Template:Vital article

body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents
Former featured article candidateMasturbation is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 21, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality B‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 8 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mcclendond (article contribs).

Research presenting a negative correlation between the frequency of masturbation and various mental and physical benefits is not presented in the article

I've just had a look around some research in this area, and it looks like there is a notable amount of research which together presents a negative correlation between masturbation and many positive traits (e.g. happiness, schizophrenia, erectile function, body fatness, depression etc.), as reviewed in the paper "The Relative Health Benefits of Different Sexual Activities" by Stuart Brody in The Journal of Sexual Medicine. I feel that this research should be presented in this article in the health effects section, especially as a statement to the contrary (i.e. "It is held in many mental health circles that masturbation can relieve depression and lead to a higher sense of self-esteem") is included in this section.

Thing789 (talk) 14:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Full cite: Brody, Stuart (April 2010). "The Relative Health Benefits of Different Sexual Activities". The Journal of Sexual Medicine. 7 (4): 1336–1361. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2009.01677.x.--Auric talk 15:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Masturbation/Archive 12#Brody, Talk:Masturbation/Archive 10#The bald claim that NO causal harm is known from masturbation is false. This is an important error on a "top importance" page on sexuality. and Talk:Masturbation/Archive 4#Brody Articles, Prominent Health Warnings, Etc. In short: Brody violates WP:RS/AC, WP:UNDUE and perhaps WP:FRINGE. Those in the know tend to think that Brody is a marginal researcher because he is a victim of his own poor methodology. He either receives socially desirable answers like "the penis size of my partner is rather big" or he asks his respondents to answer in one minute to what really needs 20-30 years of accurate record keeping (i.e. faulty memory). Everybody here is expected to abide by WP:MEDRS, which basically says that peer-reviewed articles have to be indexed for MEDLINE and be systematic reviews of literature (i.e. both conditions have to apply in order to make medical claims for Wikipedia). Oh, yes, I saw the paper, it is mostly a review by Brody of papers by Brody and his close co-workers. As previously noted, Brody failed to produce the scientific revolution he still champions, e.g. failed to convince the DSM-5 team that his POV would be worth considering. And in ICD-11 things do not go better for him than in DSM-5. Excessive masturbation already was in ICD-10, but it does not use the addiction model and the Merck Manual spells out what it means to masturbate excessively (already cited in our article). AFAIK, the medical orthodoxy is against Brody and citing him would have to fulfill WP:EXTRAORDINARY. He wanted to do unto Kinsey, Masters and Johnson what the Intelligent Design movement wants to do unto Darwin. But he couldn't talk the talk and walk the walk. If he would have succeeded, he would have gained world fame. But he didn't. In any science or academic field there are winners and losers. Wikipedia simply does not side with the losing factions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:09, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actively championing one viewpoint and the removal of all others is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Wikipedia is not censored. Your job as an editor job is NOT to remove all views opposing a consensus. Simply state and cite the multiple viewpoints and - if warranted - then declare which is the academic consensus. That declaration is what requires the higher standards of WP:RS/AC and even WP:Fringe in no way justifies the removal of opposing viewpoints. This is not a win/lose scenario and viewing Wikipedia in such absolutist terms is frankly bizarre for such an experienced editor. Lexlex (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are incorrect. The sources used must meet the standard outlined at WP:MEDRS. Please study that. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:15, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, attempting to use a Wikipedia policy clearly aimed at preventing medical misinformation as a rationale to censor viewpoints you don't agree with doesn't work. Masturbation is a human behavioral topic, not biomedical information. Unless you can show other instances of WP:MEDRS being used to remove opposing viewpoints on behavioral topics, I'm calling this wishful thinking on your part. Lexlex (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, if Brody's view gained sufficient traction in the academia, we'd have to mention it. But it didn't. So it fails both WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. It also fails WP:REDFLAG since it is contrary to the common wisdom in the academia, and extraordinary evidence is required for extraordinary claims. And, yes, it fails WP:MEDRS because it is a pathetic attempt at writing a systematic review (you don't review just papers by yourself and by your pals). We don't mention random papers because of Wikipedia:Why MEDRS?#Primary scientific literature is exceptionally unreliable in biology. Similarly, we don't present the views of Mantak Chia on this topic because he is a kook lacking any medical and psychological degrees. We just aren't Debatepedia. You might want to read WP:GOODBIAS: we aren't in the business of WP:RGW, nor we promote sexual pseudoscience. WP:FRINGE justifies the removal of opposing viewpoints, see WP:ONEWAY for details. What we don't do is pretend that WP:RS/AC and marginal opinions are equally valid, nor that they deserve equal respect. And it has been advanced as a medical claim about depression (mood), so there is no way around WP:MEDRS: ignoring MEDRS requirements is simply not an option for medical claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My 'attitude', and that of Wikipedia (arrived at through consensus) is that we don't write about bullcrap except in articles on the subject of bullcrap - and when we do we say 'this is bullcrap' in big shiny letters...

— AndyTheGrump, [1]
Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The very Wikipedia policies you've cited don't justify removal of reliable content, all of them merely state that undue weight must not be given to non-mainstream ideas. Your attempt to use these policies as rationale to censor shows you may be conflating reliable sources with mainstream ideas. That's not how it works: different views should be included, and those that might be considered fringe, etc. are merely referenced and included without undue weight. Using these polices as justification club to remove cited content and present only the mainstream view is not what they're for. Do you see my point? Lexlex (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're wrong. We do not cite antivaxxers in articles about vaccines. Same applies to this article: Brody's bizarre views do not belong in the article and they aren't bona fide medical science, but an exercise in self-delusion. See me at WP:FTN. Tgeorgescu (talk) 06:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're making an argument to censor based on a logical fallacy (argument from authority). It simply doesn't work. Lexlex (talk) 07:29, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:VERECUNDIAM. And, yes, it fails WP:MEDRS because it is a pathetic attempt at writing a systematic review (you don't review just papers by yourself and by your pals). To be sure, this applies to other papers by Brody, not the present one. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:37, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, Brody figures prominently upon AIDS denialism websites, specifically for his claims that for people who practice PVI only and don't do drugs and blood transfusions, it is more likely to be struck by lightning than getting infected with AIDS through sexual intercourse. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Masturbation

How to far this Masturbation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4064:39D:6A80:41E9:78EC:2F11:85DF (talk) 16:59, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please restate. I don't understand what you write. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Masturbation page is located at Masturbation.--Auric talk 18:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
We'd have to include too many religions, denominations and cults. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) [reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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) [reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Masturbation pictures are being censored

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@Johnuniq: Saying that the policies don't apply because I'm too new to understand them is condescending and violates WP:CONDUCT, 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. VF9 (talk) 05:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categories