Jump to content

Talk:Facial (sexual act)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.97.145.131 (talk) at 17:23, 17 July 2009. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPornography B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introduction

Previous discussions for the Facial(sex act) article have been archived, and can be accessed through the archive box displayed on this page. All future discussions should be posted below. Thank you. --SeedFeeder (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need for two illustrations

I read the discussions about the images in the archive page 3. Some people commented that they didn't like that the SemFac01 illustration shows an obviously saddened woman and I agree, she does not look like she is enjoying the experience at all. The other illustration, Wiki-Facial, is a much better illustration in my opinion because the woman appears to be enjoying the experience. Furthermore there is no need for two illustrations accomplishing the same thing, perhaps we can try to reach a concensus on which image is favored, and remove the one not favored? Dionyseus (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we replace them both with photos? photos are much better (more acurate, actually real, etc) than pictures? --Dak (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there is an issue that has been discussed at length, it is the one regarding pictures. Displaying both met consensus in that it accurately depicts two different responses to the activity in question.
As to photos, there has been at least two different photos used and both were withdrawn for different reasons. The illustrations demonstrate the act without drawing in the "too explicit" debates the invariably come about on these type of articles.
So, in conclusion, the way we have it seems fine for now. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a free photograph which illustrates the concept well were available, the discussion should and would be reopened. So far, no such images have been brought forward. There is a photograph illustrating pearl necklace (sexuality). --137.138.4.25 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. It just smacked of squeamishness and censorship, is all. Do you know the reasons these two photos were withdrawn please? --Dak (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know one of the two was withdrawn because the owner withdrew the rights from Wikipedia. I'm not sure about the second one. I don't personally have a problem with a photograph, beyond that it was a constant source of discussion. Having said that, the two illustrations by SeedFeeder are quite good and show the act well enough. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure which images Surv1v4l1st means, but a photograph that illustrated the concept very nicely was uploaded in July 2006 by an editor using the alias User:publicgirluk, supposedly depicting herself. It later turned out they were of a Swedish porn actress and posting them was a violation of copyright. You can read up on those events (and see the image) by googling "Publicgirluk site:encyclopediadramatica.com" (direct link blacklisted). -- 87.178.27.233 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Euphemism?

I don't agree with the current wording in the first sentence, calling "facial" a euphemism. That would imply 1) that there is something negative about the practice, and 2) that the name was actually chosen as a pun on the beauty treatment. Concerning the first point, it is certainly inappropriate for Wikipedia to make a judgment on a sexual practice enjoyed by many. Second, I contend that "facial" is a contraction of "facial ejaculation" (or similar), where facial is simply the adjective of the noun face.--137.138.4.30 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the term is well within the definition of euphemism. As to your contention regarding the origin of the term, we will need reliable sources. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence used to read "term" rather than "euphemism". Since the former is more generic than the latter, realiable sources have to be supplied if the more specific term is to be employed, not the other way around. I disagree that facial falls into the definition of euphemism, regardless of whether it is a contraction or not. Citing from euphemism: A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener,... While some people may find the discussion of any kind of sexual act offensive, those people would likelely regard the concept of "facial" objectionable no matter how it is expressed. Likewise, "beaver" or "camel toe" would not be considered euphemisms for "vagina", but rather sexual slang. Also, if "facial" is a euphemism, which is the orginal term it replaces?
I do agree that reliable sources will have to be found to support my hypothesis of the term being a contraction (of "facial ejaculation" or "facial cumshot"). --137.138.4.25 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "euphemism" to "term" as per the arguments given above. Please do not revert unless you can supply reliable sources. --137.138.4.29 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's possible that the term is a contraction of "facial cumshot", referring to historical porn should reveal appropriate citations for this... 66.135.227.46 (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Doesn't anybody know how to stop the ejaculate hurting the eyes of the receiving partner? I know I have an interest in this and am sure others (both givers and receivers) will also have a keen interest in mitigating the pain, which makes me think if we could find out how one mitigates the pain from getting spunk in the eye the info would belong on here, pro bono publico.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Facial_(sexual_act)&oldid=302630720"