Talk:Mutual masturbation

Discussion on renaming the article
One user has suggested "fingering" or "digital genital manipulation." I don't support "digital genital manipulation" on the grounds that finger fucking refers to digital manipulation of the vagina and/or anus. I don't support "fingering" on the grounds that it's a musical term that refers to playing string instruments, though a disambig page could take care of that. "Finger fucking," while not a pretty title, is currently the most accurate, least ambiguous, most commonly used term. Exploding Boy 13:54, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * True, but it does hurt the encyclopedia, because of the perception that it's a vulgar slang term. It's just something that feels like it ought to have a polite synonym, even if I don't know what it is.  I would support fingering, with a header going to stringed instrument. Meelar 13:56, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd support a change to "fingering" with "finger fucking" as a redirect, but would like to wait to see what others think first. Having said that, while I don't support vulgar or unpleasant article titles (or articles for that matter) for the sake of it, I also don't think Wikipedia should shrink from titles/topics that are unpleasant either.  If finger fucking is the best or the only term, then I think we should use it.  We do, after all, have an article entitled Fuck. Exploding Boy 14:07, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * As someone new, I may not get this correct, but would it be possible to have a disambig page with Fingering - Musical and Fingering - Sexual, and renaming finger fucking to Fingering - sexual?. --Ted3268 14:16, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yeah that would work. Exploding Boy 14:35, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the title as it is. As Exploding Boy says, it's the most accurate, least ambiguous, most commonly used term. 'Sexual fingering' could literally mean fondling a lover's earlobe or even masturbating oneself - that's fingering (finger = to touch or feel with the fingers) and it's sexual. We all know we're talking about finger-fucking, so why search for euphemisms? -- Spellbinder 14:46, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * What about using the term "Masturbation - digital insertion" or some such variant. What is discussed is technically masturbation (either self or masturbating someone else) by inserting of fingers (digits)... yes?


 * While I voted to keep this page in the VfD discussion on it, I am now wondering if the content here could be moved into masturbation with some edits, and keeping this as a redirect to the specific section there?

Lestatdelc 23:10, Apr 7, 2004 (UTC)


 * Finger fucking is fine in my books, infact it should be kept this way. But, I am partial to digital intercourse - this is, however, impracticle and silly. Finger fucking always.--OldakQuill 00:40, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * The only term I've ever heard for this is "fingering." I'd prefer the title to change to fingering (sexual) or something close to that. Isomorphic 00:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A (very brief, and I suggest someone with more time do a more thorough one) web search revealed both finger fucking and fingering to be fairly common. As I've said before, I'd support a title change to something like 'Fingering' as long as there was also a redirect from the original title. Exploding Boy 02:06, Apr 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * I merged it to mutual masturbation, since it's one form of that. Martin 23:01, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Mutual implies a "simultaneous" action though. I would suggest that "fingering" doesn't need to be a two-way street.  I'd say "fingering" is a sub classification of masturbation, but not necessarily mutual. Xinit 23:04, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, it's "mutual" in that it's not solo, I guess. What does one call one-way mutual masturbation? Does it even have a name? Martin 23:33, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I suppose... I suppose mutual could mean merely more than one participant, though 'fingering' could still be solo... Xinit 00:21, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't support this move, and it doesn't reflect the general consensus. Mutual masturbation and finger fucking are not the same. Exploding Boy 00:23, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)


 * Finger fucking is a sub-set of and type of mutual masturbation. I am ambivalent about the move. I think the content is valid, though I think it should have been moved to a more clinical or umbrella entry which mutual masturbation is. I transferred the portion that was not merged however which if merged with that article should have been included as well. Lestatdelc 00:36, Apr 14, 2004 (UTC)

I have to put this somewhere, and it certainly doesn't belong in the article...
The modern cinematic emporium Is not a mere super-sensorium&mdash; But a highly effectual Heterosexual Mutual masturbatorium.

&mdash;Anonymous. First heard by this contributor circa 1963.

"Common positions include either lying down next to one another, sitting down next to each other or standing:" - what other positions are there? porge 09:05, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * on another and combinations lysdexia 07:15, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

'Circle Jerk' is redundant?
I just reverted a paragraph that was deleted. I scanned the article and found no other references to "circle jerks", so I don't see what it was deleted for being redundant. It's significantly different from mutual masturbation in which the partners actually are (or actually admit to being) sexual partners, so I think it deserves a mention. --Icarus 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree... a circle jerk is related to mutual masturbation in a small way but to every man or boy that has participated in one, it is completely different and deserves it's own section or even a separate article. I propose either reintroducing the circle jerk section or making circle jerk its own article instead of the redirect to mutual masturbation. Thoughts? JAK83 06:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Masturbation?
Is there a reason why this is a separate article from Masturbation? Looks like not a whole lot of activity around here lately, but I'm going to hold off on actually proposing a merge until I get some more opinions. Just seems unnecessary to have two different articles, when this could be a section of the other, but maybe I'm wrong. rom a rin [talk ] 02:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"ookie cookie"
any particular reason why "ookie cookie" was deleted? if there's no objection, i'd like to add it again, because this is a common term in some, uh, circles 141.158.124.162 06:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

We really should remove most of the section. It may be interesting, but we want something factual, not a collection of slang and urban myth. Can you give a citation for "ookie cookie" or any of the other terms listed? Atom 13:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Picture
Does the picture really have to be one of a nun and monk? What does that add? I am not against a picture, just against one that seems like it could offend people for no reason. That said, I don't feel like doing a GIS on mutual masturbation to find one ;) Oreo man 03:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Circle Jerk
This section seems to get too much into specific information that is necessary. I'm not sure how else to explain my issue with it. I am not against graphic descriptions in articles, but this section seems to include information that is not the norm. For example, the beginning where it talks about a circle jerk contest and the loser eating the semen of the winner. And the part which includes food. Just seems that these facts are events that probably have occured, but are not the norm for circle jerks. Maybe I just had an uneventful childhood and haven't experienced yet, but it just doesn't seem to belong, unless someone can cite a source that says this is normal. Stoneice02 04:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. A piece of bread? why not include the fact that many times, a towel (either terry cloth or paper) may be used to clean up?  or perhaps a mop using chlorine bleach?  or that some people pass a glass around to ejaculate into that? Come to think of it, how about a reference to everyone chipping in for a hotel room and how that's put on the organizer's credit card??? I think it's getting a little excessive.Redheaded dude 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Simply saying, "I agree" would have sufficed. lol Stoneice02 02:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, this is informational (and really should be a separate article, since what we have is group masturbation, not 'mutual masturbation' which involves two individuals mutually stimulating each other, and in this one, each person can do their own masturbation separately). Secondly, I never knew where the idea for 'Limp Bizkit' came from. Now I do.65.81.27.35 16:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Mutual Masturbation lacks any sort of references
The page could stand on it's own provided that it has some sort of references and it would probably be best if the section about consuming a semen soaked cookie was removed altogether. That's one aspect of the sexual practise and there probably are countless more out there.

If we were to start listing all possible sexual habits then it would really eat up a lot of cyberspace. For the time being I vote for it's complete removal unless we can adequately reference it. Mr.georgemark 20:13 6th Oct. 2006

I don't see a need for complete removal, as it's actually a well-written article and pretty informative at that. References are clearly needed though if for no other reason than to prevent people from needlessly adding their own uncited inclusions of the terminology used in their particular social circles (although for the purpose of wikification is obviously the biggest reason). SINsApple 06:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is it that?
The pictures in this article change almost ever time I look? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.80.44.175 (talk • contribs).

Merge with Outercourse and Frottage
The discussion is taking place on Talk:Frottage. Please add your pennysworth there. --Simon Speed 23:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)