Talk:Donkey punch: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:46, 26 March 2011

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class Low‑importance

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and 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.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pornography Start‑class Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Multidel

Archives

Picture

Just want to say that the picture with this article is HILARIOUS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.24.93 (talk) 02:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. It made me laugh for a good 10 minutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.60.1 (talk) 19:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this act is probably apocryphal and possibly lethal, I would suggest the current picture is uncessary and inappropriate and should therefore be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.59.80 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I would suggest that ur a fag who has a stick up the butt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.120.91.220 (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. Not only is it unnecessary, it's absurd and not in keeping with the tone of the article. 24.118.53.177 (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

a "made-up" sexual move?

I like how people have been quoted as saying it's "made up" and only exists "in the mind of adolescent boys."

Technically speaking, aren't all sex moves made up? I mean, what they're probably referring to is that no one did it before until after people started talking about it. Either way, it can still be considered just as legitimate as anal sex. Vicious203 23:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only if an occurrence of it is documented. People have been known to have anal sex, but there haven't been any reports of donkey punches. --Maxa megalon 2000 00:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But what of Gia Paloma? It says in this article that she has been on the receiving end of one on film. That seems like evidence enough. Vicious203 01:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with Gia Paloma is probably not a real donkey punch. It's probably staged to look like one but I doubt professional porn producers would actually allow real violence to occur.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that like arguing that article on the Cleveland Indians should say that they made the playoffs in 1989? --Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well while that was a rather humorous response Maxamegalon2000, the act did take place as far as I know. Has anyone actually viewed the scene in question and can vouch that it was real? Or was it simply pretend? Vicious203 14:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was made up and pretend enough for her to complain about receiving the punch afterwards. Certainly seemes to have been an extreme pornographic video from a studio that makes extreme pornography. Also see: http://i.somethingawful.com//sasbi/2006/06/elpintogrande/test3.gif —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.77.17 (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right lets put this to bed. I have Guttermouths 30, i've watch the scene with Gia in it. There is absolutley no violent content what-so-ever. No punching, slapping chinese burns or nipple cripples. Nothing, Nada. I'll post screen shots when I can. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.136.39 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment about Guttermouths 30 not having a donkey punch is correct. I am thoroughly disappointed in this page's misinformation about Guttermouths 30. I had purchased the movie expecting Gia Paloma to be donkey punched, only to find that it doesn't happen. There is an extremely violent porn series called Donkey Punch that involves donkey punching, though I suspect it does very little to enhance anal sex, rather it just hurts the recipient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmaweapon74 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, either the "apocryphal" should be removed, or the Alex Divine bit should be removed or edited. If no actual "donkey punch" takes place in the film, it isn't clear why this would be referenced. The way it is written now, the "how physical the scene would be" suggests there was an actual "donkey punch" - making the apocryphal bit confusing.

In any case, describing a concept as "apocryphal" seems inapt. Accounts of what transpired may be apocryphal, but concepts - or activity concepts - are only implicitly apocryphal. That said, it does seem amusing to suggest that the idea of a "donkey punch" is useful but not divinely inspired...

19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.107.100.58 (talk)

Article change

Donkey punch films do exist, as this something awful review can demonstrate.

http://www.somethingawful.com/d/horrors-of-porn/donkey-punch.php http://www.iafd.com/title.rme/title=Donkey+Punch/year=2005/Donkey-Punch.htm

I will use the link from iafd as a citation that it has become a real 'theme' in porn movies?

Does this qualify it as being removed from the sexual urban legends? Verdafolio 14:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Donkey Punch is still an urban legend. The Donkey Punch is supposed to make the recipient tighten their hole, thus making sex more pleasurable for the dealer of the punch. The Donkey Punch movies shows girls getting punched in the back of their heads, but does not prove that it makes the sex more pleasurable. On the contrary, a punch to the back of the head would only knock a girl unconscious, put her into a coma, or kill her, making her hole very loose and having the exact opposite of the intended effect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmaweapon74 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if these are reputable sources, and I'm not sure, my point above about events in film not actually being true still seems to apply. --Maxa megalon 2000 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to fix this article. It clearly states that Gia Paloma is the first recipient of the donkey punch on a professional porn movie in Guttermouths 30. THIS STATEMENT IS COMPLETELY A LIE. Gia is never struck, nor is there any violence at all in Guttermouths 30. This false information has been cut and pasted from this wikipedia site to numerous sites across the internet, spreading the lie. SOMEONE MUST FIX THIS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atmaweapon74 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How can this POSSIBLY be an 'urban legend'..? It's like that article that got removed about Gerbiling, of course it exists, I've seen both Gerbiling and the Donkey Punch in videos, and isn't it quite obvious that if a person is hit, unexpectedly, by suprise, they will tighten their ass..? TigerTails (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proper definition?

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/donkey-punch/

This link gives a different definition to the term. --24.57.221.117 (talk) 01:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "proper" definiton of the term. However, popular consenus has deemed the donkey punch to be a punch delivered to the back the head of the person you are having intercourse with, and that is the only definiton I have ever heard of. One person's opinion is dubious, however you might get away with adding this as an alternative definition. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 00:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Medical and legal risks"

I find the reference to male anal rape in prisons in theis section quite offensive. Prison rape, despite what the mainstream media would like people to believe, is not funny, and shouldn't be used to make a somewhat meretricious point about rape as a deterrent. People are sent to prison for punishment, not to be raped for punishment. ▫ Urbane Legend ^chinwag 00:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically people are being sent to prison to rehabilitate, not for punishment; if it was for punishment alone there are other more effective ways. 94.69.178.230 (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timing is (allegedly) very important.

I think it should be stated near the beginning of the article that, when used, the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the penetrating partner. I may be mistaken and I haven't found any sources to cite.Veecort (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I found a source kinda sorta from Fox news. It is not very good but I am sure there are more out there.Veecort (talk) 13:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the end of the first paragraph. Also, I first learned about donkey punching from reading the Dan Savage article and he may have stated therein that it is executed just before orgasm. The first time I ever saw anything like it though was the scene in Oz, but I thought Cutler was just being an asshole. As soon as I read the article I understood that what I had seen years before was in fact a form of donkey punch.Veecort (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute... you're discussing the timing of a sexual technique that isn't even real? Guys.... focus, please. --J-Star (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we start ignoring omissions in this article then what is next? What will we let go next? Just let important facts be omitted from any article? This is serious business. Veecort (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney punch and not a rabbit punch at all?

Maybe, just maybe, correctly defined, a donkey punch is to the kidney area, or not; I don't know. Because I trust Dan Savage I will believe that it is a rabbit punch and not a kidney punch. But that leaves me wondering about the definition in the link above and also the scene from Oz. The definition from the link above is supposedly from a magazine called Popbitch. I believe it goes without saying that this is serious business and we need to clarify this kidney versus rabbit thing sooner rather than later. I am all over it but I am not an authority on the matter.Veecort (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joke

Is this a joke page? It has references to Urban Dictionary for crying out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poposhka (talk • contribs) 02:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is only one reference to Urban Dictionary. Personally, I do not think that particular paragraph deserves to be in the article, nor do I believe that the reference is very valid. I do not even know for sure if there is anywhere on the body that you can punch someone to make anally penetrating them more enjoyable. To answer your question Poposhka, No, this article is not a joke. This is serious business. Veecort (talk) 01:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AKE??? WTF? Are you kidding me???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.23.49 (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Donkey punch.jpg

Does File:Donkey punch.jpg provide a clear or ambiguous illustration of the subject of the article (i.e., should it be kept or removed)? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the image fails to clearly illustrate the subject of this article. It is not at all clear that the image depicts a donkey punch, and it appears just as likely (if not more so) that the man is flexing his muscles while standing behind the woman or that he is simply preparing to punch a nude woman on all fours. I think it should be removed from the article on the grounds that it does not help readers' understanding of the topic. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC comment. Well, I learn something new every day! Anyway, I agree that the image is not very helpful, in that it is unclear where the puncher is aiming. Ideally, one would replace it with a better image, but I infer that removing it would leave the page without any illustration. That being the case, I don't think it makes that much of a difference. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think it illustrates the basic idea, but I do agree that a better image could in principle be provided. Where I disagree however is with the notion that one should remove this image without a better image to replace it. The given image clearly helps the article. Unless a better alternative picture can be provided I'd say keep it else you would hurt the article. Preferably the image shouldn't be a cartoon, but actually showing a real couple.Chhe (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFC comment: Within context it make sense, so I've vote clear. To tell you the truth you're gonna have a problem representing Donkey Punch anyway: in other words, I don't think adding a new picture would provide clearer context. --Deathawk (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFC comment: I feel the picture in no way clarifies the article or the meaning. The angles make it look like he's going to punch her in the side or back more than the head or neck. I don't feel any picture could reasonably add to the article, and would leave it without a picture. SmokingNewton _{(MESSAGE ME)} 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I like the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brittany Cintron (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 22: / Line 22: @@
 As this act is probably apocryphal and possibly lethal, I would suggest the current picture is uncessary and inappropriate and should therefore be removed.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/91.110.59.80|91.110.59.80]] ([[User talk:91.110.59.80|talk]]) 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :And I would suggest that ur a fag who has a stick up the butt.  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.120.91.220|70.120.91.220]] ([[User talk:70.120.91.220|talk]]) 16:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :I completely agree. Not only is it unnecessary, it's absurd and not in keeping with the tone of the article. [[Special:Contributions/24.118.53.177|24.118.53.177]] ([[User talk:24.118.53.177|talk]]) 19:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)