This is an archive of past discussions about Masturbation. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
Male masturbation reduces sperm count and therefore fertility
Masturbation and ejaculation reduces the sperm count of future ejaculations until the sperm count has been normalized. This is in direct contradiction to "Masturbation may increase fertility during intercourse". Masturbation will lower the fertility rate if done to ejaculation days before a male is trying to ejaculate into a female with the goal of getting her pregnant. Boilingorangejuice (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Old tired sperm is flushed out by frequent ejaculation, so frequent ejaculations are a way of improving fertility. The old idea that you have to have 3-4 days sexual abstinence in order to increase fertility is a myth. Anyway, do read WP:MEDRS in order to realize what sources are allowed to make medical claims inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
A circumcised perspective might be appropriate to add as well seeing as there are equally many circumcised males as there are uncircumcised. Fimbulvintur (talk) 06:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Actually, approximately 65-85% of the world's men are uncircumcised. Hence, it is far more relevant to show an example of an uncircumcised male masturbating. The article gives detail around the differences, so an additional image isn't wholly necessary. --TBM10 (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Y The help request has been answered. To reactivate, replace "helped" with your help request.
Tgeorgescu, respectfully, I am reporting what it says on the NoFap wiki page, which is notable and is clearly related to Masturbation. I've attempted to do this in a succinct way, with a link to the main article for people to read more there. The specific claim that we're talking about is, in this context, a historical one. NoFap was started in response to that research. If it had been started in response to research about snake oil, it would still be relevant as a social movement. Arided (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Then you should go and edit it out of the NoFap page to be consistent with removing it here. Please note that there are 195 pages that link to that article. It may be a fringe theory but it is also an active social movement and it seems that discussing its history is a factual not a theoretical matter. But please go ahead and make the edits on the main page. Then we will see what people there think. Arided (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd be perfectly happy to have the same "{{medrs}}" tag you introduced in the main article added in the corresponding place in the summary I added on the Masturbation article. I looked at the WP:ONEWAY policy you mentioned and I think that NoFap is closely connected to this topic -- including by both its critics and fans!
As far as I know, those topics have nothing to do with Masturbation, and that's why they are not mentioned here. If the 200k subscribes of the NoFap reddit are all morons, then they still have something to do with Masturbation and rather than deleting my text, your job should be to find the other points of view that round out the picture, making it neutral. Deleting the text from this page makes it look like you're a vigilante editor with an axe to grind. I will try once more without any mention of the article that you object to, but I sincerely ask you to step away from the keyboard and give my perspective some consideration before you delete my good faith edits again. Arided (talk) 02:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
A Google search for homeopathy masturbation will show the link between homeopathy and masturbation: many homeopathic quacks offer treatments for masturbation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
You are making a spurious argument. The fact is that NoFap is directly linked to the topic of masturbation, is a notable subject, and has drawn interest from members of the press. You have not made a serious argument against its inclusion on this page. I removed the one medical reference that you objected to, and have attempted to supply cultural references, but since my edits are being reverted, there's no chance to work on the article constructively. Could you please state clearly why you think that a section on NoFap should not be included on this page, without making reference to other topics that should not be included? Arided (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
So, does that objection apply also (or mainly) to the NoFap page itself? If so, perhaps it would be best to propose it as an article for deletion. Keeping it around but attempting to bury it by not including a link or discussion on this other single-most-relevant wikipage doesn't seem like a great strategy. Since you have been pointing out lots of rules and regulations, I think it's worth mentioning WP:NPOV. Given that the article has plenty of of pro-masturation references as well some anti-masturbation references, what's wrong with including some relatively neutral "try this for 90 days and see how you feel" opinions on the subject? I suppose that that is a bit soap-box-like --- but so are things like the Masturbate-a-thon section, which you haven't proposed deleting! Arided (talk) 03:26, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm aware of that (e.g., moon landing is a hoax should not be given equal play to moon landing is real). Let's focus on the topic at hand. There are about "About 359,000 results" on Google (of which some, surely, are reputable sources) for "Masturbate-a-thon" and about 719,000 for "NoFap". So, it may be "fringe", but it is less fringe than another paragraph that is included here. When I talked about NPOV, I had that paragraph in mind. I.e., if the article is going to represent fringe groups, then it should give reasonably equal play to the lot of them. Arided (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Case for inclusion
One point to make here is that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Masturbation does include a link to NoFap -- that is, NoFap was (prior to my entry into this conversation) part of the category of pages on masturbation. It would make some sense for the main page (Masturbation) to include a narrative overview of most of the pages in the category, and certainly seems acceptable to link to them as needed. Arided (talk) 03:41, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The text we're debating
For any newcomers to this discussion, I'm copying below the latest text that is under debate here. I want to point out that the {{medrs}} tag doesn't really apply here anymore, because the text is strictly about a "cultural view and practice". In particular, it is not being discussed as a fringe medical theory but as a non-mainstream online community. The references used are in line with that.Arided (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
The NoFapsubreddit was formed on the online news and discussion site Reddit in 2011, and currently has over 200000 subscribers.[1] The community describes itself as "a moderated community-centered website that hosts challenges in which users (“Fapstronauts“) abstain from pornography and masturbation for a period of time."[1] More broadly, the site promotes abstinence from porn, masturbation, and orgasm, particularly as a cluster of linked activities (abbreviated "PMO" in the NoFap lexicon).
Critics suggest that scientific evidence for the claimed benefits of such abstinence is lacking, and indeed several studies have found that people who masturbate report better physical and psychological health (see "General benefits" section, above). Nevertheless, the NoFap "movement"[2] has attracted interest as a cultural phenomenon: one expert on sexual addiction, the therapist Robert Weiss, who has written extensively on the relationship between digital technology and human sexuality, views the NoFap movement as part of a "tech backlash":
"In essence, the movement is less about not masturbating than it is about not engaging with “sexnology“ to the exclusion of in-the-flesh intimate encounters."[3]
Nevertheless, members of the community often share their experiences online, often by tracking the number of days they have participated in the "no masturbation challenge."[4]
I am not taking any position in this dispute. But controversial material once challenged and removed must not be reintroduced w/o consensus. I notice that this has been raised at WP:FTN. Perhaps notices should be posted on some of the relevant wiki-projects. Once there is a consensus we can move forward. Until then the questionable material needs to stay out of the article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Another comment to make here is that the treatment of masturbation on the page History of masturbation apparently ends in 2007. It's not as though there have been no new developments in this area over the last 10 years! E.g. we could also consider Camgirls. Arided (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Expanding this idea - I'm sure more citations can be found - I'd propose writing a section on "abstaining from masturbation" that gives due weight to NoFap. I.e., not pretending that it doesn't exist, not characterising its claims as scientific, etc., but nevertheless including it as a significant current cultural phenomenon. I'd be happy to supply some draft text. What do people think of this idea? Arided (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If you going to try to claim any kind of benefit from not mastubating, you need - and i mean need - sources that comply with WP:MEDRS. That means literature reviews from the biomedical literature or statements by major medical/scientific bodies. ( a research paper is not a literature review - see WP:MEDDEF for definitions of primary and secondary sources) Please stop bringing pop culture garbage references for putative benefits of not masturbating. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Jytdog, thanks for your comment. I'd be interested in the medical articles too, for sure, but my point at the moment is exactly to talk about pop culture and not to make a health-related claim. Arided (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Globalize
I noticed that the History and society section is almost entirely Western or Near-eastern. And within the Western sphere it is pretty incomplete, e.g., it doesn't mention Freud, which seems a bit strange! I realise that there is another article elsewhere, so on that note this section also seems a bit too long. Compare the section on religious views, which at the moment is just a couple of lines long. Arided (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
RfC: Should NoFap be mentioned in this article
Between this RfC and the discussion above it is clear that there is a strong consensus against inclusion in the article. The principal supporter acknowledges this consensus. However, a link under See Also does not seem to have garnered much opposition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ad Orientem, it looks to me as though the consensus is "no" and we can close the RfC. Some comments suggest that a "See Also" link would be appropriate (I agree). I would also propose to delete the Masturbate-a-thon section and include only a "See Also" link for that content, since all of the same reasons apply to that section. Can we close the RfC and put this into effect, and see how that goes over? Arided (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes- Support Inclusion
Include - As the person who introduced the text above, I guess my view is pretty clear. One thing I want to add is that it would be challenging to write a serious section on Abstaining from masturbation without mentioning NoFap. I think such a section should definitely be included, NoFap or not. But again, hard to write it without some mention of NoFap, even if that's not the main focus. Arided (talk) 03:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is an RfC. Editors have been invited here to comment on a specific question. If there are other faults in the article that's another matter. Alexbrn (talk) 15:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
My point is that I think NoFap should be included here in the spirit of WP:NPOV because other fringe topics are included. It would seem that this is a very "minority" viewpoint, but I don't see it as "another discussion". Arided (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No- Oppose inclusion
No. I came here after seeing the RfC notice, and I read the discussion above. This is really very simple: the whole idea behind NoFap is absolutely WP:FRINGE, and the cultural significance is that it really is just another online fad. No way does it merit anything like the text proposed above. Nothing wrong with a link in the See also section, but anything more would be profoundly unencyclopedic. --Tryptofish (talk) 03:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
In reply to the question posed to me in the first "yes" comment, my answer is that I agree with what Alexbrn said, particularly about "otherstuff", and I continue to believe that the most appropriate treatment would be a see-also link with no further content. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No. It's minor fringe stuff which would be undue in this article on a major topic. Agree with Trypto that a see also might be okay. Alexbrn (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
No We are not required to promote this origanization for them. And in an case it would be totally WP:UNDUE. The article topic is (presumably) global and (probably) goes back to the dawn of mankind; this reddit group is neither. In a global encyclopaedia, something that most of the world has not come into contact with has no place. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi.15:03, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I meant the idea raised in the discussion above that it would be OK to include a link in the "See Also" items. However, I couldn't get the template to actually show up un-expanded so I undid the edit that would have brought it onto the Masturbation page, but yes now NoFap is included in the Masturbation:Template. That seems consistent with it being part of the Category. Arided (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC) ... viz., the category page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Masturbation
The article includes much information on supposed benefits. Yet traditionally masturbation was seen as harmful, and to the extent that there are any physiological effects, these are largely harmful. This should be stated.203.80.61.102 (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
the following was added here. I've moved it here for discussion.
Psychologists Mark Sergeant and Cliff Arnall said a masturbation break at the workplace could be effective for relieving tension and stress and thus potentially resulting in less aggression, more focus on work tasks, "higher work productivity, and more smiling." [1]
Comment Not sure whether this is what I got RFCd for, but I reckon that it looks like typical NYP clickbait and too trivial as it stands. If those shrinks have published elsewhere and it is citable, we could think again. Not big deal, but the topic is one of those that attracts a lot of partisan hysteria on both sides, so I am not inclined to encourage negligibilities. JonRichfield (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment While I am personally inclined to think that in an ideal world, this would work, I see no practical way of implementing it in today's society. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment The only case I'm aware of where that was approved was a female employee with anxiety and hypersexuality, after a lawsuit.[2] --Aurictalk04:44, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Other cultures
One thing I feel is a shame about this article is that it's so West-centric. Attitudes to masturbation and whether it is normal (a subjective word) vary so much around the world, but instead of representing the human population as a whole, this article only focuses on Western culture. I myself am Canadian, but I still feel other major world cultures (Chinese, Moslem, various African cultures, etc.) should be portrayed on the same level with Western culture, even those which discourage mastirbation. I do not have sufficient knowledge of other cultures, but if others who do could add to the article, that would be a step in the right direction. DorothyMacaily (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
WP content is driven by reliable sources. If you are interested in masturbation in various cultures, why not research it, using reliable sources, and summarize what you learn in this article, citing those sources? This is one way WP is great - you can learn about what you care about, and share what you learn here. Jytdog (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
There is the article Religious views on masturbation. Also, there is no contradiction between the claim that the medical and psychological consensus is that masturbation, done in private, is normal and healthy and the claims of various cultures that it is a shameful habit. The first claim is scientific, pertaining to objective knowledge of medical and psychological facts, the other is how those cultures view masturbation as an immoral behavior, since ethics varies according to time and place and has little to do with medical facts. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:48, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 4 external links on Masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The discussion of masturbation is covered extensively in a 72-minute documentary called Sticky: A (Self) Love Story. The documentary written, directed, and produced by Nicholas Tana features interviews with over sixty experts to include: sex educators, authors, lawmakers, a famous porn star, a priest, a rabbi, college professors, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a primatologist, several doctors, a chi kung master, and several psychiatrists.
The more celebrated figures who appear in the film are the first African American Surgeon General, Dr. Joycelyn Elders, comedian Janeane Garofalo, "Hustler" magazine founder Larry Flynt, porn star Nina Hartley, "I Touch Myself" co-writer Billy Steinberg, sex educator Betty Dodson, comedian ANT, and Film Threat founder Chris Gore. The movie attempts to demonstrate how masturbation is the world's most popular taboo by taking a historical, moral, political, medical, and sociological look at why this common sexual act is still looked upon as shameful and difficult to talk about. [1][2]
The film is divided into sections narrated by the director, which explore in some detail the billion dollar sex toy industry, the anti-obscenity ban that prevents the sale of sex toys in Alabama, several studies surrounding masturbation and prostate cancer, the high publicity arrest of Paul Reu-bens at an adult theater and how damaged his career, Larry Flynt's fight to protect his first amendment rights, the controversial firing of the first African American surgeon general by Bill Clinton over her comments on World AIDS Day about masturbation and sex education, and the suicide of a San Diego high school student allegedly shamed for having been caught on camera masturbating. The film also addresses concerns about porn addiction and sexual compulsion while promoting the potential health benefits of masturbation.
The feature length documentary has screened in theaters around the world since its initial re-lease on VOD in February 14, 2016.[3][4][5][6]
Hello, i am wondering if pictures form this [3] could be included here on wiki. Question is if there is any law in the US, where the servers are, that would then rate these images as pornography and hence possibly prohibit that?. Otherwise for the encyclopedicpurpose they are probably good. --Joobo (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know, but I don't think it would be a particularly good idea, or necessary, to include any of those photos, no. Herostratus (talk) 12:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Purely seen from an encyclopedic viewpoint there is nothing wrong with such images, it simply literaly illustrates the text. That is what images are there for. Mere question is if there are any legal elements putting a boundary on it--Joobo (talk) 13:25, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I guess. There's a lot of factors that go into decisions like this, so a purely encyclopedic point is only one aspect of the whole gestalt. A couple things being, we're used as a reference work by a lot young people, and schools and so forth, and we don't really want to egregiously add photos like this. It doesn't really redound well to the credit and reputation of the project, and if there's a way to avoid it we should take that way. Another thing is that photos like this are used for trolling, and so if they're used here I think they have to be put on a special list, and it's a hassle (not sure about that). We kind of tend to avoid explicit photos when possible. There was a guy here a while back who made realistic drawings to use instead, but I believe he's retired.
As to not being censored, yeah, but on the other hand we're not here to go out of our way make a point about how open-minded and libertine we are here. We're trying to run a big project here and there are a lot of things to consider. We also need to be aware that our typical editor is a white male first-world middle-class unmarried childless teen or young adult, and we want to be aware that that demographic is going to be a lot more enthusiastic about this sort of thing than the typical global reader, and we don't want to be culturally insensitive if we can reasonably avoid it.
The article has probably done OK without these photos. I think most people can conceptualize what a dildo stuck up one's butt and so forth looks like, without a photo being absolutely necessary. Images giving historical and culture context are probably more useful. If you want to make the case that we must included the photos, even in light of the downsides, in order to properly fulfill our encyclopedic mission, you could run an WP:RFC and you might win the point. Herostratus (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
So basically you say one should keep these images out just because "some readers consider objectionable or offensive—even exceedingly so". And that is exactly what wikipedia does not care at all about as it says "Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia." Nobody is forced to go on this website etc. all those "possible" concerns are not wikipedias concerns. Wikipedia has no moral standard, no encylopadiea has. WP:NOTCENSORED absolutely applies here. --Joobo (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The photos aren't prohibited, but that's not a reason for inclusion. Also, their copyright status might be dubious, so it is better to err on the side of caution. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not see a dubious copyright status, from where i can see it its out under a CC license. Many of them are also used in other wikis, though i know that has nothing to say. Only question simply is about US legal matter.--Joobo (talk) 16:52, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, I don't know about the copyright status. They are on Commons so I assume they are free to use. Although with Commons you never really know.
Another thing about the matter is legality, not so much for us (I don't know about that, but I believe that US law is operative, and it's pretty liberal) but for large swaths of our readers, it's illegal to show these pictures in many countries.
If for large swaths of our readers it illegal to view pictures of Tank Man (which may be illegal to view in China), that's one thing. We're going to show that picture anyway, because we won't and can't bow down to political censorship by dictators. But for pictures of people with various items rammed up their butts or whatnot, I'm not sure that that is a hill we need to die on. I'm not sure that is a situation where we want to be saying "But screw the reader; we must do this regardless".
For starters, I think it would be helpful that rather than saying "here's a bunch of pictures of sex organs, let's show these" you were to select out particular images and explain why each one is important to the reader's understanding of the topic on an encyclopedic level (which means mainly on a historical, cultural, psychological, and sociological level; we are not sex manual), provides non-obvious encyclopedic information in way that requires a photograph, and is a net asset to the project. Absent that I don't think that you are going to make much headway with the grownups here to be honest. There are 11 talk page archives here, and you might want to go through those first, as the subject has probably been discussed before (probably many times would be my guess) and you might want to see what people have had to say in the past. Herostratus (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I looked up the archives, however it always came to the same conclusion that some user had concerns, similar as you stated, but eventually "no censoring" was automatically responded and prevailed. As long as there is no image gallery included under each section or some explicit images right at the lead, there is no problem with including a limited amount of images. Also in other english articles explicit images as here or here for instance are given. There simply is no censoring in WP thats all, so the mere question is about the legal frame. Actually until recently there even were explicit pictures included in this site however som user took them out reasoning it in the edit with "remove photos, which one editor voiced a reasonable complaint about here: [[4]]". However there was no "reasonable compaint" at all. Simply one user saying the images wouldnt be needed. So basically it just comes to the point that users simply dont like it personally for whatever reason but then again WP:NOTCENSORED applies, which does not take that into account at all.--Joobo (talk) 18:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
What matters is whether the image is useful to illustrate something that is otherwise unclear. Wikipedia is not censored but we don't post things gratuitously either. The OP has provided no rationale as to why the image would be instructive or fill something that is lacking already. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Images are used to visually portray certain contents included in an article. The raising question is why not to use any of such images if WP:NOTCENSORED applies, not why to use images.--Joobo (talk) 21:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
For something like this, you should propose a specific image and propose a specific rationale for it, based on what it does in the article. You have not done that yet, and the hand-waving general conversation is not going to go anywhere. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I take it you mean the image at the top of the article? Are you challenging it? Nothing specific is being proposed here. Please make concrete proposals; this is not a page for general discussion of... anything. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I do not know what you are referring to. The entry with the smileys was not done by me, please check the history before you comment on unsigned entries. My initial question is clear in the lead and merely about the legality of the situation; i did not even started to suggest particular images, that came by others. So why you are urging for any examples does not get clear to me. As far as i know for most of the time photographs of certain depictions were used here until, as already mentioned, for an incoherent reason, those were taken out recently. Thats the whole story so far, and til now the question is not about if, but rather about wether legally there is no obstacle for inclusion.--Joobo (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Until now no answer was given by a legally erudite User, hence the talk is not done. I am going to follow the advice of other users to simply ignore your tedious actions on WP.--Joobo (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The reasoning behind "might have a dubious copyright status" is: the photos look professional (commercial quality), it is possible that a leecher grabbed them from Usenet and posted them to Flickr, then somebody else has uploaded them to Commons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
For some years there was one photo each for the sections 'Male' and 'Female'. I don't know what the rationale was for their removal. We don't remove things because 'children might see it,' or because it might be illegal somewhere on earth. --Nigelj (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
As already pointed out, there was no reasoning. One user said in the edit description that another user made a "reasonable complaint" somewhere, however that simply was not true. The user he referred to simply said the images were redundant, that surely does not count as a "reasonable complaint". Also on other en Wiki articles explicit images are used. So if one needs a certain decency, then surely not only on this article. Remaining question is still about the legal frame of the images.--Joobo (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED is not all that should be kept in mind. WP:Offensive material should be kept in mind as well. By this, I mean that if there is an image that is a less offensive but equally suitable alternative, we should go with that one. In the case of most of our sexual act articles, we use drawings or paintings because real-life images of the acts are too often deemed to be pornography and/or unencyclopedic by our readers and sometimes our editors. They distract more than they add. The real-life images are also more prone to disputes due to editors sometimes using Wikipedia to engage in exhibitionism. With the exception of File:Khajurahosculpture.jpg, the current state of the Masturbation article also solely relies on drawings or paintings to demonstrate sexual acts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment: I revertedEnthusiast01, per what I stated above. Per WP:GRATUITOUS, the drawing of the woman is less likely to cause offense than the real-life image of the man. And not because it depicts a woman, but because it is the least graphic since real-life images are considered more of an issue and since the image of the woman is not drawn in great detail. Because of this and because it is standard to have one lead image, the drawing of the woman is the better lead image. Readers do not need an "in your face" picture of a real man or real woman masturbating as the lead image. And such imagery has time and again given readers an unprofessional feel when clicking on our sexual activity articles, which is why we now mainly use drawings or paintings in our sexual activity articles. Furthermore, we currently have an image of a real-life man masturbating lower in the article. I don't think we need an image of a man masturbating in the lead to "balance out" the female one. But if we do include one, it should also be a drawing or painting and the side-by-side imagery should look uniform. The side by side imagery by Enthusiast01 did not look uniform; it looked "off."
As for the text that Enthusiast01 added, the "For males, masturbation involves the stimulation of the penis using a hand" part was fine, but the "while for females it can involve the stimulation of the clitoris with a hand, finger, everyday object, sex toy such as a vibrator, or a combination of these" part was not. This is because, although women primarily masturbate using the clitoris, some do use their vagina to masturbate, and men also use everyday objects and/or sex toys to masturbate. And keep in mind that a sex doll is also a sex toy, and sex dolls are far more popular among men than among women. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 2 external links on Masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
This edit request to Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
well i think that because of known facta about smean and theat mastubation causes the female cviration andmovemernto furethra then that these fxfts supporting this mean that the fmale risk is there and that th emale ris is there and the line should be drawn and that this should be shown in this srticle clearly siting that reproduction processes and mastubation too on wiipedia be only for th eactual reason of reproduction that such things as extras are as is known casuation of disease risk and death in th elong term so the real truth that is virations casue eggs to descend form the felmal epassge as such and that the male ejectulate is a baby reprocution juice not for playing this will support better health of th epoppualtion and showw care understanding and belief. i think it is disregarding to ide form the truth. this wil reduce thus the ammount of sexual play and outside repricution behaviour impriving behaviour even from very existence Jameskenobi (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
please state the edit you wish to make presicely, in correct English, as it is hard to understand exactly what you want to change. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just modified 2 external links on Masturbation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
A cursory glance at the article raises some points that I think we could discuss here- the point seems to be the lack of accessible material that a 13-14 can find on the subject when Sex Education at school fails to deliver.
More reassuring
like a thirteen year old I searched for the topic Femaile masturbation in our encyclyopedia.
I was redirected here - why?
First sentences- tell us this is a redirection from 'Jacking off' - regional slang. We have biblicaL references-- you get my point.
Does our lead discuss- what it is, in accessible language- language that will reassure not frighten.
I question the choice of images, the over prominence of vibrators, hardly established the distinction be masturbation and pornography, and then the inclusion of Klimt and Schiele shows very male centric view of the topic- not very reassuring. I suggest that we have other images that could be used.
Polish Wikipedia has two nice unthreatening watercolours in its lead.
There is a lot to think about in the Guardian article- and a lot to discuss here. Ping me if you would like me to join in- I am not watching this article.ClemRutter (talk) 16:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
ClemRutter, why wouldn't you be redirected here? Unless there is a need for a separate female masturbation article, the topic will redirect here. Same goes for male masturbation, which also redirects here. As for vibrators, yeah, they usually are not used by either males or females during masturbation. But they are obviously used by some, and there is only one picture of vibrators in the article. As for your suggested images, editors have been trying to ensure that the article doesn't focus more one on sex/gender over the other, and this includes via images. I don't see that any more female masturbation images are needed. If anything, another male one would be better. You can trade out one image for another, but editors have generally been satisfied with the current lead image. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
As I said- the link is worth reading, and I was just assessing our article from the POVs expressed there. I don't have medical qualifications- or special training so I am loathe to do more than comment! A link is possible to Fingering (sexual act) that could be expanded to explain solo performances. From there we could link back to this page for those who want a more in depth description. I do think that we can justify separate articles on male and female. In the article is there a reason why Male comes before Female and you have chose not call them Female masturbation, Male masturbation or why Mutual masturbation is not at the same level (L3) under (L2) techniques.
The vibrators are a clear case of WP:UNDUE, and can get moved down the article, and replaced with something that is less phallic and more fun. Also, a smaller image size (120px)could be setGetting a balance of image sex/race/age is always difficult. File:1925 Wegener Les Delassements dEros 01 anagoria.JPG is painted by a woman. We do have File:Male masturbation.svg A basic svg also found on Polish WP that may help. As it is a svg, I could add a little colouring to it- (I suggest hispanic tones ) if that would be helpful. I just prefer images that illustrate the act not emphasise a body part. I can see a case however for adding a couple of simple SVG diagrams to L3 Section on Female masturbation, Male masturbation to illustrate the plumbing.(Vulva, vagina, clitoris, shaft prostrate, bladder) Some of our readers will be short of the knowledge and one diagram.. a thousand words etc. --ClemRutter (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
ClemRutter, fingering is linked in the article and commented on in the Female section. So I'm not sure what you mean about that. We don't unnecessarily split articles; see WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split. There is no reason that that the Male section comes first. The Female section can easily come first. We call the sections "Male" and "Female" because calling them "Male masturbation" and "Female masturbation" would be redundantly referring to the article title; see MOS:HEAD. Per MOS:HEAD, "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article (Early life, not Smith's early life or His early life) or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
unless doing so is shorter or clearer appears to be be the critical bit! I am talking about clarity. I followed your backlink to WP:MOS and looked closely in how they interpreted "or to higher-level headings" by examining their TOC. 9.7, 9.8 then 10.12, 10.15 and 10.16 all go clarity. To take this one further- Mutual masturbation is OK but Female masturbation would not be. I think I will stick by my interpretation. WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split would not apply as no new articles are proposed. I am suggesting that the redirect on Female masturbation is changed to Fingering- which will then link through as it does at present. This will give a more accessible introduction for the category of reader that has been identified in the Guardian article above.ClemRutter (talk) 15:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
ClemRutter, I sense a language barrier here. I stand by what I stated. Per MOS:HEAD, adding "masturbation" to the headings is not needed. I brought up WP:Spinout, WP:No page and WP:No split because you stated that you "think that we can justify separate articles on male and female." No, "female masturbation" should not redirect to the Fingering (sexual act) article, but this is not the page to propose that; you can propose that at WP:Redirects for discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018
This edit request to Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D (☎ • ✎)20:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
So guys according to this article, Masturbation was healthy really? it makes your bone weak and loses weight probably. 49.148.252.4 (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't know what's the connections between masturbation and god, just because it is a sin? It is a sin when you think someone while jerking off. LMao (This is too inappropriate but Wikipedia isn't censored) 49.148.252.4 (talk) 12 July 2018 (UTC)
I don't understand the templates from [5]: WP:LEDE abstracts the body, right? So, the citations are in the body of the article, not in the lead section. Therefore the citation needed template is useless. Similarly, citations make clear who considers the claims as factual. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose that Autopederasty be merged here. Cientific124 created the article. The thing is, though, this is a highly unusual sexual practice that the vast majority of men do not have the ability to do, and there is not much that can be added on the topic. See WP:No page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Nigelj, regarding this, I'm obviously in agreement that this is an encyclopedia and "not a fantasy magazine." But it is better to have autopederasty covered here than for it to have its own Wikipedia article. Right now, autopederasty redirects here, but there is no content in the article on it because of your removal. Autofellatio does have a Wikipedia article; it could be linked in the See also section here, or we could leave the Fellatio article to cover it in its Practice section (like it currently does). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Flyer! :-) I've been out of the loops here for a while and so I didn't know about this merge. Nonetheless, I find the deletion of this still seems right. http://wipipedia.org/index.php/Autopederasty It seems even 'Wipipedia' has given up having an article on this concocted word. It was made up by someone, and they seem to believe they know her name. It gets only a hundred or so Google hits. It was always the wrong word(s), and it makes no sense (no children would be involved). It is physically impossible unless the practitioner was unusually endowed and completely sexually unexcited. If that was the case, it would not be a form of masturbation, just contortion. I suggest the redirect should be put up for AFD, per WP:NOTABLE, as there seems to be no point in having it here on WP. I hope you're well and happy. --Nigelj (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 September 2018
This edit request to Masturbation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Research presenting a negative correlation between the frequency of masturbation and various mental and physical benefits is not presented in the article
I've just had a look around some research in this area, and it looks like there is a notable amount of research which together presents a negative correlation between masturbation and many positive traits (e.g. happiness, schizophrenia, erectile function, body fatness, depression etc.), as reviewed in the paper "The Relative Health Benefits of Different Sexual Activities" by Stuart Brody in The Journal of Sexual Medicine. I feel that this research should be presented in this article in the health effects section, especially as a statement to the contrary (i.e. "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-esteem") is included in this section.
See Talk:Masturbation/Archive 12#Brody, Talk:Masturbation/Archive 10#The bald claim that NO causal harm is known from masturbation is false. This is an important error on a "top importance" page on sexuality. and Talk:Masturbation/Archive 4#Brody Articles, Prominent Health Warnings, Etc. In short: Brody violates WP:RS/AC, WP:UNDUE and perhaps WP:FRINGE. Those in the know tend to think that Brody is a marginal researcher because he is a victim of his own poor methodology. He either receives socially desirable answers like "the penis size of my partner is rather big" or he asks his respondents to answer in one minute to what really needs 20-30 years of accurate record keeping (i.e. faulty memory). Everybody here is expected to abide by WP:MEDRS, which basically says that peer-reviewed articles have to be indexed for MEDLINE and be systematic reviews of literature (i.e. both conditions have to apply in order to make medical claims for Wikipedia). Oh, yes, I saw the paper, it is mostly a review by Brody of papers by Brody and his close co-workers. As previously noted, Brody failed to produce the scientific revolution he still champions, e.g. failed to convince the DSM-5 team that his POV would be worth considering. And in ICD-11 things do not go better for him than in DSM-5. Excessive masturbation already was in ICD-10, but it does not use the addiction model and the Merck Manual spells out what it means to masturbate excessively (already cited in our article). AFAIK, the medical orthodoxy is against Brody and citing him would have to fulfill WP:EXTRAORDINARY. He wanted to do unto Kinsey, Masters and Johnson what the Intelligent Design movement wants to do unto Darwin. But he couldn't talk the talk and walk the walk. If he would have succeeded, he would have gained world fame. But he didn't. In any science or academic field there are winners and losers. Wikipedia simply does not side with the losing factions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Actively championing one viewpoint and the removal of all others is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored. Your job as an editor job is NOT to remove all views opposing a consensus. Simply state and cite the multiple viewpoints and - if warranted - then declare which is the academic consensus. That declaration is what requires the higher standards of WP:RS/AC and even WP:Fringein no way justifies the removal of opposing viewpoints. This is not a win/lose scenario and viewing Wikipedia in such absolutist terms is frankly bizarre for such an experienced editor. Lexlex (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, attempting to use a Wikipedia policy clearly aimed at preventing medical misinformation as a rationale to censor viewpoints you don't agree with doesn't work. Masturbation is a human behavioral topic, not biomedical information. Unless you can show other instances of WP:MEDRS being used to remove opposing viewpoints on behavioral topics, I'm calling this wishful thinking on your part. Lexlex (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Look, if Brody's view gained sufficient traction in the academia, we'd have to mention it. But it didn't. So it fails both WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It also fails WP:REDFLAG since it is contrary to the common wisdom in the academia, and extraordinary evidence is required for extraordinary claims. And, yes, it fails WP:MEDRS because it is a pathetic attempt at writing a systematic review (you don't review just papers by yourself and by your pals). We don't mention random papers because of Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. Similarly, we don't present the views of Mantak Chia on this topic because he is a kook lacking any medical and psychological degrees. We just aren't Debatepedia. You might want to read WP:GOODBIAS: we aren't in the business of WP:RGW, nor we promote sexual pseudoscience. WP:FRINGEjustifies the removal of opposing viewpoints, see WP:ONEWAY for details. What we don't do is pretend that WP:RS/AC and marginal opinions are equally valid, nor that they deserve equal respect. And it has been advanced as a medical claim about depression (mood), so there is no way around WP:MEDRS: ignoring MEDRS requirements is simply not an option for medical claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters...
The very Wikipedia policies you've cited don't justify removal of reliable content, all of them merely state that undue weight must not be given to non-mainstream ideas. Your attempt to use these policies as rationale to censor shows you may be conflating reliable sources with mainstream ideas. That's not how it works: different views should be included, and those that might be considered fringe, etc. are merely referenced and included without undue weight. Using these polices as justification club to remove cited content and present only the mainstream view is not what they're for. Do you see my point? Lexlex (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. We do not cite antivaxxers in articles about vaccines. Same applies to this article: Brody's bizarre views do not belong in the article and they aren't bona fide medical science, but an exercise in self-delusion. See me at WP:FTN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
See WP:VERECUNDIAM. And, yes, it fails WP:MEDRS because it is a pathetic attempt at writing a systematic review (you don't review just papers by yourself and by your pals). To be sure, this applies to other papers by Brody, not the present one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Yup, Brody figures prominently upon AIDS denialism websites, specifically for his claims that for people who practice PVI only and don't do drugs and blood transfusions, it is more likely to be struck by lightning than getting infected with AIDS through sexual intercourse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Moreover, this would be WP:UNDUE and WP:SOAP to add to the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
You need to propose specific changes and provide references to reliable sources. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: Removed deadlinks to WP:BLUE-type statements and declined to replace them with spammy website of very doubtful WP:RS status. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
