This is an archive of past discussions about Teabagging. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Teabagging is the oral sex practice of lowering the scrotum into the other partner's mouth.
...allegedly... (based on Googling, but sources are somewhat dubious).
I saw that on John Waters' Pecker, and it appeared to be simply lowering the scrotum onto someone's head. (The dancer does it to the art critic.) Not that I'm a John Waters fan, mind you. Koyaanis Qatsi
The definition I've always used, in my many and frequent discussions of scrotum-based sex practices, is what was in the article -- simply the lowering of the scrotum into the partner's mouth. Of course, Wikipedia Is Not a Dictionary, so unless some more encyclopedic information can be provided, I vote for deletion. Tokerboy
Look here you nimwits! Teabagging was started by the Something Awful Goons playing Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow. Not in Halo. Regardless, the video game reference is unnecessary and I'm killing it. TotalTommyTerror17:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
How does it matter which game started it, what matters is that if you have "corpse humping" redirect to "teabagging", you should definitely have some mention of the video game aspect.
It is definitely far more appropriate to leave the image as an inline link rather than one that loads with the page. There is a very simple reason for this. It could easily qualify as an obscene image, offensive to a large group of people. People use wikipedia to look up things they do not know. So they may have no idea what teabagging is and be exposed to a (potentially) offensive image. Please leave it as an inline link.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@08:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay this image is by definition of the word, explicit. It shows bare human testicles, on a face. A large portion of the population is offended by something like this, and as this is a public project should not be subjected to it unknowingly and unwillfully. I am reverting again, answer and issue with it here. An article censored so often obviously has reason to be. Judging solely by the number of people censoring, vs the number reverting said censorship I think we have a consensus. Unless of course anyone can cite a wikipedia guideline or policy that explicitly trumps removal of an inline image.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
WP:NOT censored. It's just too bad that the human body offends you and a "large portion of the population." In the end, it also breaks WP:NPOV because Wikipedia is not the judge of what is "explicit" or not "explicit." For example, I happen to consider images of tortured jews more "offending" than someone's scrotum. // paroxysm(n)20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see the point in it. I could care less and am not really offended as a matter of fact. However, it may be in the interest of the article, for the purpose of tactfulness, to consider one of a couple options. It wouldn't hurt to replace this particular image with an artistic rendition, such as the articles in similar context Autofellatio and Tribadism. It has solved problems before and comes across a lot better as a whole. It might also be sensible, although not necessary, to move the image in question nower in the page. It looks like it might belong in the sexual act category anyway, as judging by the picture, the person being teabagged seems consious and without objection (both uncharacteristic of teabagging as a prank)--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it seems to belong in the sexual practice section, since it looks nothing like the actions described in the prank section, and putting it there also has the effect of moving it low enough on the page that most users will have to scroll down a bit to see it. Personally, I'd prefer moving it to a link, since I think most people, while not necessarily offended, would prefer not to have the image on their screen without knowing that it was coming. If nothing else, it makes Wikipedia a bit safer for work. That said, moving the image lower down the page helps. I'm not sure that using a drawing rather than a photo makes a significant difference relative to the tastefulness issue, but that might not be a bad idea simply to address the claim of copyright violation. Swillden21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not make it less generally offensive and safer for work if the change can be made without removing the content? The girl in the photo is clearly consenting, even enjoying the situation. Swillden22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
We are not going to make it "less offensive" because uncongeniality is purely a matter of opinion. WP:NPOV. Since it illustrates the prank, it should be placed beside the prank. // paroxysm(n)22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The woman in the picture has her eyes closed because she's laughing, not because she's asleep, unconscious or unaware of what's happening. She's clearly a willing participant, not a prankee. Swillden23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you're clearly ignoring the context of the act, which makes it quite obvious it's being done as a prank, not to turn someone on, here is the original diff of the image being added to accompany the article -- rate above the the prank's description. Hmmm. // Paroxysm(n)01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Where the image goes is really no big deal. I gave an option, it was not taken, no harm no foul. Paroxysm's right. Somehow that part of wikipedia policy slipped by, so boo on my part, and the image should stay, and does not need to be moved or replaced. However, I still hold that it might be sensible to replace the image with one similar to that on the other sex act articles (even though the image in question is a prank). While there is nothing wrong with the current image, the other one may be "more right" if that makes sense at all.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree about the prankishness of the image, but I seem to be in the minority on that, so I'll give. I've moved the image back, and also re-orderd the sections, placing the sexual practice section at the top. That both pushes the image lower on the page and puts the prank section next to the video game section, which seems appropriate given their similarity. I agree that replacing the image with another (perhaps hand-drawn) image is a good idea, particularly since it would also address the question of the copyright violation. Swillden14:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation will not be an issue seeing as though I am the owner and the person involved in this picture. It was definitley a prank, but the resipricant happend to be a good sport and allowed a picture to be snapped. I would undoubtedly argue to keep the picture on this page, because if you try to search for another "teabagging" picture on the internet to help better understand what one is, you come up with results that are MUCH more distasteful then this current picture. A side note... I am also quite amused that this lengthy of a discussion has been taking place with my testicles as the topic :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.200.14 (talk • contribs)
I see one major problem with this whole argument. Proof of ownership would be needed. Also, I have removed the email address from your statement for a couple reasons. The first being that it may not be yours, and you may be exposing someone to unwanted email traffic. If you wish to be contacted by email it is best to create an account and enable wikipedia's email system. Second, if it is yours, it is not a good idea to ask people to come looking for you to verify your claims, that should be provided on wikipedia itself so that it is documented for future reference.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@20:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
That will not be possible license wise. Even if it was, this article has room for 1 image as is (manual of style wise) and it should be a drawing of or the actual act. Someone needs to have the balls (pun intended) to teabag/get teabagged and upload it to commons. There was an image like this but apparently it was ugly. Wikipedia is not censored so we can have such an image but it should look good. I have asked around but my no one I know is interested in helping the project : P .Cptnono (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Rowing drill?
I removed the following recently added content, since I was unable to verify its factuality:
Teabagging is also the term used to refer to the crew rowing drill where a number of members of a boat will simmultaneously tap their oars up and down in the water to practise timming. It is rarely used as a taunt to other crews on the start line. The practise was almost certainly named after the aformentioned sexual practice, a common line of humour among rowers[[rowing]]
Also, this practice can potentially backfire if a sleeping or unconscious victim unexpectedly wakes up and clenches down upon the testicles resulting in a painful shock or injury to the perpetrator.
WTH is this rubbish? Are you going to add every single 'humorous' scenario you can imagine? This entire article is pretty stupid, but the mind boggles at how a comment like this be part of a serious encyclopaedia. LOL, sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.1.151 (talk • contribs)
Isn't unconsentually putting testicles on somebody, or dumping them into the water in a sack, better described as sexual abuse or assault than as a prank? It can result in criminal charges, as is alluded to in the article on Averill Park, New York (it doesn't mention teabagging, but that's what it was - Google it or search the Albany Times-Union archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizombie (talk • contribs)
Not necessarily. Almost any prank qualifies as some form of assault or abuse if the "victim" wants to take it that far. As sexual abuse that would be considerable as the sex act, just commited on an unwilling recipient. If the cops are called to a party or lan or something, because some dumb kid passed out drunk is pissed that someone smooshed their nuts on his face, they are probably going to laugh at him and leave.
Also, and for future reference, its not a good idea to tell someone to google something. If you want to provide evidence you provide it, don't just say "look it up" because they're going to say exactly what I'm about to. I googled it and saw no evidence to support your claim.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@01:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I just said that because I didn't feel like looking it up myself and doing your job for you. Telling people to search themselves when you're the one making the argument is a really, really bad idea for a multitude of reasons. As for these sources, all either of them say is that there was a lawsuit, neither saying the outcome of such a case. Saying something can result in criminal charges does not mean a lot either. You can get arrested and charged for doing just about anything technical. Whether or not it actually qualifies as a felony, misdemeanor, or what have you is another story. In any case, the police leaving in my previous anectdote is probably a little over the top, but its doubtful as all hell that they'd take it seriously. The point is it can be either a prank OR a sex act OR a sexual assault depending on how the recipient feels regarding the act.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suspect unconsensual genital contact constitutes a sexual offense in most jurisdictions whether the bullies who engage in it think it is or isn't. I'll have to see if I can find the outcome of the Averill Park case. As for "repeated dunking of a person restrained inside a bag into water" I can't believe anybody who wasn't drunk (as I expect anyone who would do that would be) would call such assault and battery merely a prank especially when it could easily result in involuntary manslaughter. Esquizombi23:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, how the recipient views it. As for the dunking in water, that is an old use that is probably never used anymore (Especially since boarding schools have fallen somewhat out of favor and hazing laws have become stronger and more present). I changed the article to reflect that. And you must admit, not too long ago it would have been seen as nothing more than a prank. Also I have (unfortunately) been present for many prank teabaggings (although not involved on either side thank god). It is definitely viewed and used as a prank very often. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, how the recipent and the law see it. The perp's intent is pretty much irrelevant. I had never heard of the practice until a few years ago. If it's actually common, I have to wonder where and why.Esquizombi00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Honestly if the recipient is over the age of consent and does not claim assault, it doesn't matter what the law says. In any regard,
its mostly drunk college kids at keg parties and people at LAN parties that do it, and yeah, for some bizarre reason that I want nothing to do with it happens a lot. Bottom line here is this... it can easily be a prank. Pranks are almost always technically considerable as either assault, destruction or property, or harassment if the person on the recieving end chooses to see it that way. A prank is different from a joke in that you are actually doing something to somebody. As a result nearly any prank can be considered a transgression of one sort or another against the recipient.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@05:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Expansion of article
Tokerboy rightly said that the article needs to be deleted if there isn`t really any encyclopedic info. Perhaps as an idea for expansion we could make reference to the above mentioned:
The "sex" act deserves its own article, and a lot of the trivia needs to be trimmed from it. Normally, I'd be against including a bogus "sex act" — 14-year-olds come up with these all the time, and no well-adjusted person would ever do them — but this one is seminotable. Czar Dragon01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Why does it deserve its own article? It will simply be take 1 article and make 2 stubs that will probably never be expanded. Also as a sex act or a prank, they are effectively the same practice and carried out in the same way.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@01:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Where on earth do you get the idea that this is a bogus sex act? It may not be called teabagging, but I can assure you that people do it. Vashti23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Consolidation
I consolidtated the most of the sections into the Sexual Practice and Prank sections, as most of the other sections seem to fall within those two sections and serve better as subsections. I also trimmed the Sexual Assault section down as it was very repetitive and seemed to suffer from TMI syndrome. That is, it contained a lot of information that was either not immediately relevant to the topic, or adequately covered in its own article.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding my recent edits, I created a disambiguation page to cover the extrenous topics that probably did not belong in the main article. I left video games as it is essentially an extension of pranks. If it turns out to be an issue its easy to copy the informatin back and have the empty disambiguation article deleted. I am still reluctant to give The prank and sexual practice seperate articles though as they are both essentially the same physical act, just under different circumstances.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@18:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Latent homosexuality
The see also reference was simply pointless. There is absolutely no [b]supported[/b] assertion of a tendency towards latent homosexuality in the section. Plus "see also" insertions are generally bad form. They are better suited to their own section at the end of an article, if the article's subject matter has some direct corellation to the article cited as a "see also". Better to use an inline link such as the following. "Experts have stated that teabagging as a prank may be the result of latent homosexual tendncies." If you cant cite a reliable source, dont even bother putting it in the article as wikipedia is having too many problems with unsourced bs as it is. In any case, it doesn't belong in the format that it was in. It was a subjective association made with no evidence supporting it. Also, who's to say it only happens between two males?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@15:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Look, dude, all I'm saying is that if you think it's fun and/or funny to put your sack in another dude's face you might just consider questioning your sexuality. And it's only applicable to the "As a prank" section because the rest of the article is about a straight-up gay lifestyle and a guy going to a gay strip club to get teabagged probably doesn't need a heads up that he might be gay.No matter what your frat buddies told you.Ewlyahoocom17:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But dude, the MOS is huge -- can't you point out something a little more specific? (I find Help:Section#"See also" line or section but it doesn't support your argument.) See also's are really kind of a grey (or brown) area: suggesting another article barely counts as content, much less "research" (original or otherwise), don't ya think? Ewlyahoocom00:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
No, not at all actually. When any connection is made or implied in a wikipedia article, it needs to be cited. If you dont want to read wikipedia guidelines and policies, perhaps its not for you.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
No, really, I looked. I couldn't find anything about See also requiring citation. (In fact, I find very little about See also at all.) I was just hoping, that since you appear to be a an expert on policy and guideline, you could, you know, give me a pointer. But let's compromise, I'll restore the link for now and when you find something in the MoS that requires its removal I won't add it back. Deal? Ewlyahoocom07:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting again. MoS or not, without making a cited connection it does not belong. Get a source or stop this nonsense. Also, for simply stylistic reasons, it makes no sense to isolate it so much. If you can prove expert support for it then include it, but it will likely be copyedited into the paragraph as it makes much more sense that way. And yes see-alsos imply a connection so they need citation, just as anything else on wikipedia. If you don't want to cite sources for your additions, wikipedia is not for you.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@15:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Dude, I can see you have some real issues with Teabagging, so I'm going to let it go. But do yourself a favor: find someone to talk to. Maybe the house mother? The fellas over a Delta Lambda Phi? Whoever. But take care yourself, OK? Ewlyahoocom16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I dont have any issues with this, or anything else for that matter. I simply choose to conduct myself according to wikipedia guidelines on every article, even if its as absurd as this one.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If you're waiting for a trained professional psychologist to give support for the fact that it could be latent homosexuality, okay here goes. It shows signs of latent homosexuality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorytmeadows (talk • contribs) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
The verifiability of this term is apparently more difficult than I thought. It's mentioned in a variety of magazines (including, but not limited to, Urban Climber Magazine), and it's a well-known, commonly used term among climbers. In rock climbing, many terms are used that aren't considered 'official', but are ubiquitous in the sport. A good example is "beta": the term comes from early climbers videotaping their sessions on the rock to work out a sequence, and they did so using Betamax. Hence, anytime information on a climb's sequence is passed along or determined, it's called 'beta'. The sport is still relatively young, and slang-ish terms find a great deal of purchase in it to describe consistent events (i.e. "I took a huge whipper and ended up teabagging.") Understandably, it's pretty difficult to find verifiable references to this online, even though it's very commonly used at the crag.
El Guapo21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't question the good intentions of adding the climbing reference to this article, but there is an unambiguous policy on this issue, Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, including a source doesn't have to be website, if this term has been defined or at least used in a helpful context in a magazine, that'll work; just cite the magazine. Vicarious03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In Video Games...
Recently (pre-registering this account), I put in a small blurb about teabagging in video games, such as Halo 2. It was taken out less than a day later saying that is was irrelevant. This, of course, brings the question how exactly it's irrelevant when typing "corpse humping" into the search box redirects you to the teabagging article. There should absolutely be something in there about its application in video games as a way to taunt one's opponent. Yet I fear if I add it in there again, some idiot is going to just remove it right away. Any suggestions, or backup even? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutated Spleen (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
Also agreed. This is prevalent in gaming and Wikipedia shouldn't shy away from including all social contexts of a subject if they're going to talk about it at all.Ferris0000 (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
"Corpse Humping"
Okay, I don't know of any way to verify this, but in my art history course last year our professor pointed out that the Greek word for "knee" comes from the same word for "scrotum," because (and I quote), "The kneecap floats over the knee the way the testicles float within their sac." He then pointed out that in a lot of photographs of soldiers, they will have their knees down on their fallen enemies with their guns pointing in the air, as a way of "teabagging" them. I just thought this was an interesting point to add to the video game idea, but again, not sure how I would cite that. Rubinia20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)rubinia
If you all would like to have an intelligent discussion on the specific merits and faults of my SpokenWikipedia recording File:Teabagging.ogg, I am open to constructive criticism. I believed my method of illustrating sound makes SpokenWikipedia articles sound more interesting, and thought they would at the very least be considered and properly discussed before deletion; not re-recorded (by the way, appears to be an incorrectly encoded .ogg file and is possibly confusing Project:SpokenWikipedia users).
As for the complaint RE: incompleteness, I was under the impression that section-specific or introduction-only SpokenWikipedia articles were allowed. At the very least, a semi-complete article is better than one that sounds like a beep noise when opened under Audacity and Wikipedia's in-browser player. As such, I am re-adding my file until there is a discussion beyond "it's a bit odd", and "it sounds like stoned American high school students." I would appreciate No Personal Attacks in our discussion. Nonetheless, I thank all involved for their input thus far. -WAZAAAA04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My problem with your recording is simply that highlighting all the rude words with funny voices makes the recording sound juvenile. However, I'm no expert on the spoken articles project, and perhaps this kind of thing is okay. You have an excellent voice for spoken articles, however - I wish I did. :) Vashti18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a vote for, why was the link to this file removed? Are there any objections to replacement? -WAZAAAA19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I do object, I'm afraid, for the reasons I gave earlier. I can certainly see how putting on funny voices for saying "scrotum" and like words is interesting, but I cannot see what makes it encyclopaedic. Vashti02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone interested in getting this article to GA status?
If you could find one or more serious academic work(s) on the phenomenon, then I could see it getting to GA. Unfortunately, I think this article is somewhat restricted by its topic. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the two practices, although related, are distinct. I'd like to gain consensus first over whether this merger was a good idea. Obviously the article has a fair bit of work to be done before it even has a chance at GA.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I think this article is well-written, -imaged and -sourced, though I must admit I was unfamiliar with the non-pejorative use of the word at hand; I guess I'll leave it to others to sort that out. Epischedda (talk) 08:05, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
That one is an expanded dictionary definition, most of which is unsourced and prattles on excessively about one incident in the Australian Big Brother show last year. I'm almost certain that I could nail that one at AfD so easily right now and gain consensus for it, but I do think it would be better off merged and redirected here. Consider it a 'variant' of teabagging.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h11:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I like how turkey slap redirects here and is even cited as an instance of teabagging in the media, but isn't actually defined. For great justice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.168.12 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Again, that picture is atrocious. Like the earlier "spoken article", it comes across as having been made by children who are excited about a "rude" article. If we have to have an image, let's have it be an anatomically correct line drawing of the kind you'd see in an encyclopaedia - not something some naughty schoolboys might draw in a boring IT practical. Vashti07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
"In the rock climbing community, teabagging is the recognized term for when a heavier climber falls (usually a hard fall known as a whipper) an extensive amount, passing, while falling, a lighter belayer who is lifted up off their feet and, usually, a significant distance up."
It's striking how much that version of the page resembles the new version that exists currently, as all of that unsourced presumed original research was removed, yet we were definitely able to source some of it.-h i ss p a c er e s e a r c h23:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Why isn't there an article for the female version?
According to Urban Dictionary, it's called camel stomp:
When a female smushes her vagina on a sleeping person's face. The female version of a T Bag
Does anyone know for sure how is the female version called and if it ever was reported in the news or seen in movies, like Teabagging/Archive 1 was? -88.153.14.14712:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I for one have never heard that term actually used. I don't think that it's prevalent enough to deserve its own article. Leave that to sites like UrbanDictionary to keep people informed on slang terms of the day.Ferris0000 (talk) 01:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
How come there is no picture for this article?
I think it would be fantastic if someone was able to upload a tasteful picture of teabagging. I uploaded my own personal interpretation of the act but it was deemed vulgar and although I disagree, I respect the decision to remove it. Any help?
Uh, the written description seems quite sufficient. Are you sure an illustration or diagram is required in this instance? Please explain (without using the term pornography or prude or uncensored) what an illustration could possibly add. --Knulclunk02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It would be hard to find an image that would be appropriate for this article, but as Knulcklunk says the written description seems sufficient. --Mikecraig02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:John and Ashley administering the turkey slap.jpg
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
placing his testicles, specifically the scrotum, in the
Pardon me for stating the obvious, but "specifically" doesn't fit. The scrotum is not more specific than the testicles, it contains them. AxelBoldt16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
To it's full glory! I have fixed some sourcing issues, removed some spammy links, and found the best picture I could...that is completely fair use!!!. So, let me know your thoughts :) 68.143.88.222:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
This image was re-added to the article under Fair Use rationale as the previous image was listed under fair use but did not have a non-free fair use template completed. As you can see in this image's info page that this template has been completed by me. The main reason why this was added was because this image serves as the primary means of visual identification for the act the article describes in video games. This is in accordance with wiki's fair use policy.
Many people have requested, as you can see above or in archives, that this article needed an image to better illustrate the act. This image also serves this purpose as previous images have been deemed vulgar or inappropriate. Screen shots Do Not have to illustrate the "game/movie/show" that it originally came from for several reasons listed under fair use policy WP:FU. The one's that apply to this image are listed in the template on the image's info page but I will reiterate some here. This image is the primary means of visual identification of the act and cannot be suitably replaced by an equivalent libre image of comparable educational value. The image is used for educational purposes only. The image is used in context that cannot be suggested to be endorsed or produced by the original copyright holder. This is a low resolution screen capture from a video game to illustrate the act performed in that video game and others like it - this screen capture is an extremely small portion of the copyrighted work, it is also low resolution. Finally, the image is extremely significant to the article as its presence greatly increases the readers understanding of the topic and it's absence would hurt the readers understanding, especially to one with no prior experience of First Person Shooter video games.
Please read meta wiki here for more information and discussion. Please do not simply delete images suspected of copyright infringement without discussing if it's appropriate first, especially if it has good rationale under the non-free fair use defense. Use the {{fairusereview}} tag to mark questionable images for review in the future.
--Papajohnin (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't copyright paranoia, it is a violation of fair use, plain and simple. Screen caps can only be used in articles discussing the viedo game or video game characters. This is an article on a sex act, not Halo 3. y'amer'can (wtf?) 13:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of process, I've opened a WP:IFD discussion for the screen cap and restored it to the article, pending the outcome of the deletion debate. y'amer'can (wtf?) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Rotten.com references
Rotten.com is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rotten.com's library articles are written by an unknown person, based on unknown sources, and the rotten library does not have any reputation for integrity, it's unknown whether any fact checking is done, etc. "Reliable source" is not just a vague term which means that something tends to be well written or true, but instead is a specific piece of Wikipedia jargon which has a specialized meaning. See our policy articles to see what that meaning is. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
You have made absolutely zero points as why the rotten library is not a reliable source. The rotten library article referenced does not disagree with either Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Having said that, the article is extensively written with source's such as the film Pecker and dates and places that can be used to confirm if someone wished to. Just because the articles are written with tongue-in-cheek humor which does not disqualify them being referenced. The subject of this article deals with pop culture - something that rotten library is very good at. Pop culture is always humorous. I'll settle for you providing a different source that list the movie Pecker and the Pittsburgh Catholic high school incident and other sources which provide a definition of tea bagging but as I said earlier, most of this wiki article deals with the events noted in the rotten library article so just deleting the reference isn't an option. Even if you give a sufficient reason why the article should not be referenced we still need to find a suitable alternative for this wiki article.--Papajohnin (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It's a self-published website with no demonstration of its content being verified. I fail to see how it meets RS criteria. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Other definitions
I always understood teabagging to be the sexual act of dipping ones scrotum into a teapot full of luke warm water while your sexual partner masturbates you with one hand at the same time as blowing through the spout of the teapot creating a jacuzzi like sensation around the scrotum. Anybody else heard of this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.135.10.63 (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Political teabagging
The latest craze in politics is Americans sending actual tea bags to Congress in a mass protest of Big Government and High Taxes, that they are calling Tea Parties (using the symbolism of the "taxation without representation" protest) Liberal news sources are denigrating the protest, and attempting to trivialize it by calling the protest - mockingly - "teabagging". [3][4][5]1234. Opinions? Should this be put in this article, or possibly it's own? --Zblewski|talk22:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The section is too Vague and though it has a huge number of sources it doesn't in any way explain who or why, only a ver short descriptive of something that might only exist in one place, I've never heard of it.(82.3.41.139 (talk) 02:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC))
Briefly, there are British and American definitions; John Waters used the term, but did not invent it, in Pecker. There may be something there that can be used as a citation by some other editor. htom (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Tea bagging vs Tea Party
In politics, "tea bagger" is always a derogatory term. (What conservative would boast of themselves as a tea bagger in a political context?) Anti-tax uses of the concept, like www.reteaparty.com, are based on "tea party" (tea partiers?), not tea bagging. Just because an anti-tax protest sign says "Tea bag liberal dems before they tea bag you" doesn't make it any less derogatory than the word "dick" in the phrase "Dick Cheney before he dicks you." G&E (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Heard it, seen it, first hand, one lady even proudly in my face about it ("Proud to be a teabagger!" she said waving her "Nobama" sign), see below. -MBHiii (talk) 05:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
How is that any different than if you were to call a civil rights protester the n-word and then have them proudly say back "Proud to be a n-----" as a retort? Taking on a graphic, hateful insult as a matter of pride is a tiny, fringe thing. The Squicks (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Like the ways gay men have taken the pink triangle as a symbol of pride and use the word "fag" in a neutral sense? I'm not sure it's such a fringe thing.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If you called either me or 999 out of a 1000 other LGBT Americans a 'fag', we/I would probably punch you immediately in the face. The co-option of the word is a very, very, very small minority thing that is bitterly resisted by the vast majority. The Squicks (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Interesting, because my experience in the gay community is just the opposite--we use the word all the time and refuse to take it as an insult when it's used against us. If you called me a fag, I wouldn't punch you in the face--I'd say, "Yah, so what?" (I asked my boyfriend just to be sure I wasn't alone in thinking this and he concurred.) Heck, I've advertised myself as a fag in promoting Coming Out Day and other GLBT events. I understand it's similar for lesbians and dykes. Maybe it's a regional difference? Or maybe fag is different from faggot? Aristophanes68 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that its a difference based on whether or not the words have threatening power. If you're in, say, Berkley campus- you can laugh the words off as meaningless because they are ripped from the context. It's almost like how Americans will use Japanese terms without caring about their true meaning. Same thing. But occasional use out of the context does not change the true intended meaning of the words. Of course, I'm posting this from a location in the deep American South and that colors my thinking.
My understanding that, in the same vein, blacks in the deep South generally (until relatively recently) bitterly resisted the L.A./N.Y.C/urban-in-general practice of using the n-word to describe each other. That happened since the already knew and understood the threatening intent behind the word- they've been called that too many times already.
Personally, I feel great pain when I hear LGBT people use those words because, just after I hear it, images of recent LGBT violence or threats of violence in my state flash before my eyes.
I suppose, in twenty years, the f-word will be as mainstreamed as any other word. The civil rights generation of African-Americans never used the n-word, but since they are a distant memory in some parts of the country (not in others) the word has lost its power and meaning. The Squicks (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking back at what I wrote, I hope that you did not interpret would probably punch you immediately or the tone of my other statements as a personal attack on you. I was just trying to make a point. I do appreciate your comments. The Squicks (talk) 16:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Doubly interesting -- I spent 10 years in Athens, Georgia and now I'm in Knoxville, so I'm just around the corner from you. But I'm also in university communities, so maybe that's part of the difference between our viewpoints. I do see how even within the community, "fag" is not entirely neutral -- but to me it means something like "gay w/o being butch," and it's certainly not as much of an insult as calling someone a "nelly-ass queen" (which might not be an insult in some circles, now that I think about it). I do think "faggot" is more of an insult, even amongst gays. As for the original topic, I don't think it's far-fetched for people to claim "teabagger" as a term of pride, but I do think we need to find multiple sources from within the movement before we add it to the article. Aristophanes68 (talk) 23:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Just because a term is sexual and/or indicates submission, doesn't necessarily make it derogatory. The term has been picked up by the movement because it gains them media attention and characterizes them as rough and in-your-face. Political activism has historically sought such a approach for the PR that it brings.Ferris0000 (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
i added a reference to tea party groups that explicitly call them selves by the name "Tea Bag Brigade" and it was removed, I think that is censorship, of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.199.89 (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Can someone please remove "a woman" from the following section:
"Teabagging is also an erotic activity used within the context of BDSM and male dominance, with a dominant man teabagging his submissive partner, a woman, as one variation of facesitting..."
There is no reason why a male dominant couldn't just as well "teabag" a male submissive. The notion that only women are submissive in the BDSM scene is quite ignorant. If you're going to include the sexual practices/BDSM reference, at least get it right. — † Herzleid † 08:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Bloat
This article is bloated unwieldy. Certain things get mentioned that have not historical significance. WP:RECENTISM. I do find it funny that editors reverted my edits which added sources for another bullying incident (but consolidated the line) and video games. I also removed the rotten.com references which clearly had consensus above. Appears to be a knee jerk response to me but I am proposing changes to the article below: Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This section reads like readers were putting in lines whenever they was it on the news. It needs to be trimmed. The best way to do this is to say what it is (they described themselves as partaking in teabagging per interviews then were laughed at becasue it also means something naughty). Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What you have just said is an Orwellian reversal of the facts.
The people were protesting, and then the Obama supporters invented the term "teabagger" as a political insult to call them. And the protesters, of course, reacted highly negatively to the continual onslaught of homophobic pejoratives from left-wing Obama supporters.
Meanwhile, a tiny minority decides to co-opt the term the same way some African-Americans co-opted the n-word.
To edit the article the way that you proposed would be like going to the page nigger and then replacing its content with: "Nigger is a term that African-Americans use to describe themselves as a term of endearment among other African-Americans." Don't you see what I mean? It's not just factually wrong, but it's also deeply offensive. Conservatives and libertarians do not and did not call themselves "teabaggers" (that's only a tiny fringe). The Squicks (talk) 06:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I actually went off the several sources I saw and wasn't attempting to change the facts. The sky isn't falling so change the wording used. The section as a whole is still poor.Cptnono (talk) 06:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
In 2009, groups, known as Tea Parties were formed to protest government tax and spending policies. Opponents labeled them "Teabaggers" to ridicule them.[1][2] Obviously should be touched up but we do not need a list of quotes (I fixed the wikilink to RECENTISM up above, btw).Cptnono (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
What Squix has written is factually wrong. The terms got wide journalistic use, and recognition in the general population (ignorant of any sexual meaning) as political terms, from reporting on 2009 tea parties, their supporters, statements, and signs using the term self-referentially. Squix and others, who probably wish this were not the case, have systematically killed all references to it, here in this article and the original Teabagger article. -MBHiii (talk) 04:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I honestly don't care who said teabagger first. Everything I saw shows that Tea Party people used it (use of "nigger" is a discussion for over there not here) but the main reason it got coverage is because it was used to poke fun. I am happy as long as it says that last important part in some way.Cptnono (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
What Migby has claimed is factually wrong. A tiny, fringle, non-represented handful of protesters used the term self-reverently, and then the left-wingers picked that up as a meme that they used to refer indiscriminately to all protesters regardless of the context. Anderson Cooper, who has apologized for this BTW, did this.
Also, Squix and others, who probably wish this were not the case, have systematically killed all references to it is a black-and-white lie. It was Cptnono who took the information out of this article, doing so in an edit which apparently all editors except for him oppose. The Squicks (talk) 23:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I kept the good sources and removed the text that was better at wikiquote. It is well within the standards and more appropriate. I don't see what the problem is. I also disagree that tea party people did not use the term teabaggers/ing but I don't know and don' care to what extent. It would not have gained popularity without people giving them a hard time so there is no problem focusing on that. Sounds like you have been concerned about teabagging here and on another page and got a little wrapped up in it.Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The reason that I'm a little wrapped up in it is because MBHiii is pathologically obsessed with this activity and has been trying to push the word "teabagging" into articles such as ones about health care (e.g. articles that have nothing to do with teabagging). And whenever he is reverted, he uses sockpuppets to get around Wikipedia rules.
MBHiii may be hellbent on calling conservatives or libertarians "teabaggers", but I'll be damned before I let him call them that in the voice of Wikipedia. Personally, someone can call me a faggot/teabagger all they want (like MBHiii recently insulted me as such) on Wikipedia talk pages, but don't expect me to sit still when they insert those hateful terms into articles that have nothing to do with this subject. The Squicks (talk) 00:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and it sounds like you at least understand that your frustration is shown on this talk page and potentially your editing. So speaking of giving too much coverage to "teabagging" (in this sense), are there any concerns with the recent edit?Cptnono (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
An IP threw in that teabaggers used the term first. I know this is disputed (and silly) so it was modified to be maybe.Cptnono (talk) 15:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
This IP did, and Cptnono's update is fair. While silly, I think it's unfair to assume that the term's use was restricted to (or even started by) critics just because it has negative connotations--there is some evidence pointing to the fact that initial usage of the term in context of these "tea parties" was by protestors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.131.152 (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Per: Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I am modyfying the recent IP edit which will reintroduce all of the infomration. The informaiton in the line is that people thought it was silly that people were calling themselves (or almmost calling themselves) teabaggers since that is typically balls on face. We can reduce weight more if needed.Cptnono (talk) 02:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I made a user account so you didn't think I was a sock puppet of Mhb etc. With the publication of the HuffPo article documenting the first instance of the term's political usage, I thought it appropriate to amend the section, especially given the finalist status the word received from the OAD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvestinkle (talk • contribs) 03:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Beverett54 keeps removing the clause discussing the term's first usage, and his claim is that "No Mainstream Tea Party members" used the term. I respectfully beg to differ: First, the fact that any protester used the term means that a mainstream member used the term, and the HuffPo article clearly shows the earliest use attributable to protesters. Second, the argument allows room for Beverett54 to dismiss any evidence of organizing that uses the term to not be mainstream. A prominent organizer started the <a href=http://teabagobama.blogspot.com/>"TeaBag Obama"</a> blog in March, and has been very active in the online distribution of Tea Party locations. If that's not a mainstream organizer, then I request further clarification. Elvestinkle (talk) 22:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A transcript of the dialogue between myself and Beverett54 follows, in the hopes of keeping the discussion in the public area:
+Greetings, Beverett54. I'm hoping to resolve our disagreement concerning the clause in the teabagging article, and I want to know whether you had read the discussion page's section on the political usage. I'd like to have a dialogue there rather than simply edit-warring, if that's OK with you. Yours, Elvestinkle (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
+An unsourced placard is not a reference. If you read the totallity of the material on where the movement came from and how members of the Tea Party refer to themselves you would know that they never called themselves Teabaggers. I am not a Tea Party member but as a sympathizer per se. (Beverett54's response)
+Indeed, but the clause is worded thus: "latching onto language and accoutrement used by some of the protesters themselves." It is not necessary that they have called themselves teabaggers for the term to have originated from their use of the language. The fact that the phrase "teabag" was used as a verb by some of the protesters is sufficient evidence toward their contribution to the propogation of the term by critics. I have no horse in the support/sympathizer/critic race; my concern is the linguistic spread, and there is clear prior art by protesters. The term was not simply created out of thin air by critics, but drew on the protesters' own usage. I am happy to work with you to craft a more neutral POV wording, but simply removing the fact from the page is a step too far IMO. Again, I invite you to have this discussion on the actual article's talk page, where others can contribute constructively as well. Cheers, Elvestinkle (talk) 23:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
+I believe in the discussion board other members have expressed the reference well... In politics, "tea bagger" is always a derogatory term. (What conservative would boast of themselves as a tea bagger in a political context?) Anti-tax uses of the concept, like www.reteaparty.com, are based on "tea party" (tea partiers?), not tea bagging. Just because an anti-tax protest sign says "Tea bag liberal dems before they tea bag you" doesn't make it any less derogatory than the word "dick" in the phrase "Dick Cheney before he dicks you." G&E (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)...
+Basically it comes down to whether a person would use Negro or the other N word to describe another. They are related words but the intent and use of the variation is determined on the effect expected by the user. I would say the Tea Party Member would use and equivalent of "Negro" to describe themself whereas a person intending on berating another person such as the Anderson Cooper Crowd et al would use the other N word to describe a Tea Party Member for their beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beverett54 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
+The clause in no way mitigates the fact that it's a derogatory term--that is not the point of the article. The article's purpose is to document the phrase and its origins, and its origins are inextricably liked with Tea Party protesters' usage of the terminology. Omitting that fact in a discussion of origins is incomplete at best, and revisionism at worst.Elvestinkle (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
The derogatory base of the word is a clue to where it started. The expansive usage as a criticism by news and blogs outnumbers the vague references of the word supposedly used by the protestors. Huffpo is clearly not the unbiased source of the beginnings of the word as they are part of the mouthpiece that spread the derogatory usage. What is the first reference to the term used was not by Oberman but by Janeane Garofalo and she used it saying that the protestors were "teabagging rednecks" and that they were racist. www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45EzMR0f8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beverett54 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I propose removing "An article in Salon.com by Alex Koppelman traced the controversy to a photograph by David Weigel posted on The Washington Independent website on 27 February,[9] showing a protester holding a sign that read "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You!!"[10] Weigel's report was referenced by bloggers, including Wonkette, who used "teabagging" or "teabagger" in their headline.[9]" After looking at the peice clser, it is obvious that it is speculation. Since Salon.com has questionable reliability (it is at the least not on par with more reputable sources), I have a concern giving this so much space in an article that is about putting balls on faces. This political stuff here is getitng old. "It is unclear who used the term firrst" should fix it just fine. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
An IP is continuing to insert informaiton that has been disputed. I would rather not edit war over it so am making a mention here. Since there has been such disagreement about who said it first and when it comes across to me as disruptive editing. Does anyone disagree with keeping the edit out since there has not been consensus?Cptnono (talk) 11:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
There has been ample time (a couple days) and 68.2.241.154 has not engaged in discussion. The edit with is not supported by sources to a certain extent (the "outrage" part) and editors keep on disputing who said it first. As mentioned above, it is unclear according to some editors. Until there is consensus the edit is being reverted. 68.2.241.154 also has been disruptive at Tea Party Protests and has been asked to stop/participate in discussion three times but continues to blank the user talk page (blanking one's talk page is OK but refusing to discuss is a concern)Cptnono (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
It is outrageous to describe the practice as a sexual practice and a means to humiliate someone, then report that it is used by "pundits" without noting they are strictly LIBERAL pundits who use the term to ridicule and denigrate the protesters. The way you leftists keep reverting it, it appears this is an accepted term for TEA PARTIERS. More leftist bias from Wikipedia, why am I surprised. Another reason Wikipedia is a laughing stock when it comes to political matters, the leftist slant destroys any informational value.
I also note you removed the fact that the "pundits" who used the term were Matthews, Maddow and Olbermann, FAR leftists all, plus ANderson Cooper, who _apologized_ for using the term. Yet you persist and acting as if it's an accepted term which was almost picked up by the Oxford Dictionary, it's so god damn accepted. This is despicable and a real cheap-shot for a supposed "encyclopedia". 173.65.221.85 (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Hazing
A bullying incident does not deserve this much weight in the article. It is a single news story but is focused on as if it was the primary subject of the article. I addd a source and redced it to a line. Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Windsurfing
This is unsourced. If it is not related to balls going on to face (maybe that is where the term came from?) it would be better at wiktionary.Cptnono (talk) 00:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Teabagging. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
