In this thread about fairy tale rapes, the assertion was made that Rumplestlitskin is thought by some to be a warning against female masturbation. Does anyone know what the symbolism in the story is that would lead to this conclusion because I just don’t see it.
It was was originally called “Rumpleforeskin and … um …”
Eh, I got nothing.
In my experience, when it comes to literature interpretation, you can find somebody who’ll say anything really is about anything.
maybe you need to go to original version, not the desexed modern one
“Rumplestiltskin: Rumplestiltskin is a tale to programme the idea that female masturbation leads to steritity. Remember the tale? The miller’s daughter, put in a barn to ‘spin straw into gold’, virginally sits on a little stick that becomes a little man… The dénouement ahs the little man, when his name is finnaly identified, jumping in to ‘plug’ the lady very intametely, and the assembled soldiers can’t pull him out. In the modern version bowdlerised version, this survives vestigially as the little man pushing his foot through the floor and not being able to pull it out, a total non sequitur. SO none of those concerned, king, miller or queen, can procreate (the stolen first child has been killed by the soldiers), and it all ends in tears.”
from http://forums.livingwithstyle.com/showthread.php?p=441431
though take with a large grain of salt
ignore the last post - my link is probably talking through his hat. Here is a link to twenty or so old rumpelstiltskin type stories from around europe - nothing faintly salicious in any of them http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0500.html#rumpelstiltskin
Well, the foreskin was rumpled. Then it became rather taut…
Take a look at this thread, where “Toy Story” and “Woody’s gun” is "deconstructed’ and “interpreted”. 
If we can do that to that film, think what they can do with fairy tales.