Bill “Papa” Lee Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 What on earth prompted this thread? Well, I am sure I know what, but has no place here. Or so I would hope!
bluebell Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 2 hours ago, Peacefully said: This isn’t Ahab run amok is it? That is actually a really interesting question. It does kind of sound like him.
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 2 hours ago, Peacefully said: This isn’t Ahab run amok is it? Doubt it. The account has been around for over a decade. 2
Chum Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 2 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Doubt it. The account has been around for over a decade. Saw that too - because went looking for Ahab tracks after the first post. Not considering a long game is in play. Nope.
Popular Post Stargazer Posted January 2, 2022 Popular Post Posted January 2, 2022 On 1/1/2022 at 4:32 PM, dougtheavenger said: The following was made and then immediately censored out of the wiki page on Nocturnal Emissions. "No. A nocturnal emission is not an orgasm. An orgasm after several weeks of celibacy produces a sensation, for males, similar to being kicked in the groin. A nocturnal emission produces no such sensation. A nocturnal emission is an ejeculation of sperm while dreaming absent the ecstasy and/or pain that accompany orgasm via sex or masturbation. In addition, the sperm is at a higher temperature and more liquid than during orgasm and permeates cloth more easily" Within 1 minute of posting this, it was removed from the wiki. Yes, and it should have been. You may think the editor that removed your contribution was censoring you, but if you do, you're wrong. Being a Wikipedia editor myself, I went and had a look at the edit history of the article, and your addendum was ill-placed, out of context, and contained unverified assertions that may in fact be false. "An orgasm after several weeks of celibacy produces a sensation similar to being kicked in the groin" is definitely non-encyclopedic in tone -- especially since such an assertion really requires a source. And as far as I know, it's not true anyway. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a loosely-assembled and un-sourced batch of personal assertions and opinions. And maybe you should employ a spell-checker: it's not "ejeculation." Besides being non-encyclopedic, your addition to the wiki article was more along the lines of a discussion of the topic. Starting with "No.", as if you were refuting something in the article, or believing that you were contributing to message board. Believe it or not, that's not where you put a discussion of the contents of the article. There's a discussion tab specifically for that. The part of the article you were apparently arguing with was this: "A nocturnal emission, informally known as a wet dream, sex dream, nightfall or sleep orgasm, is a spontaneous orgasm during sleep that includes ejaculation for a male, or vaginal wetness or an orgasm (or both) for a female." You insert: "No. A nocturnal emission is not an orgasm." Besides this being an expression of your opinion, and not a documentable fact, of course it bloody well is an orgasm. Much of the text you added made assertions that even I know to be false, or at least not universally experienced. Care to provide a reference for this: "An orgasm after several weeks of celibacy produces a sensation, for males, similar to being kicked in the groin." I won't claim to be anyone other than myself, but I've never experienced this, nor have I ever heard of this. And if this has been your experience, then I submit that you may be an outlier? In fact, pain upon ejaculation after celibacy actually sounds like it might be a medical issue that should be investigated. Your "A nocturnal emission is an ejeculation of sperm while dreaming absent the ecstasy and/or pain that accompany orgasm via sex or masturbation" is also not the case, or at least, it isn't in all cases. Can you document your assertion that there is never any ecstasy in wet dreams? I sincerely doubt it. I can personally refute it, in fact. Do you want the personal TMI? The only part of your addendum that might be appropriate for the article was the text "the sperm is at a higher temperature and more liquid than during orgasm and permeates cloth more easily", because that, at least, was put into the "Composition" section, which is where it would appear to belong. However, can you back up the assertion? Is there a valid source for the information? Your edit to Wikipedia was justly removed. And if you're going to start a career of editing Wikipedia, may I suggest you create an actual account instead of contributing malarkey anonymously? And learn how fact/encyclopedia articles are constructed so you don't turn relatively well-written articles into messes? And why the heck are you coming here to argue about your rejected addition to Wikipedia? 6
Stargazer Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 1 hour ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said: What on earth prompted this thread? Well, I am sure I know what, but has no place here. Or so I would hope! Apparently he got offended that Wikipedia rejected his unsourced, out-of-context, and opinionated addition to an otherwise well-written and informative article. I don't why he thought this forum was a good place to moan about it. 2
Stargazer Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 3 hours ago, Peacefully said: This isn’t Ahab run amok is it? Actually, it doesn't sound like him at all. IMHO. 2
Stargazer Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 (edited) 22 hours ago, Calm said: My guess is there is an editor who makes sure it stays the way he wants it. Did you look at the editing history to see if it had happened before, how often, and if same or multiple editors. As I pointed out to him in a post today (HERE), his edit was crap, and if I had been reviewing it, I would have reverted it immediately. Edited January 2, 2022 by Stargazer added link 1
Stargazer Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said: CFR that having an orgasm after a few weeks of celibacy feels like being kicked in the groin (this is perhaps my most favorite CFR ever issued) It may be something that dougtheavenger (and what is he avenging, anyway?) experiences. If so, I suggest he see a urologist because it sounds like something isn't working right. 2
Stargazer Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 21 hours ago, dougtheavenger said: 22 hours ago, The Nehor said: Many sexually active males who are not living the law of chastity have nocturnal emissions. It is not a token of anything. I doubt that Doubt it all you want. The facts trump your doubts: From the Wikipedia article you were vandalizing: "For males who have experienced nocturnal emissions, the mean frequency ranges from 0.36 times per week (about once every three weeks) for single 15-year-old males to 0.18 times per week (about once every five-and-a-half weeks) for 40-year-old single males. For married males, the mean ranges from 0.23 times per week (about once per month) for 19-year-old married males to 0.15 times per week (about once every two months) for 50-year-old married males." This is an example of a referenced statement in Wikipedia, with the backing data originating with Alfred Kinsey in the 1948 book, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male". I suggest you try backing up your claims with references other than your own assertions. That's what CFR means, by the way: a Call for Reference[s], or in other words, "Prove it." Obviously, even some married males with a presumed normal sex life may have nocturnal emissions. It happens to not be my personal experience, but then I don't go around claiming that my experience is universal, which you seem to be doing. 1
Peacefully Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 2 hours ago, Stargazer said: Actually, it doesn't sound like him at all. IMHO. This was mostly a joke, but I started thinking it could be how Ahab would talk if he had been deprived of physical intimacy for awhile, lol. 1
bluebell Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 3 hours ago, Chum said: Saw that too - because went looking for Ahab tracks after the first post. Not considering a long game is in play. Nope. He's been banned for short times in the past, so it's possible that he created that one long ago and is just now using it again. But I don't think there's reason to assume it's him. Did make me wonder though when Peace brought it up.
Peacefully Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 39 minutes ago, bluebell said: He's been banned for short times in the past, so it's possible that he created that one long ago and is just now using it again. But I don't think there's reason to assume it's him. Did make me wonder though when Peace brought it up. It’s a really weird subject and an even weirder approach to a weird subject, but there is no reason to assume it is him. He is just an easy target:) 2
bluebell Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 17 minutes ago, Peacefully said: It’s a really weird subject and an even weirder approach to a weird subject, but there is no reason to assume it is him. He is just an easy target:) True!
The Nehor Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 8 minutes ago, Peacefully said: It’s a really weird subject and an even weirder approach to a weird subject, but there is no reason to assume it is him. He is just an easy target:) I could see Ahab bringing something like this up but the posting style and cadence is different. Ahab also would have jumped in to clarify that God told him that what he is doing and saying are right and when it was pointed out that his definition of a word was wrong we would have been told that he has his own definition. 3
Peacefully Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: I could see Ahab bringing something like this up but the posting style and cadence is different. Ahab also would have jumped in to clarify that God told him that what he is doing and saying are right and when it was pointed out that his definition of a word was wrong we would have been told that he has his own definition. True, but his cadence could be thrown off by the whole feeling like being kicked in the groin issue, lol. 2
CV75 Posted January 2, 2022 Posted January 2, 2022 8 minutes ago, Peacefully said: True, but his cadence could be thrown off by the whole feeling like being kicked in the groin issue, lol. Yeah, this is nuts. 2
JustAnAustralian Posted January 3, 2022 Posted January 3, 2022 Well I'm not sure about Ahab the poster, but Captain Ahab might have discussed seamen. 3
Peacefully Posted January 3, 2022 Posted January 3, 2022 13 minutes ago, CV75 said: Yeah, this is nuts. Good one, lol!
Peacefully Posted January 3, 2022 Posted January 3, 2022 1 minute ago, JustAnAustralian said: Well I'm not sure about Ahab the poster, but Captain Ahab might have discussed seamen. I see what you did there, rofl!
dougtheavenger Posted January 3, 2022 Author Posted January 3, 2022 In summary here are the differences between an orgasm and a nocturnal emission (NC) 1. Projection - orgasm = high level, NC = low level 2. Intensity of pleasure and/or pain - orgasm = high level, NC = low level 3. Frequency - The frequency of NCs is inversely proportional to the frequency of sex. If there are guys who are "sexually active" (sex more than 10 times a year) and have NCs they are very rare. 4. Masturbation - NC and masturbation are almost certainly mutually exclusive. Anecdotal evidence: In the "competition" episodes of Seinfeld no mention is made of NCs.
dougtheavenger Posted January 3, 2022 Author Posted January 3, 2022 7 hours ago, Stargazer said: Doubt it all you want. The facts trump your doubts: From the Wikipedia article you were vandalizing: "For males who have experienced nocturnal emissions, the mean frequency ranges from 0.36 times per week (about once every three weeks) for single 15-year-old males to 0.18 times per week (about once every five-and-a-half weeks) for 40-year-old single males. For married males, the mean ranges from 0.23 times per week (about once per month) for 19-year-old married males to 0.15 times per week (about once every two months) for 50-year-old married males." This is an example of a referenced statement in Wikipedia, with the backing data originating with Alfred Kinsey in the 1948 book, "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male". I suggest you try backing up your claims with references other than your own assertions. That's what CFR means, by the way: a Call for Reference[s], or in other words, "Prove it." Obviously, even some married males with a presumed normal sex life may have nocturnal emissions. It happens to not be my personal experience, but then I don't go around claiming that my experience is universal, which you seem to be doing. This source is very unreliable. Flat out don't believe it.
dougtheavenger Posted January 3, 2022 Author Posted January 3, 2022 (edited) 36 minutes ago, dougtheavenger said: This source is very unreliable. Flat out don't believe it. The actual citation from the wiki page on Nocturnal Emissions is as follows. Five and a half weeks is believable for celibate men. Kinsley's claim of NCs for married men is bogus in my opinion. This is what I call inferior Sex Education. Possibly testosterone levels were higher in 1948 when this research was done. Probably most married men never have NCs and those that do are highly unusual or have sexless marriages. For males who have experienced nocturnal emissions, the mean frequency ranges from 0.36 times per week (about once every three weeks) for single 15-year-old males to 0.18 times per week (about once every five-and-a-half weeks) for 40-year-old single males. For married males, the mean ranges from 0.23 times per week (about once per month) for 19-year-old married males to 0.15 times per week (about once every two months) for 50-year-old married males.[6] Edited January 3, 2022 by dougtheavenger
Hamba Tuhan Posted January 3, 2022 Posted January 3, 2022 38 minutes ago, dougtheavenger said: In summary here are the differences between an orgasm and a nocturnal emission (NC) 1. Projection - orgasm = high level, NC = low level 2. Intensity of pleasure and/or pain - orgasm = high level, NC = low level 3. Frequency - The frequency of NCs is inversely proportional to the frequency of sex. If there are guys who are "sexually active" (sex more than 10 times a year) and have NCs they are very rare. 4. Masturbation - NC and masturbation are almost certainly mutually exclusive. Anecdotal evidence: In the "competition" episodes of Seinfeld no mention is made of NCs. I can personally invalidate three of those four claims. 1
Recommended Posts