Talk:Handjob

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Handjob article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 180 days

Sexology and sexuality High‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 27 January 2016, see discussion.
keep, January 2, 2007, see discussion.

Massage parlors material

VisaBlack, regarding this (followup note here) and this, what Wikipedia policy or guideline supports your removal? Despite your claims, the content is clearly on-topic. The "happy ending" aspect is not a false narrative. It's a fact. I did trim the material, but, clearly, some massage parlor/"happy ending" material belongs in this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should belong in the article, given the sourcing. Tutelary (talk) 03:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Handjob

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Handjob's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Carpenter":

From Non-penetrative sex: See here onwards and pages 47-49 for views on what constitutes virginity loss and therefore sexual intercourse or other sexual activity; source discusses how gay and lesbian individuals define virginity loss, and how the majority of researchers and heterosexuals define virginity loss/"technical virginity" by whether or not a person has engaged in penile-vaginal sex. Laura M. Carpenter (2005). Virginity lost: an intimate portrait of first sexual experiences. NYU Press. pp. 295 pages. ISBN 978-0-8147-1652-6. Retrieved October 9, 2011.
From Masturbation: See here [1] and pages 47–49 for views on what constitutes virginity loss and therefore sexual intercourse or other sexual activity; source discusses how gay and lesbian individuals define virginity loss, and how the majority of researchers and heterosexuals define virginity loss/"technical virginity" by whether or not a person has engaged in penile-vaginal sex. Laura M. Carpenter (2005). Virginity Lost: An Intimate Portrait of First Sexual Experiences. NYU Press. pp. 295 pages. ISBN 978-0-8147-1652-6. Retrieved 9 October 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sold on the definitive lubrication use statements.

Other than being unsourced, they're not especially true. If nobody objects I'd like to nuke those sentences. Jasphetamine (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a consensus about images for this article?

There is some low key revert fighting about whether to use a 19th century watercolor painting or a photograph of a penis mostly obscured by a hand. Neither are terribly illuminating. I propose we use this frame from a Seedfeeder animated gif: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasphetamine (talk • contribs) 21:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Better description/definition in intro

The link for "manual sex" has the word "act" after it inside. I believe the word has to move out of the blue link since other articles about sex such as the ones for oral sex have "an oral sex act" without the word "act" being part of the blue link. One more thing is that I want to explain what that means by replacing "manual stimulation… …by another person" with at least something different for elaboration. I need help with another better explanation because the one I kept adding in keeps getting reverted. If none of these need changing then I'm sorry for causing any trouble and I'll leave it alone. Thank you. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 14:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It may make sense in this case for consistency but honestly most of the changes seem pedantic and not really helpful. Biofase ^flame| stalk 22:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for your input. I'll stop. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]