Talk:Nocturnal emission

12 yo boy underwear like child porn!

Deeply disturbing that a picture of a highly underage child's soiled garments are on the web for all to see. I think some sickos out there would like it a little too much and it doesn't make the point or define the term any more clearly. I looked this up bc I soiled my sheets last night in this way and I'm almost 30. Use a more appropriate picture! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.153.49.253 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I've deleted the image from the article, since it adds nothing. As you can see below, the file has been nominated for deletion on WikiMedia Commons. ViolaPlayer (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I just wrote this comment on the deletion page (where it said not to edit or add new content!) so maybe this is a better location for it. I will copy it below. But in reading your comment above it seems it is the age of the person who left the stain that is in question, assuming such a thing can be verified. So it seems more the NATURE of the stain is in question. Were it a blood stain or urine stain on a mattress, would it matter if it was left by a child or adult, if they aren't in the image? And since the wet dream is involuntary, it hardly qualifies as sexual "behavior." So maybe the best solution would be an image produced by someone older? But again, how would one verify such a thing? Anyway, here was my comment:

I am unfamiliar with any reconsideration process and can't seem to figure out the method prescribed above. I don't intend to start a debate, and I have no stake in the image being restated since it wasn't mine and I haven't seen it. But I thought there at least ought to be one comment on record in favor of keeping it. For one, if there are a significant number of teens who like me were very naive about wet dreams and perhaps through hastily or poorly delivered talks during sex ed class was led to believe that a wet dream would yield damage more akin to a bedwetting accident, and thus may be relieved to discover by comparison it is much smaller a mess, then it could be helpful. Beyond that I agree the educational value is dubious and we can only take at their word the age of the dreamer and/or poster and indeed if it documents a legitimate wed dream aftermath. Regarding the argument that a "depiction that 'involves the use' of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct" describes the image in question would be like saying that an image of a sweat-soaked shirt depicts someone engaging in athletic activity.

"although mastubration is declared alarmic to health"

What is that supposed to mean? Moreover, the body doesn't seem to like absorbing sperm since ejecting it is way easier and needs less energy, which is very dangerous, as it soaks through underwear, bed sheets and sometimes even the mattress. --94.134.89.1 (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"while vaginal lubrication may not indicate orgasm"

The phrase makes no sense since the article states that a wet dream doesn't necessarily include orgasm in the very first sentence. So why is the certainty of a wet dream questioned? --94.134.89.1 (talk) 03:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Video link removal

I have noticed that the link to the Wikimedia Commons video featuring a nocturnal emission has been removed. That video showcases the subject of this article and can better help the readers visualise what a nocturnal emission is. I believe it has educational value, and removing it might not have contributed to the betterment of the article, as much as it may have been intended. Should it be edited back to the external links section? Tuotettasi (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:GRATUITOUS applies in this case. I do not see that such a video is needed to better understand this topic. I don't think that its removal is detrimental to the article. As for linking it in the External links section, I have no strong opinion on that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:27, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

تجربیات خودتون رو بنویسید

۱ 204.18.167.115 (talk) 09:11, 17 March 2022 (UTC)