Talk:Handjob/Archive 1

Archive 1

How dare you take away my happy ending!

You hafta admit, that was creative! Lighten up, this isn't the World Book! Things like that are appropriate for the internet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.114.227 (talk • contribs) —Preceding undated comment added 30 March 2006 (UTC)

bald headed champ

I'm new at this; but my personal opinion is that ALL slang (hand job, happy ending, boxing the bald headed champ..whatever) should be referenced in a sub-heading called "Synonymous Slang Terms" - and let everyone have at it. Making a page for every slang term for masturbation would make things a little unweildy? Sorry King..I think handjob is just another way of saying...formally...masturbation. Amgraziano 04:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not masturbation because it involves different sensations and more than one person. Ultimately, if you are being manually stimulated by a partner and it feels no different than something you could do yourself you are either having sex with your perfect clone or are rather selfish.

The way I always understood it, masturbation doesn't even have to use the hands, you could be using an artificial vagina or a vibrator or whatever. A handjob (obviously) can only use the hands, and unless I'm mistaken always involves a partner. People might say that masturbation is like giving yourself a handjob, which isn't that same thing as equating the two. --Anaraug 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

merge with mutual masturbation

ah no. Mutual Masturbation is when two people MUTUALLY pleasure each other using masturbation. a handjob is when ONE person masturbates the other, w/o it to be returned simultaneously.. see what i mean? --Deon555 03:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Masturbation means self-stimulation. Oppose this merge. Exploding Boy 06:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No, masturbation is manual stimulation. It may or may not be self-stimulation. Synergism 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no. It's possible to masturbate without using the hands. Exploding Boy 02:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Manual or other non-penetrative (penile) stimulation of oneself or a partner for sexual pleasure, is the def for masturbation, as you can see it references the word 'ONESELF'. mutual masturbation is entirely different. --Deon555 03:55, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose any such merge. Mutual masturbation implies reciprocity, while masturbation is when you, ahem, take matters into your own hands. A handjob, on the other hand, is one person stimulating another person's penis to the point of orgasm with their hands. youngamerican (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose merge as well. this is an entirely seperate concept. THE KING 10:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Move to manual genital stimulation

Handjob is a colloquial term for Manual-Genital Stimulation, the term the vast majority of scholars use for the act (Manual Genital Stimulation - the term un-hyphenated - coming in second, but that is also used interchangeably for masturbation). The yet uncreated article Manual-Genital Stimulation should mention that one of several colloquial terms for the act is "handjob". Therefore, since handjob is a colloquial term for Manual-Genital Stimulation, an article titled Handjob needs to be about the term as a colloquialism. This one is not. We title articles Semen and not Cum; Sexual intercourse and not Fucking; Cunnilingus and not Going down on; Fellatio and not Head job. Why? Because each of the latter terms are colloquialisms and not encyclopedic. The act colloquially referred to as a "handjob" needs to be described in an article Manual-Genital Stimulation. Does that clear things up? CyberAnth 09:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The "vast majority of scholars"? I'm going to need to see some references. I have never heard this term. --Strait 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you a handjob scholar, then?? − Twas Now 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Go to World-Cat and Nexis-Lexis. Type it in. CyberAnth 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Clearly merging with mutual masterbation is innapropriate, as a handjob is not mutual in most cases. I found around 266,000 ghits on "manual genital stimulation" and 5,250,000 hits on "handjob". Google scholar gives 4,930 hits for "manual genital stimulation" and 26 hits for "handjob". This would support that the term "handjob" is more frequently used on a day to day or colloquial basis, and than "manual genital stimulation" is used more frequently in an academic context. I'm not making any judgment. Frankly I prefer that it stay at "handjob". But, I could live with a move, and a redirect from handjob to the new article. Atom 21:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose - Bad faith move DXRAW 09:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Article needs pics

This article is worthless without pictures! --Cyde Weys 18:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Really? Does this article really need a picture? I don't feel that it is necessary or appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.156.38 (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

possible vandalism of this article?

i cannot speak (what appears to be) spanish, but the first line of this article contains the text:

"LOS ARGENTINOS LA TENEMOS MAS GRANDE, MUCHO MAS GRANDE, LOS INGLESES PUTOS SON TODOS MANIPOCHOS(VERY SMALL PENIS)"

this looks a lot like it says something along the lines of:

"Argentinians have large penises whilst english people have very small penises".

this text is followed by:

"is a term that describes the sexual stimulation of a partner's penis using the hands and fingers"

well, im pretty sure that the spanish-looking phrase above is not a term that describes the sexual stimulation of the partner's penis

i am pretty sure, however that this is vandalism of the article.

i often use wikkipedia as a resource, however i must admit i barely ever contribute to it, and know almost nothing of how to use its editing/moderation controls.

i will not edit the page, but will rather leave it to someone who knows what they are doing :P

The suggestion that this page is 'in need of a clean-up' is itself a piece of vandalism, of the 'pass the Kleenex' variety. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Handwriting on the wall

I first noticed the blossoming of unsuitable pornographic materal on Wikipedia toward the end of last year with some articles stating or implying that an entire ancient people practiced sexual pederasty. Moreover, the proponent of this point of view had gone out of his way to insert this material insidiously in a number of articles. I faced this as best I could - with deletions for appropriate reasons - and then I sort of shied away from the problem. Now I find it forced upon my attention in a growing number of articles and boxes. Here is what I perceive. First of all for sources these articles are using porn sites and no one seems to be stopping them. In addition to advertising porn sites, they are giving straight links to offbeat publications that in any other article would be deleted as adverstising. Third, this material is scurrilous and totally unsuitable for an encyclopedia. To Jimmy Wales I would say, what to you plan to do Jim, make this available to the grade-school children with all Wikipedia's resources? Up until now this has been a fine source of educational material but now I notice this low-grade material is rapidly expanding and is turning Wikipedia's own methods against it. It gives the appearance of legitimacy but the topics are those to be found in the pornographic media. If we don't allow legitimate authors to advertise themselves and their products of Wikipedia, why are we permitting, under the guise of "non-censorship" - the scurrilous elements of our society to do so? Apparently they have found a way to do what many notable magazines have been unable to do - advertise their wares internationally through a well-meaning charitable effort. Just what are we going to give the ordinary people of the world as their encyclopedia? Potty words and pornography disguised as articles? I make a prediction. Unless Wikipedia and the public take hold of this trend, get rid of these articles and establish some standards, they will soon dominate the "encyclopedia" and decent and well-meaning people will be ashamed to work on it. The second step is that authorities everywhere will start looking for ways to curb Wikipedia with increasing degrees of success. We all know that things go on in the closet, folks. Let's keep it in the closet, shall we? If you do not start acting and soon I do believe the decline will be quite rapid. I do not know why everyone is afraid of the term "censorship." Why use that word? Is arresting or banning someone for uttering threats censorship? Society has a right to protect its innocents against indecency and to advocate decency. I urge you to act now on these articles and to use the tools it has provided: notability, no advertising, no personal web sites, insistence on proper sources, etc. Since when has masturbation been a notable act and why is there an article in here titillating the kiddies by pretending to define some slang that is improper in any other serious educational work? We need some help here folks if you want a serious encyclopedia. I believe the intent of these articles is to shock.Dave (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted all the accompanying edits to the article as they were unhelpful. Anyone reading the above piece will clearly see that its writer is opposed to sex education in its entirety. Some people do have strong personal and religious taboos, but this does not give them the right to censor those who do not. This is not just a matter of taste: safe sex practices are vital in stopping the spread of AIDS and people have a right to read the facts and make their own choices.--Simon Speed (talk) 02:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

While the OP is clearly opposed to sex education, I think that he hit upon a significant point: many articles in WP now not only concern but also graphically portray very mature subjects. While it is true that different countries and cultures possess varying standards of decency, the censorship of violence on WP has seemed to have been much greater than the censorship of sexual material, perhaps because sexual material is considered more acceptable than violence in many modern European countries.
In order to maintain a level of credibility and decency, it is important for WP to stay away from citing pornographic websites as sources. Also, while including pictures of artistic or historical merit in an article concerning, say, oral sex are understandable, pornographic ones that are drawn up only for that article and do not possess significant scholastic merit are often crude pedestrian , belying WP's eruditious intentions.
(sorry for waxing Thesaurus-ical at the end there; it's getting late here, and my brain is not quite in full gear.)
As a case in point, I would like to mention the article on "Oral stimulation of nipples" This article not only uses a fairly pornographic picture as illustration, but also uses a website for selling vibrators as a citation. Geomike99 (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with much of what you say (on violence surely Wikipedia is full of military history articles glorifying war), but I am not happy with the quality of the sexuality articles. But we need to improve these not censor them. I think the illustration for this particular article is excellent and very tasteful given the subject matter. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that, when dealing with this subject matter, an illustration perhaps resembling one from a medical encyclopedia would be more tasteful, such as the ones in "Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body" or "The Merck Manual of Medical Information."Geomike99 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A bit gruesome for my taste! --Simon Speed (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Younger kids seeems to enjoy it!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.67.159 (talk) 16:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of handjob types

For anyone watching this article, the material removed was not sourced (except for one, which was sourced at Everything2). --dicttrshp (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

"H2J"

H2J seems to be an unverifiable term that is not really used to describe "If both hands of the perpetrator are used in a simultaneous, wringing fashion." It certainly isn't as common as "handjob," etc. And I don't think perpetrator is really the right word for someone giving a handjob under normal circumstances. Why not just can that part? (I just made this account, so I can't edit a "semi-protected page.") Conwict (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

German Imagecaption

Would one of the douches who protected this page or any other registered user please be so kind as to change the caption from "Pompejanische Wandmalerei" (which is German) to "Pompeian mural"? thx... DooFi from de. (--87.123.206.255 (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Thanks for pointing this out, I've changed the description. I don't think the abusive language is called for though. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Handjob2424.jpg

The above picture has been added. I'm not going so far as to remove it on my own, but I'd welcome other's views. My thoughts are:-

• Some (not all) photographs make a sex page look like a porno page from some disreputable part of the web. These (this image included) are best avoided.
• Pages need good clear illustrations that help the reader understand the subject. The main illustration already does this and the new illustration is not particularly informative (if you don't already know what's going on).
• Images can improve a page by being beautiful or decorative. Or they can be works by an interesting artist or come from an interesting culture, giving the reader a link to exciting new areas in the encyclopedia. Apart from the woman's smile, this image has little going for it.

So seeing the page is already fairly well illustrated. I think the picture should go. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you kidding?

"This section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details. (September 2007)" That a handjob requires little physical effort and can be enhanced with oil requires verification? This is what makes Wikipedia not get taken seriously... --173.168.193.168 (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed this text because it is not appropriate for a variety of reasons. It needs references, or appears to original research for example. The sentence you quote violates WP:NOTHOW, this is not a sex guide blog. --Pontificalibus (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warred POV section

The following text has been repeatedly used to replace a less POV paragraph:-

There are many ignorant uneducated people who consider a man playing with another man's penis a homosexual act, it is not infact it is masturbation which is perfectly normal, in order for it to be a sex act there must be the penetration of a body orfice such as a vagina, mouth or rectum. It is unfortunate as they are frequently the same ignorant people who think all homosexuals are child molesters and treat them as such, fact is most homosexuals like hetrosexuals are not child molesters, though some are. — There are a surprising number of men who enjoy handjobs and do not want oral or rectal sex and are discusted by it and whose easiest and fastest orgasm comes from a handjob as opposed to fellatio or sexual intercourse.

This is being done, by IP addresses (mostly one) and probably by one individual. The edits are being reverted by multiple other editors. Unless the proponent of this modified section is prepared to justify it, I think we should treat it as vandalism. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This page needs a decent image

The current "gallery" is pathetic - what the article needs is either a good (modern) illustration or a decent quality photo. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think the images currently on the page are both tasteful, artistic, and instructional.

All together, I must say that this page leaves me quite satisfied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.252.134 (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia has this strange idea that showing modern drawings and photos are bad, but images say ~200+ yrs old of the same thing is fine because it's art. No. It's not art, it's just the same, and it's not so good at showing what is going on. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:20, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

This article represents everything morally wrong with society these days. While there are good, decent people out there, there are also many (too many) scumbags. WHY is there a pornographic picture on this page? Has morality gone out the window completely? I read some older comments and actually laughed out loud at some porn-advocate's pathetic excuse for allowing sexually explicit images on a website known as "the free encyclopaedia". Apparently he's so "concerned" for the children of our time that he is all for crass and disgusting images on crass and disgusting articles like this ... because it teaches youngsters about sex-ed. We don't need travesties like this to teach kids sex-ed; there are ACTUAL alternatives to that! So my message to the administrators is this: Remove the pictures/illustrations from the sex-articles at least, if you aren't moral enough to take the whole damn things down. Seriously, no amount of euphemisms or sugar-coating and clever words can disguise the obvious: This is perverted ! I'm sure there are neigh-sayers to my comments, but nothing anyone can say can convince me that leaving this webpage the way it is, is the right thing to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.33.3.90 (talk) 05:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

AfD Reasoning

The section concerning sex work in massage parlors seems far more suitable to an article about sex workers and the sex industry. I would clean it up and merge it somewhere with related information.

If you removed that second section about sex work, it would simply be offering a definition of Handjob. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary that isn't really what constitutes an article.

I consulted with Primefac and did not nominate this for deletion without significant consideration.

Jasphetamine (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

This nomination and reasoning has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handjob (2nd nomination). Please comment there, and not here. Primefac (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

[Untitled]

Footjob is a redirect to Foot fetishism. That has nothing to do with this article, and represents a textbook case of instruction creep. Do NOT revert without first consulting me on my talk page. If you do, i will consider it a personal attack. THE KING 13:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Handjob is bad habits......... Manishhh kumarr (talk) 22:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Handjob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705081130/http://newyork.timeout.com/sex-dating/42097/best-happy-ending-parlors to http://newyork.timeout.com/sex-dating/42097/best-happy-ending-parlors

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)