Talk:Futanari/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Haruki Genia link

I checked the link to Haruki Genia's website. While he (she?) is listed as an artist that has depicted futanari in his/her works, the website appears to not feature any futanari content. While I would not be surprised if futanari has featured occasionally in Genia's doujin manga, I don't think this Wikipedia page should link to a website that is not immediately relevant to the page's subject matter. Perhaps we could find an artist's website that is more pertinent? --134.173.95.175 (talk) 05:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion ?

I found a reference from a well known futanari artist that defines the concept. I hope it helps preventing the deletion of the article.

There was a reason Trump's definition was not sourced before. His homepage is not "link-free" (http://trump.sakura.ne.jp/link_link.htm), and I believe this booster of pageviews might offend him. Especially without asking him. 3pyon 12:02, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Second Link

The link to 0bsidian.net does not seem appropriate. The site doesn't appear to have anything that distinguishes it from the surely thousands of futanari sites on the intarweb. Does anyone have an argument that it is somehow notable? -GregoryWeir 06:04, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, then. I've removed it. -GregoryWeir 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
You're going about this all wrong! Put the thousands of websites up here ;D

SHEMALES. SERIOUS BUSINESS. <removed link to attack site>

How-to

WP:NOT wikipedia is not a how-to or instruction manual. Telling people how to act around transexuals falls undeer that. I can't see any way to clean up this paragraph or turn it into something useful:

Actual transsexuals who have not had genital surgery may or may not be pleased to be referred to by these terms. The polite choice is to mirror their own word-choices--with the caveat that, like any minority, what's an insult from an outsider may be an ironic term of bonding from another insider. unless someone else can, I'll remove it in a couple of days.--Crossmr 21:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Citing actual artists?

I'm here looking up this word and I just had to comment. I think that this article should stick to defining futinari and not go into describiong specific artists. There are undoubtednly dozens and dozens of artists, each with their own styles. It's not practical to list them all, so it's probably best not to list any. --69.210.125.174 07:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there is a full futanari wiki at the following address to utilize for that purpose: http://www.futanari.org/wiki/
Furthermore, are all of the 18+ pages of anime/manga articles going to be given this runover? I am sure not many editors are not fully competent to talk about hentai, let alone futanari and other sub-genres. --65.42.81.48 11:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to remove mentions of specific artists, but I keep being reverted under grounds of vandalism by the anon who added the material in the first place. He also doesn't seem to want to discuss things even when I have explained the deletions. Unfortunately, his IP is shared so leaving messages on his talk page is no use, so there is nothing I can do about this article now (due to 3RR). Shame. _dk 06:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I and some others have taken some action. View discussion here, or here. 3pyon 20:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Psuedo-Shock image

Is the image really nessisary? It is quite a shock, even to us 'in the know'. If you really need an image, I'm sure ones can be found that are at least a notch lower.--80.235.59.31 17:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Technically it violates the license it was uploaded under. I don't see this image being used to:
   * the issue of the comic book in question;
   * the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or
   * the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question;

so it probably should be considered for deletion. --Crossmr 17:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Too many pics

I don't think it's necessary to have three pics in this article, there are more pics than text, only one would be Ok. --Black Omnimon 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

links etc.

i think the article should include links, so people can "get a taste" of futanari. Maybe something along the lines of http://futanariproject.pbwiki.com/translated which contains english mangas. but, yeah, whatever, im not trying to advertise or anything, it's just really hard to get a safe futanari site, you know? Good article, btw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.134.241.115 (talk) 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

newhalf

You say that 'newhalf' specifically refers to people with women's bodies but only male genetalia. I watched an anime recently called "Okane ga Nai" which included a 'newhalf' character that was definitely male. The subbers defined 'newhalf' as a pre-op or non-op transexual, meaning men who live as women but have not had their bodies surgically altered. Perhaps this term needs more research?

Redqueen76 (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.101.113 (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Funtanari pic I did

I did a picture on MS Paint that shows an example of Futanari, but I don't know how to upload images. -_- Superjustinbros. (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Small source

For interpretation of "dickgirls", can be found here. KellenT 19:34, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Original version here KellenT 19:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation for origin of term:

First, a component of the term, futanari, implies that this understanding of a hermaphrodite is strongly anchored to the dualistic notion of sex. Futa means the number 2, and nari refers to either a “figure” or a state of “becoming.” ... futanari indicates androgynous ... futanari were included in Yamai no S¯oshi [Book of the disease] ... Differently put, in this paradigm futanari falls into the category of disease, along with anal fistulas, pyorrhea, lice, and so forth

From: Morinaga, Maki (2002). "The Gender of Onnagata As the Imitating Imitated: Its Historicity, Performativity, and Involvement in the Circulation of Femininity". Positions: East Asia Cultures Critique. 10 (2): 254.  - KellenT 21:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Futanari [real meaning]

I don't usually interfere with the flow of wikipedia, but the article and several editors are blatantly inaccurate with respect to the meaning of "futanari": 二成、双成、双成り、二形、両形 - all spellings have at least some dictionary definitions as hermaphrodite (両性具有者) or androgyne. Source: Kenkyusha's New Japanese-English Dictionary and Daijirin 3rd edition. Both definitive dictionaries. No need for "double form" nonsense, or suggestions that is a neologism; however, I have not updated the article.

The typical dictionary will tell you what the word means in its native language. However, this is the English Wikipedia, and we here at Wikipedia would like to speak of the word in the English context, which is different. Kind of like how bukkake is still used in modern Japan to describe the dunking of noodles, but that definition is unheard of in the English variant of the word.(Myscrnnm (talk) 18:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC))

Missing the point. The article says the JAPANESE meaning is "two form". It is not. If you want the Japanese meaning there, put it accurately. If the Japanese meaning is irrelevant, remove it altogether. And apart from that, how is it meaning "hermaphrodite" irrelevant? It is probably more descriptive than the "two form" bullshit. 60.228.110.86 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Some random tidbits for sources

Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan
Gary P. Leupp
University of California Press, 1997
ISBN 0520209001
p. 174: Discussion of sexual appeal of androgyny in Tokugawa period, mentions the word futanari (which he translates as "dual form") as a contemporary term for androgyny, and gives a use from c.1644 referring to an onnagata (female-role actor).

Manga: the complete guide
Jason Thompson
Ballantine Books/Del Rey, 2007
ISBN 0345485904
The Introduction to the "Adult Manga" section, written by someone other than JT (don't remember offhand who) discusses futanari (glossed as 'hermaphrodites, "she-males"') as a 1990's ero-manga trend.

Men and masculinities in contemporary Japan: dislocating the salaryman doxa
Edited by James E. Roberson and Nobue Suzuki
Routledge, 2003
ISBN 0415244463
Article p20-36 "What masculinity?: Transgender practices among Japanes "men"", by Wim Lunsing
Briefly discusses use of "nyūhāfu" in 1980s-90s Japan as a term referring to transgendered or transexual men, as well as an "occupational category" (transgendered male entertainers, particularly those that work in clubs catering to straight people), suggests a recent, more specific usage to mean men who have had hormone therapy and/or breast implants but have not undergone full sex-reassignment therapy (p.27: "New half can be equated to what in Western contexts may be called 'chicks with dicks' or 'she-males', i.e. men with breasts acquired through surgery and/or the use of oestrogen."), and mentions that it is typically considered an offensive term but is also used as a self-descriptor by persons who feel "halfway between men and women".

Takarazuka: sexual politics and popular culture in modern Japan
Jennifer Ellen Robertson
University of California Press, 1998
ISBN 0520211510
pg.201-205 Links pornographic and non-pornographic manga representations of "New Half" (here used to describe both transgendered individuals as well as "she-male" manga characters) to lolicon, in that they are often shown as cross-dressing in lolita-style clothing and are often explicitly presented as being young/adolescent/not-adult. Paraphrases some previously-published views from Japanese scholars on the appeal of "New Half" to heterosexual men: "an opportunity "to possess a woman completely"; more specifically [...] to recover their lost femininity" (Watanabe Tsuneo); or an expression of sexuality while repressing or delaying adulthood (which entails becoming "an unambiguously heterosexual male") (Ueno Chizuko).

- JRBrown (talk) 18:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

File:The kanji for Futanari.png

Exactly how does this image illustrate the subject matter? It appears to serve no purpose other than being purely decorative. —Farix (t | c) 04:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason for the kanji image. The kanji is already present in the lead of the article, that should be sufficient. Kanji image file would be appropriate in the article on kanji, but not in every article on a subject with a connection to the Japanese language... Dekkappai (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Maybe you should also consider, that many readers don't have the ability to read kanji, just because many running systems don't have full support for UTF-8 or lacking fonts. Otherwise you are right, that it has no meaning for the article. --Niabot (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Lack of support for east Asian fonts has not been a great concern on other articles about Japanese subjects. This article isn't an exception. —Farix (t | c) 13:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I did not oppose. It may be usefull for some readers, but i guess it has no meaning for the readers, since everyone that can read this Kanji or put them to use, will have the needed fonts installed. You are free to remove it, if you like. --Niabot (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't see a reader who is able to read Japanese not having the ability to display Japanese characters one way or the other... and if s/he can't, s/he'd want to get that fixed. So, no, there's no reason for us to provide a kanji image in every article that contains a Japanese word. Same goes for every other non-Romanized language, of course. Dekkappai (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Kanji image removed. I've moved File:Futanari.png up in its place. —Farix (t | c) 17:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
(sigh) - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Problems with Sources

The main source "Jensen, Nate. (2009) Japanese-English Guide to Sex, Kink and Naughtiness." was self-published on demand. Unless this author is proven to be a reliable source from other works, this source can not be used. The only other source, Thompson, Jason (October 9, 2007). "Adult Reviews". Manga: The Complete Guide" is published by Del Rey which is owned by a major publisher, however it specializes in comics which likely have little editorial review in the traditional publishing sense. There's other sources, maybe, in the external links. These need to be reviewed and added inline citations or removed. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Er, Del Rey is also a science fiction publisher, and was before it branched out into comics. And I know from personal experience that the prose publishing department, at least, has an editorial process with oversight. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Del Rey Manga is an imprint of Del Rey Books which is a branch of Random House, the world's largest English-language publisher. If you are saying Random House doesn't make certain it has quality control for its various subsidiaries then I would say you are quite mistaken.Jinnai 18:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
This article is mainly about an anime/manga phenomenon, and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga considers both Manga: The Complete Guide and Jason Thompson (its author) reliable sources [1] [2]. - JRBrown (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Futanari.png

This image appears to be a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(2). Users who insert this image into the article may in violation of this statute. Discussion can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Futanari. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well the characters aren't obviously minors, nor do they obviously depict actual minors, so you will be hard pressed to state that the image is in violation of Federal law. —Farix (t | c) 04:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Editors reading the above post by Stillwaterising should realize that it has no legal weight or authority whatever. It simply represents the personal opinion of a single Wikipedia editor. In other words, use common sense and ignore it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I've stricken the comment regarding the has been perceived as a legal threat. I would encourage anybody who interested in the topic to read Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States as well as look into 18 U.S.C. § 1466A. The most famous case, Virginia v. Whorely inlcuded images similar to these including "20 obscene E-mails which graphically described, among other things, parents sexually molesting their own children." His conviction was upheld upon appeal and the case was refused by the Supreme Court.
Keep in mind that a child/minor in US law is defined as an individual under that age of 18 at time the image was created. 1466A outlaws the transmission of an image that depicts, or appears to be, of a minor engaging sexually explicit conduct. The majority opinion of the Court of Appeals was that minor portrayed could be fictional with no actual minor involved. Some may argue that this is a victimless crime and a matter of free speech, however it is still illegal under US law. - Stillwaterising (talk) 11:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
But that's the problem. Neither character appears to be a minor. So stating that the image is illegal, and attempting to back up your POV with changes you've made to another article, isn't going to work. —Farix (t | c) 11:59, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The image on left appears to depict a adolescent minor and the one on the right is meant to be an adult. It doesn't matter is the subject is post-pubescent or not, it only matters if the subject is appears to be under the age of 18. Obviously, their ages aren't included in the description, however there are identifing characteristics. 1). Breasts. The adult has larger, full breasts with normal adult-sized nipples. The adolscent has nipples that are smaller than an adults, and small underdeloped breasts that are found on a minor in Tanner stage III (the images and information in the Wikipedia is not accurate, however even if the girl is Tanner stage IV that would put her in the 13-15 year old range). 2) Build. Adult on right has full height, musculature, and proportions. Figure on left is proportioned like an adolenscent. 3) Head. The face on the image of the right is typical of an a child. The head is proportioned and shaped like a child. The hair is styled like a child. 4)Penis. The image on Commons was kept, in part, on the argument that this girl has an adult-size penis. Really? Like this characteristic makes the above irrelavant? Hardly. The article says "in some cases, the futanari character is depicted as having a penis and/or testicles that have grown to a size which is physically implausible." This image was intended to be sexually arousing, and the scenario of an adult fondling an well-endowed adolescent likely appeals to the "prurient interests" of some users, which qualifies it for the first part of the 3-pronged obscenity test (Miller test). - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The body proportions are completely off to begin with. The heads are too large and arms and legs are not in proportion to the torso. The eyes are also obviously exaggerated. So using body proportions to claim that one character is a minor simply doesn't work. While the character on the left does have a more petite figure than the character on the right, a petite figure doesn't mean that the character is a minor. —Farix (t | c) 12:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Never heard of any difference between women? (i just call them women, because they share most parts with them) Of course it was intended that the right woman looks more dominant (darker skin, more developed), which is an usual theme to most realtionsships regarding to yuri. But i never even thought of this accusation, because i had never the intention to depict minors. I just oriented myself on the usual terms and stylistic elements in manga and anime. Which are: No pubic hair and emphasised cuteness (enlarged eyes, small nose, long/colorfull/"gravity ignoring" hair, etc.). I simply can't support your interpretation which is onesided and always try to see a child, even if it is an illustration of an petite adult. --Niabot (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
My $0.02: The image is not necessary to the article, and could be removed with negligible detriment to it. However, the image does not, to me, appear to depict a minor, nor did I even consider that the image might involve an depiction of a minor until Stillwaterising raised the point, and I think Stillwaterising is being a bit paranoid about this issue. I will also point out that, even if the consensus is that the image appears to be of a minor, under US law a sexual drawing of a minor is not per se illegal, and I think it is highly unlikely that a US prosecutor would bring charges based on this type of image alone. - JRBrown (talk) 18:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Is US law the only relevant law that applies to Wikipedia? I haven't clicked on this image or looked at the article, because I don't want to become a criminal: in my country (the UK), any image of a child in a sexual situation, cartoon or real, is illegal per the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. I haven't seen the image in question, so I don't know whether it qualifies, but I have to wonder: is Wikipedia only concerned with abiding by American law, even if that might make it inaccessible to editors elsewhere? We've already been through the Virgin Killer controversy here, surely we don't want to go through that again? (N.B.: this is not meant as a legal threat, just a plea for recognition that not all of us live in countries with such liberal attitudes as the US, and we don't want to become unable to access Wikipedia as a result.) Robofish (talk) 12:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

US law isn't the only law that applies here, but in past discussions it has been the only one to be considered. Wikimedia's head legal council Mike Godwin has been asked repeatedly to comment on what jurisdictions apply, however he has not responded to any of these request. Since this image was inserted without discussion, procedure would dictate that it be removed until consensus has been formed on the talk page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
In other words you said: "I don't know what it is and i have never seen it, but i read it could be illegal. Consider to burn it!" ? --Niabot (talk) 12:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Huh? This forum is for intelligent conversation related to the topic. If you're looking for an emotional response please consider another forum. - Stillwaterising (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that not exactly what he said, just laid out in other words, and an critic to his behavior? I guess it was a little of topic, but essentially there are no children depicted in this image, as you always try to state out. Im just wondering why at least 20 people related to this image didn't see any children, but you do? --Niabot (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I agree with Stillwaterising that the figure on the left is at least arguably under 18. I also suggest that the image is not necessary to a better understanding of the topic of the article. I support removing it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I didn't say there were children depicted. What I said is that the red-head on the left has the characteristics of an developing adolescent female. The character on the right is obviously intended to represent and adult. Since you, Niabot, are the creator of this image would it be possible to rework it so both characters have adult features? - Stillwaterising (talk) 18:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Which adult features you are talking about? You should know, that i would not freely add "adult features", which are not common in anime and manga. --Niabot (talk) 18:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The character on the right has long hair suggesting maturity. The head is smaller an in adult proportions with the body. Breasts are full, larger, and have adult size areolas and suggest Tanner stage 5. The character on the right has several inches taller than the one on the left while seated. Arms are longer and in adult proportions to the body. The contrast between the two characters leads to a stronger impression that the one on the left is intended to portray a minor than if she appeared alone. - Stillwaterising (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you that both have exactly the same size, regarding body and head. Since i had some problems with this perspective, which made me little unsure, i posed two figures from MakeHuman in nearly the exact same way. The left body may look smaler if you look at it only in 2D, but it has two reasons:
  1. The left is leaning backwards, which makes her look shorter (maybe i should change the shading a bit)
  2. On the right side we have a figure, that is sitting on her right leg. That makes her appear larger, even if she has the same size
Same facts apply to the face of both figures, which has also the same size. But the haircut makes the difference, like in reality.
Regarding to the areolas: I have seen pictures of very different kind, and i can ensure you, that smaller/larger areoals make no difference in appearance. --Niabot (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
From their documentation, MakeHuman Mesh's are covered under GNU GPL 3.0 licensing. I would think that you should include this in the file documentation. Please do list what bases mesh/s you used. - Stillwaterising (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
As usual the software falls under the GPL, the created and exported models do not (see http://sites.google.com/site/makehumandocs/licensing). I used the default female type, with some tweaking (to get more curvy lines) and replacing the head with that from this model i created a while ago. You should know, that the proportions of head:body in anime and manga diverts from the usual scheme. --Niabot (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The argument that the image adds nothing to the article is as incomprehensible as the other... Yeah, it adds nothing, just an illustration of what the article is about, which is a form of illustration... I, for one, hadn't ever seen this type of manga, and I've followed Japanese adult entertainment for a few decades. Odd that the same editors who won't allow "the sky is up" on the mainpage without multiple "reliable" sourcing presume that we all know what this stuff looks like without the need of an illustration... In a rational project, of course, we'd have an illustration from an actual comic. But at WP, one of our editors has to volunteer to create one in the style, and then gets hit with the other half of the Catch-22... and legal threats... Dekkappai (talk) 19:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The depiction clearly adds relevance to the subject as the editor above mentioned not everyone will have seen such an image and description alone cannot truly describe and per WP:OI and WP:NFCC the image is appropriate. OI is meant to protect against the very arguments made here and I can assure you any attempts to make this a catch-22 will be defeated, even if the text would need to be clarrified on one or both of those locations as the intent of them was not to prevent any image from being uploaded when it is relevant.
As to the subject of being a minor, that is pure speculation with no basis in relaity. These are imaginary character drawings that clearly were not intended to be done in any realistic fashion. The opinion that one is under 18 holds just as much weight as they are both over 18 because you cannot tell because indivisual differences and the drawing styles. Without a court ruling or takedown because of official office actions as the image is relevant to the subject, it should stay until such time.Jinnai 19:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest people stop project things onto the image that aren't there. The image is fine, and illustrates the subject. The "child porn" complaints are ill-founded and misguided. Verbal chat 20:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I for one did not suggest that "the image adds nothing to the article": I said that "the image is not necessary to a better understanding of the topic". These are not the same. An image of a hermaphrodite human being is not the same thing as an image of sexual activity between two hermaphrodite human one of whom appears to be under age. We can discuss the value that the former might add if and when someone adds one. At present we have the latter under discussion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The article is about a form of manga, not hermaphrodites. An illustration of hermaphrodite(s) would be inappropriate here. An illustration from Futanari manga would be appropriate. Since WP frowns on Fair use, an editor has created and donated an illustration which illustrates the Futanari style of manga. Dekkappai (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Funnily enough, the article is about hermaphrodites: Futanari [...] can mean both the subjects of a special type of pornographic anime or manga (commonly known in the West as hentai), or the genre itself. and 40% of the text is devoted to a description of the sort of hermaphrodite that the term refers to. Of course, none of that invalidates my comment that this discussion is about this specific illustration, nor does it tend to refute my comment that this image is not necessary to a better understanding of the topic. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, then it's simple, we just redirect... But I read, among other things, "The term futanari is usually reserved for characters drawn in an anime art style." Kenny, to claim that an illustration of a form/style of illustration adds nothing to an article discussing that form/style of illustration is... well, not worth responding to... Dekkappai (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
First off, Futanari is not a style or type of manga. It is a character type found in some pornographic anime and manga with a particular physical (anatomical) feature. When someone creates an original illustration of a character with this particular physical (anatomical) feature, it does not introduce any unpublished ideas or concepts. And because the image doesn't introduce any unpublished ideas or concepts, it does not violate WP:NOR. Now is it a high quality image? Not by a long shot IMO, but it is of acceptable artistic quality until someone else presents an image with better artistic quality, such as one where the characters have better body proportions and the everything is in the correct perspective. —Farix (t | c) 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, don't respond to that claim, then, but since it isn't what I said, that's not really relevant. As I reiterated already, my claim was that this image is not necessary to a better understanding of the topic. Do you really maintain that the topic cannot be understood without this particular image? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
If you have a better image I'd like (for want of a better word) to see it. Until then, this image should stay per our G/FA criteria etc. Verbal chat 21:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
It would definitely be more difficult to understand without the image than with the image. —Farix (t | c) 21:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
So we're agreed that the question is matter of balance. Since this particular image is pornographic and involves a figure which is arguably under-age, I maintain that, on balance, this article and indeed Wikipedia in general, is better off without it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I would dispute the claim that either figure is intended to represent a minor. To the extent that such judgements can be made on figures drawn in this style, both of them look fully formed to me. The figure on the left has smaller breasts, but in all other ways the bodies are of nearly identical proportions and would likely be of similar height if depicted standing. I would also dispute the claim that the image isn't needed in the article. It could, however, be moved below the fold without disrupting the flow of the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I would maintain that on balance, the article will not be as informative without the image than with the image. And given the subject matter, using such an image to illustrate the character type described by the article is perfectly acceptable. The fact that two editors are claiming that the image depicts a minor with no real proof to support their claims doesn't change things. —Farix (t | c) 21:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
The article would be worse without this image, unless a "better" image replaces it. No question of "balance", and I don't think anyone brought that up. Verbal chat 21:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I would dispute the claim that either figure is intended to represent a minor. To the extent that such judgements can be made on figures drawn in this style, both of them look fully formed to me. The figure on the left has smaller breasts, but in all other ways the bodies are of nearly identical proportions and would likely be of similar height if depicted standing. I would also dispute the claim that the image isn't needed in the article. It could, however, be moved below the fold without disrupting the flow of the article. Exploding Boy (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll just have one quick word here. The minor status of the character on the left is entirely a figment of SWR's imagination, a leap of imagination which no other editor supports. Furthermore, the Tanner scale he refers to is something developed by a pediatrician to evaluate the development of adolescents. It was never meant to be used to establish the intended ages of imaginary cartoon characters and it is grossly dishonest to use it for that purpose. SWR's long, abstruse justification for his claim that the figure is a minor essentially boils down to this: the character has smallish breasts and areolae, a characteristic that can be found in billions of adult women of all ages. This is frankly absurd and the only action called for is a trip to the woodshed for SWR. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps SJA didn't notice this comment of mine where I supported SWR's view that the figure on the left is arguably under 18. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Support image removal per WP:UNDUE unless editors can demonstrate that this type of illustration is customary in reliable sources writing about Futanari. The image is arguably also WP:OR. --JN466 00:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
    • Images are not covered under WP:OR. They Images are covered by WP:OI which does allow for this type of image.Jinnai 00:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
How is providing an illustration of the article's subject undue weight? That is the weirdest interpretation of WP:UNDUE I've seen yet. And the original research claim has already been refuted as the image is compliant with WP:OI. —Farix (t | c) 00:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I've been following the censorship issue here for a while now, and this has to be about the most assurd set of arguments ever assembled. Two abstract shemales differing only by hair color, and I'm supposed to believe one's an "adult" and one's a "child"? Or worry about laws of random countries (but not Islamic countries...) outside the U.S.? The idea that small-breasted women aren't really women at all is the crowning sexist glory of the Australian censorship crusade, and here someone is taking up this standard as if it were a badge of honor. There's the bizarre case on Wikimedia Commons of someone trying to make this artwork a featured photo, which seems well above its level. And then there's the remaining issue that no one seems to know or care whether this is a reasonably accurate example of this "futanari" genre or not.
      • We had the same arguments in this project with the goatse shock image. If no RS publishes the goatse image as an illustration of their writing about it, then why should we? Because this is an encyclopedia mainly written by (and for) single young males? I don't think so. And even WP:OI requires that the images do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. Are there secondary sources using this type of illustration? --JN466 10:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This illustration cannot be compared to the goatse image. There is nothing grossly shocking or patently offensive about the illustration. Even the image on autofellatio is higher on the "gross scale" than this illustration. And no mainstream reliable source is going to illustrate that subject any more than they would illustrate 69 (sex position), Anal sex, or any other sexual act. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Do you think any mainstream source would use an image like this to illustrate its article on Futanari? I mean that; it is not a rhetorical question.
Note that sex positions like 69 have been illustrated in Western mainstream sources for many years; see Joy of sex, which, while controversial, was written by an academic. There have been many reliably published sex manuals since, and I have no problem with showing whatever they show. --JN466 12:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
It depends very much on the source. Most mainstream sources won't just like they won't illustrate 69 or other sex positions. But then again, there are very few mainstream sources that cover the subject area at all (which is an entirely different issue). But there is nothing in WP:NOR or WP:IO that state that the sources have to be mainstream, only that they have to be reliable. There are plenty of illustrations in the works from which the character type comes from. And these works are perfectly reliable for the content and concepts within them. So creating a similar illustration to provide an example of the concept is hardly introducing an new or unpublished concept, and therefore is not original research. —Farix (t | c) 13:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I strongly disagree re illustrations of sexual positions like 69; reliable sources in that field (encyclopedias of sex, sex manuals etc.) do use illustrations, and so should we, using similar illustration styles. (The illustration in Autofellatio probably fails to follow that principle.) Futanari comics themselves are primary sources in the context of this article; my argument is that we should model our approach on the existing, reliably published secondary source coverage. If there is little, then our article should reflect that. The specific image discussed here illustrates two different varieties of Futanari characters interacting; I have no idea if interaction between these character types happens in Futanari, if these are indeed the primary types of characters used, and so on. If reliable sources are silent on the matter, then so should we, as we are otherwise entering the realm of fancruft. We should simply reflect the available, reliably published secondary sources. What sources are there, and how do they approach the topic? --JN466 13:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I have seen all different types of futanari inside this works, and also mixed situations appear. This was reason for my decision to illustrate two different kind of futanari inside the same image. Since futanari aren't the work of one single artist and is an common type/genre it is in itself an secondary source. --Niabot (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Please see WP:PSTS; for more background, also see the essay WP:PSTSGUIDE. In an article about Futanari manga, Futanari manga itself is a primary source. Wikipedia articles should be based on secondary sources, i.e. sources that write about Futanari. --JN466 17:40, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
You may not be wrong, but also not completely right. It's much more comparable of writing down the content of an movie (in this case the masses of artworks in different media), but it is not an deeper interpretation behind the meaning. If you look at works falling into this genre (quite obvious), then it is clear what it is about. You could also say that futanari is a term, and any depiction of it is already an secondary source, since it is the interpretation of authors. At least this points should make clear, that it isn't easy to draw a sharp line between this interpretations. It just won't work using Schema F (according to the book) as the only rule, since everyone is free and able to verify it for himself. --Niabot (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
While it all seems very silly, there's a serious point to it: Censorship damages your brain. It turns knowledge into a sideshow, a sideshow into a timid fearful inquiry, a timid fearful inquiry into an overblown declaration of fealty to idiocy, and such a forced declaration into a cynical opportunistic crusade to join the censors and look for the next thing to destroy. Everyone, whatever their degree of enlightenment or ignorance, is damaged and degraded by censorship; and whatever it promises it benefits no one — even its paid enforcers will come to regret it in the end. Wnt (talk) 03:38, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
These are indeed serious issues. The point that "small-breasted women aren't really women at all" is indeed a fairly odious position to take. On the other hand, the view that "children are just small-breasted women" is even more odious. Before the explosion, let me note that nobody here has advanced either of those two propositions, let alone claimed one as a "badge of honour". SWR suggested that one figure looked like a child based on an analysis of their physical characteristics, and I agreed -- lots of other people disagreed. Like it or not, there are restrictions on what you can publish (rightly in my view). These may damage Wnt's brain, but Wikipedia already has plenty of such restrictions, and the Real World has others. Restriction or prohibition of publication of images of children engaged in sexual activity is one such. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
So basically what you are saying is that all images of small-breasted women should automatically be considered child pornography. Of course, the silliness of that line of reasoning speaks for itself. —Farix (t | c) 12:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I said nothing of the kind. I am trying to discuss this particular image. My position, once again, is that this image arguably portrays an under-age person based on physical characteristics (and I can see that this is not the majority point of view). The words you're trying to put into my mouth, and which I reject, contain a petitio principii by using the word "women". If you want to open up a general debate on principles, I would be willing to advance the general proposition that it is reasonable to discuss the question as to whether any given pornographic image which appears to contain children is to be considered child pornography. Is there a problem with that? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
"arguably portrays an under-age person based on physical characteristics" no it doesn't (except in the sense that anyone can argue anything about anything). That argument has already been destroyed and seems to be one of projection. You don't like the images, that's fine. You want it removed, that is also fine. However, it should not be removed until a better, representative image is found. The under age argument holds no weight at all. Verbal chat 20:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
By "projection", do you intend some geometrical comment about perspective in the image, or do you mean psychological projection, the unconscious ascription to others of ones own hidden thoughts? If the latter, I regard it as a serious personal attack on the editors who took that view and call on you to refactor your comment immediately. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Answered at my talk page. It is obvioulsy not a projection of desire, conscious or unconscious, so there is clearly no personal attack. Please stick to the topic, or, rather, stop beating this dead cartoon horse. No hidden meaning in what I wrote. Verbal chat 20:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

(←) OK, that's it. I've said my piece (that this image is arguably child pornography) and the majority disagrees. I've had various unpleasant views ascribed to me, none of which I hold or could reasonably be said to follow from what I have said. I have better things to do. Don't come running to me when the feds call. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This image is arguably child pornography, just as Kenilworth Terrace is arguably an intelligent lifeform. — 98.115.33.195 (talk) 05:42, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the question?

So this has now become an RfC. Hm. What's the question (damnit)? Since none is given, lemme guess around here...

  • "Is this kiddy porn?" ?
    • No.
  • "Is it needed?" ?
    • No opinion.
  • "Is it illegal?" ?
    • I'm not a lawyer.
  • "Do I like it?" ?
    • Who cares what I like?
  • "Can we do the rain dance and dig up some other internal WP-policy because somebody doesn't like it?" ?
    • Apparently so...

Maybe whoever started this could clearly ask a question. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the image again, it does not scream underage any more than the next image of the same nature, that's how manga looks. However, the fact that there's any room for doubt means that another image would be desirable. A black-and-white sketch of a single character standing (with obviously adult proportions) would be just as illustrative and would at least be less likely to labelled as pornography. There is no need for two characters or any form of sexual touching to sum up the article subject in an image, the colour and visual furniture also makes it look far more about presentation than illustration. (TBH I'd just as soon have the image hidden in a drop-down box unless the reader wants to see, but I seriously doubt that's going to happen). One thing that does surprise me in all this is that amateur and semi-pro artists haven't already populated all such articles with their images. Are we failing to reach out to them or just annoying them? Someoneanother 10:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Would violate WP:ACCESS. If you think such images should be hidden by default start a discussion up there or better yet at VP.Jinnai 17:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone infinitely more able would have convinced the community to do so if it were going to happen, it's just my personal preference. A good suggestion none the less. Someoneanother 19:20, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the RFC tag. The "policy" parameter is only for RFCs that concern directly changing the contents of a WP:Policy or WP:Guideline, not for questions about how to apply policies to a specific article. (All RFCs for regular articles are ultimately about how to apply policies.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

re File:Futanari.png

It's my understanding that this image is not Futanari, it is someone's idea of how Futanari would look if they drew Futanari. I think that this is misleading. Can we get a fair-use published image instead? Herostratus (talk) 05:39, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

All drawings are someone's interpretation of that style. See the discussion above as to why the image is acceptable. If a better image is found that can be used, then please propose it here. Verbal chat 06:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
We cannot use a fair use image because there is a non-free equivalent, ie this image, available. Being able to use fair-use images is listed under WP:NFCC as having absolutely no way to have a free item avialable which because all drawings are someone's idea, that would violate.Jinnai 17:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

pornographic links

Alright, this is a serious issue: (for the tiny, tiny sliver of people who would ever see this page) Should the Futanari page contain pornographic links? I have contributed to this article because I like Futanari as much as the next pervert, (I did the 4 Jan 2005 edits) but I don't feel that Wikipedia, wonderful font of information that it is, should be used as a search engine for exotic porn simply because it is expansive enough to contain definitions of terms found in exotic porn. Pornographic links have been removed from this page before, but I'm not about to be the one to do it again unless I get some positive feedback on this. Comments?

Also, somebody removed the term 'hermies'; frankly I'm glad of this because the name creeps me out and I've never heard it before. Who took it out and what was your reason? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.165.46.236 (talkcontribs) 22:12, 12 February 2005.

Shut the fuck up, tenks I know you edited that here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.208.127.238 (talkcontribs) 01:13, 26 May 2005.

Yeah, I've got to say this article is pretty offensive and non-PC, but the link bothers me. It looks like it's an advert. What's special about that site? Why is it linked? (Do we believe readers cannot google terms on their own anymore?) Paige 00:01, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed the first link because that site appears to be down.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.89.223.211 (talkcontribs) 00:39, 10 September 2005.
Google's fine for alot of stuff, but googling something like Futanari ends up with a lot of useless stuff that really doesn't explain it. Maybe a panel or two from Boku on Futatsu no Tsubasa would be a good compromise? Izuko 20:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I would avoid links to porn. I can't say it's appropriate for wikipedia. --69.210.125.174 07:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored If the links are completely relevant they can be used. If they're spam/advertising, they can be removed. --Crossmr 02:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't agree with Crossmr wholly. I think blatant pornographic images are unnecessary and inappropriate for this article. The pornography article, as well as pornography in Japan, however, are examples of appropriate use of images without directly revealing inappropriate content, keeping Wikipedia tasteful and appropriate for use by all ages. In general I do not think the article needs any images. Kevingamer 03:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
To anyone reading this later, i really want to emphasize WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. Wikipedia is not meant to be safe for all ages. and "tasteful" is so subjective, that its not even worth discussing. If the images helps in understanding the article, we include it. the reason we dont have more "pornographic" images on WP is due to copyright restrictions, im sure. the standards are clearly laid out for WP, which includes honest and complete reporting of notable subjects. links to internet sites with images that are not copyright violations is ok, but not too many. images here would be ok, if they could pass fair use guidelines. however, even covers of manga would not pass, unless we were writing about THAT PARTICULAR MANGA in this article. otherwise, images are ok at each linked article on a particular manga. Censoring articles on pornography is just silly, like watching a tough police procedural on network tv where they all say "heck". right. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly do people really want to have sources cited on this stuff? Keep it as terrifying conjecutre so we can all fervently wish it would go away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.161.72.8 (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

as there is a redirect from such seemingly innocuous terms as "new half" i think the porn image should be replaced with a vivid description so as to avoid the possibility of someone who is trying to avoid porn (like me) from accidentally being offended --67.170.10.189 (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Machine analysis of these Japanese terms

I don't speak a bit of Japanese. I have never participated in writing this article.

Below are the results of my analysis using Google Translate:

  1. 二成 two-adult (my interpretation: "postpubescent in both ways; bipubescent"?)
    • two
    • growth
  2. 二形 hermaphrodite (my interpretation: "two-form; dimorph"?)
    • two
    • shape
  3. ふたなり hermaphrodite (my interpretation: ???)
    • ふた lid
    • なり be; becomes
      • a
      • り [some suffix]
  4. 双成り hermaphrodite (my interpretation: "of dual build; bicomposed"?)
    • 双成 twin growth
    • 成り composed
      • double
      • growth
      • り [some suffix]
  5. 両性具有者 androgyne (my interpretation: "owner of organs of both sexes"?)
    • both
    • sex
    • tool (my interpretation: "organ"?)
    • 有者 owner
        • yes (my interpretation: "right; just"?)
        • person

Thank you
6birc (talk) 23:52, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

ふた means strictly "two" here, not lid. 具有 is a compound meaning possess + 者 = possessor. You can't separate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.137.233 (talk) 03:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

names of some futanari hentai

can we get some names? not links, just names of some futa hentai to look up elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.90.0.45 (talk) 21:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

How about the following:
Manga
  • Futabu (ふた部, Futa Club) from Bosshi
  • Futanarikko Lovers (ふたなりっ娘らばーず) anthology series from various artists
  • Dulce Report (ダルシーレポート) from BehindMoon
  • ...
Anime
Otherwise just search for the terms "futa hentai" and you will find dozens of pages that list hundreds of works. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 23:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Personal Bias

I feel like Niabot has a personal bias towards his picture in this article, as well as a massive superiority complex. This picture is not suitable for Wikipedia, and while I applaud his creation of art for the article, there are much less obscene ways to handle it. Yes, I'm aware Wikipedia is not censored, but that doesn't mean it should host images that look like they belong on a sleazy hentai website. This is the kind of article that prevents Wikipedia from being seen as a legitimate info source, and Niabot's hawklike adoption/protection of this page and any edits to make it more encyclopedic really rubs me the wrong way. It's not an encyclopedia that anyone can edit when someone sits on a page reverting any changes that they dislike. FredrickTech (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

How many socks will we see today? Im just wondering that the edit, which is obviously not the right choice, was done by a "user" which did nothing for years[3], and then it is directly followed up by a comment from a user that did nothing since years as well.[4] Sorry to disapoint you. But that replacement was way of and had nothing to do with futanari. I may be biased, but not toward the picture. It's just the way that we don't have any better replacement. --Niabot (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not a sockpuppet for Fredrick. Some people pointed me to the Futanari picture as an example of ridiculous wikipedia nonsense and I decided to replace it with something else.
I realize that 'Futanari' is itself a concept limited to pornography, and so it's far from unreasonable for the content in it to have pornographic elements. However, this is a publicly available website, open to all, and I think that, as a courtesy, it would be appropriate to ensure that people aren't exposed to erotic art without some warning. It's not a matter of moral probity, but a matter of not arousing viewers when they would rather not be aroused.
It's your own illustration, yes? It's not the nudity but the mutual masturbation which I feel is problematic in this picture. If they were perhaps merely reclining together, the picture would be much less problematic. RiotGearEpsilon (talk) 22:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I decided to draw it that way because from my experience it is at the lower third of the scale what you would actually have to expect if you would look for futanari somewhere else (for example the google image search). So i don't think that this image is actually to pornographic in itself. Going further down the scale would not be representative for the topic itself, since it would be way of the median. Going much higher would also not be appropriate, as you already seem to have problems with this illustration.
Back to sock puppet (or not) issue. Which people pointed you to this image? I just ask this question out of curiosity, since it is very seldom to see two people editing at roughly the same time with nearly no edits at all, or no edits in years appearing at random at the same time at the same article, without making any previous edits related to this topic. To be clear. I won't believe that this is just coincidence. --Niabot (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I googled the term "newhalf", saw this article, and I pointed it out to an IRC channel that both Epsilon and I frequent. I feel like your accusations of sockpuppetry just further my argument of your bias when more than one person has an opposition to the nature of this article. Let me make it clear that while Epsilon and I have the same opinion, we are most definitely not the same person. I do hope you'll notice that I did no editing of the article, and only spoke up when I investigated Niabot's article-squatting. 76.182.31.108 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's about how it happened. It's not sock-puppetry, it's just a crew of peers. Is there any way to shrink the thumbnail slightly? RiotGearEpsilon (talk) 04:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I think a good way to fix this is to commission someone to draw Wikipe-tan futanari. Just saying, it would be pretty great. 69.117.57.119 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree.. No sock here. That image is very inappropriate.61.114.198.239 (talk) 16:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Picture?

I have to question the necessity of using pornography as the main picture for this article. Since this article is not just about the use of "funtari" in pornography, it doesn't make sense to me to centre the main picture so closely around it.

This article also talks about "newhalf," the Japanese word for transgender people. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "female characters with male genitals." Newhalf is not a term limited to anime or manga as this article strongly suggests. It is quite common in general usage to refer to transgender people. For example, I've read an interview conducted about a monk who was "newhalf."

This article is pretty poorly written. It feels like someone with a particular fetish hijacked it. The information shows very little understanding of Japanese culture. To top it off, almost everything on this page is missing a citation. This article is in need of some heavy editing and sourcing. Celynn (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The article shouldn't cover newhalf or treat it as the same as futanari since they are not the same. Futanari (the term and style) is of Japanese (historic also Chinese) origin, while newhalf describes a western development. Mixing both terms together, even if they share much in common, isn't a good idea. I guess it has something to do with the wrong redirect of Newhalf to Futanari. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 18:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Content

The discussion of the linguistic meanings of the term "futanari" would be more suited to the Wiktionary page on the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotHelpingMatters (talkcontribs) 04:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

It is important to distinguish between common language usage of the term ("one term to rule them all", very typical for the Japanese language), the genre, the characters and the works. Inside the Japanese language this term can be used for all four types in the same way, and only the context defines which usage is intended. To clarify this fact it is important to give a 1:1 translation right away, which is also the (historic) origin of the term itself. Leaving that out would not be an improvement, it would degrade the article. The belief in "futanari" goes back to the beginnings of buddhism[1][2] and the term itself, as it is today, can be found in many poems and works, starting at least in the edo period.[2] Removing the linguistic meaning would be exactly the same as to ignore the entire history of the term, including it's todays usage.
  1. Gary P. Leupp: Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan. University of California Press, 1997, ISBN 0-520-20900-1.
  2. Friedrich Salomon Krauss, Tamio Satow, Hermann Ihm, G. Prunner: Japanisches Geschlechtsleben. Abhandlungen und Erhebungen über das Geschlechtsleben des japanischen Volkes; folkloristische Studien. Schustek, 1965, S. 79 ff.
Since you have an account now (70.112.2.185), we should avoid useless edit warring and discuss changes before they are made. Just making something more fluid to read, does not necessarily improve its content. Without digging into sources, only caring about wording, will do more harm then any good. If you have questions, then feel free to ask. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 08:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
@NotHelpingMatters Please stop vandalizing the article. You changed
from: Until 1644, futanari characters portrayed by onnagata actors were a popular element in Japanese drama. Today the phenomena continues in anime and manga in Japan.
to: The use of this form of hermaphroditism in fiction is currently associated mainly with pornographic anime and manga, but in the past has been present in works with more general appeal.
This is factually wrong. It is simply not true that "... [in the] past [it] has been present in works with more general appeal.", because it still is. I see also no reason why you would remove the acting by onnagata or shirabyōshi from the introduction, which is a big corner stone that lead to the todays development of the genre (see Krauss65).
PS: Calling me a "simpering creep" is not helping anyone. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 08:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Image

Please cease uploading the needlessly graphic image. NotHelpingMatters (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSOREDRyulong (琉竜) 01:31, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
That's true, but the image isn't necessary to help us understand the text. I don't believe it needs to be here either.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  17:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no need to showcase that self-made fap-fodder in this article. bobrayner (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
As someone who actually identifies as 'futanari,' I find the image useless and tasteless at best. Whoever insists on keeping the image as-is without any modification is doing so for personal reasons and not for the quality of the article, which could benefit from a more artistic, non-sexualized image, even if the subject matter were to remain naked. I highly suggest whoever it is who is hawking this article to please understand how much this hurts individuals such as myself with blind adherence to "no censorship" when censorship is not even being discussed. EishethIntegra (talk) 22:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

New Image Proposal?

Since you all seem to busy bickering about Wikipedia's guidelines and the technical limits of child pornography, I'm going to do something radical, and suggest that we begin the process of selecting a more tasteful image to represent futanari, as in other articles which depict things of a sexual nature. The subject could remain naked, in a simple, non-sexual pose, and it would be more appropriate to show an individual rather than a pair or group. The article is about futanari themselves, not sex acts futanari may engage in, and thus pornography is inappropriate. This would be akin to putting pornography in the Transsexual page as an 'example' of transsexuality. Can we please begin selecting a new image? Unless you have good reasons to dispute this idea ('censorship' does not count as I am not removing context or content), please refrain from needlessly bantering in this section of the page. I would appreciate if this section were for proposals of new images only. EishethIntegra (talk) 23:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Another point - there is a difference between censorship and criticism. I am criticizing the choice of the image and attempting to set up a topic to discuss an alternative. Censorship would be demanding the article itself be removed. Learn the difference. EishethIntegra (talk) 23:45, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
You have my support - but there is a little devil in the detail. We just don't have any free licensed alternative to this image. So the first step would be to find or to (let) create an image of similar illustrative value (the depiction of the subject as it is). --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 21:08, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I will research various artists from Pixiv and such sites, and ask if they'd be willing to make and openly donate a basic sketch of a futanari for this purpose when I have the next opportunity. I have little doubt that some artists would be willing to do this, especially for a spot on a prestigious site such as Wikipedia. EishethIntegra (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This is fucking insane and an example of why even though I've been reading wikipedia for like eight years I've never signed up. People discussing the need for a picture some dude custom drew of two blushing mutants jerking each other off as if it isn't completely obvious that no, the picture is not needed. It doesn't add anything to this article, destroys any shred of credibility this page has. Anime girls with penises is not complicated, anyone who is on this page has likely seen one, on purpose or more likely as a consequence of general browsing. If the reader somehow hasn't, and finds this page, they are not going to read the whole article and be super fucking confused till they see an example of two of them engaged in sexual activity. "oh jeez now i understand, they are anime girls with dicks! so clear!" Honestly guys, pull your shit together. Fuck. (174.88.1.80 (talk) 23:38, 29 November 2013 (UTC))
Niabot, this is absurd. Stop adding this disturbing and poorly drawn image to the page. It makes the article look unprofessional and drives away readers. 70.112.2.185 (talk) 05:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)


Header Image

Devolved into personal attacks and WP:FORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This article's editing has been hijacked by an individual (Personal attack removed) The continued support for the header image, which is unnecessary to the article and which is by all counts pornography, is both disturbing and unprofessional. 70.112.2.185 (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

That was not a personal attack. It was proof of bias. 70.112.2.185 (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
First of all, let's confine this discussion to the content, not the moral qualities of editors. That being said, the image is highly unencyclopedic, provides no information beyond the text of the article, and should not be used. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Not to mention the image doesn't even make logical sense within the construct it has set up. The childlike one on the left is producing semen in the absence of testicles? The anatomy is awful, it's like a highschool perverts secret art project. If this article is supposed to be about the Japanese concept of transgender people then any of medical documentation of hermaphrodites from the commons should suffice. It's obvious this page is about individual editors sexual fantasies, and isn't really a legitimate page or source of information. There should be no image, or a non sexualized medical image. 174.88.1.80 (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You seem, sadly, to have no clue. Did you even read the article? Maybe you had not the time for reading, being stuck in the process of making personal attacks ...
  1. The article is about a mixed term, which has it's roots in Japanese history, religion, art, and pornography. It evolved to a genre description, which features the modern Japanese comic drawing style and characters that show both primary sexual characteristics.
  2. It is not about the Japanese concept of transgender people. This would be 両性具有 (ryōsei・guyū) and thats why a "medical documentation of hermaphrodites" would be misplaced.
  3. It is not the page which "is about individual editors sexual fantasies". The term itself is about individual authors sexual fantasies.
--/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 01:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Niabot, please leave. The article is in this state because of your biases. The picture in question is something you created. Additionally, your signature creature indicates the exact lack of professional standards and the exact personal biases that have created this situation. Your artwork is actively detrimental to the article. 70.112.2.185 (talk) 02:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
You are one of the nice reasons why i don't leave. The article is sourced and not based on personal biases. I wrote the German version a while ago, which was assessed to be an quality article which is well sourced. I also added sources and content to this article. So don't tell me what to do and stop with this silly personal attacks. My signature has a reason. --/人 ‿‿ 人\ 署名の宣言 02:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I know the reason for your signature. It is a reference to an anime that, due to your contributions to this page, (Personal attack removed). Either way, it is unprofessional and your reasons for including it are flimsy at best. This page does not need your porn. ProgressionalStandards (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
(1) You are not assuming good faith and making a personal attack on a user. This behavior is not tolerated on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I did not assume good faith due to Niabot's (Personal attack removed), as indicated in the article I linked above. If I am supposed to assume good faith in spite of evidence otherwise, then I find that somewhat absurd. ProgressionalStandards (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2013 (UTC)