Talk:Cum shot/Archive 2

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

Cum shot or cumshot?

A snap google search for "cum shot" returned only this page with that name. It looks like the porn industry has taken the spelling a step further to "cumshot". Maybe the article should be ammended with that spelling as a synonym? I can't be bothered to determine which is more prevalent. Tijfo098 (talk) 03:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Looking on books.google.com, I found the above three citations for "cum shot", all from reputable scholarly publishers, along with many other books. Looking for cumshot, I found many books, but most of it was fiction. Cumshot may be coming into fashion, but I'd say the reputable sources are still with cum shot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:53, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for adding it. Tijfo098 (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.178.65.144, 3 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} In the opening paragraph, please change "the male actor" to "a male actor". Saying "the male actor" implies there is only one male actor in a scene, which pushes a heterocentric POV. 85.178.65.144 (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Thanks, Stickee (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


In that case the picture must go too. It can't be argued the words the male actor pushes a "heterocentric" POV but that the image does not. Therefore it should be tagged as a disputed article. Besides that there are a couple of options here.

1. Delete the image (and have a FAQ why there is no image)
2. Delete the article as in itself disruptive. Little would be lost as the article on money shot already covers in a sub-section this bastardisation of the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.254.133.139 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 3 October 2010
I think we have had several requests to remove the picture, it always results in "keep". I see no need to remove it.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 19:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps someone could explain why the words "the male actor" in the intro were changed to "a male actor" for pushing a "heterocentric" POV, but the picture left? In other words, which gives the greater impression of "heterocentrism" the word "the" or the picture? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Posting to one page as both an IP and a logged in user violates WP:SOCK, DMSBel. A picture can only show one example, but words should describe the complete structure. If you want to delete this article, I invite you to take it to WP:AFD.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Went back and logged in after I forgot (DMSBel = 62.254.133.139)DMSBel (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
So what is wrong with the intro the way it was? You have not yet said, you just say it is wrong. DMSBel (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
For the sake of third parties, I will repeat myself; cum shot does not refer to "the filming (hence shooting) of a scene culminating in a sexual-climax of a male actor" and it is the standard definition (not loose) to it to "refer to ejaculating onto someone."--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment money shot

what the hell - have IQ's suddenly taken a nose dive? whatever idiotic thing the author says a 'money shot' is WRONG! does wiki suddenly mean that 'hey, this is what i think this means, i'm way wrong and all it would take for me to get it right is to open a DICTIONARY, but wiki means that being right isn't important anymore, the TRUTH of something is whatever three people agree it is. so this person who wrote it NEVER worked in the film industry, but he's going to tell us what a money shot is? here is a HINT for writing wiki articles - write about something you know is true from personal experience! i'll betcha right now there are a bizillion articles explaining about pit bulls having a 'lock jaw'. even though any 2 year old can look at a pit bull skull bone and go 'hey, no such thing! There IS no lock jaw! but someone was told that when they were young, so they KNOW its true even though it isn't. look at all these people in this discussion group - didnt his explanation sound WRONG to ANYONE? not 1 person opened a dictionary? pretty sad what this says about wiki. A money shot for a FILM is the shot that will be the reason people come to see the movie. it is the shot that makes the FILM money. it has NEVER EVER NADA NO WAY NOT ON YOUR LIFE EVER meant the most expensive shot. For example - clint eastwood as harry calahan in um, sudden impact, (not sure if that is right) the shot where he says - Go ahead, make my day. THATS the money shot, the reason people pay to see the movie - because of that shot! its the shot that MAKES the FILM money! now, for a porn actor - this is the porno tie in - its the cum shot, cause he wont get paid if he doesnt cum on film, just get replaced. and the reference this person used - its some article on ANOTHER website that doesnt even EXIST anymore - the article OR the website. christ, wiki - at least do a BARE MINIMUM of fact checking, if ur broke i will BUY you a dictionary, ferchristssake! rewrite this utter ficton - its an EMBARRASSMENT!

puffertw —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.198.152.118 (talk) 05:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone tidy up/ archive old sections of this talk page please

Lets get this tidied up - its sprawling - I have already put time and effort into closing old sections. There is no need for discussions from 4 years ago to be still here unless there is a particular issue that needs to be kept to the fore. Anything before 2010 could probably be archived. Not being familiar with how to do that yet, could someone else help out. Recent discussion should stay. DMSBel (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Bot code added to start of page - important bits
  • minthreadsleft = 3 - never remove last three threads
  • minthreadstoarchive = 2 - only archive when 2 threads need archiving
  • algo = old(180d) - 6 months untouched thread becomes suitable for archiving.
Hope that helps  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the video

There used to be a video demonstrating the technique in human form. What happened to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.214.65 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

What happened to the black guy?

A few years ago when I stumbled onto this page, it was a black dude splashing the lube on a white chick. Low and behold three years later, it's a white guy doing it to a smiling white chick. This is why Wikipedia is a joke....everything gets fitted up to what The Man wants. Sad. Frekin' sad. This was the image: File:Semfac01.png. sO Why was it changed? Cos I is black?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.26.156 (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you're looking for the Facial page.Kornflakes89 (talk) 04:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I wouldnt say she was white. She looks "asian" to me. RACIST! ;-) (User:EDit) 23:24, 15 Novement 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.207.185 (talk)

Illustration

I'm just curious, why is the illustration on this article depicting a man ejaculating into a woman's mouth? Surely a better (ie less misleading) illustration would simply be of a male subject ejaculating, since that is essentially what a cumshot is? Or must every illustration accompanying a sex-related article look as though it has been taken from the mind of a 15 year old boy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.148.246 (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC) Simply put, yes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.214.65 (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Maikel (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to see the guy's face! 200.83.59.63 (talk) 15:12, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
This face is ugly as hell. Better is just edit this illustration by saving only the lips or graphically illustrated only mouth (without face, nose, eyes or etc.). And the word "woman" from description need to be deleted - just leave "mouth". Westsomething (talk) 05:47, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Really?

Does Wikipedia need to get a pornographic picture of [I]everything[/I] sexual? If I wanted to see some cum dripping from a girl's mouth, I would go to redtube. Seriously, Wikipedia? Runningninja (talk) 20:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

See the boxes at the top of the page, the ones that say you can censor these images for yourself and that Wikipedia isn't censored?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
If you went to redtube, you would get explicit images of people. As I recall all the sexual articles did have people in the images. With time these have all been eliminated for simple drawings.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Umm why

why is this needed on wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.82.96 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Because it's an encyclopaedia.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 20:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 January 2012

The principal reason for showing an explicit ejaculation on screen is to validate that the film is genuine hard-core pornography. Audiences would not pay premium admissions to porn theaters or top dollar for VHS tapes/CDs/DVDs if they were not getting seeing a real male orgrasm. Female orgasms are typically faked in front of the camera, and male orgasms are also faked in R and X films, but a "wet" ejaculation cannot be faked.

So the director's decision boils down to, "Where will the ejaculate end up?" The most common answers are on the partner's stomach, buttocks, breasts, hands, or face.

(The so-called female ejaculation is correctly described as "urination".)Larry11565 (talk) 00:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but that's not an edit request. Are you saying the ejaculate shouldn't "disappear" but end up on someone? --Six words (talk) 10:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

RELATION TO SEX MAGIC

There is an interesting correlation of the concurrence of the shift in pornographic films to include more of the consumption of semen and the resurgence of sex magic practices among circles who produced pornographic films. I think this should be noted here.
____Ἑλλαιβάριος Ellaivarios____ 01:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We can't mention it in the article unless the subject has been discussed by reliable sources. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 02:58, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Curious

Why do so many Wikipedia articles have entire sections dedicated to the subjective points of view of feminists? Why should we give a damn what feminists think any more so than any other demographic?

How about a section for "Men-above-six-feet-tall-with-brown-hair's opinions of cum shots". It would be of about the same relevance. Just because feminists have a lot to say for themselves doesn't make it particularly interesting or notable. Wikipedia is not a feminist soap box.

I motion to delete the 3 paragraphs of feminist drivel from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.97.79 (talk) 20:26, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this move, on the grounds that regardless of your opinion of feminists, feminist theory has been influential in modern discussions of sexuality and pornography, and excluding their views would be akin to excluding the views of Keynesians from an article on market cycles, or excluding the views of Buddhists on an article about reincarnation. I further assert that the above user's objections seem to be driven by an ideological opposition to feminism, and that removing a school of thought's commentary on a subject because you disagree with them ideologically is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. --152.65.36.124 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
I support the removal of feminist views from this page. Feminist theory is no more influential than Christian theory in modern discussions of sexuality and pornography. This is evidenced by the fact that pornography has grown increasingly objectionable to both groups, and continues to do so, despite their objections. Wikipedia entries should focus on unbiased information and avoid opinion whenever possible, especially regarding subject's that need no theory or philosophy to explain them. In that regard, market cycles and reincarnation are not much like cum shots at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.141.166 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I oppose this move, for the reasons stated above and the fact that Feminist theory is the first academic theory to take a serious look at pornography. Much like movies and books, where various relevant schools of thought appropriate to the medium are often cited in the article, feminist thought should be represented in this one.

--Mortosthegodly (talk) 10:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no "feminist view of pornography." Some who call themselves feminists are against pornography. Others (so-called sex positive feminists) are totally fine with it. Nina Hartley and Aurora Snow are porn stars who consider themselves feminists, and they are not alone. There are others for the full liberation of women (like Bolshevik Trotskyists) who are both for pornography and against feminism. Unless all of these views are included, none of them should be. 203.176.129.214 (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I figure that "their" problem with pornography is not the sexual aspects per se, but the fact that sexual acts are economically exploited for profit. And the people acting it out as well. And I tend to agree on that one as a sidenote. RhinoMind (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hehe. Just thought the fact that every post [except one) in this section is unsigned or anonymous at best was pretty funny. :-) RhinoMind (talk) 01:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The picture should be replaced

Hello there. The picture does not represent the article very well and I opt for changing for a more suitable one. By "suitable" I simply mean a picture of a cum shot.

There is no need for an oral cum shot, as this article has nothing to with oral sex, right?

RhinoMind (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to remove the illustration. It clearly depicts the term within commonplace oral sex practice. Perhaps they could capture something more "mid-flight", if it's that important to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.21.66 (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Picture or entire article need to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.61.6 (talk) 07:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Goblin Market in § Origin and Features

"Fruits" or "fluids"

I'm reverting this edit. The poem, as a whole, clearly focuses on the goblin's fruits, not fluids; the facial imagery was only one small part of the poem. Consider the poem's opening lines:

Excerpt

Morning and evening
Maids heard the goblins cry:
"Come buy our orchard fruits,
Come buy, come buy:
Apples and quinces,
Lemons and oranges,
Plump unpecked cherries,
Melons and raspberries

References to their fruits are reiterated throughout; in the lead-up to the stanzas I quoted in the article, the goblins had implored Lizzie:

Excerpt

"Look at our apples
Russet and dun,
Bob at our cherries,
Bite at our peaches,
Citrons and dates,
Grapes for the asking,
Pears red with basking
Out in the sun,
Plums on their twigs;
Pluck them and suck them,
Pomegranates, figs.”

—  Rebbing  talk  20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Wording

I've largely reverted the wording changes introduced here to the previous, simpler wording. First, the Manual of Style discourages editorializing such as "remarkably sexual imagery." Second, Ms. Rossetti isn't a well-known author, and the date of the poem (1862) isn't, in this context, significant: neither fact contributes meaning to the text ("Omit needless words.").

—  Rebbing  talk  20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Illustration

I think the illustration from Goblin Market should be removed. WP:PERTINENCE directs that "[i]mages must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic." The image doesn't relate to this article at all; it doesn't illustrate the excerpt; and it doesn't contribute any meaning: in my view, it's unnecessary clutter.

—  Rebbing  talk  20:00, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Since you are referring to edits by OnBeyondZebrax, I've gone ahead and WP:Pinged OnBeyondZebrax to this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
On a side note: You should fix your signature, so that it actually links to Rebbing (talk · contribs) for accessibility. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
@Flyer22 Reborn: Thanks--and thanks! —  Rebbing  talk  00:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2015

Please undo the recent change in the {{commons category}} template from "Facial cumshot" to "Cumshot". There is no such category as "Cumshot" on Commons; the appropriate category is "Facial cumshot". Thank you. 66.87.114.133 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: Nice catch. I see there's a "cumshots" category on Commons that contains the "facial cumshot" category as well as its own set of non-facial cum shots, so I used that as the Commons link instead. I assume that's appropriate? —  Rebbing  talk  04:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit

The grammar and above all the punctuation in this piece is haphazard and not all all thought through. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.253.0.107 (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please change the name of Cindy Patton's essay in last paragraph from "Speaking Out: Teaching In" to "Visualizing safe sex: when pedagogy and pornography collide". "Speaking Out: Teaching In" is the name of the chapter from which the essay is taken.

Plus you might want to add a link to the Archive.org page of the collection of texts, where users can view it ("borrow it") for free.

--Lboukoko (talk) 13:34, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Lboukoko, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for pointing out the error. I've corrected it. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:16, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

i need to update more info on the page
 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Sam Sailor 07:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


Porn pics

I sort of get it that people want these terms to be part of Wikipedia, but is there really a need to have these graphic pictures? I would delete them all (here and in all these other entries of this sort). Please tell me what you think. Jaeljojo (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 22:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jaeljojo: If these images are too much for you there are scripts you can use to hide them from your view. Shellwood (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Jaeljojo, also see WP:Offensive material. We've already done our part by using drawings or paintings rather than real-life images (for the vast majority of our sexual act articles anyway). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
In the case of this article specifically, we currently only use one image of the act. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

In the "Origin and features" section, please add the following sentence after "displaying ejaculation with maximum visibility.":

The 1972 film Behind the Green Door famously featured a 7 minute long sequence of "optically printed, psychedelically colored doublings of the ejaculating penis".<ref>{{cite book |last1=Miller |first1=Toby |title=The Routledge Companion to Global Popular Culture |date=2014 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=1136175962 |page=201 |url=https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ukW2BQAAQBAJ&pg=PA201}}</ref> 185.198.242.98 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. I added it to the article. I saw that Toby Miller was actually quoting another book, Screening Sex by Linda Williams, so I used her book as the source. Unfortunately it's not available for preview on Google Books, but I was able to read the relevant page at Amazon. Thanks again. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

CIA / Deep State program

Regarding the statement I once made about this topic as IP 81.222.64.215 (and tried to revert in the meantime) I'd like to add that the introduction of this weird "cum shot" sex practice into pornography is most likely just another CIA / Deep State program to further fuck up society just like they infiltrated Hollywood and turned it into an US propaganda tool. 202.70.47.162 (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

keep both hands above the table, please

Seeing as this page is entitled Cum shot, excessive dwelling upon facials is (IMO) fanboy wankery — particularly as Facial (sex act) exists. Therefore, breathless descriptions of "literary precursors to porn-film facials" surpasses being merely of bizarre "logic" and achieves utter pointlessness. I am therefore removing same from Cum shot#Origin and features.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 17:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

And while I'm here, I will highlight that there is significant overlap in form and content between Cum shot and Facial (sex act). Clearly, there's basis to believe that one is an extension of the other — or perhaps that both are rather pointless, artificially inflated dictionary entries that ought to be subsumed elsewhere.
Weeb Dingle (talk)

She's got the "I need to speak to your manager" haircut. 96.2.177.127 (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Lol. This article really needs an illustration uploaded by a guy called Seedfeeder why exactly? So so many articles use words alone to describe their subject, but this one needs a picture from a fetish guy? Okay.

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2020

Description in the first line at the beginning is misspelled. Iury Carneiro (talk) 02:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. What is misspelled as what? A quick look and it seems okay. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:59, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Female ejaculation

The following section needs editing.

"Cum shots typically do not appear in "girl-girl" scenes (female ejaculation scenes exist, but are relatively rare); orgasm is instead implied by utterances, cinematic conventions, or body movement."

Female "cum-shots"/ejaculation (a.k.a. - squirting) has become an extremely popular genre of the porn industry with "squirters" being able to command far more money than those that can't. Further, there's a very large and extremely popular genre dedicated solely to female on female squirting scenes.

All told, the above quote is extremely inaccurate in the modern-day porn industry. 2604:3D08:577B:E000:F4A2:6DDA:5D4E:3BD5 (talk) 15:51, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cum_shot/Archive_2&oldid=1193574090"