Talk:Masturbation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is not a forum for general discussion of your personal experiences or stories about Masturbation, nor is it for links to sites with good Masturbation material. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article. |
 |
This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content. |
|
|
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed. Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary. |
 |
Masturbation is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||
|
||||
|
Click [show] for further details |
||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||
 Archives |
Contents |
[edit] the duck
how am i supposed to know it vibrates. It looks like a regular rubber duck to me.
[edit] 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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.122.181 (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2007 UTC
I'd like to add the following link to the general reference:
- Masturbation "Human Sexuality: An Encyclopedia", Humboldt Universität, Berlin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabiomalf (talk • contribs) 16:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] male picture - full body and HEAD (the top one)
I would like to see a full body picture of a man jerking off (including his face) such as in the picture of the woman. I find that it is typical in pornography to show the full body and face of a woman but not o a man and because of that it is sexist. It is interesting that this sexism within the porn industry has carried over into an encyclopedia - especially one in a public domain such as wikipedia which I really respect. Masturbation is a full body experience for men as well as women and I don't think that we should degrade that.
(ANY brave men out there willing to release a picture of themselves into the public domain? - I would super respect you if you did, my boyfriend isn't brave enough - I asked!)154.5.45.156 (talk) 00:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- If you can find a full body and head picture in the public domain, then by all means, put it up. Asarelah (talk) 19:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Totally agree with you. Placing the pictures side by side, they suggest very strongly that a man is just a penis, which is indeed rather degrading.
Not brave enough myself, though. =P Petitphoque (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
- I know wikipedia isn't censored but are those pictures really needed...? Couldn't the diagrams suffice? *Shudder* --Alreajk (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- I think an important question in this is: what are you shuddering about? The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Why does it matter what makes someone shudder at the sight of genitals? The fact is many people do indeed shudder. Maybe you feel that people should be able to gaze on erogenous zones without batting an eyelash, but really isn't that using wikipedia to make a political statement? Since the diagrams are plenty informative in and of themselves, why do we feel it's necessary to include photographs which will most likely offend a great number of people reading the site? 140.251.20.95 (talk) 05:11, 29 May 2008 (UTC)zack
-
-
-
-
- You've assumed more than I said. I didn't say "What makes you shudder at the site of genitals?": I said "What makes you shudder?" Is it the site of masturbation? of any sexual activity? of genitals? of any erogenous zone? Some of the people here (including me) have said that the pictures are more illustrative than the sketches-- I think "diagrams" is a rather extravagant word for them-- at the top of the page. Some of the people here, however, are shuddering. Why are they shuddering? What does their shuddering mean, and would the general population of the world shudder for the same reasons on seeing this page, and how well does that weigh against this page's mission to inform? We can't really tell or discuss the deeper question at all, if all they say is "*Shudder*". The Wednesday Island (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Are we going to pretend there's no widely-held taboo on seeing people engaged in sex acts? The answer to the question of "would the general population of the world shudder" is "probably yes". Evidence for this is the plethora of laws that get written in every sort of country defining what is and is not ok to depict in images of the human body, what sexual acts are or are not ok to depict, what age people can or cannot be depicted, what age people can or cannot have access to depictions of others, etc. These laws wouldn't be so widespread or popular if the taboos accompanying them were not so widespread and popular. I'm certainly not saying I personally agree with these taboos (all the time), but I don't see why wikipedia should be a medium used to fight the social mores. As for your second point, what information do you propose is in the photographic images that isn't in the illustrations? 140.251.20.95 (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)zack
-
-
-
Please post more photos of females masturbating. ( 98.220.16.130 (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC) )
- Please tell us why; do you think the existing illustrations are missing something? The Wednesday Island (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be better illustrated if the article had photos of women masturbating with 1,2,3 and 4 fingers, perhaps one fisting herself and numerous toys. More photos of females masturbating is absolutely necessary to help better this article ( 98.220.16.130 (talk) 06:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC) )
[edit] Kate Bush
It might be worthwhile to mention under Music, Kate Bush's early song, "(I don't see why I shouldn't) pick the wild flower." It is not a popular song, but Kate Bush is a popular artist who touched on the topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.127.55.62 (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- (NB: "Pick the Rare Flower".) The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Removal of links
The following links should be removed from "General":
healthystrokes.com — Misleadingly represented as a "site about masturbation", but it is actually a site railing against "Traumatic Masturbatory Syndrome" which doesn't have nearly enough consensus in the scientific literature to go under "general". Reference under the part of the article pertaining to TMS is probably fine. Whether or not TMS is real, I emphasize that healthystrokes.com is NOT a "general" site about masturbation, but a scare site about TMS. So it is miscategorized.
aboutmasturbation.com — The quality of the writing on this site is amazingly poor. About the only thing they get right is the spelling of "masturbation". A linguist may be interested in the bizarre verbiage in the articles, but surely there are better sites to be included under "general". Let us search for others and add them instead. I would do so myself, but the page is protected (and rightly so, given the sort of stuff I've seen in the archives for this talk page).
164.107.191.89 (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
