Talk:Handjob

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Contents

[edit] Article needs pics

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

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


[edit] How dare you take away my happy ending!

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

[edit] bald headed champ

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

It's not masturbation because it involves different sensations and more than one person. Ultimately, if you are being manually stimulated by a partner and it feels no different than something you could do yourself you are either having sex with your perfect clone or are rather selfish.
The way I always understood it, masturbation doesn't even have to use the hands, you could be using an artificial vagina or a vibrator or whatever. A handjob (obviously) can only use the hands, and unless I'm mistaken always involves a partner. People might say that masturbation is like giving yourself a handjob, which isn't that same thing as equating the two. --Anaraug 16:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] merge with mutual masturbation

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

Masturbation means self-stimulation. Oppose this merge. Exploding Boy 06:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No, masturbation is manual stimulation. It may or may not be self-stimulation. Synergism 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Move to manual genital stimulation

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

The "vast majority of scholars"? I'm going to need to see some references. I have never heard this term. --Strait 18:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Are you a handjob scholar, then?? − Twas Now 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Go to World-Cat and Nexis-Lexis. Type it in. CyberAnth 17:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] possible vandalism of this article?

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

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

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

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

this text is followed by:

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Handwriting on the wall

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


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


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

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

I think that, when dealing with this subject matter, an illustration perhaps resembling one from a medical encyclopedia would be more tasteful, such as the ones in "Gray's Anatomy of the Human Body" or "The Merck Manual of Medical Information."Geomike99 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
A bit gruesome for my taste! --Simon Speed (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)