Talk:Masturbation
Moved old debates to /Archive 2005-05 on 03.05.2005
Rather un-encyclopedic. Image issues
This definition has some surprisingly unencyclopedic bits.
The entire section on Humor and Masturbation is misplaced here. Death has also long been the subject of humor. So has sex. Yet neither of those definitions has an extensive entry on relevant humor. Humor pertaining to masturbation should go somewhere under sexual humor. It does not belong here.
The list of euphemisms is also out of place; they belong under euphemisms. Again, the definition for death doesn't mention "kicking the bucket" anywhere, and the one for sex is similarly void of phrases like "making the beast with two backs", or even "fucking".
- a general thought is that humor helps to make a taboo practice more acceptable. I think this topic needs to be taken lightly, lest it fall prey to a firestorm the same way more "weighty" topics, like abortion, do. --Whiteknight 01:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Lastly, either the picture of female masturbation needs to be removed, or a picture of male maturbation should be added. I'm undecided on which of those two solutions would be best, but either would be better than depicting only female masturbation. 157.181.71.7 05:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- It does not really seem you feel the content is unencyclopedic, only its placement here within this article, is that right?
- That's correct. I ought to have phrased it better. There is, I think, a place for both masturbation humor and masturbation euphemisms in Wikipedia; I just don't feel that they should be under masturbation.
- I think it is an interesting point that there is a section on humor here but not at sex. However, many people would probably prefer to add such sections to sex and death rather than delete the content here. I think covering both humor pertaining to masterbation and humor pertaining to sex in a sexual humor article could be a good idea. Certainly the article on masterbation is starting to get a little long.
- I think the list of euphemisms could also go into sexual humor or, even better, into sexual euphemisms.
- You could 'be bold' and make the move, but people tend to get a little touchy about big changes like that, especially on actively edited and potentially controversial article such as this one can be. I suggest you start a vote here on each of the content moves.
- That seems appropriate. I'll do that, thanks!
- As to the picture, there was a very rough consensus (above) to remove an existing image of male masturbation that was deemed too pornographic and not sufficiently informative for an encyclopedia. At one point the Samurai image was place higher, but again there was a rough consensus reached (above) that the lead image should be of solo masturbation, since that is the main focus of the article (as opposed to group or mutual masturbation) Johntex 06:26, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I read the controversy. I feel the Samurai picture is fine where it is; it is more relevant down in the cultural context part. As a useful and practical image of masturbation, it wouldn't be very good. As I see it, we have three choices:
- 1) To delete the picture of female masturbation, and have no realistic masturbation pictures at all.
- 2) To add a somewhat stylized drawing of male masturbation, to match the current picture on female masturbation.
- 3) To replace the picture of female masturbation with something more photorealistic (and useful), and add something similar for male masturbation.
- If it were wholly up to me, I'd go with option 3. I feel that option 2 might perhaps be a better compromise, though.157.181.71.7 02:22, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- More images (male masturbation, better female...) will be coming if I find some time (or if someone else takes on him to produce some). Rama 07:33, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My advise is we should stick with the line drawings. They seem to offend fewer people than photos. I know some would argue that avoiding offense is not our mission but I think those people miss an important point. Our mission is mainly to spread knowledge. If a photo causes people to react badly to Wikipedia then we have harmed our mission. Therefore, I vote for choice 2 above. As you say, it is a good compromise, and I think that makes it the best solution all around. Johntex 20:51, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I *STRONGLY* disagree. I think that the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia STRONGLY outweighs *ANY* need to pander to individuals who feel offended by graphic photographs that factually exhibit subject matter related to an article. If someone "reacts badly" to an encyclopedia because it visually, accurately depicts a subject with a photograph then that person shouldn't have been researching that topic to begin with. Masturbation is a SEXUAL ACT, and a photograph depicting a SEXUAL ACT is inherantly SEXUAL. You said it yourself: "Our mission is mainly to spread knowledge:" if someone is offended by that mission being executed in the most explicit sense, they don't belong here. Would you suggest we remove photographs of the human penis under penis because they might offend someone? Pacian 14:16, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I am suggesting that we keep in mind the adage don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is not some experiment on free thought or a campaign to make sexually explicit material accepted by more people. It is an encyclopedia of knowledge. Encyclopedias avoid showing material that is overly explicit because it would harm their mission. How many school libraries do you know that would keep a set of encyclopedias if they contained graphic photographs of sexuals acts? You say, "if someone is offended by that mission being executed in the most explicit sense, they don't belong here." There are two fallacies in that statement:
- The first is that you assume the person being offended is the reader. This may not be the case. If Wikipedia contains graphic images, schools, parents, public libraries, etc will tend to restrict access to their students, children, and patrons. Those people will lose the option of coming to this page to learn anything at all about masturbation. We need to seek the optimum solution. Adding a photo that is very marginally more informative would not make up for thousands or millions of people being blocked from the article entirely.
- The second is that you ignore the reality of the US legal system. Wikipedia does not contain any warning advising of explicit content, nor any check of minimum age. Posting explicit images here under those conditions is to invite prosecution by the State of Florida or other jurisdictions where Wikipedia is hosted or available. You can't just ignore the realities of the world to go off on some crusade for inclusiveness. Johntex 16:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The danger of public libraries censoring information is probably only given in states like the US where there are high moral ambiguities. I'm glad to know that the public libraries in Europe, i.e., are less eager to withheld knowledge. This is a problem in the US where the principle of "security-by-obscurity" is also even used in education. IMHO a very dangerous practice, especially for things like sexuality. But don't forget, that wikipedia is a global encyclopedia which is not only read by the US audience. Wikipedia cannot try to accomodate every moral aspect of every country. That would make wikipedia useless, if you consider policies like Northern Korea or China. One strenght of wikipedia is, that things can be published in a democratic way, as the world sees it, not as a few individuals of some major Encyclopedia publisher in some country like the US sees it. If a public library chooses to do censorship, then it's not wikipedia's fault. It's the library's fault.
- That adage is morally based, and there is no place for any set of moral standards in a FACT-based encyclopedia. I'm sorry but your statements are biased and unfactual, whereas mine are not. I do not have any interest in offending or not offending people; my only interest is in including relevant documents and information in an encyclopedia. If a library or public school chooses to prohibit access to wikipedia because it contains a photograph of a male penis being masturbated chances are they would prohibit access because it has an article about masturbation - period. It is NOT the function of an encyclopeida to consider the consequences of what effect the contents therein have on people providing that said content is relevant, factual, and unbiased.
I choose not to respond to your comment about the legal issues of the situation because, with as much respect as possible, they are so non-sequitorial and ill-educated that I would have to go into EXTENSIVE explanations as to why you're wrong. I encourage you to properly educate yourself on the facts of the matter. Suffice to say (once again) that people know exactly what they are doing when they research a topic in an encyclopedia: looking for information. Any child obtaining information or photographs related to a topic that they should not have been accessing were obviously not being properly supervised, and the party responsible for that is their legal guardian. Pacian 22:15, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hello Pacian, if your comments above reprsent what you consider "as much respect as possible" it will be interesting to see how you behave when you intend to be insulting. How do you justify your comments that my arguments in favor of maximizing our mission are "biased and unfactual"? Please explain what bias it is you are accusing me of.
- As to your statement "It is NOT the function of an encyclopeida to consider the consequences of what effect the contents therein have on people...", I disagree. If the effect of the content is that the dissemination of knowledge is harmed rather than helped, then we have failed. This is pretty simple to understand.
- Interestingly enough, you provide assistance to my argument by saying children should be better supervised so they don't come across pornographic images. That is exactly the argument that parents and administrators will use to block access to Wikipedia if it is found to include such images. Johntex 23:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
As a simple follow up (and i'm sorry if i missed mention of this particular topic among all the discussions and arguments on this page), i would like to consider the readers who genuinely do not know how to masturbate. images about masturbation do not need to be graphic or photographic to aid in the learning process. People looking to learn masturbation should have some images to facilitate that learning, but we do not need to supply pornography on wikipedia. --Whiteknight 02:02, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Vote: What should be done with the section on masturbation humor and euphemisms?
Please add your votes!
- a) Delete them. They have no place in an encyclopedia.
- b) Move them to their own sections (sexual humor and euphemisms or sexual euphemisms), and add links.
- 157.181.71.7
- B - Move them to their own articles with links. This helps create focused articles of manageable size, and also allows better exploration of these important topics. Johntex 20:52, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Move. Delete would be better option but then this stuff would get recreated again and again. Pavel Vozenilek 20:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Move them, with perhaps a sentence or two in the main article. If the resulting articles don't come up to snuff them delete them. --Robert Merkel 03:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Move them to a general Sexual humour article with a 'Euphemisms' section (the rest of that article may take some managing!! :-) or to a Sexual euphemisms article. --Nigelj 14:53, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Move. The euphemisms section needs to be drastically trimmed. Some of the items there (such as wanking) aren't euphemisms of any kind. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Move. A small number would be useful to illustrate the concept but this huge recitation (some of which I doubt anyone has actually uttered) detracts from the seriousness of the page.Doug22123 17:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Move.--198 23:52, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- c)Leave them alone.
- Leave. no sense splitting up multiple fascets of the same conversation unless the humor and euphamism sections explode to require more space then is reasonable. as things stand, those sections are relatively petite. --Whiteknight 01:54, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Leave--BMF81 9 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)
Addendum: it is also important to note that there is a significant amount of humor, and several euphamisms at the Oral Sex artical. all the humor and euphamisms here are integrated into the text of the artical however, and are not given a dedicated section. this might be an interesting compromise. --Whiteknight 02:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Sexual slang - it contains around a hundred euphemisms for masturbation, and many for oral sex as well. -Willmcw 02:19, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- I've moved them to Sexual slang, which seems to be in keeping with the above poll. -Willmcw 00:33, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
Image of male penis
- Obviously there is debate on whether or not this image belongs here. Now it seems somehow the image is not showing in the article even though the link is still in the body of the article and there is nothing in the history showing it was removed. It seems to me like there is potential for an edit war here and I'd like to know firstly, what's going on, and secondly, get a vote on the issue at hand. No pun intended. Pacian 22:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
This has already been argued on numerous articles with the decision not to include sexually explicit photos. We should stick with that policy. No explicit photographsU$er 23:27, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Check out penis, clitoris, vulva and the like. The last guy who tried to remove the clitoris picture ended up being arbcommed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I did not state my point clearly. I don't consider photographs of human genitals on their own to be sexually explicit. I should have said No sexually explicit photographs I don't object to photographs of the human body, or parts of the human body, if they are clinical in nature. I do object to them if they are sexually explicit. At that point, we are no longer an encyclopedia, we are smut. U$er 23:48, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree on this. This is an article about masturbation and the photograph is of masturbation. The smut is in the eye of the beholder. You see smut, I see a chap giving his willy a good hard polishing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too fond of the line drawings and the photos are far worse. Let's not peddle pornography. Force10 01:35, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Are you saying that, for you, pictures of sex acts are ipso facto pornography, or is there something particular about the pictures we are using? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:38, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That is an interesting comparison. I think even "R Rated" images could be problematic here. To see an R Rated movie in the US, you have to be accompanied by a parent/guardian if you are under 18. That cuts out a lot of people that could benefit by learning what this article has to say about masturbation (please see my arguments above). Johntex 01:58, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I vote against the photo for the reasons I describe in detail above. Briefly, I think we want to make the best possible information available to the most possible people. In my view, too many people will block us or have a negative view of us if we have these types of photos. Therefore, they do more harm than good. Johntex 01:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, the old "we'll scare the poor dears off" argument. Isn't that a bit patronising? What about the kids who will come here because we have a picture of a man wanking? There are two sides to that coin. I say include the picture because it makes the article better. Nobody is forced to download, let alone look at, the picture. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:55, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, I think you misunderstand me. I'm more concerned about the person who controlls the "poor dears" access. They may not allow them to have access. Also, please note the legal arguments I make in the section above. Johntex 02:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have an issue with the current picture of male masturbation that goes beyond the offensive/non-offensive debate. I encourage all male Wikipedians to try and emulate that picture, with particular reference to hand position. As the proud owner and operator of a penis, I'm pretty sure nobody masturbates like that. I just gave it a shot, and damn near dislocated my shoulder.
Thus, there are two possiblities, either of them making the picture ineligible, IMO. The first (more likely) one is that the man in the picture is not masturbating himself; the hand belongs to someone else. The difference between the skin colour of the hand and the rest of the man's body makes this likely. The second possiblity is that the man is demonstrating some highly advanced masturbation technique.
To sum up: any picture of male masturbation should be a "typical" one, much like the one of female masturbation. From this perspective, the picture in the article is flawed. 157.181.71.7 04:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with a photo of someone masturbating, but that particular photo is weird. I agree the hand in the photo is likely not that of the owner of the penis. Someone appears to be gripping that penis strongly, not masturbating it. Moncrief 04:27, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I quite agree that this image is a bit too funky and should go. Get a line drawing or something, but this pic is just stupid. Someone is just showing off their works. I don't watch this article or anything, but I think you should just get rid of it. --DanielCD 18:57, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I can unequivocally. put an end to this debate right now. The copyright holder of the photograph in question is me. The photographer of the photo in question is me. The uploader of the photograph in question is me. And I can state with 100% assurance that the hand gripping the penis in the photograph belongs to the same person as the penis does. So then, I guess that makes this particular branch of the discussion a non issue. Pacian 19:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- What exactly is going to be a satisfactory picture of male masturbation, within the context of something that someone here at wiki is likely to have copyright control over? It seems like nothing is going to satisfy everybody which is why the semantics and idiotic bickering need to be STOPPED in favor of clear thinking on the issue. A penis being masturbated is a penis being masturbated. Pacian 19:01, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I still say get rid of it. It makes a mockery of this site plus it's plain stupid. If you must, make a line drawing; it's not that hard and there are excellent drawing programs available. --DanielCD 20:23, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Is that really how you masturbate, Pacian? It seems kind of backwards. Also, I'm not opposed to a photo but people do read Wikipedia at work and they could get fired for viewing that photo at work if caught. Now, reading an article on "masturbation" is asking for it in a sense, but it's also true that people don't generally expect to see photos that graphic on this site. I'm really not sure what the answer is. Perhaps we could make a LINK to that photo (or another similar one), labeling above the link that it is a not-work friendly photo of an erect penis. Moncrief 20:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree wtih DanielCD and Moncrief that this photo is not very representative of how the average male masturbates. There may be men who do hold their hand in this position, just as their probably are men who use chicken salad as a lubricant for masturbation. But listing chicken salad as a sexual aid or showing this photo as a representative act of masturbation would both be misleading to the reader. Pacian, this is no judgement on the sexual practices of the person you photographed. If he finds that comfortable more power to him. Johntex 21:16, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove the image, and I'm sick and tired of the bluenoses and Mrs. Grundys who keep trying to bring down this encyclopedia. Speak for yourselves, quit trying to hide behind "the children". If you object, be brave and say so. Until you get a petition from some parent who is offended, your contention that you're protecting the children is bogus. We have had this discussion over and over again, it's gotten old. Find something more constructive to do. RickK 21:18, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
I agree the photo is kind of strange. That's not the way I do it. Err...anyway...be it that image or another, why not put a disclaimer at the top of the page? I have vague memories of this happening with other articles. Or give the option at the top of the page to see the article with images or without. Jez 21:26, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The more I look at that photo, the more I object to it not because it's graphic, but just because it doesn't seem like a reasonable way for one to masturbate. I can't quite imagine how that works from that position and with that sort of grip. If we are to have a graphic photo of that nature, could we have one that is a bit more authentic-looking? Moncrief 21:34, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Masturbation being essentially a movement, it is obviously difficult to represent it with a static image. Perhaps a better photograph could be found, but in the mid-time, I see absolutely no reason to remove this one from the article, especially in such a hastiness. Rama 21:39, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps there is a third person present, someone masturbating the penis while Pacian watches with this camera. The hand is not moving, it just has a hard grip on that penis. Perhaps the person is falling or something and just grabbed the penis because it was the only thing around. Or perhaps the whole thing was a type of play-acting sexual masturbation-type thing, and someone is roll-plaing someone else falling and gripping the penis firmly to keep from pseudo-falling. The again, the grip doesn't look very strong. But it doesn't have to be if you are doing roll-playing sex. Perhaps it should go under Roll-playing sex. --156.101.1.5 21:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I wonder why RickK and Pacian get so worked up about this that they call arguments they disagree with "idiotic bickering" (as Pacian claims) or label those that have a different point of view to be "bluenoses and Mrs. Grundys" (as RickK claims)? What happened to discussing the facts at hand? Fact: Wikipedia is not Wikiporn. Fact: The image is bizarre. Conclusion: the image should not be here. Force10 21:46, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I can't see how these "facts" could help solve the matter. Wikipedia is not Wikiprude either, so let us drop this sort of arguments, they can only come to the rescue of a decision already taken. The fact that the image does not show the absolutely canonical form of masturbation does not make it a danger (like, for instance, the now deleted incorrect image which was initially on Heimlich manoeuver), so I do not see why we should remove it in emergency while we wait for a better one. Rama 22:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I'm getting worked up because this is falling hard on the heels of the Kate Winslett and Autofellatio nonsense, and it's just more of the same. I'm seeing Wikipedia becoming more and more bowdlerized by people who keep insisting, "oh, no, it doesn't offend me, but it might, just might offend somebody else down the road, so we should get rid of it. Never mind that this is an encyclopedia, and that it's odd that we should try to write an article about masturbation that doesn't even show a picture of the act. RickK 23:15, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
Attempting to summarize the opinions so far
If you object to my interpretation of your comments below, please feel free to move/remove your name, or clarify your position. Force10 21:49, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
In favor of keeping this photograph in this article
- Pacian
- RickK
- Tony Sidaway
- Rama
- Davenbelle — sure.
- Trilobite — picture of masturbation in an article about masturbation: fine by me.
- Dmn — absolutely, this is an encyclopaedia, not a children's storybook.
In favor of removing this photograph from this article
- U$er
- Force10
- Johntex - Against any explicit photograph.
- 157.181.71.7
- DanielCD - Quite in favor of removal
- Hedley 15:44, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Mike Rosoft 16:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- 198 23:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- JDG 01:13, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- dab
- Jez I'd like to clarify that I'm in favour of replacement, not simple removal.
- I removed my own name from the list above (I don't advocate outright removal and I'm of half a mind to add my name to the other list because I don't appreciate being spoken for and having my words misconstrued). Moreover, I don't read everyone else on that list - including the unregistered user - as advocating removal of that photo. Many of them are just commenting and throwing out ideas and options. Moncrief 21:50, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Moncrief. I'm sorry I offended you. I did not mean to speak for you or anyone else. I am just trying to summarize what it seems people are saying. I understand there are a variety of opinions here - including some that want no photo, some that think a photo is ok but not this photo, etc. That is why I tried to be very specific saying "this photograph" and "this article". Force10 22:07, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I size the opportunity to point out that, although this is not officially a vote, voting is not encouraged in Wikipedia; we work by consensus, not by democracy. This way is intended to encourage reasonable middle-term solutions and explanations rather then enforce solutions with which a large minority could disagree -- it also saves the hassle of raising campaigns. Rama 22:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the substitution images but it is ludicrous to argue that they are less-offensive (or less a danger to anyone who might view them in terms of inappropriateness or tastefullness" than the image presented before. I concede only to logic, not to opinion or emotion tinted blathering. Someone even stated "Fact: the image is bizarre"; here's a fact: that's your OPINION, not a fact. If it is the general consencus that the image is not typical of what a human male penis looks like while being masturbated, by all means, the change is just fine by me. But I will not kow-tow to moralistic, sychophantic arguings about upholding some kind of status or pristine orientation that wikipedia does not set out to accomplish. Wikipedia is an all-encompassing encyclopedia of knowledge, and that includes the frank discussion and depiction of sexually explicit topics. For the record, by the way, the type of male masturation depicted is both common and normal. Visit [Backhand Masturbation] for an explanation as well as - GASP! WARNING!!! - an explicit animated gif deisplaying the technique fully. This is just a great example of the fact that just because a hundred people have never heard of something or think it's "bizarre" doesn't make them right. AND - as a final statement, for perhaps the tenth time now, I have not asserted at any time that the penis in the picture in question was mine, so quit referencing it as if it is until such time as you are A: told by me in person, or B: see mine in person and think you've made a positive ID. I wash my hands of it now. (Pun intended.) Pacian 04:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Has it occurred to you that your assertion the image is not bizarre or is or is not anything else is also OPINION?? What sort of <deleted> blathers on about the distinction between opinion and fact, then goes right on elevating his own opinion into some higher dimension? You have one voice, I have one voice and I assure you the voices on Wikipedia that want this cruft gone are in the great majority. No doubt this will come to a general vote soon and even if the rules of the vote are skewed in your favor (as have been past votes on individual images), I'm pretty sure the 2/3 majority will be there to send you packing. That day can't come soon enough. Who was it who said something like "The one really unforgivable thing is poor taste?". Get this peripubescent schlock out of our project. JDG 05:04, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Your backwards logic reeks of ignorance. I never asserted that the image was not bizarre, only that it was appropriate for the article. The first amendment of thc constitution of the United States of America was created SPECIFICALLY to protect unpopular opinions, including the most tasteless ones. There is nothing "peripubescent" about a photograph of an erect male penis (in fact it may very well be stipulated that such an image is quite the opposite.) THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MORALITY IN A FACTUAL TEXT. Your opinion on the matter, and in fact any opinion on the matter (be it 99.999% of the contributors) is completely irrelevant. Where does it end? Should we take all of the textbooks of human biology and remove any reference to genitals? Should we go and get a copy of the esteemed classic novel "Ragtime" and remove the reference to one character's "great filamented spurts of jism that traced the air like bullets and then settled slowly over Evelyn in her bed like falling ticker tape"? And so on, and so on... I cannot continue restating the same thing over and over again because you are going to continue to disagree and have a complete lack of understanding on the issue at hand, which is that the *ONLY* criteria for inclusion of material in a factual text are thus: A.Is it relevant? B: is it factual? C: is it's inclusion beneficial? - any other considerations are irrelevant. The fact that you don't understand this makes you the one who does not belong here, my friend, and lest you think otherwise, I have been a steady contributor for well over a year now and I am not exiting any time soon. And now, in all seriousness, I am done with the conversation. Feel free to ejaculate additional nonsense in a continuation of your desperate need to have the last word. (Oh no - I said ejaculate!!!) Pacian 06:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I don't believe that an explicit photography of masturbation is appropriate to be included in an encyclopedia article. At the very most, replace it with a link. Wikipedia is not a repository of pornography. (Does ANY other encyclopedia prominently feature similar material?) Consider this a provisional vote, since I haven't seen the photo yet. - Mike Rosoft 16:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Picture Change
I have changed the picture to a line drawing with a slightly more conventional technique. hopefully this will pacify everybody and we can go back to doing something important Fuzz 22:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- In favor I think this picture works well. Ambush Commander 22:59, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Much Better This is at least as informative, and less likely to cause problems. Johntex 23:03, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you Fuzz. This does help. Cartoon pornography can still be considered pornography, but this is a big improvement. Force10 23:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent! Thanks, Fuzz, great job. Strongly in favour of keeping the current pictures. 157.181.71.7 01:48, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, these drawings are good. Tasteful, clinical, and informative. --Deathphoenix 01:55, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- A non-explicit drawing is appropriate for an encyclopedia. I approve of the change. - Mike Rosoft 16:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The penis is backwards. I don't know what the previous picture was, but this image shows the underside of the glans facing up. I tried changing it but it was reverted. Comments? BiomechZero 23:33, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Edit by Warbler1
I have reverted the image edit by User:Warbler1, on the grounds that this is evidently a contentious issue, and as such an edit of this form should be discussed before it is made. Warbler1 makes a good point, that the second line drawing is unnecessary, however, this is not the way to deal with it, in my opinion.
I think that the best solution is to attempt for a degree of equality in the images. If a close-up lind drawing of a male masturbating is to be included, one should be included for a female, however I feel that this is less contentious than if a photograph is included. If a photograph of a male masturbating is included, one must be included of a female, otherwise we risk losing NPOV over the images.
- Sorry if I put the picture up without discussing, and agree that it should be discussed. Personally, though, I think the image (Image:Masturbation.jpg) is rather better and more natural than the other one that was up. Warbler1 9 July 2005 01:15 (UTC)
Once More Into The Breach
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)
Argumentations
Just want to add my voice to those calling for exclusion of all sexually explicit images. Call me a prude, call me a censor, call me a reactionary, call me whatever. If you want to see a closely reasoned argument for why this stuff is just stupid and counterproductive, let me know and I'll schedule you. Meanwhile, I want this to be a serious encyclopedia. Why don't you boys like TonySidaway and RickK start a spinoff like "WikiSex" and then lobby back here to include links to it from Wikipedia? This cruft has always been quarantined into some place it's understood one should not invite kids. This holds for towns that allow adult bookstores and it's going to have to hold for self-respecting `net neighborhoods. Stop bringing our work down. Kids are a vital part of our audience, many times more important than the randy slacker demographic and whoever else might find this drek "useful". If the cruft enthusiasts can't be put down completely, I suppose we'll have to get along with the drawings. But the line MUST be drawn at these photos. JDG 03:37, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- JDG, it's an article about masturbation. I mean, it's not as if people are inserting photos of penii in articles about daisies or the Easter Bunny. Moncrief 05:38, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Moncrief, I'm aware of the article subject. It doesn't matter. The community needs to make a judgment on (GASP) moral grounds, and also on the basis of taste. Yes there are those who get themselves into a knot at the mere mention of the word "morality". Fine, if Wikipedia is to be a purely amoral thing, it can choose that direction. I'll leave and many, perhaps most, of the best contributors will leave... But I don't think this will happen. We have the numbers to carry off this value judgment. It is up to us to choose what a serious encyclopedia is. Full on illustrations of sex acts simply offend most people, particularly when they are using a resource they have assumed does not include such material. The TonySidaways and Pacians of the world can smirk and steam all they like, their vituperations don't change the numbers involved: this is how most people react. We don't want to drive them away. We want to provide them this tremendous resource. It's a value judgement and we need to choose not to offend, to be a serious reference and to let material like this go to some other project in which users will see what's coming before it's in their faces. JDG 06:03, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've seen them and if I were Jimbo I would have stepped in and mandated drawings in a strict clinical, textbook style. But I can live with these depictions of static anatomy. I understand there are a lot of meek well-off white boys who like to spice up their lives by being cyberanarchists in the monitor's glow involved in this project and I'd like to accomodate them. It's when you move into sex acts that you've crossed a Rubicon. This is where the line must be drawn for Wikpedia to avoid total rejection in schools, libraries and academic and professional circles. The advocates of this stuff are very simply torpedoing us in our most important audiences and we can't let their little cyber-radical acts bring the whole thing down JDG 06:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- replace "moral" with "taste" and I'm with JDG. We know the numbers people. We'll get a majority opposing explicit images of sex acts, but not an 80% majority. Try to find a solution with this situation in mind, rather than trying to sneak through yet another poll. If you have no taste, you have no business picking encyclopedia images for articles on sex acts. Leave it to people with some taste and imagination, and there can be very nice solutions. the attitude "it's not 'smut', you puritan porn-basher! the smut is in your mind, liberate yourself and enjoy our pictures" is childish and insincere. dab (ᛏ) 06:33, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- And again, this is where these types of edits are extremely dangerous. Please, kindly refer me to where the line of "good taste" has been so clearly defined that I may fully understand. Truly, I am of the opinion that the photograph that began this debacle is completely tasteful in every way. This is not some "cyberanarchistic" (eye roll) act; I am simply of the emphatic opinion that photographs of an act of sex is not in poor taste, especially the photograph in question. Perhaps I would understand the outrage if the photograph were of something extreme, but then, again, where is the line? Who decides? If the idea is for the community here at wikipedia to decide, then let them...(and clearly in this instance they have!) But let's stop throwing around such definitive statements as to insinuate that any one person here has the hard-line grasp on what is deemed tasteful or not. I recall not so long ago that libraries were trying to decide if the now highly respected photographic works of Robert Maplethorpe should be allowed in the library, and people like JDG said no. Now that has changed, and I don't see anyone boycotting the libraries. Pacian 06:42, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You've got to be joking. The American arts world is still trying to recover from the backlash to Maplethorpe and co-reprobates of the 80s and 90s. Public funding of the arts is still far below pre-80s norms, with most of the drop coming in the Clinton years. "Highly respected"?? You need to stop taking the prevailing views of those you happen to hang out with and inflating them about ten-thousand fold so you can pawn them off as cultural norms. Your strictly fringe application of the 1st Amendment above is another example of this. You'll get to see just how small you are when the project-wide vote on sexually explicit images in Wikipedia takes place. JDG 07:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You have a very US-centric point of view here. Wikipedia is a multi-national project, and you should be well aware that a majority of Western coutries are far less prude than the "moral majority" which is so vocal in the USA. Also, here is no particular reason to single out sexuality as the one "shocking" subject; there are certainly Muslims who could be shocked that we have depictions of living beings on WIkipedia, yet it would be extremely negative to remove all such illustrations, even though they are in direct contradiction with their faith.
Also, even though there is a very vocal minority which keeps refering to "some people" who will get shocked, or that "in some cases", or to "children", I still have to actually see one single occurence of someone getting honestly shocked. I suggest that we tsay on a practical approach of the subject and let aside hypothetical cases which could be understood as to only retroactively give excuses for a decision already taken for pseudo-moral reasons. Rama 09:40, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry Rama, the "enlightened Europeans" argument doesn't wash here. Your laxity over there is a passing trend and there's little reason for the rest of us to join a fad that's almost run its course. Your example involving Muslims is likewise far from compelling. It's understood that Wikipedia is a secular, basically rationalist compendium and no one is trying to spin it into any other orientation, conservative Muslim or otherwise. What we're talking about here are minimum standards for serious publications targeted at general audiences. Those standards very obviously and rightly preclude photographs of sex acts. I think you know this and you're just letting a sort of tendentious "free speech" logic interfere with your common sense. No one is trying to ban this stuff from the universe. We're just saying it's inappropriate for a project like this and it's inclusion here will gravely hurt us in our mission to be a widely used reference work. JDG 18:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- "It's understood that Wikipedia is a secular, basically rationalist compendium and no one is trying to spin it into any other orientation, conservative Muslim or otherwise." Is it? Well then what are you doing trying to spin it into some kind of irrational conservative Censorpedia? You also seem happy to assume that your own ideas about what's acceptable are shared by all but the most deliberately provocative, as evidenced by your dismissal of several hundred million of us deviant Europeans with our passing moral laxity. Not everyone shares your sense of moral outrage at seeing a picture of masturbation in an article which aims to describe the subject. "Those standards very obviously and rightly preclude photographs of sex acts." Do they? It's not obvious to me at all that a photo of a sexual act should be precluded from appearing in an article about a sexual act. Your arguments are faulty and we've heard them all before. Can I ask you if you yourself are offended or shocked by this image, or are your efforts to remove it motivated by some concern for other people, who you assume will be shocked by it? Because if these shocked people exist, there don't seem to be very many of them. — Trilobite (Talk) 04:12, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- You attack my statement "Those standards very obviously and rightly preclude photographs of sex acts." But what did these standards refer to in my post? They referred to "serious publications targeted at general audiences". Now, before I go on to utterly nullify your other absurdities, will you please tell me the name of a serious publication targeted at general audiences which includes photos of sex acts? JDG 08:24, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Anne Hooper's Kama Sutra [1] has, is very wide-spread, and is not an isolated case. Rama 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, for general audiences. JDG
- Yes, absolutely, general audiance. Anne Hooper's Kama Sutra is on sale in supermarkets and advertised in the displays of book shops. It is by no means an "adult" book. Rama 09:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Really this is a pretty offensive form of ethnocentrism or cultural bigotry. Because your fallen country allows this stuff in supermarkets all the rest of us should follow suit. Kama Sutra is by every means an adult book... To be generous, I'll go with a definition of "General Audience" that doesn't include junior highschoolers (12 and 13 year olds). So we need to aim for acceptability for 14, 15 year olds. One of the standard uses of an encyclopedia is to help kids with their homework. No publication I'm aware of that includes 14 year olds in its audience uses sexually explicit photos. JDG 22:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely, general audiance. Anne Hooper's Kama Sutra is on sale in supermarkets and advertised in the displays of book shops. It is by no means an "adult" book. Rama 09:42, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- No, for general audiences. JDG
- Anne Hooper's Kama Sutra [1] has, is very wide-spread, and is not an isolated case. Rama 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- My dear fellow, you don't even know what country I live in, you probably haven't ever visited it, and I find your way of assuming it "fallen" particularly ridiculous; I can therefore only advise you to continue on this rethorics if you want to save other people the burden of demonstrating that you are out of your mind, and off the topic in particular.
- This being said, and since you want to re-define "general audiance" as "suitable for 14 year olds, I advise you to have a good look through the "sexual education" series of any good bookshop. I used to have some when I was a kid myself, so I am quite confident that you won't waste your time there. Rama 10:16, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- My dear fellow, I have since been notified that your country is Switzerland. I have indeed visited it and in fact nearly 1/4 of my DNA is Swiss. The "fallen" remark was a bit of a game, as I consider all nations "fallen". If you want to see real ad-hominem cruft, look to statements like one editor saying "you are out of your mind" to another.... What would you like me to say? I am extremely unimpressed with European public policy on these matters. I'm not a rightist, I'm a centrist. I have some optimism that Switzerland, France, Italy and maybe even someday the Netherlands and Sweden will understand what is truly needed for healthy societies and will change their orientations. It will consist largely of showing people like Rama what's what. A daunting task indeed but hopefully not impossible. JDG 16:53, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I am not certain that I understand what you are coming at. You are welcome to apply for the citizenship of any European country you like, Switzerland included, and start a political carreer there. Judging by your comments, you will be in a moralist far-right party and might even have some degree of audiance there. But this is the talk page of the Masturbation article of Wikipedia. So I would really suggest that you save your ideas of what a proper society is for further debate where it will be appropriate, and either contribute useful ideas here, or stop wasting everybody's time. Rama 17:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- yada,yada,yada. As a Wikipedian I go back to early `02. In terms of sheer research and writing, there are not many that have contributed more (I'm not very active with User:Talk stuff but if you look at contrib history and FA action on articles primarily authored by me, you'll see this is so). Lately I've been getting into some tussles over things like Templates and Policies and if my mood is right I may go activist on a few issues, though it would be a shame to get caught up in that stuff longterm, as researching/writing must be the bedrock activity here. In my recent forays into debates on policy and suchlike, I am running into a surprising number of users who get into idle arguments, throw around ad-hominem phrases, show a high degree of intolerance, arrogantly state others are "wasting everybody's time" and then accuse those they are debating of what?-- of getting into idle arguments, throwing around ad-hominem phrases, showing a high degree of intolerance and arrogantly stating others are "wasting everybody's time". So it will go, I guess. It has its amusing moments. JDG 17:51, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- I am not certain that I understand what you are coming at. You are welcome to apply for the citizenship of any European country you like, Switzerland included, and start a political carreer there. Judging by your comments, you will be in a moralist far-right party and might even have some degree of audiance there. But this is the talk page of the Masturbation article of Wikipedia. So I would really suggest that you save your ideas of what a proper society is for further debate where it will be appropriate, and either contribute useful ideas here, or stop wasting everybody's time. Rama 17:19, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, the rational encyclopedia, is a serious publication targeted at general audiences! Again, who is it you're trying to protect from mental scarring here? Are you offended by masturbation or are you concerned for the poor dears? It is a little tiresome when this argument has to be had all over again every time an "objectionable" picture is inserted into an article. The policy is that Wikipedia is not censored. Check the content disclaimer. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Please, do you think your arguments are any less repetitive and tiresome? And Wikipedia policy on this is far from settled, contrary to your claim. The content disclaimer will always need to warn against potentially offensive images because of the different sensitivity thresholds of different people and societies. The disclaimer specifically mentions only two types of potentially offensive material that articles may contain: graphical depictions of violence and depictions of human anatomy. Photos of sex acts cannot be termed "depictions of human anatomy" alone, thus nothing in the content disclaimer supports you in the current debate. As for "The policy is that Wikipedia is not censored"-- where do you get that? It's nowhere in the content disclaimer. Are you saying any image whatsoever will be allowed on Wikipedia? How about a severed human head, its mouth stuffed with severed genitalia? Obviously, this would be censored. And just as obviously your description of standing policy here is wrong... If I can devote the time, I will soon be working toward giving that policy more definition. My hope is that effort will lead to a massive landmark vote that will free us from all these repetitive arguments on each new piece of cruft. I'm afraid after that vote you'll be pining for the good old days. JDG 22:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Wikipedia, the rational encyclopedia, is a serious publication targeted at general audiences! Again, who is it you're trying to protect from mental scarring here? Are you offended by masturbation or are you concerned for the poor dears? It is a little tiresome when this argument has to be had all over again every time an "objectionable" picture is inserted into an article. The policy is that Wikipedia is not censored. Check the content disclaimer. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:25, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that Wikipedia is a laic and rationalist project. This makes the definition of "minimum standards for serious publications targeted at general audiences. Those standards very obviously and rightly preclude photographs of sex acts" a little bit problematic. I see nothing rationalist in deciding a priori that sex-related images will be particularly offensive per nature, while photographs of, say, weapons, are not.
- It is very obvious that the arguments against including photographs of sexual acts are most of the time weak ("some people will get shocked" --who ?, "inclusion here will gravely hurt us in our mission to be a widely used reference work") and sometimes contradictory (such images have been said to be both insignificant and susceptible of traumatising people).
- I certainly do feel that some sort of common sense and taste should be part of what is supposed to be shown or not (the photographs of Abu Grahib are an interesting problem, they are both sickening and very important to the strength of the article), but deciding that all sexually explicit photographs should be excluded from Wikipedia is clearly irrational. It is also obvious that photographs make the article more rich, and therefore logical to include them.
- Since this seems to uterly exasperate a very vocal minority of users, the solution of drawings (which I see inferior to photograph -- and I've never quite understood why people who shold see photographs as "offensive" tend to see drawings as less so) seems an acceptable compromise; yet, an attempt to ban all sexually explicit images, or to decide that the avoidance of sexually explicit photographs is a matter of principle, seems highly harmful to me. Rama 07:59, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
JDG, I do not quite understand the following statement of yours, could you please clarify? "Fine, if Wikipedia is to be a purely amoral thing, it can choose that direction. I'll leave and many, perhaps most, of the best contributors will leave... But I don't think this will happen." Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be amoral? Hasn't it chosen that direction from the very outset? If Wikipedia is supposed to have morality, why doesn't it state that "Hitler is evil", for example? Surely that's something with which all moral people would agree?
Obviously, I'm against shock value. I think the photograph was more useful than the current line drawings, but the difference is not great, and I think this level of compromise is appropriate. But I'm really uncomfortable at the thought of Wikipedia self-censoring itself. Could you please give us a cite where a non-Wikipedian argues that there's too much smut on Wikipedia? It would, I think, be useful to gauge whether this (alienating people) is a real and serious issue. 157.181.71.7 13:41, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello dab, there is no need for an 80% majority to decide on a version of an article. This is not a vote for deletion of the article or the image, where a supramajority is needed. This is simply an editing decision. There is no reason to set a disproportionally higher burden for one version or the other. A simple majority is enough to decide on a version of an article. Johntex 15:10, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- This is incorrect. Wikipedia is not a democracy. A simple democracy is not enough for a decision to be taken; ideally, a compromise solution suiting all parties should be adopted. In practice, it sometimes happens that it is impossible to reach absolute consensus, and in such cases, majorities in the order of magnitude of 80% can be reputed satisfacting. But a simple majority is clearly not enough (be it only that it would be far too easy for ill-intentioned parties to "highjack" articles). Rama 15:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Rama. I agree that ideally, a compromise solution suiting all parties should be adopted. That is why the line drawing is a reasonable compromise. (and I see you have added some new ones as well). However, I believe you are mistaken in your interpretation about what happens if that fails. Please site your source for a majority in the order of ~80% to be needed for a change to an article. In the case of changing an article, as opposed to deleting an article, neither viewpoint can enjoy the presumption of being in the right. By your same argument, it would be too easy for ill-intentioned parties to "hijack" articles. You can't assume that the "hijack" is in one direction or the other. Johntex 15:54, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think the pictures in the article now are lovely, and very appropriate to this article, which they illustrate very well. Of course all pictures must be explicit, whether they're illustrating a motor car, a tin opener, or masturbation, otherwise how could they possibly be useful in an encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:28, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
PLEASE. Rama, JDG and others, this is not the place to discuss what society should or should not be like, or what values or morality it should have or not have, or which societies are "fallen" or not. There are other online forums for this, if necessary.
There are a number of topics in which we have to balance the need for accurate and descriptive representation of reality (which includes elements that some people are embarassed about) with the sensitivity of many, or with other concerns such as Wikipedia being accepted in schools or whatever. These are delicate topics, without even going into the problems of society as a whole.
Now for my personal opinion: these are many societies that are embarassed about discussing or depicting various acts, parts of the anatomy, people or objects. We have already have the members of one religion objecting to a photograph of their prophet, which they deem to lack respect for him; others object to the graphical depictions of sexual acts, etc.
It seems impossible to content all such requests without severely bowdlerizing Wikipedia. As a consequence, there will always be people who think we exceed the limits of "bad taste", "decency" or "morality". This is inevitable.
I'd therefore prefer the debate to stick to objective concerns, focusing on the objectives of Wikipedia (which is to provide information formulated from a neutral point of view to people). For instance, we may consider the following factors:
- Accuracy: obviously, pictures and videos are good for depicting acts, in general.
- Offense: would people consulting this article be shocked by the contents? (I note that this is a sex-related article, so presumably, people should not be shocked by sexual content; but, on the other hand, one may want to read about some topic without it being shown in the face; i.e. we write about landmines without showing the bleeding wounds of anti-personnel mines).
- Accessibility: would explicit content lead to the banning or restriction of Wikipedia from certain locales?
These are topics that we should discuss. One thing I also would like to avoid in the discussion is fictional cases:
- "Do we also have to apply the laws of Iran or Saudi Arabia?"
- The hypothetic 9-year-old who goes on pages discussing sex topics and is shocked. (I asked around, and apparently Wikipedia has only received 2 emails about explicit pictures seen by real children, both of which were results of vandalism. Given that Wikipedia is a very important site, this seems to show that few "real life" users and parents actually have experience significant problems in that matter.)
So, in a nutshell: I would like the discussion to stick to real problems and solutions, not to go into societal reform or fancy hypotheses. Thanks. David.Monniaux 19:20, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
- There have certainly been more complaints than that about explicit images in general - although, as far as I can remember, all were related to vandalism. Of course, I only get some of the Foundation mail, some is replied to by Jimbo or the board directly - so there may have been others I'm not aware of. I don't think this is really a good measure of opinion actually. For such a large site, we have a rather small amount of mail, there are too many other ways of expressing opinions - with the wiki itself as well as mailing lists and IRC - very few people actually find and use the email addresses. And those that do, tend to be those that don't understand Wikipedia anyway -- sannse (talk) 11:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've never seen either anybody complaining about real children having seen explicit content on the talk pages etc. (but, admittedly, I don't monitor those topics, nor do I often browse the complaints on village pump).
- Admittedly, there can be reasons for this. My impression is that a kid who ends up on an explicit article will have to have looked for it — you don't end up on "sodomy" by accident, I think. I don't see parents complaining that their kid willfully researched a sexual topic and ended up on sexually explicit material — sounds too much like admitting that their kid is not the little innocent angel that they pretend he or she is. The same applies to teachers probably — would somebody admit that they left a bunch of 9 year olds surfing on the Internet (on which there's some unfiltered content far worse than WP, probably), then complain that they found mature content?
- Still, I'd prefer if we stuck to real complaints by real people. David.Monniaux 11:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'd have problems if someone insisted on, say, inserting pictures of people ski-ing in the nude in an article about ski-ing. An article about sunbathing, it would be acceptable because many people sunbathe in the nude. So I think it comes down to appropriateness. This applies to violence and sex as well as to simple nudity.
- On children, I think that sooner rather than later someone will come along and produce a mirrored subset of Wikipedia suitable for children--or rather, parents who don't want their children to see this or that. The Wiki environment really isn't suitable for unsupervised children. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:38, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think David.Monniaux and Tony Sidaway raise some very important issues. I agree with them on certain points.
- I agree with David that we don't necesarily need to take into account all possible jurisdictions and opinions. I also agree with the thought that many complaints do not reach us for all the reasons cited above. However, the laws of the United States and Florida apply to this project whether anyone has complained or not. And they apply no matter what the topic of the article is. If we violate those laws, the next "complaint" we get could come from a state prosecutor or federal agency in the form of legal charges.
- I agree with Tony that different images will be appropriate for an article about a sexual topic than for a non-sexual topic. But that still leaves us with deciding exactly what is appropriate for these different types of articles. In this, we need to be guided by what the law says, as well as what is likely to serve the greatest number of readers in the greatest way.
- I disagree with the assertion that we shouldn't consider hypothetical examples. Planning for the future always involves hypotheticals and probabilities. We need to plan for our future vs just reacting to what has happened in the past. The key is that we need to ask ourselves if the hypotheticals represent realistic likelihoods, and do they lead us to make the best overall decision for the project.
- I also disagree that a person who comes to a sexually orientied page should expect or be prepared to see sexually explicit images. Imagine somone who has used a traditional (dead tree) encyclopedia. It would not feature a photograph of a man masturbating, so why would they expect to see one here? Imagine someone who is encountering the word autofellatio for the first time? The context may not be enough for them to figure out what the word means. They could go to that article without even realizing it is on a sexually explicit topic. As is often pointed out (sometimes by the same people who claim that worrying about US laws is too American-centric) not all of our readers are native English speakers. These people could easily be shocked if they went to that page and saw a photo of someone performing that sex act. Before anyone objects on grounds that there is no harm in shocking people, I hasten to point out that the fact of the law indicates otherwise if this is a minor encounting sexually explicit material. These are hypothetical, but realistic examples of how our choices in images can adversly affect the goals of the project. Johntex 16:55, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think David.Monniaux and Tony Sidaway raise some very important issues. I agree with them on certain points.
- Well I'm pretty sure that none of the pictures we're displaying in context need worry us on legal grounds. Wikipedia has legal staff to deal with that kind of thing and they'll let us know if there's a problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:05, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I think you are correct about the images we currently have displayed. However, I don't believe that would be the case for the photo that was removed. It would be nice if the powers that be would have the legal staff make a very clear statement of what is or is not acceptable. Otherwise, I don't think we can take much comfort from the thought that "they'll let us know if there is a problem". I seriously doubt we are paying a lawyer to periodically look at each page for problems. Johntex 17:37, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that we have to consider the legal framework of the jurisdictions that can realistically prosecute the Foundation, its regional chapters, their officers or contributors (which probably excludes Iran, but includes Florida and the US federal government). This, however, is based on legal criteria, not on opinions about what could possibly be shocking to (sometimes hypothetical) people. While what is shocking or not differs between cultures, sub-cultures, and people, we can at least go to firmer grounds by simply considering the relevant legal frameworks.
I also agree about the probabilities and hypothetical examples. My point is that, given the huge traffic that Wikipedia gets, we apparently do not receive complaints about real minors having seen sexually explicit material by accident (except vandalism); to me, this indicates that the event is rare.
As for encountering stuff by accident: I agree that one may look up a word without even knowing that it has sexual meaning (though I think that most people, including minors, looking up sexual words do so knowing they have a sexual meaning, without necessarily knowing the details). I personally support putting pictures etc. in a position in the article or in sub-pages such that it's difficult to reach them without knowing very well that one is looking at sexually explicit material. I note that we have a "spoiler warning" message, we could have a "sexually explicit material ensues" message.
I would like opinions from US legal experts, but I reckon that if a minor willfully gets access to explicit material after being told about the expliciteness of the material, then there is no grounds for complaint.
I would also know what the criteria applied by US jurisdictions. As far as I know, "pornography" is defined differently from "sexually explicit material"; it is sexually explicit material that has a goal of exciting prurient interest in the reader. Merely showing genitals or a penis, or a clinical depiction of a sexual act, is not pornography by this definition.
But, see — we agree on the basics: we have to go back to discussion on objective factors (legal factors that could reasonably affect the project, etc.) and leave aside societal rants. Thanks! David.Monniaux 06:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Agreeing fully with David.Monniaux's of the matter, I'd like to expose a technical point about drawings and photogaphs.
- The use of drawings, as opposed to photographs, seems to be universally accepted (any correction or nuance about this ?); from this, clear-line drawings could be seen as a good compromise, in that it might appropriately illustrate the article and avoid shocking the people who dislike photographs.
- However, we can already see some limitations to drawings; for instance, in the autofellatio article, the clear-line drawing seems unrealistic -- and therefore gratuitous; but it was drawn from a photograph. In some other cases, drawings might be unrealisable for some reason, like in the (non-sexual) case of burn. These are just examples, other cases might arise.
- The "exclusion of all sexually explicit images" has been alluded to here. Obviously, it is unlikely that a consensus would ban clear-line drawings (Chances are that this suggestion was refering to photographs anyway). In the light of the examples above, and with the reserve that we can resort to linking and such, I suggest that we ponder the matter very carefully, considering all technical issues, should we design any form of policy which might limit our ability to include any suitable media deemed needed to illustrate articles. Rama 06:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
What would Johnson do?
A prudish lady once accosted the learned Samuel Johnson shortly after publication of his monumental dictionary of the English language.
Said she, "Dr. Johnson, I am distressed that your dictionary contains so many vulgar words."
Replied Johnson, 'Madam, I am immeasurably distressed that you actually looked them up!"
- An irrelevant aside. -Willmcw 19:24, Apr 30, 2005 (UTC)
- Oh no, I think it's wonderfully relevant. We get a few self-appointed morality crusaders who usually start off by saying that they're normally the last person to advocate censorship, but... --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- I object to the statement that what we have here is "a few self-appointed morality crusaders". Perhaps I am misunderstaning your post.
- Are you applying this label to everyone who wants to exclude a particular image? If so, then you are mistaken. For example, I am not a self appointed morality crusader. A look at my edits should show this. I only attempt to make the project better. You are welcome to disagree with my interpretation of "better" but it is clear from the commentary here on this page that many people have similar (certainly not identical) views to mine.
- Alternatively, do you mean to say that only some of the people arguing against including an image fit your description of moral crusaders? If this is the case then I suggest you try to be more clear in who you are describing. Your post above seems to imply that that once you dismiss a small handful of moral crusaders, there are no other objections to the image. Is that what you mean to say? If so, then you are understating the amount of opposition to inclusion.
- Either way, your post seems unfortunate. You seem to be either painting people unfairly with a broad brush, or you downplaying the the fact that there are a lot of people here who do not accept inclusion of the image. Johntex 17:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
- To clarify, no I don't read your posts as morality-based at all. Rather, you seem to think that there is a legal problem. There isn't. I do get rather tired of reading objections based on hypothetical problems (and even, in your case, false claims that a rough consensus exists--as when you falsely claimed that there was one that the photograph was pornographic. In a phrase, I'm tired and I welcome the humor. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- Hi Tony, thanks for your clarification. We will have to disagree on the legal issue until someone issues authoritative guidelines. Until then, I stand by my assertion that Florida law would be against displaying these types of images to people under the age of 18. I also stand by my previous claim that there was a rough consensus against the previous photograph. But perhaps I need to clarify what I meant by rough consensus. I was just counting up the number of people who had written for and against its conclusion. I don't remember the numbers, but the majority was (and is) in favor of removing the image. I chose the phrase "rough consensus" since I just made an informal count and since the number of comments was small. The term "majority" might have been a better choice. Johntex 14:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
- There's a simple solution about that problem: get legal advice from somebody knowledgeable in Florida and US law. I'll try asking Jimmy Wales, because of his activities with Bomis he probably has appropriate legal counsels. David.Monniaux 16:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
US TV broadcasting stuff
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)
- I'd be curious if smeone could explain what Anderson said, by the way... Rama 07:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Rubber duck?
Why is the deletion of this highly out-of-place image being reverted? Even if vibrators are being de-dramatized, a typical vibrator doesn't look a thing like this; why would you have it featured in an article that explains what masturbation generally consists of?
- 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)
The image was deleted again, with "Vandalism out" as the comment. I have reverted it -- the image is certainly not vandalism, regardless of how controversial it is. --me_and 2 July 2005 21:13 (UTC)
A user with no experience of vibrators who navigates to this page will be extremely mislead by a picture of a rubber duck in the absence of any other photos. it should be removed or replaced.
Advanced Masturbation External Link
The resource Pacian suggested above, I found it rather interesting. Shouldn't an external link to it be added?, the homepage of such website is text-only so an 'explicit-images' warning shouldn't be required. The URL is as follows. http://advancedmasturbation.com/ I am not going to put this article in my watchlist, so I'd ask the next person who sees this to please add the link if he finds it would add an extra value to the article. I, personally, think it would do. I must also add, regarding the above discussion on wheter to add explicit images to the article or not... shouldn't those photographs be included, but in the shape of a text link to the photograph?. I took the idea from the Autofellatio article, as seen at 31 May 2005. (Note: I read THE WHOLE discussion) Pentalis 31 May 2005.
Judaism
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)
Joseph was supposed to have 12 tribes like Moses. Because he spilt 10 drops of semen, he only had 2 tribes.
Corn flakes
The idea that eating cornflakes would discourage masturbation is one that I've known of for a while, but I've been having a minor debate about whether this is actually true, and would appreciate another source for that, if anyone knows of one. --me_and 2 July 2005 15:37 (UTC)
Law question.
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)
User:Mikkalai's reversions
User:Mikkalai keeps reverting the {{linkimage}} link to Image:Masturbation.jpg, saying "This man is not masturbating, just showing his cock", and "the man in the photo is not masturbating. Prove it." May I ask what proof would be appropriate? A video, perhaps? I have images of the result, if that would help him. Regardless, the image is quite obviously one of masturbation, and I don't know what Mikkalai thinks masturbation looks like. I relalize I've been bold by editing the page itself, but the discussion about the use of images seems to have stagnated. My proposal was to place the image in a {{linkimage}} box, like the autofellation image. What are people's opinions? Warbler1 9 July 2005 17:49 (UTC)
- Nothing can help me. If you cannot produce and unambiguous image, it is not my problem.
- The image is quite obviously a guy holding his dick for an unknown reason. May be he is a dick fetishist or a flasher, or narcissist, may be he wants to pee upon himself (and this is not a joke; some people suggest to use the urine for medical purposes), whatever. This is an encyclopedia article, and the images must clearly display the topic in question. If you cannot prove it is related, the image is out.
- I don't care whether you show linked or full screen; the only my requirement is that the image should be encyclopedic, i.e., it must show what the aricle talks about. The deleted images do not. mikka (t) 20:30, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- That's ridiculous. What do you mean the picture's ambiguous? The guy in the line drawing is "just holding his dick" as well. Is he a "dick fetishist"? The guy in the photograph, I assume Warbler1 (it says ("selfpic"), is obviously masturbating. If you're just trolling, however, let's start being serious. Please stop deleting photos and drawings, and stop re-arranging all the images. - Madd4Max 21:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- Before throwing accusations about trolling, it is usually recommended to inspect user's contributions first. I have neither history of trolling, nor of antisexual censorship.
- That's ridiculous. What do you mean the picture's ambiguous? The guy in the line drawing is "just holding his dick" as well. Is he a "dick fetishist"? The guy in the photograph, I assume Warbler1 (it says ("selfpic"), is obviously masturbating. If you're just trolling, however, let's start being serious. Please stop deleting photos and drawings, and stop re-arranging all the images. - Madd4Max 21:04, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
- "What do you mean?" It means that the picture does not provide a clue what exactly happens there. If someone learns about masturbation from this article, then watching at half of pictures or statues of Venus or Eve they will conclude that Venus and Eve are masturbating (as you know, in Middle Ages they used to draw these gals with one arm covering her private parts). I am aware that other images are not better, but unlike possible trolling I don't delete them, because I understand that it is reasonable to show at least something. But several unhelpful pictures are useless. And the guy on the foto is not obviously masturbating. To the variants I listed above I may add that he is getting ready to be straddled by a woman. And with a bit of sexual experience one may provide even more explanations. Of course, if the authors of this article know nothing else... mikka (t) 04:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- if the authors of this article know nothing else...
- Comments such as this are not helpful. Please keep personal attacks out of Wikipedia. If you can't find consensus without them, don't try and find consensus at all. --me_and 19:56, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- If someone who likes to see a picture of penis takes a dirty joke for a personal attack, it cannot be helped, dear you_and. mikka (t) 21:20, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
- "What do you mean?" It means that the picture does not provide a clue what exactly happens there. If someone learns about masturbation from this article, then watching at half of pictures or statues of Venus or Eve they will conclude that Venus and Eve are masturbating (as you know, in Middle Ages they used to draw these gals with one arm covering her private parts). I am aware that other images are not better, but unlike possible trolling I don't delete them, because I understand that it is reasonable to show at least something. But several unhelpful pictures are useless. And the guy on the foto is not obviously masturbating. To the variants I listed above I may add that he is getting ready to be straddled by a woman. And with a bit of sexual experience one may provide even more explanations. Of course, if the authors of this article know nothing else... mikka (t) 04:03, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
Masturbation: Frequency, Age and Sex
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)
Another law question
- 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)
Attitudes to FEMALE masturbation?
The "Medical attitudes" section seems almost exlusively to deal with male masturbation, and ought to be expanded (by someone more knowledgable than me on the subject) to include (for instance) the treatment of hysteria with genital stimualtion and the Freudean attitudes towards clitoral and vaginal orgasms. I think. --Birdseed 22:02, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
Very Satanic entry
This entry doesn't talk enough about how God hates anyone that performs this evil act
- If you have a sourced quote from God to that effect then go ahead and add it. -Willmcw 07:15, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Though, of course, only if they were made in peer-reviewed journals. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 10:27, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
Your god hates everyone, repressed guy. Wait, isn't this the year 2005? Have I travelled back in time? --80.58.9.42 16:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
- I heard God is a major wanker. --Tothebarricades 17:20, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Delete anon edits with no citations???
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)
Diaper/Fetish-specific information
I've removed the two paragraphs (+misc.) specific to masturbation with diapers. There are simply too many fetishes to include them all in this article. Some people masturbate using toy stuffed animals. Others use various food products. The list goes on and on. There isn't room to include all of the possibilities without changing the topic of this article from masturbation to a list of fetishes (which already exists in another article). Any fetish-specific masturbation info belongs in the article on that fetish, not in the article about masturbationl. --Icarus 06:10, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- I concur. In a similar matter, I propose that the article shouldn't become a "how-to" manual. There are countless techniques imaginable, and any attempt to describe them in detail would quickly become either salacious or boring. I don't know where verifiability or NPOV would fit in. The external links can cover the "nuts and bolts". If editors want to create a "how-to" manual then Wikibooks is the appropriate ___location-Willmcw 09:33, September 4, 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry for reverting the first time they were removed (by User:222.153.110.109)... seeing an anon edit on recent changes, blanking paragraphs, with no edit summary, immediately registers high on my vandalismometer, usually followed by a quick click of the revert button... Edit summaries are your friend. :) Bushytails 17:04, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm the same way! When I was an anonymous editor, I didn't understand the predjudice against anonymous editors... How naive I was, lol! --Icarus 18:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- Wow... Real vigilantes..? Right here..? --Nigelj 18:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
- No worries, I'm the same way! When I was an anonymous editor, I didn't understand the predjudice against anonymous editors... How naive I was, lol! --Icarus 18:16, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Guilt, etc.
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)
some changes to the Masterbation#Law section
There is some information that I added to the Masterbation#Law section that has been edited further. To me, it seems like the changes really mangled things and reduced the quality of the content. I might just be taking things personally though, and I wanted to check with others.
In my local legal jurisdiction, displaying ones genitals in public is "indecent exposure", and public sexual gratification of the genitals (either through masterbation or public sexual intercourse) is "lewd and lascivious" behavior. (The authorities will likely charge someone for indecent exposure even though they could be also charged for the more serious crime). My first problem with the way things currently read is that way separate links are given for the word lewd and the word lascivious implies that they are two separate things. Legally, the term "lewd and lascivious" is a single item, similar to the legal terms "cease and desist" or "breaking and entering". The single term may be look like it is composed of english words, but it really has a separate legal definition. Then the addition of the term "dissolute" behavior, which I don't think has any specific legal definition. Even worse is the addition of the "both of which are misdemeanors". The link I added to the Massachusetts General Laws shows "Open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior" as being a felony in that state.
Am I being overly senstive here? Or were the changes to that section really destrimental?
- I'm not a lawyer, but I can see a potential problem here if we are to list or try cater for the all the various laws, by-laws, misdemeanors and case law interpretations of every jurisdiction of the English-speaking world. This isn't a legal how-to, let alone a 'how-to-get-away-with-it-in public'! It might be better not to go there at all, really. My vote would be that the section should be simplified to cover only the most general and universal principles of most laws. Either that or link to a separate article about sex and the law or something like that. --Nigelj 07:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Oh, and please sign your posts, e.g with --~~~~ --Nigelj 07:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- Your arguments seem to on whether the Law section should be there in the first place, not whether it was at its most accurate before I made my changes, after I made my changes, or after Joy made their changes. I'd be fine if it was taken out entirely. It wasn't too inaccurate before I worked on it, but I feel that the changes made after me decreased the amount of factual information *and* increased the amount of incorrect information. But of course, I might be viewing this emotionally, and so feel free to tell me that I'm wrong. I wouldn't say my complaints are specific to my local jurisdiction. Most states in the United States have laws against "lewd and lascivious" behavior, so my argument that it is different that "lewd" or "lascivious" remains. (and "lewd and lascivious" is a term that I assume predates the founding of the US, so I don't think it is unique to there.) There may be some state by state differences on whether "lewd and lascivious" can cover masterbation (or if it needs a partner), but it is very often not a misdemeaner either.
--68.163.232.196 21:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
- I made the changes because the phrase "lewd and lascivious behaviour" that was there before was an apparent copy&paste from the Florida law. Other US states, and undoubtedly other English-speaking legal jurisdictions, do not necessarily use the same phrase - in at least one of them I found "dissolute", and others had "indecent". I noted that they were misdemeanours because that noun signifies a lesser offence in the jurisdictions that distinguish misdemeanors from felonies; in jurisdictions that just have variously designated degrees of felonies, the mention of misdemeanours is not particularly relevant, but it's also not really confusing (esp. given that one can click the link and see what is meant by it).
- As far as the semantic issue, I did not read all the available legal statutes to verify that it's a lesser offence everywhere, but those that I did read were such so I interpolated. If this was wrong - please correct it.
- (I'm not watching this article so notices on user talk page would be appreciated.) --Joy [shallot] 12:48, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
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)