Talk:Masturbation/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Defining mutual

I would be happy for some feedback about the following two constructs for introducing the concept of mutual masturbation in the lede:

A: With a partner, mutual masturbation can be an alternative to sexual intercourse.

B: The act, when performed with a partner, is called mutual masturbation and can be used as an alternative to sexual intercourse.

Is the ordinary English meaning of the word mutual clear enough that we do not need that level of definition, as a term-of-art, of mutual masturbation? --Nigelj (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

It would seem logical, but as this is an encyclopedia, we need to clearly define topics even if they seem a bit obvious. Consider that we define masturbation. The "ordinary English definition" of masturbation (not any secondary definitions) is pretty clear, but we still define what the topic is in the lede. Lost on Belmont (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 April 2012

Would adding the viewpoints of Sigmund Freud and Margaret Sanger about this topic be ok?

RJR3333 (talk) 04:33, 8 April 2012 (UTC) Immanuel Kant considered masturbation a violation of one's duty to one's self and an unnatural act stating it was a posteriori against natural law. Freud regarded masturbation as likely to cause disease. He also called it the "primal addiction" in a letter to Fliess, saying tobacco smoking and other addictions were merely substitutes for it. [38] Margaret Sanger frequently stated that masturbation was unwise and dangerous. This is what I put on simple English wikipedia and wanted to add here. --RJR3333 (talk) 01:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. No, it wouldn't, because merely putting [38] without actually giving a reference does not satisfy the policy on verifiability. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The reference for Freud saying masturbation is pathogenic is Freud on Womenpages 182 189 "contributions to a discussion on masturbation" a speech by Freud about the topic the book is edited by Elisabeth Young-Bruelh published by WW Norton in 1990 the reference to his calling it the primal addiction is mentioned in Freud A Life for Our Timeby Peter Gay page 170 WW Norton 1998 --RJR3333 (talk) 06:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

N Edit request declined. Please establish consensus before making the request.  Sandstein  17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The article cites Kant I think Freud is more relevant to the topic than Kant so couldn't he also be cited?--RJR3333 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Confusing request declined again. Please do not reactivate the template a third time until you have consensus and a clear idea of what you want to change.  Sandstein  21:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I want to change the philosophical arguments section. Currently it only talks about Kant's views. I wanted to add

Freud regarded masturbation as likely to cause disease. He also called it the "primal addiction" in a letter to Fliess, saying tobacco smoking and other addictions were merely substitutes for it. I think that's pretty clear.

Edition request

Requesting to replace File:Masturbating with a vibrator.jpg with a superior File:Woman_massages_labia_minora_and_clitoris_with_a_vibrator.jpg. It is better by all means, except maybe for that the current image better shows a method of clitoral massage with a vibrator. Yestadae (talk) 08:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the existing image, mostly for the reason you mentioned. It's not as clear what the vibrator is being used for in the suggested replacement image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyledueck (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

POV

I noticed this article focuses on benefits in terms of health effects of masturbation as being likely or proven whereas it talks about negative effects as idle speculation. Doesn't this violate npov, particularly considering that many people view masturbation as morally wrong and the article seems to be favorable towards it. --RJR3333 (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The fact that many people believe masturbation is harmful does not mean that it actually is. Reliable sources describe benefits to masturbation, so the article does as well. If there are reliable sources showing harm, those should be included too. If no reliable sources show harm, we cannot give undue weight to that view.

I don't know what parts of the article you're referring to that talk about negative effects as idle speculation, so I can't comment on that. kyledueck (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't really related to my pov point but can we put in Margaret Sanger's and Sigmund Freud's viewpoints on the topic in the philosophical arguments section since Kant's are included?--RJR3333 (talk) 13:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I have responded under #Philosophical arguments. kyledueck (talk) 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Philosophical arguments

Immanuel Kant considered masturbation a violation of one's duty to one's self and an unnatural act stating it was a posteriori against natural law. Freud regarded masturbation as likely to cause disease. He also called it the "primal addiction" in a letter to Fliess, saying tobacco smoking and other addictions were merely substitutes for it. Margaret Sanger frequently stated that masturbation was unwise and dangerous.

--RJR3333 (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

This is how I would format the edit to the article. Would this work?--RJR3333 (talk) 05:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The Sanger quote should be sourced too, perhaps Margaret_Sanger#Views_and_opinions contains the info but I cant be sure because I cant get to the article theyre citing there. ☮Soap☮ 19:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Bronski, Michael, A Queer History of the United States, Beacon Press, 2011

Quotes from Sanger, "What Every Girl should know: Sexual Impulses Part II", in New York Call, Dec 29, 1912; also in the subsequent book What Every Girl Should Know pp 40–48; reprinted in The selected papers of Margaret Sanger, Volume 1, pp 41–5 (quotes on p 45) This is the source wikipedia gives. Does it work now?--RJR3333 (talk) 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Freud's arguments appear to be more medical than philosophical, so they do not belong in the philosophy section. Likewise, Sanger's comments appear to be more concerned with morality than philosophy. Both quotes are fairly old, so they would be a better fit for the "In history and society" section. kyledueck (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but could we put them in the history and society section then? What I'm trying to do is gain consensus among editors for their inclusion. --RJR3333 (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Including these comments in the history and society section is okay with me. kyledueck (talk) 13:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 May 2012

{{Distinguish|Mastication}}

should be added.

Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 17:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - I don't see any evidence of legitimate confusion of the terms - only intentional wordplay between the words. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Disagree as well - unlikely legit confusion. Skier Dude (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - Confusion not likely. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article at least provide a link to penis?

The word "penis" is mentioned so many times in this article but doesn't even have a link. I would suggest to link at least the first appearance of the word "penis" to the "Human penis" article, like this --> penis. Moscowsky (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done I chose an odd position, perhaps, but it is the first occurrence of the word in the main body of the text. Let me know if you think that was a bad choice. ☮Soap☮ 15:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I thinks it's fine, thank you! Moscowsky (talk) 03:09, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

SVG

Please replace File:CSC Herme Masturbate-a-Thon Logo Original for Wiki.jpg with the SVG version. Thanks! --Morn (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

gender and spontaneous orgasm

It's about this sentence: "Some women can orgasm spontaneously by force of will alone, although this may not strictly qualify as masturbation as no physical stimulus is involved". It suggests that men are devoid of this trait. And this opposes the reality - as is mentioned on the Polish Wikipedia on the page about 'orgasm' (although without any direct source - as always on the Polish Wikipedia...) and as I have this trait. I would say, above sentence is maintaining gender stereotypes, which Wikipedia would be better to not support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.209.132.217 (talk) 10:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Full protection?

Is there some reason why there is such a grave danger to the encyclopedia that semi-protection isn't good enough? The reason given for the current full protection is "Persistent sock puppetry", presumably by banned vandal Picker78. I thought I'd start an informal discussion before launching a formal WP:RFPP, in case there's something going on that I'm not aware of or that I don't understand. szyslak (t) 09:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I think there's more than just Picker78. RevRoland (talk · contribs) and others have been trying to rewrite the article to say that masturbation is sinful and/or psychologically harmful. However, the notice at the top that says that the page is indefinitely full-protected is wrong; I'll change that now. ☮Soap☮ 14:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Well the template isn't what I thought it was, but I still think this is better than before, since before it said "this page has no reason to be changed" as if we were planning to ignore all discussions forever, whereas the notice that is there now at least tells people to use {{edit protected}}. ☮Soap☮ 14:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Prison

I proposed adding to the Law section:

There is some debate as to whether masturbation should be allowed in prison. One of the concerns is that it could create a hostile work environment for correctional officers. An argument for allowing it is that is could help prisoners restrict their sexual urges to their imaginations rather than engaging in prison rape or other non-masturbatory sexual activity that could pose sexually transmitted disease or other health risks.

• - http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/01/should_prison_inmates_have_the_right_to_masturbate_.single.html

Leucosticte (talk) 04:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should end the full protection since it seems that not many people are watching this talk page and/or are willing to make edits like this. Generally an {{editprotected}} tag is supposed to elicit a flurry of comments so that we can come to a consensus, but there is no one who has answered this in the 10 days or so it's been up. ☮Soap☮ 14:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems like an OK edit to me, but I can't make it not being an admin. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 20:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I will note that the above proposed edit has been made by a banned user in violation of his ban. I suggest that this change not be implemented in the article. --MuZemike 20:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the user was involved in socking behavior as well as some kind of ArbCom related ban, none of the users pages seems to link to what that was about. Obviously the editor shouldn't be able to contribute here, but the paragraph is sourced and seems to be reasonably well written. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:43, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done - blocked sockpuppet - if an editor in good standing supports it and wants to add it then feel free to do so and take responsibility for it - Youreallycan 07:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Restrictions on masturbation are common in correctional facilities. Correctional officials say that easing these restrictions would create a hostile work environment for correctional officers. Other experts argue allowing masturbation could help prisoners restrict their sexual urges to their imaginations rather than engaging in prison rape or other non-masturbatory sexual activity that could pose sexually transmitted disease or other health risks.

I changed the wording a bit. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I dispute your desired addition - it displays false assertions and needs atribution imo - such as "Restrictions on masturbation are common in correctional facilities." - Where? - I live in the United kingdom and have never heard of such a thing - Where are they from and and who are these correctional officers as their opinions need attributing also - The article its self is a discussion piece as the article title suggests - Should prison inmates have the right to masturbate? - and as such "facts" presented from it also need to opposing position and the attribution making clear to comply with a WP:NPOV repoting. Youreallycan 06:50, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I simply can't figure out what you're trying to say in the second half of your comment. "need to opposing position"? What "opposing position" needs to be covered? OSborn ^arf_contribs. 13:15, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Restrictions on masturbation are common in American correctional facilities. Connecticut Department of Corrections officials say that these restrictions are intended to avoid a hostile work environment for correctional officers. Other researchers argue allowing masturbation could help prisoners restrict their sexual urges to their imaginations rather than engaging in prison rape or other non-masturbatory sexual activity that could pose sexually transmitted disease or other health risks.

Reference list
Originally I pulled Green, Richard (1992). Sexual Science and the Law. Harvard University Press. p. 123. from Slate, but this source does not directly address prisons so using it might be an OR SYNTH. It could be included after the last sentence.

Per your dissent I have pulled some of the sources from the Slate article and clarified who was making what claims. Please clarify what you mean by "false assertions" as well, if that was in regards to the "common in correctional facilities" claim, did you note that the Slate source discusses this? I have added the qualifier "American" since you seem (?) to feel that the proposed paragraph was overgeneralizing. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 19:17, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

 Not done. Please establish consensus before activating the edit request.  Sandstein  12:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Reactivating, I believe I have addressed Youreallycan (talk · contribs)'s concerns and no one else has commented. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. This seems to be a debating point in Connecticut, USA, but is it really a significant aspect of the topic of masturbation in general? WP:DUE. There seems to be no evidence that this debate is affecting or influencing masturbation worldwide. --Nigelj (talk) 17:47, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick searching shows an opinion piece from the UK: The Guardian So the issue does extend to Britian. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 18:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That article only mentions masturbation once - and that occurrence to exclude it from the main argument. It doesn't have much bearing on the proposed text, or on its significance worldwide. Is there an article of more restricted scope, such as Connecticut Department of Correction or one dealing with issues in the US penetentiary system in general, where the issue would be more relevant? --Nigelj (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I did not read that article carefully enough- I'll check for other possible sources but the Slate source seems to be about the United States as a whole, not just Connecticut, which would imply this article to be the more appropriate one. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 02:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I support this edit (along with Leucosticte and OSborn). The possibility that some humans are legally forbidden from masturbating is obviously a subject appropriate for coverage in this article. I also second Soap's motion for semi-protection (since other ways of dealing with autoconfirmed vandals have less downsides). Cesiumfrog (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• I've marked the edit request as answered, as the protection has now expired. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 19:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Television section

I would like to add to television section

In an episode of whitney entitled private parts , Whitney catches her boyfiend masturbating when she comes one early. She then discusses it with her friends who share personal experiences.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.110.26.81 (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2012 (UTC)‎

Hi, 197.110.26.81. Thanks for the suggestion. First, we normally post new comments at the bottom of talk pages, like this. There is a link that says "New section" at the top of talk pages to help with this. Second, in order to add something to an article it has to satisfy at least two conditions (a) is is verifiable per WP:V and (b) is it important enough per WP:PLOT and similar policies and guidelines. If you can find a WP:RS reliable source that verifies the details you mention about the episode, we can then have a look and try to decide whether it's worth including. back over to you. --Nigelj (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sex toys and other objects

Like I told the editor who removed a source that cites sex toys and other objects, masturbation can involve these things. Most sex toys are specifically made for masturbation, and the article talks about this and other objects further down. There are an abudance of reliable sources showing that masturbation can involve sex toys or other objects (such as pillows). So I don't know what this editor was thinking rewording the intro, but it should be reverted. It goes against the rest of the article and the many sources out there showing that people don't only masturbate using their fingers. And it's not like the lead stated that masturbation involves sexual intercourse. If the editor was speaking of people using objects for penetration, that's not usually thought of as sexual intercourse anyway, and it does not negate that a person doing this is sexually performing these acts on his or herself, which makes it masturbation. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

1. I agree that masturbation can involve sex toys or other objects, and that the lede and the article should reflect this.
2. The relationship with sexual intercourse is more complex. Some people have a very binary view that there is either masturbation or sexual intercourse, while actually, for many couples, mutual or 'accompanied' masturbation, is their preferred or necessary form of sexual intercourse. I think we must definitely to avoid the impression that masturbation and mutual masturbation within relationships is either 'foreplay' before the main event, wrong, or non-existent. --Nigelj (talk) 09:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. The editor has ignored my message and is now currently editing another article. Judging by his edits and talk page activity, he's not a talk page kind of person. So considering what we've stated in this section, will you revert? And on the sexual intercourse bit of the previous text, where it says "and is sometimes used as an alternative to sexual intercourse," that could be changed to "and is sometimes used as an alternative to sexual intercourse or as sexual intercourse," sort of how the Cunnilingus article does. But I point out that I've only seen "as intercourse" for cunnilingus -- meaning only cunninlingus is performed -- when it is referring to lesbian couples; although some people consider mutual oral sex to be sexual intercourse, the majority of heterosexuals, and at least half of gay men, are locked into the belief that penis-in-vagina or penis-in-anus sex is true sexual intercourse, respectively. And the reliable sources that I've come across do separate mutual masturbation from penis-in-vagina sex, penis-in-anus sex, and penis-in-mouth/mouth-on-vulva or tongue-in-the-vagina sex.

As an aside, "mutual masturbation" should not be bolded in this article since it does not redirect here. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 19:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather not 'push the boundaries' regarding stating the definition of what is and is not sexual intercourse here in this article. I know that it is a valid discussion, but I understand that sources can be found on both sides. Luckily the definition of that term is not directly relevant here. It does seem that Ewawer (talk · contribs) hasn't commented, so I do intend to work on the lede, and try to make it a better summary of the article per WP:LEDE. In that way, we don't need references in the lede, but equally we don't need contentious statements and certainly not to take sides in any current debate. There is more room to discuss debates in the body of the article where they are relevant. This is a high-traffic page, and so should be as accessible and straightforward as possible. Thanks for the heads-up re mutual masturbation. --Nigelj (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

"Cultural views and practices" section is out of touch with reality

First let me say emphatically that I am not a prude, and as am open-minded as just about anyone I know. But this section needs a lot of work. There isn't even any mention of the visceral reaction of aversion of most of the people in the developed world towards masturbation. I am *not* suggesting that the reaction is justified, but just that it exists, and in a section titled "cultural views", there should be some mention of it. Even if you're "pro-masturbation", it doesn't help to pretend that most people aren't averse to seeing others do it, and/or embarrassed if they are discovered doing it themselves. I had hoped for some discussion of the whys and wherefores of these issues, but sadly, there's nothing.

That said, one specific complaint I have, that I would fix if there is no objection, is to the first paragraph of "Rites of passage". The citation is a dead link, and I found it on the wayback machine, and it is not from a published article, from what I can tell. I would remove this paragraph. Klortho (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence from reliable sources that "the visceral reaction of aversion of most of the people in the developed world towards masturbation" really exists? HiLo48 (talk) 08:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think he means "... against being seen masturbating or identified by others as masturbators." If you tell others that they are onanists, it is an insult and in this respect little does it matter that about 90% of all people are or have been onanists. This is straightforward stuff, I has to do with shame and calling names. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:18, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Even regardless of that input, if this is to be discussed in the article as Klortho suggests then there really does need to be sources to back it up (and preferably also to give information about other past and present cultures too for balance). Cesiumfrog (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, picture description

I was briefly struck that the dildo pic wasn't exactly what you'd expect of an illustration of dildo use (penetration), then noticed the pic filename is 'masturbating with a vibrator', so suggest changing description to "Masturbating using a vibrating dildo.", or "Masturbating using a vibrator." 92.15.55.148 (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 November 2012

Add to Techniques:Male section: Commonly, males may use a piece of clothing (especially a sock) to to aid in the practice of masturbation. This gives a unique pleasurable sensation when using the right kind of gentle fabric while providing the benefit of convenient cleanup. Pauska Sock (talk) 03:08, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: http://chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/127?m=416967#416967 isn't a reliable source. benzband (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Age limit

is there an age limit for masterbation?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.165.108.163 (talk) 09:43, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Age? Well I can only tell you about myself. When I was 5 years old, I went into hospital for a hernia operation and they stuck plasters over my penis, and I could not wank. I wanted to, but I could not. Then when I wanted to pee, I got the nurses to re-do the plastering for me. The nurses did not realize that males pee out of their penises. No... I could not believe it either and as I have said, I was only 5. Now I am well over 60 and still wanking. There you have it. Technut (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

No, a medical leaflet for teenagers published by the National Health Service says "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". By "orgasm" NHS means masturbation. A newspaper article about this leaflet is quoted in this Wikipedia article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I entered this site to get to know about views on masturbation in history, and it felt weird to see enormous pictures of penises and clitorises. Maybe this article could be more on topic, and less about porno eyesore? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.254.182.158 (talk • contribs)

no sry ! some people are glad that their penises and pussys on wikipedia. They get horny and masturbate while thinking about how people read this article. And the people who prevent other users from removing the useless picture suffer from a mental illness. So really sry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.216.27.200 (talk • contribs)

I'm wondering if it is possible to create two pages for this article, a picture version and a picture-less version. I am not a prude, I like the text of this article and would like it to be freely read. Despite my lack of prudeness, I really can't get over how distracting the pictures are. I completely believe pictures are a necessary part of wikipedia, and even this article, but I would simply like to see a major editor give this some consideration. The picture version could even be the default, and a pictureless version offered at the beginning of the article. Or vice versa. Again, I am no prude and I do not find anything in this article disgusting, but I can't escape an extreme feeling of some form of voyeurism or something. Please, at least give this some thought. --Vgp0012 (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I've moved some images to relevant sections and reduced their sizes per WP:IUP and MOS:IMAGES as larger sizes do nothing to help readers understand the article better, and also serve as potential distractions for editors like you. Besides, the pussy shots and dick close-ups are probably better quality than most of the images hosted in WP; reduced size doesn't reduce viewing quality. You can use external tools/WP gadgets to disable images on all or certain urls/articles, but creating 2 versions would be content-forking. - M0rphzone (talk) 10:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I too think some of the pictures should be deleted, including the first one. Teenagers probably come to this article often, and exposing pornography to minors is illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.3.109 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 13 January 2013‎

Wikipedia is not censored. And you need to recall that this is a global encyclopaedia. Your concerns about illegality may apply in some parts of the world, but not in others. Then there is the question of whether a picture explaining something that's already described in text is, firstly, pornography, and secondly, any different in effect from that text. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean it's not illegal. There needs to be proof put up here that the people in those pictures are of people over the age of 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Legal threats are against the rules. You must either retract and disavow your threat, or it will be done for you AND you will be blocked from editing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Then there needs to be proof that the pictures depict people over the age of 18. I edited the comment, but it still does not change the fact that there is a possibility that the people in this pics might be minors.

Pornography is defined by the law as images intended to arouse those who see them. Sorry, but there's nothing illegal here in the regards of 'pornography'. Also, what you've put there could still be constituted as a threat (I want proof type). gwickwire^talk_edits 23:38, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope, showing pics of people pleasuring themselves absolutely constitutes pornography. Because you say it isn't doesn't make it true. I changed my comment so it doesn't give an explicit legal threat, but it doesn't mean that there shouldn't be some sort of proof put up here showing that the people in this pics aren't over the age of 18. It doesn't matter what other countries have to say about pics of children. All that matters is the laws of the jurisdiction in which the pics are viewed. ANY picture of a person under the age of 18 in a state of undress is legally defined as child porn in the US. If you don't believe it, then ask those who are rotting in prison for that exact thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Citation needed much? Explain all the topless female toddlers then. But I agree that any images should be of persons over the age of consent where the servers are hosted (i.e. in the US) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of the definition of pornography, someone might want to fix its new definition at the Pornography article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the grossly ill-informed IP (who's from Texas, which explains a lot), the Coppertone company has been publicly displaying "child porn" for the last 50 or 60 years. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice personal attack which I believe goes against Wikipedia policy. Don't be mad because you couldn't get me banned. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You withdrew the legal threat, thus averting your block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

And that burns you up too doesn't it? So what do you have to say about your personal attack? Maybe I should take a page from your book and demand that you delete or disavow your personal attack. But I'm an adult so I'll ask you as an adult to be one and delete it. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope. You did what you were required to do. Mission accomplished. As regards your other complaint, if you think that being from Texas is shameful, well, that's your problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I did it because I chose to. Do you honestly think that an IP would have stopped me from editing? It's just a simple matter of resetting my IP address and continuing to do what I wish to do unless they decide to ban an entire ISP with millions of users which would be completely asinine. And yes, I consider what you said shameful and a personal attack and will be dealt with as such.76.31.155.94 (talk) 05:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't be ashamed to be from Texas. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not ashamed. You're the one making personal attacks which goes against Wikipedia policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk • contribs) 17:22, January 23, 2013

Censorship and legal threats are also against policy. And I haven't made any personal attacks. I've known many Texans, and most of them are reasonable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

"According to the grossly ill-informed IP (who's from Texas, which explains a lot)" That is exactly what you said. That is a blanket and statement and personal attack which is against Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey! I'm from Texas too! On a serious note, you are free to contact whatever law enforcement agency you wish to. However, you should be advised you're wasting your time and money, as our legal team (User:WMF Legal to contact) reviews all of our policies with legal implications very thouroughly, and if we were doing something illegal, they'd chime in and stop it. gwickwire^talk_edits 02:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Good for you. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I just had a look at the images in question (I assume the IP is concerned about the photos and not the art) and I highly doubt that they are "under 18". The two women are clearly over the age limit and the male is stated to be 29. No children here. --Auric talk 02:22, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP likely means that pubescents and late adolescents under 18 can have pubic hair or look like they have had pubic hair (meaning that they shaved), and we can therefore not know how old these individuals are; after all, all we see are the genitals. It's probably why the age of the male, whose genitals are shaven, was made clear. Maybe if these were genitals of old people, that would be easier to detect and the IP wouldn't be concerned at all. Flyer22 (talk) 02:39, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Finally, someone here with some sense. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

See the description page of the male masturbating image. "Wikimedia Commons is not obligated to keep these records and is not responsible for failure to acquire records by content reusers." Sorry, but there's no need for Wikimedia Commons to keep the records, nor seek them. It's upon those who reuse the image to keep the records. I guarantee you that WMF Legal made that statement themselves, or at the very least approved it before it went up on all of these kinds of images. gwickwire^talk_edits 04:37, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Just because they they say their not responsible doesn't make it so. You are responsible for all content you host or use on your website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 05:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the team of paid highly trained lawyers seems to think otherwise. I think I'd trust them anyday over yourself, no offence. Like I said, if you have an issue with it, contact the legal department through User:WMF Legal and the information on that page. gwickwire^talk_edits 06:34, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Considering that this is Wikipedia where anyone can say or do anything, I highly doubt these are "highly trained" legal professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

They're not editors. They're employeed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Pornography is defined as as intention to cause arousal. These images are intended to be educational, not sexual. Thus, they are not pornography. Doubt all day long, we don't care. You lack the credentials to make the judgement call, and we trust the people we know have the credentials (WMF legal) and their the voices we're going to listen to. If you have a legal concern, contact them. You voiced a concern, we explained that we had professionals and experts in the law review the matter. There is nothing else for you to do. Your doubt isn't going to convince us to ignore legal opinions from paid lawyers. Your opinion just doesn't measure up to theirs in our eyes. Sorry, now go away. @Bugs: I'm from Texas too :P --v/r - TP 15:40, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to go away. I don't have to go away. Just because you like to put up smut of people whose age is not verifies does not mean that I have to go away. I will stay here as long as I wish thank you very much.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 17:22, January 23, 2013

I would personally prefer line drawings to be displayed (Mammary intercourse being a good example imho), and would strive for those objecting to the pictures to help make them. This article should a useful education point. Why shouldn't teenagers learn about what masturbation is, why it happens, and why they shouldn't feel ashamed and in the dark about it? I don't particularly like the current set of pictures, but then I don't like looking at pictures of Anne Widdecombe either. Each to their own. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately, they like to put up smut using the image of people whose age is not verified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk • contribs) 17:22, January 23, 2013

If you keep it up, you'll be blocked for disrupty and WP:POINTY editing. Stop now. Contact legal, or stop. gwickwire^talk_edits 20:27, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Then stop responding and I won't respond back. Others are just as guilty for keeping this up. It takes two to tango. If you want someone to go away, why do you keep responding to them? That's all I'm asking. I'm just airing my concerns. Last time I checked, this is a TALK page. If an actual admin asks me to stop, then I'll move on. Also, according the articles you cited, it says specifically that stuff like this should be discussed in the articles talk page which I'm doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

IP, could you stop saying "smut", "smut", "smut" - we get it that you don't like the pictures. See Help:Options to hide an image for how you can get rid of them. There is a way of I told you a way you could resolve this dispute amicably for everyone, by creating better images, such as you would see in a scientific textbook, albeit one that requires far more hard work. I'm not a fan of porn, and it makes me physically sick sometimes, but that's my problem and nobody else's. I think if you go deliberately looking for information on masturbation (and there's no other way you could be here), then I'm surprised at what else you'd expect to find there. Anyway, I'm done here. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the organization I advocate for brought this to my attention. I will also be visiting other pages that have these images. 76.31.155.94 (talk) 20:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

On "If an actual admin asks me to stop, then I'll move on." - Upthread, TParis, an administrator check here told you to "go away". Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The IP is edging toward legal-threat territory again. Actually, it's pretty clearly trolling, so it might be just as well to archive this entired section, and keep the IP from further painting himself into a corner. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Nope...not making a legal threat. Also, what about the personal attack that you made which is against wikipedia policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, let's see... I said you were "grossly ill-informed", which is clearly true. I said you were an IP from Texas, which is true. And as some Texans are known for extremist viewpoints, your being from there could explain a lot about your behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:01, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Don't try to justify it. You know it was a personal attack. The article on Wikipedia on personal attacks even proves that it was an ad hominem attack. But looking at some of the stuff on your talk page and the debate over your failed admin-ship, I'm not surprised by your behavior. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Everything I said about your behavior was valid. And if you continue to make threats against wikipedia editors, you will be smacked down like any other troll. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making any threats. I'm pointing out your personal attack which is against wikipedia policy. What threat am I making against you? Is pointing out your personal attack which is against Wikipedia policy considered a threat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

You are not threatening me. In fact, you are not even capable of threatening me. However, you are/were threatening wikipedia. But as noted below, your complaints are groundless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Not according to the Wikipedia article regarding personal attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.31.155.94 (talk) 22:55, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Pay attention, I say, pay attention, son: Your complaints about the pictures are groundless... as noted below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I note that the IP is now on a 1-week block. Recommend closure of this section. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Responding to the original poster's points: 1. websites containing pornography are not required to be age-restricted under U.S. law, although many sites do so voluntarily; 2. as a noncommercial provider we are not required under U.S. law to keep records of the ages of persons in pornographic photos (read the definitions of primary and secondary producer at Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act#Allied_administrative_law_.282257_Regulations.29); 3. there is no plausible reason to believe the images depict minors; 4. images of nude minors are permitted under the law if they are not lascivious or obscene. These images have already been carefully reviewed and they are legal for us to host and display. We will not remove the images for legal reasons. You may, if you wish, consider such factors as the remote possibility that the photos could depict minors as a factor in selecting which images to display, but please do so with reference to alternative images, not as part of a request to remove the images altogether - this article very clearly benefits from media such as images. Dcoetzee 22:45, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Dcoetzee, given the illegality of child pornography (especially that of prepubescents), I'm not sure what you mean by "websites containing pornography are not required to be age-restricted under U.S. law." If you mean that U.S. law doesn't explicitly make clear that websites containing pornography shouldn't include child pornography, it's clear that they shouldn't just by the fact that hosting child pornography can get the website owner (or owners) in legal trouble. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

He means we aren't required to ask age before we let someone see the page. Not age of 'actors' or 'models' :) gwickwire^talk_edits 01:05, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant, sorry. :-) Dcoetzee 22:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Caught

Should there be a sentence about people being caught masturbating? Pass a Method talk 00:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

How is that even relevant aside from some personal fetish that some may have? It's trivia and you should know that. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Well, that's a fetish (so if we can source it we can build a section) and being caught can be a huge taboo in certain societies (also would need references to be added) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Being caught in the act, and/or ways to avoid being caught in the act, might be a significant topic if reliable sources can actually be found about being caught masturbating specifically, rather than just the more general aspects that go along with getting caught in any similar situation. (Remember that there are a lot of similar things that have similarly social results: getting caught having sex in a hidden location; getting caught being a peeping Tom (voyeurism towards someone who didn't consent); or even getting caught with a finger up the nose. And as for it being a fetish: Some people have a fetish for being caught doing sexual things in general; I don't know if masturbation specifically has enough reliable information to make it distinct.) However, what we don't need on Wikipedia is any more original research "essays" full of users' own ideas about how getting caught must feel like. We also don't need a laundry list of "in popular culture" instances; some of the bigger examples could be added if this specific topic already has other high-quality information to supplement it. (I can think of two well-known examples in American culture: the fictional pool scene in Fast Times at Ridgemont High, and Paul Reuben's movie theater incident in real life.) --Closeapple (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Endorphins

I just reverted an addition to the compulsive masturbation section that used this ref to make a point that orgasm leads to "a drug like dependency" on endorphins, which under that heading implied that this was related to compulsive masturbation. This is so wrong, on so many levels. Sure, the cited article is about endorphins and includes that phrase, but the rest of the connections were entirely WP:OR. --Nigelj (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, are you an expert? I'm not, but I don't think you can doubt that orgasm and the release of chemicals in the brain has to do with compulsive masturbation and/or sex addiction. Regardless, the quality and type of refs on this subject are quite poor, and I don't think there are many reliable sources available besides specific medical studies on this, which are few and far between. Have you found anything? - M0rphzone (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

The point is not to be an expert, but to summarise and represent fairly what reputable and reliable sources do say about the topic. Not to add what "you don't think I can doubt" where you see fit. WP:V --Nigelj (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

You seem to have misunderstood. What I meant is: please explain what's wrong about the sentence, and what actually happens in the brain. And I'm assuming your previous answer means that you are an expert on this topic, or at least more than I am. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians don't have to be experts in anything, they quote reliable sources instead. See WP:VER for details. Come back with a reliable source and then edit. It has to fulfill all conditions stated at WP:RSMED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Original research and original synthesis are not tolerated inside Wikipedia. You have to obey these rules if you want that your edits won't get reverted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

You've been here since 2002, and one would think you'd know how to assume good faith first. I know what WP:OR and WP:SYNTH says, so don't drop [[WP:POLICY]] links on me. The ref used will be replaced with a reliable ref, but what I'm asking is for Nigel to explain why the sentence wrong, not whether or not he's an expert. Alternatively, then can you explain to me why the sentence is wrong? - M0rphzone (talk) 04:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, one criticism is very obvious: there is a difference between eating and being addicted to food. Therefore there is a difference between habitual masturbation and addiction to masturbation. Habitual masturbation can be a way to satisfy sexual needs when one is alone or his/her partner is sick or something like that. We may only speak of addiction to masturbation when this behavior produces trouble, like having no time for school, work, or doing it in public, or masturbating 8 hours a day, or paying huge bills to erotic phone lines, or something like that. Therefore stating the addiction label to cover all habitual masturbation would be WP:UNDUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I mean the medical consensus is that masturbation is a healthy and psychologically normal habit. Therefore there is nothing wrong with habitual masturbation, if one lacks the opportunity to have sexual partners or simply as a lifestyle choice. Therefore giving the reader the impression that masturbation is addictive would be contrary to the medical consensus, it would be a big sweeping claim which ignores medical wisdom like "Masturbation: the primary sexual activity of mankind. In the nineteenth century it was a disease; in the twentieth, it's a cure." (Szasz, Second Sin). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, it's a healthy and psychologically normal habit—but in how much? In moderation? Or is it always normal regardless of frequency? So you saying that I can take a bunch of marijuana and that would still be normal, since a little quantity just reliefs stress? So I can take a bunch of morphine and that would still be normal, since a little bit relieves stress? What happens when one masturbates or has sex too frequently? That's equivalent to addiction to them, correct? So is there medical consensus on how often one should masturbate? Is there consensus on what happens if one masturbates too frequently? What do you know about how an multiple orgasms affect the brain? It's similar to the dopamine-caused addiction from other addictive substances. This ref seems reliable and references other medical studies, and I was going to use it to cite the content. And this one too. What I see is that when one masturbates/orgasms too frequently, the neurons in the signal pathway become over-saturated with the neurotransmitters (amino acids, peptides, ions, etc), and if the the signal takes the shortest pathway and the same one every time one orgasms (during sex, masturbation, etc), doesn't that contribute to tolerance, desensitization of other reward paths, and sensitization of the reward paths used in masturbation, since the brain needs more stimulation to achieve the same effect that one experienced before? And if you masturbate frequently, then the neural pathway becomes easier to travel through and the arrangement of the neurons becomes set in place, so the brain loses plasticity, making it easier for signals to travel through the addiction pathways, and harder to travel through other unrelated pathways. And the neurotransmitters associated with addiction such as dopamine, serotonin, endorphins, are released whenever one does an act associated with the addiciton. I don't know if you're a neuroscientist, or a physician, but you should know about this right? What parts of this are wrong? Because I'm going to add this into the article to address what occurs when one masturbates too frequently. The article right now is incomplete and doesn't address that at all. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

The National Health Service advice to teenagers is "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away". (They meant "a masturbation orgasm a day keeps teen pregnancies away".) I don't see an essential difference between addiction to masturbation and addiction to sex. However, of all people, just few of them are addicted to sex/masturbation. Statistics show that about 90% of the people have masturbated during their life, but I assume the percentage of those addicted to masturbation is much lower.

The website which you mention could be WP:FRINGE and certainly does not fulfill WP:MEDRS standards. If you don't believe me, start a WP:RSN notice before citing is as if it would be a reliable source. The gist is that in order to show that masturbation is addictive, you don't have to speculate on your own about hormones and neurotransmitters but quote WP:MEDRS sources which expressly say that masturbation causes addiction in x% of all masturbating people. Also read Wikipedia:Activist before pushing such sources. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Marijuana could trigger a psychosis, so that's not a safe drug. Morphine is medically used for pain control, especially in people who have little to lose from its use, like terminal cancer patients. But it is also prescribed for hernia or something like that. And morphine is shown to be addictive by reliable medical studies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

I have found this:

* ''Your Brain on Porn,'' which weaves together Biblical themes and information from scientific studies about the effects of pornography on one's beliefs.<ref>[http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/12/prweb9034565.htm “Smut in the Sanctuary: New Guide From Covenant Eyes Blends the Bible and Scientific Research to Teach Christians About the Threat of Pornography ”]. PRWeb.com. 2011-12-13. Retrieved 2011-12-13.</ref>

— Covenant Eyes

Therefore there is definitely a Wikipedia:Advocacy problem with the mentioned website, it is no mainstream science/mainstream medicine website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

In the end, I have filled myself a WP:RSN notice, to have this sorted out before reverting one's reversions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, well I'm not going to add this in unless it's verified and I'm not pushing anything, but the main reason I wanted to know is because this article doesn't address what happens if done in high frequency, yet it is a legitimate concern. I'm assuming the common sense statement that anything done in high frequency may be bad, and should be done in moderation; but still, it's not addressed specifically, so how would someone know? - M0rphzone (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, we would know it if there are medical studies published with peer-review in a respectable journal about addiction to masturbation.

E.g. I saw a Dutch TV program on SBS6, Reportage Pubers verslaafd aan porno (Reporter about teenagers addicted to porn). One of the teens was told by a therapist specialized in teens addicted to porn that his addiction to vampire porn arises from self-hate due to school bullying and could have "serious consequences" later in life if he would go on with it. Another one was a young Christian man who stumped upon a Christian website against porn and masturbation, told them to pray for him and quit seeing porn for a while, while his mother said that he just has to face it: he is a man and has to deal with his own sex drive. While, at the other end, there were teens who were watching porn on their mobiles, talked about it with their girlfriends and felt good about it. They said that their generation is accustomed to porn and it is simply their way of life (they also had real sex with girls, so they do not fit the onanism cliché). The TV program said that porn recovery therapy for teens is much more present in the US than in the UK.

Otherwise, I think that teenagers are able to masturbate more often than adults, without meaning that they have a psychological problem. This is simply due to hormones and excitability. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but the issue here is if too much masturbation causes psychological problems including addiction, not if frequent masturbation means someone has an illness. At this point, neither you nor Nigel have answered my initial question. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

No, you have not come up with a reliable source that backs these assertions of yours. Therefore, per WP:TPG, there is nothing to discuss here that is relevant to improving the article. --Nigelj (talk) 10:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not making any assertions, and you still have not answered the question. Per your request for reliable sources, I found some: this source deals with treatment of excessive masturbation in individuals with autism spectrum. This source deals with treatment for loss of control over sexual behavior and repeated negative consequences, and it involves serotonin receptors. This source addressed the topic of sexual compulsivity, chemical dependency and using sex (and by extension, masturbating to orgasm) as a coping mechanism. It says that sex can be done like a "quick fix" similar to using alcohol or drugs and serves as an anesthetic for psychological issues or pain. According to the journal, there is no consensus on how to assess sexual compulsivity, but there is a consensus that certain sexual behavior patterns could become the agent for compulsive/psychological disorders. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Be very careful, you are not allowed to use 'logic' or 'work experience' or 'professional expertise' and draw personal conclusions which are not explicitly stated in the reliable sources. That's what WP:SYNTH means. Every statement which is not explicitly supported by a quote from reliable sources has to be reverted. Masturbation has to be explicitly named by these sources, a mere reference to having sex in general is not enough. I think this belongs to the basics of Wikipedia, which you are presumed to have learned long ago. Ignoring the basics it's like somebody else took control of your account. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the topic of this section is off-topic anyways and is really about orgasm rather than masturbation specifically, so any attempt to add this into the article is synth. In fact this thread should have been located at Talk:Orgasm rather than here. Should I mention this topic there? I'm assuming you will address this there. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Nope, not off-topic. And it's more about masturbation, from what I've read above. Therefore, this discussion should stay here. But I don't see what more there is to discuss. Others have told you what you need to do if you want something about the above in this article. So just follow that. And if it can't be added, then it can't be added. 72.203.171.145 (talk) 01:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Well first off, why don't you log in and post your comment? Are you concerned with maintaining your "online image"? I couldn't care less about appearances now since this discussion has obviously gone the wrong way. Since there hasn't yet been a study examining the effects of compulsive and excessive masturbation on the brain, there's nothing that can be added to the article that wouldn't be synth. The content I added would've been more appropriate in the orgasm article as it's not about masturbation but more about excessive orgasms achieved from masturbation and sex. In fact, I think some of the content was actually from the orgasm article and I erroneously attributed my residual memory of it to it having come from this article. Nigelj still hasn't explained what he means by "This is so wrong, on so many levels." So Nigel, if you're going to make that assumption and fail to assume good faith, then you should've explained yourself rather than imply something and then ignore it. In any case, this discussion is over, but what a pathetic discussion thread. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you carry a bad attitude often on Wikipedia? I'd forgotten to sign in. But now I'd rather not, especially since this discussion is over. The only similar content in the Orgasm article that I see is what you added there[1][2] on the same day you added similar content to the Masturbation article (except that NigelJ reverted you here and not there). What you are talking about above has more to do with masturbation, so that is why I believe it's more relevant to this article if it's to be added. NigelJ likely didn't answer you because he considered the discussion over. I don't think that he meant any disrespect to you. And this thread may be pathetic, but a good thing that has come out of it is now you know to use better sources for this type of information. 72.203.169.107 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Stop beating the horse. I'm quite familiar with WP:RS policies. Too bad I forgot to use the ones listed on WPRS. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Were you not also beating the horse, such as pressing for NigelJ to answer you? And you weren't quite familiar with WP:MEDRS. Now you are familiar with it. And, hopefully, you will become more familiar with it if you continue to add any medical-related information to any article. 72.203.169.107 (talk) 06:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I can see that Tgeorgescu was wrong about regarding WP:MEDRS is that a source making a medical statement "has to fulfill all conditions stated at WP:RSMED" before it can be used to support text about a medical issue or claim. There are different conditions at WP:MEDRS, and just one condition can do the trick. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note (for more complete history of this subject when this matter is archived): This discussion was also taken to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard. Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added a sentence using a RS. It should be fine now. And IP 72.203.169.107, either sign in or stop replying. - M0rphzone (talk) 07:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A paper published in 1987 that "offers a hypothesizd definition of sexual compulsivity" is very far from being the "consensus" that you claim in the text you added. This would need a far more recent review paper or MEDRS textbook to establish. What about The myth of sexual compulsivity, Martin P. Levine, et al. 1988; Sexual addiction, sexual compulsivity, sexual impulsivity, or what? Toward a theoretical model John Bancroft, et al. 2004; and so on? These, and many others were all published later. Where is the reference for the synthesis you added in parentheses, "(and by extension, masturbation)"? --Nigelj (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What about them? Doesn't the last sentence in the section address the same topic that these two refs do? You can word it so that later studies suggest that there may not be a specific compulsive problem as previous studies proposed. For the parenthesis part, just cut it out then. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, that is hardly a scholarly or well-argued reason why we need to include anything about this 26-year-old individual paper. If you were able to come up with more modern research that has shown it in a new light, or some topical news or event that has warranted a renewed interest in it, then fair enough. We can't just include obscure and outdated things in an article on the basis of 'WP:ILIKEIT'. WP:NPOV is central to Wikipedia policy, and in the paragraph WP:UNDUE it says, especially in a top-level article like this one, we should only cover mainstream views, for which there are thousands of available citations, and other "significant viewpoints". It goes on to say that "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents". Having to dredge up a single paper from 1987, and then to mis-represent that as exemplifying the 'concensus' rather than just a hypothesis of its time as the author states, is not good. --Nigelj (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Need help with nocturnal emission

The page nocturnal emission is closely related to this page but poorly watched, and I lack the time to moderate it and the expertise to develop it effectively (it needs more references and scientific information). I'd appreciate any help anyone watching this article can provide on that one. Thank you! Dcoetzee 21:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Pictures

I really think that most of the pictures are unnecessary and pornographic. Please remove them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.3.134 (talk) 20:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSOR Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Popularity of masturbation

The popularity of masturbation is often under a question, but according to a study done by the University of Chicago, only 38 percent of women and 61 percent of men masturbate. Masturbation is not really as prevalent as people think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qyousun (talk • contribs) 17:57, February 24, 2013

Well, we do live and die by our sources here. Are the results of that study available online? Where? HiLo48 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 March 2013

Autosexual should not redirect to masturbation. Autosexual is a sexual identity, masturbation is a sexual act. If autosexual must be redirected to another page, as opposed to having it's own page, then redirecting to the asexual page would be more appropriate destination, even though they are not really the same thing. Here is a discussion which talks about the difference between asexual and autosexual. http://www.asexuality.org/en/topic/30870-asexual-vs-autosexual/ 98.240.164.169 (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

See also http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Autosexuality&oldid=310854449 The 'View History' link there, and Talk:Autosexuality tell the story of this debate so far, I think. To my brief scan, it seems to me that the present redirect is fine for now. --Nigelj (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 March 2013

In Terminology, you should add: "Another jocular term for masturbation is "pump up the jam", named after Technotronic's 1989 song of the same name." 24.91.176.34 (talk) 11:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:56, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced claim in Encouraged Masturbation section

I removed the following text from the Encouraged Masturbation section. It is unsourced and can be considered derogatory. I can't find a reliable source for the claims but, if someone else can, the text may be easily restored. Please don't replace it without proper sourcing.

Among some cultures, such as the Hopi in Arizona, the Wogeno in Oceania, and the Dahomeans and Namu of Africa, masturbation is encouraged, including regular masturbation between males. In certain Melanesian communities this is expected between older and younger boys.

— UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 04:39, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 March 2013

In the 1.Etymology section, there is a translation mistake in the last sentence, which said "The Chinese term is 自慰, which literally means "from comfort."" The word 自慰 means "self comfort", not "from comfort".

Source: I am a native Mandarin speaker. Or you can look it up in any Chinese dictionary.

140.112.204.35 (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I have just looked it up, and my reasearch indicated the former. Because if these disagreement in translation, I will leave it how it is for now. Mdann52 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I reckon this is confusing because all the larger latin dictionaries are old. They are, to put it bluntly, self censored when it comes to interesting words. Masturbation is derived from a latin word "mas" which is coyly said to mean "the male member". If turbare is thought to mean "to disturb" we are just being diverted. If it is translated as "to stir" then the origin of masturbation becomes obvious. john f212.183.128.87 (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Why do people masturbate

One might have thought that usually people would satisfy their sexual needs by having sex with a person of the opposite sex. If this was so then it seems there should be a section on why so many people spend so much time masturbating. john f212.183.128.87 (talk) 17:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's because persons of the opposite sex are not always available, and persons of the same sex even less so. Needs must.--Auric talk 18:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Have you ever suggested that such a thing is possible to a "liberated" female?

john f212.183.128.51 (talk) 07:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Why would I?--Auric talk 10:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

In history and society

In the section 'In history and society', it is said that the Kama Sutra details a procedure for masturbation which then follows. But the reference given for this statement does not come from the Kama Sutra. Please mention where this occurs in the Kama Sutra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.199.213.3 (talk) 05:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done You're absolutely right; a word had gone missing from the quote. It should have said "and rub it between your arms", and I have corrected it. Regarding the use of a book on bringing up children rather than the Kama Sutra itself, please see Wikipedia policy under WP:SECONDARY where it says, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources". In this case, the Kama Sutra itself would be a primary source, and one in a foreign language too. --Nigelj (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Disadvantages of Over- Masturbation

It is very bad for both Genders. Masturbation lead to bad memory. By Over Masturbation your penis will get curved. By Over Masturbation You will be Unable to fertile , It will lead you to fertility problem. And To STD(Sexually transmitted diseases) . The Advise is to Stop Masturbating. Feels good thts all tht matters to me haha! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.12.180 (talk) 01:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

1. Most people who masturbate have a feeling of guilt of doing something they have been made to believe is bad. Most of these feelings arose from religious or cultural taboo and traditional beliefs on sexual behaviour and practices.

2. Bruising of the genital organs can occur during masturbation, particularly if they are handled roughly during the act or if there is not enough lubrication. These can cause a lot of pain and can lead to serious infection if contaminated by germs.

3.Like all habits, it may be difficult to break for some people. The tendency is also there for adolescents to do nothing else but masturbate whenever they have some free time. This is bad as it does not allow them to develop other aspects of their talent and broaden their horizon for the world ahead.

4.There is the danger that masturbation may be preferred to normal sexual intercourse, and this may affect sexual relationship after marriage.

5. In men, masturbation has been known to be associated with premature ejaculation, that is, having ejaculation before or just after sexual intercourse has begun.

6. If a person thinks of masturbation and nothing else or if his or her whole existence revolves around masturbation then there is something harmful but if one enjoys masturbation with full control, it is not harmful.

However, the dangers of masturbation have been exaggerated. It may not lead to any physical injury unless one is addicted to it. Any ill effects which masturbation may result are feeling of anxiety, guilt, or self condemnation which it brings. Masturbation is looked upon as wicked, sinful and abnormal by elders and it results in sexual anxieties among children.

In spite of the religious and cultural disapproval, masturbation is widely practiced especially by adolescents (As from 20 to 35 years old). As part of healthy development, it is acceptable but however, it can become a habit that may affect future normal sexual relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.182.74.104 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 30 April 2013‎

This is not a forum for posting your personal personal views on masturbation. If you have no suggestions for the improvement of this article, including WP:RS reliable, citable sources to back them up, then this section of the Talk page may be removed or collapsed. --Nigelj (talk) 21:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

The above comment is about how to improve the article -> the page is written in a very strange way which says that masturbation is 100% OK with society (unless your a 'religious nut'), and is 100% healthy etc. Sure, religious views are discussed, but the page does not mention that masturbation, and those who are open about masturbating, are considered socially unacceptable in most cultures regardless of religious views. Masturbation is not a topic discussed in polite conversation, and only in crude humor. I honestly think that most average, normal people consider "sex researchers" and the like, whose work is used to reference this page, to be perverts. This is not entirely my own view, I just think that this is what most people feel.

So let's have a page that discusses the topic in a way that is not completely biased. Let's talk about internet pornography addiction, let's talk about the social stigma and taboo of masturbation, let's talk about the work of some researchers linking violent pornography with rape and violence against women, pedophilia, etc. This is all part of the masturbation wider topic. Let's talk about the negative health aspects too, I am sure that excessive masturbation can cause problems with incomplete voiding when urinating, and other problems with the pelvic floor. What about hygiene issues and masturbation? Let's not present some biased page written by people whose views do not reflect the mainstream society and all of the research available. Just thought I would mention that as a regular reader of Wikipedia, this article stands out as very one sided. I came here looking for health questions and it is like only one side of the argument has been given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.166 (talk • contribs)

There is already the article Religious views on masturbation, you might ponder that Wikipedia is not all that one-sided. It's just that in health matters apply WP:RSMED and WP:MEDASSESS, not religious or popular opinion. We don't pander to popular opinion, we follow the medical consensus and the scientific consensus in psychology. Unless you have mainstream academic sources showing that MDs and psychologists don't consensually agree that masturbation is a healthy and normal habit, you are not entitled to modify the article according to your musings. Nobody denied that people feel shame about masturbating, but medically and psychologically seen masturbation is healthy and perfectly normal. It's just not something one does in public or brags about. You might ponder that not only sex therapists (which you more or less called them perverts) agree on this, but MDs in general and psychologists in general (although consensus isn't unanimity, so there may be some fringe MDs and psychologists who hold weird views about masturbation). E.g. I have searched the whole DSM-IV-TR for the keyword masturbation and nowhere is it considered a disease. It is considered problematic only when done in public, overtly or when it leads to other health problems, such as encopresis (when produced by anal masturbation). It is also mentioned in connection with the Chinese superstitious belief that loss of semen produces the shenkui syndrome. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It won't hurt to read WP:ABIAS. It isn't official Wikipedia policy, but it will help you understand what kind of sources count as factual information on Wikipedia. Science is about facts, morals is about demands people have from each other. Law is mandatory morality, the rest of the morality is optional. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If there are sections called "Cultural views and practices" then the page should discuss a balanced view of these issues. Instead we have a page that says: "some religions say it's bad, in the past people thought it was bad, but now it's OK" and this is not the reality for most societies. I mean seriously, if they try a "masturbat-a-thon" in many parts of the world they would get stoned to death. Fact. This page is deluded. The "In history and society" section is basically about history only. We have a single fairly modern entry from 1994, but the rest is older history. I would like to see a proper society/culture section discussing the stigma and taboo of masturbation across cultures, a stigma than is not restricted to religion. Newspaper articles and the like are used as references on other pages, so why not here? I think the people who have written this page have deliberately not presented the other side well, because their own views are that masturbation should be 100% OK, and the result is an unbalanced article. I think people writing Wikipedia need to remind themselves that they are not trying to present information about a world that could be, and maybe should be, but they need to document our, real world, with all its complications and imperfections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.51 (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

And I just don't accept that masturbation has no negative health problems. Internet pornography addiction, which is directly tied to excessive masturbation, is a huge problem. I read that something like 60-70% of the internet is pornography. Let's have some content on this please. I agree that a normal level of masturbation is probably only positive in terms of physical health, ignoring the potential for addiction and guilt feelings as pointed out already, but negative phsyical problems from excessive masturbation do exist and are reported in scientific papers. In fact try type in "excessive masturbation" or "compulsive masturbation" and you will see a lot of negative stuff, and some of it modern research before you ask, stuff that is not included in this page and I list examples of below.

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3542919/
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20600465
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17581441
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17315592
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7890362
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14751219
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16696722 (this source talks about compulsive masturbation as a prediction of later sex crimes)
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11972544
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11501682
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9016275
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9604119

These are about "childhood/infantile masturbation" and the research discusses it as a medical condition that requires treatment. Masturbation in children is a sign of sexual abuse or other diseases

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18575886
• http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/116/6/1427.long
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14626074
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12187547
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9083774

This article discusses some "lay health beliefs" about masturbation, among other things, in Indian rural and cosmopolitan setting:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267344/

Let me give another story that highlights how unacceptable masturbation is, and how wrong this article presents the topic. I was working in a clothes store at the time, and a man came in to the store. He took some clothes to try on in the changin booths, and instead started masturbating. What did the store manager do? She called the police, and the man was arrested. Did she call the police because of religious reasons? No, she called them because masturbation is socially unacceptable and even illegal in public. Does this scenario fit in with the one sided, biased fantasy land, written by perverts, that is presented on this page? No, it does not. Get a grip Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.60 (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, the article already discusses some dangers of using foreign bodies when masturbating and such. So what you said is not news. If one aims to become a sexual stunt man, there are dangers involved, this is common sense. The gist is: MDs and psychologists consensually agree that masturbation is healthy and normal. We render this and then we fill in the details, like dangers if one does not masturbate properly. About medically treating masturbation, Thomas Szasz has a piece on the web (he compares today's psychiatry with yesterday's therapy for masturbation). Seen that 90-95% percent of men and about 80% of women report that they have masturbated, if masturbation would be harmful in itself there would be more people in the hospitals than outside hospitals. This alone should tell you that masturbation isn't harmful per se. About medical consensus, passing through theology and speaking about guilt and shame, there are some quotes like:

[[Thomas Szasz]] states the shift in [[scientific consensus]]<ref name=patton/><ref>Jack Boulware, "Sex educator says most people masturbate," Salon.com at: http://www.salon.com/health/sex/{{Dead link|date=June 2011}} apud [http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba1.htm Masturbation: Current medical opinions] Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. New URL: http://www.salon.com/health/sex/urge/world/2000/05/09/masturbate/index.html</ref><ref>Ornella Moscucci, "Male masturbation and the offending prepuce," at: http://www.cirp.org/library/history/moscucci/{{Dead link|date=July 2011}} (It is an excerpt from "Sexualities in Victorian Britain.") apud [http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba1.htm Masturbation: Current medical opinions] Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. New URL: http://sites.google.com/site/completebaby/repression</ref> as "Masturbation: the primary sexual activity of mankind. In the nineteenth century it was a disease; in the twentieth, it's a cure."<ref>{{cite book |last1=Szasz|first1=Thomas S.|authorlink1=Thomas Szasz|title=The Second Sin|url=http://books.google.com/books/about/The_second_sin.html?id=1us9AAAAIAAJ|accessdate=June 30, 2011|year=1974|origyear=1973|publisher=Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd|location=London|isbn=0-7100-7757-2|page=10|chapter=Sex|chapterurl=http://books.google.nl/books?id=1us9AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22Masturbation:+the+primary+sexual+activity+of+mankind.+In+the+nineteenth+century+it+was+a+disease;+in+the+twentieth,+it%27s+a+cure.%22+%22second+sin%22&source=bl&ots=lSH-mPbfvU&sig=Yki_FWLBB6N_DKxa_CpV-_Ll_5c&hl=nl&ei=XqkLTrWuKsGBOsTfoZIB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q&f=false|quote=Masturbation: the primary sexual activity of mankind. In the nineteenth century it was a disease; in the twentieth, it's a cure.}}</ref>

Some claim there is no Bible verse which supports the view that masturbation would be sinful.<ref name=patton>{{cite journal|last=Patton|first=Michael S.|month=June|year=1985|title=Masturbation from Judaism to Victorianism|journal=Journal of Religion and Health|volume=24|issue=2|pages=133–146|publisher=Springer Netherlands|issn=0022-4197|doi=10.1007/BF01532257|accessdate=12 November 2011|url=http://www.springerlink.com/content/r407h39183426645/|quote=Social change in attitudes toward masturbation has occurred at the professional level only since 1960 and at the popular level since 1970. [133] ... onanism and masturbation erroneously became synonymous... [134] ... there is no legislation in the Bible pertaining to masturbation. [135]}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Kwee|first=Alex W.|coauthors=David C. Hoover|year=2008|title=Theologically-Informed Education about Masturbation: A Male Sexual Health Perspective|journal=Journal of Psychology and Theology|volume=36|issue=4|pages=258–269|location=La Mirada, CA, USA|publisher=Rosemead School of Psychology. Biola University|issn=0091-6471|accessdate=12 November 2011|url=http://www.alexkwee.com/uploads/kwee_hoover08.pdf|quote=The Bible presents no clear theological ethic on masturbation, leaving many young unmarried Christians with confusion and guilt around their sexuality.}}</ref> The biblical story of [[Onan]] does not refer to masturbation, but to [[coitus interruptus]].<ref>{{cite book|last=Coogan|first=Michael|title=God and Sex. What the Bible Really Says|url=http://books.google.nl/books?id=2_gPKQEACAAJ&dq=god+and+sex&hl=nl&ei=4fbCTaPKDpGXOrq88Z0I&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAQ|accessdate=May 5, 2011|edition=1st|year=2010|month=October|publisher=Twelve. Hachette Book Group|location=New York, Boston|isbn=978-0-446-54525-9|page=110|quote=Although Onan gives his name to "onanism," usually a synonym for masturbation, Onan was not masturbating but practicing coitus interruptus.}}</ref><ref>http://www.catholic.com/tracts/birth-control (official Catholic tract declared free from error by a book censor and approved by a bishop.) Quote: "The Bible mentions at least one form of contraception specifically and condemns it. Coitus interruptus, was used by Onan to avoid fulfilling his duty according to the ancient Jewish law of fathering children for one’s dead brother."</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Ellens|first1=J. Harold|title=Sex in the Bible: a new consideration|accessdate=2012-01-24|year=2006|publisher=Praeger Publishers|location=Westport, Conn.|isbn=0-275-98767-1|oclc=65429579|page=48|chapter=6. Making Babies: Purposes of Sex|chapterurl=http://books.google.nl/books?id=IXVGBv2eEroC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=onan+coitus+interruptus&source=bl&ots=PB27B5N7Kv&sig=76u8S4xgVzLm7wamQu6-D_x3ZP4&hl=nl&ei=frvfTtf_B8OE-wa_yv2wBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CGUQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=onan%20coitus%20interruptus&f=false|quote=He practiced coitus interruptus whenever he made love to Tamar.}}</ref><ref>Confirmed by The Web Bible Encyclopedia at http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/onan.html quote: "Some have mistakenly assumed that Onan's sin was masturbation. However, it seems clear that this is not the case. Onan was prematurely withdrawing from sexual intercourse with his new wife, Tamar. This is a form of birth control still practiced today (''coitus interruptus'')."</ref><ref>Church Father [[Epiphanius of Salamis]] agrees, according to {{cite book|last1=Riddle|first1=John M.|title=Contraception and abortion from the ancient world to the Renaissance|accessdate=2012-01-24|year=1992|publisher=Harvard University Press|location=Cambridge, Mass.|isbn=0-674-16875-5|oclc=24428750|page=4|chapter=1. Population and Sex|chapterurl=http://books.google.nl/books?id=1vS85LtlsnIC&pg=PA4&lpg=PA4&dq=onan+coitus+interruptus&source=bl&ots=fxOCLmgnup&sig=SmGFjLC-NeEzF7XmjYLcbYsxz2w&hl=nl&ei=or3fTpijOoGDOsu-gO0C&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CG8Q6AEwBTgK#v=onepage&q=onan%20coitus%20interruptus&f=false|quote=Epiphanius (fourth century) construed the sin of Onan as coitus interruptus.¹⁴}}</ref>

As you see, such problems are discussed in reliable sources. This gist of Wikipedia medical policies is to give due weight to the medical consensus and then fill in other details. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

About masturbation in public being illegal: is there any country wherein this does not hold? Do you need Wikipedia to tell you the sky is blue? Or is it something every aware person from whatever country already knows? Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Masturbation in childhood is a normal behaviour which most commonly begins at 2 months of age, and peaks at 4 years and in adolescence.

— De Alwis AC, Senaratne AM, De Silva SM, Rodrigo VS., "Bladder calculus presenting as excessive masturbation." Ceylon Med J. 2006 Sep;51(3):121-2.

This is a quote from one of your links. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph you quote is on topic, but the second is about religion. My main points are that:

• The stigma and taboo of masturbation is not just confined to religion. There is little mention of this non religious views against masturbation, i.e. the views of ordinary people.
• The potential negative side of masturbation, both psychological and physical is not discussed in great enough detail, and it is glossed over. Whilst you are probably right that in modern times, most researchers probably consider a degree of masturbation to be normal, (i) this is not necessarily the view of non scientific culture, and (ii) there is enough research on the negative aspects of masturbation for these to be discussed as well as what the majority of researchers say. Particularly I would like to see some mention of compulsive masturbation/excessive masturbation being linked to later sex offenses. Some people say this is why we have serial killers like Ted Bundy, and that excessive masturbation and violent pornography are a spiraling circle that leads to crimes. I would also like references to pornography/sex/masturbation addiction, and the social problems it causes.
• And finally, yes I do think that laws relating to masturbation should be discussed. I don't understand why that would not be directly relevant to this topic.

In response to masturbation in childhood, yes the research says it is normal to an extent, but if done excessively and in public etc it requires treatment. If it is a sign of sexual abuse, epilepsy or other medical conditions, then it is not normal either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.53 (talk • contribs)

Well, science decides what counts as fact. Popular culture can only decide what counts as fashionable, cool, immoral or as prejudice. Further, some studies make the same mistake as Tissot: he studied madmen who masturbated, but he failed to study the sexual behavior of normal people. He concluded that masturbation causes madness, which is an illegitimate conclusion. Every conclusion should be generalizable, i.e. based upon statistics which are representative in many aspects of the general population. If you have reliable sources discussing guilt, shame and laws about masturbation, by all means add them to the article, don't ask the other editors to look for them. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Is eating a healthy and normal habit? Yes, it is.

Could problematic eating lead to health problems? Yes, it can.

The same applies to masturbation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The first point you make would hold, if the page was intended to have a purely scientific coverage. But it does not, it has sections covering society and culture. These should not necessarily follow the scientific sources, almost by definition. If you say, the opinions of science matters only, then take out the society and culture sections.

For physical and psychological problems, why can no content be generated from the sources I put above? I believe that someone who knew about psychology and how to search for scientific papers could easily find a lot more than I did, which was a very superficial search. This kind of source is being ignored by the writers of this page.

Regarding sources that could support cultural stigma and taboo, and laws, I am not sure where to go for these apart from Google. I will look.

Your analogy to eating is not valid. Eating is normal for all humans, and is done in public and socially. No-one says that eating, not even eating too much, is immoral, illegal in public etc etc. Masturbation is completely different because of the taboo and stigma applied to even a normal level of masturbation by many societies.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.50 (talk) 13:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Difference granted, but it is kind of hilarious, since I had already conceded that masturbation should not be done in public. Eating is good both in public and in private, while masturbation is good only in private. Besides, society and culture could be and are studied scientifically. There is a Romanian forum, wherein most users are teenagers, and they flame views like "masturbation causes madness" (reported at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267344/ ) as a consequence of utmost stupidity or even of mental retardation. For them, it is on a par with believing in Santa Claus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:44, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The difference between eating and masturbation goes beyond mere laws prohibiting the public activity. With masturbation, many people would say that even when done in private, at a non excessive level, is wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.238 (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a specific change you wish to make to the article? If so, please present the text here for discussion. Thanks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

So far I have little specific, I was just trying to point out how one sided the article comes across as in the hope that someone else would fix this at some point.

• Maybe mention of the various laws about masturbation in public is specific enough, but I have no source for this so far.

I can't say this would be wrong, but it is on a par with stating that the sky is blue. Besides, it would require an worldwide analysis of law, bordering on WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

No, many other wikipedia articles draw different references together in this manner and there is no reason why not to here. I read on the internet yesterday that Indonesia has extreme laws against public masturbation. This information gives a better non biased view of how the world cultures consider this topic, and not present it as a thing that is now completely socially accepted across the world, which just isn't the case.

• I also note that the page already mentions childhood masturbation as a possible sign of sexual abuse. Maybe this could be expanded with some of the other medical conditions in children that I pasted above.

"Possible" means "possibly yes, possibly not". It's kind of vague and it would lead to needless worry about a behavior which is considered normal in children. A now old woman told me that when she was a child she attracted the attention of a pervert, but when the whole story transpired to her sister, mother and the Police, she was more traumatized by their attempts to solve the case than by seeing a man displaying his erect penis. It's labeling theory 101: once one gets a label of "sexually abused child" (assigned correctly or incorrectly), he/she is marked for life. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

My children never did this, and if they had, I would have gone to a doctor if it was a problem. After reading some of the above references, I would definitely encourage any mother to do the same.

• I think the source http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267344/ might support mention that popular opinion is that excessive masturbation causes diseases.

One man's culture is another man's laughing stock. It should me mentioned as "the superstitious popular opinion that masturbation causes diseases". In case of popular opinion, "excessive" is very subjective and each person tends to see it as "masturbating more often than I do" (there was actually as study for this, but I can only quote it from memory, perhaps some Google search would settle the matter). Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If we critically assess the actual evidence that masturbation is healthy, then these beliefs could almost be called superstition too. I don't think we should dismiss popular opinions just because some people disagree with them.

Wikipedia editors are not called to research if masturbation is healthy or not, that would be doing original medical and psychological research. Instead, we find reliable sources which pass either WP:MEDRS or WP:MEDASSESS. In the article it is quoted an article about a leaflet published by the National Health Service. The leaflet targets teenagers and states that "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away", an by orgasm it understands orgasm through masturbation. If the NHS would have no evidence that masturbation is healthy, it could not make such statements. In the quotes offered above I have showed that the medical consensus and the scientific consensus in psychology, beginning with the 50's, state that masturbation is healthy. (Perhaps you may want to re-read the quotes I offered above.) I think you should see the film about Alfred Kinsey ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0362269/ ), it is instructive, especially lines as "Nobody researched this yet. Then how do you know?" Since Kinsey, the method of evidence based medicine has been applied to human sexuality and masturbation has been repeatedly found normal and healthy. While I am not a reliable source, I have pointed above that following statistics of masturbation frequency, if masturbation would be harmful in itself, more people would be now treated in hospitals than there were people outside of hospitals. So, elementary logics says that masturbation cannot be harmful in itself. You seek to challenge such conclusion based on anecdotal evidence, which in medical matters amounts to no evidence. Of course, some practices are dangerous, but the article does not deny this. I am getting more and more the impression that you have an agenda against masturbation, preferring your own musings to scientific evidence. Scientific consensus in evidence based medicine and psychology does not amount to superstition. What clearly amounts to superstition is the Victorian idea that masturbation would be harmful in itself. It has been proven wrong over and over and over. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting reading. I am glad you point out these rules, because many of the scientific studies should not be used according to them. Anything with original research in it should be removed, see especially the sections on "Frequency, age, and sex", "Evolutionary utility" and "Benefits" which as far as I can see are largely based on sources that are not "reliable" as these rules define it. If unreliable sources are not allowed, then why have these unreliable sources which suggest that masturbation is all kinds of healthy been allowed to stay? There is a selective suppression of information going on here. Anything which says that masturbation is good is kept, even if it is unreferenced or based on unreliable sources. I have not suggested that the there is anything wrong with the content supported by the NHS source, or that that source should be removed. This is just reporting what one country has done and I think it should stay. I can assure you that the only thing I am advocating here is a balanced article that represents the reality of this topic, and that these rules of reliable sources should apply equally to content that suggests that "masturbation is good". Please will someone address the issues I raise below and above here, and see that this page has serious problems that are being selectively ignored because they show the topic according to some peoples' opinions.

• Even if the research that said that violent pornography and excessive masturbation leads to sex offences is now discounted by most modern researchers, I believe this is still worth a mention

It's not done per WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. There was a Czech shrink interviewed by a Dutch public TV station and he claimed that since child pornography was legalized in the Czech Republic, real child abuse decreased every year afterwards. He was not a softie, since he defended castrating recidivist violent sex offenders. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. If this content is now not considered valid, then it should be discussed in the history section.

• The "risks" could be expanded by mentioning some of the other physical problems that are reported to be rarely associated with excessive masturbation. The list of sources provided above mentions some, but I stress that I looked very quickly for these, and there are probably better sources for this out there.

Well, it should be evaluated if such cases are statistically relevant or are just rarities. I agree that one source says that penile fracture happens quite often. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• what about using a newspaper report or something to report a case involving masturbation and (for example) Sharia law, where the punishment is extreme to western views. This might go some way to address the unbalanced views that masturbation is accepted by all cultures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.56 (talk) 14:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

In Iran a computer programmer was sentenced to the death penalty for developing a pornographic website in Canada. But I think you misread the article, it does not claim that masturbation would be "accepted by all cultures". Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:15, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

See Saeed Malekpour for details on the sentence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is about internet pornography more than masturbation, but I appreciate you placing this story if you already knew it, or finding it if you didn't already know it.

I have re-read the entire page today with a clear head and I am now sure that is very biased. I have no wish to research these matters, but my guess is that no one else will. Someone has gone around putting a lot of one sided, unreferenced content in at some point. This person is just putting propaganda for their own idea of how the world should be, and it should be removed if there is no reference. Why can't someone else put in their own opinions, like "masturbation is immoral" with no references? What's the difference, it's just more unreferenced opinion. My guess these kind of additions are being selectively deleted by the people who want to present a biased article. I can't edit the article myself. So in addition to the suggestions I have made above, I list some more below, and I will try to keep things specific rather than general, although these suggestions are related to things being removed or reworded rather than added.

• ... "everyday objects" ... what the hell? This article is telling me that there is something wrong with me because I am not humping a toaster? Where is the reference? And where does it say that this is a common form of masturbation? Why is it in the title section if it is not common?
• "it is considered a normal part of healthy life today." with no reference. Why has this person been allowed to put this opinion in? Why has it not been deleted before? I imagine that if people try to put opinions against this then they have been deleted. This is biased and it needs to be removed. It does not represent the reality of our world. Things are more complicated than that.
• "It is commonly mentioned in popular music as well as on television, in films and in literature." with no reference. I don't think the word common should be used unless a reference specifically uses this word. I don't think masturbation is a common topic.
• "Ways of masturbating common to members of both sexes include [...] inserting fingers or an object into the anus (see anal masturbation);" I don't think anal masturbation is common at all. Why are we giving over emphasis to the link to that page, which I am not even going to bother to visit because I can tell already the kinds of people who wrote it. I am sure that since most people are heterosexual, that normal masturbation is far more common than this kind of masturbation, which I would imagine is carried out mainly by homosexual males, or at least those homosexual males who prefer that to the normal method (possibly only 50% then). We should list the common forms of masturbation before listing this, and then I don't think the word common should be used to apply to it unless there is a source.
• The same as the above applies to "urethral sounding". Visit the page and you will see that this act is very dangerous. I think it is rare and should not be described as being
• "Some potentially harmful or fatal activities include autoerotic asphyxiation and self-bondage." yes, well how many people actually do this, honestly. Another rare perversion which is discussed happily as if it is common and everyday.
• The "female" section reads like a "how to masturbate" manual. I think this should be reworded so it sounds less like it is giving instructions. Better to be slightly more vague, I'm sure no-one is coming here for instructions anyway.
• The "male" section has similar problems.
• A lot of the "Frequency, age, and sex" and the "Evolutionary utility" is based on original research from specific parts of the world. This is presenting biased data that does not apply to other societies. How reliable are these results? Have they been repeated?
• "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." this is unreferenced, and it is basically suggesting that masturbation will help someone get to sleep. Where is the evidence for this?
• "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." this is unreferenced. I strongly get the impression that this statement has been twisted from research that said "physical should be resumed after heart attack" and the unreferenced advice that masturbation should be resumed has been stuck on by someone with no evidence. We should not say this if it is not said in medical publications, it could be dangerous.
• "A small study demonstrated lower blood pressure in persons who had recently masturbated compared to those with no proximate sexual activity.[50]" again this is a very small, original research study. We have no real evidence that masturbation has any effect on blood pressure. It is probably only a short term thing even if there is a link. Instead this reads as advice to people with high blood pressure that they should masturbate. We should not suggest this if there is no real evidence.
• "Religions vary broadly in their views of masturbation, from considering it completely impermissible (as in Roman Catholicism[81]) to encouraging and refining it (see, for example Neotantra and Taoist sexual practices)." this should be reworded. The major religions of the world (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, not sure about Hinduism and Buddism) all tend to say that masturbation is wrong. Those religions which encourage or ritualize masturbation are surely in the minority. So why don't we say, "the major world religions tend to discourage masturbation, but other less common religions occasionally have different views." or something --previous unsigned comments were made from various IP addresses

tl;dr. Rather than filling the page with essays, please make one specific suggestion (with cited sources) to improve the text of the article. Please do this in a clean new section, and then please stick to making one sourced and specific suggestion - quoted existing and suggested text - per section. If you create a user account, it will make it easier too. --Nigelj (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

All the recent comments except for 182.182.74.104 (the original comment in this thread), 86.135.211.204 (an old comment that was ignored and I placed the edit request on below), Tgeorgescu, NeilN, and yourself, were from me. It is not my intention to use different IPs -- this is the way my internet provider works and I can't help it. I am sorry if I use the edit request wrongly, but I cannot edit the page myself. I will place new sections for each edit request below in due course, although often I will give no source because the nature of the request is that unreliable/unreferenced content should be removed. Where there is material I suggest to add I will try to give a source here.

Inaccurate link between claims and sources

In the section on frequency, it states that the UK government encourages daily masturbation and describes it as a right. The foreign source provided does not support that claim in the form in which it is stated. The source says that a local government body in the North of England has encouraged this. Local governments are small authorities for small populations. They are not national governments. The local government may endorse a policy without it being supported by the national government. The UK government is not the local health authority and not responsible for this policy therefore the use of the source as evidence for this claim is false. Please correct this error to reflect a more realistic version of reality by either changing the statement to match the source or finding a new source. (This is not a judgement on the policy itself). 86.135.211.204 (talk) 02:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Why was this inaccuracy ignored, I wonder?

Have you read the text of the edit banner that you have placed here? Can you quote where the article says these things that you claim? Have you considered creating a user account so that we can distinguish the threads of the various IP-identified editors who are making simultaneous suggestions here at the moment? --Nigelj (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request # 1

Please remove the unreferenced opinion, which does not speak for all societies and even all people in societies where masturbation is not so discouraged.

"it is considered a normal part of healthy life today." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.53 (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The sentence you refer to is part of the WP:LEDE, which does not need separate referencing because it summarises well-cited points made later in the article. I would say that the phrase you quote is part of a very brief summary of the large sections Masturbation#Health and psychological effects and Masturbation#Cultural views and practices, both of which have many citations. I would say, if anything, the summary in the lede could be expanded rather than curtailed. --Nigelj (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is not valid. I read this rule and 2 points stand out to me. (i) "be carefully sourced as appropriate". and (ii) "summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

(i) this suggests that the statements need to be referenced in this section too. Please provide a source or remove it as opinion.

(ii) when we have the major world religions with a long history of discouraging masturbation, and also laws against it in public etc, how can this statement be held as an accurate summary of both sides of the argument? The "controversy" is not being covered at all by this statement. The preceding part of the sentence: "While there was a period (from the late 18th to the early 20th century) when it was subject to medical censure and social conservatism" suggests that masturbation is now 100% accepted by society as being normal and healthy, and any opinions otherwise are historical. This is not true, and it is unreferenced opinion. Why is someone else prevented from placing their own unreferenced, biased opinion? Is there something I am missing here? because to me it is very obvious that the rules are not being applied to any content which suggests that the issue is healthy and normal etc.

What I am trying to get across to you people, is that in many parts of the world, for religious, cultural etc reasons, masturbation is not accepted as healthy and normal. How hard is this to understand? These people don't care about sex researchers saying that it lowers blood pressure or what ever, they will still punish their children for it, and it is not discussed in social settings at all.

If MDs and psychologists say it's healthy, then it's healthy, regardless of what the popular opinion is. We don't decide facts by popular vote, science is not a democracy; MDs don't call for national referendum in order to decide on the facts of medical science. In deciding health issues Wikipedia follows the medical authorities, not mere opinions. The only way to know if it's healthy is to study it medically, and sex researchers study it. So, regardless of the morality of sex researchers (which is an ad hominem), Wikipedia can only know if masturbation is healthy from sex researchers. Besides, the consensus is much broader than mere sex researchers, it is the consensus of the medical profession in general and of psychologists in general. Wikipedia editors should have respect for science, since scientific points are made all the time on Wikipedia and one should distinguish between science and pseudoscience, between experts and wannabes. You have no future as an Wikipedia editor if you seek quarrel with the scientific consensus. The scientific consensus ain't gonna change because you write messages in Wikipedia talk pages. But, in a sense, you are right that most people consider shameful to speak about masturbation or to be seen masturbating. And it is true that most people masturbate not because they seek to improve their health, but because it satisfies a biological necessity and offers pleasure. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

And where would be the place to look for it if masturbation were a health problem? In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. I don't know about DSM-5, since I don't have it, but I searched the entire DSM-IV-TR and indeed masturbation is mentioned several times in respect to mental disorders, but it is not in itself a mental disorder, not is it when practiced normally anything like abnormal behavior or like a symptom of a mental disorder. Coming back to the eating analogy, are urinating and defecating normal and healthy habits? Yes, they are. Are they practiced in public? Mostly not. The same way, masturbation is a healthy and normal habit which is not practiced in public. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you that medicine and psychology, although influenced by cultural factors, are not the same as socio-cultural opinion, yes. For example, homosexuality was regarded as a mental disorder in the DSM until about the 1970s I think. I wonder how western societies would tolerate such a "disorder" now? Or other "scientific consensus" opinions like it is normal for men to be attracted to females who are under the legal age of consent. If it is normal, why is the age of consent not lower in many developed countries? Scientific opinion and how cultures view it. Not the same thing. So, if you want to bring science in to it, can we please split this mixed up, and misleading sentence then:

"Medically, there was a period (from the late 18th to the early 20th century) when masturbation was believed to be unhealthy and abnormal, however the modern scientific consensus is that masturbation very rarely has any negative health effects, but rather is associated with various positive health effects, both physical and psychological, and is therefore a normal and healthy human behavior."

Then we can talk about society at large:

"Historically, many societies discouraged masturbation on both cultural and religious grounds. Although this taboo has generally reduced, being open about masturbation is still not completely socially acceptable in many cultures. The views of societies towards masturbation are subject to significant geographical variation. In some cultures, the topic is often subject to crude humor rather than polite conversation, and in others it is not discussed at all. Masturbation is generally carried out in privacy and most societies have legislation in place that prohibit public masturbation, although these often are extensions of public nudity laws."

These changes do not better reflect the world we live in? Would a rural farmer in Islamic Pakistan say that masturbation is healthy and normal part of life? No. Or, would people in a country where you could face the death penalty if you carried out public masturbation say that it is normal and healthy? Don't try and make out that the whole world has "moved with the times" because it has not. A significant percentage of the global population still live in societies that are strongly influenced by conservative and religious values.

Again I challenge you that if you want an article that is only about science, to remove all the non science sections. Don't try to cover them if you are not going to cover them in a way that reflects reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.241 (talk) 19:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

again the straw man argument about public masturbation. Most societies have laws about any sexual activity in public, and in that respect masturbation is no different. If I urinate in public I would expect to be punished, and in that respect masturbation is, again no different. What's normal, and healthy, in private does not mean acceptable in the high street.IdreamofJeanie (talk) 19:48, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If it is normal in private and not in public, why then not say this? instead of saying: "it is considered a normal part of healthy life today" which is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.241 (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that the people who are "hanging out" (so to speak) on this page do not reflect the views of the majority of people who read Wikipedia. Hence there is no progress and all my reasonable requests, which would lead to a balanced and unbiased article, are being ignored or deliberately opposed. I tried to place a request for comments from other people, but this was removed.

I wonder why this page is protected, so only certain people can edit it? It is to preserve it as a biased and deluded article which does not reflect the reality of our world.

Get a grip Wikipedia, you ignore your own rules when you want to, when it suites someone's personal opinion, and use these same rules to delete or oppose any other view. How about removing all the original research sources that say that masturbation is healthy and good? According to your own rules, these sources are not reliable. You are keeping them because they suite your views. How about removing the unreferecend opinions that say it is 100% OK with society across the globe. This page is a joke, and you know it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.29 (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

First, we don't have a ban on original research when it's done by academics and published in scholarly/scientific journals. We only have a ban on original research done by Wikipedia editors. Second, where does the article imply that "it is 100% OK with society across the globe"? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

First=Yes you do, or at least according to the rules that were thrown at me falsely on http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_source and http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) , original research sources--this kind of source is called a primary source, and they are not considered "reliable sources" for wikipedia. Reading these pages, this is an attempt to make sure that a non biased opinion is used, rather than a string of unreliable sources which can be made into an argument that supports a particular person's world view, which is what is happening here. If you look through the list of references, most of them which state that masturbation is all kinds of healthy and good are unreliable sources. They are being kept because they support a minorities personal view.

It is you who has to prove that they are minority views. I have included a quote from Szasz which states the change in medical consensus: from being considered a disease to being considered a cure for all sorts of health problems. I know that Szasz is famous for opposing the medical consensus in psychiatry but as any reliable critic he has to know what he criticizes, so from his critique and his credentials we infer that he really knows what he is talking about (namely what is consensually agreed by MDs). Besides the Szasz quote, there is another reliable source which states the shift in consensus among the medical professionals and among the public opinion, and there are two reliable sources which state how the medical consensus looked some centuries ago and how it looks in the present. For a short introduction into the subject, I would recommend reading http://www.religioustolerance.org/masturba.htm (while the website is not a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, it quotes many reliable sources, therefore the quotes offered there are reliable). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Another short introduction is available at http://www.ellenwhiteexposed.com/criticc.htm (again, while the website is not a reliable source, it has many reliable quotations and it is mostly based upon the scholarly work of Ronald L. Numbers, which is a reliable source for Wikipedia). Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Second= I exaggerate, the page does have **some** content on historic and religious views against masturbation, and also on potential adverse psychical effects of over masturbation, but the overall bias of this article is that it is fine for society in modern times. My main argument is that this does not reflect all societies, and scientific opinion is not 100% in favor of masturbation being physically and mentally healthy- see for example the quick search I made far above listing several recent publications which present other views.

Deleting the sentence in the title section: "it is considered a normal part of healthy life today." and replacing it with

"Medically, there was a period (from the late 18th to the early 20th century) when masturbation was believed to be unhealthy and abnormal, however the modern scientific consensus is that masturbation very rarely has any negative health effects, but rather is associated with various positive health effects, both physical and psychological, and is therefore a normal and healthy human behavior. Historically, many societies discouraged masturbation on both cultural and religious grounds. Although this taboo has generally reduced, being open about masturbation is still not completely socially acceptable in many cultures. The views of societies towards masturbation are subject to significant geographical variation. In some cultures, the topic is often subject to crude humor rather than polite conversation, and in others it is not discussed at all. Masturbation is generally carried out in privacy and most societies have legislation in place that prohibit public masturbation, although these often are extensions of public nudity laws." would be a good start to trying to fix the bias in this article. If the grammar is poor, then this can be improved, english is not my first langeage.

There are two problems with this: first, you have to find reliable sources for such affirmations; second, the lede summarizes the points made in the article, so if such points are not made in the article there is nothing to summarize. So you should consider first creating content for the article and only then attempt to summarize it in the lede. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So I have to make edit requests to article before the title section is changed? That doesn't make sense

Only IP's have, because the article is heavily vandalized if it is not semi-protected. You need to have an account and be on Wikipedia for 10 edits (i think) and 4 days to be able to edit any of those. Its sad we have to do this, but it is the case to prevent a lot of damage. Also... the IP user is completely correct. The lede should not be summarizing highly contentious issues like this. I'm altering it because a sentence or two is not going to kill the lede and it will correct the issue and alleviate the concern. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw the note at WT:SEX. I am concerned about this statement: If MDs and psychologists say it's healthy, then it's healthy, regardless of what the popular opinion is.

The problem here is that being "healthy", in a physical and/or mental health sense, is not at all the same thing as something being "normal", and you're trying to make both claims in this sentence. There are three possible meanings for normal: one is that something is common in a statistical sense, the other is that it is socially acceptable, and the third is that something is not disordered. (For example, losing your temper occasionally is common and non-disordered, but not socially acceptable.) MDs are only authoritative about the last of those items. They are not arbiters of what society accepts.

I think that you should re-write this sentence to remove the potentially confusing word normal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Thankfully, I also noticed that post. I'm tagging the article with issues until this can be resolved. This page is has numerous assertions which do not distinguish medical vs social commentary. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:53, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have added sources including quotations which reflect the medical and psychological consensus and I have added a quote which is about guilt, shame and stigma. I hope that these edits address two important issues mentioned above: accurately reflecting the medical consensus according to secondary sources and acknowledging the social lack of acceptance for masturbation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a start, and thank you for your work. However, I have a few minor suggestions to this new wording:

"Social attitudes about masturbation has continued to be the subject of contention throughout history and in every culture. In western countries, an opening of ideas have begun to embrace the private and healthy aspects of masturbation with increasing public discussion and reference in television, in films and in literature. Religion and social conservative regions often shun the practice as a sin; where even discussion of the topic is restricted by social norms."

• In the first sentence, I would replace. In the page are microcultural examples of certain tribes etc where masturbation is ritualized into daily life, or so it is described. So I advise use of "most" rather than "every"
• The second sentence is written not from the neural bias. It speaks as though masturbation becoming more accepted is a good thing. Let be more neutral in the wording. Also the word "increasing" is predicting that this trend will continue. We don't know this for sure.
• The sentence about religion is duplication with the last sentence in the title section, which reads "Some religions consider masturbation to be a sin.[6]" Let's move that ref to this sentence and delete the second mention of religion. No need to mention it twice
• I think it is very important to mention the legal aspect, as a societies laws are a measure of the public opinions worldwide. E.g. in the pedophilia article I would expect to read in the title section that it is illegal when they talk about how society views the practice. Not saying that masturbation is as bad as pedophilia, just an example.

So my new wording goes like this:

"Social attitudes towards masturbation have continued to be a subject of contention throughout history and in most cultures. In the West, this social taboo has generally declined and there has been an increase in discussion and portrayal of masturbation in television, films and literature. However, most religions consider masturbation to be a sin,[reference] and in many socially conservative areas the stigma about masturbation is greater, where even discussion of the topic is restricted by social norms. Masturbation is usually carried out in private, and public masturbation is illegal in most countries"