Disputatio:Masturbatio

Iacobe, I don't understand the addition of "animalis", i.e. of animals, in your sentence. And I think voluntary should remain. Alexanderr 04:54, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some non-human animals masturbate too. But, Iacobe, I'm not sure I understand "vel donandam": are you refering to "mutual masturbation" and other forms of hand-genital sex-acts? Because while we sometimes use "masturbation" to describe these things in English, I'm not sure that's proper in Latin. Or are you refering to voyeuristic pleasure? --Iustinus 05:02, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Alexanderr, it's been observed in many hundreds of species now. (As for same-sex masturbation: an anthropological museum in I think Sweden is currently running an exhibition documenting it in about 1,500 species; so I read a few months ago.) A few years ago, even PBS (the noncommercial broadcasting network in the United States) aired a sequence showing male porpoises ("dolphins") doing it: because of the shape of their bodies, obviously, it takes cooperation by two or more of them to do it; my memory is that five or six of them did it together. ¶ I wasn't sure about donandam, but what I was getting at is the idea of giving & receiving: two or more can & do do it to each other, and that fact should be in the first sentence or two. IacobusAmor 05:14, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, again, we do sometimes refer to that as masturbation in ENglish (we can even use the verb transitively), but I'm not sure that usage is paralleled in Latin. --Iustinus 05:37, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we use "of" to represent "by" in latin? Alexanderr 05:05, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. You will note that the genitive exactly parallels the original phrasing. But you're right, this does create a problem in that there's no longer any reflexivity. As I note above, it is possible Iacobus did that deliberately. --Iustinus 05:06, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See explanation above. Just a start, of course. I'll suggest adjustments to the whole structure of the article in a few minutes. IacobusAmor 05:14, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can it not be seen though as Person + stimulate + animal's + genitals? Alexanderr 05:16, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Iacobe, you meant "maris vel feminae" as nouns, right? If so - my mistake. I thought they were adjectives... Alexanderr 05:24, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what "Masturbatio est excitatio organorum genitalium hominis vel animalis, maris vel feminae, plerumque ad accipiendam vel donandam voluptatem" is trying to say: "M. is the excitation of the genital organs of a human or an animal, whether a male or a female, usually for (the purpose of) giving or receiving pleasure." Voluntary has to go because M. (like other kinds of sex) may not always be voluntary; for the same reason, usually should be there. The animals should be there. The sexes should be there. Orgasm should perhaps be mentioned. The first sentence should be the most general possible ; I imagine though that it could be shorter, and some of these details could come later. Just top-of-the-head ideas! IacobusAmor 05:35, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "usually for (the purpose of) giving or receiving pleasure." Perhaps this should be expanded to something like "pleasure, and/or to obtain relief from hormonally driven physical tensions." After all, purpose is a slippery concept: an action can have multiple purposes, and the purely physical sensation of relief (though perhaps pleasurable in itself) will probably be recognized by any adult who is, or has been, a male. This point might be even more pertinent for nonhumans, which presumably have a less than human intellectual appreciation of cause & effect. IacobusAmor 15:18, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And why can't "Ea carente et propositium procreativum et propostium conciliativum praesens in vero verbo coitu, visitur conspectu Ecclesiae Catholicae Romanae et ecclesiarum ritualum occidentalum sui iuris eius inordinatam esse." at least be before the index box? Alexanderr 05:41, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure exactly what it's trying to say; but from what I understand, it's irrelevant at that point in the text: neither condemnations nor approbations belong there: they should come later, after the activity and its effects are described & recounted—neutrally, nonjudgmentally, without prejudice. Look at the article in the English-language wiki. IacobusAmor 05:47, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexanderr, do we really have to explain this to you? --Iustinus 05:43, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But does the sentence fit with the quotes in the Christianitas section? Besides it clearly labels in whose conspectus it is. Alexanderr 05:45, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's the opinion of a certain Christian institution, so it aptly fits under the heading of Christianitas. IacobusAmor 05:48, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, not The Catholic Encyclopedia. I mean, Jacob and Josh are atheists. I'm a Jew. Do you want us putting the opinions of our favored school of thought in the opening paragraph of Ecclesia Catholica? Furthermore, like it or not, there's no reasonable excuse to favor Catholicism over other religions here. And given that, once you mention what one religion says, you're kind of obligated to let other religions have their say. The opening paragraph would collapse under the weight. --Iustinus 06:32, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I mean, Jacob and Josh are atheists."—Ahem! I'm an Episcopalian ; that's why I tend to remind our friend that the Nicaean wording "Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church," which Episcopalians retain in their Credo, includes Anglicans (and Lutherans), people that the Roman church and its affiliates (and even many quick-speaking Episcopalians) tend to leave out when they think of catholics. That aside, everything Iustinus writes immediately above is appropriate to the discussion, and undoubtedly true. IacobusAmor 15:18, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh, even better! --Iustinus 20:00, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And ::ahem::, I am agnostic! =] (As well as an ex-catholic) But the point made is a good one. We could easily express our opinion of the catholic church in the opening paragraph, and not even just opinion, actual facts that tarnish its image. As that article stands now, it might as well be a sale's brochure. This is not encyclopaedic though. We keep having to remind you that you chose to work at an Encyclopaedia. You must act accordingly.--Ioshus ^(disp) 15:27, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sorry to have misrepresented the both of you. But the point still stands that, irrespective of my misidentifications of your religious statuses, both of you have plenty to say about Catholicism which Alexanderr would not like to see in the lemmatic definition of the Roman Catholic Church! --Iustinus 20:00, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iustinus, I thought I remembered you said you were jewish somewhere, but I didn't remember where exactly. Anyway, if you want to add content on Judaism - sure that's fine by me, however I don't think that this is article is equivilant to either Ecclesia Catholica or, for that matter, Religio Judaica. And I'm not sure how in depth catholic encyclopedia goes into this topic - in fact I'm unsure as to whether or not they even have an article on this topic. Alexanderr 10:28, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more try: in an encyclopedic enterprise, the first thing that needs establishing for any lemma is what the thing is ; people's & institutions' interpretations of what it is, and what it means to them, are another thing altogether: as social facts, they deserve to be reported in their own right—but not at the start, before the reality of what the the thing is has been established. If the article were to be only two sentences long, the second sentence could conceivably be a statement that some people & institutions (to be listed) approve of the thing, and other people & institutions (to be listed) disapprove of it; but as you see from a fuller outline, this lemma can easily have a hundred times as many sentences, and various speculative interpretations of the thing accordingly belong much farther down in the article, after the extended definition and more reality-based interpretations (i.e., scientific & medical) have been explored. ¶ Also, if you're going to give the view of a particular club, it would be best to ground it historically, with dates showing when each doctrine came into favor: rather than saying "the doctrine of club X is that blablabla," it would be better to say "Since 19xx, when the club's highest-ranking officer Y made a specific pronouncement in his publication Z, the doctrine of club X has been that blablabla." The reason for that is that the doctrine will eventually change—and to accommodate such change, absolute dating works better than relative dating. IacobusAmor 15:36, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree..

that the page will be ampliated with the new sections. It was not my intention to favour the catholic religion. I wanted only to start a new page with the information I had at the moment at my disposal--Massimo Macconi 08:25, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with that. But as you say, that was meant to be a short-term structure, and in the long term it makes more sense to do it Iacobus' way. Just trying to convince Alexanderr of that. --Iustinus 08:35, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Onanism

Multi studiosi Bibliae aestimant tamen in hoc episodio de damnatione coiti interrupti et non masturbationis agitur.

This is an understatement. That passage features absolutely no reference to masturbation, so it is ridiculous that that is the meaning "onanism" has acquired. The reason masturbation is involved at all is that the reason for Onan's damnation is usually assumed to be the wasting of semen for non-precreative purposes. But other interpretations are possible: a religious Catholic friend of mine actually once made a very good argument that what got Onan in trouble was his attempt to circumvent the Levirite Marriage. --Iustinus 23:01, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Bear in mind though that, according to en:, intercrural stimulation—presumably what Onan did with his wife? (coitus interruptus? coitus reservatus?)—is the second-most-popular method of achieving same-sex orgasm (after mutual manual stimulation and before oral stimulation). Webster Collegiate's first definition of onanism (as the term is used in English) is "masturbation." IacobusAmor 02:37, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this was intercrural. The bible does specify introiens. --Iustinus 17:12, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Id explicare conatus sum. --Alex1011 23:19, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etymologia

Nonne est verbum Latinum masturbari (deponens)? et sensus originalis 'gaudium se dare'? Dicit Oxford English Dictionary formam Anglicam masturbation venisse de participio Latino masturbat-, e verbo masturbari vel mastiturbari, e nomine substantivo turba 'disturbance'. Etymologiam manus + stuprare appellat veterem coniecturam ("an old conjecture"). Quis verbis Latinis masturbari et masturbatio primum usus est? et quando? IacobusAmor 15:58, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Equidem recte dicis verbum temporale esse deponens, sed veriloquium non pro certo notum est. Prior pars fortasse a manu derivatur, fortasse a mare, altera pars fortasse a turbando fortasse a suptrano. Re vera haec omnia sunt coniecturae, et sat vanae... nisi fallor et veterrimae. Fortasse nihilominus commemorandae.

Olim in classe quadam de historia linguarum nobis datum est pensum scholasticum de commentationibus academicis existimandis. Aliquis nostrum existimavit symbolen de etymologia masturbationis. Ille dixit commentationem sat bonam esse, sed nimium edidisse verborum lusus, sicut "These conjectures are getting out of hand" etc. ;) --Iustinus 17:10, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oblitus sum dicere: "Ludovicum et Brevem" non dare exempla nisi in martialem et in glossariis. Sine dubio sunt aliae attestationes, sed utcumque L&S credunt vocem esse post-Augustanam. --Iustinus 17:13, 11 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

masturbantur...

...seems rather middle to me... Shouldn't we use a transitive to distinguish between the use mentioned above, mainly one where one "masturbates" another?--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:21, 13 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Die 11 Decembris 2023 — Neutralitas dubia

Haec est disputatio petitoria Vicipaediae quae ad formulam {{Neutralitas dubia}} attinet, die 11 Decembris 2023 paginae additam.

Hic neutralitas mihi videtur esse dubia (pars heri addita est):

Masturbatio peccatum mortale est, utpote fini primario matrimonii et copulae matrimonialis directe contrarium et fidei conjugali adversum, tamquam merus abusus organorum genitalium contra ordinem a Deo et natura institutum, quo rem nobilissimam pervertunt in turpissimum actum passionis ignominiae: caret enim debito ordine ad finem suum naturalem et ad bonum speciei. Unde malitia actui est intrinseca, adeo ut nulla causa quamvis urgenti cohonestari valeat.

Fontes et auctoritatem sententiarum referre oportet (e.g. “Secundum Ecclesiam Catholicam …”). --Grufo (disputatio) 08:15, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Haud necesse erat omne supra recitare :) Tibi consentior. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:35, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ille est effectus formula {{subst:petitio|neutralitas dubia|… Lorem ipsum …}} utendi: pars dubia (“… Lorem ipsum …”) sponte in pagina disputationis recitatur – sed, revera, cum meam sententiam scribam partem memoratam removere possum. Tibi aliquando una e nostris formulis petitioni faventibus per petitionem experienda est! :-) --Grufo (disputatio) 09:49, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Profecto. Mihi in mente retineo, quod olim in The World and Wikipedia (2009) scripsi:

"There’s a curious paradox at the heart of Wikipedia. The articles, which are supposed to become definitive and stable, are in reality endlessly mutable; an added detail may very soon disappear again, and article histories are seldom visited. But the talk pages, which seem so obviously ephemeral and forgettable, are in reality permanent. However silly and inconsequential the talk may be, however potentially embarrassing to editors or to the people they are arguing about, it’s preserved and displayed for years."

Disputatores saepe verba inurbana aut falsa e pagina encyclopaedica in paginam disputationis recitant: quo faciens, immortalitatem his verbis conferunt. Rarissime, si necesse sit, tales citationes e pagina disputationis deleo. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:57, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Verum est. Apud Vicipaediam Anglicam est grex robotorum quae disputationes vetustiores in archivum stipant, at nobis non sunt usores de rebus informaticis (preasertim mediavicialibus) sic periti ut simile mechanema excogitare possint. Sed nos archiva manufacere possumus! E.g. Disputatio:Rosa/Archivum 1, Disputatio:Rosa/Archivum 2, et cetera… --Grufo (disputatio) 16:54, 11 Decembris 2023 (UTC)[reply]