Talk:2 Girls 1 Cup

Pornographic? You have to be kidding!

The video is disgusting, but it's not even remotely porn. You don't see any genitals, just some boobs in the first shot but no nipples. Pornography is about people having some kind of sexual intercourse, the things you think about when fapping. This, on the other hand, would make even the toughest, steel-reinforced boner turn flaccid.

I propose: 2 Girls 1 Cup is a copy of the trailer for Hungry Bitches, a poop sex film... Because that's exactly what it is, and what people should know. Telling people it's porn is like tricking them to see goatse by saying "check out this sweet ass". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zoef1234 (talk • contribs) 07:17, August 3, 2008 (UTC)

It may not be pornography ("the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer") to you, but that doesn't mean it's not to somebody somewhere. --Geniac (talk) 13:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

And you do see a girl defecate into the cup before the start to chow down on it. Kylee20051 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

is softcore porn still porn? from what I remember from when I saw this vid, it was softcore porn combined with cophrophilia (sp?) ... --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

But it's more of a suprise prank video then a actual porn video. Kylee20051 (talk) 05:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

It was intended to sell a poop porn video, but it ended up being used as a prank against people not familiar with the coprophilia scene. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 10:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For me films showing injectable drugs in use produce a bigger reaction -- where people clumsily tear up their veins to get high. I mean keep in mind that these people are not actaully killing, enslaving or torturing people against their will. Nor are the actions as physically unhealthy as smoking or strong drugs at least if all participants are from areas with good medical care so as not to have parasites.

Just goes to show how many people have trouble distinguishing the make-believe actions of others from self reality. I am, however, very glad they haven't created smell-o-vision to force partial participation. Until then my own reaction to these will continue to range from laughter at the type of mind that needs this to be sexually excited to a mild shudder at the thought that the material might be presented to me as a serious attempt at seduction.

65.26.139.183 (talk) 05:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

no description of what exactly goes on in the vid?

why isn't there any more details on what is shown on the vid? there isn't any direct description of the video itself, just stuff other people said about it, and general stuff about the genre of the vid, what gives? --TiagoTiago (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

WHY did this video become so popular?

This article says the video became a popular viral video — but it doesn’t say why.

What is special about this particular video?

I haven’t seen the it myself, but from the decription, it just sounds a typical scat/vomit video. There must be thousands of videos just like this, and there’s nothing new about scat videos, I remember seeing one back in the 80s. So what is it that made this particular video so interesting, or shocking, and caused such a reaction?

Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the Hungry Bitches trailer just happened to be in the right place at the right time for someone to start a fad. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 11:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It's so effective as a shock video because it begins very unassumingly and the shocking stuff comes with no warning. It looks like a normal porn video, two girls are making out, then all of a sudden bam you're watching people eat poop. REGULAR-NORMAL (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Its some combination of right place/right time, as well as getting a memorable and funny name. Really, its popularity is from viral spread - someone sees 2girls1cup, then shows it to other people. All something needs is good enough propagation rate among the right people and the right starting place and anything can explode virally. tl;dr version is that it was popular on 4chan. ThrustVectoring (talk) 00:10, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

the "what they do" section needs work

if it is allowed to stay I believe that section needs to be worked on, the language currently used doesn't sound very encyclopedic, and the parts about the opinions of medical doctors, I'm not sure if it even should be there, but if it is to stay, I think it needs sourcing and all --TiagoTiago (talk) 01:50, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Add images

Can we add some images to the article? Or can we post a link showing screenshots of the video? Superjustinbros. (talk) 21:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You have GOT to be kidding me. I just watched it. I was FULLY aware of its grossness, and I nearly threw up in the middle. Nobody wants to see it. Archer 90 (talk) 22:04, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I do. Superjustinbros. (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm for having the images, if they are available in a license suitable for wikipedia. Otherwise go for the links to them.--Sum (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Superjustinbros. (talk) 22:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Plot Summary

I propose that is either re-written to make it more neutral in its tone or totally removed. From what I can tell that just appears to be more akin to the blurb that would accompany the video on the porn site. Needs to be more matter of fact and less like a press release. --Footix2 (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No.--Sum (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Notation on the commonality of practice?

This article should also have a new section added (by someone) to mention, if briefly, that this is not a bizarre type of film/fetish beyond the West. These films are hugely successful and popular in South America, Asia, much of Europe.... While it may be shocking to even the majority of people in the US and FAR Western Europe; many standard adult audience video shops in the rest of the world carry these videos right next to the "plumpers", "stockings" and Big * films. That such a film is so shocking to a small minority (of the planet) and generally accepted, though not nessaceraly enjoyed, by the rest of the world should probably be covered. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

That's probably the most ridiculous thing I've ever read on wikipedia. LOL. Homunq (talk) 03:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And yet some of the largest "adult" film companies in Europe have massive "scat" catalogues. Multi-Media-Verlag (MMV) (over 10K titles) of Germany, Glimpse Video Productions of England, Hightide Video of the Netherlands, ....
In North America there's Extreme Associates (XA Video, X-Models, XGirls), and Brown and Gold Film (BGF) each with thousands of titles. There's the referenced MFX Media of Brazil, which also has a working relationship with XA's X-Models studio. There are hundreds of Asian studios with thousands of films each. Millions of small private studios putting out unique DVDs, VHS, and streaming/download videos (over a million hits on a web search); though granted most are inter-related to other companies or part of larger studios. All said, it's not exactly unheard of. Rare; possibly fringe, but not unheard of.Lostinlodos (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Unprotection?

Can this article and talk page be unprotected now so that unregistered users can edit and make comments? We can quickly restore protection if necessary. --TS 19:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Something like this that is media-centric would probably create a storm of uninformed comments about the media and posts about the excessive overreactions of western viewers of the trailer. As it stands now, the article already has too large a section on the reactions, lets not open it up to hit-n-run posters as well. Lostinlodos (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It was unprotected about 15 days ago. In those days we've seen this change compared to this change in the preceding 15 days and this change in the preceding month.

So apparently there was a small acceleration in the rate of editing.

The major addition was a paragraph on an episode of Law and Order: SVU, added by 76.118.26.93.

Is this person a regular Wikipedia editor or just a passer by? We don't know. We do know that, to date, that is the only Wikipedia edit currently in existence on this wiki that was made from that IP number.

There is solid evidence suggesting that a lot of our existing content (as opposed to formatting and the like) comes from just such edits. --TS 01:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

MFX link

Personally, I think it is a bad idea to have the link to a porn site [1]</ref> from Wikipedia is a bad idea. If this stays, then what if we get in trouble for having a younger kid going to that site?

173.59.25.69 (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)David

Wikipedia is not censored, there are plenty of links / pictures / etc. in Wikipedia that might upset some people - remember that different countries have different opinions, so one cannot cater for all ideals.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we've always had a disclaimer. We also have illustrated articles on vaginaplasty and autofellatio--because we're an encyclopedia, not a child-minder. A child who comes to this article to shock his or her parents lacks imagination. --TS 23:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Media response section biased

Why do people always use extreme videos like this to propagate the absurd myth about society's "declining morals"? I mean, we aren't promoting this sort of behavior, most people were disgusted by the video, and most people are not even remotely close to behaving like this. I suggest a removal of the "moral decline" section because it's just giving ammo to the nostalgic lunacy that's destroying America. ----Eman91 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.240.43 (talk) 23:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got a point.

You have to bear in mind that the "moral bankruptcy" phrase is clearly attributed to VH1, a TV channel the publishes videos glorifying thuggery, gangsterism, drug pushing and pimping, and the phrase "society's declining morals" is in a reference to a TV show "Law and Order: SVU", which is I hazard to guess a modern-day version of the infamous Dragnet.

But the first sentence says this:

Many in the media have taken the video's popularity as a sign of society's declining morals.

This is referenced to the following statements:

• "Seriously, though, how long are you going to enjoy watching “Two Girls One Cup” reaction videos? "[2]

• This isn't about declining morals. The article is about the paucity of entertainment available to deprived TV viewers during the writer's strike of 2007/8. It's a comment on the media.

• "How desperate for attention does someone to need to be to produce the likes of the new Internet video phenomenon "2 Girls, 1 Cup"? " and " I suppose everyone is entitled to his or her 15 minutes. I just hope that in the case of the video "2 Girls, 1 Cup" the math makes it more like seven and a half."[3]

• The article is about the low entertainment quality of offerings on Youtube, and like the first reference, these are only tangential references. It's a comment on the media.

• "The two girls and their cup aren't so worrisome – merely ladies with the worst job ever." (found here as the Globe and Mail website doesn't provide free access to me)

• Unlike the other two references, this one does discuss the video in detail and in context. But again it isn't really a comment morals. It's a comment on the media.

So I think we should probably reword it to reflect the nature of the references. --TS 01:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)