Jump to content

Talk:Fluffer

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

Wikipedia is not censored

[edit]

Removed the template inappositely referring to censorship. As explored further in the discussion with the edit-warring reverters below, bleating about censorship does not justify including offensive images just for the heck of it.

revert war

[edit]

Haydes and Texture: watch your reverts. The problem appears to be "Usually its a guy." Please stop the reverts and discuss your issues here. Whosyourjudas (talk) 21:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What is the controversy? Admittedly I am certainly no expert on fluffers, but it stands to reason that they would typically be the sex that the fluffee finds attractive. Are most men in gay porn not gay? This could be explained in the article, and would certainly be preferabe to an edt war. -R. fiend 05:55, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
[edit]

added links to IMDB pages of the two movies titled The Fluffer since there are no Wikipedia articles about them. --Smooth Henry 17:21, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

Swipes

[edit]

The material about burlesque and real estate fluffing added in version http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fluffing&oldid=41551064 is a direct copy from http://www.fluffer.com/what.html which is copyrighted.

The reference "has drawn bad reviews from several critics after being unmeritously compared to Boogie Nights by its producers" is both unrelated to fluffing and non-neutral point of view.

lesbian films

[edit]

I just finished an all-girl adult film, and happened to catch a credit for the fluffer. Intrigued, I came here to find out what the task of a fluffer might be in such a case. I seem to have come up empty handed, no pun intended. The Taped Crusader 09:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps they check the batteries in vibrating things :) 95.132.59.183 (talk) 21:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALLY MCBEAL, DAMMIT!!

[edit]

Did anybody seem to forget that legendary introduction to the public conciousness?! Sweetfreek 08:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't care if your puns were intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.250.53 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long list of other meanings

[edit]

Almost completely uncited. And shouldn't this be Wiktionary stuff? - Jmabel | Talk 05:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either disambiguation of the term (if its other meanings are notable), or wiktionary (if not), would work for me too. Not really article content. FT2 (Talk | email) 09:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I think it should be removed. -Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.83.43 (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move

[edit]

A fluffer in the context of the main definition in this article is a makeup artist? Would someone care to explain that one? Equazcion •✗/C • 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to ask the same question. The article states the fluffer is considered to be part of the makeup department, but makeup is not the "main duty" of a fluffer. APK yada yada 08:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, there is no spacing between "Fluffer" and the parentheses. APK yada yada 08:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing and I'm done for now. I don't think the current definition on the new dab page is the most accurate description: "Fluffer(makeup artist) is a hairdressing and makeup term. Fluffers were originally those who touched up an actress's hair and makeup during a shoot." It leaves out the stimulation aspect and fluffers are not just for females. APK yada yada 08:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced/Notability/Move

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw this article has 12 possible definitions listed within the article, that makes it a logical page to be disambiguated. Which I was bold and did, fair enough it got reverted. That then brings the next issue to the fore the article doenst have any citation that show what the article says is the primary term nor does it assert why a fluffer is notable. Gnangarra 10:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article doesn't have to "assert its notability" because that would be self referential. With two movies based upon this job, and it being widely known as a profession, that alone asserts its notability. You were wholly incorrect in thinking that WP:BOLD applies to page moves, and if you need to clear that up, speak with any admin. There are four references found on the page. A disambiguation page is not created for a series of definitions, and probably what needs to be done is have this article trimmed down not to include every marginal reference to "fluffing" that one can come up with. --David Shankbone 10:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources you refer to are 1 for each movie at IMDB nothing about the subject itself, and 2 for Fluffer in relation to the London underground. WP:BOLD says be careful it doesnt say that it doesnt apply it points out that such changes can be difficult to revert and then says Such edits are often warranted but please be sure you know what you are doing and feel free to ask for advice. Gnangarra 10:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boldness applies to pretty much anything, but that still doesn't mean you shouldn't make an attempt to discuss big changes first. This is a pretty well-watched article, so it shouldn't have been that hard to get some opinions on what to do. At least suggesting the move on the talk page and waiting a couple days for responses might've been a better choice. Notability applies to everything -- you can't get around it by saying "this is already well-known". That's not how we work here. That said, my guess is that the topic is notable and there are probably reliable sources attesting to that; I could be wrong. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article has one sourced term Fluffer(London Underground), two movies plus and what the article content says(unsourced). In addition there are 11 other alternative uses, some maybe article worthy others arent and could be moved over to Wiktionary. Since it was decided that the use in relation to pornographic movies is more significant than any other usage such notability needs to be asserted(for a similar example Gaffer). Please restore the tags and address the concerns, rather than just dismissing them by saying Stop playing games. Gnangarra 11:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although this article is in regards to The Fluffer, this article gives a concise definition. APK yada yada 11:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no argument over the film, the second does give a definition but its a single sentence not exactly significant coverage and nothing near enough to assert that the term warrants to be at this page name rather than at a disambiguated name. Gnangarra 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1 2 These articles may not go into depth of what fluffers do, but they give a basic description. A fluffer is a career for some guys, so I'm not sure how it wouldn't be considered notable? We have articles for other careers such as Make-up artist, Stripper, Pimp, etc. Why should this be an exception? If this whole conversation is in regards to the news coverage (and by news, I mean fundamentalist christian websites), then I would hope open-minded editors remember that Wikipedia doesn't censor information just because people like my relatives don't like it. If that was the case, we'd be deleting several thousand articles related to "dirty parts" of the human anatomy, the porn industry, and other aspects of human sexuality. APK yada yada 12:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in regards to when you said, "nothing near enough to assert that the term warrants to be at this page name rather than at a disambiguated name." When most people hear the word "fluffer", they think porn. A dab page is probably in order, but the article name you chose "Fluffer(makeup artist)" is completely wrong. If you, or another editor, chooses to dab this page, please pick a better title. Fluffers are 10% makeup artist, 90% other. Also, the definition you used: "a hairdressing and makeup term. Fluffers were originally those who touched up an actress's hair and makeup during a shoot" leaves out the porn industry and it's well-known that fluffers are generally males that stimulate other males, not actresses. APK yada yada 12:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When most people hear the word "fluffer", they think porn. - any source for that please? This page is not "Fluffer", it is "Fluffing". Ghits is unreliable, but porn fluffing is only mentioned in a few of the fist page, the rest are about "making mistakes" (daily telegraph article), breast implants, home decorating, and flatulence. No-one (i hope) is suggesting deletion of this page, but either have a DAB with this page on it, or having a DAB linked to from this page with a hat link. Have this article with the DAB in it is weird. Dan Beale-Cocks 14:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem: we have more cites for the term fluffer as a person removing detritus from the London Underground than for a person in the porn industry. The London Underground usage is also substantially older. A dab page is undoubtedly correct, but the verb "to fluff" (which is what this all boils down to) has numerous uses and I don't see this usage as being anything like the most significant. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support for Gnangarra's solution. ThuranX (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

}

"porn term"?

[edit]

dicdef? --Emesee (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

View from the Penthouse

[edit]

Eons ago, Penthouse Magazine had a couple of articles that touched on fluffing. (Talk about a literary source!) I don't know how to introduce the subject into the Wiki article, but the Penthouse discussions brought up the reasons for fluffing which the Wiki article doesn't.

The thrust of the Penthouse articles was that the actress might be very pretty but not necessarily talented or feeling. The film company employed fluffers to fellate lagging male members (sorry– I can't seem to avoid puns). The fluffers were talented, but either were not able to act or didn't have that plastic pretty look of porn stars.

The salient points were:

  • fluffers were talented but not actress material
  • fluffers were used in cases where actresses were unable to stimulate their co-star
  • the stimulation was oral

--UnicornTapestry (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some kind of freaking gay fetish on Wikipedia?

[edit]

Why is there a photo from a gay porn. I have found this on several sexuality pages, most have been removed. Why can't it be a woman and a man as it is natuarally supposed to be? Why does it have to be two guys pillaging the treasure chest?76.177.34.153 (talk) 19:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um ... bitter? 71.64.154.24 (talk) 17:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with 71.64.154.24. Wikipedia is not censored. 24.174.111.197 (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. If you have a image that is licensed for use here we probably could use it. Until then we work with what we have. -- Banjeboi 21:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with 76.177.34.153. Lack of images isn't an excuse to use bad ones and this articles doesn't really need an image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.35.112 (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
usually you can laugh when right wingers talk about the "gay agenda", but on wikipedia is is a hard core group of gays who attempt to get gay points of view into every possible article 203.212.49.47 (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed this, see Job Description thread below. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone doesnt think this is notable...

[edit]

You may want to look here Willy turner (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comment

[edit]

The photo has been removed. It does nothing to truly illustrate the article, and the intentional gay slant of this entire article is apparent from the unnecessary explanation of the role as "top" being played by one of the actors. Without censoring Wikipedia, it's not out of place to note that a child might easily find this page looking up, for instance, a fluffer nutter sandwich or marshmallow fluff, as actually happened to someone else here. Either leave the objectionable, useless gay-propaganda picture out, or delete this wiktionary entry from the encyclopedia; either is fine. 71.255.142.25 (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a redirect to marshmellow fluff. That is what I was looking for...

For an October 2004 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fluffer

The original article, in very poor taste, but accurate, was almost immediately put to Speedy. I posted a request to reconsider the Speedy, but this got ignored. I don't feel that's right. (You'll look at my own edits, and I'm sure find I normally have no truck with this stuff — but this is in the interest of (a) fairness and (b) some notability: the word appears (with this meaning) on 4 or 5 pages out of the 7 that are automatically shown when you search for it. — Bill 20:31, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and POV assertions of "intentional gay slant" won't get you far. (Not sure what the point of posting the very old deletion debate is, since it was strongly in favor of it being kept.) In any case, you need to achieve WP:CONSENSUS before reverting again. AV3000 (talk) 13:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. The image should remain on the grounds that it depicts a fluffer. Sexual orientation of the subject is irrelevant. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Being the father of a 4 year old and non religious and non-censorship for the sake of it - I believe the picture is more to do with providing sexual titillation to a small percentage of people. Personally it makes me feel like needing a shower but that's just me. The use of the image does not help the article at all and is used for effect rather than reference 205.177.176.242 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]


agreed - I would be sensitive in putting a normal pair in a picture to describe the term photographically - but gays? Hardly target audience in relation to their percentage of ppl in the world. If gays get all giggly over a picture likr this then that's fine but can you put it on a relevent site for the titillation those people are after. What percent of pornographic films are about men buggering men compared to the more natural versions? I realise that many gays are quite sexually aggressive and this can be seen in how they'd arrange things that many people would see - as an extension to the spittle laden 'GET USED TO IT" shouters.Maybe the obvious offensive pic could be replaced with a line drawing or some form of art, etc Plus the picture makes me feel nauseous despite seeing some terrible things on t'inyrtnry

And what the hell does the term "to top" mean?78.147.239.43 (talk) 00:01, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why pick a small minority to base the graphic description? If I wiki searched "fly fishing" would I encounter two chaps with their rods in the river with a caption "Two gay men taking part in fly fishing activities)

Photo

[edit]

The photo has been removed. It does nothing to truly illustrate the article, and the intentional gay slant of this entire article is apparent from the unnecessary explanation of the role as "top" being played by one of the actors. Without censoring Wikipedia, it's not out of place to note that a child might easily find this page looking up, for instance, a fluffer nutter sandwich or marshmallow fluff, as actually happened to someone else here. Either leave the objectionable, useless gay-propaganda picture out, or delete this wiktionary entry from the encyclopedia; either is fine. 71.255.142.25 (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Offensive material (i.e. the image)

[edit]

Anna Frodesiak would do well to learn the actual policies and guidelines in force at Wikipedia. For example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Offensive_material

"Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." The omission of the image does not make the article less informative, relevant or accurate. In fact the only piece of actual extra information conveyed by the image is that a fluffer may wear rubber gloves-- not exactly a wealth of cogent information there, eh? The reference to the "top" role from gay porn, etc. simply fits with the extremely gay original slant of the article, which is actually actively misleading, as the role of fluffer is not restricted to gay porn at all.

More from that Wikipedia rules page: "Labeling content with such terms as "pornography" or responses to content with such terms as "censorship" tends to inflame the discussion and should be avoided." Hence when you refer to excising of an unnecessarily offensive image as "censorship" you are violating Wikipedia rules.

Nor is this particular image really from a neutral point of view. The aim of the inserter was to insert unnecessary homosexual information, not to improve the article. A key hint is the reference to one of the people portrayed in the image as playing the role of a "top" in the gay porn. What does the person's top or bottom status have to do with the role of fluffer? (Wait, don't tell me-- I think I know the answer.)

I do not need to build a consensus before striking offensive material. Another commenter here found this page looking for marshmallow fluff. So would some children. It's offensive, and unnecessarily so. You can threaten to ban or block me; what you cannot do, Anna Frodesiak, gay activist though you may be, is win this argument with logic based on Wikipedia rules or common sense. The image just doesn't work. 71.255.142.25 (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be right. But I don't personally think so. So, I would be delighted if you keep reverting. That way you will end up blocked and the image will remain.
However, if you really, really, really want the image gone, you have to get agreement here among editors. Brute force doesn't work at Wikipedia. Get support here at talk first. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is already ample support. Read the discussion page, including all of the comments about the offensiveness of the image. Read the comment from the person looking for marshmallow fluff. The image is clearly offensive from the point of view of an ordinary Wikipedia reader, although maybe not from your point of view (or that of someone who errs on the side of non-censorship no matter how offensive content may be to the ordinary Wikipedia user). Maybe you can think of what percentage of parents would find the image offensive, for starters. Then explain what the image adds to the article. Merely being on the same subject as an article does not mean an image adds information to the article, nor is it somehow rendered non-offensive on that basis. I have a feeling you would find nothing wrong with an image of a fluffer fellating a "top" in place of the one I have eliminated.71.255.142.25 (talk) 04:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any ample support--I saw that at least three editors reverted your deletion of the image (and a valid maintenance template), and that you were warned already about edit-warring, so a brief block is more than justified. When that's over, you can continue your quest for consensus. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do not believe another photo of an actual 'fluffer' performing that role exists publicly. --David Shankbone 04:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see consensus above.
  • You were the person talking about fluff marshmallow. I don't see mention of it from others.
  • I am neutral.
  • I didn't threaten to block you. I said you will end up blocked.
  • "...clearly offensive from the point of view of an ordinary Wikipedia reader..." is your point of view.
  • "...I have a feeling you would find nothing wrong with..." No. I would also find nothing wrong with an image of seven Push Me Pull Yous doing things that only a mathematician could figure out. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "... percentage of parents would find the image offensive..." I take it your kids don't watch TV. Compare the violence in a minute of that with the image in question, which has a tiny bit of penis in it.
  • Before you call others pro-gay, ask yourself whether or not you're anti-gay. Best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk)
Agree, this is clearly offensive from the point of view of an average Wikipedia user. It is specious to argue that parents wouldn't find the pic offensive, on the basis that violence exists in media. It seems that the referfence to fluff, looking at the history, was a previous unsigned comment by another user. A number of others have already objected here to the image. People patrolling the recent changes page obviously don't represent mainstream Wikipedia users, nor do people viewing this page as a pet project of theirs who like the image and find it appropriate. Shankbone notably did not provide any way in which the image provides extra information to make the article more accurate. Perhaps it's the forementioned bit of penis, or the "top" reference? 174.254.177.9 (talk) 11:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to show that typical users would find the image vulgar or obscene.
The image shows the subject and is thus inherently valuable. Omission would make the article less informative, relevant and accurate.
You have no consensus to remove it. If you continue to war, you will end up blocked like the other IP. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More threats from you were expected, especially after you were delighted to see another poster blocked and for the image to remain. Of course you are making threats, just as saying "touch my property and you will suffer" is a threat.
Again, "showing the subject" and thus being "inherently valuable" appear nowhere in the definition of offensive content and are completely irrelevant. This is not a picture of a fluffy bunny on a page about bunnies. It is a vulgar, obscene image to which many posters here have actually objected already (ignored by you of course), where you already ceded the point about parents for example finding it obscene and vulgar, and where you have not explained what extra information it adds to make the article actually more accurate. We know it's a picture of a fluffer; it's an offensive one, but by your logic no material on fluffers would be found offensive. Including, by your admission, a picture of a man fellating another man on this page where a child may wander in search of marshmallow fluff. 174.254.177.9 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can see this is going nowhere. For now, let's all just hope and pray that the kiddies don't mis-type the word election. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This IP also blocked for a week for edit-warring. Sigh. WP is not a democracy, but the opinion of one against many is only "consensus" in a place that is not this place. I'm going to semi-protect the article and hope that the editor in question will find another soapbox, outside of Wikipedia, or will learn to play with others. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is offensive. I also agree all parents would find it so. 64.223.150.202 (talk) 04:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find offensive here is you and your blatant sockpuppetry, that's offensive. I do not know what do you teach to your kids, but what the hell in the world they will search for this word. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 00:37, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you accuse someone of sockpuppetry just because they don't sign in to post a comment. In fact, it seems to be the case that a great many garden-variety users of the encyclopedia find the image offensive. This image from a gay porn film is quite obviously offensive, and not protected by Wikipedia policy. Lastly, learn to read. Another previous user actually found the article by searching for marshmallow fluff. A different user below found it by searching for an unrelated term as well. Saying "Wikipedia is not censored" over and over like a mantra does not allow all offensive material to be posted without regard to human decency or value. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The image does nothing to improve the article at all; it is uselessly offensive. Nor does promoting a gay agenda by off-topic references to gay-porn-specific roles being played by actors in the image do anything to enhance this article. 71.161.75.203 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed. Found this article via google search for something unrelated. The topic isn't offensive, the picture is. If no one else will say it, then I will: Yes, the fact that it's depicting a gay sex scene makes it more offensive. If it were a hetero scene, I'd be surprised it's there, but not worth making a fuss. I'm not a homophobe, nor a religious nut (yes, I stay home on Sundays), but that doesn't mean I want it shoved in my face either, so to speak. I mean, "Top", really? That's needed? A simple illustration, strategically cropped need not specify the gender of the fluffer, or even no picture at all would suffice. This is crossing a line. It's indecent, does very little to convey the meaning of the article visually, and out of a range of options should an image actually need to be included, is a more offensive choice and should be removed.
Doesn't this violate "2257 record keeping requirements"? As in the same case for the "creampie" article? (bullet point #2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pornography#Jimbo_Wales_on_obscenity) Seems like that's grounds enough to delete it. Apparently, porn and cooking share a lot of similar names. 96.244.116.149 (talk) 02:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just read the law and the image does in fact trigger 2257 record-keeping requirements, as the fluffer is assisting others in performance of explicit sexual acts, and is therefore a "performer" himself. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a user account and am adding my voice to the already-existing consensus that the image is offensive, and that it does not fall into one of the exceptions for such content (merely "showing the subject" as alluded to above just doesn't cut it, and shows a shocking lack of understanding of the basis for hosting offensive content per Wikipedia policy, as any image which merely showed the subject would be fine under such a reading). Not only that, but this does violate the 2257 record-keeping requirements. Sorry for the people here who like pushing such content into the eyes of all viewers, but this time there is no legal basis for your extremely poor taste. KirthMersenne (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the claim that the purity policy have discovered a consensus here that the image should be removed: I call bullshit. Like Chaucer already said, if you don't like the story, turn the page. There is no legal problem here. Drmies (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the information of Kirth Mersenne and various unregistered editors commenting about 2257 above, this article, and the image that's currently on it, is hosted by an organisation called the Wikimedia Foundation. Regarding 2257, the Wikimedia Foundation's lawyer said that the Foundation is not legally obligated by its record-keeping requirements. Your lawyer can talk to the Foundation's lawyer any time you like (I'll provide contact details if you wish) but I should advise you not to make anything that sounds like a threat of legal action if you wish to continue editing Wikipedia. (OK, too late for Kirth, that's for anyone else's information instead.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the possibility of children accidentally encountering the image on Wikipedia, I'll mention that the Foundation has recently invested a lot of time and effort investigating the possibility of introducing an image filter that might, or could, prevent that. Whether it goes ahead or not, remains to be seen. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Demiurge. This heavy-handed language with threats of legal consequences should be answered with facts, not fear. Drmies (talk) 23:08, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys - Section 2257 does not come into play here because these are professional actors, on a professional set working on a movie that is available at video stores. Both the identities and ages of the actors are public on the Internet. I believe this film is called Pounding the Pavement. --David Shankbone 02:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again Shankbone engages in thinly-veiled advertising for his favored gay porn. Shankbone, please don't go to law school-- or please do, if you intend to actually discuss the law rationally. Depicting "professional actors" etc. does not make porn not subject to 2257 record-keeping requirements. Consult a lawyer if you actually want to discuss legal reality, instead of appealing to your other agenda-having pals here. Look up the actual law to read the inescapably clear language that shows you're simply incorrect. 2257 requires specific information to be kept in a specific way, and to be clearly identified. It's not satisfied by porn being available to the public-- that's kinda the point. (I noticed that some of your other gay-porn insertions were deleted from Wikimedia. I'm stunned that this one remains. Even the fluffer depicted is a "performer" here, and one of the talented "actors" is showing his erect penis.) To each his own, but even a shithouse lawyer, you're not. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 02:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, that would be convincing, except that of course the (then-)attorney for Wikimedia would always "take the position" that Wikimedia was not at fault, even arguing it in court if necessary, even when losing; it means essentially nothing, and an offhand mention by a biased attorney is not some sort of legal precedent. :D The idea brought a chuckle, seriously... In addition, it says nothing about the illegality of the images themselves. Wikipedia is not in the (nonprofit) business of hosting illegal information. Hence the illegal image should be removed no matter what legal wrangling the Wikimedia then-lawyer would have been prepared to engage in. Even if it were true, his statement is nothing more than an attempt at passing the buck. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I must have missed the part of the discussion where it was established that the image is illegal. Could you enlighten me? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It triggers 2257 record-keeping requirements, as noted even on the description of the image itself, yet those requirements have not been satisfied by the uploader or anyone else producing or reusing the image. Did you manage to find a notice of where the 2257-required records are kept? 70.109.144.96 (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, according to Mike Godwin, past general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation: "[M]y view is that there is no Foundation or project obligation to keep records pursuant to the models in uploaded photographs. The obligation is generally understood to apply to the producers of such images, and we're not the producers." AV3000 (talk) 03:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't going to work if you're not going to read the previous entries to which you're attempting to reply. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So noted. What also "isn't going to work" is your nonsubstantive reply to his opinion; most editors are going to value his far more than yours. Rather than WP:BATTLING at random individual articles, I can only suggest that you take up the general issues in a more appropriate forum, e.g. WP:Village pump (policy) - where they have already been discussed many times in the past. AV3000 (talk) 04:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What "is going to work", if you care to actually engage in honest discussion, is for you to go right up in this page and read what you're replying to. There you will see, among other things, that the (former) lawyer's past comment on his personal opinion of the Wikimedia Foundation's liability for hosting a 2257-violating image does not make it legal content. He could just as well state that the Wikimedia Foundation is not liable for kiddie porn inserted by users; but that does not mean that the kiddie porn is legal, or stays. I can't state this any more clearly. I think even my second-grade child would have gotten the point long before now; you're just dodging. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 04:52, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this will help convince, on the point that content illegal under U.S. law must be removed per Wikipedia policy-- regardless of whether the Wikimedia Foundation could be sued or prosecuted for it: "Content... that violates... the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will... be removed." 70.109.144.96 (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, without reliably-sourced evidence that the image violates Florida law. Although you're no longer invoking your earlier WP:OR that the image triggers 2257 record-keeping requirements, you're now simply repeating an assertion that the image is illegal, so over & out. AV3000 (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
More speciousness, which I should expect at this point, I suppose. I am continuously invoking the undeniable fact that the image is illegal under U.S. (and hence Florida) law by its unsatisfied 2257 record-keeping requirements. The reliably-sourced evidence is the image itself, which has no 2257 record-keeping notification. Read the disclaimer itself if you don't believe me-- I quote in relevant part: This image "was made after November 1, 1990 and depicts one or more actual human beings engaged in sexually explicit conduct—including but not limited to 'lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person' (USC 18 § 2256)— [and thus] has record-keeping requirements in the United States under the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act (18 U.S.C. 2257)".
You can't win an argument by simply poking your head in the sand, as tempting as it may be. You cannot properly administer Wikipedia by ignoring its own rules and the law as it suits you; whether you enjoy your gay porn or not is really irrelevant here. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If a legal issue is ever raised over this picture then these records can be produced, so what is the issue? --David Shankbone 15:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I realized that I previously failed to indent to the proper level; fixed. Hopefully it's slightly clearer now. I also incorrectly identified Drmies instead of Demiurge1000. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fluffer on set.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Fluffer on set.jpg, 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) 15:30, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has been resolved now, but, sadly, I fear there's gonna be more misuses of WP:BOLD both here and on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Practical Job Description

[edit]

I always had a feeling there was something fishy about this and I doubt the role which I've demoted to secondary status. The other text makes more practical sense and it probably applies to porn generally. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. I doubt it had the restrictive meaning until the film of the same name. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Existing term co-opted by porn industry?

[edit]

So before pornographic films had large budgets for things like "fluffers", did the term have another meaning from mainstream filmmaking? Was/is there a person in the makeup department who, after the director set up the scene but before filming started, would adjust hair and makeup, and are they called a "fluffer"? Then it would seem that the porn term is sort of an inside joke for industry workers. In porn, I would think that a fluffer isn't really part of the hair and makeup department, but rather an assistant director (coaching an actor), or an assistant stage manager (ensuring an actor stays on script and follows his blocking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.190.80.176 (talk) 13:53, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-censorship is not a soapbox for offensiveness

[edit]

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not."

There has been much discussion here to show that a significant portion of Wikipedia users (as evidenced by the cross section choosing to contribute) view the "Fluffer on set.jpg" file as: - Offensive - Obscene - Doing nothing to provide more information to the article.

An argument has been provided that previously no suitable alternatives have been available. One is now provided in the form of "Fluffer.png" which has an attributed author and is fully licensed for use.

This depiction provides the same level of information as the original post.

No picture at all should be necessary as the text included in the article is wholly sufficient to represent the concept of a fluffer. Any pictures at all are simply to provide gratuitous representations of pornography which are not required in order to provide an understanding of the article.

As a compromise, I believe this less offensive picture should be used instead.

Any attempts to describe this as vandalism, or to subvert the new picture with the original pornographic pictures should be highly detailed herein. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.93.177 (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That picture is not a compromise at all. It's a bad joke. O.Koslowski (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how the original picture provides any more information other than to gratuitously show sexual organs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.149.93.177 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. The original picture shows genitals, but not gratuitously so. Your crude replacement provides no information at all. It has nothing at all to do with fluffing, does not inform our readers at all. The original picture shows what fluffing is about. It's about as pornographic as you can expect a picture taken on a porn set to be, but that's because we're discussing a term from the pornographic industry. O.Koslowski (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Crude"? Are you censoring artistic expression now? Or worse being a critic? Your statements are purely subjective. It is fact that the Fluffer.png picture provides more direct information in defense of the article than the original "Fluffer on set.jpg" by providing a narrative as to what is going on. While the "Fluffer on set.jpg" may provide a narrative in the form of less "crude" (to use your terms) imagery, it provides no more information. Therefore, if both pictures provide a roughly equivalent level of substance to the article - the less offensive one should be chosen. Precedent shows that drawings have been chosen over explicit photos in the past when such situations arise. I would continue to argue that no picture is required at all to highlight the text of the article. If a contributor desires to add one for "color" than it should not be in the least bit controversial as it is not a requirement to the comprehension of the term.
Wikipedia's censorship (or lack thereof) policy has been vetted a thousandfold since the project began, and the current revision of the policy has been approved by the community. Please do not edit war. You are free to continue discussing the image here, but removing it again will result in a block. m.o.p 17:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do they exist? Probably did

[edit]

The article currently says in the 2nd paragraph that three porn stars say fluff girls don't exist.

I don't have a source, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that they used to exist, but since the spread of viagra they're no longer needed. Maybe those three porn stars are saying that today they don't exist, and maybe they're right with regard to today.

I just checked the equivalent article in a few other languages and my memory is confirmed by the German, French, Italian but none of them have references attached to the exact sentences except the Italian page, which has two but one is a dead link and the other seems to only say that viagra is used on porn sets. Those three articles also note that digital recording technology also made fluff girls less necessary because the camera crew don't have to take long breaks to fiddle with film etc.

Some of those articles also mention that fluff girls do still exist for certain types of scenes like gang bangs where a bunch of men only get a small amount of time with the star. Gronky (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Fluffer. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use TV industry guidelines?

[edit]

addeps3: wikipedia should use the guidelines as TV industry; nudity is fine, pornography is not. Flaccid male genitals are fine as nudity, erect classed as 'porn'. Depictions of adult sex is fine, as it is not actual photography. As for the kidde shit im not touching that, but photos of actual event obviously is illegal. Go figure.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Addeps3 (talk • contribs) 09:28, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

As repeatedly discussed on this page (see also the talk page archives), Wikipedia is not censored. If you would like to change that, you will need to build a consensus to do so BEFORE you may enact the change. I would suggest raising the issue at WP:PUMP. - SummerPhDv2.0 13:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

addeps3: This not a question of *censorship*. Nobody is censoring you, just warn before you ruin someones reputation in a public place, for reading a wiki. As for configuration, not my fault that wp is configured to post explicit content by default and certainly not noted towards the reader that it may happen. Youve got a problem, 'I would suggest' you fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Addeps3 (talk • contribs) 09:56, September 25, 2017 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, if you are concerned about someone seeing you looking up "ejaculation" and "fluffer" in a public place or at work, I would humbly suggest that not looking up "ejaculation" and "fluffer" in those places would be a good plan.
Wikipedia discusses lots of things you might not want to look up at work. We have photos, videos, sound files and text that will offend lots of people: erect penis, images of women with their hair uncovered, audio files of people saying YHVH, video of a blowjob, etc. Our current policy is outlined at WP:NOTCENSORED. If you would like to change our policy, you can certainly work on that. Until then, the policy stands. If you continue to edit contrary to Wikipedia's policies, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erect

[edit]

A fluffer is a person employed to keep a male adult film star erect on the set.

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fluffer. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:58, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fluffer&oldid=1202061586"