Talk:Fingering (sexual act)

Sexology and sexuality Start‑class High‑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.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 2, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Urban Dictionary

The title makes it sound like a reliable resource but it's just a collection of silly nonsense. There's a tendency on the sex pages to include slang terms from quite small groups, such as the editor's school, and we end up with a very long and bizarre word list with common usage being swamped. We just need the main terms with the bulk of the article being about the act rather than words. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that , I read the whole thing and it sounds like its all original research based on a user experience and not internet references. 69.62.172.116 (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Speed was talking about UD being an unreliable source, not this article being full of OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any use for using "slang" words. This identification of terms is not, in my opinion, educational. The correct terminology should be used, both biological and sexological. The description of "fingering" is much broader than stated. There are many other aspects to this sexual act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (Coolasmacks (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Not sure what would be better, but the image is God awful! Grunners (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the article with a new image. --SeedFeeder (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what would be better, but the image is god great! And that's the way it is, Sunday September 30, 2012. This is Walter Cronkite Reporting. I mean, I'd prefer an Asian... Blondesareeasy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

digital penetration

What the hell is digital penetration =P It's under the "Law" section Paskari (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penetration via digits I would assume.

'digi' means finger...08:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.2.62.198 (talk)

forced penetration

It is considered illegal in most jurasdictions - NO SHIT! - why is that in the page?

This article is in its infancy, either someone will add and edit the Law section, or it will eventually be removed =) Paskari (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical Term

There has to be a better term for this than fingering something like fingeral-vaginal sex =P. I wouldn't mind having fingering redirect to it, but this doesn't sound reliable. Like if we had an article for Hummmer instead of fellatio. Paskari (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. 87.38.200.36 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it could be called "digital penetration", but WP:COMMONNAME says we should use fingering. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 20:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What on Earth?

You know, I have written three different pages on three different subjects. Not one of them survived. Why? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CITE ANY REFERENCES! This makes me wonder why this page is deemed ok when it is clearly a matter of titilatation. Had it been part of the Masturbation article or something similar then fine but it is on its own! Surviving! And if it is going to be here, why aint there some photographs? --Jefuab (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A-spot stimulation technique as the most effective means of stimulating the A-spot

that's nonsense --132.69.232.145 (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

I would like to move it further down page, so that it is less potentially offensive to quickly browse the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.234.97 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I saw the disclaimer on the edit page. I did the edit anyways, but labeled it as a content decision, as I think the image is more appropriate in the "genital fingering" section, as the image illustrates this particular act.

I'd prefer the article's main illustration to be at the top of the page, but I don't feel strongly enough to move it. If people find knowledge offensive, tough. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My objection is more a to that particular image's placement. I acknowledge that its an illustration (as apposed to an explicit photograph), but I'm not sure if this particular image conveys encyclopedic knowledge (it looks a bit cartoonish to me - my first though was that it was copied from an explicit graphic novel, though it is an original work). Placing it lower in the article assuages my concerns. Perhaps a depiction of "digital manipulation" on ancient pottery could be used for the introductory paragraph?. Just because Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean that it can accommodate some conscientious discretion :). --69.183.234.97 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title Question

In a similar vain to my image placement concerns, I'm also unsure about the title - "fingering" doesn't exactly convey gravitas. Would "digital penetration of the vagina" be a more appropriate title (and "fingering" would redirect to it)? Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? --69.183.234.97 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is no place for euphemisms or neologisms. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, are you in favor of renaming or not? Which are you referring as a euphemism: "fingering" or "digital penetration..."? I was quoting "digital penetration" from the article as the medical name for the act in question, so I wasn't making it up :). --69.183.234.97 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm opposed to renaming. If you've got a medical source then I suppose the term's not a neologism. But this encyclopedia is for a lay audience and we should use reasonably plain English: this is not an article about a medical procedure and we say "finger" not "digit". Sometimes (eg. Mammary intercourse) the plain alternatives are so taboo as to be unusable ("tit fuck"), sometimes (eg. Non-penetrative sex) the alternatives are too diverse ("outercourse", "Frottage" etc.) with different communities using different ones and sometimes (eg Penis) the medical term is the plain term for matter of fact conversation. In this case "fingering" is good plain English. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also the common name for the act. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legal issue

Regarding this removal of an image from this article, I do not know upon what information Jehochman (talk · contribs) was acting, but can I point people to the latter part of this discussion, which I think may be relevant. --Nigelj (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is sexually explicit, of a person, and there's no documentation that the subject is at least 18 years old. Do you have any such evidence? If so, please provide suitable records. If you do not have the evidence, please do not restore the picture under any circumstances. Thank you! On a more mundane note, there is already a drawing, which illustrates the article that could be moved to the top. The drawing does not trigger any age-record-keeping requirements under US law. Jehochman ^Talk 23:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, thank you for asking, here on the talk page. That was a very civil way to approach a potential disagreement. I'll do anything I can to help resolve this. Jehochman ^Talk 23:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could make a start by reading some of the arguments put forward in the link I responded with above and addressing them, citing whatever new information you have from the Wikimedia legal team, rather than just harping on with commands, instructions and your own, apparently ungrounded, legal opinions. --Nigelj (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested clarification. Their position is muddled. Meanwhile, please leave the image out. It is un-encyclopedic and potentially illegal. Jehochman ^Talk 10:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed this – User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 133#Child protection. --Nigelj (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fingering as a teen slang term

Among young people, especially teenagers, these days, I've observed the term fingering as referring solely to the act of inserting one's fingers into a females vagina for the purpose of sexual stimulation. They generally do not use the term to refer to external clitoral only stimulation via the fingers. That seems to a broader usage among sex researchers and other older adults. I don't have any sources off hand to verify this but I think if a reliable source can be found this narrower slang definition should be mentioned in the article. --50.152.139.176 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]