Talk:Masturbation/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Edit request # 2

According to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTHOWTO#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual.2C_guidebook.2C_textbook.2C_or_scientific_journal , "an article should not read like a "how-to" style" and therefore the entire "Techniques" section should not be allowed. Please delete it, you would not find this in any other encyclopedia. I also fail to see that it is necessary, along with the graphic images (what are they telling us anyway?). People will come to the article primarily for medical questions, they will not be coming here for advice, and even if they are, the page should not provide it.

Read WP:CENSORED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Your reply is nonresponsive to the issue I raised. The rule you cite, WP:CENSORED, is applicable to content that wikipedia should include, but the "how to / Techniques" section is not content that should be on Wikipedia. Maybe you should actually give a real reason not to remove it instead of hiding behind one rule after another. It is helpful to me, I find these rules interesting to read, because then I see even more problems with this biased article. It is clear that it is one rule for content that supports certain people's views, and another rule for any other content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.26 (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Describing to the reader how other people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.

— WP:NOTGUIDE

A careful reading is required instead of jumping to conclusions. If you also want quotes from WP:IRS, WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDASSESS say so, however just attentive reading would do. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request #3

According to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_source and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) , please remove original research sources (e.g. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00851611 , or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15961213 and all the other original research studies), and the content that they are used to support. Also please note that although many sources are not the original research studies themselves, they are not suitable according to the second quoted rule as sources (e.g. newspapers, blogs, non scientific web publication sites)

You have to be specific, for each source, why it fails WP:IRS. Besides, WP:MEDRS isn't the only applicable policy, there is also WP:MEDASSESS, so while a source may fail by one policy it may be acceptable by the other policy. Anyway, WP:MEDRS does not ban citing medical research which reflects the medical consensus, it only puts a ban on medically WP:FRINGE topics. Similarly, WP:NOR does not ban research done by academics, it only bans original research done by Wikipedia editors. A newspaper article citing the standpoint of the National Health Service is reliable because NHS is reliable, not because the journalists would be qualified as medical researchers. Blogs are mostly regarded as unreliable, with the exception of Quackwatch and other blogs which belong to medical researchers largely regarded as authoritative. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you read the 2 rules I cited, because your interpretation is not representative of their actual content. Original research = primary source = unreliable source. I don't have time now to go through each source, but if I have to I will. For now, certainly the 2 example sources I gave above fail these 2 rules. Please remove them as your own rules say you should. Or do you have another reason to want to keep them? Because they agree with your own personal view maybe? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.26 (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

None of the first three policies puts a ban on original sources (speaking of peer-reviewed medical research published in reputable journals). They just say that secondary sources have priority and primary sources should be used with caution (e.g. be dropped when they contradict secondary sources). Besides, the quotes I have recently introduced are secondary sources, since they state the medical consensus, they don't speak of particular medical papers. I think (if you are the same person as above) that you have already conceded above that masturbation is medically healthy and psychologically normal, and it leads to problems not in itself but when it's done compulsively or leads to physical or social problems. So, if the primary sources don't contradict the medical consensus, they are allowed to be cited inside Wikipedia, according to these three policies. A careful reading is required instead of jumping to conclusions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request #4

Please remove unreferenced content, such as, but not limited to:

• "Masturbation is also seen as a sexual technique that protects individuals from the risk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases."
• "Sexual climax, from masturbation or otherwise, leaves one in a relaxed and contented state. This is frequently followed closely by drowsiness and sleep – particularly when one masturbates in bed."
• "Though research is still as yet scant, those suffering from cardiovascular disorders (particularly those recovering from myocardial infarction, or heart attacks) should resume physical activity (including sexual intercourse and masturbation) gradually and with the frequency and rigor which their physical status will allow. This limitation can serve as encouragement to follow through with physical therapy sessions to help improve endurance."

What, no more rules to try and hide behind and you can twist to say you can't remove these unreferenced statements? By the way, these 3 examples I list are just a few of the unreferenced statements, there are many others to remove too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.26 (talk) 13:17, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Sourced or removed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:V is one of Wikipedia's key policies, and every editor should be aware of it. In a nutshell, it says "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Applying WP:AGF, I would say that whoever added the statements above probably never considered that they might be challenged, as they seem pretty self-evident to me. If either of you want to challenge them, I suggest that the way to do so is to raise your concerns here on Talk, and then to help with trying to find reliable published sources that either confirm of cast doubt upon the statements. Accusing fellow editors of finding "rules to try and hide behind and you can twist" is neither constructive or helpful and smacks of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that is severely frowned upon. --Nigelj (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Image

I removed the image of Teresa of Ávila and that was reverted with a hostile attack, which is completely baseless and shows a misunderstanding of my given reason. The reason I gave was that it is unnecessary and certainly not critical to have a painting of a depiction of a saint on this page and in this fashion. It is not about the creator; but this image is chosen without meaning and purpose relevant to the page that cannot be expressed with another... one that doesn't demean a historical figure. We don't allow this on the Muhammad page; so we shouldn't allow it here. I and many of our readers would find it equally offensive to see any other religious or political leader depicted in such form for an example. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that there's no need for adding insults to edit summaries, so let's try to avoid those sorts of things. There is an FAQ on the Muhammad article which covers the removal of some images; I don't think it's a very good analogy for arguing that Félicien's painting from the 1800's should not be allowed here on the masturbation article. It appears that Félicien drew his inspiration from St. Teresa's own words: "I saw in his hand a long spear of gold, and at the iron's point there seemed to be a little fire. He appeared to me to be thrusting it at times into my heart, and to pierce my very entrails; when he drew it out, he seemed to draw them out also, and to leave me all on fire with a great love of God. The pain was so great, that it made me moan; and yet so surpassing was the sweetness of this excessive pain, that I could not wish to be rid of it. The soul is satisfied now with nothing less than God..." (Chapter XXIX). Please consider that the work may not have been intended to "demean a historical figure". Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 00:15, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

There was no insulting edit summary, I just doubted the BLP accusation and brought up WP:NPOV, which is policy. There was no "You're an idiot," or "You're a prude" or anything overly personal. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

"Huh? What? It's your POV that it's bad taste" is uncivil. Now to discuss the issue at hand: why should some artist's take 300 years later on a saint be allowed to make a mark on such a person and be included in this article when it has absolutely no value and is a detriment by depicting a saint by a third party. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please explain how it's uncivil. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm done with that. Comment on the content issue please. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not self-evident to me how that work 1) "makes a mark" on the subject, 2) has absolutely no value to this article, and 3) is a detriment by depicting a saint by a third party. Perhaps you could expand on the basis behind these points? AzureCitizen (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kindly. First we should not include depictions of subjects that are deliberately likely to offend without key importance. Would you care if it was another religious figure like Mother Teresa or Muhammad? I'm trying to abide by the principals of least astonishment. Picking a religious figure engaged in such an act is crude and if it could not or should not be included on the bio article it should not be wedged in here. Secondly; its not that it doesn't have value, its just that this particular picture has no discussion, worth or analysis to even hint that this particular work is unique, special or enhances reader understanding of the subject. Last was connected to the first, as I pointed out above, so I will not repeat it again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for responding more in depth. In reply to the three points:

1. & 3. I must admit I do not personally care if it was Mother Teresa, Muhammad, or any other religious figure; I am a non-religious person. Assuming that I was, however, I'm not sure that his depiction is deliberately offensive or intended to be offensive. Perhaps you might find some information or refs indicating such, and the history behind this work? With regard to bio article, I would not support putting this picture in St. Teresa's bio, but I'm not sure it follows that if it's not suitable for the bio, it's not suitable here. The context here is a painting depicting masturbation, so it seems to fit in with the rest of the art work and images.

2. Do any of the other pictures or artwork in the article have discussion, analysis, indications that a work is unique, special, or enhances reader understanding of the subject? AzureCitizen (talk) 01:10, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not referring to the artists intention; it seems not to be purposely demeaning or out of the ordinary for such unique work, but it could be seen as demeaning by our readers. If someone religious found this article and saw this picture portraying and linking to the bio it would give cause and concern. Which is why I advocate replacing depictions of identifiable individuals of any type where an existing unidentifiable or unnamed depiction is less likely to cause concern and still retain value. To have the depiction of masturbation from the quote is well... a bit crude in any circumstance for any venerable saint. Hence the concern.

Though for point 2; surprisingly yes, the first image is stylistic and unique (same type as the current one). Next two are photographs which show an example without showing an identifiable person, perfectly okay. Next is a watercolor depicting its concerned seen - again appropriate and varied media choice. The ad is kinda up in the air since the text around it does not relate - again a different media. The next two, the shunga print and the Greek vase are historical examples from two different cultures - again useful. A problem is in Egon Schiele 073.jpg - its not listed as "a self portrait" in the bio, but a claim for use can be made and it is self-made so it is not a big concern for me. Next two are devices... a bit off with the patent pages... but that is fixable. Indian temple relief, no issues, worldview again and different media. The logo? A bit pushy, but otherwise fine. Image in question, redundant media, picks a religious and historical person - major concern. Last two; different media and unique modern style.

A lot of variation is a good thing, but yes two pictures jump out at me, and this one is the biggest issue that is not really justifiable. The article as a whole needs a lot of work, but I got to start somewhere. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The image is inspired from the theory that St Teresa had in fact an earthly orgasm instead of her alleged divine contact with God. Since her experience happened as a dream during sleep, it is very possible that her dream was an orgasm, but I think that masturbation was obviously not involved as you would have to be awake to do this. And anyway, a more famous work http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Teresabernini.JPG shows better the described event, there is an angel with a spear. Correct me if I am wrong, but the word masturbation can only be applied if the saint was alone and doing these thing alone. I agree that this image does not add anything to the page, and also that the artist's interpretation is outspoken interpretation. However, the real photographs of people masturbating I consider to be potentially more offensive to most people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.142 (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point on St. Teresa... the meaning and theories did not seem to be a concern so much as the contents itself. Yes; the actual images we use are not censored, but I still believe that we do not need to carry on "the tragedy of the commons" here for our actual photos. I'm a bit more of the "safe for all unless required otherwise" mentality. Least astonishment has always applied, but the banner of "oh that's censorship" has always been touted higher. Sometimes its not censorship; its just that we don't care to see a picture of a guy painting with his penis on a user page or in a barnstar or other venues outside its explicit use. We do this for many such images that are obscene to prevent image vandalism, but rare is the case when an analysis of the images in question. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not see a consensus to remove the image in the discussion above, and it has been removed. This is not the way Wikipedia works. If several people disagree with one person, for good reasons, actions are not then decided by who put in the last word. The image should be restored. It should be obvious, in a section called 'Paintings and drawings', that the inclusion of a picture depicting masturbation is about the fact that there is a famous historical picture in existence, not about the details of the artist's intention. --Nigelj (talk) 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't just WP:SILENCE, it was the fact my raised concerns never were contested. You object, but do not give reason on the subject itself? A thousand better images exist; depictions of historically significant and important figures engaged in an act like this is not intrinsic; the very choice itself appears to be offensive without reason. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

You'll know a consensus when you see one. It'll contain phrases like "I agree with you", "Good idea", and "Go ahead". Not "Wikipedia is not censored", "I don't think it's a very good analogy", and "It's not self-evident to me". Simply continuing to debate censorship and a "guy painting with his penis" after people have told you they don't agree with your reverted edit does not carry the argument. --Nigelj (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, but when there is no activity - not even a refutation or an attempt to deal with a counter argument "I don't agree" is not a position to avoid addressing a concern. I dealt with the issue; there were no further objections and in fact what appeared to constitute and even better argument that the depiction was even more of dubious inclusion. Under image use policy, I can understand the spirit about suitable pictures and I made a LENGTHY post about it. Now please, engage in a consensus building discussion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I noticed earlier that ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) removed this image again today, and I have reverted it back in again. Various editors commented above a month ago, but as I said at 18:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC), there was no consensus for removal, indeed I would say that the clear consensus was to keep the image, which has been on this page in one form or another for some years, if I recall correctly. --Nigelj (talk) 21:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You misread it. And no one has given a reason why it should remain. The length something remains is not an indication of it being agreed upon, consensus can change and I would appreciate it if you, who is involved, do not dictate "consensus" because you are involved. Not all parties in agreement, and secondly, arguments lie in my favor because I am challenging it for reasons which no one seems able to respond to. Trying to push or discount that is not helpful. I've waited for three weeks with only crickets. If anything, they had their chances and chose to remain silent - contesting it when remaining silent is a problem, that is not how things should work and you seem to be misunderstanding the core tenants surrounding that. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:04, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To repeat my reason for inclusion of the image from above: In a section called 'Paintings and drawings', the inclusion of a picture depicting masturbation is relevant because it is a (relatively) famous historical picture that depicts the topic of the article, presented along with a couple of others. I would also say that the written material in that section could be expanded, if one or two suitable scholarly sources could be found. I do not accept the argument that it could be seen as "demeaning" by someone else, for example "someone religious", who is not here present to put such a case. What I would like to see is further well-written text, based on a scholarly source, that puts this and other depictions of masturbation in art into better context, but I don't see how it will help to improve the article in that direction by removing the images first. --Nigelj (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There's something wrong with demanding removal of an image because the act it portrays is demeaning, when the article it's part of of goes to great pains to point out that the act involved is very common and psychologically positive. To remove the image would, in effect, be saying that people who masturbate are demeaning themselves. Now that would be a POV position to take, wouldn't it? HiLo48 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It is a crude depiction of a saint engaged in the act coupled with a rather whimsical and if not wholly insulting description of the act which is both inaccurate, incorrect and disrespectful to a major figure for a sizable portion of the readers. It is not the act at all. Now read my post above for the rest of my response on why it is not intrinsic or of specific encyclopedic value. Then read the IP editors take on it and the history. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, it's your POV that it's crude. And it's not inaccurate as being presented as a depiction of masturbation in culture, in a section about depictions of masturbation in culture. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop saying POV like I am biased or something. That is a personal attack. Treat other editors with respect and comment on the content. Explain the significance of this picture over the others on this page or the others you can find at commons. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Stop crying "personal attack" as an assumption of bad faith. POV is not a personal attack, it relates to policy. Your concerns are about insulting people of a religious philosophy, but we are not censored for their protection. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 July 2013

Please change "The Chinese term is 自慰, which literally means "from comfort.""to "The Chinese term is 自慰, which literally means "self comfort."or "console oneself"", since the word "自" here means "self" and not "from". here is a link for the word definition http://www.nciku.com/search/cc/detail/%E8%87%AA%E6%85%B0/71901 221.207.122.190 (talk) 11:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Good catch. I just realized the character error from my Japanese studies. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Lede summary

This edit removes several statements from the WP:LEDE, which is meant to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight". As it stands, what was left is mostly about "contention ... taboo ... religions ... sin ... conservative ... stigma ... restricted ... private ... illegal", followed by a brief mention of "assisted reproduction" and "animal masturbation", and then we're back to repeating "religions ... sin" again. This is not a reasonable summary of the article. The fact that this edit was made under the summary "Edit request. change" baffles me. Which discussion above, precisely, reached a consensus to make these changes? --Nigelj (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have reverted that edit as no consensus. cheers IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime, I had a go at re-working the last part of the lede, hopefully better to summarise the main points in the article as it currently stands. --Nigelj (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I just removed the banner tags at the top of the article that were placed there at 15:55, 27 June 2013‎, a month ago. There have been several edits by several editors in that time, and there has been no discussion of the tags for several weeks. --Nigelj (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No source

As late as the seventeenth century in Europe the practice was commonly employed by nannies to put their young male charges to sleep.

This statement is cited to the book "The Tyranny of Pleasure" on page 22. However, the statement has no source in the book. It is wedged between two sourced statements. Is printing something in a book that is unsourced good enough to make it to wikipedia?

Here is an online link to the book. http://m.friendfeed-media.com/c3f606ba7f49d9f9aa9785dcfc6d0b0a6fa9cd0c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.76.250 (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm requesting a change I guess. Not sure how Wikipedia works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.129.76.250 (talk) 08:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

If you doubt that the source is accurate, take it to WP:RSN. However, reliable sources are not required to mention other sources in order to be accepted as reliable. Reliable sources are allowed to perform original research. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia policy on sourcing can be found at WP:V. More detail about whether any specific source is likely to be considered 'reliable' to support a particular statement can be found at WP:RS. The kind of questions that may be considered include: Is Jean-Claude Guillebaud considered a knowledgeable author by other academics in the field? Do Algora Publishing or Editions du Seuil have a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight of the material they publish? Is this point genereally accepted by other authors and specialists in the field, or would it be considered an 'extraordinary claim'? Has knowledge in this field moved on significantly since this was first published in 1998, so that experts would not say this today? I'm afraid I don't know the answer to a single one of these questions, but the editor who added the sentence at the time must have felt that such contitions were met, and no one else to my knowledge has queried it since. Perhaps if you could provide links to some other specialist sources on the subject that either agreee with or contradict this statement, we could work together here to form a consensus view about its inclusion. --Nigelj (talk) 10:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Dolls & robots

As the article stands right now, the lede has absolutely no mention of dolls or robots. [edit: neither lede nor body] The entire article doesn't contain a single mention of the word 'robot'. I have made persistent efforts (most recent) toward rectifying this, but each time my edits have been reverted. Rationale for the removal included the view that I was adding original research and that my additions were not WP:LEDE compliant in that there was no mention of robots within the body of the article. For editors who strive to increase the quality of Wikipedia, it is clear to me that the most helpful action to take for these valid criticisms, instead of simply hitting the 'revert' button, is this:

- Statement in lede is unsupported.
Fix: Flag as needing a reference. (I found a great book with a single googling.)

- Lede is discussing a topic that is not discussed in the article's body.
Fix: Add a statement or two into the body.

I realize that these approaches to fixes require putting in a little more effort, but that's the direction that leads to higher quality articles instead of preserving the gaping holes in them.

Last point: If there's an edit instability regarding the quality of an article, it is clear to me that the best place to initiate a Talk discussion is on the article's Talk page and not any particular User's Talk page (ie: mine). This way other editors who care about the issue in question are not required to go hunting around in order to get up to speed on whatever disagreements had transpired. Now if the issue is that a particular user is vandalizing an article, then that would be an excellent reason to open a discussion on the UserTalk page and keep the article Talk insulated from irrelevant noise.Vybr8 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A user's page talk page is a good place to bring up policies that a user seems not to have read despite being linked in the edit summary or if a user is adding nonsensical references. If you want to add to the intro, find references that show robots are important to the topic, add a sourced paragraph to the body, then summarize in the lede. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Adding one sentence to the body, shorter than the lede doesn't exactly cut it. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I fully agree that one sentence in the 'Techniques' section is inadequate. I just added a tag to indicate that this particular issue is in need of being expanded upon.Vybr8 (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Which is your responsibility to do as you think it's important enough to mention in the lede. I suggest you move the sentences out of the intro and into the body and lose the idiotic Letterman reference. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:54, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Vybr8, you have not fixed anything and your edits are not an improvement. Here are all the edits in question thus far:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. I initially reverted you because your edit was WP:Original research, WP:CRYSTALBALLING and was not WP:LEAD-complaint. I reverted you again because "[y]our text still [was] partly unsupported (for example, "philosophical threshold")/is WP:CRYSTALBALLING and [was] still not WP:LEAD-compliant." Neil reverted you again because you inappropriately used a YouTube David Letterman "Top 10 Questions To Ask Yourself Before Having Sex with a Robot" source; not only is that source meant for humor and is therefore not reliable for the information you added, we generally are not supposed to use YouTube as a source on Wikipedia; it can be used as a source when it is coming from the official YouTube channel or, in some cases, is being used to source certain things about a YouTube star in a Wikipedia biography about that YouTube star (such as Chris Crocker or Jenna Marbles), but there are restrictions even then. See WP:YOUTUBE for further details. NeilN explained to you why your text does not belong in the lead. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." He clarified, "That is, the into should not contain concepts not discussed in detail in the body of the article." Your content, even with your latest alterations, does not satisfy that criteria. Furthermore, it is WP:SYNTHESIS unless sources call sexual activity with robots masturbation. It is also WP:UNDUE WEIGHT because the vast majority of sources on the topic of masturbation do not mention sex dolls or sex robots as being a form of masturbation, especially with regard to sex robots. That is partly why I reverted you the third time. Also note that sex robot redirects to the Sex doll article. You need to read and comprehend these policies and guidelines; it does not seem that you have. You clearly didn't read the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (WP:BRD) essay I pointed you to; if you did, you ignored it. Same goes for WP:Edit warring. Yes, you were edit warring. And if you revert one more time within the next 24 hours, you will be in violation of the WP:3RR part of the WP:Edit warring policy and will therefore very likely be blocked, as is clear from the report on you about this. Flyer22 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Regarding content:

As the article stands now, there is not a single mention of 'doll' or 'robot' in either the lede or the body. Over on the sex doll article, the very first sentence says it is "for aid in masturbation". This is a major asymmetry that needs to be addressed. If sex with a doll is not masturbation, then that article needs to be fixed. If it is, then this article needs to be fixed. I will go further to assert that whichever view the consensus here takes, this article still needs to be fixed, because if sex with a doll is not masturbation then this article should explain the reasons why it is not.

My initial point was that this article has a serious deficiency in not addressing this issue. That point still stands.

Regarding procedure:

There appears to be a major disconnect regarding what constitutes an "edit war". If an editor (me, in this case) gets reverted, I see it to be fully proper to re-add the edit while making adjustments to honor the reasons given for the revert. I don't see how this in any way can be considered a "war".

Consider this analogy...

A kid goes outside to play. The parent calls the kid inside saying, "It's cold and I don't want you outside without your jacket." The kid comes inside, puts on a jacket, then goes back out to play. The parent calls the kid inside saying, "You haven't eaten and I don't want you playing while you're hungry." The kid comes inside, eats a granola bar then goes back out. Clearly not a war.

With my re-adds, I addressed the criticisms. The next step was going over to my UserTalk, planting a citation that I was warring, and I then received a number of threats. Through this all, I was treated no better than a vandal and I didn't see anyone so much as acknowledge that my edits were made in good faith.

Is this the way we really want to conduct ourselves on Wikipedia? One reason why I use a parent-child analogy above is because of how grossly I have been talked down to - here, and on my UserTalk page. Are you all the WikiPolice, and people like me need to apply for a WikiVisa in order to participate? No. You do not own this article. No one does. We are all stewards of it, and even if someone were to hold Admin power, that would not make their opinion more important than yours or mine. Jimmy Wales himself could post his view on robots and masturbation, and that would amount to one vote toward consensus.

I have consistently treated everyone here with respect, and I would appreciate being treated with respect as well.

Regarding whether or not a source is appropriate:

Two editors here have stated that the Letterman Top 10 YouTube video is not an appropriate reference. I totally disagree. In the video, David Letterman states a solid fact, and then proceeds to make jokes about that fact. Does the humor negate the veracity of the fact? Not at all. Whether you like it or not, we live in an age when many people get their news from comedic outlets. Time Magazine took a poll in 2009 to see who the most trusted news person was. Jon Stewart came out on top, beating mainstream media figures.

Jon Stewart is the Walter Cronkite of today. And Letterman is like the Chet Brinkley. The once heavily respected hard news outlets have opted to sacrifice their credibility for the sake of entertainment and ratings. So today when the President wants to reach the public, he talks to someone like Jimmy Fallon. It is important for Wikipedia policy to recognize this shift in what constitutes credibility. If Obama were to make a statement on Letterman, it would be throwing the baby out with the comedic bathwater for Wikipedia to reject the information merely on the grounds that it was from a David Letterman show.

Now say someone were to find the source of Letterman's robot sex news. I would go so far to assert that the Letterman video is a superior reference because it not only presents the fact, but it also shows that millions of people were made aware of that fact.

My bottom line here remains that the topic of sex with dolls and sex with robots needs to be addressed somewhere within the article. Until such time that it does, I see this article as being significantly incomplete. Vybr8 (talk) 03:58, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

"Jon Stewart is the Walter Cronkite of today. And Letterman is like the Chet Brinkley." - It's really hard to take you seriously when you say this. Letterman is a comedian. His main job is to entertain people and make them laugh, not to relay facts in an academic and dispassionate manner. And if you think "...an artificial intelligence expert says..." is a proper source then I suggest you always propose edits with similar sources on a talk page first, and wait for the inevitable, "uh, no", before making them to the article. You have been treated better than a vandal as a vandal would be blocked by now. And again, you did not address the criticisms as explained by both Flyer22 and myself. That's why you got the repeated pointers to WP:LEDE and finally an edit-warring warning. Adding a crappy cite to source content is still edit-warring to add the content in. Finally, and again, if you want to add content about sex dolls and robots then find proper academic and expert sources discussing how they relate to masturbation and write a paragraph in the body citing those sources (or present the sources on the talk page and see what other interested editors can glean from them) before summarizing the addition in the lede. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's difficult (and frustrating) for me as a Wikipedia editor to debate with a Wikipedia editor who does not understand or fully understand Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, such as WP:Edit warring. So I'm going to keep this reply brief. This is not about WP:OWN (owning this Wikipedia article). I have not edited this article much. And as that link shows, NeilN has edited it significantly less than I have. What this (having reverted you) is about is what has been addressed to you above and on your talk page. There is no problem including text on sex dolls in this article, as long as the material is specifically supported by WP:Reliable sources as a form of masturbation (which, yes, it is) and is not given WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Including information regarding sex robots is a trickier matter because sex robots are not yet a reality, as far as I know, and if they possess the type of artificial intelligence you were presenting in your text, it can be argued that sexual activity with them is not masturbation. Either way, there needs to be WP:Reliable sources describing it as a form of masturbation or as something predicted to be a future form of masturbation. The 2006 prediction that people would be having sex with robots within five years does not appear to have come true. Flyer22 (talk) 05:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not here to engage in any debate on any topic. I have made several points, and if you all happen to disagree with every single one of them, I am fine with that.

The Letterman YouTube reference was never presented as a stand-alone source. It was posted as a supplemental source to the 352 page book titled "Love and Sex with Robots" which I discovered this morning thru a quick googling. This book source being dismissed here as irrelevant strikes me as absolutely bizarre.

...and just now I did another googling of [sex robot] and saw links to articles on something called 'Roxxxy'. I saw an article dated early 2010, so it appears that these products have been available for years.

You are free to dismiss any and all of this as irrelevant, but you (plural you) are not the owners of this article. I am glad to see that there appears to be agreement on this one aspect. I have said all I need to say here. I see no reason for me to return any time soon. My points have been made as clearly as I can make them. I expect there will be other editors, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but sometime others may decide that they would like to weigh in on this as well. I hope that they will be treated with decency and not abused with bullying tactics. I myself may check back here from time to time to see what develops.Vybr8 (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, I've scoured all 10 archives as well as the entire revision history of this article all the way back to its creation way back in 2001, and I am absolutely astounded to find not a single mention of robots or dolls ...other than the single edit where 'sex doll' was added to the 'see also' section (without discussion).

Once again, I will highlight the fact that the very first sentence in the sex doll article says "masturbation". Something is either broken over on that article, or it is broken here on this article.Vybr8 (talk) 05:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly alluded to in Real Humans, but that's science fiction. You need mainstream sources, e.g. medical studies, linking sex robots to masturbation. The polite explanation for it is "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed." Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

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.

"No causal relationship is known between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder."

This is a categorical statement of fact. It is also false.

There is sound peer reviewed research over the last decade which suggests statistically relevant connections between incidence of prostate cancer and quanta of masturbation at various ages, and/or psychological/neurological/hormonal and inter-human relational harm from excessive masturbation. The studies are well reported in the wider media and I am happy to provide scientific references if you are interested.

The best that could be said is that "There was a general consensus until the end of the last century based on an assumption that all activities leading to ejaculation were of equal physiological effect to males, and therefore harmless, but that assumption is now being re-examined. Some recent research has shown statistically relevant connections between incidence of prostate cancer and quanta of masturbation at various ages, and/or psychological/neurological/hormonal and inter-human relational harm from excessive masturbation."

Legalisfortis (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, so where are the sources? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 13:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

One seems to be inverse and the behavior one was debunked over 50 years ago. Needs sources to pass MEDRS on this as a result of the claim. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Some sources set out below and while on reflection the "bald claim" is false - paragraph below is closer to the true position.

"There has been, and still is, a general consensus that all masturbation is harmless. The assumption is that sexual activity and orgasm are natural human functions and all behaviour and activities that led to orgasm have outcomes of equal psychological and physiological effect. That assumption is now being re-examined and some recent research indicates statistically relevant connections between the incidence of prostate cancer and prostatitis, apparently dependent on the frequency of masturbation at various ages, and quite different physiological, endocrinal and psychological outcomes when partnered intercourse and orgasm is compared with orgasm induced by masturbation.”

< http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16095799 > < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19016689 > < http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18284056 > Legalisfortis (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is a study which found that increased frequency of ejaculation increases the chance of prostate cancer. But there was another study which found that it lowers the chance of prostate cancer. Analysts suggest neither is true, but hormone levels decide both the frequency of ejaculation and the chance of prostate cancer. Anyway, secondary sources should be quoted in order to prove the medical consensus. Primary sources can only be used if they don't contradict secondary sources. The National Cancer Institute study is reported at http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/criticc.htm and suggests a mechanism of how frequent ejaculation prevents prostate cancer. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence being criticised here is part of the WP:LEDE. It is a very brief summary of most of the section Health and psychological effects and its subsections. These are fully supported by dozens of WP:RS references. In order to change the gist of this summary, new research would have to have been accepted by the medical world that would change the consensus expressed by all of those cited sources. This has not happened. Wikipedia articles are longer than just the lede section, and it is often worthwhile reading on if you find the lede surprising. --Nigelj (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

One source mentioned above states that masturbation is four times less satisfying than real sex. I don't deny this, however, it does not follow from it that masturbation would be harmful. So, the source does not even deny the consensus that masturbation is harmless, therefore it cannot be used to question such consensus. I have even added a 2010 secondary source about the medical consensus, which confirms that it is still widely agreed by medical doctors that masturbation is healthy when done in private. Your sources have been originally published in 2005, 2007 and 2008, so by 2010 it would be noticeable a major shift in the medical consensus, provided that such shift really took place and it is not a figment of imagination. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Any harmful effects from masturbation generally come from excessive masturbation.--Auric talk 12:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The point is still that the bald universal "No causal relationship is known" claim is false and should be moderated. Somehow. I am open to suggestions.

This piece below is from an influential secondary source you all will recognise and speaks the idea that there is a universal positive consensus. There needs to be a moderation of the existing sentence to uphold the truth. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cupids-poisoned-arrow/201209/rethinking-the-wonders-adult-masturbation>

Can someone explain to me how the tildes are meant to work...? Is it like so:

~~Peter~~ or so Legalisfortis (talk) 17:46, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gary Wilson says porn is harmful. How original!

I saw his TED Talk speech and he himself recognizes that he is outside of medical consensus. Many of the arguments he presents are speculations, not empirical findings which would be statistically generalizable. Practically, his solution for the mentally insane is: stop taking your medicines and quit porn. This is a very dangerous statement. The case he describes in the speech may have had all those sudden preoccupations and new ideas for the mere fact he began to have a psychosis (manic phase). He said the subject started a business, he did not examine the subject five years later in order to see if he did not went bankrupt. For business started out of psychosis are generally doomed to fail, since managing a business requires an awake reason and not insanity.

Some medicines employed in psychiatry may cause impotence and, normally, quitting such medication one recovers his potency, but pays the price of getting psychotic.

Wilson's image of the orgasm is borrowed from Deep Throat, wherein it is pictured as bells ringing and rockets taking off. Orgasm is much less satisfying than that, it is a little pleasure, not a big happiness. My two cents are that an orgasm does not produce enough dopamine in order to trigger addiction. There is a difference between eating daily and being addicted to food.

Clinically normal people who consume porn have not enough time in order to spend six hours a day watching porn, they have half an hour or at most an hour to do it. And, even if he admitted there is a very tiny minority of people who don't consume porn, he did not explain why 99% of porn consumers do not develop insanity or erectile dysfunction. I saw a TV show, Reportage Pubers verslaafd aan porno wherein there were shown some British teenagers who were accustomed to porn from a very young age and they film their sexual acts with mobile phones in order to have something to boast themselves with. They are no solitary onanists, but have enough real sex, with real girls. They are not "addicted" to porn, but use porn in order to express themselves.

In short, the statement that some are insane due to porn and not due to natural causes is an irresponsible claim. Fringier than that is hard to get in medical matters. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:17, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_142#www.yourbrainonporn.com as MEDRS-quality source about masturbation, pornography, addiction and human sexuality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Basically, Wilson's "study" has the same sampling bias as Samuel-Auguste Tissot: he studied insane people only, forgetting that clinically normal people masturbate, too. Besides, Wilson has advertised as having a heavy theological bias on his website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Also interesting to read: http://omangueblog.blogspot.nl/2011/10/marnia-robinson-gary-wilson-and-good.html and http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201007/watch-out-women-porno-will-steal-your-soul and http://thehumanist.org/july-august-2012/you%E2%80%99re-addicted-to-what/ and http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/06/was-i-actually-addicted-to-internet-pornography/276619/ . Articles by Marnia Robinson and Gary Wilson may safely be discarded as WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

In the TED Talk Wilson candidly admits there is no evidence to back up his claims. That's why he advocates the scientific study of "fapstronauts", hoping that from such study will appear some sort of evidence to back up his claims. So, he states himself about his own claim that it is unsubstantiated speculation. Case closed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

As for the one piece of evidence cited (which may or may not be cherry-picked, may or may not have statistical generality, since it is a mere literature review which states no criteria for sifting through primary sources), R.M. Costa has coauthored many papers with Stuart Brody, and the later is lambasted upon http://www.vaginadentatablog.net/archives/58 for upholding the faith in the vaginal orgasm. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The paper by Costa has only two pages and Brody is mentioned therein more than 30 times. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, the paper is more about boosting Brody's citation index than about rendering a consensus view. Anyway, it is very skewed in favor of Brody's papers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:22, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Now about debunking such claims:

In the collection's introductory chapter, Eli Coleman describes how Kinsey's research half a century ago was the first in a series of studies to challenge widely prevalent cultural myths relating to the 'harmful' effects of masturbation, revealing the practice to be both common and non-pathological. Subsequent research, outlined by Coleman in this chapter, has shown masturbation to be linked to healthy sexual development, sexual well-being in relationships, self-esteem and bodily integrity (an important sexual right). As such, the promotion and de-stigmatization of the practice continue to be important strategies within sexology for the achievement of healthy sexual development and well-being.

The collection concludes with two surveys among US college students. The first of these was based on limited quantitative questions relating to masturbation. The findings suggest that masturbation is not a substitute for sexual intercourse, as has often been posited, but is associated with increased sexual interest and greater number of partners. The second of these surveys asks whether masturbation could be useful in treating low sexual desire, by examining the relationship between masturbation, libido and sexual fantasy.

— Kate Wood, Masturbation as a Means of Achieving Sexual Health by Walter Bockting; Eli Coleman, Culture, Health & Sexuality, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Mar., 2005), pp. 182-184

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

He asserted that masturbation is healthy by ‘‘for example, lessening the likelihood of developing prostate cancer, improving mood, developing sexual interests, and perhaps even ridding oneself of tired sperm’’ (p. 219). However, these unreferenced claims contrast sharply with the best available empirical evidence.

— Rui Miguel Costa, Masturbation is Related to Psychopathology and Prostate Dysfunction: Comment on Quinsey (2012), Arch Sex Behav (2012) 41:539–540, doi:10.1007/s10508-012-9956-0

Of course, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to decide which is the best evidence available today, but if I were Costa I would have stated something like "Quinsey (2012) has reasserted the medical consensus that masturbation is healthy.... However, given new research, I suggest there are grounds to challenge such received wisdom...." Acording to my teacher, dr. Olga Amsterdamska, in science the minimal claim does wonders. E.g., Crick and Watson did not boast themselves in Nature for discovering key to all life, but they said they propose a model for the DNA molecule. In case if they were wrong, they would not have been lambasted for making bigger than life claims about themselves, since errors are part of the scientific progress. They knew that if they were right, others will tell everybody about them that they have discovered the key to all life. And so it came to be. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Costa mentions the name of Brody 16 times per page. Even the name of Jesus is not mentioned that often inside the New Testament. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Stengers and Van Neck follow the illness to its fairly abrupt demise; they liken the shift to finally seeing the emperor without clothes as doctors began to doubt masturbation as a cause of illness at the turn of the twentieth century. Once doubt set in, scientists began to accumulate statistics about the practice, finding that a large minority and then a large majority of people masturbated. The implications were clear: if most people masturbated and did not experience insanity, debility, and early death, then masturbation could not be held accountable to the etiology that had been assigned it. Masturbation quickly lost its hold over the medical community, and parents followed in making masturbation an ordinary part of first childhood and then human sexuality.

— Lisa Z. Sigel, Masturbation: The History of the Great Terror by Jean Stengers; Ann Van Neck; Kathryn Hoffmann, Journal of Social History, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Summer, 2004), pp. 1065-1066

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

An article from New York (magazine) (indexed by EBSCO) states the following about the views of fapstronauts:

The medical profession isn’t convinced. Every doctor and psychologist I spoke with informed me that “there’s no evidence” to link masturbation to sexual performance, and that it’s an over­simplification to think that frequent masturbation is the cause of delayed ejaculation. According to ­Stephen Snyder, a sex therapist in Manhattan, it’s “most often not the case.” Darius Paduch, a professor of urology and reproductive medicine at Weill ­Cornell Medical College, went so far as to say that ejaculation leads to greater fertility. “In our practice, we pretty much make men achieve an erection at least three to four times a week,” he says. Paduch also cited studies that found that men who ejaculated multiple times a week faced less risk of erectile dysfunction later in life. There’s also the body’s natural process of elimination: Many anti-masturbators start having wet dreams.

— Emily Witt, Hands Off, New York. 4/22/2013, Vol. 46 Issue 12, p28-31. 4p.

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It is a well known scientific fact that if you go too long without having an orgasm, your balls will explode and the pain will kill you. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary masturbation break

Question. What does any of the above have to do with masturbation? Ought it not to be applied to orgasm? If a man has three orgasms a day every day of his adult life, it can not possibly medically make any difference if all are in the course of conjugal intercourse, or by that man's own hand. DeistCosmos (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Legalisfortis quoted one paper stating that the penis-in-vagina orgasm is quite different from the masturbation orgasm. I don't say that's false, but reputable secondary sources are required to establish it as the consensus view and we have to be circumspect with quoting primary sources which apparently do not render the consensus view. The paper by Costa seems more like a PR stunt for Brody than an objective literature review. I don't say that Brody is wrong (his peers have to decide that, not Wikipedia editors), but he is clearly outside of the present-day consensus and it would be WP:UNDUE to present his views as facts. WP:BALL applies to whether his view will ever become the consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:10, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Verily. But, lol at the policy to be invoked to be "WP:BALL"; and secondly at this notion of a distinction between sources of orgasm. Is it the hand on the penis that supposedly accounts for this difference? Does a handjob performed by another bear such risk? Does it eliminate the hazard for a man to use a well-crafted sex doll? DeistCosmos (talk) 01:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

It's WP:BALL because there is no way to know how mainstream science will look fifty or hundred years later. What we know is that there is a vast number of studies showing there are no harmful effects from masturbation (porn stunts excepted), and this evidence cannot simply be set aside by Brody's studies. There might well be a physiological difference between masturbation and sexual intercourse, but even if this is true, it does not prove that masturbation would be harmful. For women the link may be straightforward: women get testosterone from sperm and masturbation simply cannot supply this amount of testosterone. However, there is a testosterone pill (nicknamed "Viagra for women") being developed for women who have lost their desire in having sex. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The bald claim that masturbation in general would be harmful is false (DSM-5 speaks)

I have stated what appears in DSM-IV-TR, now it's time for DSM-5 (searched for keyword "mastur"):

• p. 358 anal masturbation in encopresis

• p. 401 masturbation in sexsomnia

• p. 431 masturbation as normal, when speaking of female orgasmic disorder

• p. 441 masturbation as normal, when speaking of male hypoactive sexual desire disorder

• p. 700 masturbation in pedophilic disorder

• p. 701, 704 masturbation in fetishistic disorder

• p. 703 masturbation in transvestic disorder

So, Brody is exposed as not representing the medical consensus and Costa as willfully misrepresenting it. If Brody would be mainstream, this would be reflected in DSM-5, which was published in 2013 by the American Psychiatric Association (earliest Brody paper cited inside the Costa article was published in 2009, it had four years to produce a revolution in medicine). Accordingly Brody and Costa should be considered WP:FRINGE in respect to establishing medical facts upon Wikipedia and citing them should be regarded as WP:Advocacy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

p. 694 pornography mentioned in sexual masochism disorder

p. 696 pornography mentioned in sexual sadism disorder

p. 698, 699 pornography mentioned in pedophile disorder

p. 797 pornography disqualified as a possible internet use disorder, in the context of internet gaming disorder which does not amount to a recognized disorder, but to a condition for further study

Nowhere in DSM-5 masturbation in itself and/or pornography in itself constitute health problems. MythBusters would say that Brody and Costa are busted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Costa has been advanced as a reliable source for a claim of medical consensus. As seen above, it is unreliable as a source and its consensus claim is bogus. The peers who let is pass through peer-review must have been nuts (assuming that it was published in a reputable scientific journal and not in an ersatz of ISI-indexed publication). Allegations more contrary to the medical consensus can hardly be imagined. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Include that some men experience Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome after ejaculation

I suggest to include the following in section 7.4 Problems for males:

After ejaculation, some men experience physical and cognitive symptoms characterized as Postorgasmic Illness Syndrome (POIS).

KalleVomDach (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

This syndrome relates to all incidents of ejaculation, not just masturbation. Perhaps a link to it could appear under "See also", but not in the main part of the article. HiLo48 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

That is true, but holds for other parts of the article as well, for example in section 3.2 "A somewhat controversial ejaculation control technique is to put pressure on the perineum, about halfway between the scrotum and the anus, just before ejaculating. This can, however, redirect semen into the bladder (referred to as retrograde ejaculation)." KalleVomDach (talk) 22:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

References

The opinions of hedonistic people

Alot of this article are the opinions of hedonistic people. It is not genetically good for a male person to waste his time masturbating whenever he could be out in the world breeding women. The good and the bad of masturbation is born out of genetic proliferation. Good equals a male person going out in the world doing things to gain the favor of a woman and then the male person breeding her. Bad equals a male person wasting his time masturbating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.103.184.232 (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We're not interested in your opinions. Please restrict yourself to discussing specifics on how the article could be improved. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see: WP:NOTAFORUM Lexlex (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

We aren't interested in your personal opinions. We are interested in medical fact and the consensus of the medical community, and this article reflects that. Asarelah (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Encopresis

In the without constipation and overflow incontinence subtype, feces are likely to be of normal form and consistency, and soiling is intermittent. Feces may be deposited in a prominent location. This is usually associated with the presence of oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder or may be the consequence of anal masturbation. Soiling without constipation appears to be less common than soiling with constipation.

— DSM-5, p. 358

That is the quote associating encopresis with anal masturbation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

307.7 Without Constipation and Overflow Incontinence. There is no evidence of constipation on physical examination or by history. Feces are likely to be of normal form and consistency, and soiling is intermittent. Feces may be deposited in a prominent location. This is usually associated with the presence of Oppositional Defiant Disorder or Conduct Disorder or may be the consequence of anal masturbation. Soiling without constipation appears to be less common than soiling with constipation.

— DSM-IV-TR, p. 117

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to add that they are both under the header "Encopresis". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, thanks for those quotes. I don't have much more to state on the matter, other than what I stated in this, this and this edit summary. Like the Encopresis and Fecal incontinence articles state, the term encopresis is usually applied to children. However, I doubt that the DSM is only referring to children by the term encopresis, especially since it's far more common for adults to engage in anal masturbation than for children to engage in it (and by "children," I'm not referring to underage teenagers). Children who have engaged anal masturbation that involves inserting objects (I mean other than their finger) into their anus/rectum have usually taken an interest in such an act as a result of an external source (knowledge of such an act that is unrelated to having discovered the possibility on their own); child sexual abuse is one such external source. Some sources, however, such as this one used in this section of Anal masturbation article, use the term anal masturbation broadly to mean encopresis caused by drawing feces in and out of the anus/rectum to experience the pleasure from the anal nerve endings. The term fecal incontinence also applies to children and because it commonly applies to children and adults, and adults are far more likely to engage in anal masturbation than children are, I decided to use that wording instead.

But like I noted in the third diff-link provided above: "That stated, if the source states 'encopresis' and is clearly talking about children instead of children and adults, 'encopresis' should be added back. But we don't need people thinking it's only a child factor. Not sure about teenagers." From what you provided above, it's not clear that the source is only talking about children, but I suppose we should follow the source and use the term encopresis. Or we could add a WP:Reliable source to state that while the term usually applies to children, it also applies to adults, or add a WP:Reliable source that addresses fecal incontinence using the term fecal incontinence (or one of its alternative names other than encopresis) and its relation to anal masturbation. Flyer22 (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then again, since the DSM not only uses the term encopresis, but also notes oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, it could be argued that they are only referring to children by the term encopresis. Flyer22 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Elimination disorders all involve the inappropriate elimination of urine or feces and are usually first diagnosed in childhood or adolescence. This group of disorders includes enuresis, the repeated voiding of urine into inappropriate places, and encopresis, the repeated passage of feces into inappropriate places. Subtypes are provided to differentiate nocturnal from diurnal (i.e., during waking hours) voiding for enuresis and the presence or absence of constipation and overflow incontinence for encopresis. Although there are minimum age requirements for diagnosis of both disorders, these are based on developmental age and not solely on chronological age. Both disorders may be voluntary or involuntary. Although these disorders typically occur separately, co-occurrence may also be observed.

— DSM-5, p. 355

Well, the DSM states that age has to be above 4 years, but it does not say that only children can have such disorder. I however don't object to a synonymous term. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The DSM about enuresis:

Most children with the disorder become continent by adolescence, but in approximately 1% of cases the disorder continues into adulthood.

— DSM-5, p. 356

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup quotes/comments and anything else you note here on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, and you may have noticed, the text in the Encopresis article for the DSM-IV criteria states that the age range has to begin at age 4. Does the DSM-5 also state that it has to begin at age 4, or rather above age 4? Flyer22 (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The event must occur at least once a month for at least 3 months (Criterion B), and the chronological age of the child must be at least 4 years (or for children with developmental delays, the mental age must be at least 4 years) (Criterion C).

— DSM-5, p. 358

The above quote seems to refer only to children, however it would be weird for children to masturbate anally, as you have stated. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fecal incontinence in the lede

I have just removed the following phrase from a very prominent position in the second paragraph of lede of this article:

with the exception of fecal incontinence, which may be caused by anal masturbation.

It does not say so in the citation, but the reference can be read online. I removed it for the following reasons:

1. This is an article about masturbation in general and that is not one of the main characteristics of masturbation, as the placing of this point so prominently would imply. The WP:LEDE is meant to be a summary of the main points in the article. This is a long article, so the summary of these key points necessarily has be brief and concise. Anal incontinence, quite rightly, does not figure in the article, so therefore has no place in the lede summary of the article.
2. The point made was already a misrepresentation of the cited source. First, the title of the cited primary source gives a clue - this is a manual of mental disorders; it is not about normal healthy masturbation. Secondly, on reading the source we can see that the cited entry - encopresis - is about a mental disorder characterised by "repeated passage of feces into inappropriate places" in their words. The disorder comes in two subtypes, the second of which likely involves "prominent locations", and is "usually associated with the presence of oppositional defiant disorder or conduct disorder". The diagnostic manual goes on to say that the feces (left in these prominent locations) may be the result of anal masturbation, by these poor disordered individuals, in these prominent locations.

There is no way that the manual can be read to say that anal or any other masturbation can be a cause of the listed mental disorder, or even that fecal incontinence in general can be the result of any kind of masturbation. The connection between the feces to be found and activities of the disordered patients is quite clear from the cited text, and it is quite clearly not what the removed text above said. --Nigelj (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to this removal. However, anal masturbation is mentioned under the header encopresis. How would you reformulate what the DSM-5 means about anal masturbation? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I mean, first, let's see what the DSM does say about it and then find out if such reformulation belongs somewhere or nowhere inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I do know that the DSM says something about it, but I am unsure how to formulate what the DSM says. After determining the proper formulation, we could find an Wikipedia article to include it, or none at all. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you find it hard to 'formulate' what the DSM says, then how about you try and find a bunch of secondary sources that explain it in other ways. We should not be using primary sources anyway. It's a follow-on sentence whose subject is 'This', which refers back to the subject of the preceding sentence, which is 'Feces'. It's saying that the feces (which is found in these prominent locations) may, in the third case, be there as a result of these poor disordered individuals masturbating anally in these locations and so leaving a mess there because of doing that. It seems to be a real rarity: (1) the disorder is hardly common - 1% of 5 year olds. (2) it is the first subtype that our own article on the disorder talks about, as this second subtype is much less common. (3) in this second subtype it is normally an oppositional defiant disorder or a conduct disorder that leads to the messing, only after that does the DSM mention anal masturbation as a third possible cause of disordered people messing in prominent places, either intentionally or not. --Nigelj (talk) 15:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, did you add that text to the lead? I obviously don't mean my addition of "fecal incontinence" in place of "encopresis," for reasons cited in the section immediately above this one. I was already thinking of removing the entire line, per WP:Undue weight, but I didn't feel like getting into a debate about the matter. Not doing so led me into a discussion here on the talk page anyway, obviously. As for primary sources, per WP:MEDRS, it is generally fine to cite widely recognized and generally respected medical bodies or organizations such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the World Health Organization (WHO) for health material. They are sometimes considered authoritative, especially the DSM and the WHO. But it is also often best to cite what WP:MEDRS currently calls "the underlying medical literature." Flyer22 (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was me who added it. Maybe it wasn't such a brilliant addition. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well by the "No causal relationship is known between masturbation and any form of mental or physical disorder" part of the sentence that's still in the lead, it seems that you were more so trying to emphasize that masturbation generally does not result in a medical problem than you were attempting to name any possible medical problem from masturbation; I see that you had good intentions and obviously were not trying to emphasize encopresis or fecal incontinence.

On a side note: With regard to what I stated about "generally respected medical bodies," I'm not a fan of citing of the DSM-5 (though I've still cited it for the Pedophilia article to reflect the update); and the reason that I'm not a fan of it is because of its many problematic issues, issues that are named in the DSM-5 Wikipedia article. Use of the DSM-5 was also extensively discussed in the WP:MED DSM-5 discussion, which I took part in. That stated, a lot of things in the DSM-5 are the same as in the DSM-IV-TR (2000), but are renamed and/or rearranged. Flyer22 (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Anal masturbation is its own page, and what needs telling about it can be told there. We don't mention at the top of sex that you can't get pregnant through anal sex, even though it feels wonderful. Blessings!! DeistCosmos (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Encopresis seems more related to Coprophilia than true anal masturbation.--Auric talk 22:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah. Like I stated in the #Encopresis section above, "Some sources, however, such as this one used in this section of Anal masturbation article, use the term anal masturbation broadly to mean encopresis caused by drawing feces in and out of the anus/rectum to experience the pleasure from the anal nerve endings." When encopresis involves masturbation and feces, it seems to be about getting pleasure from the anal nerve endings than from feces by itself or truly from the presence of feces; the feces is simply used as a means to an end. Encopresis can also involve what you consider "true anal masturbation," which is using inanimate objects (not feces) to stimulate the anus/rectum for anal/rectal pleasure. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I also just tweaked the Coprophilia article to make it more accurate. Flyer22 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

References

General benefits and risks section

In the General benefits and risks section is a sentence: "EU Nations include masturbation in their sex education and promote the practice. (see above)" While all that seems to be there above is: "Masturbation is considered normal when performed by children, even in early infancy.[28] In 2009, the UK Government joined the Netherlands and other European nations in encouraging teens to masturbate at least daily. An orgasm was defined as a right in its health pamphlet. This was done in response to data and experience from the other EU member states to reduce teen pregnancy and STIs (STDs), and to promote healthy habits.[32]"

Proposal: instead of speaking in general about (all) EU nations, change the wording to "Some EU nations". Even better would be to name the respectful countries as they are, because the meaning (just as the list) of "EU member states" is subject to change over time. Education and therefore sexual education is subject to internal politics/policymaking and changes of these policies, possibly with huge differences both within a given state in a few years course and, in between the individual member states. 94.69.232.4 (talk) 21:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence whatsoever of any EU nation excluding masturbation from their sex education, or warning against the practice? I would rather take out the qualification than strengthen it. --Nigelj (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Masturbation performed by children being normal is a medical consensus claim, not a national policy claim. It applies worldwide. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Religions and masturbation

For the cultures linked to the Bible or the Koran, that sexual activity is considered as sin, to such a point that the mutilation of its specific organs: the clitoris and the foreskin, if frequently realized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.111.4.73 (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And?--Auric talk 15:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Masturbation compared with sexual intercourse

The following text that I added was deleted by Flyer22:

Some masturbators report that they find masturbation to be more pleasurable, producing more consistent, quicker, or more intense orgasms, than sexual intercourse.

I'm not as experienced with Wikipedia as most of you, but it seems to me this point should be made in the article somewhere. I don't know how to handle it. I did not intend for the sources I cited to be taken as reviewed publications; they were first-person reports (goaskalice is a third-party source, arguably, though not one with academic credentials). Perhaps what I was doing was thus original research, which I know is prohibited. I'm not going to go looking for some third-party source for this (and I don't know where to start, though I could probably figure it out). But I think the article is poorer without it.deisenbe (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I already noted why I reverted you; that's all to why I reverted you. It's not yet WP:Lead material, and you used poor sources. Review the WP:Reliable sources guideline. As shown in that edit summary of mine, I didn't mention Go Ask Alice!; this is because I sometimes use that source (usually as an adjunct to one or more better sources), and because it's peer-reviewed. Flyer22 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

1) Where in the article should it go? Should it be a new section? 2) Under WP:Reliable sources I find the following statement: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field". Does this not apply?deisenbe (talk) 13:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the article's sections, it should go in the Techniques section, before its Female and Male subsections, or it should go in the General benefits and risks section since solo masturbation can be argued as a benefit; the benefit part should be reliably sourced. It's common knowledge, however (at least among reliable sources regarding sexual pleasure), that women generally enjoy masturbation (the kind focused on the vulva) more than partnered penetrative sex, since penetrative sex rarely provides sufficient clitoral stimulation (the type of sexual stimulation, own-anatomy-wise, that is usually most pleasurable to women, just like penile stimulation is the type of sexual stimulation, own-anatomy-wise, that is usually most pleasurable to men), unless using a sex position designed to maximize clitoral stimulation (such as the coital alignment technique). The material you propose is a little bit of information and therefore does not yet need its own section; this is per MOS:PARAGRAPHS. And, no, WP:About self does not apply to what you added (see its exceptions). For example, citing what people have stated in the comments section of a site to support text that some people prefer masturbation to sexual intercourse is not a WP:About self matter. Even if you had added "People on Reddit have stated [so and so]," the material would not have been acceptable. Why should we care what people on Reddit have stated, unless their comments are mentioned in WP:Reliable sources (meaning these specific people's comments are cited in WP:Reliable sources)? WP:About self would apply to a "Reddit states on its front page" matter. Flyer22 (talk) 14:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

References

The two sections "Female" and "Male" use photos of models with shaved pubic hair

In this article, in the two sections named "Female" and "Male," at least three photographs currently used to illustrate masturbation make use of models whose pubic hair has been removed. I understand that there may be various reasons for this, but it gives an unbalanced and non NPOV view of the prevalence of such shaving.

On Earth today, and throughout human history, adult masturbation has overwhelmingly involved genitals which were not shaved and which thus had a full growth of pubic hair.

Widespread shaving of pubic hair is a relatively recent practice, one which could not possibly have been popular in most cultures in most times and places. Its prevalence would be hard to estimate, but I do not think anyone would seriously argue that more than a few percent, at most, of the world's people regularly shave their pubic hair.

Therefore, to give an unbiased view, I strongly suggest that these photos should be replaced with others which do show public hair. Dratman (talk) 01:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Arguing that the images be replaced with images that show unshaven genital areas can also be considered biased. It would seem more neutral if you were to argue for having one or more such images in addition to the ones of hairless genital areas. But to argue that the hairless ones be replaced with ones you likely prefer is another matter. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

They're all white as well. Why not use illustrations (drawings) which are non-specific? There must be lots available.Btljs (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2014

I think the picture with the vibrator in vagina can be problemetic to minors, we should either remove or have an confirmation dialogue that the viewer is not a minor. Best regards Tzcan (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

 Declined Wikipedia is not censored, please see this article for more information. Thank you! DSCrowned^(Talk) 04:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

REMOVE

please,remove this article.this article is not a community standards at all.PutiChik (talk) 06:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Masturbation has been determined by Wikipedia to be a topic of encyclopedic interest. You have the option to hide an image if you wish. If you If you have a suggestions for how to improve the article, let us know. Grayfell (talk) 06:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Kama Sutra quotation is highly questionable

"The ancient Indian Hindu text Kama Sutra explains in detail the best procedure to masturbate; 'Churn your instrument with a lion's pounce: sit with legs stretched out at right angles to one another, propping yourself up with two hands planted on the ground between in them, and rub it between your arms'."

The citation given for this quote does not directly quote the actual text of the kama sutra, but indirectly through another book. I brought up the actual Kama Sutra in gutenberg http://www.gutenberg.org/files/27827/27827-h/27827-h.htm and simply using the search-in-page function of Firefox, "churn your instrument" yields no results within the text. now, this could just mean that the quote is from a different translation than the one on Gutenberg (gutenberg has the 1883 translation by British orientalist Sir Richard Francis Burton) However, while I have not thoroughly read the whole text from top to bottom I have skimmed over the whole thing, I think, pretty thoroughly; and found nothing of the sort. Someone needs to find a better citation that quotes this directly from a translation, or else remove the quotation as an apparent misquote. 70.198.131.190 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I dug through the article history to see if the quote or its source had been modified from when it was added, but it had not. (It was added with this edit in 2010, for what it's worth). "Churn" seems very likely to be translated as something else, but the whole thing may have been made up or confused with a different source or something. Honestly, it seems pretty silly to be relying on Alan Thicke for Kama Sutra quotes. What an odd sentence I just typed... Anyway, a replacement would be nice, but if we can't find one so be it. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the gutenberg link, I think I agree that it's likely apocryphal. It seems to have been repeated a lot, but it's low-reliability stuff that probably got it from Wikipedia. Regardless, it should have a better sources. It is also mentioned in History of masturbation, but I will remove it from there, as well. Grayfell (talk) 08:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

Source 44 (http://www.salon.com/2000/05/09/masturbate/) is unreliable, even stating within it that "Johanson did not offer any specific statistics for this claim — nor did she refer to videos of masturbating babies or other physical evidence — but her line of reasoning is this..."

Please remove this source. Danke :) Fazza faz (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

 Not done The source is written in an informal style, but both times it's used in the article it's in conjunction with other sources to support general points about medical attitudes about masturbation. It seems perfectly adequate for supporting these broad statements. Sue Johanson is a recognized expert, and is one of several such experts cited in the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:52, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2015

The article claims that masturbation lowers blood pressure. The source for this information does not support this, but rather claims that penile-vaginal intercourse lowers blood pressure, whereas masturbation increases blood pressure.

Please update the "general benefits" section with this information. Fazza faz (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

The abstract doesn't specifically make the claim that masturbation increases blood pressure. Unless I'm reading it wrong, it's merely saying that those who masturbated had slightly higher systolic BP than those who engaged penile-vaginal sex. Someone who has access to the study might want to confirm all that. Regardless, the study is a minor one with a primary source, so it might be undue? Grayfell (talk) 05:55, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:35, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS deletions

I deleted all the inline-flagged MEDRS non-compliant citations that cited medical statements as well as one uncited medical statement from this page revision section: Special:permalink/667319430#Compulsive masturbation. I've requested input from WT:MED on the deletion of all these primary/nonmedical sources and the uncited medical statement. Some of the remaining sources are slightly outside the WP:MEDDATE range, but I left those alone.

• Special:permalink/667319430#Compulsive masturbation - inline flagged citations
• Special:diff/667319430/667344589 - deletion diff

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 13:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Compulsive masturbation

I'm not happy about this deletion of long-standing material from this section. No reason was given, although a hat-note link to Sexual addiction was added. The first paragraph removed was the one that made a clear statement that masturbation does not cause any form of mental disorder. This may seem an obvious statement, but I think a surprising number of English speakers worldwide may be happy to come here and see an well-sourced, unequivocal statement to that effect - despite whatever their aunt, mother or other adult may have told them in the past. I see nothing in the new hat-note-linked article that makes a similar point. The second paragraph removed made the point that there is still "discussion between professionals and other interested parties as to whether such a thing as sexual addiction really exists." Maybe this is what the other editor didn't like, but again the statement is well sourced. I shall reinstate the deletions of content per WP:BRD, and maybe @Seppi333: would like to come here and explain why they think this material has to go. --Nigelj (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Read Sexual addiction#Biomolecular mechanisms. It applies to all forms of stimulating forms of sexual behavior. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I read that, and barely understood a word of it. Are you saying that because of something about ΔFosB being a very significant gene transcription factor, the whole medical profession now agrees that your aunty was right, and if you fiddle with that you will become a sex addict? I think we need clarity in an article such as this, not hypertechnical obfuscation. --Nigelj (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The way any addiction develops is through excessive engagement/experience of an addictive stimulus. In the case of addictive drugs, the dosage determines whether or not ΔFosB expression increases. In the case of addictive behaviors, it's the intensity and length of time that determines an increase in ΔFosB expression. The "long-term" level of its expression accumulates slowly, but persists for a long time (~2 months) (note that I oversimplified this sentence a little to avoid some overly technical details); there is a threshold level of ΔFosB gene expression above which a person loses the capacity to stop his/herself from seeking+experiencing the addictive stimulus - this is because ΔFosB directly regulates positive reinforcement, and therefore the severity of compulsive-drug use or compulsive engagement in rewarding behaviors. Consequently, an individual must experience an addictive stimulus, such as masturbating, in excess on a regular basis (e.g., daily/every other day) to actually develop an addiction.

This is all very hard to explain in simple terms for an addictive stimulus, so the only place this is really mentioned is at ΔFosB (it includes a graph illustrating how it accumulates over time) and 1 other drug article. Even if none of that made sense, in a nutshell, this is what it entails: masturbation is still a healthy behavior, but only up to a point, excessive masturbation is a very unhealthy behavior because, if done regularly, it will almost surely induce a sexual addiction. While a typical/population average level of masturbation is healthy and safe, the former assertion that it is universally healthy and safe is simply just not true. The same goes for the previous statement about sexual addiction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

These are very sweeping statements. I'm sure you know that we will need to see WP:MEDRS sources, and that with regard to WP:OR and WP:SYN, these will have to mention masturbation specifically alongside your reading of this biochemistry. --Nigelj (talk) 21:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is a talk page - I'm not going to cite myself, especially because what I said is literally where I said it was cited in my statement above: ΔFosB. My "reading" of "sexual activity" as inclusive of masturbation follows directly from what sexual activity, "sexual reward", and/or "sexual experience" refers to - these are blanket terms for a class of stimuli or a property of those stimuli, just like "psychostimulants" and "opiates" are a class of stimuli. If you want a single summary source, this dissertation covered the state of research in 2012: [9]. Since then, most of the more recent research has gone into the neuroepigenetic mechanisms in addiction and therapeutic potential of histone-modifying enzyme inhibitors for addiction in general. I don't feel like elaborating on this further though, so I'm just going to leave it at that; you don't have to like or even understand what I'm saying, but you will respect the conclusions of medical reviews. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:40, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, that it is universally healthy and safe is simply just not true. However, it isn't universally recognized as addictive; it is a hot topic and the matter isn't settled yet as medical consensus. The question is when is masturbation excessive? This question is usually answered with: when it produces serious problems for the subject. There are quite rare cases wherein obsessive compulsive disorder manifests itself as compulsive masturbation. So, masturbating regularly isn't an addiction, there are many reasons why people masturbate instead of having sex even if they would prefer to have sex instead of masturbating. It's like someone only having money for buying donuts, eating donuts is not the reason why he/she avoids trendy restaurants, wherein one can have caviar and champagne. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Biochemical findings do not bijectively translate into medical diagnoses/cures. There a lot of medicines which work good in cell cultures but do not work well in humans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I realize this. HDAC1 inhibitors have shown a lot of promise for treating 3 distinct classes of addictive drugs in preclinical research and their mechanism of action in doing this is partly understood (e.g., increased G9a expression and the removal of ΔFosB at the c-fos promoter site), but their effects appear to be location-dependent, drug-specific, and time-dependent; there's a need for more research on this before it goes into clinical testing. That said, HDAC1 inhibitors have never been used in clinical trials for any addiction as far as I know. I haven't even bothered adding much content on drug-specific epigenetic alterations to articles because it's even more complicated than the core transcriptional mechanism, and most of these mechanisms differ for every addictive stimulus (see Talk:Amphetamine/Archive 5#Epigenetic mechanisms reviews for review; [10] - this is the 2nd paywalled ref in that list).
A notable finding in current research is that sexual addiction has a lot of mechanisms in common with amphetamine addiction, which suggests that treatments for amphetamine-like psychostimulants would have efficacy for treating sexual addiction as well. At present, there are no clinically effective treatments for psychostimulant addiction though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The statement was made above, "masturbating, in excess on a regular basis (e.g., daily/every other day) to actually develop an addiction." The only proof we have for this so far is a 297 page PhD thesis that does not seem to proscribe upper limits on how many times a week a person may masturbate. I will believe that there are WP:MEDRS sources that say that it is now known to be harmful for a healthy person to masturbate too often, when I see them. Meanwhile there were four citations in the material that was removed, Levine M. P., Troiden R. R. (1988), Giles J (2006), Briken, P.; Habermann, N.; Berner, W.; Hill, A. (2007), and "BBC Relationships: Addicted to sex" (2009). I wonder what happened to all that? Then there were the leaflets in 2009 issued by the National Health Service in Sheffield, the Spanish region of Extremadura's programme, palliative care programmes. Are you saying that all these health authorities were wrong not to set upper limits? All on the basis of a PhD thesis from Western Ontario? --Nigelj (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

This is an extremely important point; due to historical and current prejudices against masturbation, we should apply a great deal of caution before including anything about detrimental effects and rigorously apply the rule of multiple reliable peer reviewed sources, not just one. If there is no consensus or conflicting sources then proportionality should be used with regard to the emphasis placed. Btljs (talk) 11:16, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol? Nigel, I provided that link for you to have as a reference for the state of research because it was comprehensive and specific to sexual addiction. I've never cited that source on wikipedia and I don't plan to because a dissertation is a primary source. My explanation above was merely for your education, not my intent to add text to the article; consequently, I don't have to give you a single source to back up my statements because this is a talk page, not an article. You've already been informed where you can find medical reviews which support my statement, so fetch them yourself if you want them.
All the article refs I removed aren't MEDRS-compliant for reasons I've already stated in my edit summary. If you decide to push this and revert me, we can bring this issue to the attention of WT:MED and you can learn how strictly WP:MEDRS is applied by medical editors. Otherwise, we can leave it as is and simply link to the article where this content is actually covered in the hatnote. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Why would someone seek out medical reviews that support somebody else's thesis? Your assertion your burden of proof. Btljs (talk) 14:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

In 2013 DSM-5 stated there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence in order to produce a diagnosis of sex addiction. So I wonder: what changed so fast in respect to medical consensus? Anyway, the agreement reached by Seppi333 and TheAnome can be consulted at [11]. I think that is the mandate for such changes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm here because two well-cited statements were [removed] from the article. I reinstated them while we discussed per WP:BRD, but Seppi333 edit-warred them back out. I refuse to be drawn into edit warring. The statements were, in brief, "There is no scientific evidence of a causative relationship between masturbation and any form of mental disorder" and "There is discussion between professionals and other interested parties as to whether such a thing as sexual addiction really exists." I have been given links to various Wikipedia pages, I have been given reading to do to "for my education", but I have not seen any usable citation that supports the removal or obfuscation of these two verifiable statements. While all this chat goes on, the article is in the 'wrong version'. It gets a great deal of traffic daily, and I want that fixed, please. --Nigelj (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that there isn't any contradiction between "there is biochemical evidence for it" and "there is no medical consensus whether it is real". Anyway, in humans the DeltaFosB hypothesis behind sex addiction is unfalsifiable, since research can only be done through autopsy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a verifiable WP:MEDRS link between masturbation and DeltaFosB, the reason for deletion is at best original synthesis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

To make a comparison with physics, bleeding edge research is that gravity could be a force which leaks from a parallel universe into our universe. Is it scientific consensus? No, since there is not a jot of evidence for it. Similarly, medicines which would cure addiction through neuroepigenetics are bleeding edge research, but are they medical consensus? Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The claim that the medical consensus has been revolutionized since 2013 in respect to sex addiction is an extraordinary claim, and extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I have addressed the WP:MEDDATE issue, and indeed it would be an extraordinary claim to state that if DSM-5 were published just two years later, it would have completely changed its view upon sex addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Tgeorgescu. That was a good edit, IMHO, which brings the section up to date. --Nigelj (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Tgeorgescu: There's no reason your NAcc D1-type MSNs couldn't be biopsied while you're alive - you've apparently never heard of a brain biopsy before; even complete removal of that brain structure is survivable as it's not a vital brain structure. Unfalsifiable? lol. Learn some neuroscience before you try to act like you know anything about it.

Similarly, medicines which would cure addiction through neuroepigenetics are bleeding edge research, but are they medical consensus?
If you knew anything about pharmacology, you'd have replaced "medical consensus" with "established as effective and safe in human clinical trials". Medical consensus has absolutely nothing to do with the approval of a drug as a pharmaceutical. Absolutely nothing. A tiny FDA review panel decides that in the US; a similar governmental committee performs this function in most other 1st world countries. From there, it's up to a doctor and a patient. Methamphetamine has a stigma among the medical community and that's for good reason - there's almost no "medical consensus" for its use, yet it's approved for ADHD by the USFDA due to its efficacy and safety performance in clinical trials. Again, some background on pharmaceuticals might be useful knowledge to have before talking about it.

"there is biochemical evidence for it" - no, there's addiction biomarker evidence for it. Disease biomarkers are used in lab tests - they're real medical diagnostics. It's not the hand-wavy bullshit the DSM shovels every few years.
What do you think ΔFosB induction or its level of expression are measured for? What do you think that "overexpression" threshold represents? Do you know enough molecular biology to understand the questions I'm asking anyway? The "overexpression" threshold is the point where ΔFosB's expression flips the "molecular switch" for addiction. Asserting to the contrary that ΔFosB (over)expression is not a addiction biomarker is equivalent to asserting that the entire set of addiction models for all drugs and behaviors that have been researched is invalid due to its necessary and sufficient relationship to the induction of addiction plasticity.

FOSB lead 3rd paragraph + ΔFosB section 2nd paragraph. There's your refs.

The fact that you question the validity of something that you don't even understand despite it being validated and supported by dozens of medical researchers from a wide range of biomedical backgrounds is shocking. [12] - there isn't a single dissenting paper among those. There's just the peanut gallery: you.

I'm already annoyed enough by the fact that your preconceived biases cause you to show up ONLY on sex-related compulsion articles to spew your POV which you cite to a flawed diagnostic model that's constantly in flux from being redeveloped by a handful of individuals without any outside input (hence no "medical consensus") and which is not even based on real science. It would irk me less if you actually were active on other addiction articles, because at least then it might suggest you're promoting the DSM instead of some preconceived notions about sexual activity which you're promoting here. I hate intellectual dishonesty. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• In any event, after considering this issue for a few hours, I decided to remove the hatnote for 2 reasons: I'm not entirely sure that masturbation is a rewarding stimulus; even if it were, there's a qualitative difference between the nature of sexual intercourse and masturbation as reinforcers, so the assumption that the two disease states would be the same is potentially erroneous. There's actually no point in having content on sexual addiction on this page now, but I think its funny to make the DSM look stupid, so I gave the page WP:DUE WEIGHT.

I'm not even going to respond to the claims about WP:V WP:SYNTH and WP:OR - these article policies; WP:TPG - that's for talk pages. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Can I cordially ask you to have a look at WP:CIVIL before making any more hasty and frankly personal comments here? Can you also please stop hacking about at the article text, tagging, deleting and expounding. Why do we now have no less than four paragraphs in the article on your views on the integrity of the DSM? Please calm down and collaborate. --Nigelj (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually not feeling particularly irritated at the moment; this isn't my first and probably won't be my last interaction with Tg.
I frankly would've preferred the old version of the article text from Special:permalink/664270007 be used, but with the problematic references replaced/cited with newer medical reviews, provided these could be found. I was hoping this would be done instead; I don't really see why Tg added the DSM's sexual addiction entry, but if that is on this page, then the same references from the sexual addiction article need included to give the topic due weight. The reason medical statements are cited to reviews and not primary research and particularly not nonmedical sources is that it's the least likely type of medical citation to contain erroneous material or fringe theory. As noted above, I don't see the point in including any mention of sexual addiction here for reasons mentioned - it's like bringing up amphetamine addiction on the cocaine page; they're similar substances but the drugs aren't interchangeable in those addictions. I also couldn't find any neuroimaging studies which demonstrate that the reward system is activated by masturbation; without that property, I completely agree that compulsive masturbation isn't a form of addiction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:24, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say that DSM were holy or infallible. However, APA is a major player in this discussion, and DSM expresses the consensus reached by APA. So, DSM-5 is notable opinion, although it is not the only opinion that matters. You see, from biomarkers evidence to a consensual diagnosis is a long way. Maybe 20 or 40 years later it will be your way, today it isn't. You have the right to criticize DSM through the lenses of other WP:MEDRS sources, but you cannot deny that the DSM is highly relevant. Besides, there is a difference between medicine X being approved for use and medicine X consensually being used for treating disease Y. There are medicines which are approved but do not enjoy medical consensus about their use, e.g. homeopathic medicines, abandoned or bleeding edge medicines. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

E.g., another notable opinion would be ICD-10 (2015), which includes hypersexuality as a diagnosis. About the quote over the quality of fever quote, this is simply the development degree (knowledge level) which psychiatry has nowadays. Psychiatry simply isn't so advanced as the NIH director would wish, because it is a very complicated and difficult matter, wherein clarity about underlying causes is often missing. I don't oppose seeking to address this problem, but we cannot simply jump to the scientific knowledge from the year 2200, humanity will simply have to wait till then in order to reach it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

So, that quote could be interpreted as an explanation of the present-day knowledge level and should not be misconstrued as an attack upon the DSM. A much simpler point could be made by citing the fact that ICD-10 (2015) accepts the diagnosis of hypersexuality. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu Seppi333 While it is fine for you two to have this discussion here, can you at least allow the section on compulsion in the article to reflect what probably 99.9% of people expect/need to see? Viz: Is there such a thing? Is it dangerous? Is there a limit to what is healthy? If (as seems probable) there is no scientific medical consensus then by all means state the different positions but I really don't think that this section of this article is an appropriate place for a critique of medical diagnoses sources. Btljs (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be fine to cite the ICD-10; but, like I said before, I don't think any of the text in the collapse tab below is actually relevant to the section anymore. If masturbation isn't an addictive (rewarding+reinforcing) stimulus, then sexual addiction probably shouldn't even be covered here. I don't actually know how the concept might be related to hypersexuality in medical reviews, but the lead sentence of hypersexuality describes a pathologically reinforced behavior – i.e., a compulsion – so that article has a more general/appropriate scope for the section than sexual addiction. The following content should probably just be cut/commented out. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Unnecessary section text

The DSM-5, an American diagnostic classification system, stated in 2013: 'Thus, groups of repetitive behaviors, which some term behavioral addictions, with such subcategories as "sex addiction," "exercise addiction," or "shopping addiction," are not included because at this time there is insufficient peer-reviewed evidence to establish the diagnostic criteria and course descriptions needed to identify these behaviors as mental disorders.' The director of the United States National Institute of Mental Health discussed the invalidity of the DSM-5's classification of mental disorders, writing: While DSM has been described as a “Bible” for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each. The strength of each of the editions of DSM has been “reliability” – each edition has ensured that clinicians use the same terms in the same ways. The weakness is its lack of validity. Unlike our definitions of ischemic heart disease, lymphoma, or AIDS, the DSM diagnoses are based on a consensus about clusters of clinical symptoms, not any objective laboratory measure. In the rest of medicine, this would be equivalent to creating diagnostic systems based on the nature of chest pain or the quality of fever. The flawed and arbitrary nature of the DSM addiction classifications has also been criticized by medical researchers who actively study addiction pathophysiology. A 2014 systematic review on sexual addiction discussed this lack of available evidence, indicating that, "a lack of empirical evidence on sexual addiction is the result of the disease's complete absence from versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders". According to the same systematic review, sexual addiction is a diagnosable behavioral addiction with prevalence rates for it and related sexual disorders ranging from 3 to 6%. Other medical reviews that from 2011 and 2012 came to the same conclusion that compulsive sexual behavior constitutes an addiction. References

I admit that I lost interest in this discussion when the mudslinging began, and when it became difficult to follow who was arguing for or against what. Having a look now I see that User:Seppi333 said above, "I don't think any of the text in the collapse tab below is actually relevant to the section anymore." Yet I see that it is all still in the article (maybe I wasn't the only one to lose interest? ;-) Since I believe that it was Seppi who added it, I'm going WP:BOLDly to assume that I can remove it now. Is that OK? --Nigelj (talk) 21:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Replacement references

These are paywalled. I'm hosting these papers on an external site for a short time. If you want to replace the content that was deleted in this section, these are suitable references (current medical reviews) with which to expand it. They're the only 2 reviews on pubmed that are relevant to the topic and which are reasonably current.

• Review 1 -
• Review 2 -

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:00, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Review 1 says something about excessive masturbation (which we already knew that it is an accepted ICD-10 diagnosis), but it is very brief and does not get specific about defining it. It just says that exist some diagnostic guidelines, but that isn't anything extraordinary. Also, it does not say anything about sexual addiction. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This isn't what I think is useful - it's just what's available. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:09, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015

218.191.191.160 (talk) 13:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Union of Opposites ‖ 13:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Photos, with and without device

I notice that there are images of a man and a woman masturbating manually. However, there is an image of a woman using a device, while there is no such image of a man using a device. I feel that we could balance this by adding an image of a man using an artificial vagina. Drewmike (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it's more common for women to use devices, but fair enough. I added an image of a guy using a fleshlight. I don't really like the layout of the page though... Not that I need to say this on wikipedia, but feel free to fiddle with it. kyledueck (talk) 00:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

I have removed these images; if anyone wants to know about these *ahem* devices, then they are free to see on the vibrator (sex toy) or fleshlight pages and see for themselves. The images used on this article are illustrative enough. – Zumoarirodoka_(talk)^(email) 13:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If we're only going to have one female image, I'm OK about that, and I'm also happy that these illustrations could be limited to simple manual masturbation, not involving any commercial devices. But if there is only to be one female image, I'd rather it showed something of what's actually going on. I've boldly changed the image therefore to File:Masturbating Amy.jpg. This is used extensively to illustrate female masturbation on other language wikis, and was here for a while some years ago too. Since we last used it here, I see that someone has made some effort to improve the low-light noise in the image. Personally, I don't have a problem with the slight graininess that remains, and neither, it appears, do editors and readers on dozens of other language Wikipedias. --Nigelj (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Amount of evidence for masturbation being healthy

I offered some sources for this claim. Some of the offered sources are better than others. E.g. Szasz does not directly state that the shift in medical consensus was due to evidence, but to anyone who asks why it changed the reply is: evidence. Also, the issue has spilled from the realm of medical claims to realm of history of medicine and history of sexuality, which are fields not strictly covered by WP:MEDRS, so input from historians, sociologists and psychologists is also welcome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS covers sources speaking synchronically, but it does not cover sources speaking diachronically. Yet they all speak of medical consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

E.g. books by Ronald Numbers aren't unreliable sources because they are written as history. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The claim about the evidence for masturbation being healthy is not just a synchronic claim, it also has historical significance. E.g., the works of Kinsey, Masters and Johnson could be seen as dated in some respects, but they have historical significance, as historians and sociologists have pointed out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2015

Under Section 7.3: Pregnancy it states:

"Solo masturbation, or masturbation involving individuals of the same gender, cannot produce pregnancy."

I propose the word "gender" be changed to "sex". Transgender individuals can be of opposite sex, but also of the same gender, and therefore run the risk of pregnancy. Gender implies identity, whereas sex implies biology. While use of the word gender is acceptable, it is not ideal. Consider revising.

Knighthsilgne (talk) 15:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Explicit/graphic photos

I realize that 1) Wikipedia is not censored, 2) a proposal to limit graphic images failed in 2005, and 3) Wikipedia has a disclaimer that its content may be offensive or objectionable. Some images currently used in this article are rather graphic/explicit. Wikipedia's Manual of Style states that "material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Per the Foundation, controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article."

If anyone has any less astonishing or less graphic images that could be used in this article, I believe it would be an improvement, and be less shocking to many readers. Consider the article on condoms. It has an illustration of a man putting on a condom, rather than graphic photographs of a man doing so. Jenglish02 (talk) 00:44, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the omission of photographs just because some readers may find them shocking would indeed hurt the quality of the article. Context matters here. Since this is an article specifically about masturbation, I don't accept that photographs of masturbation are automatically controversial. That said, the quality of the current photos, especially the recently added Fleshlight one (per above), is up for debate. If you can find anything more suitable in commons (such as Commons:Masturbation), you are free to propose it here. The current balance between illustration/art and photography seems very reasonable to me. Grayfell (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Jenglish02, as seen by this discussion and this edit, I understand what you mean about keeping the WP:Offensive material guideline in mind. You also approached it well by essentially asking if there are "equally suitable alternative[s]" that are less offensive (the guideline's rationale). It seems that, while I prefer not to use real-life sexual imagery (since our readers so commonly simply consider it pornography and a distraction), there are no equally suitable alternatives; if Seedfeeder had focused on masturbation images, there would be. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Also see the #Photos, with and without device section above for continued image talk. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Mr.Bob.298, per what is stated above in this section about these images being unnecessary. Mr.Bob.298 or others, exactly why should these extra images be included? I won't heavily challenge these images being in this article or WP:Edit war over them being included, mainly because I am not significantly invested in this article, but I see no need for their addition in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

If one wants to counter by stating that it's best to show a woman masturbating by inserting her fingers or a dildo into her vagina as another method of masturbation, so that stimulation of the vulva/clitoris is not the only visual presentation of female masturbation in the article, I can counter with the fact that just like men usually masturbate by physically stimulating their penises only, women usually masturbate by physically stimulating their vulvas only. Furthermore, dildo use is not nearly as popular in real life as it is portrayed in the media. And, yes, I can provide WP:Reliable sources for my assertions in this paragraph, if anyone thinks that I am just giving my personal opinion on all of this. I really see no need for three images to show three different ways a woman can masturbate, while we just have the one illustration of a man masturbating. An illustration of the most common way for both genders is enough. Text and WP:Wikilinks take care of the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Masturbation based on my experience

I have posted this information before in the article but one of the contributors removed it because it does not apply to most people.

Based on my experience, masturbation works best if...
1.) the genital has no strands of hair (Best if the strands hair is removed permanently. If he cannot afford to do that, plucking or waxing them will do.),
2.) done in an air conditioned room, and
3.) accompanied with baby oil (Must use rubbing alcohol on areas where baby oil will be applied to prior to using baby oil) as lubricant (In the event that baby oil will not work as expected later on in one's life as the first time it was used for masturbating, K-Y Jelly will be the next best.).

Luigi.a.cruz (talk) 16:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"The Two Paths" image -- inappropriate location

I'm not so sure that the "Health benefits"/"Health effects" section of the article is the best place to be putting the image that has the heading "The Two Paths", which is a 19th-century engraving that basically suggests that masturbation will lead to a gradual degradation that is guaranteed to ruin one's life. In my opinion, the pictures are among the first things that will catch the eyes of people -- including hypochondriacs and people raised by religious families, who are concerned about "self-abusing" and the long since disproven disorders said to stem from this perfectly harmless practice -- when they visit this article. The image can be left in if need be, but at least it should be moved to the "History and society" section. Admiral.Mercurial (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point, although it is a great historical image. The "History and society" section already has so many images, and since the image is only partly about masturbation, I think removing it is fine. While we're at it, the two patent images are awfully similar. The second one is used at history of masturbation, so removing that one and keeping the first here would be informative while also providing a bit of visual variety across articles. Just a thought. The 'two paths' image might also belong there, or at social hygiene. Grayfell (talk) 01:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The Biscuit Game

Why no images? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 08:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)