Talk:Masturbation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Song Lyrics

Those are most definitely not the lyrics to Chuck Berry's song "My Ding-a-Ling," which is not (explicitly at least) sexual in any way. I googled for a song with those lyrics but found nothing. I have removed the lyrics completely, since they are false.

Not sexual? The lyrics are here and several other places, but they don't do it justice without the highly suggestive rap that goes along with it. Try to find a copy of the London Chuck Berry Sessions live album. The girls in the audience sing "my" and the guys sing "ding a ling", repeat those two lines then the girls sing "I want you to play with my" and the guys sing "ding a ling" again. Of course the guys get into it more than the girls, so Berry complains "there are just two girls taking care of all those ding a lings". Later after a better chorus he quips "don't these girls have a lovely passage?", and on it goes. Bless those who don't have any idea what I'm talking about. Andrewa 01:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Other forms of autoeroticism

What about other forms of autoeroticism, such as use of sex toys like dildos? Should that be mentioned here or under autoeroticism as a larger area? --Dmerrill

My 2 cents is to try to keep everything on as few pages as is workable, with REDIRECTS. I was planning to do a litle more on this page soon. (Just created a redirect; maybe we can see how this works out over the next few days.)

Just to comment on the latter, "keep everything on as few pages as is workable, with REDIRECTS," I think this is a bad idea. Even when X is really just another term for Y, sometimes it is better not to use the REDIRECT command, but instead to explain the meaning of X on the X page, and then send people on to Y for more information. If someone specifically searches for info on X under the name "X", it's not unlikely that the person will want information on why the person's being redirected to Y instead. Providing that (usually semantic) information on the X page will help clarify this for the reader. Just for example: is there a difference in meaning between "masturbation" and "autoeroticism"? I guess I don't know. If none at all, then a redirect would be what I'd do. But if there is some subtle difference in meaning, it could help to explain the difference of meaning on the other page, i.e., the one you want to redirect from.

You might say, "But hey, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so why care about such information?" Because very often the difference in meaning represents important jargon, and jargon is very useful to explain in an encyclopedia. Very much of theoretical knowledge consists of elaborations of explanations of jargon! --LMS

Autoeroticism very definitely is different from masturbation. It is a much larger field, including dildos and dozens of other sex toys. Not to mention the phenomenon which is the child of youth, hormones and flexibility. Ah, the days when... --Dmerrill

Knock yourselves out.  :-) Personally, I prefer to keep the number of entries small, and in this particular case think one entry can easily accommodate a precis of the variations. But I'm sure not going to make a fuss about it.

Autoeroticism isn't quite the same as masturbation anyway -- getting a handjob from someone else I would include under the rubric "masturbation," but it isn't autoerotic. --Charles A. L. 19:50, Dec 16, 2003 (UTC)

---

Masturbation considered sinful?

"Many conservative religious groups teach masturbation to be a sinful practice."

Which ones, and why? --LMS

At least, I know about Catholic church, since I am catholic, and I always heard that. I think Islam also teaches that this practice is sinful, but I'm not sure. Can anybody confirm this or otherwise? --Fibonacci 14:29, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

yeah, and why is there no mention of the "shock the monkey" syndome?-Stevert

Also Islam consider it sinful and forbidden it.

Thomas Aquinas = "Angelic Doctor"? Incredibly POV. 68.1.174.46 04:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Most Muslims clerics regard masturbation as sinful and forbidden (haram). However it's important to remember unlike with the Catholic church, there isn't any real authority. Although in some Muslims countries, the highest Imam may say it's forbidden, to my knowledge, there is no punishment in even the strictest Muslims countries.

There are various opinions about masturbation in the Sunni school of thoughts. The Shafi'e madhaab hold that masturbation is sinful. The Maliki madhaab however holds masturbation to be just a detestable act but is not sinful. Menj 11:48, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most Christian denominations consider it sinful due to the mental aspect of the act. Jesus said that even thinking of a woman in a sexual way was adultery and therefore when one masturbates if they are thinking of a member of the opposite sex in a sexual manner they are committing adulter and are therefore sinning.

The Sunni view is that the act is not haram, but mukro (i.e. not liked - frowned upon).

Masturbation causing harm via guilt

"There is no credible scientific or medical evidence that manual masturbation is damaging to either one's physical or mental health." - Seems like some reference should be made here to the guilt that can frequently accompany it, especially if the person grew up in a sexually repressed environment.

---

Whether circumcision reduces pleasure

Yesterday, I corrected the lie about circumcision not reducing pleasure (I timed out, so only my IP-address appeared). Someone changed it back. One cannot destroy 20,000 nerve-ending and bury the remaining under calluses without effecting sensation. Sure, now that parents do not want a reduction in pleasure, money-grubbing doctors claim that circumcision does not effect sensation. I ask:

"¿Does this make sense?"

Back in the 1870s, when everyone believed that masturbation caused blindness and insanity, doctors specifically advocated circumcision as a way of reducing the pleasure of sex. Moses Maimonides recognized hundreds of years ago that circumcision reduces the pleasure of masturbation and general sexual pleasure of both men and women.

¿If one burns of the ends of one's fingers, does it not reduce tactile sensation?

I shall reremove the lies about mutilated and intact men feeling equal pleasure from orgasm. I am not interested in an editwar: If one removes the correction, I shall accept it -- although we will all know that the article is incorrect.

?alabio 03:15, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Alabio, please read about the neutral point of view (NPOV). Whenever a claim is controversial, we attribute it to its adherents. Otherwise, building an encyclopedia with thousands of contributors with wildly different points of view would not be possible. Your additions were not removed; in fact, they were edited to make them conform to our policy.—Eloquence 03:22, Oct 14, 2003 (UTC)

I know about NPOV. I am NPOV. The lies of circumfetishists that genital mutilation does not reduce pleasure is as absurd as stating:

"Gouging out eyes does not effect vision."

If you insist that I must leave such nonsense -- ¿Must we give Flat-Earthers equal say in the article about geology? -- I shall leave in the lies; but nonetheless however, I shall point out that hundreds of years ago, Moses Maimonides believed that circumcision reduced all forms of sexual pleasure, in the 1870s, US-doctors started circumcising children for reducing masturbatory pleasure, doctors from countries other than the US still believe that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure. Only circumcising US doctors when selling the "benefits" -- no national medical organization in the world recommends routine infant circumcision [| Current Position Statements of Medical Societies in English-Speaking Countries -- No national medical organization in the world recommends routine circumcision of male infants] -- claim that circumcision does not reduce pleasure.

I shall put all of this in the article and let the reader decide. ¿Is this sufficiently NPOV?

?alabio 04:12, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"Must we give Flat-Earthers equal say in the article about geology" -- Yes, that is what NPOV is all about (however the two examples aren't so comparable -- Information about what Flat-Earth adherents believe would go in a Flat-Earth type article). Dysprosia 04:20, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I suppose that NPOV could mean airing all views, no matter how insane. Speaking about Flat-Earthers, I suppose showing that only 1.5% of doctors (a reference to Flat-Earthers and lighthouses) make the ludicrous claim that destroying twenty thousand nerve endings does not reduce pleasure puts that absurd claim in perspective.

?alabio 01:27, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

You know... I just don't understand any of this. The claim here is that circumcision removes 20,000 pleasure-inducing nerve endings, leading to the claim that circumcised men feel less pleasure during sex and masturbation then uncircumcised men. I would now like to make my own POV assertion: there is a direct relationship between the amount of genital pleasure experienced and the rapidity at which a person achieves orgasm. Now, if this is true, then surely either doctors (or women) would have noticed a correlation between how quickly a circumcised man ejaculates compared to an uncircumcised man. Have doctors, (or any women reading this) noticed such a phenomena? Is there a study showing this? Antidotally, I can tell you that no woman who was ever in my intimate confidence ever mentioned such a thing before, and quite frankly, if it were true, it's the kind of thing that women would know.

Let's move on. I am a circumcised man, and I have a sexual problem. The problem, however, is one that I believe I share with most men around the world, (circ and uncirc), namely, that I often achieve orgasm before my female partner does. If your assertion is correct (that I am missing 20,000 Mr. Happy Nerves) and if my assertion is correct (the more pleasure, the quicker the payoff), then I have to tell you: I am quite glad to not have these extra nerves. I would end up always finishing before my partner could even get started. I very thoroughly enjoy sex and masturbation, as do most men, regardless of their cut status. If I am missing out on something, I am certainly not aware of it. The problem here is that you are (subtly) asserting statements that are in direct conflict with the actual experiences of most men who are circumcised, namely, that some majority of circumcised men have difficulties with masturbation or with sex, (difficulties apart from those that might commonly be experienced by all men, circ and uncirc). Such difficulties do occur among some men, but they occur regardless of their circumcised state.

My final POV assertion: I think many of you (that is, the gentleman who have apparently come here from a mailing list of some kind) may have had sexual difficulties at various points during your life, (many of you have said as much in your comments). I would first like to point out that all men experience such problems at some point in their life, and that the phenomenon is not restricted to the circumcised. Secondly, some of you may even have more serious sexual problems: again, your circumcisions do not make you unique in this regard. Sexual difficulties visit all men and women in all cultures. Unfortunately, we live in a lingering macho culture, where male sexual difficulties are unfairly and ignorantly stigmatized. I can't help but feel, (and yes, this is complete POV on my part), that many of the editors of this article and others, are using circumcision as a convenient thing to point a finger at and say, "yeah, there is this evil conspiracy against me." Like most conspiracy theories, however, it really doesn't hold water.

I'm not planning to make any edits to this article, or to the others involving circumcision, because I don't like edit wars, but I do want to say this: you are creating articles that no one is going to consider to be encyclopedic. The edits you are making are all directed towards a social and political goal... and that's not what encyclopedias are for.

func(talk) 05:36, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Your reasoning is not sound. Many circumcised men, including myself, have the same problem with female partners. Part of what you are referring to is due to has nothing to do with nerve endings per se. Rather, if you have your frenulum, it is perhaps constantly in contact with, and fully stretched by, the vagina any every depth of penetration. In many men, that accelerates orgasm greatly. Frenulum or not, a cut man cannot focus pressure on the clitoris. The very same nerve endings you dismiss permit a man to penetrate at a depth and at an angle more likely to cause female orgasm. In some cases, vaginal dryness can be an issue, but that is variable. [1]. And do a google search for "clitoral mound". Many people do not realize that the clitoris is not just the little external glans, but has a deep structure which needs stimulation as well. Your point about social and political goals is valid. But supressing knowledge is equally a slanted social and political goal. DanP 14:26, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Unfortunately much of what you assert is not confirmed by the facts. This sort of contradiction often happens when one embraces a "theory" and then tries to force fit all information to suit that position. If one is sexually dysfunctional and finds solace in blaming it on the fact that they are circumcised then as it works for them that’s quite fine. However, when they project that onto other people who have no such problem and are sexually well adjusted it becomes really sad. It appears there are a lot of people who need to see a therapist rather than try crude "self help" on the internet. Think about it. - Friends of Robert 05:25, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The circumcision debate seems better suited for an article about circumcision. One is located conveniently nearby. Given what the ongoing debates over there have done to that article, maybe it would be better to limit the masturbation article to the matter at hand. I suggest that the Masturbation and circumcision section here is redundant given the extant circumcision article and the ample coverage given here to differences in masturbation techniques based on circumcision status, and propose that the section be removed (or moved to genital mutilation or foreskin restoration) and the topic relegated to the See also section. The existence of the debate can certainly be acknowledged here, but there's no reason to engage in it. 67.42.118.55 17:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. There should be less emphasis here. Although historically, many boys have been circumcised as punishment for masturbation. Spite circumcision is not a fairy tale, it still happens today. Many guys do not have enough skin to do the job (solo or with a partner) as they get older. Yes, the act of amputating foreskin is more suited to the circumcision article, but anatomical effects cannot be omitted completely from the masturbation article, given the futile goal of "wiping out" masturbation. Some folks will say flat out that masturbation is totally wrong, and severe circumcision is a good deterrent. That merits mentioning in the article, no matter which side of the circumcision discussion a person is on. DanP 23:19, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

First of all, this is all quite funny to me. Mostly because I read the word 'circumfetishists,' and I can't gather myself. OK, now my point: to include statements about circumcision in a masturbation article, in a NPOV fashion, is nearly impossible given the body of substantiated evidence on this issue. A peripheral point: the success of hemispherectomies [2] certainly casts doubt towards impassioned statements regarding what's possible, in terms of neural regeneration, if one 'mutilates' an infant's glans, removing 20,000 presumably vital 'endings'. Yo alabio: circumcision doesn't 'burry remaining nerves under callouses' - the callouses come from masturbating too much (and wrong)! And of course, the anthropic-principle-flavored-argument: if circumcision perturbs masturbation so much, why does everybody masturbate? Nerves exhibit a strongly plastic developmental pattern, and there's plenty of consensus in the medical community: stimulating nerves promotes their growth in most situations where growth is possible. So the biggest threat to enjoyable chicken-choking is lack of practise, which is what the chicken's been saying all along. rmbh 05:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

---

Country matters

Quite a bonny pleasure to go strokin' in the country...or in our fair dictionary.... lol Rickyrab 22:19, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Prostate cancer study came too recently?

I know that I am technically incorrect (NT4RTFM) Just a comment: despite of NPOV, I have another objection: an encyclopoedia has to be up to date. This doesn´t not necesarrily imply that a quite recent study (which is almost another urban legend) has to be promulgated. This time, non-mentioning would have been wise for the sake of not-being-confused-by-nonsense-data. Comment to Rickyrab: for sure U will NOT die OF, perhaps WITH your prostate cancer..whatever U do, have fun. [[User:guest..some slash not on my keyboard..what Time is ist, honey..OH..we have a date?? (where?) KEEP YOUR HANDS ON THE TABLE! ...I think I should add some brackets]]

"...came too recently"? I wasn't aware that cancer studies experienced a refractory period. ;) JAQ 12:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Kudos

Jankhouse: Thanks for your recent edit. It's great. Moncrief 20:00, Mar 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

Masturbation while wearing a condom

I have serious questions about this assertion:

Ejaculation of semen can be messy, but may be controlled by wearing a condom...

Has anyone anywhere ever heard of any male person who has worn a condom while masturbating? Any evidence whatsoever, no matter how anectodal, is appreciated, because this sounds about as bizzare and unlikely as a masturbation story is likely to get. Moncrief 02:39, Mar 24, 2004 (UTC)

All right, you asked, so I'll tell you. I frequently use a condom when masturbating for a number of reasons: 1) It reduces abrasion when my hands are rough and dry or I've been masturbating frequently. Otherwise, I can easily rub the skin raw. 2) It reduces the problem of seminal fluids becoming sticky and causing adhesion friction between the skin and head of my penis, which actually has caused me sores in the mucus membrane (some men, like myself, liberally seep clear seminal fluids during sex; it's actually an evolutionary advantage in providing much of the lubrication during sex, and I intensely dislike using artificial lubricants while masturbating by hand). 3) It enables me to masturbate under covers in the winter in a cold room without getting my sheets messy. 4) I find it erotic. There are other reasons, but I think that's enough for now.

Altternative - Use a tissue --JK the unwise 10:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Regarding "manustupration" (not "manusturpration, as the original poster of the term had it), the only uses I can find are in 18th- and 19th-century French and German texts (Psychopathia Sexualis for one); it's certainly not common enough to be mentioned in the lead section. —No-One Jones 21:49, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for the astounding detail you used in describing how you pleasure yourself and the amount of liquid your sweaty, throbbing cock releases. We were all quite enlightened by it and feel our worth as human beings has increased due to this very necessary description of you choking your meaty shlong on a boring day.

64.26.82.18 20:27, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WikiPorn

I have removed from this article an image of a male masturbating. If you disagree with this, tough titties. - Mark 09:01, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I concur. The image served no purpose. If someone tries to remove the image of a body part from one of the medical articles, I will fight it tooth and nail, but the image of a man holding his penis is just going to cause too many people to be upset. The poster followed by adding a link to the same image with a content warning, (which I appreciate), but it still served no purpose. It does seem to border on the pornographic, and regardless of my own feelings about, I am certain that leaving it in would just cause edit wars anyway. func(talk) 14:11, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I haven't seen the image, but I disagree. A description and a photo of masturbation seems to be a neutral image, just as an image of a hand may seem to be unnecessary to someone who has a hand tapping on their keyboard. Nevertheless, the image is included in the article because it is a visual depiction of the matter discussed in the article. Someone who is disturbed by the image of masturbation should avoid reading an article on the subject. The vast majority of people reading the article have hands, yet an image is included. Roughly half of the people reading the article do not have a penis. Some of those who do have a penis do not masturbate, hence the image of masturbation is quite reasonable. In fact, the title WikiPorn is itself non-neutral. Bring back the image, allow people to be upset or not. 21 November, 2004.

"Someone who is disturbed by the image of masturbation should avoid reading an article on the subject." Why? Am I not justified in reading this article if I would be offended by a picture of masturbation?—Trevor Caira 21:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course you are justified in reading the article, but you shouldn't be surprised to see a picture of masturbation when reading the article. Likewise, a person who is disturbed by the picture of a human hand is justified in reading the article "hand", just don't be surprised to see a hand. I suggest that you turn off images when looking at an article about masturbation, or any other subject which has images which might disturb you. By the way, the article "breast" shows an image of a breast. There are images in articles about vagina, penis, clitoris which may upset some. If you look at an article, you shouldn't be surprised to see an image representing that topic. Why are you reading the article if you are offended by a depiction of masturbation? User:nereocystis 29 November, 2004.

So should we not be surprised when we find similar such illustrative images under sexual intercourse or pornography? How about for zoophilia or child pornography? Obviously I'm making a slippery slope argument, but the point remains that a line has to be drawn somewhere. Such an image is not necessary for this article, as masturbation is explained pretty clearly without the need for a visual aid. Not everything needs to be illustrated, especially when it's likely to needlessly offend many people (not to mention that I doubt public and school librarians would appreciate seeing a kid with a masturbation image on the screen). Further, I don't think that very many people expect to find illustrations of human sexual activity in an encyclopedia, and I would think that even among those who wouldn't be offended, many would be surprised. Zawersh 18:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Eating Ejaculate

Just to note where I get the 1 in 10 figure from, question 18 from this link: http://www.jackinworld.com/library/surveys/survey2.html

This survey is not scientific. The sample is self-selected, rather than random. Using this source for a 1 in 10 number is not valid.

TMS

Doug, I shifted your commentary on the alleged health effects of prone masturbation to...the section dealing with health effects of masturbation. I have further clarified the reference to make sure that people can make the link to the prone position described in the previous paragraph and the alleged health effects. What more do you want (other than for us to turn this and the TMS articles into screeds warning of the horrible perils of prone masturbation, which we simply aren't going to do)? --Robert Merkel 06:35, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

How about a "but see below" where the art introduces the concept of prone mast?Doug22123 17:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Um, no. I did make a further change, though, describing the face-down position explicitly as prone to help make the link in people's minds. --Robert Merkel 19:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Possible Wiki Links

I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:

• Can link sexual relationship: ...re less likely to masturbate while in a sexual relationship than men. Both sexes occasionally engag...
• Can link corpus cavernosum: ...quent injury to the tunica albuginea or corpus cavernosum results in a localised fibromatosis, di...
• Can link support group: ...ll number of clinicians and an internet support group claims that masturbating prone (laying ...
• Can link 4th millennium BC: ...dance in nature. A clay figurine of the 4th millennium BC from a temple site on the island of M...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 07:03, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sank vs. Giles - fact-checking Giles required.

Why are Sank and the Lipsith et al group described as "a small number of clinicians" while in the para right above there, Graham Giles is mentioned by name, with no qualification that he is one of "a small number of scientists" who have linked mast to prostate cancer? Where is the demand for 100s of studies to corroborate this finding and for the medical community generally to embrace it as there is for TMS? Doug22123 22:15, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You have a good point here - but rather than uncritically citing Sank, we need to have a closer look at the Giles claims. I have no idea of the actual situation with regards to prostate cancer, but from what I remember the Giles study got splashed all over the popular press which is why it probably got cited in the article. What we need to do is some fact-checking; look up the Giles study, see if the hypothesis is actually new or not (often these things are bandied round in academia for years before the public becomes aware of it), see what the previous evidence (if any) is, see what evidence Giles actually presented, and see what the followup was. --Robert Merkel 23:54, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The point of my comment was not that Giles needs to be scrutinized -- in fact, I cite Giles's research frequently on my own site -- but that Sank doesn't need to be qualified so heavily and his research buried in the middle of the page. IMHO, Sank made a common-sense point: Don't thrust your penis against a mattress with all your strength daily for 10-50 years and expect it to function the same as if you didn't. Giles is making a much more sweeping point: An activity which many people actively discourage even today may prevent cancer. (And preventing cancer is always controversial, whether it involves tomatoes or Laetril.) Which of those studies would you say needs the most qualifications?

I believe the reason people are opposed to Sank's thesis is not because there haven't been enough citations but because it contradicts the libertine mantra of "if it feels good, do it." Doug22123 05:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Doug, this purported syndrome gets more attention than it deserves on this page already. We've already debated the merits of TMS at length, and you clearly don't understand how the scientific discovery process works. Until you can provide some more evidence of clinical support for TMS, that's all the reference to it in this article you're going to get. --Robert Merkel 10:49, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Further to this, seeing you keep adding this point back, I've just slapped an NPOV dispute on this article. --Robert Merkel 04:22, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

But all my line said was that some believe that practice is damaging to sexual health and call it Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome. That's just a fact. There's no POV involved. The place where NPOV is violated is where you keep trying to censor that some have questioned the safety of prone masturbation and to bury it in a place in the article where it is less likely to be related to the description of prone masturbation. That is not necessary. Anyone can read the article about TMS and make up their own mind. I keep feeling you must be a refugee from a tobacco company, a laid-off flack whose job used to be denying the validity of smoking and health research and to claim that not enough research had been done. Doug22123 17:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Robert, and I also removed the link from the word "prone" to Traumatic masturbatory syndrome. That was deceptive. A link from the word prone should be relevant to the meaning of "prone." "TMS" shouldn't be mentioned at all in this section, anyway. Rhobite 05:18, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Is it any less useful than a link to 'mattress'? Doug22123 17:49, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No, linking either word to TMS would be useless and deceptive. Rhobite 18:12, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

I looked through the history and now I see what you mean, you did remove the link from the word "mattress" to the article mattress. According to Wikipedia:Make only links relevant to the context, that was probably the correct move. Linking to TMS from "prone" is irrelevant to the meaning of the word "prone." Rhobite 18:20, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

Yeesh. I hoped I had seen the last of this, but I just noticed the Request for Comment. Here's my $0.02 and then I will duck out again. I'm not going to look at the dispute in the detail, so I may be missing important relevant stuff. The current short paragraph

A very small number of clinicians and an internet support group claims that masturbating prone (laying down face-first, as described in the previous section), as distinct from in other positions and methods, can be psychologically harmful. This position is not supported by the broader medical literature. See traumatic masturbatory syndrome.

looks OK to me. It seems to me that it is short and clearly makes all the required points. It says very plainly that "syndrome" is not medically accepted. Plainly enough, I think, to satisfy the naysayers. But it says enough to make the interested reader understand what it's about and what article to go to to read more. That should satisfy the aye-sayers.

When traumatic masturbatory syndrome came up on VfD (I voted delete by the way) the effective decision was to neutralize the point of view and keep the article. On the face of it, if we are going to have an article on traumatic masturbatory syndrome, if you say "what articles should mention it and link to it," it seems to me that Masturbation would be one of the obvious ones.

OK, that was my $0.02. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 21:44, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Links

The healthystrokes.org site is excessively biased. Why is it linked to at all?

• The author has a poor understanding of age of consent laws, and essentially advises nobody under the age of consent to have sex.
• The author is seemingly biased against any sexual experience that deviates too much from PIV sex.
• The author doesn't seem to understand the concept of disinfection. When using a vibrator anally is mentioned, the author replies that using it in a vagina aftewards would be dirty, as if there's no way to fix that.
• The author advises girls not to have sex until graduating from highschool. That's an opinion, a valid one, but it's clearly biased.

This list could go on and on. The author's (who I get the impression is a sick middle-aged man who has only partially repaired his puritanical belief system) main goal is to discourage stomach-down masturbation for both males and females. It's common for both males and females, particularly males, to have sex stomach-down, so the entire premise of the site is totally absurd.

I see somebody didn't get his meds today. The main thing I have on healthystrokes.com about age of consent is a link to that page on Wikipedia. http://www.healthystrokes.com/glossary.html Does anyone here really object to that? I urge young people to understand age of consent laws, inter alia, before having sex. What is "PIV" sex? I urge people to consider the health ramifications of sexual practices before engaging in them. I simply remind people to clean vibrators after each use if they're their own and before and after if they're borrowed. I frequently encourage people under 18 to wait later before having sex. I doubt that many take this advice, but it's the most sensible I can give. I rarely advise people over 18 to wait. Having sex stomach-down is not the same as masturbating face-down. That's perhaps the main point of my site and the anon seems to have missed it completely. It is appropriate for HealthyStrokes.com to be linked because it has unique information and a relevant POV. The anon's obvious bias is that he only wants to see sites linked that say "if it feels good, do it" and celebrate every sexual practice as equally valid no matter the health consequences. Doug, a Happy Puritan Doug22123 17:31, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I didn't notice Doug had slipped in a link to his site into the main article. Removed. We plug TMS in the article text. That's enough. We're not a link spamming service.--Robert Merkel 03:36, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The link is back. The HealthyStrokes web site is less than 1/8 about TMS and the rest is about other masturbation, consisting mostly of questions from young people and answers. If HealthyStrokes is to be removed, then several of the others, which also have a particular slant to the discussion of sexuality should also be removed. Doug22123 04:23, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

That's 1/8 too much of a link then - Nunh-huh 05:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The HealthyStrokes link is important because it is the only one that is a site about female masturbation. All of the other links go to sites or pages about male masturbation. Whatever happens, HS is not going to disappear on the basis of the Wiki link being removed. The site had over 3000 hits yesterday, and 15 of them came from the links on the masturbation article.Doug22123 17:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My guess is those hits were mostly incredulous Wikipedia editors. I don't think your site belongs in this article, especially due to its lack of notability and its self-promotional insertion here. Rhobite 00:57, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

I checked the stats for the month and there have been 592 visitors to HealthyStrokes.com from the link on this page. That's less than 20 a day. What are the criteria for notability? How is HealthyStrokes.com less notable than other sites linked from that article? We have pages about

• circumcision
• virginity
• questions from parents
• questions from females - in fact, I answer more q's from females than some sites that are exclusively about female masturbation
• pages for young people (10-15) of both genders
• a glossary
• illustrations (non-porno) of sexual anatomy
• penis/male anat questions
• vagina/vulva/female anat questions
• sexual response questions
• sex toys questions (for females)
• relationships questions
• sexual orientation questions

What we don't have at HealthyStrokes.com is a POV that people like Rhobite and his anon fellow traveller would like to see. There are plenty of sex sites that shout "if it feels good, do it." HealthyStrokes.com encourages readers to think about their sexual health. That's why HealthyStrokes.com is notable. Doug22123 04:54, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hey man, don't speculate about my intentions here. I came here via the RFC and I'm otherwise uninvolved in editing this page. Your site has 8 backwards links according to Google, and this is my standard of notability. It has nothing to do with my opinion of your content. And due to your self-promotion, I would raise the bar even higher for including your site. Rhobite 05:01, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Things that make this article amateurish

What is this huge outburst of negativity doing here? If the author of this diatribe had used the time helping fix the article, it might have been more usefully spent! I propose to delete this from the talk page soon. For me, this kind of aggression and negativity just gets in the way of trying to help on these articles. I don't think we need it. Does anyone want to keep a note of these points? Maybe copy them to your own hard-drive... Or give some good reasons why we need this here?--Nigelj 22:41, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'amateurish' - done for the love of it, with no pay... just the love of it

We "need" this because it's part of the discussion history of the page. It may not be as constructive as you'd like, but deleting material from the Talk page because you don't like it would be a bad precedent, and it's not conducive to good wiki-editing. JAQ 12:39, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK, keep it. --Nigelj 21:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs

So if you don't use your hands, it's not masturbation?

The word onanism ... is not used anymore with [the] meaning [masturbation] in English.

yes, it is.

Many women are only able to orgasm by masturbation.

Presumably they are too busy turning nouns into verbs to do much else.

There is nothing wrong with saying "to orgasm". Trevor Caira 20:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph purporting to make distinctions between masturbation styles based on presense of a foreskin:

Most of what is said here is a crock of shit unsupported by any literature.

More so than in the past, some men use an artificial vagina for masturbation.

really? more so than in the past? how do we know this? Is this a good opportunity for a graphic timeline?

Men who can reach their penis with their tongue sometimes also perform autofellatio, in which the man licks or sucks his own penis.

yet this would not be masturbation according to the definition in the first sentence.

Ejaculation of semen is sometimes controlled by wearing a condom or by ejaculating into an artificial vagina or even into a sock or rag. It may also be wiped up with a tissue or old towel.

If you're going to make a ridiculous catalog like this, take it to "List of Things that can be used as cum rags". And "ejaculation of semen" is not "controlled by wearing a condom": the destination of the semen is changed, not the ejaculation.

Methods common to both human genders

You mean sexes, not genders.

our authority on age at "first masturbation" is a 2004 survey by Toronto magazine NOW was answered by an unspecified number of thousands. [

females are less likely to masturbate while in a sexual relationship than men.

according to who?

It is being increasingly recognised in mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression

It is? By whom? Who's provided the data that allows us to say it is "increasingly" recognized?

Masturbation with a man and a woman can result in pregnancy only if semen contacts the vulva.

False. Someone needs to look up the word "vulva"

A very small number of clinicians and an internet support group claims that masturbating prone (laying down face-first, as described in the previous section), as distinct from in other positions and methods, can be psychologically harmful. This position is not supported by the broader medical literature. See traumatic masturbatory syndrome.

true only if "a very small number" = 1, and "broader" = "more than one article in". Self promotional link. Overemphasis of bizarre theory.

Prehistoric rock paintings from around the world evidently depict male masturbation, though these are entirely matters of interpretation.

Well, then "evidently" what they depict is not so evident.

However, in the ancient world depictions of male masturbation are far more common.

sort of like depictions of males in general?

Male masturbation became an even more important image in ancient Egypt.

even more important than what? On what basis do you say it became "more" important? Because there are more extant images? If so, such images are "more important" for any recent period than they are for any more chronologically distant period.

The ancient Greeks had a more natural attitude toward masturbation than the Egyptians did

in whose opinion? documented how?

They considered masturbation a safety valve against destructive sexual frustration.

source? which ancient Greek compared masturbation to a "safety valve"?

This hierarchy of sin was repudiated by the Catholic Church fairly recently

you mean "endorsed", not reputiated, and 1879 is not recent.

[a study showed]: "A total of 47% of circumcised men reported masturbating at least once a month vs 34% for their uncircumcised peers."

and does this reflect a statistically significant difference? do you mean to imply we can infer causality from these figures?

However, a less scientific internet based 85 male participant survey from Australia found that 60% of uncircumcised males masturbate weekly as opposed to 40% of circumcised men.

and how does adding information from a "less scientific" study help understanding?

In males with phimosis, frenulum breve and other similar rare conditions, circumcision was once, and continues to be to some extent, the remedy prescribed. Now, however, depending of the severity of these conditions, they are increasingly likely to be alleviated by foreskin stretching - with or without steroid creams - or with frenoplasty or frenectomy if necessary.

And what this little discursion into foreskin territory have to do with masturbation?

If these conditions interfered with masturbation or coitus, successful treatment would help to remedy the situation.

If they interfered with getting on the bus, successful treatment would also help with that.

Masturbation tends to be legal, even by children, as long as nobody else is involved and no image is made.

It's not the masturbation that's illegal, even when the image is.

According to some historic chronicles, (masturbation in a public place) has not always been illegal.

Nothing has "always" been illegal, even murder, because there was a time before laws. What "chronicles" are being alluded to?

"List of adolescent euphemisms for masturbation" adds nothing

Masturbation, mainly male masturbation, has long been the subject of humor.

this is in contradistinction to what? What hasn't been the subject of humor?

Some famous wits have commented on masturbation, as in P. J. O'Rourke's quote:

Yeah. P.J.O'Rourke. That's the name that comes to mind when you start to list "famous wits".

• http://www.healthystrokes.com/ HealthyStrokes.com - male and female masturbation

self-promotional insertion of crank link - Nunh-huh 05:14, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Spamming and deleting paragraphs

Two issues now. First, what are you doing with those paragraphs Doug? If you have some problem with them, please elaborate. "3 days of worthless edits" isn't a valid reason. Second, stop spamming your own site. As many people have explained to you here, it's not notable. Rhobite 15:06, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

I have looked at Wikipedia's page about Spamming and I do not see how a link to HealthyStrokes.com fits the definition. Could you please explain how such a link constitutes spam. I have also browsed the Wikipedia:Style_and_How-to_Directory and do not see anything in there prohibiting such a link. Can you explain what policy both prohibits a link to HealthyStrokes.com and allows links to the other similar sites linked from this page? The deleted text was mostly provided by anon edits and lacks foundation. I incorporated a correction by another editor into my reversion. Doug22123 07:10, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: 18. A vehicle for advertising and self-promotion. As for spamming: a quick rule of thumb would be that if you are inserting links to your own website, you're likely to be spamming. If you are reinserting them against a consensus that they don't belong, you are yet more likely to be spamming. -- Nunh-huh 07:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have also reviewed that section. I do not see how it is on point. It refers to links to autobiographical pages. My name does not appear anywhere on the site. I do not understand how the site can be called autobiographical or self-promotional. It is also not advertising since nothing is sold or advertised on the site. Therefore, the link does not violate any Wiki rules. The only reason it keeps getting deleted is because a bunch of IIFGDI editors want to censor it.Doug22123 17:01, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doug, the consensus is that your link is not notable and that you're spamming. I count myself, Nunh-huh, and Robert Merkel as users who have opposed your addition of the link. To date, nobody has defended this change. We're asking that you respect the consensus developed on this talk page. Rhobite 20:16, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Count me in against including links to pages made by the editor.

I also can't see the justification for removing the 'worthless edits', so I have restored them. Here they are.

The prostate gland stores sperm created in the testicles and is the contracting organ during orgasm that ejects sperm and fluids created in the prostate as semen. As the prostate is touch sensitive, some men experience greatly heightened sensation of orgasm by direct stimulation of the prostate using a well-lubricated dildo inserted through the anus into the rectum. Similarly, a partner may provide the masturbation by hand and/or mouth and tongue, and by inserting a well lubricated finger into the anus for direct stimulation of the prostate to produce a greatly heightened sensation of orgasm.

I know male people who enjoys inserting a finger in the rectum while masturbating, so I can confirm that part.

Another alleged way to control ejaculation of semen is to put pressure on a spot about half way between the scrotum and the anus just before and while having an orgasm. This prevents any semen from escaping, and is also supposed to prolong the orgasm.

I can't directly confirm this one, but I did listened this statment in a pretty reputable program about sexology on my local TV.

--xDCDx 22:40, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That "another alleged way" actually works, but might be dangerous. JackinSafety (See under "Injaculation").

I think that "JackinWorld discourages this practice, mostly because nobody is certain how safe it is" is somewhat different from saying that it's dangerous. The fact that it's not proven to be safe, doesn't mean that it's unsafe. The JackinSafety comment on a whole seems rather unscientific and imo is typical of the kind of myths and unfounded allegations that you find so often in connection with the topic masturbation.

Uh...If anything, JackinWorld encourages masturbation. However, the fact that we don't know if it's safe, and the fact that the question of whether it's safe or not exists, is reason enough to pause and think whether it is prudent or not to go ahead with doing it. By "it", we're talking "injaculation" here, not ejaculation. JackinWorld has pages and pages dedicated to correcting those "typical...myths and unfounded allegations," but they're also responsible enough to say that they don't know if "injaculation" is safe, so be careful kids, cuz you might get hurt.

There was another user who recently restored the HealthyStrokes.com link. So that's two of us against three of you. Hardly a consensus. Would it be more acceptable to you if I recruited some other people to work on this section? And what of the other sites linked in the section? What makes them notable? Doug22123 02:47, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah Doug, post a message on the Village Pump asking for people to support your quest to spam your own site. I'm sure people will just line up to help. The count of people who have now voiced their opposition to your link on this talk page is 4, versus your one. Rhobite 03:53, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Still not clear as to what policy prohibits that link, other than 3 or 4 discontents. But I will omit the links if people will follow a different approach I propose for the links. These links are not an important source of traffic to my site. It averages more than 1000 visitors a day and in the first 10 days of Nov. exactly 61 of them came from the links on the masturbation article in Wikipedia. The importance of the link is to provide an alternative to the "if it feels good, do it" that runs rampant on most of the Internet. This site provides an alternative viewpoint that is based on sexual health. I have revised the set of links leaving my site out but including some others that consider sexual health and omitting some of the most extreme sites previously linked in terms of IIFGDI orientation. Doug22123 07:29, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One more time: Wikipedia is about neutral and factual information not about "If it feels good do it" or "Despite feeling good, don't do it because its mortal sin".

Leaving aside the "self-advertisings and external links wars", please stop removing paragraphs with confirmed information like the one I just restored providing 'worthless edits' as the only reason. --xDCDx 17:35, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not really about a paragraph here but could someone provide medical evidence that this is true: "Another alleged way to control ejaculation of semen is to put pressure on a spot about half way between the scrotum and the anus...". The word alleged was removed. I feel this should only have been done if there is real evidence this works (not just anecdotal evidence or the claim of 1 site)

Doug you seem to be having problems understanding what advertising is. Maybe you should look up Wiki for advertising? The simple fact is, you are advertising your site. Whether or not your advertising your self is irrelevant. If your site was geniuinely helpful to a large majority of people then it might be acceptable to add a link but since most people do not seem to feel that it is, just accept it. You do not have a right to include a link to you sure if others do not feel it's good enough or relevant enough!

You speak as if there's an accepted standard for a link. There is no standard for including a link. 99.94 percent of the links on Wikipedia are there because one person thought they were useful or relevant and typed them in. The other .06 percent are there as a result of edit wars. Doug22123 16:28, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed

I am at a loss to exactly why this article is suposed to be non-nuetral. I have read the talk padge and no one seems too outraged by anything. Is the problem that anti-masterbationist think its pro or vice versa? Or the stuff about for-skins? My point is - the red POV hand is ugly, so remove it unless its really needed --JK the unwise 10:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Robert Merkel added it a couple of weeks ago; I don't know why, at the time the only edits going on seem to have been on minor matters such as use of the word "prone" and a reference to another section in the description of a frottage technique of masturbation; it is possible however that I have missed what was going on. There don't seem to be any serious NPOV disputes here now. I think we should probably remove the NPOV notice. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 13:58, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's gone. --Nigelj 22:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Notes on contrast between circumcised and uncircumsized masturbation keep being removed

Could someone please explain why this is being done repeatedly? It doesn't seem justifiable to claim that these statements, which appear to be based on verifiable observation, are being removed under the guise of POV. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Picture...

While the picture is well drawn, I'm not sure it's particularly a) informative, and b) it might be a little confronting for some. Would anybody object if I shifted it down the page a little? --Robert Merkel 22:14, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Good move. It is a perfect fit for the section on female masturbation. Johntex 22:28, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Drawing of Samurai

I think this drawing is more appriate farther down the page, in the section on History and Society, as it opens a window on the perception of masturbation during that time period. Also, since masturbation is primarily a "solo sport", it does not seem appropriate to have the prominent lead image be an image of mutual masturbation. Finally, although not an expert on 17th century Japan, the person performing the masturbation does not look male to me. Therefore, I relabeled the picture (which had been labeled "Male couple on a futon"). Johntex 20:14, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It now says "Samurai being masturbated by a courtier." Do you mean "by a courtesan"? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:00, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, I actually did mean courtier, but it may not be a good choice. I meant to imply that he was being masturbated by one of his "court attendants". Here are some options:

1. Looking at the definition of courtier on dictionary.com shows "An attendant at a sovereign's court". But, a samurai is not really a sovereign.
2. Looking at courtesan on dictionary.com, it says "A woman prostitute, especially one whose clients are members of a royal court or men of high social standing." So, that may be a better fit, although there is no proof the woman (if she is a woman) is a prostitute.
3. We could go with attendant, the first meaning of which is "One who attends or waits on another."

I'm also open to other terms as well. What would you suggest? Johntex

As for the position of the drawing, that is your business since I am just an interloper here, but considering that this is museum quality art from a world-class Japanese artist (comparable to a Picasso or a Carvaggio), sticking it anywhere but in the pole position is a loss to the page, especially since that empty space at the top begs to be filled. As for masturbation being a solitary sport, that is simply one type of masturbation and should not be privileged here. I would say that the real issue here is that the picture, coming as it does from another time and culture, jars our western senses. My advice would be to lean into that discomfort. My experience is that a lot of this art is consciousness-altering, but some co-operation is required in order for that to take place. Art cracks open the head, so to speak. As for your editing out the maleness of the companions (all three are males, 100% guaranteed) simply because they do not fit into your sense of what they should look like, that is a mistake. (Look at homoerotic shunga on the web if you do not believe me - then again, this is one of my specialties.) Again, it reads to me as a dilution (perhaps unconscious) of the alien-ness of the image. Please revert to original sense, if not wording (an argument could be made that "boyfrind" is a bit modern. "Male courtesan" would be closer to the intent of the artist, but then a lot of people would be confused by the terminology. I would leave "boyfriend" or, if you must, "male sex worker" since the scene probably is taking place in a house of pleasure. Cheers, Haiduc 22:54, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc, thank you for your comments. You assume quite a bit about my western senses, but I can assure you I am not discomforted by Japanese art.

1. As for the prominence of the picture; this is not an art gallery, nor is this an article on art. The "pole position on masturbation" (pun intended) should belong to the best illustration on the topic. One of the factors in deciding what is "best" should be what is most illustrative. That includes consideration of what is typical and what is useful to educate a reader on the topic. As you say, solo masturbation is only one form of masturbation, but it is the most common form, which justifies its primacy in the article and in image selection.
2. As for the sex of the figures involved; can you provide a reference for the assertion that the three figures are all men? I did admit up front that I am no expert on 17th century Japan. I can only go by what I know and what evidence people are able to provide. If you have a solid reference, I would certainly suport "Male courtesan" as you suggest. I want the figure labeled as accurately as possible.

I hope this will not sound rude, but I respectfully submit that you might "lean into" considering something: Your interest in the specialty of homoerotic shunga might lead you (perhaps unconsciously) to seek a disproportionaly prominent position for it here in an article that is not about homoeroticsm, shunga, or art. Johntex 23:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Haiduc. This is a lovely picture and deserves a prominent position. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:56, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Johntex. Sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way, so to speak. Reference? What reference do you have that they are women? Actually, let me point out some features that identify them as such. For one thing, look carefully at the three profiles. You will see the prominent noses, and you will also see that all three profiles are very similar. That is one sure indicator of gender. Also, note similarities in the hairdos. Though the youths still have their topknot and the samurai has received the tonsure, the back hair is tied in very similar fashion, using very similar hairpins. So, after all this, please forgive me if I turn things around and say that the onus is on you to prove your point.

As for the rest of the discussion, there is nothing to say. I am sorry that you have stumbled over the topics of homoeroticism and art. I wonder whether a photograph of girls masturbating a fraternity student would have brough objections that this article is not about photography, heterosexuality or college life. But we will never know. Best regards, Haiduc 02:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc. Thanks very much for your concilatory comments. I appreciate them. I too, apologize if I have offended you. Since orginal research is frowned upon, I was hoping you could provide a link to some external source that would say either that these persons are male, or at least, that this type of art tends to feature homoerotic elements, etc. Since you clearly know quite a bit about this area, I hope that would not be too difficult. I can offer no proof either way. I made the original labeling change because it seemed to me the gender was indeterminate, so I chose a safe caption. I don't understand where you are coming from by saying you are sorry I have "stumbled over the topics of homoeroticism and art". I have not once objected to the precense of the picture in the article. If a drawing of a college girls masterbating a fraternity student is produced, I would make the same arguemnt: Namely, that it is not ideal to begin an article on masturbation with an image showing mutual masturbation. This would be true whether the girls were American, Nigerian, or Japanese. Johntex 04:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I jumped to conclusions - I probably have a paranoid streak in me somewhere. Good suggestion. Would you mind taking a look at this website? http://www.androphile.org/preview/Museum/Japan/Japanindex.htm You will see many examples of exactly what I have been pointing out. And I have to say, I too was amazed when first confronted with these images. The kagema do look like women. All westerners have to have it pointed out initially. But when I showed this picture to a Japanese friend of mine the first thing she said was "They look like boys." Thanks, by the way, for your help with the shunga page. Haiduc 04:14, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc. Thanks very much for the link. The link you provided does make clear that, althogh the kagema bear a resemblance to women, they are in fact men. I think we still need to decide what the best caption is. For now, I am changing the caption to say "male courtesan", since that is accurate, and since it is more informative than my original edit ommitting the gender. Johntex 07:03, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Actually, what about "Samurai being masturbated by a kagema". This seems very accurate and informative, and people confused by the term can simply click on the link and learn something new. Johntex 07:07, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we can satisfy all comers. I am partly in agreement with your last suggestion, which IS a good idea. However, the term is going to be meaningless to 99.9% of the readers, and I think captions should be transparent rather than abstruse. What about "Samurai being masturbated by his kagema boyfriend" ? Haiduc 13:27, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi Haiduc, I think that would be perfect. Johntex 14:31, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Socks and toilets?

"Tony Sidaway (Talk | contribs) Revert User:Nigelj. Please explain your removals on talk. I can't see what's up here."

Is this article 'finished' then, or just perfect as it is?

"The Wikipedia community exhorts users to be bold in updating articles," says the 'Style and how-to series'...

I just felt that the emphasis on socks and toilets was a bit over-prominent for this article and this context. Just trying to make it a bit more pleasant 'round here ;-)

Forget it - keep it how you like it. --Nigelj 23:47, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I can't really see what you mean. Male masturbation does, I think, tend to be a pretty socky, toilety sort of thing. I can see a good argument for moisture-absorbent mousemats in there, too. ;) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Masturbation frequency age and gender

This section needs more work. Whyever is the non-scientific study by the Canadian magazine NOW! being given so much attention when there are many scientific studies on the question available which could be cited? The statement about masturbation frequency declining after age 17, especially among females, is patently untrue, although I did not change it because I don't have the correct stats in front of me. It is certain that adult women masturbate MORE than adolescent females (many are not even orgasmic until after age 18), and the decline among males is anything but "drastic." Doug22123 00:08, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wanking and Religion

WANK FOR GOD!

WANK FOR G-D!

WANK FOR ALLAH!

WANK FOR THE BUDDHA!

HARI WANKA HARI WANKA DING DONG!

Wanking off is a Sacred and Religious activity

and Shame on the religions that consider masturbation

a sin or haram or trayf or verboten.

WANK FOR AMERICA!

I LUV TO WANK!

204.52.215.107 02:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Correlation between masturbation and having a sexual partner

In general, individuals of either sex who are not in sexually active relationships tend to masturbate more frequently than those who are.

In a human sexuality class I took, I was given the impression just the opposite was the case -- i.e. those in an active sexual relationship with a partner actually masturbate more often than those not in a sexual relationship. In any case, such statements (and a lot more in this article) could use some fact-checking and source-citing.

It's the kind of thing that seems like mere common sense, but as we all know common sense isn't necessarily correct upon investigation. Whichever is the case, it should be backed up with a study cited as evidence. Everyking 15:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do animals use their hands too?

There seems to be a logical contradiction between these two sentences in the first paragraph: "Masturbation is the manual excitation of the sexual organs [...]" and "In the animal kingdom, masturbation has been observed in the male of every species of mammal." RodC 14:15, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Why ? Never seen a monkey masturbating ? Rama 14:56, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, no. Have you? In any case, I've seen dogs, and they didn't use their "hands". RodC 15:50, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It defies logic to believe that "masturbation has been observed in the male of every species of mammal." Can anyone picture a whale masturbating? I am changing this wording. If someone can provide a reputable source then of course I'm happy to see it changed back. Johntex 00:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)