Talk:Donkey punch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pornography (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

a "made-up" sexual move?[edit]

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)

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. --Maxamegalon2000 00:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)
Isn't that like arguing that article on the Cleveland Indians should say that they made the playoffs in 1989? --Maxamegalon2000 05:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

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)

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: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

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 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

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...
There is a porn file called..."Donkey Punch". It features three (at least) separate ladies being "Donkey Punched". Fictitious??? I have this film on my HD right now, and will post stills if needed...there are SEVEN BILLION people in the imply this is fictitious is...well, beyond words, frankly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
19:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Article change[edit]

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

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)

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 (talkcontribs) 20:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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. --Maxamegalon2000 17:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 20:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Proper definition?[edit]

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

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)

"Medical and legal risks"[edit]

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)

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

Timing is (allegedly) very important.[edit]

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)

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)

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)

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)
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)

Kidney punch and not a rabbit punch at all?[edit]

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)


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

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)

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

File:Donkey punch.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was no consensus. Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Keep. I like the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by user:RenamedUser5 1516:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
    Note: This user was banned. Kaldari (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Copy and paste keep since it was just brought up The picture is perfect. It illustrates the topic well. The Wikipedia Foundation recently heralded the used of media, there is a precedent for such images, and a policy WP:NOTCENSORED. The image dis not overly graphic which limits its shock factor. Although this is not necessary, this is something editors often ask for. I assume the reader would prefer this animated drawing over a video of it actually being done. It is a shocking topic and we should not pretend otherwise. There are options to disable such images if you prefer not to see them.Cptnono (talk) 04:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


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

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

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 (talk) 18:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree. Not only is it unnecessary, it's absurd and not in keeping with the tone of the article. (talk) 19:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
The picture is perfect. It illustrates the topic well. The Wikipedia Foundation recently heralded the used of media, there is a precedent for such images, and a policy WP:NOTCENSORED. The image dis not overly graphic which limits its shock factor. Although this is not necessary, this is something editors often ask for. I assume the reader would prefer this animated drawing over a video of it actually being done. It is a shocking topic and we should not pretend otherwise. There are options to disable such images if you prefer not to see them.Cptnono (talk) 19:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
What does it add to the article? This is not like one of the anatomy photos that may actually help someone get an idea as to what's being described. In this case, where it's clearly not playing some useful role in illustrating the topic, and where it really runs afoul of good taste, there's not a reason to have a picture, even though it's just a drawing. "Wikipedia is not censored therefore we should keep this picture" is nothing even resembling a rationale. Excalibre (talk) 03:56, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Yep, it should be removed for the reasons already stated by others. It's not appropriate for the tone of an encyclopedia, online or otherwise. Violence against women and sexual acts are not illustrated in real encyclopedias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2011-12-11T09:19:22

File:TTSGA.gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:TTSGA.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 campaign/kudus/complaints[edit]

The picture is blatantly sexist and offensive. The fact that it seems amusing and benign to some participants of this discussion gives even more cause for concern. That it seems to portray violence towards women in a way that can be perceived as lighthearted and funny, encourages violence against women by normalizing it. Furthermore, the heteronormative view of sex excludes homosexual relationships and people. The fact that Wikipedia is founded on open source philosophy gives even more reason to remove the picture: in this portrayal of sex, LGBTQA people are excluded, women are victimized, and the Wikipedia space ceases to be democratic, instead becoming a male-dominated and hetero-dominated domain. The picture is violent and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the language of the article seems quite gender-neutral - it sounds like it would be just as boneheaded a move when used on a man. :) Wnt (talk) 07:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


This site looks more and more like encylopediadramatica every day! How long do you suppose it will be before Wikipedia has an offended page and an article on goatse? Oh wait you already have one of the two also kudos for the picture it really made me smile — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have put the comments in chronological order. I assume no editor would ever intentionally slight you for your opinion. However, a coordinated attempt to adjust a Wikipedia article is something that established editors will not appreciate. The image is thought provoking. I am sure we can use plenty of other descriptive phrases for it. But its use not meant to me funny. It is not meant to be lewd. It is meant to illustrate a topic that is already "inappropriate". Your input is appreciated and the image is not guaranteed. But please do not assume that it will be removed by throwing a comment or two up every few months from accounts that do not have a record of following the standards on Wikipedia. Keep the snickering to a minimum and appreciate the value of illustrating something that is worthy of notice. Appreciate that an actual photo is not being used. I can get a release on a couple who would love to be shown on Wikipedia in the throws of passion but I ask them to not make an already racy topic that much worse. Your feedback is great but there is a healthy balance right now and continued edit warring and campaigns by certain people to remove the image will not benefit the project. Keep in mind that no one looking up this subject is so innocent that they do not understand sex. Even more importantly, be happy that actual bodies are not being masturbated to while getting viruses. This is meant to be a record of the sum of human knowledge. Human knowledge consists of plenty of sex.07:17, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow she played the feminist card. Sorry your "degree" in women's studies didn't do anything other than make you better at whining on the internet about stuff that offends you, but a .gif of exactly what this article is about is most certainly not indicative of whatever oppressed view of the world you have. Grow up. (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, you really do a great job of illustrating the grown-up mentality of the people who what this unpleasant and useless image kept here. Excalibre (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, you really need to stop with the personal attacks.Cptnono (talk) 04:38, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
I wonder why you addressed this comment to me and didn't say a thing to the person I was replying to. Excalibre (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

anal/vaginal tensing conflict[edit]

the lead says the goal is to create anal tensing, but earlier says that it's "allegedly" used during both anal or vaginal penetration. Does that mean that the vagina also tenses when someone hypothetically does this? Rodaen (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Pop culture[edit]

How was the Jeopardy contestant's answer incorrect? Technically, this term DOES describe a blow to the back of the neck, and it IS named for an animal.

It's not like the guy said "Falcon Punch." Oh, wait-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this some exaggeration/misinterpretation?[edit]

Reading this, I have to wonder if it's a plausible misinterpretation of something else. Cats and skunks are well known for biting the back of the neck to induce ovulation (they also make use of barbed penises, which likewise are not to be recommended!) Actually, even things as far diverged as stingrays engage in copulatory biting. [1] Even humans apparently have some chance of coitus-induced ovulation [2] - though from that source it looks like eroticism, rather than trauma, is what can trigger release of an extra egg and thus twin infants. My guess is that a gentle playful slap, nibble, etc. which is welcomed by the woman and contributes to the sensation of orgasm, should plausibly have some chance of increasing her fertile response. Of course, I still don't have any way right now to go from this to anything that would be acceptable under WP:NOR. Wnt (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Animated image[edit]

I have removed the animated image from the article for two reasons. It does not aid the reader in understanding the text of the article and is therefore unnecessary. It is a poorly rendered cartoonish animation and as such not appropriate quality for inclusion in any article. The fact that the image is currently up for deletion is irrelevant. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And you have been reverted since your reverts disregarded previous discussions and the ongoing deletion discussion.
Everyone reads an article differently. The Foundation has expressed the importance of images. I could point to how this would not be an issue if this was an article on how to eat a burrito (the foil can be awkward) or the intricacies of a stadium (something that images assist the reader in understanding), but Wikipedia is not censored. Adjust your settings or stop looking up smutty topics. What brought you here if it is such a terrible subject unworthy of scholarly discussion? Cptnono (talk) 05:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the removal. It's OR, a user-made cartoon of an urban myth, and something that could cause serious injury if anyone were foolish enough to copy it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
... and it does not illustrate the text. --JN466 06:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Cptnono, I think you may be confusing me with someone else, but it is also possible that you are simply confused more generally. Can you provide a link to the previous discussions involving this animation? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Look at the archives. it has been discussed plenty. I can hold your hand if you want but I am inclined not to since you are edit warring. Both of you have a history of censoring images so I am not really in the mood to spend hours showing you around the discussion pages just for you to filibuster and cry about it. So if one of you chooses to actually make an argument that has not been made before then let me know. I am all for discussing how to make this project better and supporting the use of images, even crude ones, to assist the reader. Look at the archive, look at past edit summaries, pose an argument that is not based on censorship (so far the arguments provided by you to is based on that even if you don't say it blatantly) and then I will be willing to engage. until then, I recommend that you see the deletion discussion. Those guys are actually discussing the merits of the image. But like I said, if this gets deleted there is a good chance you are going to get a properly licensed picture of two beautiful people engaging in the activity. If you would prefer an actual photograph instead of a drawing then let me know. Cptnono (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I have found nothing in the archives. You are claiming that there is a consensus for keeping the animation - it is incumbent on you to at least provide a link to where that consensus exists. If there is no consensus, you really have no reason to be reverting my removal of the image. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 06:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
"BRD" means that yes, it is on you. And "speechifying" is hardly a real word nowadays. And you have still failed to address the reasoning provided to keep. But that is all meaningless if you don't read the previous discussions and the edit summaries harder. So are you arguing consensus or reasoning to remove? Both arguments should show some respect for the common practice of BRD. Cptnono (talk) 06:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Cptnono, the argument is that it's a violent image. It shows an act of violence committed against a woman. The question then becomes one of cost/benefit, so we ask what the benefits are of including it. Does the image illustrate something that actually happens (something of historical or current interest), or something that people might need to see a demonstration of (sex education)? Apparently it does neither, because the article is about an urban myth, not a sex act.
If your argument is that men do this to women during sex, and therefore, although violent, it's also educational, please produce a reliable source to that effect. I would still argue against inclusion, but at least with a source we'd know that the pro-inclusion arguments were on a solid footing. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Most article illustration is OR. The image illustrates the idea of the article, quickly and clearly. The article makes it clear it is not real. The reasons given above are "moralistic", not encyclopedic, and the ethic we really need to apply here is that the reader deserves to enjoy the clarity provided by these other editors' efforts. Destroying article utility is not a worthwhile editing goal. Wnt (talk) 07:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
(It is possible that the graphic could be superseded or complemented by a Fair Use still or very short clip from that film Donkey Punch listed in the disambiguation) Wnt (talk) 07:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The image illustrates the idea that this is part of human sexual behaviour, which is emphatically contradicted by the sources. Removing misleading content is the opposite of destroying article utility. --JN466 07:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Just because something is mythological doesn't mean it can't be illustrated. If someone wanted to make up a CC-licensed illustration for "Mothman", for example, it would be quite useful. And while this act is mythical, I do suspect (as I commented above) that it is an extreme exaggeration based on a tiny grain of truth. Penetrating partners should do more to explore the mysteries of female orgasm, female ejaculation, and induced ovulation... just not like this. Wnt (talk) 07:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Very poetic, Wnt. I'm not sure what made you think that people here needed sexual advice and encouragement from you, but there you are. The Partridge Dictionary of Slang has it as a term used in gay sex, by the way, as in our External link, and denoting a blow to the kidneys (added). --JN466 10:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well why don't you add your source and what it says like a proper Wikipedia editor? Actually he did, and that I approve of. I never said this article was complete. Wnt (talk) 13:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Checking the history, Cptnono, you have, as far as I can see, reinserted the image at least 9 times during the past few weeks (since late Nov). You've reverted half a dozen other editors in the process, and twice gone up to 3RR to keep the image in the article. This does not look like consensus to keep. Neither do the threads above. Given the animation's lack of instructional value and its failure to correspond with the article's text, it really does not make sense to keep it here. --JN466 07:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The truth of the matter is that the image does add to the understanding of the article. It brings automatic visual realisation of what it is talking about, but i would suggest that the fact that it's an urband legend and not an actual sexual practice should be repeated in the description. I won't readd it for now however. VolodyA! V Anarhist User:Beta_M (converse) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Volodya - regardless of whether the act is real or not, a depicition is helpful. A picture is worth 1000 words and all that. As was noted, pretty much all article illustration is OR - you take a photo of the Chrysler Building? OR. Third-party image sources are more difficult to come by, and if you take the photo yourself you get exactly what you want. Yes, the picture is of a hoax. So are all images of dragons, faeries, Atlantis, TV shows, etc. In fact, it's even more important to provide images of things which don't exist, because people can't just go out and look for themselves. As for the argument "it promotes violence towards women", you seem to be equating depicting with promoting. We have photos of Saddam Hussein, that doesn't mean we are promoting his philosophies of governance.
I tried to work out how to work "reality has a well-known liberal bias" into the above, but couldn't work out how. -mattbuck (Talk) 12:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty understanding how the animation actually assists a reader. The alleged act is clearly described in the text. The article isn't about something that is primarily visual like a painting or photograph. There is no compelling reason to have any image, let alone one of such poor quality. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a justification for having unnecessary images. It feels to me like this animation is being used to score some kind of point related to internal Wikipedia politics rather than to help readers. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of the fact that sexual stuff is held to a much higher standard than anything else here - "oh no, this image can't be educational, it's got a penis!" or "no need to show this, it's in the text". If we went on that basis, we first off would need to remove all maps (why do we need a map when we have coordinates?), then probably all buildings (it's a 100 storey building with a spike on the top, the text says that so we don't need an image), certainly all images of South Park characters (looks like made of paper, coloured bits, hairstyle, that's all in text so no need for an illustration). We illustrate articles because it helps with understanding - it doesn't matter what article, all articles are improved with illustration. People just get the idea better when there are pictures. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
In this case, the wrong idea. I am equally sick and tired of having sexual stuff held to a lower standard than anything else here by the likes of you and Wnt: "Oh, this image has a sexual content, that means it's educational – never mind that it contradicts the text, looks like it's drawn by a 15-year-old, is educationally useless, misleads the reader, makes Wikipedia look like it's written by a bunch of puerile and profoundly pathetic wankers rather than anyone with a shred of real-world educational expertise, is unprecedented in reliable published sources, pushes a POV, and carries a chance that the "education" millions (literally!) of readers get here leads to someone ending up paralysed for no good fucking reason whatsoever – lul". As long as we can show off that Wikipedia is NOTCENSORED ... --JN466 15:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It contradicts the text... how so? It's someone having what might well be anal sex, and punching the bottom in the neck. That in no way contradicts the text.
It was drawn by a 15 year old... I agree it's not a brilliant image, but it's better than this 25 year old could do, and frankly it's suitable for purpose.
Educationally useless... it shows the act as the article explains it, so how is it educationally useless?
Misleads the reader... how? It doesn't show the tensing of the anal cavity, only the punching part.
No, what makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of "puerile and profoundly pathetic wankers" is talk pages like this
Pushes a POV... how exactly is this POV?
Someone ending up paralysed... If people just view the image, they aren't going to know much about the act, or why people would want to do it, and so they wouldn't do it (one hopes) because they wouldn't want to kill someone. If they read the text, they'll know it's dangerous and so (one hopes) won't do it. Either way, we can easily add a caption saying "an illustration of a donkey punch, a fictitious and dangerous sexual act" or something along those lines. We cannot however be held responsible for the stupidity of readers.
To me this is not a NOTCENSORED argument, it's an argument about whether this image is useful or not. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The double standards of people amaze me. "This image is of poor quality" is a good argument not to use this particular image, but it's not an argument to use no image, and since there are no better images currently, there's simply no argument as far as i can see. And yes, Wikipedia SHOULDNOTBECENSORED, but it's a much broader argument here. What is at stake is whether or not one chooses to report on everything that is encyclopaedic or only on those things which are safe and approved by some PR committee. I believe that we shouldn't stress over how Wikipedia looks like, after all everybody is Wikipedia, if somebody comes here and sees that the image doesn't look good (which i think is false, it's a reasonable quality image) they have all the right in the world to create a better one. The fact that it's a hoax, however, makes a real video unlikely (i wouldn't advise it), so it may actually be quite good to have this animation. VolodyA! V Anarhist User:Beta_M (converse) 17:55, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I agree with your last sentence. :) Apart from that,
  1. It contradicts the text inasmuch as the text says this is a recent urban legend, and people don't actually do this. To give another example, there is an urban legend according to which people are abducted and then wake up sans one of their kidneys. As far as I am aware, this urban legend is quite discredited. So if we then lead the article on that urban legend with a picture of a person with an incision on their back, I would say that is misleading and detracts rather than adds to the story.
  2. I disagree. A substandard image subtracts value from an article, rather than adding to it. This applies especially where image content is a serious matter. For example, in an article on historic hostage decapitations, it would be poor editorial judgment to feature an amateurish cartoon animation of someone cutting someone's head off. I don't think this is a controversial assertion. I have no doubt that any image of similar quality in such an article would be deleted without much fuss. But violence against women seems to be considered funny. Well, it isn't.
  3. See (1) above. It's actually counterproductive. Even if it were an actual act, the concept of hitting someone on the back of the head is hardly one that requires or benefits from illustration.
  4. See (1) above.
  5. Poor editorial judgment is what makes Wikipedia look puerile – if we look markedly different from reputable published sources. Show me one reputable educational website that shows an animation like this, or show me one reputable style guide or source on educational psychology that recommends such an image.
  6. Images, like all article content, are subject to WP:NPOV / WP:DUE. In other words, they should be no more prominent in Wikipedia than they are in reliable secondary sources. The image here seems to be undue weight, unless you can show me secondary sources treating this topic that choose to feature similar images.
  7. I think plain text, without the titillation, would be more educational here, and make the educational content of the text stand out more strongly. As it is, I doubt many people will bother to read the text. So, to agree with your last sentence,
  8. It is indeed not about NOTCENSORED, but about whether this image is useful in this article. It is not. --JN466 19:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you really arguing "we shouldn't have pictures of things unless other places have pictures of it too"? Anyway, in order (this is going to get long very quickly),
  1. It's a drawing of something, drawings don't always reflect reality. I can draw many things which are not real - a dragon for instance - and my act of drawing it does not make it real. While this may be a sexual act which is not done, this is what it would look like were it done, and I see nothing wrong with that. If you're worried about it implying that it is an act which happens, then use a better caption.
  2. There is honestly nothing wrong with this image, in fact I'd say it's better suited to this article than if it were a "better" image. This way, as you are so worried about, it is clearer that it is a cartoon. Besides, en.wp is by and large prudish and hates all sexual images which are in any way graphic. The image illustrates the act fine. This is not an article on historical decapitations, it's about an urban legend, otherwise known as a joke.
  3. You haven't explained why this is counterproductive, a caption would make clear that it is a fictional act.
  4. See above
  5. Wikipedia does look markedly different from many sources, in that we can use animations, and we do not abide by the style guidelines of other publications.
  6. There was an entire film about the act, I think that qualifies as a depiction.
  7. If you're titillated by the image then you should probably seek help.
  8. What you said, but without the last word.
-mattbuck (Talk) 20:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It is gratuitous depiction of violence towards women. It is not educational, nor is it necessary in an encyclopedia. An appropriate image would help explain why the myth/hoax is not scientifically sound, which should be the objective of this article. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:58, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a gratuitous depiction of violence towards women because this act is a gratuitous depiction of violence towards women. Yet we wouldn't delete the article. Your criticism is in the eye of the beholder. I found it educational. LegrisKe (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
The imagery is gratuitous; it is not needed. The depiction adds nothing to ones understanding of the concept.(anyone who needs the image in order to learn how to hit a woman is not fit to read this article) If anything the imagery is a distraction as a serious understanding of this concept requires the reader to understand that it is not something one can, or should, do in order to achieve greater pleasure during sex. An animation falsely leads the reader to believe that this is possible before they read the article. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with John. The viewer will take in the animation even before they start reading. --JN466 14:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly; we have to factor in the disproportionate power of the image to inform (and therefore mislead) the page visitor. "Here's an animation of a practice that doesn't exist" is a pointless and misleading use of imagery. --JaGatalk 17:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I have two words for this argument Perpetual motion. As can clearly be seen there is an example of the "perpetual motion machine" right at the entrance of the article, and yet somehow i don't think that users would jump to the conclusion that such a thing is possible. VolodyA! V Anarhist User:Beta_M (converse) 05:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Are you being serious? Proposed designs and failed attempts to build a perpetual motion machine have a centuries-long tradition that is widely known, and there are dozens of secondary sources containing illustrations like the one we show. Whereas this crude example is probably the first of its kind in any secondary or tertiary source. It's pure OR, and if you've looked at actual donkey punch scenes in pornographic films made to cash in on this urban legend (accessible via the link John Vandenberg posted below), you'll also realise they don't look like this (porn actors being quite aware that breaking a woman's neck is not part of the script). There is nothing encyclopedic or educational about this image and its intent. --JN466 13:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Would you be happier if it were two men in the picture? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You know, the idea of illustrating this article is ridiculous. Remember that this is an article about the urban legend and NOT merely about this type of sexual violence. The distinction is important; if the point of the article were to outline this type of abuse, the image could be called pertinent. But that isn't what the article's about; it's about this urban myth. Does the image portray the myth? No, that's impossible; there's no physiological mechanism for a man to get increased pleasure from doing this. So what is this image, then? It's just a drawing of some dude punching a woman in the back of the head. It's as silly and pointless as contributing an image to Vagina dentata. --JaGatalk 21:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Try searching Google Images for "vagina dentata". There's all kinds of art up there, and surprisingly some of it is not half bad. With some perseverance someone might well stumble across a free-licensed image which would improve that article substantially. Wnt (talk) 07:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
So adding a picture and saying, "There's no such thing as a vagina with teeth, so here's a drawing of one!" would improve the article, would it? I think you've painted yourself into a corner there. --JaGatalk 15:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Your position here is absurd - vagina dentata is a longstanding myth; you might as well take the illustrations out of Blemmyes (legendary creatures). Frankly, if I were you I would have chosen a better comparison than that. Wnt (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if it was a culturally significant image or high-quality rendering by an artist. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


The Wikipedia page was created in July 2004.[3] The earliest reference we have is Dan Savage (December 2004).[4] I've looked through the archives and AFDs, and couldn't find (reliable) sources that pre-dates the Wikipedia page being created. The closest is what appears to be a user generated site with a page created May 14, 2004[5] Gia Paloma has claimed to have done this; I havent found when she did it (JM Productions 2004 film Guttermouths 30?). There have been a few porn movies which have included this in a scene; would be good to add the dates of them. Here is a September 2004 comic[6] John Vandenberg (chat) 09:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

So it looks like the whole thing was basically made up by one guy then, and propagated via Wikipedia. Swell. --JN466 10:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The two Enron-related sources presently cited are from 2004 (June) as well. Any idea why 129,000 people viewed this article on January 17? --JN466 10:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
It really doesn't matter why the subject of something exists, only that it does and that it's notable. Given the fact there is a movie made about this (which also has an article) I think we can say that this is notable. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree it is notable, now, but in July 2004, this topic warranted only a footnote in the Enron scandal article. I do wonder whether the movie would exist if Wikipedia didnt have a page for this topic in July 2004 (the movie heavily relied on the Wikipedia page in its marketing.), and I wonder how many porn actresses have endured this because "Its on Wikipedia". We cant turn back the clock, but we can try to uncover the chronological sequence of events, which will help us understand to what extent Wikipedia is responsible. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:36, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
My god, you seriously believe that people actually perform this act... -mattbuck (Talk) 10:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately, yes. I've spent the better part of a day reading google results for "donkey punch" and there is a scary number of reports of it happening, usually women saying that a man has done it to them unexpectedly. Also, read Gia Paloma and JM Productions, which was mentioned in my initial post in this thread. I have suspicions that Gia's film wasnt 'real' (see topic of talk page). However there was another pornographic film by the name Donkey Punch, also by JM Productions, 'starring' actress Alex Devine (deleted article) and this is reportedly her story. See also [7] and [8] (be sure to click all the links on that last one, if you find the Commons animation to be "educational") All this information can be found in the history of this en.wp article. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This is interesting, and that last one looks citable. I have to say, I never imagined that the punch in such a film wouldn't be faked - I thought fake punches were one of the movie-maker's most basic tools. (Actually, I still can't entirely rule out in my mind that what she's saying is some kind of very perverse marketing, but I don't think so) But explain how Wikipedia assisted the film's marketing? In 2004 Wikipedia wasn't even all that well known. Wnt (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Donkey Punch (film) reviews often pointed to Wikipedia, often directly. The marketing appears to have also done that, but I havent looked at that aspect as much. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
The reviews would have pointed to something; there doesn't seem to be any shortage of citations for this absurd idea. Our article told people it was an urban legend from the very first day. Wnt (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
It also told readers, for more than three years, "When used, the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the male (see orgasm control)", cited to "Patrice Oneal Explains Donkey-Punching On Fox News". Gawker. Retrieved 2008-12-08.  I cannot imagine any other kind of article getting these monthly viewing figures where such "pretend-sourced" content would have remained for three years. --JN466 15:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I am sick and tired of people telling us how we should be ashamed that people are viewing Wikipedia. That we should be ashamed of citing the sources about something that are out there, such as they are. Without us, people would be following a link to Gawker, or going to Google and finding the site without any additional information. They come here in droves because they expect us to give them what we have - the sources, the illustrations people have contributed, everything. And that's what we should give them. Wnt (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
We should be ashamed of our shoddy content, not of people coming here to view it. Firstly, the source was completely unreliable -- they were talking about jokes, Wnt -- and secondly, we didn't give them what was in the source. Nothing in that source said "When used, the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the male", and nothing linked it to orgasm control. Is it alright with you if women get punched in the back because some twerps think, on the strength of our article, that doing so is a way of enhancing their orgasm? Seriously, do you think telling them that made-up nonsense fulfilled an educational purpose? How about if some girl out there gets her neck injured and spends the next 60 years in a wheelchair? Fine by you, all in the service of NOTCENSORED? --JN466 16:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This article is about a joke, or a hoax if you prefer. We don't represent it any other way. I don't believe that exposing people to more ideas puts them at more risk. Even if there were some miniscule risk some idiot would see this and say "let's try it!", there would be a more than compensating risk that other idiots would see this, get a chuckle, and then not be taken in by the next lunatic suggestion they run across. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Let's take this v-e-r-y slowly then. (1) Do you think then, Wnt, that the passage "When used, the donkey punch is almost exclusively executed during or just before the orgasm of the male (see orgasm control)", cited to "Patrice Oneal Explains Donkey-Punching On Fox News". Gawker. Retrieved 2008-12-08. , was good sourcing, and good article writing? Have you by any chance listened to the source and compared it to the wording we had in the article for three years? (2) Have you read John Vandenberg's comment above that there is a "scary number of reports of it happening, usually women saying that a man has done it to them unexpectedly"? (3) Are you fine with a "miniscule" risk, say of 1 in a million, of some idiot thinking "Let's try it", in light of the fact that this article has had about a half a million views since the beginning of the year? --JN466 04:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You do realize that I can't tweak the wording of a history version? An awkward article is better than none. I don't know where you're getting such useful long-term statistics, or why half a million people would read this, but half a million seconds is 138 hours. For every second each person would spend scratching his head trying to understand what the unillustrated text means, you'd be sentencing the people of the world to spend three and a half standard work weeks of wasted time and effort. And, as I said, I think that any risks imposed would be countered by risks avoided. If you think that giving people miscellaneous information is a risky enterprise fraught with danger, and only the right person taught the right thing by some sage social programmer such as yourself can possibly be ethical, I suppose it explains why you might want to delete so many things from a free encyclopedia, indeed, why not everything from every article altogether? Wnt (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Gee, so a reference to "punching someone in the back of the head while having doggy-style anal sex with them" would leave people desperately scratching their heads trying to understand what that could possibly mean? LOL! A wrong and misleading article is not better than none (that's how the Internet came to think that Erica Feldman and Ian Gutgold invented the hair straightener), and article viewing statistics are here. --JN466 20:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Jayen, the phrase was mentioned on a quiz show, Jeopardy!, on or around that date. [9] SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Sarah, that was clearly it. And good to see you back. :) --JN466 20:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. :) And I see I'm not the only thing that's back. [10] Should we set up an RfC? SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 06:38, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I've found 2001 user generated entry for the term [11] in a rather short glossary[12]. And a list a list in 2002 which also indicates that kidney or head are interchangeable, and that the desired outcome only occur if the receiving partner is knocked out. :/ John Vandenberg (chat) 02:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

At least two actions similar to the Donkey Punch are described in the 1785 french novel The 120 Days of Sodom, although these early variants do not specify punching, the general idea is clearly the same. The English translation of the relevant lines of text are as follows "27. He vigorously constricts the neck of the fifteen-year-old girl he is embuggering - choking her neck has the effect of tightening her anus..." and "44. He fucks a monkey's asshole, the animal is enclosed in a basket; while being sodomized, the monkey is tormented in order that its anus will constrict about the libertine's member." See

Related discussion on Jimbo's talk page ...[edit]

... here. --JN466 19:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


I see that the picture was deleted, then an article protection was placed. In theory this "does not take sides in the dispute". For those who have not observed censorship WikiGaming, this is how I think things are likely to go. I hope I'm wrong, but we'll see:

  • The "temporary protection" until February 14 will not end then. Somehow it will be extended over and over again until the Commons image is deleted.
  • The argument that the image is "not in use" will now be used to sway Commons to delete it. This will be contested, and probably reversed later.
  • Once there is no Commons image, the page will be unprotected to lay down some edit history without the image.
  • Later, when the image is restored, deletionists will claim that there is "no consensus to add it". Now, yes, they always claim that because they're complaining, there's "no consensus", which means "they get their way about everything". But it's hard to claim that with a straight face when it's been in the article for years without interruption.

I hope I'm wrong here, but I've seen similar things before. Wnt (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

You will be pleased to learn that you are wrong, as usual. The animation is used on two other projects, so the "not in use" claim is unlikely. Incidentally, there is no consensus to use the image here, so it would not be surprising if that argument is made, considering the number of editors who have objected to the image, myself included. This image simply isn't of a quality to include here. If we were discussing an image or animation of higher quality there might be reason for people to make some of the arguments they are making, but just about everything said about this particular image is based on defending entrenched ideological positions for the sake of argument. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Correct, the last rfc indicated this article shouldn't be illustrated. Wnt, if you think it should be illustrated, now is a good time to start a new RFC. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:41, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I see four responses to that RfC, if it was one, one "keep", one "clear illustration" i.e. keep as asked, one "doesn't make much of a difference", one "would leave it without a picture". And the person requesting one was against it. So that is definitely not indicating it shouldn't be illustrated. Wnt (talk) 08:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
We see what we want to see. user:Black Falcon:"the image fails to clearly illustrate the subject"; user:Tryptofish: "the image is not very helpful"; user:Chhe: "keep"; user:Deathawk: "Within context it make sense" (another keep) but "you're gonna have a problem representing Donkey Punch"; user:SmokingNewton: "don't feel any picture could reasonably add to the article". Thats three vs two, and one of them is on the grounds that any image is better than none, and another indicating that depictions are a problem. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC) (I've notified all five participants in the last RFC) John Vandenberg (chat) 09:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Tryptofish balanced "not very helpful" against "not having an illustration" and then said "it didn't make much of a difference" on that basis. That is not the same as a moralistic rejection of having an illustration - the vote was at worst two to two. Wnt (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, John, for the note on my talk. I've got to say, I didn't even remember having responded to the last RfC! I looked back at what I said then, and I would explain my comment at the time as primarily being that the existing image was not very helpful, but that it might be desirable to replace it with a better image. Therefore, if you are still discussing the same image, then I would say that I considered it preferable not to use the image. I hope that helps. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, what do you know? It's animated now. That's ... better, I suppose?
As much as I personally find the subject of the image to be crude, distasteful and even criminal, I do have to admit that the addition of the second frame does address the concern that I raised in the previous discussion: "the image fails to clearly illustrate the subject". The second frame does, after all, illustrate "the penetrating partner punching the receiving partner in the back of the head or neck" (quoted from the lead). I'd like to make a suggestion, however: an image which simultaneously displays the two frames would, in my opinion, be less 'shocking' than the animated version. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
This puerile article isn't about the sexually violent act of "the penetrating partner punching the receiving partner in the back of the head or neck". It's about the urban legend that claims doing this will increase the penetrating partner's sexual pleasure. The purpose of the article isn't to describe the actual act (if it were the image might be pertinent); it's to describe the myth. I can't imagine how to illustrate the urban legend itself, but offering a random image of some guy punching his partner in the back of the head is as pointless and childish as including a drawing of a vagina with teeth in vagina dentata. --JaGatalk 12:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You... WHAT? The act is hitting the bottom on the back of the head/neck. You cannot claim that that is not part of the article. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Part of the article, not the article itself. Imagine if the article were List of potentially murderous sexual acts, and "Donkey punch" had its own section. The Donkey punch section would describe the act, and the image would illustrate the act. In that way it would be analogous to, say, missionary position and an illustration could be justified. But this article isn't analogous to missionary position, is it? It isn't about the sex act; it's about the urban legend. The point of the article isn't to inform the reader of the proper technique to strike their partner during intercourse; it's to discuss this revolting urban legend. The need to illustrate the act simply doesn't exist, and considering the shockingly offensive, misogynist nature of the image, there would need to be a very compelling reason to justify keeping it in Wikipedia. --JaGatalk 14:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
JaGa, the article itself is not puerile; it is about a puerile (and idiotic) urban legend about a sickening, sexually violent act. You're right that the image does not illustrate the subject of the article (the urban legend), but it illustrates an element of it. That is, in fact, what many images do and, for free images, that is sufficient – e.g., most images in the article Rhode Island are not of the state but rather of other topics described in the text. In response to your example, I don't see how a high-quality artistic rendering of vagina dentata would be at all out-of-place in that article. Still, I continue to remain undecided about the image's inclusion in the article due to its quality. No offense intended to the artist, but I am, as a general rule, mildly opposed to the use of rough, hand-drawn illustrations of this type, regardless of the subject. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Third option for illustration[edit]

JN466 linked to some video clips at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:"Donkey punch" (animated).gif - namely [13] and [14] The first of these is pretty clear, though I'm not sure about the second. Provided that we include some appropriate discussion of the scene from the original film, it would be appropriate to upload the first clip as a WP:Fair Use file. We might not need the drawing here after that. Wnt (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

They would fail WP:NFCC#1 as a "free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose". -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Not if we're discussing the scene from that film as a notable instance of the urban legend in cinema. Wnt (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you're right. I somehow missed the key portion of your comment that noted, "provided that we include some appropriate discussion of the scene from the original film...". -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The idea of using imagery from one of the two Donkey Punch movies has crossed my mind a few times. Either way they need to be carefully selected and adequately discussed in the article text.
Firstly, the animated gif could be a derived copyright in the country of the creator, and that non-free component cant be ignored as it is replaceable by someone creating a animated gif and making their conversion free. Either get a permission from the creator on, or create an animation yourself.
Secondly, I would be concerned about an animated gif of the porn movie as the objections of the porn actresses would be silenced. And indepth source which mentions this movie draws attention to this aspect. Also, are their good quality sources about the porn movie..?
The simplest part of these movies to include is the cover of Donkey Punch (film) as the article can talk about the marketing of this movie. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am skeptical that cropping a .gif image is a creative work protected by copyright; nonetheless, re-cropping the image smaller and shorter to focus more on the actual punch should reduce any lingering Fair Use issues from any source. I don't know what the movie soundtrack is and whether you actually hear the "wrong side" bit in it - as I understand from that commentary they reshot the scene anyway. Wnt (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
If the creator of the gif is a brit, then the sweat of the brow involved is sufficient for a new copyright. (yea, its stupid, I know) Still, before we get into imagery, we need to introduce a paragraph about the two movies, if they are both notable. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that a video clip from a movie can be used under Fair Use on Wikipedia, especially the most commercially valuable part of the movie. We discuss hundreds of movie scenes on Wikipedia, but you'll notice none of them are illustrated with video clips. Kaldari (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
It appears that recently my comment here has attracted attention at [15]. Nathalie Collida's piece there is very well written and makes many good points for admins, and some for content creators - for example, I've just partially followed through on her suggestion to provide better illustrations to Stretch marks and Striae gravidarum. Wikipedia obviously can do more to ensure that women are fairly treated and that our offerings better cover issues of importance to them. However, I wish to be very clear here, I do not believe it is acceptable to take out or shy away from content because it has the wrong associations. For example, I believe we should fully document - including illustrations whenever available - beliefs concerning blood libels against Jews and Medicine murders against African albinos. It is only by society making an unflinching self-scrutiny that people even begin to perceive discrimination, let alone do anything about it. I would welcome further discussion of her suggestions here on Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC)


The content of this article concerns me.

  1. There seems to be a determined effort to label this as a fictional thing; certainly we have references stating it is dangerous, and Dan Savage commenting that it is "a sex act that exists only in the imaginations of adolescent boys". I'm worried we are synthing this material, though, to act as a form of disclaimer.
  2. With that said we are sorely lacking any historical context for the term/"practice" - where did it come from? Does anyone claim to use it? etc.
  3. I personally have issues with the lead term "fictional" - the supposed outcome of the act is certainly fictional, but is the use? The fact this is now in the slang dictionaries indicates widespread knowledge of the act; so are people using it?

Essentially what we have are slang dictionary definitions, a sex columnists opinion and a medical view of the dangers. I feel we are missing a critical piece of the puzzle that lets us actually write a neutral article - and that piece is origins and use in the real world. As fun as the crusade, and counter-crusade, is against the image I feel it is the least of the issues with this article (which has been sly-POV butchered beyond belief). --Errant (chat!) 23:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Savage would normally be the go-to source for a slang term like this. But per your quote from one of his two pieces mentioning the term, he's totally dismissive of it, characterising it as something simply made up by people who only fantasise about sex, rather than have any. What secondary sources we've found present this as a linguistic term and urban legend arising in the late 1990s/early 2000s (with the exception of a couple of illustrations in film). Find us a sexologist who comments on this as a notable sexual practice ... --JN466 02:39, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi ErrantX, I agree that this article is a jumble of barely related info. It needs to cover the origins of this term at the very least; I started a discussion about that above (see "#History"). Of course people have done a donkey punch, so "fictional" isnt the best description, however the reason it is notable is the myth is that it has a benefit. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it should be specified that the outcome rather than the act is fictional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Donkey Punch gif[edit]

I found a donkey punch gif on imgur so I think its a valid source since I saw some imgur cited sources before

So I think that image should be added to the article --F_JUNK_DUMP 23:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed Jeopardy quote[edit]

I've fixed the quotation after the screen cap seen at Didn't think the page merits inclusion in the references (also I don't know how to do that). Hope this is alright. -- (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect Information regarding time of origin[edit]

The article as currently written incorrectly implies that the idea of the Donkey Punch originated in the 20th century.

This is incorrect, it in fact dates back to at least the eighteenth century, being described at least twice in the Marquis de Sade's The 120 Days of Sodom, although it was not therein referred to by the modern english name "donkey punch" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Both the "27th criminal passion" and "44th criminal passion" described in Part 3 of The 120 Days of Sodom bear a striking resemblance to the modern concept of "donkey punching". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:14, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

"Doesn't even work"[edit]

The idea that this doesn't work is completely false. There might not be any mechanism by which the anal sphincter contracts simply from a light blow to the head, but if you knock the recipient unconscious or kill them it certainly does work. Gerry Radulovic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? My impression (though I didn't look it up...) is that it is common knowledge that the sphincters let loose at time of death. Wnt (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I publish this in this space just hoping not to be deleted by one know-it-all mod. First of all, there're two films called Donkey Punch: the original porn version (2005) and a UK film (2008). There you can see perform a donkey punch, simulated obviously. Second, a form of donkey punch, hair-pulling instead of punching is possible (and not an 'urban legend'). Both have the same purpose. Doing anal sex doggy-style, and just before orgasm, I pull the hair of my partner and ask her to tense up her anus. It's just that simple. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:12, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Donkey punch[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected links on Donkey punch which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

    Triggered by \blukeisback\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The audio file available for this article is vandalism[edit]

Concerning the audio file associated with this page:

...there are bits where the speaker adds parts that are not (and never were) a part of the article (go to 2:22 for an example of this). The audio file should be taken down. --Wickedjargon (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

i have since removed the file from the article --Wickedjargon (talk) 05:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Donkey punch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)