Talk:Facial (sex act)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Pornography (Rated B-class, Mid-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archetypal non-penetrative sex act[edit]

That's what this now is, since oral sex is generally penetrative. What is the legal position in the US or UK, or anywhere. This wouldn't be rape or unlawful sexual intercourse because there is no penetration. But at what age can one consent to it? And if one hadn't what offence would it be - sexual assault? --LeedsKing (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(Please note that this entire response does not make sense taking in mind that there is only one race of human. It is not squirrel people and human people, just human people.)

(Please note that this entire response does not make sense taking in mind that there is only one race of human. It is not squirrel people and human people, just human people.)

I don't understand the comment following LeedsKing's signature, and seeing it twice in a row doesn't help. But my real point is that ejacuating on someone is unquestionably a sexual act, and if done without consent, it is sexual abuse, an act of sexual aggression. The fine points of the law(s) might be interesting to read, but it shouldn't be necessary. I wouldn't want anybody thinking the courts will go easy on them simply because they jizzed on someone without consent, but did not penetrate. I would think any laws mandating that penetration must occur for the action(s) to be illegal would be quite antiquated. Hopefully this comment itself is unnecessary. Don't blow your load on anyone without permission, folks!
--Ben Culture (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, God.[edit]

I'm not going to argue with anyone, because it's my experience (see my own Talk page) that if you argue against the majority persuasively, in such a way that they can't ignore or defeat you -- but nevertheless, they have no intention of following your persuasive suggestions -- you are in danger of being banned. These, obviously, are the words of a man falling out of love with Wikipedia and the editing of articles. Anyway. Let me make my statement:

I do not think the woman in the interracial picture necessarily looks "sad" or "distraught", as has been claimed by some. I think she merely looks submissive, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, a lot of women (and doubtlessly some men, as well) like to cry during or after sex, and it doesn't mean she's been mistreated. Would it be so evil to post a picture of a woman crying?

Some may feel that the "happy", all-Caucasian picture is, in fact, the more offensive one. In the interracial picture, it is clear from the woman's expression that heavy emotions are at work -- quite likely, someone's in love -- whereas the "happy" picture depicts care-free, recreational sex that is possibly casual. It's more reminiscent of hard-core pornography than the interracial picture, which is more like a love scene. For those who feel that sex scenes are only justified in a love story (not me), the interracial picture is clearly the more appropriate.

The realm of sexuality is a realm in which political correctness and "color blindness" have no place, and in fact do not work. Sexuality is not racist but it is racial. For a Caucasian, having sex with an African-American (and, I've been told, vice versa), the interracial aspect is always there. They may be in love, they may be happily married, but on some level they're thrilling to the interracial aspect -- loving it, of course, but very much AWARE of it. It's not necessarily foremost in their minds, every time, but it's never entirely or permanently absent. Obviously, I am speaking from personal experience on this, and can't edit the article with it. I am merely defending the interracial picture, and voting in favor of its being used.

By the way, where do these pictures come from?!? They're very nice. Artistic but unpretentious. INCLUDING the interracial picture.

Is the issue settled yet? If not, I Vote: KEEP.
--Ben Culture (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, what can I say. I don't know what you're talking about. Did you perhaps write all this on the wrong talk page. Anyway, PEOPLE, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, if that's what he is. Just writing irrelevant jibberish isn't really trolling. I suppose one can enjoy the uber-postmodern ranting as a kind of satire. Since I am required to address the article itself, I see nothing wrong with the current picture. --LeedsKing (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't agree with your characterization of the contribution. It seems entirely authentic to me. It is a perspective I'm familiar with, and I'm glad to see it represented here. (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, One year ago, I would have been flabbergasted and outraged that your comments were deleted, while the ones violating actual, hard-and-fast rules of Wikipedia were not. But now, it barely fazes me. Through selective deletion, an admin like Malik Shabazz (neither the first, nor the worst) can make one look like a lone nutjob, rather than just another voter. It's kinda funny, if one doesn't take it too personally. But I wish I had been able to see your supportive comments without looking into this page's History. Hope you're okay with my restoring them. Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)←
Er, thank you, LeedsKing, for proving my point that WP:CIVIL is no longer enforced, which is why I no longer contribute with the level of commitment and quality I maintained for over ten years. Which you could have checked for yourself, and thus known I am not a troll. If you honestly didn't know what I was talking about—if "I am merely defending the interracial picture, and voting in favor of its being used" wasn't clear enough for you—you could have asked me politely. But, as you made clear, you were not commenting in an attempt to improve the article. Ben Culture (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)→

Yeah, that could possibly be a really good troll you posted I'm keeping my eye on you. Besides, we're not Bomis any more ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A good place to start with that eye of yours would be my 10+ years' history of quality edits. Anybody can review that. There is no need to wonder if a registered user is a troll. His edit history is an open book. Also, you could simply choose to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH because they are good principles, even though they are no longer enforced.
Ben Culture (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)→

Has anyone here ever had a girl smile when you jizz on them? Usually they open their mouth but never smile.(Citation needed) I think the interracial picture is better because she isn't smiling.(Thanks for sharing!) I would feel better if the races were reversed though. (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Smiling is not uncommon, nor is laughter. There's a difference between a real girlfriend or wife trying something new, and a jaded porn star sitting through her 43rd facial.
I ask without assuming anything, why would the interracial picture be better with the races reversed? Just curious to hear your reasoning.
--Ben Culture (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't very 'editor'-y, but this has to be the most entertaining (to me) Talk page on Wikipedia. Probity incarnate (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you obviously haven't read the one on Feces. --Anonymous 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)
@, maybe she is just unhappy when she sees your wiener. Herostratus (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Even if Wikipedia's philosophy was "WP:CIVIL can be tossed out the window if an insult is funny enough", your "wiener" joke doesn't even begin to approach such a level of humor. Furthermore, that isn't Wikipedia's philosophy, anyway. Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)→
@Ben Culture, re "Hell, a lot of women (and doubtlessly some men, as well) like to cry during or after sex". I assume this is based on personal experience, so: no, they don't like to cry; they do cry, but only during or after sex with you. Are you sure you've got your various ah entry points sorted out? That could be your problem right there. Or it could be your mask. A lot of men (and doubtlessly some women, as well) like to wear horse head masks during sex. If you're one of them, your partners may simply be crying from fear, shame, and horror. Remove the mask and you'll be all set. And re "Would it be so evil to post a picture of a woman crying?" Yup it would. Herostratus (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This kind of personal attack doesn't belong on the talk page. (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, That your comment above was removed by admin Malik Shabazz, instead of the comment which provoked it . . . is insane. I'd rather think it was some sort of giant typo on his part.Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)←
Herostratus: Really? You're seriously going down the path of least resistance, to the easiest insult possible, after I set it all up for you, and drew you a map?
You're seriously cashing in your not-helping-the-article-at-all chip on that?
Please, let's try NOT be absurd. Can we? Can we TRY assuming that the sum total of my knowledge on sex is not limited to personal experience? Can we consider that perhaps (a.) I have female friends; and (b.) I can read?
Can we step out of the masculine mode of thinking for a moment, just to acknowledge that many people, especially but not exclusively women, weep when they are happy? Have you honestly never encountered the term "tears of joy" anywhere? Have you never read a novel? You've never seen it in a movie? You've never seen anyone do it while watching a movie? Do you know any women on any personal level at all?
I said "... like to cry during or after sex" because that was accurate. I know what I'm talking about. Viewing your labored effort at the cheapest and easiest joke possible, it seems you do not.
I'd also like to know why you brought up horse masks. Again, how does this help the article? And on what planet DO people wear horse masks during sex? I find this all very, very strange. It doesn't enhance your stale joke, much less help the article. Throwing random concepts at the Internet =/= comedy. It's just plain weird.
Also, please explain how publishing a picture of a woman weeping is inherently evil. Nobody said "crying during sex". Nobody said "crying while wearing a facial cum shot". Just "crying". Posting a simple picture of a woman crying is evil ... WHY?
Finally, you kow better. I've done nothing to you. Whether or not you've had enough sex to know what I'm talking about, that's still no excuse for your rudeness, hostility, and insults.
Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)←
P.S. I tend to accept apologies and forgive people easily.

I'm not entire sure who this is addressing either. Maybe the discussion was removed. Anyhow, the first point is correct. The "puppy dog" expression being exhibited is submissive, not sad or regretful. It's play-begging in teasing and/or BDSM. And before any femi-nazi gets all >:@ about it, it's done because it's gratifying to the male to know that the woman wants it, not because it's gratifying to see her as a helpless slut. Well, actually, for BDSM, it is usually both, but it's consentual amongst both as well and both find that satisfying.

Seriously. Some people just don't understand sexual submission at all... when practiced in real life and practiced right, it requires mutual consent and is usually discussed before the act (what's a yes and what's a no)... can't really look at eachother more equal than that. /endrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being a voice of reason,! Yes, I recall quite some discussion and debate about the picture(s). There were strong feelings on both sides. I don't know why it was archived separately, leaving my comment on this page. (Maybe I posted it separately instead of as part of the debate thread.) The only area in which I disagree with you is, I would say "MOST people don't understand D&S at all..." In fact, I think if it were up to voters --god forbid-- BDSM would be criminalized in the U.S. It's just as contrary to Fundamentalist Christianity as homosexuality is. Once people understood that sometimes the man is the submissive, they'd want to outlaw the whole concept immediately. I don't understand why everybody who doesn't actually practice it misunderstands it so wildly ("So ... She spanks you with her hairbrush ... but then she owes you a blowjob, right?"). I mean, I'm not gay, and I'm not a woman, yet I have a rudimentary understanding of what gay sex is, and I can sympathize with a woman going through PMS or menopause, without having to experience it myself. (I know, I've just opened myself up to a rude violation of WP:CIVIL. . . .)
--Ben Culture (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's all promote multiculti until all Whites, _who, I remind you, are a minority in the world_, are extinct! You lot will be known in History as the ones that promoted the White holocaust! (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I Vote: DELETE. There's plenty of real trolling here, but even without it this is an insane talk page and thread. This article falls WELL BELOW the wikipedia standard and not because of what it lacks, but because of what it includes. 80% of these wikipedia sex "cartoons" manage to be benign and informative. Some manage to be INADVERTENTLY into uncanny valley, gratuitousness and distressing to most viewers of the page. This page has TWO pictures that fail in this way. Epic fail, not that anyone called a vote in the first place... There's no point in engaging with the militantly multicultural. LeedsKing (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Why we gotta have this miscegenation crap?[edit]

Why?Its Billy! (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Because WP:CENSOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! Stop multiculti now! It's simply a code word for eradication of the Whites! (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If a cartoon on Wikipedia is causing the eradication of "whites" then Darwinian principles say they don't deserve to survive. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What about guys?[edit]

As a bisexual male I've been on the receiving end quite a few times. It has never felt demeaning to me, this article, however, is written from a heterosexual only POV. I am sure that it could benefit from a gay/bi input, but there is very little literature out there that I would consider sufficiently 'academic' to use as a reference. Any thoughts from the rest of you? Luv2cucum (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

My thought is, that's a perfectly reasonable point. My other thought is, my thoughts don't matter. In case this Talk page doesn't make it abundantly clear, "reasonable" does not drive consensus here. An unreasonable consensus beats rationality every time. And an admin can shape the discussion any way he wants through selective editing, as admin Malik Shabazz did in the section "Oh, God." above.
In other words, you're right -- but being right doesn't matter on Wikipedia anymore.
--Ben Culture (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ben Culture, WP:Verifiability and other WP:Policies and guidelines are reasonable and rational; they are what drive Wikipedia. If anyone can't accept that, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. And per reasons made perfectly clear at WP:Administrators, admins cannot shape a discussion any way he or she wants through selective editing, unless it's how they decide to format a talk page discussion they created (meaning that initial post, as long as that initial post does not violate any Wikipedia rule). There's also the fact that we can think on our own; an admin's words do not automatically sway me. Also, as you may have noticed, Malik Shabazz is not currently on administrative duty; he is also currently retired; see here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)