Talk:Masturbation

Archives
November 2004 – April 2005 May 2005 – March 2006 April 2006 – July 2006 May 2006 – January 2007

Myth Section

I feel we should put a section in about the myths about masturbation. I hear so many myths from the internet and from a lot of friends that I would like a section of "These are some common myths, all of which are false" or something like that. I feel that it would be good if we could dispel the false fear that these myths have invoked in many people. Aguy666 01:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Citation Issue

"Some doctors will advise those recovering from heart attacks to resume sexual activity (solitary or with a partner) when one is able to climb two flights of stairs without experiencing shortness of breath or chest pain." This was used as a plot device in the movie with Jack Nicholson and Diane Keaton. Unless a citation can be found, this should be removed or changed.

That would be "Something's Gotta Give." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.225.141 (talk) 01:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Spam

The bottom link to "The worlds largest masturbation blog" links to a spam/advertising site. Can someone remove it please? http://www.masturbatorblog.com/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schneider100 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

Already done-and good ridance!24.14.33.61 01:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

Images

While it is patently true that wikipedia is not censored, there is some strong support amongst editors of Sexuality articles to use "linkimage" when adding pictures of a graphic sexual nature. This allows us to keep content that is appropriate to the article, while minimizing the "shock effect" to readers of a ...sensitive...disposition. In keeping with this informal guideline, I have added the linkimage template to "Girl masturbating at a nude beach". Doc Tropics 19:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is there strong support to avoid offending people who are sensitive to sex, while there is no support for the same with regards to violence, blood and gore? I'm sensitive to the latter (which I pointed out on the IED page, to which the reply was a picture of a severed arm by one of the main contributors; apparently, this was considered civil), as are many people, but not the former, as many people aren't. And where would this consensus have been reached? One wishes WP would have a consistent policy on pictures, rather than the current hipocrisy.

As a case in point, with regards to your "shock effect" point, please refer to Vitrectomy, and consult its talk page, whose comments (apart from mine) include "horrific", "shocker" and "seriously making me consider staying blind".

A picture would add as much to the article as the picture used in the Football article does for that; it clearly illustrates the topic, and is something that, judging by the article, 81% of the male readers and 55% of the female readers will have done by the age of 15 years. How bad can it be?

Zuiram 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty clearly a commercial porn photo, I think. It's metadata says, "Copyright holder girlmastrub@ing.net" I don't really believe the uploader's assertion that 'girlmastrub' has emailed him to ask him to add her photos to WP! I think it'll be deleted soon. --Nigelj 20:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll definitely take your word on copyvio issues; it's a subject I don't know enough about yet. My first impulse was to delete it myself, but it looked like a good-faith effort, so the linkimage seemed like a good idea. Doc Tropics 20:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Linkimage is a good compromise, IMHO. Ppe42 11:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Nigelj, it happened exactly the way you don't believe it with the amendment that the uploader asked for the permission to put my photos to WP... as the object of your talk doesn't exist here any longer, there's no need to keep any trace (my email address) here as well, so i edited the email address (and i won't sign this comment for the same reason)... if you still have a doubt i'm the one who has been in question, you may write to the email address that has been altered, i also insist you change my name and real email address to the suggested patterns in all versions of this page.

Copyright is not an issue. If noone else is willing to donate a picture of themselves, I might do it if a consensus is reached that the article should have one on the page; no face, though, I'm not comfortable with identifiability. There should be a female contribution as well. Ideal would be a couple for the top of the page, and gender specific under the appropriate headings. Zuiram 02:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What we need for this page are some anatomically correct, medical-type images for this page that display what masturbation is in an appropriate, clear, and educational manner. We have stuff ranging from old paintings (which are utterly useless unless you want to study art history) to hand drawn illustrations which are essentially goofy porno doodles scanned out of the back pages of some horny teenager's composition notebook. Panzer-Kavalier 23:44, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think still images would illustrate masturbation very well. If we really want to display masturbation accurately, we should get videos. Obviously, they should be done tastefully and with the intent to educate. They would only have to be a few seconds long, or just long enough so people get the idea of it, not that they don't already know. CerealBabyMilk 07:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Condensing short sections

There are currently four sections to this article that each contain no more than two sentences of prose. They are mainly just pointers to other articles, so I am condensing them down into the "See also" section so that we avoid these short, choppy sections. Johntex\^talk 04:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I'm surprised you could tear yourself away from your football highlights video and Jevan Snead long enough to get that done : ) Doc Tropics 05:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I can always make time for masturbation!! Wait, I didn't mean that like it sounded...or did I? Take care, Johntex\^talk 05:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Definition of "masturbation"

I'm about to rewrite the definition that begins this article, which currently states that masturbation requires "manual excitation". This is not true: people can masturbate by inserting objects, by using vibrators, by rubbing against objects (or other people), and so on. In fact, the article describes these methods a little further down, under the heading "Masturbation techniques." I will base my definition on the one in Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary but I will, of course, significantly reword it. Eric-Albert 22:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this definition even accurate? It includes a bunch of activities you can do with a partner. It should be restricted to solo action, with "mutual masturbation" being an exception along the lines of "simulating the actions of masturbation in the presence of a partner". (ie, masturbation only in name) Etymologically, it means one thing--but in practice it means what you do by yourself.

The secondary definition has been taken as the main definition. Today autoeroticism is the main definition.

When you are naked in bed with a woman and she is rubbing her crotch on your leg, according to this article she is masturbating. Few would agree, and they are all asleep. 12.41.40.20 18:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

If she's rubbing her crotch on your leg, that's frotteurism or somesuch, not masturbation. The use of tools qualifies, however, and (by colloquial usage) so does mutual masturbation (two people masturbating in the presence of each other, without touching; common among Catholic couples where I live; common among asexual people etc as well). Zuiram 02:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood mutual masturbation to mean two, or more, persons physically masturbating each other, i.e. - masturbating the genitals of another person. A slang phrase for that is "cross country skiing". Persons masturbating themselves in the presence of others in the same place, but not touching, is called, in slanguage, a circle jerk (at least for boys, I don't even know if girls do that). Then there is phone sex, cybersex, webcam sex, and explicit role playing games, a lot of which involves masturbation. At least on one end of the connection, virtual or otherwise. As well as masturbation in the presence of others, such as by roommates, or in military barracks, shipboard quarters, prisons, buses, etc. Those activities may be stealthy—that is not intended to be shared erotic experiences (or not). How does one classify all those activities? ... — Becksguy 09:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sexual intercourse and voyeurism are not the same things

Currently, this article contains the following sentence: Masturbation and sexual intercourse are the two most common sexual practices, but they are not mutually exclusive (for example, many people find the sight of their partner masturbating highly erotic). Both parts of the sentence are true, but I don't see the connection between the first part and the part in parentheses. For that matter, I don't see why it's necessary to say that masturbation and sexual intercourse "are not mutually exclusive" -- yes, it's true, but why are we pointing it out? I'm tempted to delete this sentence altogether; can folks explain why it should stay? Eric-Albert 23:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles like this often end up with so much nonsense layered in, that what had been clear prose becomes a jumble of semi-coherent sentence fragments. In this case I think you can be BOLD with rewrites; just keep using informative edit summaries to explain. Thanks for taking this in...hand : ) Doc Tropics 23:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit made. Thank you for the support! Eric-Albert 00:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe the point the author of that line might have been making is the fact that many men and women feel that they have "failed" their partner, or aren't satisfying or appealing to them, when they find that their partner is masturbating; this is not usually the case, and pointing that out would be good. Zuiram 02:18, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs more facts, I think.

Much of this article is biased and needs cleanup. Please fix. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 142.68.24.225 (talk • contribs).

It would help if you could be more specific. There was some excellent work done here recently, and the article is much improved, but certainly not perfect. Which statements are biased? Which sections still need cleanup? Doc Tropics 21:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

"Masturbation can be a form of autoeroticism"

The summary section of this article now contains a sentence similar to the above. The old sentence was [Masturbation] is part of a larger set of activities known as autoeroticism which also includes the use of sexual devices meant for the use of playful use such as sex toys or other objects of use in a sexual fun filled way of fun sex toyability and non-genital stimulation. The old sentence had several problems:

1. It assumed that all masturbation was self-masturbation. But it's not; one can masturbate another person, and this is not autoeroticism.
2. It assumed that using sex toys was not masturbation. But a vibrator is a sex toy, and using one meets Merriam-Webster's (and now this article's) definition of masturbation.
3. It assumed that non-genital stimulation was not masturbation. I don't think this article is currently clear about this. But I expect that many experts would consider, say, nipple manipulation that led to orgasm to be masturbation.
   

For these reasons, I rewrote the sentence. It now says little; its main purpose is to provide a link to the "autoeroticism" page. We can decide later if this link is important enough to keep the sentence at all. Eric-Albert 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, most people consider masturbation to be autoeroticism only. Your single source (Merriam-Webster) is outdated. Instead, let's explore the boundary between masturbation and partnersex. Is masturbating while listening to your neighbors through the wall really masturbation? Is masturbating while listening to your partner on the telephone really masturbation? Is masturbating while watching each other really masturbation? What if you are touching other parts of each other while masturbating, what shall we call that? All these questions are much more interesting than insisting on the antiquated definition of masturbation as any kind of stimulation besides penetrative or oral sex.

We are in need of an autoeroticism merge, considering the rest of the article is and should be about autoeroticism. 12.41.40.20 19:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The {{cleanup}} tag

Can the person who added the tag make some comment here about what was troubling them? If not, can we assume that they meant it as some kind of joke (mastubation -> dirty -> clean up afterwards?) and remove it. --Nigelj 00:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I removed the cleanup tag. It was placed there by an IP whose recent edits demonstrate a certain lack of clarity regarding how WP actually works. If someone wishes to replace the tag, it would be appropriate to provide comments here regarding the specific issues that need to be addressed. Doc Tropics 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. --Nigelj 00:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Wicca

My brief description was typo'd: I meant that it doesn't talk about masturbation specifically. Disinclination 05:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Masturbation Patent Links

None of those links seem to work. But with the new Google Patents Search feature (http://www.google.com/patents), someone with some patience can correct each of those links. whysanitynet 03:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay TaylorLTD 00:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Religious views on masturbation

I think it would be both very interesting and beneficial to create a separate article for Religious views on masturbation. For anyone who is interested, there is a draft of the new article at User:CyberAnth/Religious views on masturbation. Please feel free to expand the draft! After it looks good on user space, it can be posted on to article space. CyberAnth 06:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me so far. Good luck with getting people who know their way around their religion's written information to add plenty of refs and citations. It had become a big section in this article and it'll be good just to be able to reference it from here. --Nigelj 18:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Male Masturbation Video-Animation

This may or may not be of interest. It is in the wikimedia commons.--68.88.196.111 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Male masturbation

Well, it is worth discussing. I am not advocating putting the image in. But, it makes me wonder, how is a still image of a male masturbating in the masturbation article encylopedic, and a moving image of it "pornography" and "not legal"? In establishing guidelines, as we are doing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines, this kind of disctinction needs to be discussed and determined. In my mind, I think it is likely that some people will be offended, and we desire to avoid that, but also, that it is not, in any way "pornographic". Since nearly every male in the English speaking world (and so english Wikipedia) masturbates nearly every day (2-7 times a week anyway), is it that it is recorded, or depicted that makes it offensive? It does not (in my opinion) meet the standard for "obscene", and therefore, not illegal. So again, why is a still image of this okay in this article, and a moving image of the same thing, not okay?? Atom 23:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

If as you say, "nearly every male in the English speaking world masturbates nearly every day", then why do they need to see someone else doing it? Do you masturbate frequently but not know how to?

That doesn't follow. I imagine most of us know what a horse looks like, but that doesn't mean the Horse article should not include an image. --Michael K. Smith 20:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

You and all of us are not editors for people who only hold to liberal sensibilities, but are editors for the full range of people globally who read Wikipedia. We live in a very diverse world where people range from very conservative to very liberal in their sensitivities and sensibilities. It is simply foolish and likely of motivation from mere prurient interest to seek to illustrate masturbation by any method except that which is least likely to offend the most people. Male masturbation would clearly be considered pornographic to a great many people and I cannot see how it could be legal on Wikipedia without requiring age verification. No one needs for knowledge sake to view a video of a man masturbating to learn about the subject, and it is a sick mind who would not be concerned to have their 13-year-old daughter view the video. Verbal descriptions of masturbation and artwork is all that is needed. "Not for the one or the few but for the many" must be the guiding principle. CyberAnth 01:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the word "pornographic" is completely subjective, and as such, has no meaning. The legal term would be "obscene", which the image is not. Does the image add to the quality of the article? That would be subjective. I gather that your opinion is that verbal descriptions and artwork are sufficient. I would guess because it may be your view that those two things are sufficiently descriptive, but least likely to offend. Which makes some sense. If we aren't going to strictly use the objective measures available (is it legal, does it add value to the article) and need to get into subjective, then what kind of common denominator (or random) set of subjective values should we use? You imply that global readership should affect this. As the majority of the (potential global) readers are not white and not christian, I think your values of a conservative christian male may not be the best measure. (not to say that mine are any better, in that regard). If we are going to use U.S./U.K. predominant values, well, that leans more towards christian views, but not towards conservative views.

The community standards that we in Wikipedia follow is that we don't censor content (not to say that editorial decisions are not important). It does say that we don't remove something because a conservative christian might think it was pornographic. A conservative christian would think pretty much anything related to sex is pornogrpahic. This being a good example, as it is an image of a male masturbating, masturbation probably being the most common sexual event or human activity now, and throughout the history of humankind, perhaps only surpassed by eating or sleeping. It is a natural, normal biological activity, and not something that most people in your community, or in the Wikipedia community would call sexually deviant, unusual, abnormal, or perverted. There are no other people in the video, no words, no plot, no innuendo. It is as basic an educational as one could get. It doesn't even demonstrate ejaculation, or show semen (which although also perfectly normal, would be something else that someone could claim was pornographic.) It is about as erotic or exciting as a video of the dissection of a frog. Yet, you, a conservative christian, suggest that it is pornography.

The problem here is that there are established community standards for Wikipedia, and your common community standards are more conservative. So, you want to change Wikipedia to meet your communities subjective community standards. The more rational approach would be if you were to change your community standards while in in our community, or choose not to visit a community where the values are so much more "liberal" than your own.

Atom 04:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop stereotyping me.

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#When_possible.2C_avoid_images_that_are_likely_to_offend states,

Images relating to some topics cannot be informative without also running the risk of being offensive to some. However, when deciding between two equally informative images, the one which is least likely to offend (or is likely to offend the least) should be used.

And below that quote is a section indicating that Artwork is preferred over photographs.

The above are Wikipedia community standards. Also have a look here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&page=Image:Masturbation.jpg

In what way would artwork such as at an earlier version of this article or, better yet, something like this, and descriptions be a detriment to the article compared with the graphic video? Do you perhaps need to have it very explicitly illustrated for you how to place your hand in a circle, place it around your penis, and stroke up and down? Is there something difficult to understand or unclear to you about that description?

So who exactly is the one trying to change community standards here?

CyberAnth 05:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

i agree, it's rather obvious it's not a resort to a unilateral declaration of what is the right standard but a resort to the provided guidelines. Chensiyuan 09:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take it personally, I don't mean any offense. I don't intend to stereotype you. My comments are based on your words, not on any other factor. So, my apologies if it is taken that way.

The Wikipedia guidelines you reference are a work in progress, and a result of my efforts with a few other people. So, they are still in progress, and also they are guidelines (which means they help to guide those who choose to adopt -- and not policy).

The video loop was not provided by myself, it only brought up the conversation where I asked the legitimate question as to how others perceived the video loop as being different than a still image of the topic. The loop was on a talk page, and not on the main article. It had been removed from the talk page, along with the anon users comments. (Which was innapropriate).

No one has suggested using the video in the article itself (yet). My offering discussion of the topic was intended to work through guidelines and policy before someone does that.

When I was discussing community standards, it was to suggest that there is an existing community standard here of not censoring, that Wikipedia is not mean't to be safe for work, or to be safe for school children. So, when you express things like "would clearly be considered pornographic" when it isn't, and "a sick mind who would not be concerned to have their 13-year-old daughter view the video" I have to say that people who feel that way have a wrong understanding or misperception of what Wikipedia is.

Atom 13:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I honestly did not see the proposed part of that. Right now it looks like many of prurient intent are weighing in on the matter. Let us hope that more sane heads prevail. CyberAnth 21:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I am opposed to including the male masturbation video until some kind wikipedian donates a female masturbation video. And it should include a "washing machine". (see below) 12.41.40.20 19:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

APatcher 4 Feb. 2007

I have been following this page and the talk section for quite some time, but this is the first time I have posted anything, so please excuse me if I have made a mistake here.

As far as having a picture or video of masturbation on the Wikipedia masturbation article, I just don't see why it is necessary. In my opinion, this is the reason why we have "External Links". Simply put, external links can cover information that can not be completely explained (or would be problematic) in the Wiki article itself. The JackinWorld.com (already listed) and the AdvancedMasturbation.com (already listed) sites both have illustrations and pictures within their content pages. They have been listed in the masturbation article for quite a while because they do cover a lot of what we can't. Those sites also have appropriate and clearly stated warnings for this type of "debatable" content on the home page. Even those sites do not put illustrations or pictures on the home page. Instead, the home page has a very clear warning about what the content will be if the user chooses to click on a link. If there is a picture on the Wikipedia site, then how could we appropriately warn people? I personally don't think those types of pictures are pornographic or offensive, but there is a controversy with unclear parameters here. Therefore, the issue is "borderline" and "debatable". What I think we should try to avoid is having people come to Wikipedia and encountering an "unpleasant surprise" -- especially since the quality of this Wiki article would NOT be diminished in any way by excluding genital masturbation pictures, videos, or illustrations. Since we have resource links where people can find visual examples, the pictures and the controversies surrounding them is not necessary on Wikipedia. APatcher 09:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Masturbation vs. Autoeroticism

This article seems muddled. Ostensibly it takes the definition of masturbation to be "manual sexual stimulation" whether solo or partnered. However, some of the content (like the stuff on sex toys and prostate health) talks about masturbation as if autoeroticism were meant.

I've just taken the section called "autoeroticism" out of the article on the unusual topic of "autosexuality" (which means being sexually attracted to yourself, a la Narcissus), and made a separate autoeroticism article -- which was until now a redirect to autosexuality.

I think the "sex by hand" material on this page ought to be disentangled from the "sex with yourself" material, and the latter moved to autoeroticism.

I also think handjob and fingering (sexual act) ought to be merged here or just made redirects if they contain no notable content. Okay? DanB†DanD 00:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation is sexually stimulating oneself by touch and including the use of inanimate objects. With a partner, one might refer to a handjob as "masturbating" but only colloquially in reference to the self-action. (If you can "jack off", another person can "jack you off", for example.) Fingering would typically only be referred to as "masturbating" if that was a method that the woman preferred to use on herself.

the washing machine

In the female section, it is noted that a woman can rub against objects, including a "washing machine". Clearly barefoot-in-the-kitchen sexism. What's next, masturbating while cooking dinner or doing the dishes?

I think that the washing machine specifically warrants a mention because many washing machines (particularly older models) vibrate during the spin cycle. Also, please sign your posts. This link explains how:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sign_your_posts_on_talk_pages Thank you. Asarelah 00:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that enjoyability is the test of inclusion. We are not giving masturbation tips, but rather documenting the phenomenon. That being said, if you can find a source about a number of women who have used a washing machine and what their experiences were like, it would be good to note it. (Off-topic, consider you are dealing with machinery, water, electricity, detergents and bleach; overall maybe not the best way to get off.) Mainly, the point is that motorcycles vibrate too--I'm sure there are other arbitrary sex-neutral examples that can be used in the absence of any facts.

As it stands, the reader is assumed to naturally understand that women do the laundry, and so might masturbate on a washing machine. You and I did it, and heard other people did too; but that's far from science, far from encyclopedic. It reads like a dirty old congressman's fantasy about what women do during the day while the men are at work, and should be cleaned up. 12.41.40.20 17:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Far more people own washing machines than motorcycles, and many single women have access to washing machines. I honestly can't think of any other large object that a person can sit on that vibrates. I've seen plenty of pro-female masturbation websites that reccommend this practice, however, I have not seen one that mentions how common it is. Then again, I haven't seen statistics on the use of vibrators either, but that hardly means that mentioning the use of vibrators is unscientific. Asarelah 18:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Listen dood I've seen it with my own two eyes, it's not sexism. Women do it. 71.68.15.163 17:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The reference to masturbating by rubbing against a vibrating washing machine was great! I've certainly done it. It is healing (not to mention informative) to see a topic (masturbation) that is so culturally charged treated in such a neutral manner, and the specific references are wonderful. Some of us have wondered whether we're the only ones doing something. (For the record, I'm a woman whose sexual experiences have been with women, and I certainly am no barefoot-in-the-kitchen housewife!)

The (treadle-operated, non-motorized) sewing machine

IIRC somewhere in Havelock Ellis there's a passage about seamstresses in early-1900s sweatshops sitting in just the right position while operating the treadle (of the non-motorized sewing machine). He says that from time to time observers would hear one sewing machine in the group suddenly speed up. I'm not going to put this in the article unless I can find a proper reference... which it's not likely that I'll be able to do... but if anyone has a copy of Havelock Ellis at hand and knows where to look, I'd be interested in knowing if my recollection is correct.

(It was a long time ago. It was my Dad's copy of Havelock Ellis. Some boys find their dad's girlie magazines, some find his copy of Havelock Ellis). Dpbsmith (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Truly amazing, this Internet thing. It's in Project Gutenberg, ebook #13610:

The early type of sewing-machine, especially, was of very heavy character and involved much up and down movement of the legs; Langdon Down pointed out many years ago that this frequently produced great sexual erethism which led to masturbation.[207] According to one French authority, it is a well-recognized fact that to work a sewing-machine with the body in a certain position produces sexual excitement leading to the orgasm. The occurrence of the orgasm is indicated to the observer by the machine being worked for a few seconds with uncontrollable rapidity. This sound is said to be frequently heard in large French workrooms, and it is part of the duty of the superintendents of the rooms to make the girls sit properly.[208]

"During a visit which I once paid to a manufactory of military clothing," Pouillet writes, "I witnessed the following scene. In the midst of the uniform sound produced by some thirty sewing-machines, I suddenly heard one of the machines working with much more velocity than the others. I looked at the person who was working it, a brunette of 18 or 20. While she was automatically occupied with the trousers she was making on the machine, her face became animated, her mouth opened slightly, her nostrils dilated, her feet moved the pedals with constantly increasing rapidity. Soon I saw a convulsive look in her eyes, her eyelids were lowered, her face turned pale and was thrown backward; hands and legs stopped and became extended; a suffocated cry, followed by a long sigh, was lost in the noise of the workroom. The girl remained motionless a few seconds, drew out her handkerchief to wipe away the pearls of sweat from her forehead, and, after casting a timid and ashamed glance at her companions, resumed her work. The forewoman, who acted as my guide, having observed the direction of my gaze, took me up to the girl, who blushed, lowered her face, and murmured some incoherent words before the forewoman had opened her mouth, to advise her to sit fully on the chair, and not on its edge.

"As I was leaving, I heard another machine at another part of the room in accelerated movement. The forewoman smiled at me, and remarked that that was so frequent that it attracted no notice. It was specially observed, she told me, in the case of young work-girls, apprentices, and those who sat on the edge of their seats, thus much facilitating friction of the labia."

—Ellis, Havelock (1927), Studies in the Psychology of Sex, Volume I,; Auto-Erotism: A Study of the Spontaneous Manifestations of the Sexual Impulse; section I; "The Sewing-machine and the Bicycle"

Erethism? ... "Abnormal irritability or sensitivity of an organ or a body part to stimulation." You learn a new word every day... Dpbsmith (talk) 20:22, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Risks -> reduces interest in partner?

Is there any research to suggest that masturbation "risks" reducing sexual desire to one's partner? Or in some way reduces effort afforded to them for sexual activities? So far, there seems to be no mention of these risks, if indeed there is any truth to them. --Rebroad 20:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I also am interested in such research. My own work has led me to a tentative theory or two about the effects of masturbation on a man's ability to achieve and sustain an erection in normal relations with his wife. In pastoral ministry over the past 35 years, I have had discussions with a number of couples, ranging in age from 35 to about 60 years old, who came for help relating to the husband's loss of interest in relations, or his inability to be aroused and/or sustain an erection. With some men I asked about practices of masturbation and use of pornography. Most readily admitted frequent masturbation, though most would not discuss pornography lest their wife should hear of it. (This question has almost disappeared since the rise of viagra.)

During this same time I heard older men in their late 60's or 70's speaking of how their sex lives had improved with retirement due in part to more available time, or taking more time at it.

My theory is that the mind may develop something like pleasure paths, in which it naturally goes down the most frequently used paths, or the preferred one, or most intense memory. Thus, the mind becomes accustomed to being stimulated by a lubricated hand and the sight of perfect bodies in glossy print, and/or on video websites. When this man then comes to the wife, who has probably gained a number of pounds and too many sags, he cannot be aroused by this visual. If an erection is acheived through foreplay, he may not sustain the erection because his normal pleasure is by hand.

The corresponding theory is that if a man becomes truly chaste after marriage, has high quality relations with is wife, not engaging in any sexual thought or action that is not with his wife, and if he is in good health, he will enjoy good sex into his senior years.

I admit to bias in these theories. My faith would predispose me to such thinking. I also am interested in true science on any subject.

I suspect there is no research on this topic. How does a scientist find a control group of subjects to study for many years who will willingly subscribe to the chaste life? People who espouse chastity may be less likely to participate in a study like this.

At any rate, I will read with interest any thoughts you have on my theories.

[[[User:Apprentice2him|Apprentice2him]] 01:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[User:Apprentice2him|Apprentice2him]] 01:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that most men masturbate pretty frequently, so the masturbation isn't what's causing this. 71.194.165.87 19:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Needs some factual evidence

Masturbation involving both a man and a woman (see mutual masturbation) can result in pregnancy only if semen contacts the vulva.

Now, I am aware that yes, you can get pregnant this way, but I know that it is a very low chance, as alot of sperm can die outside the body before it makes its way in, and even then, chances are rare. Can we get any cites for this on percentages or something similar? Just to avoid any girls screaming how they can get pregnant by sitting on a toilet seat, or something similar. Disinclination 03:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's likely quite rare but it's going to be a lot more common then sitting on the toilet seat. Firstly, if a male masturbates and ends up deposting semen on the toiler seat, we can presume he's likely to clean up after himself. If he doesn't the woman is likely to clean it up anyway. Some sperm may still be lef this amount is going to be minute, far far smaller then the drips that could easily come into contact with the vulva by accident during mutual masturbation. Secondly, I would presume most woman are liable to be sitting with their vulva hanging over the hole rather then touching the toilet seat. Therefore it's rather unlikely any sperm that is on the toilet seat would come near the vulva anyway. If a woman is urinating, she's may also wash away any semen that comes near the vulva and she's likely to wipe any that does remain away after finishing. Even if any does remain, it seems unlikely it will enter the vagina. On the other hand, during mutual masturbation semen (and therefore sperm) may end up near the vulva or on the hand of the male partner. This could easily be visible drips and this could easily be deposited into the vagina during the course of masturbation. Futhermore, as the woman is in a state of arousal and may have an orgasm, her bodies also likely to be more conducive to this sort of 'accidental insemination'. Nil Einne 16:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What about semi-protection?

I'm really tired of wading every day through all those edits made by unregistered vandals. Should the article be semi-protected?.. Alexander Iwaschkin 11:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Guys if you to see heavy vandalism, please report at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Carlosguitar 22:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Mountain Dew

I reverted the following edited paragraph:

Religions vary broadly in their views of masturbation, from completely impermissible to encouraged as a way to achieve greater spirituality. If your religion is against masturbation, It is said that drinking Mountain Dew, will reduce your sperm count and stop frequent urges and make it a lot easier to stop.

I really didn't think this unsourced nonsense needed to be discussed prior to editing. --Evb-wiki 03:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted some vandalism, and apparently chose the wrong previous version. I stand correct, my apologies. Atom 04:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Prone masturbation

lol for the guy that said masterbation is a homosexual desire....wtf what bullshit!

The links section contains a link to a site at http://healthystrokes.com; I'd like to suggest either removing this link, or placing a notice next to it advertising its unreliability. The site is pernicious. While appearing to offer detailed and serious advice, it relies on spurious sources, and is written anonymously and insensitively. The site is about prone masturbation, which it refers to, bizarrely, as 'traumatic masturbatory syndrome'. It claims masturbating prone causes sexual dysfunction, and that one can become a "normal male" by refraining from masturbation and sex for weeks or months. There is just one journal article referred to in support, and this is a study of only four men. Extra support is provided by an unofficial internet survey of just 119 people. The advice given is not the mainstream view of doctors. Incredible claims are made, such as "Males who masturbate face down, if they can have intercourse at all, are limited to the missionary position." Wikipedia isn't responsible for the content of external websites, but it shouldn't point people towards an apparently credible source of misinformation, and one that could cause unnecessary suffering. 86.143.153.34 01:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hear hear. --Nigelj 22:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Asarelah 23:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I masturbate in the prone position as well as many other ways. I don't believe in so called "TMS"

APatcher 4 Feb. 2007

I have done a fairly large amount of research on the so called "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome" as it is stated on that site in question. The condition is a real issue, but it affects very few men (even those who masturbate in the prone position). That particular site and the articles on the site are not clear. In addition, the actual article is not really an article for the general public. The article should only be approached by someone who has significant studies and/or professional experience related to human sexuality. When I read that article, I can tell it was written by a person "in the field" for other people who work "in the field". Having said that, I personally do not think the article is very good anyway. The title is misleading. Probably someone was just trying to get recognition in the human sexuality field, and this may have been one of their first tries at a thesis paper. Most likely the author did not reach their goal with this article. They probably just sold the rights to it for a low price. APatcher 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

There's some history here from long, long ago. There used to be an article at traumatic masturbatory syndrome (now redirected to this article), created by the editor of healthystrokes.com (not Lawrence Sank, the author of the paper). A few of us (with scientific, though mostly not specifically medical science backgrounds) looked into the topic and decided that the single paper, which hasn't apparently been referenced in the literature since, and a few extremely scattered references in other places, did not an established syndrome make. We even contacted Dr. Sank personally (he's a clinician) to see whether he was aware of any follow-up work based on his paper. In the end, we managed to get the article deleted and left a one-sentence link to Sank's paper and the healthystrokes site in this one.

If you've got a better reference to point to, make the substitution. --Robert Merkel 05:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

-

I added the words "some men" in the article section that refers to Dr. Sank. Hopefully that will make it so less people panic over this issue. I am still getting emails from people who dispute this and people who fear that they are somehow destined to become sexually dysfunctional from masturbating face down. The prone position is only problematic for a minority of men. Making this sound universal is not doing anyone any good. APatcher 07:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You're not really trying to be serious are you? In the first place masturbation is not a homosexual act, intrinsically. Secondly, until you have legitimate, respected citations of sources that agree with your ridiculous "correct" edit it has no place on this page. Period. Wikipedia isn't opinion. --Aylwinatrix Wednesday Feb 7, 07

It is not a joke and I am being serious. Wikipedia should report the facts, and this is a fact. It is not my fault if you are in denial of your true sexuality. If you masturbate you are showing you have homosexual urges and are either homosexual or bisexual. Furthermore, I have no idea why you, or anyone, would wish to degrade themselves by doing this. --Michael K. Smith 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And according to the information being passed around in junior high school, back in the '50s, anyone who wears eyeglasses is obviously queer. --Michael K. Smith 20:18, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

When did I ever say in this, or any other post, that I masturbate? All I ever wrote about was the rules of Wikipedia, which is to post only information that is pertinent, and well-researched. Wikipedia does not exist to post unverifiable opinion. If what you say is a "fact" it should be very easy to find sources that support this "fact". If you can find independent sources that back your opinion, then feel free to post that information. If you can't then you should expect to have your edits be reverted. Also your inferences about me are quite personal and offensive. I plan on reporting you to the moderators of this site. I never removed any of your meritless posts, I only explained to you why they are continually removed.

--Aylwinatrix 09:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Aylwinatrix

That person is either crazy or trying to be a smart ass. Masturbation is clearly not homosexual or bisexual in a true sense and it's not the least degrading. And why do some people have such issues with pleasure? If you never masturbate, it's like being super rich but never buying anything. CerealBabyMilk 10:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually masturbating is degrading for the same reason Immanuel Kant gave. I am not crazy nor I am trying to be a "smart ass". I am simply telling the truth; it is not my fault if you can't handle the truth that it is degrading etc. As for "pleasure", just as masturbating feels good does not mean it is morally acceptable. There are many who find rape pleasurable (the rapist), however the human being raped does not find it enjoyable. Just as something feels good, does not make it morally right. Aylwinatrix - you need to relax, seriously. Something is not determined to be a "fact" just as the majority believe it; just like something is not untrue simply as it is only believed by a minority. The majority of humans believe in a Supreme Being - but this does not mean such a thing exists. Just like the majority may not find masturbating to be degrading and a homosexual act; but the truth is that it is degrading and a homosexual act.

Yep. It's either crazy or that's George W. Bush. Maybe it's both. --Evb-wiki 14:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not crazy or George W. Bush. Why are you assuming I am male? I know that you are all getting angry as you are in denial. You can not accept the fact that something you all do (masturbating) is actually degrading and that you have homosexual urges.

[QUOTE]I should like to regretfully report vandalism by 86.135.39.79.The anonymous user has been warned several times. In addition to this, when I attempted to explain why his posts were deleted, and what he should do to avoid their deletion, he became personally insulting, in specifically homophobic way. While I am heterosexual, these attacks were all the same offensive, und unwarranted. Pages he continually vandalize include masturbation and suicide . Thanks very much, --Aylwinatrix 10:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Aylwinatrix[QUOTE]

1. Where have I insulted you? If I did it was not deliberate. 2. Why are assuming I am male? You use "he". 3. How am I being homophobic?

Why are you assuming everyone who reads and/or edits this page masturbates. I mean, you read and edit this page, and you don't mast-- . . . oh . . . um, maybe you do.--Evb-wiki 15:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

What is it with you crackers?

86.135.39.79, I'm not going to continue in this exchange with you any more. Anyone's personal opinions on objective truth are irrelevant when it comes to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. Its entries must be cited by other sources as being verifiable, otherwise they are likely going to be removed. It truly isn't personal, Wikipedia simply has specific standards. I hope your future posts meet these standards. And you were intentionally trying to be insulting to provoke a reaction from me. You assumed I masturbate, and also insinuated that because of this, I am homosexual, bisexual or incestuous. These statements are quite personal, uncivil, and completely inappropriate for this site. Furthermore, your implication is that homosexuality is a negative trait, especially if you are using it alongside incest. If you're looking for a fight, you won't get one. All I am doing is following the rules of Wikipedia, which are clear and easy to follow for many of us. Aylwinatrix 20:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)Aylwinatrix

I love you guys. CerealBabyMilk 00:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The article is about masturbation, not homosexuality... :P CerealBabyMilk 12:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states that: "Tissot argued that semen was an "essential oil" and "stimulus" that, when lost from the body in great amounts, would cause "a perceptible reduction of strength, of memory and even of reason; blurred vision, all the nervous disorders, all types of gout and rheumatism, weakening of the organs of generation, blood in the urine, disturbance of the appetite, headaches and a great number of other disorders.'" - Ellen G. White was also a firm believer that masturbation a detremental act to ones' health. She believed that one's diet had a direct correlation with one's urge to masturbate. She claimed that a bland diet consisting of vegtables, wheat breads, and water would lead to a diminished urge to masturbate and thus would lead to a healthier and more fulfilling life. (Numbers, "Sex, Science, and Salvation", page 208)

APatcher 4 Feb. 2007

I don't see any kind of meat in the "bland diet." You can't possibly be healthy without some kind of meat in there. If she's wrong about that, she could be wrong about the masturbating thing, too. Then again, I don't know much about this stuff. 24.136.88.151 07:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as definitions are concerned, I have always seen it blatantly stated or implied that homosexual actions and incest actions involve another person. In other words, "It takes two to tango". However, single-person masturbation could be clinically considered a "homoerotic" activity since it does involve the same genitals of the same person. That does not necessarily mean it defines the sexual orientation of a person in any way. Unfortunately, bringing this issue up in the Wiki article would cause quite a bit of misunderstanding unless we start listing definitions of "homosexual activity" and "homoerotic activity" and then define the subtle differences in these definitions. Also, resources are not consistent with these definitions, so citing them would cause others to debate and cite contrary sources. This would very quickly cause the article to stray from the topic. APatcher 09:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! The article “Masturbation” devotes a huge amount of the space to unscientific and non-supported nonsense - so-called “traumatic masturbatory syndrome (TMS)”- which is not accepted by the specialists in the area of sex research and education. It is interesting that there was the separate entry “traumatic masturbatory syndrome” in Wikipedia the several years ago, which spread the same nonsense, and I believe it was removed. It is great! However, the part of this removed entry went to the more readable article “Masturbation”. The article does mention such leading sex researchers as W. Masters, J. Money, E. Coleman, J. Bancroft and others, but indicates so-called sex therapist Eva Margolies whose publications, among others, have such a title “...How to be Sexier Without Surger, Weight Lost, or Cleavage” Is it credible? Can such inaccurate information exist in the encyclopedia? It is a very sensitive and readable subject, and information has to be accurate. This is very sad! The article is marked high important!!!! Who spreads this nonsense about so -called TMS??? So many people have express the valid point that unscientific information about TMS has to be deleted, but the same misinformation continues to be present!!!! How can one editor from Healthy Stroke without can damage the article "masturbation". A new Mr.Tissot? Do we want to advertise "Healthystroke" site or we want to have a credible and accurate entry? TMS in "Masturbation" has to be deleted. To prove my point please read an answer on TMS in another very popular Internet site “Co Ask Alice” of Columbia University. The bottom line is that the unscientific inaccurate information on TMS has to be removed from the article “Masturbation”. Qazqwe50 18:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not read the discussion prior I included my comments. All participants in this disccussion state to remove any indication on TMS. Why and what Wikipedia wait for? Why has not it removed yet? Why can the ignorance and misinformation prevail in this important project, like Wikipedia? Editors are doing a very bad job!!!!Qazqwe50 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I want to strongly suggest to delete the section of Prone Masturbation and TMS, bacause it is not a fact, but by Dr.Sank's words, it was only his hypothesis based on 4 observations. This section is Wikipedia and spreads misinformation. The section is based on the opinions, hypothesis and does not fit Wikipedia's rules. It is shame! We expect that editors will act and remove it immediatly. Thank you Qazqwe50Qazqwe50 18:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Once gain, when can we expect that the section on TMS be deleted? It was hypothesis, not a a fact, also not SCIENCE. Please ask Dr Sank now about his article! It was shame! Please read scientific book on sexulaity! This hypothesis was not accepetd due to the fact that sexual disfunctions are more complicated issue and depends on person's emotional, psychological and/or physical well-being, but not masturbatory style. Qazqwe50Qazqwe50 18:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

If this article is neutral, than Britain was neutral in WWIIErik the Red 2 01:26, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

Would you care to be a little more explicit as to where you see a problem? The Wednesday Island 02:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Judging from his previous comments, his objection is likely along the lines of "yikes, some kid might see this", which is adequately addressed by WP:CENSOR, or "masturbation is intrinsically bad, and this article doesn't reflect that", which is similarly addressed by WP:NPOV. If I'm not right about this, I hope Erik can forgive me for misjudging his objections and explain what the blatant POV issues are supposed to be. Zuiram 02:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, but also is not a porn page. Thuis article promotes the view that masturbation is a good thing that everyone should do once they are old enough to.Erik the Red 2 00:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)Erik the Red 2

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

"Masturbation is becoming accepted as a healthy practice and safe method for sharing pleasure without the strings. It is socially accepted and even celebrated in certain circles. Group masturbation events can be found online in just about any state. Masturbation marathons are yearly events and are occurring across the globe from the U.S. to the UK. In these events provide a supportive environment where masturbation can be performed openly among young and old without embarrassment. Participants talk openly with onlookers while masturbating to share techniques and describe their pleasure. Some sources: <http://www.masturbate-a-thon.com>, <http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/masturbation-marathon-london_index.html>"

This needs some serious cleanup. "Without the strings"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aboutblank (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Merge from Autoeroticism

It seems to me that autoeroticism and masturbation are basically two articles about the same thing. Should Autoeroticism be merged here? Jibjibjib 11:10, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, merge. Aatombomb 05:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree, separate topics. See Talk:Masturbation#.22Masturbation_can_be_a_form_of_autoeroticism.22, via the link or by scrolling up. Kevin 19:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Disagree and it looks like the point was already made on this talk page, as noted above. -Midnightdreary 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Agree merge--Sugarcubez 04:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hi Van, would just like some input on how to cleanup the 'Origins' section that I recently created and that you tagged for cleanup. Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chris goulet (talk • contribs) 03:57, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

The section, besides being insufficiently referenced in my opinion, is not written with any context and is barely encyclopedic style. Masturbation is a subconcious health mechanism? what a bizarre claim. VanTucky 05:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Article biased towards pro-masturbation

Much of this article seems to suggest that it is healthy to masturbate. It's easy to find text that supports doing it, yet it's very hard to find references to people who believe it is unnatural or unhealthy. Here's a link to an article that argues that masturbation leads to bodily exhaustion, bone deterioration, and even impotence: http://www.anael.org/english/masturbation/consequences.htm . I think this article offers a very interesting point of view that is missed completely by this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zabron (talk • contribs) 20:20, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

That is a religious site; we already discuss negative religious viewpoints. It is not an informed source in psychology, medicine, or biochemistry. The Wednesday Island 20:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't notice the link to the main page of Religious views on masturbation .

Concerning your statement that the link I posted above is a religious site and "not an informed source," I definitely agree with the first claim, but the second claim is somewhat ad hominem, as the article does mention prestigious doctors. However, I/we would need to find more sources with more points of view to back an argument along the lines of, "A handful of modern scientists believe that masturbation may lead to bodily exhaustion, bone deterioration, and other drastic side effects."

Some sections of this article look less biased now that I have skimmed a bit more extensively, but I think the argument I posted above would be an interesting addition to the article. Zabron 02:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would make a better addition to Religious views on masturbation. --Nigelj 13:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Weasel Words

There are some weasel words in the third paragraph of "Masturbation frequency, age and sex". Could somebody please find some real references? ^Talk User:Fissionfox 01:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

'Origins' section

I'm a bit worried by the Origins section that this article now has. 'Origins' in what sense? Given that many animals and in particular other primates masturbate, are we saying that these origins date way back into evolutionary time to the point where our first common ancestors began to jiggle their own bits? Did these early mammals do this because of the various male and female physiological reasons given? Did doing so give them the evolutionary advantage that has ensured that only masturbatory animals have survived down to the present day? If so, we are sadly lacking in any references for such an evolutionary theory. Such a theory falls a bit short when it comes to the all fish, birds, molluscs, insects and other things that probably don't masturbate, but have survived too.

I think the ideas in the text are interesting and they are, in themselves, referenced. The problem is in the title and the placement. I thought of maybe changing the section heading to 'Physiological factors' or something like that. But now I feel that the text of the section should be moved down into the existing 'Health and psychological effects' section, under 'Benefits', maybe under a new sub-sub-heading and without the current Male/Female separation, other than in the text itself.

What do others think? --Nigelj 13:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I think its bougus. BTW I am a physician. I have removed the text to place it here until discussion can be completed. I think the article is not well served by having this disinformation present.—Gaff ^ταλκ 11:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this section and its two subsections is foremost the teleological angle. That is unscientific by all standards and POV. It is one thing to point out apparent beneficial physiological and otherwise side-effects of masturbation, but stating that masturbation has it's natural purpose, so to speak, in attaining these effects is another matter altogether. I haven't been able to ascertain the reliability of the first paraphrase on the female physiological effects, but the second one (male) is referenced with a thesis, a fact which definitely ought to be emphasized if such a scant documentation on such an extravagant claim should be considered sufficient documentation for its mention in our article. __meco 13:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who added this section, after reading 'Sperm Wars'. Thanks for letting me know that the book isn't enough support for these bold claims. Really got me researching. I added citations; are they significant enough to put the section back? I'd put it back in about the middle of the article.

I had named the section 'Origins', not to attract too much attention from the intelligent design camp, but now I see that the 'Orgasm' page has a separate 'Evolutionary Purpose' section, so let's rename it likewise.

The orgasmic cervical upsuck theory has been discredited, so I took it out.
The Case Of The Female Orgasm: Bias In The Science Of Evolution, Elisabeth Lloyd 2005.
http://mypage.iu.edu/~ealloyd/Reviews.html#IHaveSeenVideo

The section does have a "teleological angle", but that is no reason to dismiss the implications of research in this area. ---Chris goulet 10:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

(original section in dispute)

Origins

Masturbation exercises sexual functions to increase fertility during intercourse.

Female

Masturbation in females is a tool to regulate the conditions in the vagina, cervix and uterus, which is used to either increase or decrease the chances of conception from intercourse, depending on the timing of the masturbation. This timing is a subconscious decision. If she has intercourse with more than one male, it favors the chances of one or the other male's sperm reaching her egg.

During orgasm, the woman's cervix extends and retracts at each contraction (cervical tenting), and the opening to the cervix gapes open. If a seminal pool is still present in the vagina when she masturbates, a significant number of sperm will be sucked up into her cervix.

She can also increase the acidity of the cervical mucus to provide protection against infections.

Male

The function of masturbation is to flush out old sperm with low motility from the male's genital tract. The next ejaculate contains more fresh sperm, which has higher chances of achieving conception during intercourse. If more than one male is having intercourse with a female, the sperm with the highest motility will compete more effectively.

—Gaff ^ταλκ 11:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(proposed edit for 'Origins' section)

Evolutionary purpose

Masturbation exercises sexual functions to increase fertility during intercourse.

Masturbation in females is a tool to regulate the conditions in the vagina, cervix and uterus, which is used to either increase or decrease the chances of conception from intercourse, depending on the timing of the masturbation. This timing is a subconscious decision. If she has intercourse with more than one male, it favors the chances of one or the other male's sperm reaching her egg.

Female masturbation can also provide protection against cervical infections by increasing the acidity of the cervical mucus and by moving debris out of the cervix. This needs a spcific reference. If it is the reference below in Japanese Macaques, it should be made clear that this is based on animal studies and we cannot make firm conclusions in humans. I feel this pedantry is needed since it may state an unproven health benefit of masturbation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PsychoticSock (talk • contribs) 23:53, August 22, 2007 (UTC).

The function of masturbation in males is to flush out old sperm with low motility from the male's genital tract. The next ejaculate contains more fresh sperm, which has higher chances of achieving conception during intercourse. If more than one male is having intercourse with a female, the sperm with the highest motility will compete more effectively.

--Chris goulet 10:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Klimt

Note that the "header" image has had the ludicrous title "Mulher sentada de coxas abertas" placed on it for many months, changed from a previous accurate description by user:Atomaton back in January. If Atomaton had bothered to check, s/he might have discovered that Klimt was Austrian and did not give Portugese titles to his pictures. That's just a title uploaded by the person who added the image - presumably for Portugese Wikipedia. In fact the picture is a personal drawing. It was given no title by the artist. "Woman sitting with open legs" (in whatever language) is simply a euphemistic description used in old catalogues. It has no claim to accuracy. Paul B 00:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

"Insertion" is not a "Benefit"

Just sayin'.

That person is right; so I fixed the subheading structure

Chris goulet 23:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can this be added?

I think something should be said in this article about the general consensus agreement that if you shake your penis more than three times after urinating it then becomes masturbation. Slowbro 07:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"General consensus agreement?" Got any citations? The Wednesday Island 13:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it becomes masturbation when the intent is to masturbate. It doesn't matter how many times you shake it as long as the point is still to get pee off it. Snake712 19:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Time

Just how long should it take to reach the euphoric feeling at the end? About an hour or so? Scorpionman 22:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Animal Masturbation vs Castration

Hi, I have come across a number of videos regarding US food industry castrating cattles on a large scale with no anesthetic medication. Basically these animals have their testicles ripped out with maximum pain on an extremely massive scale. Is there anything that can help animals masturbate to control their aggression? Maybe a machine or a tool? GodBwithU 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed paragraph....

I have removed the following paragraph from the Male section:

• Other techniques include rubbing penis back and forth against slippery surfaces (e.g. wet toilet walls). Lying in a water bath and inserting your penis into an artificial vagina is also an effective masturbation technique.

While I have no qualms about the inclusion of what is described in the paragraph, I merely find the paragraph to be quite clumsy and reads more like an instructional rather than an ecyclopedia article. I don't mind at all if the information is reworded to sound more encyclopedic and placed back into the article. However, I must admit that "wet toilet walls" is a new one to me. ExRat 01:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I just don't care. Best of wishes. =]

the duck

how am i supposed to know it vibrates. It looks like a regular rubber duck to me.

Handedness

Add a note that masturbation is a handed phenomenon, just as penmanship is.

under one of the headers it says "Immanuel Cunt" wrote...it should be immanuel kant, with the correct link.

Banana

User:70.55.113.128|70.55.113.128]] 13:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

In the section titled "medical attitudes," the words "Gallup Poll" appear twice--lower case in both instances. "Gallup Poll" should be capitalized.

Can someone clear me up, please ?

As i've read whole article, i've noticed that there's no warning of risk at masturbating at teenagers. There are even some articles that let me believe it that's ok... "While females aged 13–17 masturbated almost once a day on average (and almost as often as their male peers)" and " Masturbating frequently presents no physical, mental or emotional risk in itself " . This means that masturbating at 13-17 age (teenagers) is not risk of anything ? Please clear me up. Thanks. P.S. : I'm new in here and hope it is allowed to post this here. Nuker3 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Since when does it pose any risk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.16.96 (talk) 01:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, Wikipedia cannot and does not give out medical advice. That said, you will note that the article already lists many health benefits of masturbating, discusses some reasons it was considered a risk in the past, and then explains why it is generally not considered to have any medical risks in modern times. (The section on ethics and religion discusses why certain groups do or do not recommend that people engage in the practice.) Nuker3, do you think that we need to add a specific, cited section to the article saying "modern medicine believes that masturbation is a healthy practice with many benefits", or is that adequately covered by what we already have?

Secondly, I'm a little puzzled why you are asking specifically about people aged 13-17. Do you think we need a specific, cited section pointing out that it's as healthy for teenagers to masturbate as anyone else? Why would we need to mention this for 13-17 year olds, as opposed to (say) 40-46 year olds? Could you explain further? I'm interested to know how to improve this article. Thank you! The Wednesday Island 03:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Nuker3's quote, "Masturbating frequently presents no physical, mental or emotional risk in itself" is already supported in the article by a citation of University of Pennsylvania Office of Health Education article on masturbation, which says, "medical authorities have been in agreement for some time that masturbation causes no physical or mental harm. Nor is there any evidence that children who engage in self-stimulation are in any way harmed by it." In response to 209.105.206.111's question below, it also says, "contrary to ancient and popular beliefs, masturbation does not lead to unbridled lust, does not make you blind or deaf, give you the flu, drive you crazy, grow hair on your hand, make you stutter, or kill you. Masturbation is a natural and harmless expression of sexuality in both men and women and a perfectly good way to experience sexual pleasure." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelj (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need a citation for this?

This is frequently followed closely by drowsiness and sleep – particularly when one masturbates in bed

This is hilarious —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.157.241.42 (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What needs a citation is that it is a "cure for insomnia". Infact I think the assertion in the article is unencyclopedic as it stands - insomnia is a medical disorder, the fact that "many people" see anything as a cure for any medical condition is not an assertion that should be made without more specifics that indicate the belief's standing within the medical community. A decent source would help us improve the content. -- SiobhanHansa 18:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

What the article says is actually, "Many people see masturbation as an effective, natural cure for insomnia", and in that sense I think it's reasonable to assume that we are not referring to a serious and incurable mental disorder, but just to the everyday sense of a difficulty in 'dropping off'. I think that rather than asking us all to go off and look for citable evidence of such an unlikely piece of medical research by the addition of the tag, it might be better if you added "mild" to "insomnia", or made some other constructive change that suits your knowledge of the mental issues involved (which, I'm the first to admit, is probably far greater than mine). We could for example, just delete that sentence, if it is technically incorrect to a strict psychological reading. Would you be able to help us out here? --Nigelj 18:25, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

My point is that most people do not know what insomnia actually is as a medical condition - which is why a claim that "many people see" anything as a cure for any medical condition is a poor statement for an encyclopedia to make without also putting that into context. Deletion would do the trick - but I didn't want to remove something that might well be true (and I wouldn't personally be surprised to find medical research on masturbation and insomnia - I just don't know where to look). I think adding mild to insomnia is just using weasel words, but if the claim isn't really about insomnia as such but simply that many people find masturbation helps them get to sleep we can change the wording to that. We still ought to have a source really, but it wouldn't need to be a medical one and should be much easier to find - For instance, a quick search finds this from Yvonne Fulbright with a PHd in International Community Health with a concentration in sexual health, includes the quote Many people like masturbation for the soothing, sleep-inducing feelings it can provide - Not an ideal source but OK for a start and one we could possibly build from. -- SiobhanHansa 22:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Mention of insomnia removed. If you feel we need a citation that masturbation can make people drowsy, please feel free to add one. Looking at the orgasm article, I think it'll be to do with the prolactin. Clearly we don't need to reproduce any great detail here. --Nigelj 19:08, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

vision

Can masturmation dammage you eyesight? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.206.111 (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

No, and if it did, the article would have mentioned it. Article talk pages are only for discussing improvements to the article. Splintercellguy 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I assure you that masturbation causes no physical harm. Asarelah 02:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

No if it did then I would be blind —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornwoman2.0 (talk • contribs) 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary Purpose - Birth Control

I cannot provide any studies as evidence to back up my theory - but I think an evolutionary purpose of masturbation especially among human/ape males is birth control. A male and female may be involved in sexual intercourse but to prevent another potential childbirth which could be very taxing for the family or community, the male may still finish relieving his sexual tension by masturbating. There may be some sort of cause/effect relationship between human/ape male masturbation and the lack of the Estrous cycle in female humans/apes. Human/ape females may have adapted their sexual cycle to be more flexible because of the male's ability to choose when he fertilizes the female - namely through the deferment of fertilization by masturbation. This overall change - the ability for the male to masturbate and the female to be sexually active at any time in her cycle - results in an overall more flexible way of sexual reproduction.

This is also relevant in the scenario of viewing masturbation as an 'anti-rape' mechanism. This is probably an oversimplification, but as humans/apes evolved into communal social habitats where cooperation became more advantageous for survival in many cases, masturbation became an important mechanism in regulating male sexual tension without disrupting families or potential families through rape.

I have always considered that of all human faculties, the one which most forcefully contradicts the theory of natural selection is the ability to masturbate. If ever there was a faculty which would impede pro-creation it is the one which allows a sex life on one's own.

It is interesting to surmise as to "why" humans can masturbate but in all honesty, can you really believe that something which assists the avoidance of sexual intercourse can have a survival advantage for the species?

Or to look at it from another angle, what if humans had a tendancy to self-castrate? Would you say it would cause less instability through less tension and eliminate rapes and stabalise societies? Or would you just reason that it would plainly go against the survival of the species and be naturally selected out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MegdalePlace (talk • contribs) 19:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

That is because you are assuming incorrectly that evolution occurs through pro-creation when in fact it is not. It is through pro-survival. Reproduction is a means of achieving a greater chance of survival, however this is not always the case given a certain point in time.

In all honesty something that assists in the avoidance of sexual intercourse can have a survival advantage for the species. That is why condoms and birth control have value in our society (i.e. people buy them). The ability to defer the time when sexual intercourse takes place is a great evolutionary advantage - this is perfectly clear in the case when a 16 year old girl gets pregnant in high school with her boyfriend in a "fling" relationship. The mother, child and family have less of a chance of survival now for many reasons. The mother, being young is not as emotionally/intellectually/financially mature as she could be - and this could certainly have ill-effects on the child. There is a chance for birth complications because of the young age of the mother - which could affect both the mother and child. The father has a greater chance to abandon the family because of his inclination to believe that this family will fail.

Self-castration is completely different from masturbation. Castration has a permanent effect. Whereas masturbation is only temporary. If, after castration you were able to grow a new reproductive organ at will, then basically they would be the same thing.

Masturbation allows for the choice of when you sexually reproduce, whereas castration leaves you with no choice after the act has taken place.

However, I must say that nature already does have a propensity (not sure if it's a tendency) to castrate many species - humans included. One of those ways is the adaptation of homosexually oriented offspring. In many ways the birth of homosexually oriented offspring can be an evolutionary advantage and in other ways it can be a disadvantage. It does not really give you as much of a choice (you could go against your own will), when it comes to sexual reproduction, compared to a heterosexually oriented offspring who can masturbate. However, a homosexually oriented offspring will be likely to avoid sexually reproductive acts and instead be more likely to use their time and energy on other productive activities which are useful from a survival perspective.

The same can basically be said for those heterosexually oriented individuals who opt not to have children and instead focus their time and energy elsewhere because they believe it is more beneficial that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.54.96 (talk) 18:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction is a great means of survival, however if the cost is too high then it may not always be the best choice. It is better to wait and improve your surrounding environment until the cost is affordable. Broodle 17:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Connection between masturbation and premature ejaculation?

Is there any connection between masturbation and premature ejaculation? The Playboy Advisor said a few years ago that its main drawback is that it conditions one to reach orgasm too quickly (i.e. before the woman has a chance to climax)... Captain Zyrain 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of that. In fact, I've read that a man can train himself to last longer using the stop-start method while masturbating though. This link explains how:

http://sexuality.about.com/od/anatomyresponse/ht/controlprematur.htm Maybe it would be good idea to add this to the article? Asarelah 04:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Religious Views about Masturbation

A new sub-topic should be included in the masturbation describing what religion says about it. As this practice is prohibited in all religions. This discussion should include points dictating that this habit is against the nature and of course harmaful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.164.53.226 (talk) 18:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually there is a separate article on that, see: Religious views on masturbation. Read the articles and see what the reliable sources are saying about the subject. First, it not true to say that all religions prohibit it. Religions have varying views of masturbation as you can see. Second, it's obviously not against nature, as some animals also practice it, and humans have probably done so since there have been genitals to masturbate. Third, there is nothing harmful about it, unless taken to extremes. In fact, it's actually beneficial. — Becksguy 21:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue isn’t as obvious as you make it out to be. I agree that it is not "obviously" unnatural in a scientific sense. However, it is clearly unnatural in the sense of natural law. You also state, "there is nothing harmful about it". However, Catholics, including many Church fathers throughout the ages, state it is a selfish and impotent act (not to mention a mortal sin):

"the deliberate use of the sexual faculty outside normal conjugal relations essentially contradicts the finality of the faculty. For it lacks the sexual relationship called for by the moral order, namely the relationship which realizes "the full sense of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love".LCP 15:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

We Catholics believe that masturbation is a sin, and it is also a common belief (at least in Poland) that God punishes it with acne. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.28.4 (talk) 17:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether the activity is sinful is really a matter to discuss on Talk:Religious views on masturbation, if at all; the position you state is the official doctrine, although I know several Catholics who do not believe this. As to the acne, that is clearly false and has been shown to be false by many people; we don't appear to mention it directly, though, and perhaps we should. (In England they say that masturbation causes blindness, and in France deafness, and neither is true either. Such lies people will tell to prevent other people's autonomy.) The Wednesday Island 12:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

What autonomy? God is omnipotent and can punish people if He wills. Masturbation is a mortal sin according to the cathesim approved by the Pope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.59.109 (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

My parenthetical comment was aimed in the first instance at the matter of acne, but perhaps it was inappropriate for a talk page; I'll start again. Wikipedia talk pages exist to discuss improvements to the content of their related articles. They do not exist merely for feedback on articles, or for discussing their subject. In particular:

A) This article, Masturbation, did at one point have quite a large section on Roman Catholic doctrine, but this has been moved to Religious views on masturbation because it was too large. If you believe that that article fails to cover the fact that many Catholics, and official Roman Catholic doctrine, believe that masturbation is sinful, then please edit that article or comment on that article's talk page (although I'd be quite surprised, because that article contains several paragraphs on the subject). If you think that Religious views on masturbation should never have been split from Masturbation, this page is an appropriate one on which to say so.

B) You say that some people in Poland believe masturbation causes acne. Why are you mentioning this? Mentioning it on the talk page serves no purpose. If you are saying this because you want any of "There is a myth that masturbation causes acne", "There is a myth in Poland that masturbation causes acne", "There is a myth that masturbation causes ill health", or whatever, to be included in the article, you will need to find a reference that says so and cite it. If you want the fact itself that "masturbation causes acne" to be included in the article, you need to find a reference for that and cite it, but you will not succeed because it doesn't. The Wednesday Island 13:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Validity of Sambia reference

I'm not certain about the validity of the reference pertaining to the Sambia. The page it links to doesn't seem to be a particularly scholarly source. Does this culture exist, and is there a better reference we could use? --98.207.92.147 20:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I second this concern.LCP 20:47, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The sexual practices of the Samia tribe is old news and is not contested and often quoted. One research article was published in this journal (you may have to actually walk into a university library for this): Herdt, G. (1990) Developmental discontinuities and sexual orientation across cultures . In: McWhirter, D.P., Sanders, S.A. and Reinisch, J.M., (Eds.) Homosexuality/Heterosexuality, pp. 208-236. New York: Oxford University Press.

A movie was even made Called "Guardians of the flutes" by the BBC and can be aquired at Barnes and Noble and other resellers: <http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?r=1&ean=9780226327495>

Incorrect link to Sambia

The article is locked for editing but there is an error in it. The "Sambia" tribe link points to an incorrect article. In fact, the proper article doesn't exist but we could point to "Gilbert Herdt" article instead (who reported on the sexual behavior of the tribe), I believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.138.102.131 (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Common terms for masturbation

Four common terms in the Etymology section of the article were removed by USER:Nigelj. See the diff here. The terms removed were: jerking off, spanking the monkey, choking the chicken, and beating the meat. Leaving pleasuring oneself, and wanking. Adding a link to Wikisaurus is a great idea, but at least one of the deleted terms is among the most common US colloquial terms used. Wanking is mostly of British usage. Pleasuring oneself may, or may not, be common in some circles—it actually sounds more literary—but the most common US term is probably jerking off, followed by jacking off, and beating off, and others. The term Spanking the monkey was popular enough that a movie was released with that title in 1994, which included major references to the subject, so that should stay in. While I agree that this section should not grow to include a long list of colloquialisms, a few of the more common terms should be put back in. Jerking off gets about 4.2 million goggle hits, and jacking off gets about 3.3M ghits. Also, if a common British term is listed, so should a common American term. I'm replacing the term jerking off for the reasons given. — Becksguy 10:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mental weakness

From (Masturbation#Health and psychological effects)
Does Masturbation cause mental weakness? Some people still argue that, people who frequently perform Masturbation are mentally weaker than the people who do not (Once I read it in a book, but forget the name). There is another point I found is, It causes muscle reduction of a person (especially the person who perform bodybuilding activities). Are they true?--NAHID 13:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia cannot give out medical advice. That aside, I doubt anyone can find a modern scientific study which shows that masturbation causes "mental weakness" or muscle reduction. If you can find such a paper or a citation in a book, discuss it here or add it to the article. If you can't, please don't spread rumours; people worry enough about perfectly natural and indeed beneficial behaviour already. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Thanks anyway.--NAHID 17:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

== Referece Needed "Some people masturbate by using machines that simulate intercourse." While this statement seems obvious I think this article needs a reference or a reference to such a machine.