Talk:Masturbation/Archive 2

message: "however when done with no marriage or confines involved, does not penalize those performing the act"-Is there a source for that? --72.49.61.223 19:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone care to explain why?--72.49.57.155 19:53, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism section 

message: Not to re-ignite this fairly mundane debate, but do we really need not one but two poorly done male images?  The second one, besides being utterly crap, really adds nothing to the article. brenneman(t)(c) 11:28, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Once More Into The Breach

message: I removed this section because it seems to be about prudery in US broadcasting rather than masturbation per se, and the people involved are in general (Pamela Anderson excepted) unknown outside the USA.
: It was reported that on his night-time show once, a guest of Dick Cavett's was talking in some medico-techno-jargon about male genitals. Cavett interjected, "I don't quite grasp that!" The segment was censored from the videotape and never aired. Another time, he said that a particular male guest was unable to be there, because "He's suffering from Portnoy's Complaint!" That novel had spoken of masturbation extensively. Censored again!
: Broadcast rules are a bit more flexible nowadays. On a visit to the David Letterman show in 2004, Pamela Anderson said she had not been dating for awhile. Letterman naively asked her how she was coping. She responded, "There's not a square corner left anywhere in my house!" This rendered the usually unflappable Letterman speechless and red-faced for a minute or so while the audience hooted.
: Dennis Miller, in the last installment of one of his earlier attempts at a talk show, was asked by a guest what his next plans were. He said, "It's back to chronic masturbation!"''
--Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be curious if smeone could explain what Anderson said, by the way... Rama 07:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure either.  Perhaps she meant Square (slang). Шизомби 04:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US TV broadcasting stuff

message: Prometheuspan 20:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: this duck is not made of rubber. The image is not "highly out-of-place", and a significant proportion of vibrators do not look like Frankenstein's prick cut off and plastified. And yes it does have an incidence on how women will look at the thing. Rama 06:10, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rubber duck? 

message: The Jewish view on masturbation has been completely misrepresented. The Talmud (Niddah 13a) is unequivocal in its condemnation of masturbation, and Onan is cited as a source for Divine disapproval, not because of coitus interruptus but because his semen was spilt; whether this was due to manual or vaginal stimulation is irrelevant. This is codified in all the major sources of Jewish law (e.g. Shulkhan Arukh E.H. 23:1), so there is no need to weasel about implicit acceptance etc etc. JFW | T@lk 09:02, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Judaism 

message: In Western countries masturbation tends to be legal, even by children, as long as nobody else is involved and no image is made.
:Does that imply that masturbation is illegal in some parts of the world? Or was. Such a thing I find hard to believe. --Arm
::Yes, generally on religious grounds. For example (the only one I can think of) the Christian bible states that "seed should not be spilled on the ground", which is generally interpreted as forbidding masturbation. --me_and 8 July 2005 00:15 (UTC)
::That being said, would any one mind deleting the "Maturbating a fast-breaker in Islam", or should I just delete it?  This is certainly not correct, as masturbation is stricktly forbidden in Islam.  I think the person who wrote it misinterperted it, the sheik is basically saying that one should disregard sexual pleasure even more in the sacred month of rammadan then in any other month. --Maliki 786 18 December 2005 23:35 (UTC)
:::Something being a sin does not neccessitate that it breaks a fast. For example, robbing someone may be a sin, but it doesn't mean it invalidates the fast. Such is not the case with masturbation. It may be considered a sin twelve months of the year, but during a fast, it is a sin and it breaks your fast. Pepsidrinka 06:11, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah but doesn't need whole section on it, does it? Then should we add that food breaks a fast to the Food article too. --Snakes 06:45, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it should... if this article were about food. However, it is about masturbation, and the section is about masturbation in Islam, more specifically during fasting. If you don't think it merits a section, summarize it into the Religion section. However, don't completely eliminate the information. And also, the use of  can be used when you don't see a citation. Pepsidrinka 06:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand why any Muslim would want to insert this. I am not one so I don't know, but it sounds offensive. I don't think it's a regular method to break fast and I have never heard of it. --Snakes 07:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It really shouldn't matter if someone wants it in there or not. The topic at hand is masturbation, and more specifically, in religion. This surely fits the criteria. A fast in islam does not mean one has to abstain from food and water. Sexual desires are very much a part of it. So for you to say it is not a usual way to break a fast is POV. Pepsidrinka 07:16, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it isn't a usual way. I have never heard of it and there are no sources. Are you a Muslim? --Snakes 07:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Saying it is or isn't a usual way is very POV. Saying there are no sources just specifies that the other means may be either more mainstream or more common. It does not neccessitate that it itself is not "usual."Pepsidrinka 23:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Law question. 

message: the inclusion here of comments regarding results of the Canadian Now magazine survey seems very random considering the volume of worldwide research on this topic through history.  Wikipedia should be representative, the respondents to the quoted survey represent a tiny and very specific number of people.  For reasons of cultural bias this paragraph should be removed.
-
I also agree that the quoted survey not only has the "cultural bias" mentioned, but that the survey's chosen sample completely misrepresents the whole of even Canada—it was announced only to readers of a specific magazine (presumably oriented to interestingly edgy topics), and has no regard for an even or random sample. Michael Lipik 02:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masturbation: Frequency, Age and Sex 

message: *Masturbation in a public place, and in cases where somebody else is unexpectedly confronted with it, is usually considered  lewd and lascivious behavior, or at least indecent exposure. According to some historic chronicles, it has not always been so.
Does anybody have any idea what "historic chronicles" are being referred to? It's a very mysterious assertion. -Willmcw 00:23, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I once heard in a philosophy reading that a prominent Greek philosopher would often masturbate in Athens walking around.  It was perhaps greeted with surprise, but was not considered lewd or illegal.  I can't recall his name, but it was not Socrates.  Ichelhof 05:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another law question 

message: So, Johntex, is this some new Wikipedia policy?  I thought the new edits, particularly the ones in the Female section were fine - it's nice to get some more work on that section.  I think if you look at other sections of this article, they're a bit short on citations at the moment, so we'd all better beware your axe!  Somebody who knows their way around better than me may be able to supply a link here to a policy page called something like 'Don't bite the newbies' - I think it's probably relevant here.  --Nigelj 17:46, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Delete anon edits with no citations??? 

message: Andycjp has made several recent edits ephasizing the possibility of a person experiencing guilt about masturbating and deemphasizing the current mainstream medical view that masturbation is a healthy, harmless part of human sexuality.  He may be on to something.  I would welcome a section on negative contemporary medical views and one on possible psychological reactions, as a way to more fully present the wide variety of views and experiences people have around masturbation.  In the meantime, I have reverted those edits as, without sources to back them up, they appear to be giving undue weight to minority views.  Like I said, though, I for one would welcome a section that allowed those views to be incorporated into the article in a manner that allowed further elaboration on the reasons a person might feel guilt or be otherwise psychologically harmed by masturbation. --Icarus 04:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guilt, etc. 

message: A common belief is that male masturbation reduces penis size. Does anyone know if this is true, and should it be included under "Health and psychological effects"
Under the heading "Health and psychological effects"
"It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-worth."
To simply assert that such-and-such view is held in "many circles" is next to meaningless. I think some references to back up this sentence are needed, otherwise it should be deleted.
Also on the issue of photographs, I was personally very surprised to find pictures that look very much like pornography linked, but to appease those who are for it I would suggest that the hand-drawn examples look a bit more scientific than the photographic examples. Out of respect for those (the majority of?) people who come to Wikipedia expecting to find objective information and not smut, I suggest those explicit photographic examples be deleted.
:The photograph issue have been beaten to death. Suffice it to say that the consensus generally seems to be that they stay.--Prosfilaes 19:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health and psychological effects 

message: The Playboy advisor said awhile back that masturbation conditions the body towards having an early orgasm. Does anyone have the volume/issue date that this appeared in, and also, is there any other confirmation? 24.54.208.177 23:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What is a late orgasm?  Or a right-on-time orgasm for that matter?  --Her girlfriend  00:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Conditions body towards having an early orgasm

message: Masturbation is better known as wanking. A masturbater is often known
by the slang term 'wanker'. - (Aidan Work 05:50, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Masturbation is better known as wanking.

message: : "even by children" is important, I think, because in western countries, at least, many things sexual related to children are forbidden. (Edit comment by User:Flata)
But on the other hand, there are no laws against anything a sufficently young child does, and even older children are treated more leinently. In the field of sex, in many places, a child can have sex with another child where an adult would be charged with statutory rape. There are fewer laws as to what children can do sexually than as to what adults can.--Prosfilaes 04:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Even by children 

message: Cont from summary - It is only the sin caused before you knew it was wrong that can plausibly be dismissed without confession. Chooserr 04:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good subtopic for the article on the sacrament.  What does it have to do with this?  Ruby 05:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It revolves around masturbation...I thought that was pretty clear. Chooserr 05:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, look, people who look up encyclopedia articles about masturbation are entitled to get information about the practice without having to plow through the finer points of the sacrament of penance.    Ruby 05:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine, but the view given of the Catholic here is that it is evil and unforgivable, and what makes you so wise as to know what a person would come here for. Someone might come here feeling guilty, or to understand the religious view of the subject. The section is already there - all I did was add two small paragraphs of information that might be valuable. Chooserr 05:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Odd, calling someone's opinion evil almost sounds like a sort of personal attack--152.163.101.10 05:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I said sounds evil. :) Nice try, Chooserr 05:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm a little late to the discussion, but it seems like religous views on the subject are fine for inclusion into the article.  What is the problem? Force10 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catholicism 

message: I didn't originate this. I'm performing a merge-and-redirect from Traumatic masturbatory syndrome. The latter article was mostly the work of User:Doug22123 who operates a website, http://www.healthystrokes.com . I tried to boil it down to essentials. See Talk:Traumatic masturbatory syndrome for much discussion, and the history of the article for various changes in wording and emphasis.
My personal on take on this: Sank, the doctor who coined the term "traumatic masturbatory syndrome" is for real, and he did publish an article in a real journal. There has been very little follow-up study. This is basically one doctor's experience with four patients. But User:Doug22123 has found three or four reasonable sources that suggest there might be something to it. Although User:Doug22123 has clearly been trying to promote a point of view, he has been reasonably cooperative in trying to comply with Wikipedia policy (such as citing sources). 
Although his website contains small ads, it strikes me as having a high content-to-ad ratio, and therefore I am including it in external links as a resource on issues with prone masturbation. The "treatment" for the syndrome, if real, is simply learning supine masturbation. Since this treatment does not involve purchasing anything--no herbal remedies, no books, no counselling sessions--I don't think the website is really a money-making scam or anything like that. And it seems to me that, unlike most medical quackery, in this case even if there's nothing to it I fail to see any harm in it. 
So, on the whole I think it deserves mention here in this article, but not as an entire separate article until and unless this "syndrome" is much more widely recognized in the mainstream medical community. Dpbsmith (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on this summary, I would say it should be removed from this article too.  What we're talking about is a 'syndrome' involving four patients and one doctor. Ever.  It has no particular symptoms and requires no particular treatment.  I think on the grounds of utter non-notability, it requires no discussion or mention in WP either. --Nigelj 15:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I think it's worth a note, even if highly qualified as to its reliability. It's a syndrome that's discussed on the net and that people might look at Wikipedia for information on.--Prosfilaes 07:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prone masturbation and "traumatic masturbatory syndrome" 

message: In that section, the 47 percent/39 percent (or something along those lines) seems awfully low and misleading. Deckiller 22:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Male masturbation survey

message: The existing reference to an article by Mr Winton Higgins has been removed as has the claim that the Eightfold path taught by Gotama Buddha neither forbids nor encourages masturbation. The Eightfold path requires that a man refrain from the voluntary emission of semen. This rule is contained within the lay precept concerning sexual misconduct. It is incorrect to say, as Mr Higgins claims, that this precept concerns only adultery, rape, and other forms of sexual activity involving deception, harmful intent and so on. Sexual misconduct includes the voluntary emission of semen. There is no scriptural basis for Mr Higgins' claims within the orthodox teaching contained in the tipitaka. User:Langdell
: I'm sorry, Langdell, but you can't just dump a whole home-made sermon, full of your own  original research (WP:NOR) on the alleged commonality of the world's religions, into this artcle un-discussed.  So I've pulled it out and put it here for discussion.  I've numbered your 'chapters and verses' so that I can start the ball rolling:
--start Langdell's text--
#In most religions, including Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Taoism, masturbation is regarded as contrary to the faith. 
#Many great  spiritual masters and  religious teachers (including the  Buddha and Jesus) taught their disciples that masturbation posed a serious obstacle to liberation (salvation). 
-------------------
Interesting, but, untrue. In fact, Taoism, for instance, not only
involves masturbation, but a variety of other sex practices that
would probably make a westerner Blush. What you have is a list of
Apollonian Religions. If we go for the Dionysian Religions, very quickly your argument falls all to pieces. Buddhism has several different branches. Some are anti sex and some are sex neutral.
-----------------
#The path of higher spiritual knowledge taught by the Vedic  seers, the Buddha, and Yogis throughout the ages has always involved the renunciation of carnal pleasure within a lifestyle that is referred to as Brahmacarya (lit. under the tutelage of God). 
-------------
No, actually, all of that is a modern tendency of patrifocal religions. There is even TANTRIC Yoga, so what you are actually
doing here is looking at the propaganda spin of westernized Yoga,
and calling that Yoga.
--------------
#This means the complete renunciation of all intentional sexual activity. In a male aspirant it is extremely important that no voluntary emission of semen occurs.
-------------
For purposes of modern Psychology, this has all been well debunked.
Sexual denial only leads to Psychosexual fixation, and the persons
mostl likely to rape or molest are those that are trying to implement
some sort of fallacious morality program like the one you describe.
In fact, its pretty demonstrable that the problem with Catholic Preists is that they invariably become the victims of their own repressed sexuality, and end up acting out in criminal ways.
Modern Psychology tells us that Masturbation is an evolved
and useful biological function. >>MOST<< "World Religions" agree
with this, you are only sampling those which you could find to agree
with your starting premise.
---------------
 The code of conduct that the Buddha set out for his monks (the patimokkha) places the voluntary emission of semen in the second category of offence (sanghadisesa) after the first (parajika) which includes the most grave offences such as murder. To a contemporary mindset this prohibition may appear to be an ancient superstition that is no longer relevant but in fact it arises rather from an advanced understanding of the physiological principles behind higher spiritual development.
---------------
Honestly, no. Probably the best thing you could do for your spiritual evolution is accept the reality of your animal nature,
and learn to be the adult parent of the shadow. This does not mean
locking the shadow in a cage, it means allowing the shadow its time
and place and freedom as part of the psyche. Masturbation as one way
to achieve orgasm, and orgasm as a consciousness expanding experience tends towards the argument that Masturbation can be integrated meaningfully into a spiritual practice.
---------------
 
#It was for this reason that Jesus taught his disciples: ‘there are those who are born eunuchs; there are those who were made eunuchs, and there are those who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let he who can receive this message receive it.’ ( Matt;19,12).
---------------
There are a lot of total nonsense things in the Bible, and that is one of them. If you really agree, make yourself a Eunich. A Eunich by
the way is one who has had their male genitals surgically removed.
What he may have meant or actually said was probably something a bit different, and we are now dealing with a mistranslation, like a lot of the worst stuff one runs into with the Bible. 
---------------
#The manufacture of semen in the body is an extremely energy intensive process using approximately thirty percent of available free energy. When a man no longer loses semen through sexual activity, the energy thus conserved and transformed through yoga (meditation or in Christian spiritual terminology, askesis) can be used to awaken latent faculties which lie dormant in the ordinary person. 
-----------------
This is a great argument for learning the Taoist practice of orgasm without ejaculation. This involves some pretty simple techniques,
which you can probably find on the net pretty easilly.
It goes hand in hand with other Taoist sex practices, Such as genital
weight lifting.
-----------------
#Correspondingly, in women this energy is normally lost in the menses each month. A woman of childbearing age who practises celibacy in conjunction with a meditative practise over a lengthy period of time will remain fertile but no longer experience a  menstrual flow. 
-------------
This is not only propaganda, it is a factual error. Again, if you
are genuinely interested in knowledge and not just a dumb sheeple
zombie spouting nonsense, you might be interested to know that another Taoist practice, and one incorporate into Tantra, is the use of depth biofeedback techniques to quit Menstruation. Amongst those
techniques are timing functions for regular sex several days out of each month.
---------------
#The transformation of the energy of sexual desire and the energetic potency of the reproductive system is critical to the attainment of liberation (enlightenment) in Taoism, Buddhism, the Vedic religions and is well understood by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches as prerequisite to the inheritance of eternal life (in Buddhism called amata – the deathless).
----------------
You finally got one right. Yes, transform the psychosexual energies
from scond Chakra fixed, and awaken the kundalini force, and bring
psychosexual energies into harmony with seventh Chakra.
----------------
#To turn specifically to the traditional Christian point of view regarding masturbation it is best understood in the context of the Church’s teaching on the nature and purpose of human sexuality. 
-----------------
Which is all a way to create domination, false power, false dominion,
steal the common capacity to actually reach divine communion, and replace it with a pyramidal money making scheme. Christians have zero business playing the game of sexual morality, the sexual paradigm of christianity is demonstrably evil and diseased.
Prometheuspan 20:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry to rant, but I really think this has missed the mark, by a very long way. --Nigelj 22:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Buddha's Teaching Regarding Masturbation