Talk:Masturbation/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

Self-published source

I have removed a WP:SPS. The author, Lambert Dolphin, does not seem to have any credentials as Bible scholar, he is just a retired physicist who has a YEC creationist website. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Brody

I have removed Brody's study, because the author has been lambasted for peddling pseudoscience. See e.g. [1] and [2]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Use of real-life images

Should real-life or lifelike images be used in this article? dmartin969 08:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: Would you like to weigh in on this? dmartin969 08:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes- Support Inclusion

  • Include - Real-Life, or at least life-life depictions should be used in this article. Failure to use them seems to fly in the face of WP:NOTCENSORED. I also think that the exclusive use of unrealistic art is this article is unencyclopedic. I recommend having at least having one realistic depiction for each sex. Something like File:Masturbating with the whole hand.jpg and File:Fingering with 2 fingers.jpg or if not real-life images realistic artistic depictions like File:Male masturbation.svg. Realistic images are used in articles on many other languages' wikis. They should however. only be used under the "technique section", as to retain compliance with WP:GRATUITOUS. dmartin969 08:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Furthermore WP:IUP states the purpose of images is "to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article."(emphasis mine), which seems to pretty clearly favour adding real-life images. dmartin969 08:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Include - Take a look at the corresponding pages on Chinese, Spanish, Japanese, Russian, and German Wikipedia. They all feature real life depiction of masturbation. Chinese and German Wikipedias even have full-length videos of male masturbation. It is quite absurd to find English Wikipedia being more unreasonably conservative than other language editions. ENWP should be an exemplar in our policies and not to childishly evade a matter of serious discussion. It is not like these depictions are any explicit to raise concern on exploitation in pornography. They're not. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
And even today this act is being demonized in some of the countries using languages listed above, yet their Wikipedia is more educational and informative. That's what we are for. This might be a Christian issue. But shame on us to fail our encyclopedic duties. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
There is no shame on us whatsoever. Nor are we being childish. WP:Offensive material and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images are quite clear. And we sure as heck do not need porn videos showing the act. A better encyclopedia means not unnecessarily offending readers and/or distracting/detracting from the topic, and it's been shown times over that real-life sexual imagery distracts/detracts from the articles. That is why I reverted your edit, which took it a step further and included a video. If editors like Herostratus, Chrisvls (Chris vLS) and myself are against real-life images, what makes you think we are going to be for real-life videos of the act? This is not about a Christian POV, at least in reference to me. I'm not religious. This is about common damn sense. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't mean to take a step further to include the video as I had not checked page history during my wikiexpedition to this page. I understand your point, but this shouldn't be a reason to blanket remove real life depictions whatsoever. This feels unnecessarily paternalistic and a disservice to our readers. We've had far more disturbing, offensive and possibly exploitative imagery on this site, for example Pony play and Virgin Killer. On the contrary pictures like these don't offend or arouse me to the slightest. I concur with Tgeorgescu that this is largely a matter of aesthetics and taste, and we should probably discuss on the criteria and quantity for individual real life images regarding the matter. I also note that this RfC is malformed as there is no Template:rfc and no inclusion on WP:RFC/All. We should probably start a new RfC and follow the standard procedures. Thanks. (I'm not watching this page. Please ping me) Tsumikiria (T/C) 04:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I stand by what I stated in the subsection below. We mainly use drawings and similar illustrations at our sexual topic articles for reasons that have been gone over times before, and Wikipedia has been better off for it. Because of the drawings and similar illustrations approach, there's not as much exhibitionism (with editors, mainly male editors, trying to get off by showing their genitalia), there is not as much WP:Edit warring, there are not as many poor-quality images, and there are not as many upset readers. WP:GRATUITOUS states, "Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Notice the part I bolded. This is not the same thing as including the Virgin Killer image, which there is no less offensive, equally suitable alternative for. The image is there in that article because it's a topic of controversy. As for "pony play," which redirects to the Animal roleplay article, there are no less offensive, equally suitable alternatives to demonstrate that topic. This isn't about what personally offends you or other editors; it's about what offends our readers and what is or is not needed to enhance readers' understanding of the topic. No one, for example, has demonstrated that readers need to see a real-life image of a man holding his penis (whether it shows ejaculation or not) to understand the topic of masturbation. Despite the newness of your account, you clearly are not new to editing Wikipedia, and I see that someone has questioned your newness on your talk page as well. So I'm sure you already knew all of this. I do not agree that we should start over. Wikipedia has been over this time and time again. I do not see that what has been working well for this site should be disturbed, especially because a certain few editors want to unnecessarily show real-life sexual imagery. As the Animal roleplay article shows, we do include real-life sexual imagery, but we do what we can to not unnecessarily include it. We don't, for example, need explicit sexual images (real-life or otherwise) of pornography in the Pornography article, which is why that article is currently without them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

No- Oppose inclusion

  • Exclude unless needed: As seen at Talk:Masturbation/Archive 11#Using photographs here on wiki, I argued the following: "WP:NOTCENSORED is not all that should be kept in mind. WP:Offensive material should be kept in mind as well. By this, I mean that if there is an image that is a less offensive but equally suitable alternative, we should go with that one. In the case of most of our sexual act articles, we use drawings or paintings because real-life images of the acts are too often deemed to be pornography and/or unencyclopedic by our readers and sometimes our editors. They distract more than they add. The real-life images are also more prone to disputes due to editors sometimes using Wikipedia to engage in exhibitionism. With the exception of File:Khajurahosculpture.jpg, the current state of the Masturbation article also solely relies on drawings or paintings to demonstrate sexual acts." And there is no problem with that. Herostratus and Jytdog echoed my sentiments. As seen here, Dmartin969 wants to add File:Masturbating with the whole hand.jpg and File:Fingering with 2 fingers.jpg to the article, but does not demonstrate how these images help enhance readers' understanding of the topic. That first image simply shows a man holding his penis; it is not like it actually shows how masturbation is done beyond that. It's not a video. Readers can see what the human penis looks like at the Human penis article. And the image of the woman shows her fingers inside of her vagina, but is that image really needed, given the illustrations showing hands pressed to women's vulvas? I don't think any reader will have a difficult time relying on text for the statement that "sometimes one or more fingers may be inserted into the vagina." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: File:Male adult masturbation.gif Is used on the french Wikipedia, would the movement itself supersede the need to avoid potentially offensive images? I feel it adds very little, and that the still image were less potentially offensive than the animated ones. dmartin969 08:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yeah, let's not have this. I'm not that interested in parsing the wording of various rules. Back and forth deployment of WP:THISRULE vs WP:THATRULE is boring and mediocre IMO. They're not scripture, nothing here is except the Five Pillars. NOTCENSORED is like the American 2nd Amendment: it was put in in the early days by a few people who are probably all "dead" now (no longer active editors), and it's not a good rule, and not really popular, but there's no possibility of changing it.
So let's, instead, talk about whether stuff like this helpful to fulfilling our mission. That's what's important here: our overall mission. We're trying to do something useful here. We're trying to make information available to a broad number of people.
Stuff like this is not helpful to the overall mission of the Wikipedia. It's not helpful to the mission of the Wikipedia because it turns people off. Like it or not. This is probably why you won't see this stuff in Britannica or Collier's etc, which I think tells you something.
Like any encyclopedia, we're used a lot by school kids, and stuff like this is only going to degrade our reputation with parents and educators. Getting us banned from homes and schools doesn't help us disseminate information, does it. And we're supposed to be global, and stuff like this doesn't help. And some of the kids using the Wikipedia are pretty young, and graphic sexual images for pretty young kids is not recommended, which is why you won't see stuff like this in pediatricians' offices and so on.
File:Fingering with 2 fingers.jpg, because it shows penetration, is hardcore pornography I guess. We weren't founded to be an XXX rated site, and it's outside our wheelhouse to try to be. We're also not here to Join The Fight Against Prudery.
Stuff like this might add a tiny, tiny bit of useful info to the article. It's not worth the cost. If we get banned from just one school, it's probably a net loss of total information we disseminate.
I don't usually get involved in these discussions anymore. It's like arguing about the 2nd Amendment on the internet with Americans. Nobody's going to change their mind, and it's just pointless.
So it just comes down to the simple power politics of the question: if the images have been in long enough to be considered the "stable version", they're staying in, because consensus to remove them is impossible, so let's move on. If they're a new addition, they're rightly subject to rollback by another editor. Then the burden is on the person wanting to add them. You can run an RfC, maybe -- there's a fair chance you'll get consensus to add, because (and only because) of the demographics of the editor corps here and that fact that some people are pretty vigilant and ideologically committed on the general question of pushing graphic sexual images into the project. While the (many, I think) people who don't like this sort of thing are working on 19th century locomotives or fungus species or Turkish novelists and so on, are not interested in or aware of these discussion, and are not willing to spend a lot of time looking at pictures like this and being browbeaten by teenage ideologues (not accusing OP of being in this category tho).
But who knows? You might not. Herostratus (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • well the question is too vague to be useful, but i will respond with regard to the two specific images. oppose mostly re WP:NOTHOWTO - the "technique" section borders on that already, and the photos take it over the edge. Also, thinking through MOS:IMAGE, there is also no value to the images over a description in words. The version with a penis has no value over "The most common masturbation technique among males is to hold the penis with a loose fist and then to move the hand up and down the shaft. and for the version with a vagina; Sometimes one or more fingers may be inserted into the vagina to stroke its frontal wall where the G-spot may be located. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose inclusion of the proposed images specifically and the "real-life" criterion generally. As Herostratus points out, none of the 'rules' (or winning an argument about them) relieves us of the responsibility as editors to make the encyclopedia better -- which means weighing whether the incremental value of the images outweighs the downsides of including them. Specifically, as others have pointed out, the proposed images add nothing to the current article that is not already available in the current images and the text. I'd add that, as encyclopedic illustrations, they aren't very good. Moving on to the general case, just because an image is a photograph doesn't mean it is a better image. Many medical and anatomical articles are better served by diagrams than photographs, for example, so I oppose a simple statement that "real-life or lifelike" is a better image. Similarly, I would not support a RfC that says "We should add detailed sentences" to an article, I would need to read the sentences in question, know how they were going to relate to the other content, etc.. (As an aside, I think I first looked at these kinds of questions here in 2004-5. While there is lots to be said at the philosophical level, most of the general principles founder on the reef of practical details, so often it's better to just start there.) Chris vLS (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No, they don't help. As Jytdog said, the text descriptions are all that is needed and they do not give an impression that a particular form of masturbation (shown in an image) is "the" method. Plenty of pictures are available for those wanting more, such as at Ejaculation which is the correct place for images of ejaculation. Johnuniq (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Neutral

  • I think that WP:CENSOR is correct, just think of politically or religiously incorrect content which is however a view of mainstream academics. But the inclusion of such photos is a matter of taste rather than policy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tsumikiria: In fact separate policies are both for and against it, that's why it is not a policy matter. But there can be good reasons for or against it, this has to be determined by WP:CONSENSUS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Tgeorgescu, WP:NOTCENSORED is the policy, and WP:Offensive material is the guideline. WP:NOTCENSORED is tempered by WP:Offensive material. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't allow anything just because Wikipedia is not censored. It clearly states, "Some articles may include images, text, or links which are relevant to the topic but that some people find objectionable. Discussion of potentially objectionable content should usually focus not on its potential offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text, or link. Beyond that, 'being objectionable' is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive." So while being "being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content, "generally" offers leeway and this is tempered by the WP:Offensive material guideline. Editors who have opposed the inclusion of the real-life images have based it not only on potential offensiveness to readers, but also on whether or not the article is harmed without them/whether or not the images are needed to enhance readers' understanding of the topic. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images also makes it clear that Wikipedia being uncensored doesn't mean that offensive images automatically get inclusion. While this image matter is based on WP:Consensus, WP:Consensus is normally based on Wikipedia's rules and the editors in this case are taking the rules into account. I don't see the rules canceling each other out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Yup, cancelling each other is a claim which is too strong. But I'm not the one who needs convincing. I'll go with the consensus. So, I didn't really voted, I have just commented. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

sources

https://www.healthline.com/health/masturbation-and-testosterone

https://examine.com/nutrition/does-ejaculation-affect-testosterone-levels/

Would these sources be reliable here? Benjamin (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

They are not high-quality sources, but for the WP:BLUE type of claims they are okay. Both your sources agree that there is no evidence that masturbation significantly lowers/increases testosterone levels. I think that for such claims these sources can be trusted. They should not be used to say "definitely masturbation does not do that" because they aren't reliable for such claim. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Masturbation side effects and Excess Masturbation side effects

please add Masturbation side effects to article.

https://www.healthline.com/health/masturbation-side-effects

https://www.practo.com/health-wiki/male-masturbation-side-effects-and-benefits/70/article

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/320265.php

https://www.webmd.com/women/features/female-masturbation-5-things-know#1

https://www.medicaldaily.com/masturbation-3-unexpected-side-effects-men-and-women-403283

https://www.enkirelations.com/side-effects-of-masturbating-in-men.html

https://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/side-effects-of-masturbation-for-men-and-women

https://www.speakingtree.in/allslides/side-effects-of-excessive-masturbation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCPzHks1DVw

https://www.lybrate.com/topic/over-masturbation-7-problems-it-may-cause/b910582061f2da133e9c86d12ddfadcd

https://vitajing.com/blogs/education/the-side-effects-of-masturbation-could-be-killing-you

Mewesmostes (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done, see WP:MEDRS and WP:LUNATICS. E.g. medicaldaily.com contains the Quack Miranda warning. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Foreskin Foreplay

The website acroposthion.com has information and photographs on foreskin foreplay. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Make Compulsive masturbation into article stub

Compulsive masturbation has diagnosis criteria, so it is encyclopedic. Please make article about compulsive masturbation which will replace redirect. Monniasza talk 12:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOURCES make or break an article. AFAIK, thereupon is something from the Merck Manual in the article. In so much quarrel about porn/masturbation addiction, there are very few sources about compulsive masturbation (i.e. without discussing the addiction model). Imho, masturbation OCD is exceedingly rare. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The medical consensus seems to be that porn/masturbation OCD is extremely infrequent. I.e. unlike delusions like "I got bald/psychotic because of masturbating". Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Add links for religion correlation

Please include Islam and masturbation and for other religions too. It is not mentioned anywhere and article is locked, very unprofessional. --5.43.99.155 (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There is another article called Religious views on masturbation, but it section upon Islam is rather poorly sourced. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
That's not a reason not to include Islam and masturbation in See also, for example. --5.43.99.155 (talk) 16:11, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
We'd have to include too many religions, denominations and cults. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Definition -- due weight with regard to it being a solo act

Peaceray, I reverted you on this because, like I stated, masturbation is almost always defined as a solo act. This is clear in numerous dictionary and scholarly sources. It's also what this article is mainly about. Mutual masturbation is a different topic. It's a sub-topic, and is not what is usually meant by "masturbation" (regardless of the act just so happening to include the word masturbation). Also, the source you added to include, in the lead sentence, what is usually known as "mutual masturbation" rather simply "masturbation" is very old. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Mutual masturbation is already mentioned in the lead.

And this WebMD source states "usually to the point of orgasm," not "often to the point of orgasm." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Flyer22 Reborn here. "Masturbation" without a qualifier is a solo act, according to almost all reliable sources. "Mutual masturbation" is something related but quite different, as it is a partnered act. Mutual masturbation is quite often a form of foreplay, leading to various forms of intercourse, while plain vanilla masturbation usually (though not always) results in orgasm for the solo participant. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:34, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: @Cullen328: I respectfully reject the notion that masturbation is commonly defined as an exclusively solo event. As someone who greatly values sources, I ask that you objectively witness these:
  • "Definition of masturbation". www.dictionary.com. 2014-10-30. Retrieved 2019-10-02.:
noun
  1. the stimulation or manipulation of one's own genitals, especially to orgasm; sexual self-gratification.
  2. the stimulation, by manual or other means exclusive of coitus, of another's genitals, especially to orgasm.
  1. the act of giving yourself sexual pleasure by rubbing your sexual organs
  2. the act of giving another person sexual pleasure by rubbing their sexual organs
  • "MASTURBATE". definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary. Retrieved 2019-10-02.
to rub or touch the sex organs of yourself or someone else for pleasure
erotic stimulation especially of one's own genital (see genital sense 2) organs commonly resulting in orgasm and achieved by manual (see manual entry 1 sense 1) or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse, by instrumental manipulation (see manipulate sense 1), occasionally by sexual fantasies, or by various combinations of these agencies (bold emphasis by this editor)
manual stimulation of the genital organs (of yourself or another) for sexual pleasure
  1. Manual erotic stimulation of the genitals or other erotic regions, often to orgasm, either by oneself or a partner.
Flyer22 Reborn, although you state that "masturbation is almost always defined as a solo act", I submit that while that may be the way you define it, there are many sources that also list it as an act between persons. This is not cherry picking; besides Wiktionary, the first four were in the top ten of my Google results & a few of the other top ten did not exactly qualify as plain definitions (such as the Catholic Education Resource Center's rant against masturbation or Planned Parenthood's arguments for it).
Let's not be prudish about this. Masturbation by another happens, is common, & there is no reason it should not take a more prominent part of the lead. It is not covered sufficiently elsewhere. Masturbation by a partner is not the same as mutual masturbation. Masturbation by another is a common secondary definition when not included as part of the primary definition.
This simply needs to be better represented in the lead.
Peaceray (talk) 04:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
These are all dictionary definition type sources. Sources that actually discuss masturbation mainly focus on the solo activity. The lead already mentions mutual masturbation in the 3rd sentence, and I think it would be undue to move it to the 1st. Since the term rarely refers to masturbating another, the dictionaries have to list that as a meaning, but we are not a dictionary, so we give due weight to that in the 3rd sentence. As for the statement Masturbation by a partner is not the same as mutual masturbation., I don't see any source for that. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Crossroads: Wikipedia does not require sources for something that is ipso facto. If partner A masturbates partner B, & partner B does not masturbate A, it is not mutual. While all mutual masturbation is partnered masturbation, to then conclude that all partnered masturbation is mutual masturbation is a faulty generalization. Peaceray (talk) 05:38, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia should not mislead readers. While in principle A might masturbate B, that is not what "masturbation" means in practice, nor is it how sources which discuss sexuality refer to it. Johnuniq (talk) 07:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I just posted a half dozen definitions that list non-solo acts & you contradict those sources by saying that it 'is not what "masturbation" means in practice'. Are you saying that we should simply ignore dictionary.com, Cambridge English Dictionary, & Merriam-Webster as wrong because you disagree with them?
I will research in reliable sources other than dictionaries this weekend. Hopefully this community will be more open to what I find there & tolerant of obvious euphemisms.
I acknowledge that as language evolves is imprecise & may have different meanings & implications in different groups (see the word hapa for example), but I think it is & will be clear from sources that partnered masturbation is mentioned often enough in sources that it warrants more emphasis in the lead.
Peaceray (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Peaceray, even the sources you list state "especially of one's own genitals" or put the solo aspect first. And we shouldn't use Wiktionary as a source. And what does being prudish/WP:Not censored have to do with this? This is not about being prudish or censoring content. It's about adhering to WP:Due weight. There are different definitions of or aspects for a number of topics, but we should give more weight or most of our weight to the most common definition or aspect, which also means prioritizing the usual definition in the lead sentence. Masturbation is most commonly defined and understood as a solo act. If it were not, the vast majority of the sources in this article would be about mutual masturbation or equally (or close to equally) about the solo and mutual aspects. If it were not, this article would not be overwhelmingly about the solo act. I mean, one could have engaged in false balance, but we are not supposed to. The partnered masturbation act you are describing has a very specific meaning, and it has a specific term for it -- mutual masturbation. This is why scholarly sources use that term or the terms digital penetration, fingering, or handjob (which are subsets of mutual masturbation).
You stated that "Masturbation by a partner is not the same as mutual masturbation.", but this is simply not true and cannot be supported by any reliable sources. There is no way to validly distinguish "masturbation by a partner" and "mutual masturbation." They are literally the same thing, as definitions of mutual masturbation show. Your statement that "If partner A masturbates partner B, & partner B does not masturbate A, it is not mutual." is incorrect. This is because you are interpreting "mutual" to mean that both partners must sexually stimulate the other's genitals. If this were the case, then a handjob would not be defined as mutual masturbation. Like this 2013 "Sexuality Education Theory And Practice" source, from Jones & Bartlett Publishers, page 151, states, "Mutual masturbation -- called a 'hand job' when performed on a penis and 'fingering' when performed on a vulva -- is a variation on masturbation about which people who are uncomfortable with solo masturbation sometimes feel more comfortable." In the case of the "mutual masturbation" category, sources are not defining "mutual" in the strict way that you are. "Mutual" can also mean that it's a shared experience. And like I implied when stating "regardless of the act just so happening to include the word masturbation" above, the term masturbation in mutual masturbation may be considered a misnomer. This 2006 "Sex from Plato to Paglia: M-Z" source, from Greenwood Publishing Group, pages 673-676, addresses that and different definitions of masturbation and mutual masturbation, but it doesn't imply that the solo definition isn't the most commonly employed/understood one. It, for example, is critical of the notion that mutual oral sex can be considered mutual masturbation.
It is simply a fact that when people think of and describe masturbation, they usually think of and describe a solo act, not partnered activity. This is reflected in the scholarship. And the scholarship on the topic almost always defines masturbation as a solo act. Looking at the scholarly sources on this topic is a better way to judge the most common meaning of the term and how to apply due weight in this case. See the scholarly sources below:
Scholarly sources for the meaning of masturbation.
  • This 2000 "Psychology Applied to Modern Life: Adjustment at the Turn of the Century" source, from Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, page 381, states, "Masturbation, or the stimulation of one's own genitals, has traditionally been condemned as immoral because it is nonreproductive."
  • This 2000 "Human Sexuality in a World of Diversity" source, from Allyn and Bacon, page 238, states, "Masturbation is one of the principal forms of one-person sexual expression."
  • This 2003 "The Big Book of Masturbation: From Angst to Zeal" source, from Down There Press, page 7, states, "As more usually employed, the word 'masturbation' refers to any self stimulation which is deliberate and designed to effect erotic arousal." For that aspect, it's speaking of how Alfred Kinsey and his team defined masturbation, excluding sexual stimulation by others or accidental self-stimulation.
  • This 2004 "Understanding Human Sexuality" source, from McGraw-Hill, page 251, states, "Masturbation: Stimulation of one's own genitals with the hand or with some object, such as a pillow or vibrator."
  • This 2004 "Health and Wellness" source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 160, states, "Masturbation is self-stimulation to produce erotic arousal, usually to the point of orgasm."
  • This 2006 "Marriages and Families: Diversity and Change" source, from Pearson Prentice Hall, states, "Masturbation involves gaining sexual pleasure from the erotic stimulation of oneself through caressing or otherwise stimulating the genitals.
  • This 2010 "Our Sexuality" source, from Cengage Learning, page 231, states, "In this textbook the word masturbation is used to describe self-stimulation of one's genitals for sexual pleasure."
  • This 2013 "Masturbation as a Means of Achieving Sexual Health" source, from Routledge, defines masturbation as a solo act and "explores the power—both negative and positive—of the act, and outlines viable ideas for future research. It also presents a concise historical overview of societal attitudes toward masturbation and reports on changes in masturbatory behavior in the twentieth century, including the trend toward an earlier age when women begin to masturbate and the increased recognition of masturbation as a source of sexual pleasure irrespective of relationship status or other sexual activity."
  • This 2014 "Dictionary of Medicine" (reprint) source, from Routledge, page 314, states, "masturbation noun stimulation of one's own genitals to produce an orgasm."
  • This 2016 "New Dimensions in Women's Health" source, from Jones & Bartlett Learning, page 81, states, "Masturbation refers to erotic self-stimulation, usually to the point of orgasm."
  • This 2017 "The Psychology of Human Sexuality" source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 402, states, "Masturbation refers to all solo forms of self-stimulation focusing on the genitals. Masturbation practices vary widely depending upon the individual's body and personal preferences. For instance, masturbation among women may involve manipulation of the clitoris and labia, stimulation of the breasts, or vaginal penetration with a sex toy. [...] Among men, masturbation most frequently involves using one or both hands to stimulate the penis. Of course, men sometimes utilize sex toys too (e.g., masturbation sleeves, butt-plugs, etc.)."
  • This 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, from Sage Publications, page 1123, states, "Masturbation is the act of touching or otherwise stimulating one's own body, particularly one's genitals, for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm. The term is most commonly used to describe solitary masturbation, in which people provide themselves with sexual stimulation while they are physically alone. Mutual masturbation is when two or more people manually stimulate their own body or each other's bodies."
There are scholarly sources that mention that masturbation may also refer to a partner stimulating another's genitals, but that definition is more often than not referred to as mutual masturbation in those sources, and the sourcing I cited above is what is usually meant by masturbation in the literature. It is what surveys and studies about masturbation (which provide medical material and society and culture material) are almost always about. It is what the history on masturbation (such as masturbation having been seen as, or producing, a disease) is about. So, because this article and its sources are overwhelmingly about the solo aspect, it does not make sense to give the "or another's" aspect you added the weight you gave it by adding it to the lead sentence. We don't want readers thinking that the article is talking as much about partnered sexual activity as it is about solo activity. Even adding "especially" wouldn't be a good compromise for the lead sentence, considering just how overwhelmingly "masturbation" is taken to mean a solo act in the literature.
On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, I prefer not to be pinged to this talk page. I won't ping you again to this talk page either since, judging by your responses to others above, the article seems to now be on your watchlist as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Also, with regard to masturbation by a partner vs. mutual masturbation, I'm aware that the terminology of "masturbating another" is also sometimes used in rape cases. But rapists are not considered sexual partners. And the doctors who manually stimulated the genitals of women with regard to female hysteria weren't thought of as sexual partners either.

Anyway, with this edit (followup edit here), I gave mutual masturbation better presentation in the lead, including directly calling it "masturbation with a sexual partner." While some sources (especially dictionary sources) define mutual masturbation as simultaneously stimulating the other's genitals, other sources don't define it that way. For example, the "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source that I listed above and used in the lead states, "Mutual masturbation is when two or more people manually stimulate their own body or each other's bodies." The "Mutual" section in the article lists mutual masturbation aspects that do not involve simultaneous stimulation or directly touching the other person. And so does this 2017 "What Is Mutual Masturbation? Here's How To Relax & Enjoy This Sex Act" source, from Bustle. This is why, for now in the lead, I didn't have "and may include manual stimulation of a partner's genitals (fingering or a handjob)" read as "and includes manual stimulation of a partner's genitals (fingering or a handjob)." This is so that readers aren't led to believe that mutual masturbation is limited to that. The different types of mutual masturbation listed in the "Mutual" section need better sourcing, however. And I will eventually look for such sourcing (academic sourcing). I will cut anything in that section that cannot be adequately sourced. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, you wrote 'Peaceray, even the sources you list state "especially of one's own genitals" or put the solo aspect first.' I already acknowledged that "Masturbation by another is a common secondary definition when not included as part of the primary definition." It is not at issue that the general & foremost understanding of masturbation is as a solo act. However, a common secondary definition often describes one person masturbating another. All that I am saying is that this common secondary definition is poorly covered in the lead & the article. It should be given due weight as per WP:MOSLEAD: "the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources." I believe that I can produce appropriate sources for both inclusion as a section in the article & an appropriate mention in the lead.
You wrote: "we shouldn't use Wiktionary as a source". You have complete agreement with me on that! I am acutely aware of RS requirements, including WP:MEDRS, & often revert non-reliable sources in the article space. However, this is a talk page, & what our sister projects have & do are fair game & relevant for discussion. I know not everyone cares for consistency between projects, but I also edit in other projects, so I personally strive for consistency.
Regarding the difference between mutual masturbation & masturbation by one person of another:
  1. Having the same relationship, each to each other.
  2. Collective, done or held in common.
  3. Reciprocal.
I am hoping that we can agree that the relevant aspect in common with respect to mutual masturbation is reciprocity, " or doing the same thing to or for each other." Thus, if we have someone masturbating someone else & not being masturbated at the same time or even in return, this is not mutual masturbation.
Examples of someone masturbating someone else that is not mutual masturbation include:
That is not meant to be an exhaustive, but I think folks get the point.
Flyer22 Reborn, thank you for posting "Scholarly sources for the meaning of masturbation". I am unsurprised that you found a plethora that focused on the primary definition for masturbation. However, I am keenly aware that the results that one looks for or those that float to the tops of results often do not represent significant minority viewpoints. As I mentioned before, I will be research this. I may or may not find the results that I expect, but I suspect that I will find significant reliable sources. I will bring them to this forum before I make any significant changes to the article. Sorry that I cannot do this immediately, but I do have a work & social life, & I do like to keep up with my watch list!
Peaceray (talk) 05:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Peaceray, regarding going with the primary definition only in the lead sentence and why we should, I don't see what else to state on that matter.
As for "this common secondary definition is poorly covered in the lead & the article", it was poorly covered in the lead, but it is no longer poorly covered in the lead since I made this edit (followup edit here). Like I stated, the lead now directly calls mutual masturbation "masturbation." It states, "Mutual masturbation is masturbation with a sexual partner, and may include manual stimulation of a partner's genitals (fingering or a handjob), or be used as a form of non-penetrative sex." It's supported by scholarly sources.
Regarding "the difference between mutual masturbation & masturbation by one person of another," those dictionary sources are not distinguishing the two. Above, I was clear that "while some sources (especially dictionary sources) define mutual masturbation as simultaneously stimulating the other's genitals, other sources don't define it that way. For example, the 'The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender' source that I listed above and used in the lead states, 'Mutual masturbation is when two or more people manually stimulate their own body or each other's bodies.' The "Mutual" section in the article lists mutual masturbation aspects that do not involve simultaneous stimulation or directly touching the other person. And so does this 2017 'What Is Mutual Masturbation? Here's How To Relax & Enjoy This Sex Act' source, from Bustle. This is why, for now in the lead, I didn't have 'and may include manual stimulation of a partner's genitals (fingering or a handjob)' read as 'and includes manual stimulation of a partner's genitals (fingering or a handjob).' This is so that readers aren't led to believe that mutual masturbation is limited to that."
What I have stated about "mutual" and what the sources state (including defining a handjob as mutual masturbation with no requirement that the man receiving the handjob must manually stimulate their partner's genitals in return for the act to be classified as mutual masturbation) is why I don't agree with you that "[t]hus, if we have someone masturbating someone else & not being masturbated at the same time or even in return, this is not mutual masturbation." I addressed the "female hysteria treated by manual manipulation of the genitalia" aspect above; I stated that the doctors who manually stimulated the genitals of women with regard to female hysteria weren't thought of as sexual partners. My point on that is that mutual masturbation is defined as consensual sexual activity between two or more people; in other words, sexual partners. What those doctors were doing was not a valid treatment, and referring to manual stimulation of another's genitals as masturbation is challenged (the aforementioned misnomer point I made earlier). I understand one wanting to say that mutual masturbation is different than masturbation by one person of another in cases like the doctors and in cases of rape. I mean, when a rapist uses their fingers to manually stimulate another, it's not called mutual masturbation. It's called "digital penetration" or some other term. The rapist is not a sexual partner. But "mutual masturbation" literally means "masturbation by one person of another," and vice versa; sources on this are clear. Even the fact that some sources define mutual masturbation beyond two people challenges the reciprocal argument you are making (unless you think that the sources mean that even those cases are reciprocal with regard to physical contact). The Bustle source categorizes a person masturbating in front of another without the other touching that person as mutual masturbation. And so does the "Mutual" section in this Wikipedia article. So not all sources are defining "mutual" in the way you are with regard to mutual masturbation.
We can only go by sources with WP:Due weight. And mutual masturbation has due weight in the lead and in the article, although the "Mutual" section in the article needs better sourcing for the list of mutual masturbation acts it gives, and probably some rewording. I am keeping MOS:LEAD in mind. The "Mutual" section is a subsection within the article and it's not that big. Nor does it need to be bigger than it is. Its size reflects the attention it's given with regard to masturbation in the literature, as mutual masturbation is more commonly termed outercourse or non-penetrative sex and this article is not the Non-penetrative sex article. The mutual masturbation aspect in the lead reflects the weight the "Mutual" section is given in the article.
The Wiktionary entry should be tweaked to prioritize the primary definition so that the first definition is only about the solo act. And the solo act with regard to masturbation isn't just the primary definition. Like I and others have stated, it is the aspect that sources are almost always referring to when it comes to masturbation. When sources mean "masturbation by or with a partner," they usually simply state "mutual masturbation" or clarify that they mean "masturbation by or with a partner." Unlike solo masturbation, it always needs a qualifier such as "mutual." Solo masturbation is almost always simply called "masturbation."
As for "However, I am keenly aware that the results that one looks for or those that float to the tops of results often do not represent significant minority viewpoints. As I mentioned before, I will be research this. I may or may not find the results that I expect, but I suspect that I will find significant reliable sources.", I looked. I wasn't cherry picking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Peaceray, I think due weight is already being given to mutual masturbation in this article. It's right in the first paragraph, third sentence, and discussed lower down. It seems to comply well with MOSLEAD. I don't see how we can give any more weight to mutual masturbation without being undue or a coatrack.
I recommend you do look for sources on masturbation specifically, and you will see that mutual masturbation is usually treated as a separate topic. The sources already here make that clear. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:40, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Peaceray is speaking, in part, of "the difference between mutual masturbation & masturbation by one person of another." As is clear, I addressed that above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads, I am disappointed. I feel that you have misrepresented what I have written. I am not complaining about how mutual masturbation is represented in the article. I heartily disagree with the equating of mutual masturbation with 2nd person masturbation, as it it conflicts with common secondary or even sometimes primary definitions in dictionaries. I ask that you please reread carefully what I have written.
Flyer22 Reborn, I do believe you have been speaking to my points. I believe we are disagreeing about semantics here. I do think that this one connotation of masturbation is poorly represented, & I do think I will find sources to back me up. I do think by & large the sources for secondary definitions already reflect a common understanding of what non-solo masturbation is. I acknowledge that I have research to do to prove this. BTW, I chose my words carefully as I did not think you were cherry picking, AGF here.
To reiterate some of my points, & to weigh in on new discussion:
  • The word mutual implies reciprocal, as noted in the dictionary definitions to which I have linked. This is a common sense understanding of the word, otherwise it would not be defined as such so often.
  • Let's talk set theory. Mutual masturbation is a subset of all masturbation by a 2nd party. Masturbation by a 2nd party is not a subset of mutual masturbation. This is logic.
  • I have already listed 2nd party masturbation acts that are not mutual. They may be consensual, but they are not reciprocal.
  • I have already listed half a dozen sources for common secondary definitions that contain language like "of another's genitals", "giving another person sexual pleasure", "to rub or touch the sex organs of yourself or someone else", "other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse", & "manual stimulation of the genital organs (of yourself or another)". None of these mention the word mutual or reciprocal.
  • I would call non-penetrative sex a subset of non-coital sex. There is no article for non-coital, but I would note that penetrative non-coital acts by a 2nd person would include yoni massage, certain types of vibrators, strap-on dildos, & fisting.
  • I am sorry that I did not explain my Let's not be prudish remark. What led me into this very discussion was that an IP editor changed the language in the Female hysteria article from "masturbating female patients to orgasm" to manually stimulating female patients external genitalia to orgasm". I felt this was a violation of the MOS:EUPHEMISM, since it is commonly known that masturbation can be performed by a 2nd party. Flyer22 Reborn, I will note that you changed the wording to "manually stimulating (or masturbating) the genitalia of female patients to the point of orgasm". I think that was a good change, although I disagree with your edit summary, "Tweak. Masturbation almost always refers to a solo act ..."
  • Flyer22 Reborn: your wrote "The Wiktionary entry should be tweaked to prioritize the primary definition so that the first definition is only about the solo act." Even though you are more experienced than I (about 10X the edits on enwiki & about 100 edits more than I on Wiktionary), I would ask you to refrain while we are having a spirited discussion on the definition of masturbation here. The current Wiktionary entry seems in accord with the other definitions that I have cited, & was arrived at by 361 edits by 161 editors. I would ask that you get consensus on the wiktionary:en:Talk:masturbation page first. Although I think that you believe you have the weight of WP:RS on your side, I hope that you would also consider the spirit of wiktionary:WT:NPOV which includes 'do not attempt to enforce "correctness"' & "be as objective as possible and not favour one view over another." As per wiktionary:WT:WFW, "Wiktionary is not Wikipedia"". I believe that I would be accurate in saying that it is more prudent for Wiktionary to be in accord with other dictionaries than with academic articles used as RS for Wikipedia.
Peaceray (talk) 04:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi again, Peaceray. You said you "disagree with [my] edit summary, 'Tweak. Masturbation almost always refers to a solo act ..." But you have acknowledged that the solo aspect is the primary definition. And then there is what the literature states when referring to masturbation. To reiterate, the literature, meaning beyond dictionary sources, almost always speaks of the solo aspect only. There are academic sources that are clear about what masturbation typically refers to, and that includes this aforementioned 2017 "The SAGE Encyclopedia of Psychology and Gender" source, which states, "Masturbation is the act of touching or otherwise stimulating one's own body, particularly one's genitals, for the purpose of sexual pleasure and/or orgasm. The term is most commonly used to describe solitary masturbation, in which people provide themselves with sexual stimulation while they are physically alone. Mutual masturbation is when two or more people manually stimulate their own body or each other's bodies."
You stated that you "would call non-penetrative sex a subset of non-coital sex." Reliable sources, such as this 2010 "Our Sexuality" source, from Cengage Learning, page 286, are clear that the terms outercourse and non-penetrative sex refer to non-coital sex. But at the same time, some reliable sources define outercourse and non-penetrative sex differently. For example, the "Our Sexuality" source includes oral and anal sex in its definition of outercourse, while other reliable sources exclude those acts as outercourse or non-penetrative sex. I mean, anal sex is obviously penetrative unless referring to anilingus solely involving performing oral sex on the outside of the anus or fingering the outside of the anus only, but some sources that define non-penetrative sex or outercourse restrict the term to sexual activity that doesn't involve penile penetration of the vagina. This 2012 "Medical Surgical Nursing: An Integrated Approach" source, from Cengage Learning, page 1161, notes that.
With regard to mutual masturbation, I am also speaking of sources defining that differently. And I am speaking of the fact that mutual masturbation and masturbation by one person of another are equated in the literature. As for the rest, I don't have anything else to state on the matter. At this point, I'd simply be repeating myself.
I'm not looking to change the Wiktionary entry, although I thought about it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
I reread it, and this whole thing about "2nd person masturbation" and "mutual masturbation" being different, to be frank, appears to be original research. That's why I simply referred to "mutual masturbation". It doesn't matter how "mutual" in isolation is defined; the sources Flyer showed are clear that "2nd person masturbation" (a term I have never seen before) is mutual masturbation. That being the case, "2nd person masturbation" is already covered well as mutual masturbation. The other sources Flyer showed, and the sources in the article, are clear that masturbation overwhelmingly refers to a solo act. Thus, it is undue for the lead to say 'oneself or another.' When (some?) dictionaries say that, they do so because they need to be very concise and include the main meaning and the lesser meaning. But we are not a dictionary, and we mention mutual masturbation in the third sentence where it belongs, not the first. A total of four editors appear to oppose this change in this discussion, so I personally see no need to debate this further at this time. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:45, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
Crossroads, I have received your point about original research. I think it is unfortunate that academic definitions are misalignment with common definitions. I know Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but it does seem somewhat disingenuous to disregard common usage within a language. I will withdraw from this discussion unless or until I come up with some substantial reliable sources. Peaceray (talk) 21:28, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Masturbation pictures are being censored

VF9 has been CU blocked as a sock - since nobody else seems to share their point of view, it's probably not worth continuing this discussion.GirthSummit (blether) 13:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Crossroads and Johnuniq: Multiple high-quality photos relevant to this topic, such as one on female masturbation and one on masturbation in the 21st century are being repeatedly removed for being "unencyclopedic." You censors need to stop confusing WP:GRATUITOUS with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Just because high-quality digital images show more detail than 19th-century artwork, that doesn't make them gratuitous. In fact, that gives them even more MOS:PERTINENCE than outdated hand-drawn art (except in the history section, but that wasn't what these images were for).

To address complaints made in the edit summary, the images were incorrectly called WP:SPAM, but they are not spam because they are not "advertisements masquerading as articles and contributions to articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced." A watermark is not an advertisement. Also, the fact the model was paid to make the photo is irrelevant. There are plenty of paid models demonstrating every kind of thing on many articles on wikipedia. (On a side note, I'd like to find different models of different ages, ethnicities, and genders to increase the diversity depicted. Right now only young cisgender white people are depicted.)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and WP:GRATUITOUS explicitly says, "we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article." Basic unoffensive digital images of people masturbating are very conventional expectations for an article on masturbation. Removing a relevant image without a better replacement hurts the quality of an article and is censorship. Quit the censorship. VF9 (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

You have learned a lot of blue links in your two-week wiki-career but their meaning takes longer to absorb. In brief, none of the above apply in this case, but WP:EW does. I'm happy to leave File:TinyDawn anal and vaginal fingering.jpg and File:Tiny Dawn nude with dildo 2017.jpg for now, to see what other editors think. However, they will be removed in due course for the reason I mentioned: staged porn pics are not suitable illustrations for an article like this. Johnuniq (talk) 05:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: Saying that the policies don't apply because I'm too new to understand them is condescending and violates WP:PERSONALATTACKS, per WP:BITE. And as I said above, staged photos, pornographic or otherwise, are perfectly fine illustrations as long as they are relevant and correct. I can find plenty of staged photos of someone doing just about anying on many articles. There aren't any policies against staged or commercial photos beyond copyright restrictions. Being against porn pictures just because is WP:IDONTLIKEIT and thus censorship. VF9 (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
A discussion here is unlikely to be productive. We can wait or you can ask for opinions at, say, WP:Teahouse. I see you have been busy at Commons: commons:Special:ListFiles/VF9. Johnuniq (talk) 06:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
That is another WP:PERSONALATTACK that has no bearing to this conversation. VF9 (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
VF9, you seem to be confusing WP:ILIKEIT with being encyclopedic. Just because the pictures can legally be used doesn't mean they should be. The pictures are no good because they don't represent masturbation as practiced; they are highly eroticised for the viewer's sake, with the model's leg(s) bent behind her head, and one shows her fingering her anus, which is a rare practice and especially for women.
It hasn't escaped my notice that both of these pictures were uploaded by you. [3] Nor that you gave me an obviously retaliatory edit-war warning after I gave you one. [4][5]
Your opinion in favor of them is just as subjective as anyone else's. If you want these pictures up, you'll have to convince us that they're appropriate. That has not happened yet, so the pictures should not have been reinstated. -Crossroads- (talk) 06:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
So you'd be fine with an image of a woman masturbating with her legs down? That's a compromise I can easily make.
Your second paragraph is just a WP:PERSONALATTACK that has no bearing to this content dispute. The fact that I uploaded these images shouldn't be very surprising. Most people upload the images they add to wikipedia. You should have also noticed that I uploaded many other images from many different photographers taken at various times too. And if you re-check the timestamp on your edit-war warning, you'll see that I gave it to you after you also started to edit war. It wasn't retaliatory, but the irony that you would edit-war after telling me not to do so did not go unnoticed. See WP:BOOMERANG VF9 (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the watermarks: I believe they can be cropped out per creative commons (and if the pictures are kept I think they should be.)
To the main point: I've never personally seen the issue with sexually explicit photographs appearing in articles about sexual activity. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think the watermark may need to be included to comply with the photo's copyright license (CC-BY 2.0). I'm no expert though, nor am I skilled enough to remove a watermark. So I wouldn't protest if someone removed it. VF9 (talk) 06:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Of course explicit is fine, when actually helpful and not gratuitous. However, a picture staged to stimulate viewers cannot be regarded as representative of the topic, not unless a secondary source says so. Johnuniq (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not oppose sexually explicit photos in general but I do oppose these specific photos in this article. They do not illustrate normal sexual behavior but instead are stylized, posed porn photos that are, in my opinion, not encyclopedic. Because several editors have objected, the onus is on VF9 to gain consensus here on the talk page to add the photos back. That's a core content policy. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Does that mean that you wouldn't oppose a picture with a woman's legs down? As I said above, that is a compromise I am willing to make. VF9 (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I will not express any opinion about any hypothetical alternative photo. I will give my opinion about a specific proposed photo. My main point is that you are obligated to gain talk page consensus before adding contentious material to the article. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Since you're being intentionally vague, that's making it hard to build consensus. I guess I'll just have to be bold and try posting something I think you'll agree with. VF9 (talk) 08:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
This is no longer a censorship issue, but a copyright issue. Both images have copyright markings & were uploaded to Commons from Flickr. One has a CC BY 2.0 on Flickr, the other has no CC license. In the case of the former, the uploader to Flickr probably did not have the right to tag it with a CC BY 2.0 license given the copyright markings. Peaceray (talk) 06:54, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 Comment: For future readers, a commons admin reviewed the images in question and decided that there were no copyright violations. See here for their reasoning: [6] VF9 (talk) 09:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
That would be an issue for the commons. But the flickr uploader is the creator and copyright holder. I doubt there's much of a case for copyright infringement. VF9 (talk) 07:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Asserting this is not enough. First of all, the copyright notice in the picture is a non-starter. Second, there is no guarantee that B71 Photos & VF9 are the same entity. Proof would have to be sent to Commons:OTRS Peaceray (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm not the copyright holder. B17 is the flickr uploader and the copyright holder. I have no relation to them. On flickr they released their work under CC-BY, and the copyright has already been reviewed in the commons. An OTRS is unnecessary. VF9 (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for noticing the © which somehow I missed. I wondered what that comment meant and it seems the underlying issue may be a COI promotion per "The copyright holder is the uploader". Johnuniq (talk) 08:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
No, I meant that the flickr uploader was the copyright holder. I have no relation to the copyright holders of these images. I'm highly insulted that you keep making unfounded WP:PERSONALATTACKS. VF9 (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
With a copyright tag in the picture, we cannot be assured that the upload to Flickr is then truly a CC compatible image. Because of that, we can suspect that the uploader to Flickr did not truly have the copyright ownership to begin with. Peaceray (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The admins already removed your speedy delete tag, indicating that they think there is no copyright violation. Now please stop cluttering this talk page with this off topic discussion. VF9 (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I missed all the fun, I see. There is nothing encyclopedic about this or this reverted content. I thank additional editors, such as Nick Moyes and Thomas.W, helping to revert VF9. Let me be very clear: Readers are not coming to this site to see stuff like that even when they click on sexual topic articles. And as someone who has been editing these topics since 2007, I know this. Readers have stated it enough (especially back in the day when such images were an epidemic and significantly reduced the quality of our articles), and it is why these days we typically use drawings, paintings, or other types of illustrations that are not real-life images. Like WP:GRATUITOUS states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Readers lose nothing by not seeing these explicit real-life sexual images. And the less offensive, equally suitable alternatives are drawings, paintings, or other types of illustrations that are not real-life images. All explicit real-life sexual images and videos do are serve as distractions. We've never often used sexual videos anyway. We don't need porn videos in the Pornography article, for example. Readers have been clear that explicit real-life sexual images are distractions, not improvements. They have been clear that if they want to see porn, they will go to porn sites. Even with our drawings, paintings, or other types of illustrations that are not real-life images, some readers still object. But these images have helped to significantly improve our sexual topic articles, including keeping the exhibitionists and their edit warring over their exhibitionism at bay. In my experience, editors who add these explicit real-life sexual images are doing so for exhibitionism or otherwise for their own enjoyment, not to help our readers. Even with our anatomy articles, and before I elevated the Vagina article to GA status, there have been people like this guy, who tells us that his primary motivation for uploading pictures of his penis and of himself ejaculating is for his own sexual pleasure. And, sorry (not so sorry), but our readers come first. Now I know that the veganism editor RockingGeo who acted more like an activist than an editor has another side to his/her editing that I wouldn't have guessed. And now, taking both their RockingGeo and VF9 accounts into consideration, I will be able to immediately spot this sock in the future. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Typo in the Benefits section:

Solo masturbation is a sexual activity that is nearly free of risk of sexually transmitted infections.[71])

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 8ya (talk • contribs) 06:25, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I fixed what you were referring to. Johnuniq (talk) 06:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Videos

Videos which agree to what I'm reading Australopithecus Ramifus (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Please be more specific. Peaceray (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Do You Masturbate Too Much? on YouTube and Masturbation PSA. Masturbation Is A Personal Choice on YouTube. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Masturbation/Archive_12&oldid=942495373"