Talk:Facial (sex act)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Pornography (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Archetypal non-penetrative sex act[edit]

That's what this now is, since oral sex is generally penetrative. What is the legal position in the US or UK, or anywhere. This wouldn't be rape or unlawful sexual intercourse because there is no penetration. But at what age can one consent to it? And if one hadn't what offence would it be - sexual assault? --LeedsKing (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(Please note that this entire response does not make sense taking in mind that there is only one race of human. It is not squirrel people and human people, just human people.)


(Please note that this entire response does not make sense taking in mind that there is only one race of human. It is not squirrel people and human people, just human people.)


Oh, God.[edit]

I'm not going to argue with anyone, because it's my experience (see my own Talk page) that if you argue against the majority persuasively, in such a way that they can't ignore or defeat you -- but nevertheless, they have no intention of following your persuasive suggestions -- you are in danger of being banned. These, obviously, are the words of a man falling out of love with Wikipedia and the editing of articles. Anyway. Let me make my statement:

I do not think the woman in the interracial picture necessarily looks "sad" or "distraught", as has been claimed by some. I think she merely looks submissive, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, a lot of women (and doubtlessly some men, as well) like to cry during or after sex, and it doesn't mean she's been mistreated. Would it be so evil to post a picture of a woman crying?

Some may feel that the "happy", all-Caucasian picture is, in fact, the more offensive one. In the interracial picture, it is clear from the woman's expression that heavy emotions are at work -- quite likely, someone's in love -- whereas the "happy" picture depicts care-free, recreational sex that is possibly casual. It's more reminiscent of hard-core pornography than the interracial picture, which is more like a love scene. For those who feel that sex scenes are only justified in a love story (not me), the interracial picture is clearly the more appropriate.

The realm of sexuality is a realm in which political correctness and "color blindness" have no place, and in fact do not work. Sexuality is not racist but it is racial. For a Caucasian, having sex with an African-American (and, I've been told, vice versa), the interracial aspect is always there. They may be in love, they may be happily married, but on some level they're thrilling to the interracial aspect -- loving it, of course, but very much AWARE of it. It's not necessarily foremost in their minds, every time, but it's never entirely or permanently absent. Obviously, I am speaking from personal experience on this, and can't edit the article with it. I am merely defending the interracial picture, and voting in favor of its being used.

Moreover -- Where do these pictures come from?!? I'd like to observe a collection of these. I have three pictures from Wikipedia articles and would love to see a bunch of them at once. No, I don't mean that in a masturbatory way, but certaintly in an appreciative way. They're very nice. INCLUDING the interracial picture.

Is the issue settled yet? If not, I Vote: KEEP.
--Ben Culture (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, what can I say. I don't know what you're talking about. Did you perhaps write all this on the wrong talk page. Anyway, PEOPLE, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, if that's what he is. Just writing irrelevant jibberish isn't really trolling. I suppose one can enjoy the uber-postmodern ranting as a kind of satire. Since I am required to address the article itself, I see nothing wrong with the current picture. --LeedsKing (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that could possibly be a really good troll you posted I'm keeping my eye on you. Besides, we're not Bomis any more ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.219.139 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Has anyone here ever had a girl smile when you jizz on them? Usually they open their mouth but never smile.(Citation needed) I think the interracial picture is better because she isn't smiling.(Thanks for sharing!) I would feel better if the races were reversed though. 68.228.222.149 (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I know this isn't very 'editor'-y, but this has to be the most entertaining (to me) Talk page on Wikipedia. Probity incarnate (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you obviously haven't read the one on Feces. --Anonymous 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.105.160.50 (talk)
@68.228.222.149, maybe she is just unhappy when she sees your wiener. Herostratus (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
@Ben Culture, re "Hell, a lot of women (and doubtlessly some men, as well) like to cry during or after sex". I assume this is based on personal experience, so: no, they don't like to cry; they do cry, but only during or after sex with you. Are you sure you've got your various ah entry points sorted out? That could be your problem right there. Or it could be your mask. A lot of men (and doubtlessly some women, as well) like to wear horse head masks during sex. If you're one of them, your partners may simply be crying from fear, shame, and horror. Remove the mask and you'll be all set. And re "Would it be so evil to post a picture of a woman crying?" Yup it would. Herostratus (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entire sure who this is addressing either. Maybe the discussion was removed. Anyhow, the first point is correct. The "puppy dog" expression being exhibited is submissive, not sad or regretful. It's play-begging in teasing and/or BDSM. And before any femi-nazi gets all >:@ about it, it's done because it's gratifying to the male to know that the woman wants it, not because it's gratifying to see her as a helpless slut. Well, actually, for BDSM, it is usually both, but it's consentual amongst both as well and both find that satisfying.

Seriously. Some people just don't understand sexual submission at all... when practiced in real life and practiced right, it requires mutual consent and is usually discussed before the act (what's a yes and what's a no)... can't really look at eachother more equal than that. /endrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.141.132 (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Picture[edit]

I have uploaded a good high quality picture of the real thing: [1]. I suggest we use it to replace the illustration at the top. The rationale for this is that we don't censor and that a picture illustrates the subject better. If there is no disagreement I'll make the change in a few days. Bomazi (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bomazi. I don't see how your image, simply because it's of the real-life act, illustrates the subject better. The image that is currently up there as the lead image is pretty life-like and illustrates the topic very well. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a valid reason to change a perfectly adequate image. There is WP:GRATUITOUS to consider. Many of our readers take more offense to images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts than of images of these types that have been drawn. And if we can minimize such offense with an alternative image that adequately conveys the same message, we should. Like WP:GRATUITOUS states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in this article; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images. Our readers more readily state or shout "That's porn!" or something about the article not being encyclopedic or detracting from its encyclopedic value more so when it's a real-life sex image being shown instead of a drawn one, though they make a fuss over some of the drawn ones as well (especially the ones by Seedfeeder, such as the lead image we are currently debating). And there is a valid point that using a real-life image to illustrate a sex act distracts from the text and makes the article feel pornographic and less encyclopedic; there is no need for that when an equally suitable alternative is available. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You said it: the illustration is "life-like"; but it is not life, because life doesn't look like a cartoon, and we should try to describe life as accurately as we can. If people take offense at this picture they should not be reading this article in the first place.
Your suggestion that this would be gratuitous is ridiculous. How could a picture illustrating a sex act be considered gratuitous when used to illustrate an article on that very act ? If I had suggested its use on the Woman article it would have been, but not here. I read WP:GRATUITOUS and all it says is that offensive material should not be used simply "because we can". That is not what I am suggesting. Additionally readers should not be required to "imagine" things when we can just show them. I should add that offensiveness is relative. Personally it is your attempt to water down wikipedia on topics you feel uncomfortable with, without regards for those who don't, that I find offensive.
That being said I could accept as a compromise that this pic be linked to in the external links section, with a warning. That way those that want to see the real thing can and those that don't don't have to. I think this is wrong but I could live with it (assuming of course that a majority of editors agree with you).
The proper long term solution would be to tag potentially offensive content throughout wikipedia in a manner compatible with common content filtering software. That way we could write this encyclopedia in an unadulterated way and the easily offended readers could get the kids version if they so desire. But that would require software changes. Bomazi (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What you consider the cartoon image is life-like to me, and Seedfeeder's images are life-like enough that many people have complained about them in the same way that I mentioned people complaining about images of real-life sex acts. In fact, some people consider Seedfeeder's images so life-like that they have suggested that he traces lines over porn to create the images, as seen in this accusation. Either way, on Wikipedia, people complain less about his images, and other drawn images of sex acts, than they do about real-life sex images, which shows that WP:GRATUITOUS is very valid. WP:GRATUITOUS states exactly what I mentioned it states, and more than that. Yes, images of sexual acts fall under WP:GRATUITOUS, as it clearly states; ask about it at the WP:GRATUITOUS talk page if you feel that they don't. Images of sexual acts are not excluded from WP:GRATUITOUS solely because they were not added simply "because we can" add them. All sexual images are subject to WP:GRATUITOUS, which is why it states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."
I don't see how you don't consider an image of a real-life sex act of a facial as something that falls under WP:GRATUITOUS. You may not consider the image gratuitous (you clearly don't, obviously), but many people would. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS are about things that people may find offensive. Of course what people find offensive varies, but many people find an image of a facial (the sexual act) offensive, as this article's edit and talk page histories show, just as they do many other sexual acts. Seedfeeder's images have helped clean up matters concerning the many complaints and much WP:Edit warring that have gone on at Wikipedia over images of sex acts, and it's now standard practice to use a drawing of a sex act instead of an image of a real-life sex act. Per what I stated above, I don't at all see why we should trade out the adequate drawing of a facial for your real-life image of a facial. My opinion on this matter has nothing to do with "[my] attempt to water down wikipedia on topics [I] feel uncomfortable with, without regards for those who don't." I am not uncomfortable in the least when it comes to this topic. My opinion on this matter has to do with my experience with many sexual topics, and sex anatomy topics, on Wikipedia. For example, the complaints I have seen at the Vulva article (this and this for starters). But, hey, maybe other watchers of this article, such as Herostratus, will weigh in on this image matter. My opinion on this won't change. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not going to happen, Bomazi. Don't waste your time. Seedfeeder's images are the best compromise between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS that we're likely to get. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
FWIW there's a deletion request for the pic at Commons (here). The subject (or the photographer) has requested that the pic not be hosted at Commons and consequently smeared all over the internet. That probably won't cut much ice at Commons but things are a little different here I hope. Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Why we gotta have this miscegenation crap?[edit]

Why?Its Billy! (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Because WP:CENSOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)