Talk:Facial (sexual act)

Gender bias

Why do we have two illustrations of a man ejaculating on a woman, and none of a man ejaculating on a man? Can't we rectify this? 98.238.188.211 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How about we, as Wikipedia editors, strive to represent the majority of those affected by an article, in this case a man and a woman. Adding an image of a 'Facial' between two men would be HIGHLY over representing the whole. - Gunnanmon (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have an appropriate image to donate under an appropriate license, then you can rectify it. Otherwise there is little we can do until someone volunteers such an image. Rockpocket 19:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively you could make a request to Seedfeeder (talk · contribs). Rockpocket 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I could create a racelss image with a genderless recipient to tidy up this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.0.101 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You claim to attempt to represent the majority with these images, yet they both depict interracial couples. Why is that? --173.3.154.230 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"If you have an appropriate image to donate under an appropriate license, then you can rectify it. Otherwise there is little we can do until someone volunteers such an image."Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

No need for ANY illustration

I am going to repeat a comment from the third archive, which I think is important: "Why do you even need a picture? Please explain what a cartoon of someone with cum in her eye adds to the article, except to make it more suitable for masturbating to? It's not even a very accurate depiction of the concept, unless you have a source for men's usually producing a bucketful of cum when they ejaculate. Grace Note" There is absolutely no way that this image is necessary. A description of a facial should be more than enough (although more than a few lines is much more than enough anyway) to understand what it is - how hard is it to imagine? It is not only an unnecessary image, it is an INACCURATE image as noted by Grace Note, and so has LESS 'encyclopedic' value than plain old photographic smut. And moreover, the only value editors seem to derive from it is debating how inaccurately it depicts enjoyment of the act!! Enjoyment by whom? White males and the horny sluts that service them, apparently! Could this article be any more sexist and degrading to women? Not unless it explicitly called women cumdumpsters. Ah, but it has pictures that say EXACTLY THAT.

These images are unnecessary, uninformative, and above all demeaning towards women. They are obscene and I nominate that they be deleted at once. Alas, I fear that 'SeedFeeder' or some other aptly named persona will disagree, and will offer proof that Wikipedia has no standards that cannot be brought low by horny men and their basest drives.Ickbug49 (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't censored. Please stop being so insensitive and ignorant, it doesn't help anyone. Ran4 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

---

to all the self important feminazis.....especially Ickbug

Shut up you little cumdumpster.......sorry I could not resist, You really need to take a pill and realize that most women who hold still for a facial are getting some kind of enjoyment out of it. wether the pics degrade women or not is not the point. The point, its an accurate depiction of what a womans face looks like with cum on it. I dont find the cum over dramatic, some men cum ALOT plain and simple. and as for the pictures value as stroke material....are you an absolute idiot? there are a BILLION other sites...free sites on the web to look at much better porn. Now take a safety pin and pop that big bubble on top of your shoulders you call a head and CHILL OUT.

Personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So, no more images, even home-made pictures? Vacki (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to post pictures of yourself or your partner engaged in sexual activities. There are plenty of other venues for that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia IS the place to have articles about topics with illustrative pictures. The cartoons are doing a good job right now, but if somebody thinks they can make an image that would improve the article and are willing to donate it to the project, I would tell them to go for it. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does seem to be becoming increasingly censored actually, thus we now have an illustration rather than an actual picture. So thanks to people like you Wikipedia is starting to ignore its own pillars. --86.24.23.84 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It not censored, it's constructed by consensus. This page and a host of other pages in the sexual category are nearly all illustrated by an illustration, which is what the majority of editors in many of the pages have agreed on, and the photos have been replaced. Also there is an issue of ensuring that any photo has the full consent to be publicly displayed for all time, by all the participants in it (commons:COM:IDENT).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Pearl necklace (sexuality)‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's about time we put this one to bed. I know I was "for", but I can see that there is a clear consensus for "No merge", and that shall be the result of this merge proposal. I will remove the merge suggestion templates.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

---

(Added RFC tag here to accelerate this slow-moving discussion and gain broader input) The Pearl necklace (sexuality)‎ article is not extensive enough to warrant a separate page. I propose we merge it here, as it's a sub-category of facial. If/when its content grows large enough, it can always be split back off into a separate article. I realize this has survived a couple of AfDs, but I'd really like eveyone to think of this article as any other, subject to our practices regarding the extensiveness of content that generally warrants separate articles, as opposed to responding as though this were an attempt to censor the material. I'm all for keeping the content, and am not the least bit interested in hiding it; there's just not enough here for a separate article. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:14, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's a small article, it could easily fit into a section here, and the Pearl necklace (sexuality)‎ page can redirect to that section.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I could go either way with merging them. Where in the Facial article do you propose to place the Pearl Necklace content? Also, any though about merging the Pearl necklace article to the Mammary intercourse article? Seems like a better candidate. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

• No merge - as a pearl necklace is not for the face and also is not about humping breasts. Those are just variations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.10.16 (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support merge - this would fit nicely in the target and will aid the reader by having related content in one place. TerriersFan (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• No merge - This has been discussed before. Deletion of the pearl necklace article has also been discussed and rejected in the past (three times). Facial, Mammary Intercourse and Pearl Necklace are distinct and different. Atom (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• No merge - After reviewing the relevant discussions, I would rather just leave them as separate articles. They are, after all, different sex acts. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• No merge Different acts, different articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
• No merge While similar, they are not inclusive under one heading (Facial). As stated above, they are distinctly different sex acts. To argue for merging these two (three, if you were to include the Mammary intercourse article) would beg the question as to why all articles about coital positions aren't merged into one article, which is currently not the case. I doubt anyone would be in favor of that. Feldgrau4445 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
• No merge This has been discussed before and the acts are too dissimilar to have under one or the other's title. KingAdrock (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
• No merge They are performed on different parts of the body and isn't the face so cannot be considered as a facial Scorpio95 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs gallery containing all gender and race combinations

This article appears to contain both gender and racial biases. We need to create a gallery depicting all gender and race combinations, or select a single race and depict all gender combinations (yes a female ejaculation is possible). 130.56.89.88 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"We"? We won't do anything. If you wish to construct good quality drawings that you think are better than the current illustration, then please go on and do it, and upload it/them - sadly, there is no team of picture authors in the background just waiting for requests like yours.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I think it may be time to archive the talk page as we have discussions going back to the early part of 2009. Better yet would be adding an appropriate archiving bot. Any thoughts before proceeding with a manual archive or adding the bot? --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I can sort the bot out if all agreed, how about archive after 6 months, but always keep the last 4 items?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Those parameters sound good and thanks for wrangling the bot.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Re "in society" section

In the "Cultural perceptions" section, the "In society" subsection begins "The frequency at which facials are performed amongst the general public is unknown...". And nothing in the section improves on this. There is some material which could be called "original research", except that it's not even research, it's just straight-out speculation. This section has absolutely nothing to say and needs to be removed.

There are three refs in the section (it looks like four, but two are to the same source). They are:

• A Center for Disease Control study which surveys oral sex and anal sex but has no data whatsoever on facials. This ref is only used as starting point for rank speculation on the order of "CDC says X, so we may extrapolate this to say Y" which is useless.
• An article by Ulrike Rodrigues at straight.com. Straight.com is a Vancouver news and cultural info site. It's online-only. It is not a peer-reviewed journal nor a respected mainstream media entity. Rodrigues is not an academic. She writes on various local subjects and popular topics for straight.com and perhaps other venues. So this is not a good ref. OK, on to the content of the ref. The article referenced has absolutely zero to say about the facials. It is used to support the statement "anal sex is nearly ubiquitous in modern heterosexual pornography, but performed regularly by only about 10% of the general population." Which it doesn't even support (the article gives the percentage as much higher), but whatever. The statement doesn't belong in the section, so the ref has not use.
• A citation of Pornography and Sexual Representation, a book by Joseph Slade. Joseph Slade is a professor at a respected university, and Greenwood Press publishes reference books, which you assume they couldn't do for long if their data was not OK, so so far so good. I note that Slade is a media/literature person with a specialty in (among other things) pornography, and his book is about pornography. The Google Books version is here. It's used three other times in the article, to support statements regarding pornography, But here it is used to support a statement regarding real life: "The frequency at which facials are performed amongst the general public is unknown, as no academic sexual survey has addressed the subject. It is generally thought that it is performed far less frequently than it is practiced in pornography". I can't be sure, but I think that only the second sentence is meant to be supported by the ref. The qualifier "is generally thought" is rather alarmingly vague, and I don't know where Slade gets the data for this. I couldn't find it right off in the Google book, but I didn't read through the whole book. Given that Slade is literature person, that the book is about pornography, and the statement is vague, this seems a quite questionable reference. It's arguable. If the ref is accepted, the section, rather than being deleted, could instead be redacted to this:

"The frequency at which facials are performed amongst the general public is unknown, as no academic sexual survey has addressed the subject. It is generally thought that it is performed far less frequently than it is practiced in pornography.(ref Slade)

However, I don't think that this is a particularly useful or well-supported statement, so I removed the section in its entirety, Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am reinserting a section on views on it. A couple new sources and one that was incorrectly in the porn section. I think too much emphasis is given to the positive currently but it should be easy enough to fix. An unsourced line was also reworded with a source.Cptnono (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Just added negative view from Ruth Westheimer who did Sex for Dummies (funny stuff right there). It could go in the porn section also/too.Cptnono (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "Cosmetic usage" section

There are several problems with this section. First of all, it's pretty peripheral to the subject at hand and it's something of a "coatrack" to put it in here. If it's a notable phenomena it should maybe be spun off into its own short article.

Is it notable? Well, to start, this doesn't seem likely, given that semen is quite unlike any face lotion I've ever heard of. It's sticky and it dries into a film rather than than being absorbed by the skin. This doesn't prove anything, and you never know what other people like, but I think it would be reasonable to require an especially high burden of proof to overcome this common-sense objection. So let's look at the content and the refs.

It's a short section, three sentences. The last two sentences are about animal sperm, which we'll get to in a moment. The remaining sentence is:

"Though Cosmopolitan founder Helen Gurley Brown, as part of an interview regarding the making of the film Deep Throat, suggested that women should 'spread semen over [their] face, [it's] probably full of protein as sperm can eventually become babies. Makes a fine mask—and he'll be pleased', its effectiveness is unproven."

The Gurley Brown statement isn't properly referenced; the article says its from an interview, but this Slate article indicates its from her book I'm Wild Again. Be that as it may, we can assume that she said it or wrote it. But Helen Gurley Brown is not an academic or researcher or qualified sociologist any kind of respected social analyst. She's a celebrity, a self-promoter, and the former editor of Cosmopolitan which is a popular magazine but not journalistically respected. The cover of the book in question is blurbed with the quotes "Hilarous!" and "Outrageous!" and the Slate article describes here as "...making the media rounds to flog her new memoir". The suspicion that she made this statement solely to gain notoriety and sell books has to be high. This is not a good ref for supporting that this is an actual practice.

The other refs are

• An article (no author credited) at jezebel.com, which is an online-only entity concerned with celebrity gossip and so forth. Again, to say that jezebel.com is not a peer-reviewed journal or respected mainstream journalistic source is an understatement. Not a good ref, and "I'll give you ten bucks if you rub sperm into your face and blog about it" is probably not how most qualified research projects get started. But two gals did try it (they say), albeit they were "wasted" which also is not usually recommended for academic research projects. So how did it go? "The semen facial burned the fuck out of our faces, and our skin stayed red and irritated well into the next day." All in all, I think we can all agree this is not a good ref for supporting the notion that anyone uses semen for cosmetic purposes.
• An article by Donna Deliva at viceland.com. Deliva does not appear to be an academic or otherwise qualified researcher, and viceland.com is not a peer-reviewed journal or respected mainstream journalistic source (to put it mildly). They do produce a print product, Vice Magazine (although it's not clear if Deliva's article was in print). They also had two people try it, for a month, in a reasonably controlled way: one side with lotion, one side with semen, and at least they weren't fucked up on Oxycontin or whatever, or if they were they didn't mention it. The result? One subject did like it ("I will use cum at least once a week on my face now"), the other didn't ("I have no doubt that I will never let cum touch my face again"). So there you have it: assuming the entire thing wasn't just made up (it probably wasn't, but given the source you never know) we do have one person saying that they will use sperm for cosmetic purposes. No follow-up study to determine if this is true, that I know of. For such a contentious claim, this falls well short of anything that can be considered a usable reference.
• Moore, LJ (2007). Sperm Counts: Overcome by Man's Most Precious Fluid. New York University Press. pp. 84. ISBN 978-0814757185. Lisa Moore (writer) is not an academic, but she's an accomplished writer, and NYU Press is of course a reputable publisher. So this is a good ref. This is a whole book about semen (or sperm anyway) and its depiction in culture, so this would appear to be an excellent ref for this article. If it supports the text, that is. I didn't read through the book to find the passage, but these results return nothing of value: "facial", "face", "face lotion", "lotion", "cosmetic", "effectiveness", "unproven". And there's nothing in the table of contents to guide me toward any material regarding cosmetic application. And what I did read of the book describes, rather than cosmetic application (outside of pornography), the extreme precautions taken by pornography actors and prostitutes to avoid contact with semen. So I don't think that this reference supports cosmetic usage, and if anyone wants to restore it, for such a contentious claim they would need to cite the passage and/or page number, I think.

So this is not a well-supported sentence and has to go.

The other two sentences of the section are:

"The Norwegian based company Maritex sells processed cod sperm for use in lotions and makeup, selling several tons annually. Sperm of whales and bulls is also used profesionally as a hair treatment to increase strength and shine."

While I'm sure that this is an interesting experience for the fish, it really doesn't have anything to do with the subject of this article, which is about jizzing on somebody's kisser, so I also deleted this material. Herostratus (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are probably correct. I do remember reading (ages ago - somewhere?) about someone using it regularly, and saying it was every good as a commercial face pack, and it did tighten her skin. However it does not need a facial to get it on the face, so if it was to be included it would be better in Semen.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re lead paragraph & article name

Since it was never established that this is a real-life sexual activity (I'm not doubting that it is, only that it's not necessarily notable as such, and definitely not referenced with sufficient rigor), I rewrote the lead to indicate that this is a term of pornography, and moved the article from "Facial (sex act)" to "Facial (pornography)". Herostratus (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely disagree. It is not relegated to only porn. I will search for some sources. Also, do not make potentially contraversial moves without discussion and do not mark them as minor.Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the "minor" marking, that was entirely a slip. As to the move, fair enough. As to the lead, searching for sources is all well and good, but until the sources are in place the lead should accurately reflect what is in the article. Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no rush. Especially since you have removed so much information recently (changing the scope of the article) that it will take time to go through it all. I just did a quick 5 min search and found a couple things so far. This describes the sex act without using the term facial. This (blog I assume is acceptable under WP:RELIABLE as the publisher is a news organization) sums up my thoughts on it pretty well: "Plenty of sex acts made popular in mainstream pornography, like facials..." Basically, it might have gained prominence in the pornographic industry but now transcends it. Limiting the scope of the article to only pornography seems problematic. Sex for Dummies and this book also mentions porn but it is clear that it is in people's bedrooms now. I will follow-up with more sources. I don;t know if this asserts any notability but Dan Savage is RS and here is some discussion on it.[1]. Appears that Olivia Munn and Drew Pinsky had a discussion on it (google it since any link might be a copy vio. can pull the details to use as an offline source though). This last one shows some mainstream stuff albeit maybe gossipy. This book doesn't mention porn in its definition (says it is from an expert but haven't verified). Hard to take this too seriously but it is from a New York Times bestselling author who does not mention porn. Another silly one that does not mention porn.Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there's a rush, if the article contains incorrect information, as it does. But whatever, I've marked it. As to my previous redactions, I did explain them in detail. As to your sources above, by all means. I have no objection to properly sourced material. Given the contentious nature of the subject, we're going to want truly reliable sources. This means peer-reviewed scholarly journals, respected mainstream media outlets with a reputation for vetting facts, and that sort of thing. Dan Savage is about as far from a reliable source as I can imagine. He's no kind of scholar or proper journalist, writes as an advice columnist for marginal publications, is a polemicist, and at least sometimes clearly just makes stuff up. I don't know about the other sources you listed, but if they are not of very much better quality than Dan Savage they are not going to fly. Herostratus (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you intentionally being disruptive? There were a couple good ones up there and you just tagged a line or citation when you have the cites right there. Youalso have already admitted that you understand that it is not in just porn so you obviously understand that you just tagged something you know to be true. Please revisit the warnings you have received regarding your editing.Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I made one edit, to tag the first sentence. If it's true, prove it, with a citation to a scholarly study showing that it's practiced by X percent of the population, or something very close to that quality. Herostratus (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have provided you sources up above from professional commentators. A couple of them can even be considered "experts". RS does not need to be a scholarly study either. In response to "huh?", yes, you are being disruptive. You see the sources and have acknowledged that you know it is used outside of pornography. So are you changing our mind on notability and instead arguing that it is incorrect?Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, OK, I was thinking that you would use the sources you listed above to write referenced text into the article. Which is fine, provided the sources check out. I don't want to do the work of vetting the sources unless and until they are in the article. Herostratus (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles with maybe a not perfect page name (to some), but they have all been decided by consensus in the proper way. I would suggest that any intended page move should go through the requested move process, and allow all users seven days to come to a consensus (or not).  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially since the content of the article is up in the air at this point. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with the need for a name change, I do agree that if it something to be addressed it should be with the RM process.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

OK, here is the current status: the lead sentence is "A facial is a term for the sexual activity in which a man ejaculates semen onto the face of one or more sexual partners", and there is a one reference for this. Let's look at the reference. It is page 194 of a 2006 book, Sex for Dummies by Ruth Westheimer and Pierre Lehu, published by Wiley. (Except its not published by Wiley. According to Amazon, it is published by an entity named "For Dummies", which is an arm of Wiley.)

OK, let's look at the authors. Ruth Westheimer is known as "Doctor Ruth"; she's neither a medical doctor nor a Ph.D., but she does have a master's from the New School and and Ed.D., and post-doctoral work in human sexuality at New York-Presbyterian Hospital under Helen Singer Kaplan, a distinguished sex expert. There's no indication that she's worked as a therapist, researcher, or professor. She is mainly known as a media personality - she's had a radio show, appeared on pop albums and as a spokesman in commercials for shampoos and cars and that sort of thing, but there's no indication of serious work beyond her post-doctoral studies, although she has written several popular books. She is famous. It looks like she's somewhat to the south of Joyce Brothers, who is at least a real doctor. (All info taken from her Wikipedia article.)

Pierre Lehu doesn't have an article and I can't find much on him. He appears as co-author on several of Westheimer's books and one surmises that he's Westheimer's ghoswriter.

The publisher, For Dummies, I don't know. They have a Wikipedia article which doesn't tell you much. They're not a publisher of academic or scholarly works. I don't know what their reputation is for rigorous fact-checking and editorial standards. But naming your publishing house "For Dummies" does not scream "serious academic or journalistic publisher". They were bought out in 2001 by John Wiley & Sons, which is a serious scholarly publisher. How much control Wiley exerts over For Dummies to bring the line up to scholarly standards I don't know. "Not much" would be my guess.

OK, so what (for whatever it may be worth) does the book say? It's on Google Books, but page 194 isn't available. It's not available through my library network (which is always one of the problems with citing low-quality sources). A search on the term "facial" in Google Books does show (besides some uses of the term which don't apply to this article, such as "facial hair" etc.) this snippet, which is indeed from page 194: "The porn industry has introduced a new facet to oral sex, the facial, where the man ejaculates onto his partner's face. In my opinion, this is humiliating..." and the snippet ends there.

OK.

As I said, I'm not saying that no one has ever done this outside of a porn movie. What I am saying that there is no data and no indication of notability.

This is a highly contentious question and we need to source this as well as a BLP or an article on Israeli-Palestinian issues or that sort of thing, so we need to stick to the letter of {{WP:V]] in this case. So per WP:V, what we would like to see is a scholarly work in a respected peer-reviewed journal, such as a survey or study indicating that that this is prevalent in X percent of the population or something. Failing that, material from respected mainstream media sources with a reputation for vetting facts and exercising strong editorial control, such as the New York Times or The Economist or whatever would probably be acceptable. Or perhaps a serious book from an respected publisher by an established expert who has hard data. And, per WP:V, not much else would be acceptable.

Instead, we get a book by a media personality from a publisher of books such as 15-Minute Workout For Dummies and Cake Decorating for Dummies and so forth. And even then, what do we have? Again with the porn industry: "The porn industry has introduced a new facet to oral sex...".

So this source is completely unacceptable, and consequently I've removed it and the passage it supports. And would you people please stop using sources like this. Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well if you are going to revert without waiting for a response I will start doing the same.
• If you want to change the scope of the article or nominate it for deletion based on notability you need to follow the proper channels.
• If you want to argue that the likes of Ruth Westheimer and others are not RS then you will have to go to the RS noticeboard. They seem perfectly reasonable to me.
• I already addressed the starting in porn line. Please reread the comments above if you missed it.
• I am sick of playing games with you. Either you want to collaborate or you want to rock the boat. If you continue to rock the boat I a going to seek a block on your editing of this article.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, no one's going to be blocking anyone. Per your excellent suggestion I opened a thread at the RS noticeboard. It is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#re lead sentence at Facial (sex act) I. Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, well, that didn't really settle anything. We had two editors expressing an opinion, one who doesn't seem to think it's reliable (but he didn't come right out and say that) and one who does think it's reliable (but he only said "it's reliable" with no further explanation, so how useful is that really.) So we'll have to think of something else. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You were told you were wrong here and you were told you were wrong at the RS noticeboard (even though it was the wrong venue). You need to learn to accept your defeats and stop reading things the way that you want.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "told I was wrong" at the RS noticeboard, it was a 1-1 tie as I just said. It wasn't the wrong venue, but my post included too much background info and that muddied the waters, as I see now. The only "defeat" is if the Wikipedia's articles aren't accurate, and that's a defeat equally for us all. Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2 images

We have already gone over this. It is in archive three. There is not a new consensus even though an IP choses to ignore it. So my reasoning (although it does not change the lack of consensus for removal) is that two images are neccassary to show it in two lights. 1 is derogatory and one is fun. Neither hits Florida laws and both add value and NPOV.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the image. I'm no big fan of the images, and I think that a reasonable case can be made for not including them, especially if and when it's established that the article is really only about pornography (which hasn't been established at this time, it's contended). However, I'm also not a big fan of anon editors jumping in with edits on controversial issues. For a contentious issues such as this, edit summaries are not enough - the editor should engage on the talk page if he thinks the image shouldn't be included. Herostratus (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the reasoning, Cptnono. Thanks for handling the revert, Herostratus --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Images

Boy, we really did need those illustrations. I don't think anyone could have understood the article with not one, but two racist, offensive, and pointless images. --173.3.154.230 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone reads an article differently. And how are interracial couples racist?Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)