer picture of the act than either the diagrams or the animated pictures (which were, frankly, distracting. Movement on the page does not make reading easy). So I support them staying. They do seem quite big though - have they been thumbed as images are generally supposed to be? -- SiobhanHansa 12:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Even though they've been thumbed, they could of course be smaller, if they're getting in people's way. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * If people want to post graphic pictures, go to Wikimedia: this IS Wikimedia. Wikipedia is for information, data: yes. written words: no, since one of the policies about good articles is to have well-chosen images. not to open people's minds or worldviews: this is an inevitable consequence of providing an encyclopedia. but to satisfy the need for knowledge: this is not a different thing from opening people's minds. And who gets to decide whose photo goes up there?: same process as who gets to decide anything about any article on Wikipedia. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a setting to turn off images if they really, really bother you. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * They really make me want to vomit. I just can't read the article because of it.86.165.187.68 (talk) 16:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"There is a setting to turn off images if they really, really bother you. Darrenhusted " Atom (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. Generally images are preferred as being more accurate than diagrams. This is basic biology and as has been stated you can turn off images if you can't otherwise handle them. We aren't going to censor these but simply treat this article to the same standards as every other article. What you and I each find objectionable may be quite different but we don't delete or add material on that basis. -- Banj e  b oi   21:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

New Male Masturbation Photo
I seriously think there should be a new picture of a male masturbating. The reason is because the head on that guy's penis just seems abnormally large.


 * If you want to nominate a picture for deletion, please give a real and legitimate reason. Why? Then other people will actually take your request seriously. By the way, don't take offence to my opening statement, it is just a figure of speech. Regards,  A Prodigy   ~In Pursuit of Perfection ~ 16:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the image should go because it serves no purpose other than to make the page NSFW. Line drawings could accomplish the same thing. I'm not a prude or a censorship advocate, but I can tell the difference between a scientific image and a guy who just likes to put pictures of his own crank on wikipedia. The image used to be lower on the page, but now it's the first thing you see. This makes the whole page entirely inappropriate for schools or public places where a person might be embarassed to be seen looking at a page featuring an uncircumsized guy with shaved pubes and a blue tracksuit stroking himself on his bed. --Aaron (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am kind of sick of saying this but you can turn images off, if you know that you are about to look at this page (and I suspect some school and public libraries may have a word block on it anyway) then turn off you images first. For the seven trillionth time wikipedia is not censored and cries of "Won't someone think of the children?" have no relevance, regardless of whether or not one user likes to have pictures of his wang on teh internets. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I see your perspective. The wider issue though is that Wikipedia is not trying to be NSFW, but tries to be accurate and encylopedic.  That term is hard to define and means different things to different people.  But, this article is about masturbation, and the image does accurately depict the topic in a clinical way.  Maybe trying to build a group of people on Wikipedia that could allow a user setting for NSFW, and associate articles with that term.  The problem then would be that some editors and users might claim that as a form of censorship.  (even though voluntary!?)  Until some mechanism like that could be worked out, the best thing is to use your user preferences to turn off images, or stay away from articles that you feel might be controversial at work.


 * Also, if you think about it, the image IS safe for work. If someone were to complain about a person bringing up that page at a workplace, they would only have grounds for a complaint if it were obscene or pornographic.  In this case, it may be a sexuality based image, but it is a medical or health related encyclopedic image, and not obscene or pornographic.  Would someone complain about an image that popped up on your screen while you were on the Mayo Clinic web site?  The problem here is cultural perceptions, not that you are doing anything wrong.  Of course, your boss may ask you how the masturbation article on Wikipedia (or the Mayo Clinic) is applicable to your job.  That is a different issue.  Atom (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternative images now become necessary
I firmly believe that photos are better all round than line drawings. However, photos have problems of their own. Today, "Image:Masturbating woman.jpg". The reasons were that there was no proof there had been model release, and there was no proof that the subject was of age.

I've replaced it, possibly temporarily, with this picture: Image:Masturbating Amy.jpg although we have had this picture before and people have complained that most of the picture is of her body and you can hardly see what masturbation actually involves.

There are other possibilities, including one of the three Biamyinmd photos:



There are also only a very few others in Commons, here:.

There's also the option of finding someone who will take a new photo if none of these are sufficient.

For reference, the original for the "Masturbating woman" picture is here on Flickr, in case we want something fairly similar. Could I have your comments and suggestions? (Don't bother rehashing the "we shouldn't have photos" question: sort that out in the previous section.) The Wednesday Island (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My own vote is to go with one of the three Biamyinmd photos, since they claim to have been uploaded by the subject (so, if she's not lying, necessarily have model release) and we can ask her whether she's of age. Masturbating Amy has problems already noted. The Wednesday Island (talk) 02:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I placed a temporary image in place. I'm concerned about the use of the Amy photos, as the Masturbating Amy photo is a copyvio, and shows copyright on her Flickr site.  The other photos you have don't link to Flickr, and the uploader does not have a profile.  I want to ask Amy about the photos before we use them. .  I did send her an email asking if she knew about, and was okay with the images on the commons site.  I'll let you know when she responds.  Atom (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was able to get ahold of Amy, and she gave permission for the use of the image. I am working with her to clear up the status of that image, and her other images on commons so that there is no future issue.  I've returned her image to the page in the interim (while I clear those issues up, based on the email.)  I swapped the female/male order of the images because of a comment someone looking over my shoulder made about the visual nature of both of them combined in the previous order.  Also, I would like to replace the male image.  The split image with two images is not perfect as a lede.  I looked on commons though, and the other available images aren't really better. (IMO) Atom (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a shame about the masturbating woman.jpg image - that seemed like the best illustration to me. Though I think the reasoning on deletion is responsible.  Is the masturbating amy.jpg image suitably large that someone (not me!) could clip it to focus on the masturbation act and so overcome some of the issues with it?  We could perhaps do the same thing with the male image if others agree the split is not great in the lead.  Good point on the order of the photos Atom!  -- SiobhanHansa 20:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * While I am, as always, filled to over-brimming with good faith, I do hope we don't go back to featuring pictures so heavily cropped that they show little more than the relevant pieces of skin, in extreme close-up, with no context. Along with desaturating the colours, I think this was a tactic of those who wanted to 'clean up' the 'rude' pictures on these pages a few years back. I think the context, the lighting and an attractive, artistic style (OK, the male one could be better!) are valuable aspects of showing that masturbation is neither a medical procedure, porn, nor something shameful or depraved. I don't have an issues with these uncropped images at all; those interested in technical details can always go to the image pages and zoom in via their browser. --Nigelj (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I could equally say that the seemingly endless attempts by some to reject efforts to focus photos of a sexual nature on a realistic depiction of the actual subject of the article seemed to be a tactic to include as much titillation as possible anywhere a bit of naked skin is warranted. I have no basis to think that of you - I merely include it here to show that there equal and opposite ways for people to be paranoid about POV pushing.  Equally you have no basis to think that my intention is to 'clean up' 'rude' pictures.  It is not. Let's not start with the accusations of agenda pushing.


 * So - we seem to disagree on what illustrates masturbation best and what makes for a good photo. I'm not sure what you seem to think of as too little skin.  I think the Amy photo could be cropped down to below the breasts mainly because it's pretty much the only way really see her actual fingers on her vagina without clicking through - given the fact that images are not supposed to be that large on article pages.  Other images within the article could perhaps show more of the "context".  Given that masturbation can happen in very varied contexts a little decontextualization in the lead seems like a good thing in my book.  I wouldn't call that technical as such more factual and formal.  -- SiobhanHansa 21:58, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll ask her if she has, or wishes to provide an image that primarily illustrates the topic and has less background. Personally I don't mind the image we have for her, but if we can get one that focuse smore directly on the topic, that could be better for the article.  Atom (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You might wait to see if there's a consensus that such focus is a good idea. Would be a shame if she went to any trouble to fulfill the request and then we didn't use the image.  -- SiobhanHansa 22:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Siobhan, I really didn't mean to accuse you of agenda pushing and am very sorry if it came across that way: I merely said that I thought that others, some years ago, used that as a tactic, and that it might be a shame to start them off again, with a carte blanche. I agree, lets give it a few days and see what others think. --Nigelj (talk) 04:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Healthy Strokes
I suggest the removal of the link to the 'healthy strokes' website. If someone can't give a good reason for it's inclusion I will remove it. Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fry2000 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no views one way or the other. But the link has been there since 2006 and so, one normally assumes, it must have some validity? If no-one offers a reason for keeping it, however, I think it would be fair to delete. Let's give it time and space here first folks. Setwisohi (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The length of time has no bearing on the quality, or relevance of the link. I checked out the link and although related, is primarily about Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome (TMS), a basically unheard of theory about a disorder that comes about because the subjects usually masturbate while lying face down. If one looked on Google, thousands of more pertinent and accurate aarticles could be found related to masturbation. I don't see how this particular article is useful. Atom (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Here is my personal opinion on that matter, given from my own personal point of view.


 * Some time ago, someone who used the username Doug22123 and identified himself as the "Doug" who operates http://www.healthystrokes.com, created an article on "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome," which is claimed to be sexual dysfunction caused by the practice of prone masturbation. As originally written, the article stated the existence of the syndrome as fact, and also clearly promoted the "Healthy Strokes" website.


 * Everything about the website, and about Doug's personal conduct in discussions and in editing the article, says to me that the website is not commercial and that Doug is perfectly sincere. He believes that it is important to inform men of the danger of prone masturbation. He's not selling anything, and following the implied recommendation to masturbate in a supine position doesn't cost a dime. The medical literature on "traumatic masturbatory syndrome" is not nonexistent, but it is scanty, to say the least. It was based almost entirely on a 1998 paper by one Lawrence I. Sank, with no more than a few few passing mentions in other papers. Furthermore, it did not seem that Sank had followed up on this. In response to an email query, Sank indicated that "I do not know of any follow up articles on TMS however many colleagues in the urology community are following a protocol inquiring about idiocyncratic masturbation when assessing sexual dysfunction. I have received multiple requests from practitioners for reprints but cannot report any journal articles on the topic."


 * Doug did not like attempts to bring neutrality to the article. He was civil, willing to engage, and cooperative--but beyond a certain point seemed to feel he had ownership of the article and wanted to control the article's content. Eventually, my recollection--I can't find an actual posting but haven't looked very hard--was that he said he'd rather not have the article at all if he couldn't have it the way he wanted it. The editors working on the article took him at his word and made the article a redirect. The second paragraph of Masturbation is everything that remains.


 * I'm honestly not sure whether or not it properly belongs in the article. It would never be in the article were it not for the advocacy of a single editor, but it is really in the literature, and I have to say that I don't see any obvious harm in letting people know about the possibility of such a syndrome.


 * I guess I'd say that if we think traumatic masturbatory system merits a mention in the article, then it seems reasonable to include a link to http://www.healthystrokes.com which is, after all, the first result Google gives on a search for the term.


 * That is, we should discuss the question, and the link and the related content now in the article at Problems for males should stand or fall together.  Dpbsmith (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Great to know the background. Thanks Dpbsmith.   It seems to me that a syndrome based on one paper that has not been further researched (I hope that's an accurate summary) amounts to a fringe theory at the moment and shouldn't really be included.  Our NPOV policy says we should include significant minority opinions but not fringe.


 * I disagree with the idea that there is no harm in including mention of theories that aren't well supported. There are lots of scare stories out there about masturbation. As an encyclopedia we ought to have reasonably high standards before we include text that basically suggests people should or should not do something with their own bodies.  I don't think that one paper and a couple of mentions really amounts to that.  -- SiobhanHansa 21:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As Atom says above, there are thousands of websites about every conceivable aspect of masturbation. The only reason that we include any mention of TMS in the article is that some POV warriors of days-gone-by seemed prepared to die fighting before they would allow one word of it to be deleted! Personally, I suggest we remove both the paragraph in the article and this External Link. Failing that, if there are still people involved who are so devoted to this non-scientific and repressive nonsense, then perhaps "Doug"'s website can be included as a citation from within the paragraph (Then the para will probably reference every mention to TMS that exists in the English-speaking world!). There is no way I will support such a tiny minority, one-man website to exist as one of the small handful of External Links this article now has - that is way out of proportion with its non-notability compared to all the medical, scientific, sexual, therapeutic and self-help literature that we could legitimately reference here. --Nigelj (talk) 21:33, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone think that an attempt should be made to notify "Doug" that this discussion is taking place? I'm not sure where fair play ends and bending over backwards begins... Dpbsmith (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am for trying to notify Doug, and with or without, discuss the merits of discussing TMS in the article. If it is well discussed, we should not need an external link, but that can be discussed and decided too. The basic criteria should be Notability and MEDRS. I am open to changing my opinion for the sake of consensus, but my starting point is thinking that TMS is a fringe theory. This based on my search on Google Scholar, showing only one reference (scholarly paper) published in 1998. (Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome Author: Sank, L. I. Journal title: JOURNAL OF SEX AND MARITAL THERAPY; 1998, VOL 24; NUMBER 1, pages 37-42). DOI: 10.1080/00926239808414667. From the abstract "This article describes a previously unreported pattern of atypical masturbatory behavior, which presents as either a n erectile or orgasmic disorder in men. Four case histories are described of men who masturbated in an idiosyncratic manner." If it had not been previously reported, and has had no research or reports since that time, I consider it fringe. There are any number of masturbation disorder topics we could choose to include in this article, most of them affecting much larger numbers of people. Does TMS fulfill the criteria for notability and peer review required? Atom (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like User talk:Doug22123 last edited in early 2005. Probably not much chance he is checking his talk page. The web site shows his email address as doug@healthystrokes.com. Atom (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've sent Atom an email, via the Wikipedia email feature, giving him another email address Doug was using in 2005. I have no idea whether he's using it now. I don't remember how I got that address or whether Doug22123 wanted it kept private, so I don't want to post it here. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also invited User:Nunh-huh, User:Rhobite, and User:Zenohockey, who had some role in editing the article, to comment here. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks for that! I think the article would be better off without the link, and without any discussion of this bogus "syndrome". Even a mention in an article of this length represents undue emphasis. To even describe it as "fringe" is probably to overemphasize its importance. - Nunh-huh 13:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just to summarise - and in case no further discussion takes place - the general consensus appears to be delete the link and references to TMS in the article. (That said, there is a clearly stated concern that, should the whole matter become less 'fringe' or should more reliable scientific studies/information be found, the link and references to TMS should probably be reinstated). Thanks for the input everyone! Setwisohi (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Although it seems headed that way, I don't see that there needs to be any hurry. Let's wait a week or so for others to add their perspectives, if they choose. Maybe something someone says will change other peoples minds.  Atom (talk) 17:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * GIve it a week. It's been there since at least January, another week isn't going to hurt. I am as neutral as it's possible to be on the subject. If "traumatic masturbatory syndrome" (TMS) is real and of any importance, then it's odd that there hasn't been follow-up research. I agree with Nunh-huh that it's very unlikely that TMS is of any importance and that we need to evaluate importance. But I'm reluctant to delete something which is properly referenced to a legitimate article in the legitimate literature without a real discussion. And if the article is going to mention TMS, then a link to a TMS-related site isn't crazy. Let's make sure this has been properly talked out, and that if Doug22123 wants to comment, he's been given a chance to. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Or we could take it out and put it back once sources are provided that actually support its inclusion. There's nothing to stop the conversation continuing without the link on the actual page and the article would be more inline with our policies in the meantime.


 * I'd also like to take issue with the idea that the link and the mention of TMS in the article should stand or fall together. The healthystrokes link does not reflect the balance of information in the article and though Doug may be a very well intentioned individual the site does not itself appear to be vetted by any kind of recognized expert.  A case could easily be made that even if the TMS theory is worthy of mention the link is still not appropriate. -- SiobhanHansa 01:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to address the notion that Wikipedia is somehow obliged to mention every theory ever mentioned in a single journal. An encyclopedia constructed according to that rule would be absolutely useless. Encyclopedias by necessity have to emphasize the important things about a subject, and de-emphasize the unimportant ones. We are not an indiscriminate collection of facts.  A six-page case study in an unimportant journal doesn't need mentioning here.  We also don't need Doug to comment before we act. We know very well what he'd say; he was a monomaniac on the subject; he'd not only want it included, he'd want it expanded.  We need to do what's needed to improve the article despite what Doug would think about it. - Nunh-huh 04:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Nunh-huh. I think we are being incredibly careful here not to offend a tiny minority. I'm sure that by the end of the week both the link and the para will go with clear consensus and a clear adherence to policies. --Nigelj (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just using Google Scholar, I've found several mentions of TMS in several articles in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. (healthystrokes.com points to several "Playboy Advisor" columns in which it that site was mentioned, possibly on TMS.) To be sure, these are not studies of TMS as such, but they do demonstrate that the concept is not a relic of some kooky corner of the Web. And remember, the original Sank article is only 10 years old; that's not a lot of time for studies to be arranged, completed, and published.
 * I do not think TMS counts as a "fringe theory" that Wikipedia obliged not to include. It meets none of the usual criteria: it doesn't cast aspersions conventional wisdom; it's not conspiratorial; it's not associated with fringe groups; it's not a ploy for expensive, unproven cures; Sank hasn't set up a publishing house to sell tracts; etc. --zenohockey (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Could you provide some of those references? I think they could make all the difference.  When I say fringe I do not mean to imply some kind of crazy approach - just one that hasn't been accepted as particularly valid yet. -- SiobhanHansa 10:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been over a week and no further sources showing this is an accepted thery have been provided so I've deleted the section and the link. If the situation changes and we find sources that show this is a significant accepted problem we can add it back. -- SiobhanHansa 10:51, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. I wanted to give it a week and we gave it a week. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Odd Link
In the Frequency of Masturbation section there is a link to the Sambia people which does not fit with the text. Richard Avery (talk) 07:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

tag in 'Benefits' section
User Ginbot86 has added a  tag in a sentence about clinical depression, that already references "Hurlbert & Whittaker, 1991", without proper citation formatting. Does any current editor have access to this work, in order to verify that the disputed sentence fairly represents the sense of this source? If it does not, of course we should find a better ref, or alter the text. Either way, proper 'ref' and 'cite' structures can be added. I'm just stuck to get started without being able to find the full text of the original article. --Nigelj (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)