Talk:Masturbation/Archive 4

message: I don't know the etymology of masturbation nor do I know if it derives form the word mezea.
However there is no such a Greek word; neither for "penises" nor for anything else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.124.141.250 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-31 08:21:34  (UTC)
:See  and ; however, I would quite like to see a citation for that being an etymology for the word. —xyzzyn 22:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this "believed by many", anyway? Who are these many who believe it to derive from this Greek word-- actually, who is even one authority? Everything I've ever checked derives it from Latin (either manus + stuprare or manus + turbare). I think, unless someone comes up with a citation, we need to change it. The Wednesday Island 23:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: It is articles like this, that show the advantage Wikipedia has over other "authoritative" encyclopedias. The range and extent of information available in this page the the peer reviewed and objective evolution of this page without the political and religious overtones, provide something which is probably more representative than any source on topics such as this in recorded history. - User:aenertia - June 2006
:It's "articles" like these that make Wikipedia a laughingstock as an alleged "encyclopedia."  What a joke!
:You're entitled to your opinion, but Wikipedia will always be a work in progress.  I'd be interested in knowing who thinks Wikipedia is a "laughingstock"...other than yourself?  User:WallyFromColumbia 09:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why did you look it up? What did you expect? JFW | T@lk 21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You could also have the temerity to sign your post instead of leaving it anonymous.--Aml830 06:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This kind of article is what shows the greatness of Wikipedia, why should this not be here. Just as if you dont like eating at Mcdonalds you dont have to go there, the same is thrue for this. If you are offended by this article, for whatever reason, masturbation stealing your soul, etc. Then you do not have to view it. Hence next time you see a title on a subject which you do not feel is in line with your fascist views, feel free to leave wikipedia or move on to a page more suitable for you.--Fabio 02:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding.  People who act like this don't seem to realize why they were given genitals in the first place.  Only a sadistic Creator would give His creations gonads, then demand that they not use them. --M.Neko 06:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stupid article? 

message: I think this page should be protected. 63.23.70.57 17:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected page 

message: I fail to see how the fact that people who are overweight masturbating more has to do with a risk.  I'd think it would be pretty hard to find a partner. =D --mboverload@ 07:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Relevancy to what topic? It is obviously relevant to the article on Masturbation. Haiduc 11:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how is it relevant to RISK?  --mboverload@ 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh! I missed that one. Thanks for moving the info. Haiduc 02:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem =D --mboverload@ 03:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only, ONLY, real reason that fat people would masturbate more is because, simply, most fat people can't get laid. This has nothing to do with obesity, it only has to do with cultural norms (fat=not attractive) or what is attractive or not. Not attractive-->can't get laid-->Masturbate. Obesity has is not caused by, nor does it directly initiate masturbation. 216.205.211.118 03:09, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed whacking/obesity [[correlation]] 

message: I added and edited a paragraph in Female to read as follows:
"Some women and men masturbate by inserting objects into the urethra, such as urethral sounds.  This practice is known as "sounding" .  Sometimes other objects are used (e.g. ball point pens, glass thermometers), although this is a potentially dangerous technique which can cause injury and infection ."
Even though I opened with "women and men", I kept it in Female because I could think of no other place to put it and feel it's fine where it is.  Thoughts? Ideas? - Jaguara said OWWWWCH! at 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I found the new para before I found this note.  I already moved it to the top part of 'Techniques' before it splits into 'Male and 'Female', which is fine.  I toughened up the language a bit: looking though the references it doesn't seem common and mostly gets mentioned in medical stuff re the injuries it can cause, so I tried to reflect this. --Nigelj 20:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Techniques 

message: Don't you all think that the Masturbation article needs a real picture of a man and/or woman masturbating?
:Do you have any idea how many people would complain, i myself believe there should be some, but having to deal with all the complaints isnt really worth it.--Fabio 01:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? I hope that comment was a joke. Seriously, is the point of this article to help people satisfy there "needs"? No, its an encyclopedia. I think if there was an Image of a man/women masturbating, that was public domain or had the proper tagging, no matter what they look like, it might be better than the drawings. But that all depends on if the Image is tagged properly. Personally, I find no differance between the pictures of the penis any different from a picture of a man holding it. 209.214.140.196 20:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: No problem, the art image has gotten alot of support, as have the line drawings.  None of them are taboo, or pornographic (see below).  We can add your image to the list of others (below) and see what people think.  Atom 20:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

text: User:Atomaton has removed my image. He says to get consensus first. I'm sorry, I didn't realize you had a democratic way of doing things around here (I'm new). I added it to "The new image" topic below (Is this what you referring to?) -- 678901 21:17, 31 August 2006.
Yes, pictures are needed, even of a natural human behavior, as bad as that may be for those in denial of themselves.
--Trevor100a 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There really is nothing to debate. Wikipedia's policy is to not censor things like this. It doesn't matter if you're offended by real penises. If it's relevant, then it belongs here, social taboos be damned. I don't mean to come across as an asshole, but it's simply ridiculous to keep removing images of real penises in this article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored --AnonymousOrc 16:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real Picture 

message: I removed the sentence from the Religion section that said Buddhism and Unitarian Universalism ignore masturbation, because it was inaccurate.  The article speaks to Buddhism's views not two paragraphs down, and Unitarian Universalist sexual education (AYS-About Your Sexuality, and later OWL-Our Whole Lives) actively incorporate discussion about masturbation as normal and healthy.72.200.191.145 21:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut from Religion section 

message: "Masturbation is universally legal"; I'm certain this is incorrect. See elsewhere in the page where it talks about the Islamic views on masturbation, and apply to Islamic countries. I've heard on one news source about it even having "beheading" as the penalty, however that particular instance may have been a fiction, as it was immediately followed by "but they didn't say which head".
--81.174.210.207 23:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those may not be "laws", but that doesn't mean they even bother with legal rules in many islamic countries. --mboverload@ 23:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law 

message: At 14:56 on 27 July 2006, Logan.aggregate tagged this page with a template suggesting that it be split into separate articles accessible from a disambiguation page.  He made the edit comment "This page is obviously too long".  The template suggests that the matter be discussed on the article's talk page, and he added the anonymous comment, "This page is not an encyclopedia entry, it's an exhaustive diatribe. Seriously, somebody's compensating" at the top of this talk page.
Do others feel the need to discuss the issue?  The page is currently 48 KB long, including 11.4 KB (11,625 B) of references, citations and cross-references at the end.  WP:SIZE suggests a max page size of 32 KB, but says, "this once hard and fast rule has been softened and many articles exist which are over 32 KB of total text"  It also makes a point about "readable prose", which "excludes: external links, further reading, references, footnotes, see also, and similar sections; tables, list-like sections, and similar content; and markup, interwiki links, URLs and similar formatting".  None-the-less, some sections could be moved off into sub-articles, if a consensus wants that. --Nigelj 21:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A week has gone by and nothing heard, so I've removed the template from the article. --Nigelj 15:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discusssion re <nowiki>{{split}}</nowiki> tag 

message: I don't know how something done to your genticals can have an effect on your eyes.
DOES IT?
:No, it doesn't.  talk to JD wants e-mail 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it made you blind, the porn industry would be unable to survive (how can a blind person watch porn?). Old wive's tale. 216.205.211.118 03:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does masturbation really make you blind? 

message: This article needs to be expanded and have a section about teens and masturbation in this article.
So Be bold, and write it!  We look forward to your contributions.  --Mnemeson 19:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Teens

message: I had a user complain about my earlier edit removing the fleshlight when the Tenga was left in.
I created a section at the end, for reference, and put them there, and took them out of the main article.
I'm not convinced that they need to be there(at the end) either, but thought I would try to be fair.  The argument is that these devices are a tool for helping men masturbate.  (as if we/they need any more help!?)
Let's see if the new section lasts, or is vaporized.  Either way, no concern to me. Atom 21:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male Masturbation Aids 

message: I've started an archive at April 2006 – July 2006 but haven't had a chance to finish.  Add as you will. -- BillWeiss | Talk 04:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: Hello people wake up! I post here a website which - in my opinion - shows the truth of masturbation. Please consider it and make a link to this page. Even if you don't believe it maybe someone will. It can help many people to face the truth about this "vice". I'm not a vandal and/or crazy, please consider it. I'd experienced it on myself. Thanks.
http://www.anael.org/english/masturbation/index.htm
P.S. Wikipedia masturbation is the first page which opens when you seek 'masturbation', so it could be helpful.
11:36 AM, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, because there are no bad "consequences"? 
I like this quote from your web site best, I think, 
"Vice of masturbation totally ruins the brain's potency. It is necessary to know of an intimate relation between semen and brain. It is necessary to semen the brain and to brain the semen. To semen the brain is possible by transmuting the sexual energy, sublimating it, turning it into brain's potency. In this form we can semen the brain and brain the semen". 
: That says it all!  Clearly it is robbing us of vital fluids.  (Not constructive, but I simply couldn't resist.)  Somegeek 18:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why doesn't see anybody the bad consequences of masturbation 

message: I note that "onanism" redirects here, which it maybe shouldn't - I'm aware that some people use the word to mean masturbation, but doesn't it actually refer to the wasting of seed (i.e. any kind of non-procreative male orgasm)? This was kind of an obessession in late C19 France, which I'm currently working on, see. Ajcounter 10:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK... so why would the word "onanism" exist at all? Wouldn't it be called "eveism"? Clearly, this isn't the sense of the term: I'm not interested in it as a theological concept, but as a piece of social terminology, which definitely refers to some misuse of the male reproductive function. But whatever. Ajcounter 07:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Onan's historical error was as stated above by the annonymous Bible-reader, but the word "onanism" means masturbation, wrongly or not. --Scix 01:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Onanism"

message: According to news reports of IM conversations reprinted on Wikipedia, the page Foley communicated with masturbates in the face-down position, making him a practitioner of "traumatic masturnatory syndrome" as described in this article. Should this be noted somewhere?  This is the first "famous" practitioner of TMS that has been reported, even if he is still anonymous.4.156.84.92 20:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: TMS doesn't seem to be taken seriously in the current scientific community. Also, I would dispute that this is the first famous practioner of the behavior described in the TMS articles. There are numerous references in literature that predate these IM logs. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 06:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, Dante?  Who else?  I am clueless. 4.156.84.106 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mark Foley scandal and traumatic masturbatory syndrome

message: The article doesn't say what percentage of people (male/female) masturbates overall! It only says how many start at a particular age, not how many start at all. Paranoid 08:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For "healthy" people between 15 and 50, probably the absolute majority ar least once or a few times every month, (although I heard that many girls have been "traumatized" being told it was shameful) 惑乱 分からん 21:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many people masturbate? 

message: Brian Hamilton's assertion that uncircumcised is wrong is itself flawed. "Intact" is a weak, non-specific word - read as "nothing's happened" whereas "uncircumsised" is a much stronger term, asserting that it is circumcision that is being discussed, not general wear and tear, or getting it caught in your zip. With regard his suggestion that the word implies that it should have happened,  but didn't, that is simply wrong: if your football/baseball team has an uninterupted  string of victories, do you read that as meaning that they should have lost a game, but didn't? If a broadway show is "Unmissable" do you understand that to mean that it should be missable, but manages to escape missability? If your Wikipedia edits are "unmisstakable" does that mean that by some fluke your ordinary, misstakable edits are distinct from the next guys? No uncircumcised accurately emphasises the point that circumcision has not taken place. --Bilbo B 07:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This discussion is at Talk:Penis#"Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised"—Chidom talk  19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncircumcised vs intact