Jump to content

Talk:Cum shot: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 32: Line 32:
:Seconded. [[User:Maikel|Maikel]] ([[User talk:Maikel|talk]]) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:Seconded. [[User:Maikel|Maikel]] ([[User talk:Maikel|talk]]) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
:I want to see the guy's face! [[Special:Contributions/200.83.59.63|200.83.59.63]] ([[User talk:200.83.59.63|talk]]) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
:I want to see the guy's face! [[Special:Contributions/200.83.59.63|200.83.59.63]] ([[User talk:200.83.59.63|talk]]) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
: Better is just edit this illustration by saving only the lips or graphically illustrated only mouth (without face, nose, eyes or etc.). And the word "woman" need to be deleted - just leave "mouth".[[User:Westsomething|Westsomething]] ([[User talk:Westsomething|talk]]) 05:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
:This face is ugly as hell. Better is just edit this illustration by saving only the lips or graphically illustrated only mouth (without face, nose, eyes or etc.). And the word "woman" from description need to be deleted - just leave "mouth". [[User:Westsomething|Westsomething]] ([[User talk:Westsomething|talk]]) 05:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


== What happened to the black guy? ==
== What happened to the black guy? ==

Revision as of 05:47, 30 November 2011

Template:Findnotice

Copyedit

The grammar and above all the punctuation in this piece is haphazard and not all all thought through.

What happened to the video

There used to be a video demonstrating the technique in human form. What happened to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.214.65 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Illustration

I'm just curious, why is the illustration on this article depicting a man ejaculating into a woman's mouth? Surely a better (ie less misleading) illustration would simply be of a male subject ejaculating, since that is essentially what a cumshot is? Or must every illustration accompanying a sex-related article look as though it has been taken from the mind of a 15 year old boy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.148.246 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Simply put, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.214.65 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Maikel (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see the guy's face! 200.83.59.63 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This face is ugly as hell. Better is just edit this illustration by saving only the lips or graphically illustrated only mouth (without face, nose, eyes or etc.). And the word "woman" from description need to be deleted - just leave "mouth". Westsomething (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to the black guy?

A few years ago when I stumbled onto this page, it was a black dude splashing the lube on a white chick. Low and behold three years later, it's a white guy doing it to a smiling white chick. This is why Wikipedia is a joke....everything gets fitted up to what The Man wants. Sad. Frekin' sad. This was the image: File:Semfac01.png. sO Why was it changed? Cos I is black?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.26.156 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're looking for the Facial page.Kornflakes89 (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldnt say she was white. She looks "asian" to me. RACIST! ;-) (User:EDit) 23:24, 15 Novement 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.207.185 (talk)

Really?

Does Wikipedia need to get a pornographic picture of [I]everything[/I] sexual? If I wanted to see some cum dripping from a girl's mouth, I would go to redtube. Seriously, Wikipedia? Runningninja (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See the boxes at the top of the page, the ones that say you can censor these images for yourself and that Wikipedia isn't censored?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Umm why

why is this needed on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.82.96 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]