Talk:Facial (sexual act)/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Image

The image in question, Image:Cumface_color.png, does not accurately depict a facial. It depicts a woman drooling semen out of her mouth. I feel that the image would be best removed and replaced with a drawing of a facial. Joie de Vivre 14:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon that is clearly a facial, until a better image is provided, that should stay.--BMF81 17:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not a facial. It's the aftermath of oral sex with the man ejaculating in her mouth. If he ejaculates in her mouth, it isn't a facial. Joie de Vivre ^talk 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you a reliable source for that? Or an alternative free pic? No? Well until you do... ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Done! Joie de Vivre ^T 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that was quick! ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

We try. Joie de Vivre ^T 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I preferred the old pic and where the hell did you get this notion that facials don't involve any semen in the mouth? Trevor GH5 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Because it's called a "facial", not a "mouthcial". Joie de Vivre ^T 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

lol dunno new pic seems fine. Think there might be a new edit war that its a guy getting a faceful, but it works and makes the article WP:GOOD. I did pefer the old pic, it was funny and kinda worked. but if a facial is pure ejaculation on the face, I follow consensus. Mike33 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

That's bullshit, Joie just made that up on the spot. I've watched tons of porn all over the internet, listened to Howard Stern, seen interviews, and never once heard that. Trevor GH5 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do a Google search for (facial semen), you will see a few people with a little semen around the mouth, but many more with semen all over the cheeks, between the eyes; essentially, all over their faces. Take a look at Urban Dictionary, people are in agreement that "facial" means "ejaculating on the face". That's not what the image you placed depicts. All the rivulets of semen originate from her mouth. Unless the guy was dancing around her in a circle while he ejaculated across her mouth from several directions, the semen first landed in her mouth, and she drooled it out afterwards. That's not a facial, it's someone drooling semen after a blow job. The other image, Image:Facial.png, depicts ejaculation on the face and it is completely accurate for this article. Joie de Vivre ^T 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant, both pictures are bad pictures, simple as that. That's what this is about, not niggling details about which area of the face the semen is on.

Complete bullshit and OR Joie. Every vid that includes any ejaculation above the neck is listed as a facial vid on the porn site I frequent. Trevor GH5 18:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I have updated the article with a newer image. Image:Semfac01.png This is an image of my own creation, and is not based on copyrighted material. I feel this image is a more accurate representation of a facial. I presented the image as a textbook style illustration. --Seedfeeder (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, except most porn depicts the women ENJOYING it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.211.76.225 (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The woman in the current picture looks really unhappy. I find it quite disturbing and it's probably POV as it implies that facials are degrading and unhappy experiences for the receiving partner. Perhaps you should alter the image slightly so that she doesn't look so miserable? 79.70.76.187 (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Great new picture. The woman in this seems to be enjoying herself, as one should be during sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.156.40.226 (talk) 00:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Article is weak

I cleaned this one up (bad, I know). The two sections that had nothing to do with facial "cum shots" were removed. They should be worked into the Semen article. Also, the multiple inline tags were awful; it's best to just use the template for now. I actually think this article should be merged with Cum shot, as it is just a subtype of that. DeeKenn (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It truly is a mess (hahah!), but I don't think it belongs with cum shot because facials do not require (video) cameras whereas the "shot" part entails it in the other. I was reading through your AfD nom of pearl necklace and its previous AfD nom and it got me thinking about merging a bunch of the articles together. They had some really awkward suggestions for the name of the compiling article ("Deposition of semen during human sexual intercourse" and "Ejaculation Deposition"). What if it is instead called, perhaps, "External Ejaculation". It could encompass the following:

Additionally, I propose Gokkun be merged with Cum shot. It really is just the same thing, Japanese-style. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 09:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems that if all of those pages could successfully be merged into one, that then the article would actually resemble something encyclopedic! Quality versus quantity, and all of that... DeeKenn (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to make massive deletions of content without discussion and consensus first. "Cleaning up" would be fixing grammar, links and so forth. Furthermore, the topic here is neither "cum shots" per se (a feature of pornography) nor semen per se but the sexual act itself in a social and historical context. Improve it and add to it but do not delete it, especially without consensus and reworking the important factual material into some other article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas23 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Reply

This wasn't a "massive deletion"; completely irrelevant information was removed
There is a merger proposal that you deleted with your revert
Contacting me beforehand would have been courteous. I was editing in good faith. (which you assumed, right?)

I am now reverting your revert to restore the original merger proposal. What you do with the two sections based on trivia is up to you. Perhaps you can try and work them into the Semen article, as mentioned in my edit summary.DeeKenn (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant? The deleted sections constituted the only referenced material in the article and practically the only content in the article actually about the sexual act and not about a convention in or style of pornography. This article is about the sexual practice of ejaculating on the face and not about the use of that practice in pornographic films - therefore it is not a subtype of "cum shot". It makes sense to have information about the pornographic custom here to be sure, but it is not the focus of this important article - one which in truth needs to be expanded considerably to include much more about this popular sex act.Veritas23 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant per the lead-in. In a sexual context, a facial (also known as a facial cumshot) is the slang term for the sexual activity in which one person directs an ejaculation onto the face of another person, often following oral sex, intercourse, or other stimulation. That is, this article is not about the health benefits of semen for the skin nor about its use in magic; it's about the sex act. Those items should be worked into the Semen article. DeeKenn (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All the same, the article is about semen on the face, which means that the material about its health benefits can be relevant—it constitutes the perspectives or even social impact of the topic and is part of why it is noteworthy enough to have a page on WP. The sex magick stuff is just weird though. I don't think it was referenced. If we can agree to look into a merger with the other three articles I mentioned rather than Cum shot, and instead merge that with Gokkun, then maybe we can move forward with this? So is "External Ejaculation" a good consolidating title? I'm open to suggestions. If DeeKenn and Veritas can express their opinions about this and if we end up in some sort of agreement about the mergers and information inclusion, my next step would be to seek consensus at Mammary intercourse because its talk page is actually active.clicketyclick_yaketyyak 03:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Breasts always get the most attention ;-) The magick reference is out of place. I briefly glanced through the referenced book and did not see any pertinent information, but it was a quick glance (through some very small print). Anywho, about possible names, I wouldn't know where to begin. There's certainly no shortage of vulgar (in terms/phrases for the redirects! External ejaculation is certainly a start. I'm open to ideas. DeeKenn (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit should now be more clear. DeeKenn (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just merge'em all together. Goddamn they're all the same thing in substance. Do you? ^yes...|_{or no} · 04:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge them ALL together. Merge Cum shot, Mammary intercourse, Pearl necklace (sexuality), and Bukkake together. But keep Facial (sex act) as its own separate article. The others are specific/pornorgraphic/group sex acts that should be merged together. Facial (sex act) is its own separate thing. Rustdiamonds (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Facial (sex act) works as its own article. I see no reason to merge it. CinnamonCowgirl (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge. When it was a stub, that probably would have been a good idea. Now, it is a much longer, much better article. 4.243.28.45 (talk) 01:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As no consensus has been reached, I have removed the merger proposal for the time being. Currently the facial article is longer and more completely cited than the other articles it is proposed to be merged with. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Kobe Bryant

I mean honestly, is it really needed to have the majority (or any of it really) of this article be about Kobe Bryant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.97.195.231 (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Major Re-Write is order

Through the process of deletions and edit/revert wars this article has been paired down to almost nothing. I am prepared to begin a major re-write of this article, any comments/help are more than welcome. I would like to present a fully NPOV, encyclopedic entry on this subject. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would advise discussing any major changes here on the talk page before implementing them. Reliable sources will also be needed (that's policy, and particularly necessary for a controversial subject such as this). -- Donald Albury 09:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I have performed a comprehensive edit of this article. I tried to construct an article that was more comprehensive than the previous version. The article is presented as NPOV as possible based on the delicate subject matter. Moving forward I hope for more constructive edits and additions, as apposed to deletions and revert wars.--SeedFeeder (talk) 08:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

And, because of that sensitive nature, citing reliable sources for everything in the article is important. Remember that any challenged material not supported by citations to reliable sources can be removed from the article, and there have been a lot of challenges to this article. -- Donald Albury 13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustration delete

After reading the below text it appears that there has been a consensus reached that the current picture is unacceptable. I am going to take it down in the hopes that if we feel we need a picture here that we find one of the woman smiling, as one often does during sex. DannyZ 12.156.40.226 (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see any type of consensus reached on this page concerning the illustration. Please do not "auto revert" - DJ

No consensus was ever reached on the talk page about an image. The poster's threat of vandalism for deleting his illustration is completely out of line. It does not depict an actual facial, and moreover we need an actual picture. There are many photos out there, and we can do better than this. The interracial aspect of the illustration would needlessly incite many viewers--white and black alike. We don't need that right now. Vasbyt84 (talk) 15:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the unhappy expression on the woman's face is much more likely to incite controversy than the interracial aspect. The unhappiness is disturbing and POV (see my comment above); I think that is what needs to be changed. Why should the interracial aspect be inciteful unless you're suggesting there's something wrong or degrading about interracial sex, which would be POV? 79.70.76.187 (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the unhappy expression is quite disturbing. There may be a niche market for domination porn, but it is certainly not a representative of the whole. This picture is clearly POV.

That being said.....are you telling me in this vast sea of teh internets we can't find a single woman that would be willing to allow their picture to be used? I think all it would take is just asking a porn star to use their image. Releasing a single image for public use, especially for wikipedia, shouldn't even but an issue.

Lastly, the interracial aspect of the picture is not needed. While it shouldn't even be a concern, this is still the real world. There are NO organized groups that oppose sexual relations between people of the same ethnic background. There ARE, however, organized groups that very much oppose sexual relations between people of different ethnic backgrounds. Because of this, choosing to show an inter-racial picture is either trying to be edgy, or trying to make a point....both of which are NPOV, and have no place on Wikipedia.

Heck, you can easily have someone argue that the reason the woman is unhappy in the picture is because it's a black man performing the facial. Remove the inter-racial aspect and this whole issue become moot.--RaggTopp (talk) 19:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Lacking a better fair use image, it should stay. If a better image can be found to replace, use that. But WP:CENSORED is always a concern. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 00:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the picture. Leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.77.248 (talk) 06:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I also like the picture. Would you also mind if they were both black? Because it would then give the impression that only black people do this? 89.212.77.133 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you even need a picture? Please explain what a cartoon of someone with cum in her eye adds to the article, except to make it more suitable for masturbating to? It's not even a very accurate depiction of the concept, unless you have a source for men's usually producing a bucketful of cum when they ejaculate.Grace Note (talk) 06:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

First, the image lets one to get the concept without even reading the article, just at one glance. Visual information is a convenient way of learning, especially for those who only seek for basic information on the subject. Undoubtedly, crucial feature here for the encyclopedia. Second, all that cum depicted wasn't necessarily produced by the very man. You know, they usually do it in groups. ;-) — Aleksey Gerasimov (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Interracial?

For what purpose is this interracial? Undoubtedly, the interracial aspect is needless. In this context it diverts the attention away from that which it attempts to display, and it would be more useful to simply use a black couple to illustrate this example. It seems to send a sharp message to its audience that it need not send. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.191.16 (talk) 04:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the picture be about the "act" not the "characters" involved. Who gives a shit if its a black man or an alien as long as it depicts the act, factually, without provocation and in good taste. Right? Savre (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Any relevant image should display a common, natural setting for the act it attempts to illustrate. This is why characters matter and why aliens would hardly fit. Interracial facial is surely less common than facial within race boundaries. It is all about the objective commons, not the race difference itself. So I vote for removal of this redundant and contrast detail, it only may draw unnecessary attention and contribute no value. — Aleksey Gerasimov (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the IP was just wondering why, and did not mean it in a derogatory way (unlike the editors who responded with offensive remarks). Shows who the real racists are, eh? Matty (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

New image

I have updated the article with a new image that addresses some of the concerns expressed over the previous images. The previous image discussions on this page are about the files Cumfac-01.svg and Semfac01.png not the current image I added of Wiki-facial.png. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. How does this actually improve the article? I'm minded to remove it. Please give good reason for keeping it, beyond "there's no consensus", because the few editors who drive by this page will never constitute a consensus on anything. Grace Note (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Either image is fine. There's no consensus to remove it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, either is fine. I actually liked the first one better, but the replacement will work. The pouty look of the first or the smile in the second both have basis in reality. 66.191.19.217 (talk) 00:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I prefer the new image, which addresses the act from multiple perspectives. It is realistic and conveys the receiving partner's often multifaceted reaction (a degree of inconvenience coupled with delight and humor). Your talented contribution is much appreciated. Note that the caption is slightly inaccurate, though, as the picture shows the results of the act rather than the act itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.72.35 (talk) 15:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep both. An anonymous user deleted the old one. I've restored it.--Againme (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive time?

As it stands, the majority of this discussion page does not revolve around the article (and its image) in its present state. The bulk of discussion on this page involves previous iterations of the article/image. I plan to archive this page within 72 hours of this post unless a reasonable objection is posted. Thank you. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

No objections. Likely time for an archive. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

Previous discussions for the Facial(sex act) article have been archived, and can be accessed through the archive box displayed on this page. All future discussions should be posted below. Thank you. --SeedFeeder (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Euphemism?

I don't agree with the current wording in the first sentence, calling "facial" a euphemism. That would imply 1) that there is something negative about the practice, and 2) that the name was actually chosen as a pun on the beauty treatment. Concerning the first point, it is certainly inappropriate for Wikipedia to make a judgment on a sexual practice enjoyed by many. Second, I contend that "facial" is a contraction of "facial ejaculation" (or similar), where facial is simply the adjective of the noun face.--137.138.4.30 (talk) 12:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the term is well within the definition of euphemism. As to your contention regarding the origin of the term, we will need reliable sources. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence used to read "term" rather than "euphemism". Since the former is more generic than the latter, realiable sources have to be supplied if the more specific term is to be employed, not the other way around. I disagree that facial falls into the definition of euphemism, regardless of whether it is a contraction or not. Citing from euphemism: A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener,... While some people may find the discussion of any kind of sexual act offensive, those people would likelely regard the concept of "facial" objectionable no matter how it is expressed. Likewise, "beaver" or "camel toe" would not be considered euphemisms for "vagina", but rather sexual slang. Also, if "facial" is a euphemism, which is the orginal term it replaces?
I do agree that reliable sources will have to be found to support my hypothesis of the term being a contraction (of "facial ejaculation" or "facial cumshot"). --137.138.4.25 (talk) 11:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed "euphemism" to "term" as per the arguments given above. Please do not revert unless you can supply reliable sources. --137.138.4.29 (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it's possible that the term is a contraction of "facial cumshot", referring to historical porn should reveal appropriate citations for this... 66.135.227.46 (talk) 03:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't anybody know how to stop the ejaculate hurting the eyes of the receiving partner? I know I have an interest in this and am sure others (both givers and receivers) will also have a keen interest in mitigating the pain, which makes me think if we could find out how one mitigates the pain from getting spunk in the eye the info would belong on here, pro bono publico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.145.131 (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The talk pages are not a forum, so we can't help you with your question. It is a place to discuss how to improve the article. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me make myself clear - I SUGGEST that the experts who edit these articles find out how to mitigate the pain of spunk in the eye. I think milk might do it (works with tear-gas, apparently), but I've never plucked up the courage to try it. Therefore, since it will be innately usefull to wikipedia users, I request (and am happy to fill out any form of official request form required) that this article grows a section on how to mitigate the effects of getting sperm in the eye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.200.43 (talk) 02:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Sperm allergy

I find this sentence makes claims that can be misleading.

Mild cases of semen allergy can often be overcome by repeated exposure to seminal fluid.[30]

The reference on PUBMED/MEDLINE only states "Therapeutic options include allergen avoidance by use of condoms and attempts at desensitization."

So all it says is that desensitization is a therapeutic option i.e. an attempt at a cure, but there is no mention of the severity of the case or what the success rate is so the "can often be overcome" is basically a false claim. Also, desensitization is a controlled medical procedure and is not just any kind of "repeated exposure". I don't think anyone would tell someone with a cat allergy to go play with cats to get rid of the allergy.

Maybe it should be changed to something like: Treatment options for semen allergy include avoiding exposure by use of condoms and attempts at desensitization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.6.248.190 (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Kudos for noticing this and thanks suggesting wording that more accurately reflects the source. I have added (diff) your suggested wording to the article, with one minor adjustment: adding "to seminal fluid" after "avoiding exposure" for clarity. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

No need for two illustrations

I read the discussions about the images in the archive page 3. Some people commented that they didn't like that the SemFac01 illustration shows an obviously saddened woman and I agree, she does not look like she is enjoying the experience at all. The other illustration, Wiki-Facial, is a much better illustration in my opinion because the woman appears to be enjoying the experience. Furthermore there is no need for two illustrations accomplishing the same thing, perhaps we can try to reach a concensus on which image is favored, and remove the one not favored? Dionyseus (talk) 02:43, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we replace them both with photos? photos are much better (more acurate, actually real, etc) than pictures? --Dak (talk) 06:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

If there is an issue that has been discussed at length, it is the one regarding pictures. Displaying both met consensus in that it accurately depicts two different responses to the activity in question.

As to photos, there has been at least two different photos used and both were withdrawn for different reasons. The illustrations demonstrate the act without drawing in the "too explicit" debates the invariably come about on these type of articles.

So, in conclusion, the way we have it seems fine for now. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If a free photograph which illustrates the concept well were available, the discussion should and would be reopened. So far, no such images have been brought forward. There is a photograph illustrating pearl necklace (sexuality). --137.138.4.25 (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, ok. It just smacked of squeamishness and censorship, is all. Do you know the reasons these two photos were withdrawn please? --Dak (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know one of the two was withdrawn because the owner withdrew the rights from Wikipedia. I'm not sure about the second one. I don't personally have a problem with a photograph, beyond that it was a constant source of discussion. Having said that, the two illustrations by SeedFeeder are quite good and show the act well enough. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure which images Surv1v4l1st means, but a photograph that illustrated the concept very nicely was uploaded in July 2006 by an editor using the alias User:publicgirluk, supposedly depicting herself. It later turned out they were of a Swedish porn actress and posting them was a violation of copyright. You can read up on those events (and see the image) by googling "Publicgirluk site:encyclopediadramatica.com" (direct link blacklisted). -- 87.178.27.233 (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Several Questions: Why two pictures demonstrating the same act? Why the interracial element? wouldn't it be much more logical to keep interracial pornography/sexual acts related imagery to the inerracialsex/interracial porn section of Wikipedia and try and keep the page objective? We must keep in mind that many people in many cultures/societies historically and to this day find interracial pornography and miscegenation offensive, so it would perhaps be more logical to simply use a same race depiction of the act or perhaps even a raceless picture of the act so as to avoid creating unnecessary problems. This idea seems so logical that I cannot help but wonder if someone is deliberately using these images as a means to push for some sort of social change, which, regardless of whether or not they are right to do so, is not what Wikipedia is about, Wikipedia is about being as non-biased and logical as possible, and two interracial images depicting the same act just doesn't seem logical at all.(MX)

As state above and in the archives, there are two pictures as it illustrates two different reactions of the act. The article itself makes reference to how the act is perceived differently depending on the context. As to the interracial aspect somehow being offensive, note that Wikipedia is not censored. I'm not going to bother to address the rest of your race comments. Finally, please sign your posts. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I find the argument that both illustrations are useful because "[they] illustrate[s] two different reactions of [sic] the act," to be distinctly uncompelling. On that basis, I have removed the second illustration from the article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

And both images have just been deleted from Commons as being "out of project scope". — Satori Son 17:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Picture

Why does the picture have to show cum in her eye? A think its a bit much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.34.24 (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is a particular reason for it. In all likelihood, it just happens to be how the creator of the image drew it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:11, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No need for ANY illustration

I am going to repeat a comment from the third archive, which I think is important: "Why do you even need a picture? Please explain what a cartoon of someone with cum in her eye adds to the article, except to make it more suitable for masturbating to? It's not even a very accurate depiction of the concept, unless you have a source for men's usually producing a bucketful of cum when they ejaculate. Grace Note" There is absolutely no way that this image is necessary. A description of a facial should be more than enough (although more than a few lines is much more than enough anyway) to understand what it is - how hard is it to imagine? It is not only an unnecessary image, it is an INACCURATE image as noted by Grace Note, and so has LESS 'encyclopedic' value than plain old photographic smut. And moreover, the only value editors seem to derive from it is debating how inaccurately it depicts enjoyment of the act!! Enjoyment by whom? White males and the horny sluts that service them, apparently! Could this article be any more sexist and degrading to women? Not unless it explicitly called women cumdumpsters. Ah, but it has pictures that say EXACTLY THAT.

These images are unnecessary, uninformative, and above all demeaning towards women. They are obscene and I nominate that they be deleted at once. Alas, I fear that 'SeedFeeder' or some other aptly named persona will disagree, and will offer proof that Wikipedia has no standards that cannot be brought low by horny men and their basest drives.Ickbug49 (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

They are not unnecessary. Wikipedia isn't censored. Please stop being so insensitive and ignorant, it doesn't help anyone. Ran4 (talk) 11:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

to all the self important feminazis.....especially Ickbug

Shut up you little cumdumpster.......sorry I could not resist, You really need to take a pill and realize that most women who hold still for a facial are getting some kind of enjoyment out of it. wether the pics degrade women or not is not the point. The point, its an accurate depiction of what a womans face looks like with cum on it. I dont find the cum over dramatic, some men cum ALOT plain and simple. and as for the pictures value as stroke material....are you an absolute idiot? there are a BILLION other sites...free sites on the web to look at much better porn. Now take a safety pin and pop that big bubble on top of your shoulders you call a head and CHILL OUT.

Personal attacks have no place on Wikipedia. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

So, no more images, even home-made pictures? Vacki (talk) 23:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to post pictures of yourself or your partner engaged in sexual activities. There are plenty of other venues for that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

But Wikipedia IS the place to have articles about topics with illustrative pictures. The cartoons are doing a good job right now, but if somebody thinks they can make an image that would improve the article and are willing to donate it to the project, I would tell them to go for it. Jaimeastorga2000 (talk) 14:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does seem to be becoming increasingly censored actually, thus we now have an illustration rather than an actual picture. So thanks to people like you Wikipedia is starting to ignore its own pillars. --86.24.23.84 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It not censored, it's constructed by consensus. This page and a host of other pages in the sexual category are nearly all illustrated by an illustration, which is what the majority of editors in many of the pages have agreed on, and the photos have been replaced. Also there is an issue of ensuring that any photo has the full consent to be publicly displayed for all time, by all the participants in it (commons:COM:IDENT). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge from Pearl necklace (sexuality)‎

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's about time we put this one to bed. I know I was "for", but I can see that there is a clear consensus for "No merge", and that shall be the result of this merge proposal. I will remove the merge suggestion templates. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

(Added RFC tag here to accelerate this slow-moving discussion and gain broader input) The Pearl necklace (sexuality)‎ article is not extensive enough to warrant a separate page. I propose we merge it here, as it's a sub-category of facial. If/when its content grows large enough, it can always be split back off into a separate article. I realize this has survived a couple of AfDs, but I'd really like eveyone to think of this article as any other, subject to our practices regarding the extensiveness of content that generally warrants separate articles, as opposed to responding as though this were an attempt to censor the material. I'm all for keeping the content, and am not the least bit interested in hiding it; there's just not enough here for a separate article. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:14, 23 Feb 2010 (UTC)

It's a small article, it could easily fit into a section here, and the Pearl necklace (sexuality)‎ page can redirect to that section. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I could go either way with merging them. Where in the Facial article do you propose to place the Pearl Necklace content? Also, any though about merging the Pearl necklace article to the Mammary intercourse article? Seems like a better candidate. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 04:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No merge - as a pearl necklace is not for the face and also is not about humping breasts. Those are just variations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.10.16 (talk) 03:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
Support merge - this would fit nicely in the target and will aid the reader by having related content in one place. TerriersFan (talk) 00:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No merge - This has been discussed before. Deletion of the pearl necklace article has also been discussed and rejected in the past (three times). Facial, Mammary Intercourse and Pearl Necklace are distinct and different. Atom (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
No merge - After reviewing the relevant discussions, I would rather just leave them as separate articles. They are, after all, different sex acts. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
No merge Different acts, different articles. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
No merge While similar, they are not inclusive under one heading (Facial). As stated above, they are distinctly different sex acts. To argue for merging these two (three, if you were to include the Mammary intercourse article) would beg the question as to why all articles about coital positions aren't merged into one article, which is currently not the case. I doubt anyone would be in favor of that. Feldgrau4445 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
No merge This has been discussed before and the acts are too dissimilar to have under one or the other's title. KingAdrock (talk) 21:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
No merge They are performed on different parts of the body and isn't the face so cannot be considered as a facial Scorpio95 (talk) 16:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs gallery containing all gender and race combinations

This article appears to contain both gender and racial biases. We need to create a gallery depicting all gender and race combinations, or select a single race and depict all gender combinations (yes a female ejaculation is possible). 130.56.89.88 (talk) 22:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

"We"? We won't do anything. If you wish to construct good quality drawings that you think are better than the current illustration, then please go on and do it, and upload it/them - sadly, there is no team of picture authors in the background just waiting for requests like yours. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I think it may be time to archive the talk page as we have discussions going back to the early part of 2009. Better yet would be adding an appropriate archiving bot. Any thoughts before proceeding with a manual archive or adding the bot? --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, I can sort the bot out if all agreed, how about archive after 6 months, but always keep the last 4 items? Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Those parameters sound good and thanks for wrangling the bot.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Done Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. :) --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Gender bias

Why do we have two illustrations of a man ejaculating on a woman, and none of a man ejaculating on a man? Can't we rectify this? 98.238.188.211 (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

How about we, as Wikipedia editors, strive to represent the majority of those affected by an article, in this case a man and a woman. Adding an image of a 'Facial' between two men would be HIGHLY over representing the whole. - Gunnanmon (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If you have an appropriate image to donate under an appropriate license, then you can rectify it. Otherwise there is little we can do until someone volunteers such an image. Rockpocket 19:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively you could make a request to Seedfeeder (talk · contribs). Rockpocket 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I could create a racelss image with a genderless recipient to tidy up this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.0.101 (talk) 03:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You claim to attempt to represent the majority with these images, yet they both depict interracial couples. Why is that? --173.3.154.230 (talk) 04:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"If you have an appropriate image to donate under an appropriate license, then you can rectify it. Otherwise there is little we can do until someone volunteers such an image."Cptnono (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Re "Cosmetic usage" section

There are several problems with this section. First of all, it's pretty peripheral to the subject at hand and it's something of a "coatrack" to put it in here. If it's a notable phenomena it should maybe be spun off into its own short article.

Is it notable? Well, to start, this doesn't seem likely, given that semen is quite unlike any face lotion I've ever heard of. It's sticky and it dries into a film rather than than being absorbed by the skin. This doesn't prove anything, and you never know what other people like, but I think it would be reasonable to require an especially high burden of proof to overcome this common-sense objection. So let's look at the content and the refs.

It's a short section, three sentences. The last two sentences are about animal sperm, which we'll get to in a moment. The remaining sentence is:

"Though Cosmopolitan founder Helen Gurley Brown, as part of an interview regarding the making of the film Deep Throat, suggested that women should 'spread semen over [their] face, [it's] probably full of protein as sperm can eventually become babies. Makes a fine mask—and he'll be pleased', its effectiveness is unproven."

The Gurley Brown statement isn't properly referenced; the article says its from an interview, but this Slate article indicates its from her book I'm Wild Again. Be that as it may, we can assume that she said it or wrote it. But Helen Gurley Brown is not an academic or researcher or qualified sociologist any kind of respected social analyst. She's a celebrity, a self-promoter, and the former editor of Cosmopolitan which is a popular magazine but not journalistically respected. The cover of the book in question is blurbed with the quotes "Hilarous!" and "Outrageous!" and the Slate article describes here as "...making the media rounds to flog her new memoir". The suspicion that she made this statement solely to gain notoriety and sell books has to be high. This is not a good ref for supporting that this is an actual practice.

The other refs are

An article (no author credited) at jezebel.com, which is an online-only entity concerned with celebrity gossip and so forth. Again, to say that jezebel.com is not a peer-reviewed journal or respected mainstream journalistic source is an understatement. Not a good ref, and "I'll give you ten bucks if you rub sperm into your face and blog about it" is probably not how most qualified research projects get started. But two gals did try it (they say), albeit they were "wasted" which also is not usually recommended for academic research projects. So how did it go? "The semen facial burned the fuck out of our faces, and our skin stayed red and irritated well into the next day." All in all, I think we can all agree this is not a good ref for supporting the notion that anyone uses semen for cosmetic purposes.
An article by Donna Deliva at viceland.com. Deliva does not appear to be an academic or otherwise qualified researcher, and viceland.com is not a peer-reviewed journal or respected mainstream journalistic source (to put it mildly). They do produce a print product, Vice Magazine (although it's not clear if Deliva's article was in print). They also had two people try it, for a month, in a reasonably controlled way: one side with lotion, one side with semen, and at least they weren't fucked up on Oxycontin or whatever, or if they were they didn't mention it. The result? One subject did like it ("I will use cum at least once a week on my face now"), the other didn't ("I have no doubt that I will never let cum touch my face again"). So there you have it: assuming the entire thing wasn't just made up (it probably wasn't, but given the source you never know) we do have one person saying that they will use sperm for cosmetic purposes. No follow-up study to determine if this is true, that I know of. For such a contentious claim, this falls well short of anything that can be considered a usable reference.
Moore, LJ (2007). Sperm Counts: Overcome by Man's Most Precious Fluid. New York University Press. pp. 84. ISBN 978-0814757185. Lisa Moore (writer) is not an academic, but she's an accomplished writer, and NYU Press is of course a reputable publisher. So this is a good ref. This is a whole book about semen (or sperm anyway) and its depiction in culture, so this would appear to be an excellent ref for this article. If it supports the text, that is. I didn't read through the book to find the passage, but these results return nothing of value: "facial", "face", "face lotion", "lotion", "cosmetic", "effectiveness", "unproven". And there's nothing in the table of contents to guide me toward any material regarding cosmetic application. And what I did read of the book describes, rather than cosmetic application (outside of pornography), the extreme precautions taken by pornography actors and prostitutes to avoid contact with semen. So I don't think that this reference supports cosmetic usage, and if anyone wants to restore it, for such a contentious claim they would need to cite the passage and/or page number, I think.

So this is not a well-supported sentence and has to go.

The other two sentences of the section are:

"The Norwegian based company Maritex sells processed cod sperm for use in lotions and makeup, selling several tons annually. Sperm of whales and bulls is also used profesionally as a hair treatment to increase strength and shine."

While I'm sure that this is an interesting experience for the fish, it really doesn't have anything to do with the subject of this article, which is about jizzing on somebody's kisser, so I also deleted this material. Herostratus (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are probably correct. I do remember reading (ages ago - somewhere?) about someone using it regularly, and saying it was every good as a commercial face pack, and it did tighten her skin. However it does not need a facial to get it on the face, so if it was to be included it would be better in Semen. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re lead paragraph & article name

Since it was never established that this is a real-life sexual activity (I'm not doubting that it is, only that it's not necessarily notable as such, and definitely not referenced with sufficient rigor), I rewrote the lead to indicate that this is a term of pornography, and moved the article from "Facial (sex act)" to "Facial (pornography)". Herostratus (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Completely disagree. It is not relegated to only porn. I will search for some sources. Also, do not make potentially contraversial moves without discussion and do not mark them as minor.Cptnono (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the "minor" marking, that was entirely a slip. As to the move, fair enough. As to the lead, searching for sources is all well and good, but until the sources are in place the lead should accurately reflect what is in the article. Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no rush. Especially since you have removed so much information recently (changing the scope of the article) that it will take time to go through it all. I just did a quick 5 min search and found a couple things so far. This describes the sex act without using the term facial. This (blog I assume is acceptable under WP:RELIABLE as the publisher is a news organization) sums up my thoughts on it pretty well: "Plenty of sex acts made popular in mainstream pornography, like facials..." Basically, it might have gained prominence in the pornographic industry but now transcends it. Limiting the scope of the article to only pornography seems problematic. Sex for Dummies and this book also mentions porn but it is clear that it is in people's bedrooms now. I will follow-up with more sources. I don;t know if this asserts any notability but Dan Savage is RS and here is some discussion on it.[1]. Appears that Olivia Munn and Drew Pinsky had a discussion on it (google it since any link might be a copy vio. can pull the details to use as an offline source though). This last one shows some mainstream stuff albeit maybe gossipy. This book doesn't mention porn in its definition (says it is from an expert but haven't verified). Hard to take this too seriously but it is from a New York Times bestselling author who does not mention porn. Another silly one that does not mention porn.Cptnono (talk) 01:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah there's a rush, if the article contains incorrect information, as it does. But whatever, I've marked it. As to my previous redactions, I did explain them in detail. As to your sources above, by all means. I have no objection to properly sourced material. Given the contentious nature of the subject, we're going to want truly reliable sources. This means peer-reviewed scholarly journals, respected mainstream media outlets with a reputation for vetting facts, and that sort of thing. Dan Savage is about as far from a reliable source as I can imagine. He's no kind of scholar or proper journalist, writes as an advice columnist for marginal publications, is a polemicist, and at least sometimes clearly just makes stuff up. I don't know about the other sources you listed, but if they are not of very much better quality than Dan Savage they are not going to fly. Herostratus (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Are you intentionally being disruptive? There were a couple good ones up there and you just tagged a line or citation when you have the cites right there. Youalso have already admitted that you understand that it is not in just porn so you obviously understand that you just tagged something you know to be true. Please revisit the warnings you have received regarding your editing.Cptnono (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Huh? I made one edit, to tag the first sentence. If it's true, prove it, with a citation to a scholarly study showing that it's practiced by X percent of the population, or something very close to that quality. Herostratus (talk) 07:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have provided you sources up above from professional commentators. A couple of them can even be considered "experts". RS does not need to be a scholarly study either. In response to "huh?", yes, you are being disruptive. You see the sources and have acknowledged that you know it is used outside of pornography. So are you changing our mind on notability and instead arguing that it is incorrect?Cptnono (talk) 07:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, OK, I was thinking that you would use the sources you listed above to write referenced text into the article. Which is fine, provided the sources check out. I don't want to do the work of vetting the sources unless and until they are in the article. Herostratus (talk) 08:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of articles with maybe a not perfect page name (to some), but they have all been decided by consensus in the proper way. I would suggest that any intended page move should go through the requested move process, and allow all users seven days to come to a consensus (or not). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, especially since the content of the article is up in the air at this point. Herostratus (talk) 05:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

While I disagree with the need for a name change, I do agree that if it something to be addressed it should be with the RM process.--Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 16:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, here is the current status: the lead sentence is "A facial is a term for the sexual activity in which a man ejaculates semen onto the face of one or more sexual partners", and there is a one reference for this. Let's look at the reference. It is page 194 of a 2006 book, Sex for Dummies by Ruth Westheimer and Pierre Lehu, published by Wiley. (Except its not published by Wiley. According to Amazon, it is published by an entity named "For Dummies", which is an arm of Wiley.)

OK, let's look at the authors. Ruth Westheimer is known as "Doctor Ruth"; she's neither a medical doctor nor a Ph.D., but she does have a master's from the New School and and Ed.D., and post-doctoral work in human sexuality at New York-Presbyterian Hospital under Helen Singer Kaplan, a distinguished sex expert. There's no indication that she's worked as a therapist, researcher, or professor. She is mainly known as a media personality - she's had a radio show, appeared on pop albums and as a spokesman in commercials for shampoos and cars and that sort of thing, but there's no indication of serious work beyond her post-doctoral studies, although she has written several popular books. She is famous. It looks like she's somewhat to the south of Joyce Brothers, who is at least a real doctor. (All info taken from her Wikipedia article.)

Pierre Lehu doesn't have an article and I can't find much on him. He appears as co-author on several of Westheimer's books and one surmises that he's Westheimer's ghoswriter.

The publisher, For Dummies, I don't know. They have a Wikipedia article which doesn't tell you much. They're not a publisher of academic or scholarly works. I don't know what their reputation is for rigorous fact-checking and editorial standards. But naming your publishing house "For Dummies" does not scream "serious academic or journalistic publisher". They were bought out in 2001 by John Wiley & Sons, which is a serious scholarly publisher. How much control Wiley exerts over For Dummies to bring the line up to scholarly standards I don't know. "Not much" would be my guess.

OK, so what (for whatever it may be worth) does the book say? It's on Google Books, but page 194 isn't available. It's not available through my library network (which is always one of the problems with citing low-quality sources). A search on the term "facial" in Google Books does show (besides some uses of the term which don't apply to this article, such as "facial hair" etc.) this snippet, which is indeed from page 194: "The porn industry has introduced a new facet to oral sex, the facial, where the man ejaculates onto his partner's face. In my opinion, this is humiliating..." and the snippet ends there.

OK.

As I said, I'm not saying that no one has ever done this outside of a porn movie. What I am saying that there is no data and no indication of notability.

This is a highly contentious question and we need to source this as well as a BLP or an article on Israeli-Palestinian issues or that sort of thing, so we need to stick to the letter of {{WP:V]] in this case. So per WP:V, what we would like to see is a scholarly work in a respected peer-reviewed journal, such as a survey or study indicating that that this is prevalent in X percent of the population or something. Failing that, material from respected mainstream media sources with a reputation for vetting facts and exercising strong editorial control, such as the New York Times or The Economist or whatever would probably be acceptable. Or perhaps a serious book from an respected publisher by an established expert who has hard data. And, per WP:V, not much else would be acceptable.

Instead, we get a book by a media personality from a publisher of books such as 15-Minute Workout For Dummies and Cake Decorating for Dummies and so forth. And even then, what do we have? Again with the porn industry: "The porn industry has introduced a new facet to oral sex...".

So this source is completely unacceptable, and consequently I've removed it and the passage it supports. And would you people please stop using sources like this. Herostratus (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if you are going to revert without waiting for a response I will start doing the same.
If you want to change the scope of the article or nominate it for deletion based on notability you need to follow the proper channels.
If you want to argue that the likes of Ruth Westheimer and others are not RS then you will have to go to the RS noticeboard. They seem perfectly reasonable to me.
I already addressed the starting in porn line. Please reread the comments above if you missed it.
I am sick of playing games with you. Either you want to collaborate or you want to rock the boat. If you continue to rock the boat I a going to seek a block on your editing of this article.Cptnono (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, no one's going to be blocking anyone. Per your excellent suggestion I opened a thread at the RS noticeboard. It is here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#re lead sentence at Facial (sex act) I. Herostratus (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Erm, well, that didn't really settle anything. We had two editors expressing an opinion, one who doesn't seem to think it's reliable (but he didn't come right out and say that) and one who does think it's reliable (but he only said "it's reliable" with no further explanation, so how useful is that really.) So we'll have to think of something else. Herostratus (talk) 05:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You were told you were wrong here and you were told you were wrong at the RS noticeboard (even though it was the wrong venue). You need to learn to accept your defeats and stop reading things the way that you want.Cptnono (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't "told I was wrong" at the RS noticeboard, it was a 1-1 tie as I just said. It wasn't the wrong venue, but my post included too much background info and that muddied the waters, as I see now. The only "defeat" is if the Wikipedia's articles aren't accurate, and that's a defeat equally for us all. Herostratus (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

2 images

We have already gone over this. It is in archive three. There is not a new consensus even though an IP choses to ignore it. So my reasoning (although it does not change the lack of consensus for removal) is that two images are neccassary to show it in two lights. 1 is derogatory and one is fun. Neither hits Florida laws and both add value and NPOV.Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the image. I'm no big fan of the images, and I think that a reasonable case can be made for not including them, especially if and when it's established that the article is really only about pornography (which hasn't been established at this time, it's contended). However, I'm also not a big fan of anon editors jumping in with edits on controversial issues. For a contentious issues such as this, edit summaries are not enough - the editor should engage on the talk page if he thinks the image shouldn't be included. Herostratus (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the reasoning, Cptnono. Thanks for handling the revert, Herostratus --Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 02:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

As a black male I find one of the images used for this article noticeably racist. The second image with the black man ejaculating on the white girl is the image in question. While I can understand the authors need to show NPOV, any sexual image with two partners showing one of the partners in discomfort/sadness should be same race to avoid any potential racism. Please someone change the image with the unhappy girl to have both partners as the same race or have them displaced in a non-race fashion (EX: stone figurines, portrait of just a woman's face with ejaculate on it) to remedy this potential contrasted racism. Also while not directly related I wish to point out this article could use a picture of a male giving another male a facial and/or a female squirting on a males face (if that would be relevant to the article) 130.49.142.155 (talk) 15:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)phDalbert

You can create an image yourself if you want.Cptnono (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dalbert. I have modified the original image to only show the woman experiencing the facial with limited racial overtones. Keep up the good work everyone! 173.188.2.174 (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The penis is an appropriate part of the image and the color should not matter. I am surprised this is an issue, especially today with interracial relationships being more and more accepted. Cptnono (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono I don't think people find the interracial sex an issue. I feel that people find issue with the negative connotation that is directly tied to the dark skinned (presumably an individual of African decent) with the recipient of the facial having a unhappy face. This issue can be fixed by eliminating the man completely or as I think would be more constructive to change the photo to a gay or transgender type facial with the "pitcher" being female. It is somewhat redundant to have two facial (man to women). While they do display the NPOV well they lack diversity. I only wish I was a good enough artist to draw an image to replace the second one :/ 108.32.13.59 (talk) 21:19, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Caption

It looks like WP:CAPTION was disregarded with this edit.[2] Cptnono (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you're only focusing on what some analysts say. I don't see how the picture inherently supports one side of the argument. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it "inherently" supports one side of the argument but it does support the text in the section it is in and having the exact same caption as te other image is not useful. CAPTION allows for a caption discussing how it is relevant to the text.Cptnono (talk) 21:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am going to reinsert unless there are any further objections or thoughts on alternate wording.Cptnono (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Ohnoitsjamie. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

So can you suggest alternative wording?Cptnono (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think that this second picture is redundant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 20:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That is not what this discussion is about. That is up above. But as stated up there: the second image is wonderful NPOV wise. If we had one of just a girl smiling it would be problematic since so many people see it as a derogatory to women. If the only picture was the girl not looking happy then it would be POV since it would disregard the many people who see it as a fun and perfectly acceptable act. Not only is having both a neutrality issue, it improves the readers understanding of the topic. Just showing one would be detrimental and this is compounded since everyone reads an article differently. So since it would be inappropriate to caption the lead image with "Some people like this!" it would be inline with CAPTION, be less redundant, and compliment the text if there was a mention of the disputed feelings on it as the section the second image is in does. If your only reason for dismissing the second caption is because you don't want the image at all then I am going to reinsert it but if you can provide alternate wording in the assumption (whether it happens or not) that the image stays then I am all ears.Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Since the revert was followed up with reasoning that it was one sided essentially, maybe something like "There are differing opinions on if the act is derogatory towards women" or something.Cptnono (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The question was asked, so I answered it - I don't propose a second caption because I don't see any point to the second image at all. However, if the image is to remain, then the caption should refer to the image, not to a value judgement about the act portrayed. That is, the caption should be a neutral description of what it is the image portrays. That means something very similar to the caption on the first image. Of course, that does accentuate the redundancy, hence my previous comment. To read "per Ohnoitsjamie" as "only reason for dismissing the second caption is because you don't want the image at all" is to mistake my meaning. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

And having a redundant caption strengthens the argument to remove the image, doesn't it? Is there anything not neutral about my most recent proposed wording?Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, it does, but you're confusing cause and effect if you're suggesting that I'm basing my arguments about the caption on a desire to remove a redundant image -- it's because there seems no suitable and non-redundant caption that I'm inclined to assess the second image as redundant. Anyway, the caption "There are differing opinions on if the act is derogatory towards women" refers to a debate, not to a sex act, and hence would belong with an image of, or pertinent to, the debate, not the act. To illustrate the debate would require a picture of the debate, or of some of its participants. A picture of the sex act requires a caption which talks about the act, not a debate around it. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you read WP:CAPTION? Her face looks unhappy and it appears derogatory. It matches the text just fine.Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Yes and that's what the debate referred to in the article is about. No. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow you. Can you clarify?Cptnono (talk) 21:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I will clarify then "clearly identifies the subject of the picture, without detailing the obvious... is succinct...establishes the picture's relevance to the article" is met. The subject is obviously a depiction of a facial. The relevance to the article (and even the specific section) is handled. My suggestion is not ambiguous, either. It also does not go into unnecessary detail. Most importantly "Another way of approaching the job: imagine you're giving a lecture based on the encyclopedia article, and you are using the image to illustrate the lecture. What would you say while attention is on the image? What do you want your audience to notice in the image, and why?" We could add "The subject receiving a facial in this image illustrates" but that seems a little ridiculous. This caption reminds me of the engine example over there. So you my not have alternative wording and that is fine but so far you have not provided reasoning to not use the second proposal that is inline with the MoS. The neutrality concern was taken care of o what else is there? Please provide reasoning for not approving that can be directly backed by WP:CAPTION.Cptnono (talk) 21:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

"The subject is obviously a depiction of a facial." Exactly. But the caption is about a debate about a possibility of the act being derogatory. The image does not clearly represent either a debate or derogatory-ness (looking unhappy is not the same as being subject to a derogatory act), it represents the act itself. It therefore fails (4) "provides context". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

(←) To continue "What do you want your audience to notice in the image, and why?" Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe the image clearly portrays the act in a negative light. The derogatory debate is therefore relevant. Cptnono (talk) 22:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

And two other editors disagree. This belief is clearly not achieving consensus. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I did not say there was consensus. I am simply saying that it is inline with CAPTION and so far neither of you have provided reasoning with why it is not. If you had an alternate proposal it would be appreciated but so far you have done nothing but ignore the poor caption while arguing against one that could be an improvement (even though it may not be perfect). And the other editor has not provided any other reasoning besides the first proposal overly focusing on one side of the argument. Since that has been addressed we still do not have consensus but it is 1 v 1 argument wise right now unless he other editor has additional problems with the newest proposal.Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The current caption, ie "Illustration of a man ejaculating onto a female's face" is redundant, as I pointed out above. I have stated that it does not meet WP:Caption and said why I believe that -- you have stated that you believe it does. Ohnoitsjamie did not agree that "the picture inherently supports one side of the argument", namely that the sex act is derogatory to women and you have stated that you believe that "the image clearly portrays the act in a negative light". I disagreed with your opinion and agreed with Ohnoitsjamie.

If we want an image that illustrates the debate, with corresponding caption, it would be something like an image of the debate itself, such as a room of people arguing about it at a sexology conference, or a picket line protesting against it at the AVN awards, or a vote in the Senate on a law prohibiting it. If we want an image illustrating the content of the debate, it would be a picture somehow illustrating the derogatoriness of the act -- and I don't see what that might be. What we have here is a picture which might be held to show a participant not enjoying the act. This might equally mean that the act is painful, or unpleasant, or demaning, some of the time to some people. To assert that it illustrates derogatoriness is to place a weight of interpretation on the image far beyond what it can bear.

Let's be clear that framing the debate in terms of whether the caption satisfies WP:Caption is beside the point. The issue here is, what do the picture and the caption actually mean in this context? That is entirely a matter for editor discussion and eventual consensus. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

And I still disagree. I do not see how CAPTION can be interpreted that way and I don't see that interpretation having precedent across the project. The image certainly can be seen as derogatory. There is no requirement for it to be a standalone image so when it is coupled with the text of the section it makes perfect sense. There is no chance that it could be seen as "painful" in the context it is presented in. The context in my proposal is obvious. But again, if it can be improved I would love to hear it. Repeating the caption from above does nothing for the reader even though the image does, so it needs to be fixed. My version is an improvement but even more improvement would be better.20:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "A woman receiving a facial who is not happy"? I don't like it but something along those lines would address the concern of defining the image.Cptnono (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So anyone who doesn't smile during sex is not happy? It's still a pov interpretation of the illustration. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I can understand that objection. You have not commented on my second proposal. Do you see that as also not being sufficient? If so, do you have any alternative wording? I really do not care that much what it says as long as it is not a repeat of the first caption. I had hoped that coupling it to the text of that section (even broadly without saying it is derogatory) would do the trick but it hasn't. You have been awesome at keeping the vandals at bay and if you have any alternate suggestion I would be stoked.Cptnono (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

How about "smiling" versus "unsmiling"? It's not ideal, as unsmiling still has a faint implication of interpreting what we think the woman is feeling, but it's a little better than "not happy." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I didn't think "not happy" would realistically be any good. "An unsmiling woman receiving a facial" would do the trick for me.Cptnono (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is an adequate caption for the image. I should add that, as I explained above, it does rather support the notion that any acceptable caption for this image renders it redundant. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved comment

Unnecessary amount of pictures on this article. Currently the article shows two pictures that are basically the same. One should be deleted for fear of redundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.66.170 (talk) 03:30, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Already discussed. Please see above and the archives. Both images show two aspects of the subject. This improves NPOV and understanding since it can be viewed positively or negatively.Cptnono (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

ha thanks for moving my comment. How do I comment correctly with a signature? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.1.66.170 (talk) 03:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

With these: ~~~~ Cptnono (talk) 03:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Re "in society" section

In the "Cultural perceptions" section, the "In society" subsection begins "The frequency at which facials are performed amongst the general public is unknown...". And nothing in the section improves on this. There is some material which could be called "original research", except that it's not even research, it's just straight-out speculation. This section has absolutely nothing to say and needs to be removed.

There are three refs in the section (it looks like four, but two are to the same source). They are:

A Center for Disease Control study which surveys oral sex and anal sex but has no data whatsoever on facials. This ref is only used as starting point for rank speculation on the order of "CDC says X, so we may extrapolate this to say Y" which is useless.
An article by Ulrike Rodrigues at straight.com. Straight.com is a Vancouver news and cultural info site. It's online-only. It is not a peer-reviewed journal nor a respected mainstream media entity. Rodrigues is not an academic. She writes on various local subjects and popular topics for straight.com and perhaps other venues. So this is not a good ref. OK, on to the content of the ref. The article referenced has absolutely zero to say about the facials. It is used to support the statement "anal sex is nearly ubiquitous in modern heterosexual pornography, but performed regularly by only about 10% of the general population." Which it doesn't even support (the article gives the percentage as much higher), but whatever. The statement doesn't belong in the section, so the ref has not use.
A citation of Pornography and Sexual Representation, a book by Joseph Slade. Joseph Slade is a professor at a respected university, and Greenwood Press publishes reference books, which you assume they couldn't do for long if their data was not OK, so so far so good. I note that Slade is a media/literature person with a specialty in (among other things) pornography, and his book is about pornography. The Google Books version is here. It's used three other times in the article, to support statements regarding pornography, But here it is used to support a statement regarding real life: "The frequency at which facials are performed amongst the general public is unknown, as no academic sexual survey has addressed the subject. It is generally thought that it is performed far less frequently than it is practiced in pornography". I can't be sure, but I think that only the second sentence is meant to be supported by the ref. The qualifier "is generally thought" is rather alarmingly vague, and I don't know where Slade gets the data for this. I couldn't find it right off in the Google book, but I didn't read through the whole book. Given that Slade is literature person, that the book is about pornography, and the statement is vague, this seems a quite questionable reference. It's arguable. If the ref is accepted, the section, rather than being deleted, could instead be redacted to this:

"The frequency at which facials are performed amongst the general public is unknown, as no academic sexual survey has addressed the subject. It is generally thought that it is performed far less frequently than it is practiced in pornography.(ref Slade)

However, I don't think that this is a particularly useful or well-supported statement, so I removed the section in its entirety, Herostratus (talk) 15:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I am reinserting a section on views on it. A couple new sources and one that was incorrectly in the porn section. I think too much emphasis is given to the positive currently but it should be easy enough to fix. An unsourced line was also reworded with a source.Cptnono (talk) 08:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up: Just added negative view from Ruth Westheimer who did Sex for Dummies (funny stuff right there). It could go in the porn section also/too.Cptnono (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of prevalence information. Saying that not much is known, with a ref, is superior to saying nothing. By the way, Slade cites Cindy Patton for that info [3]; he doesn't posit it himself:

“

Patton [...] notes also that heterosexual men rarely imitate the behavior they see in films in their own sexual lives, despite lots of anecdotal testimony to the contrary. "Clearly", says Patton, "few heterosexual men engage in this practice in real life."

”

You can read Patton's bio here I think she's sufficiently qualified that we can cite her opinion on this with attribution, lacking more substantial evidence. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:04, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, User:Cptnono said below on this talk page that The Kinsey Institute new report on sex has something to say about this, but Google books won't let me see that page in my neck of the woods. Tijfo098 (talk) 13:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Artist's Bias

I gather from reading the discussion that most folks think there are duplicate images or offensive images etc., but the artist has a bias in having her pictures on the article. Despite continual feedback the only response is "make your own." I will say that replacing the images is not the only solution. Removing them entirely is an option. Just because an artist wants her pictures up does not mean they ought to be. I am suggesting that the images be removed if the community has suggested that but the artist is biased toward her own art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstate295revisited (talk • contribs) 19:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

These images (or similar) have been discussed (almost to death) over the years on and off - not only in this article, but in a whole range of sexual articles. From all those pages, we did manage to slowly eliminate all the photos (and there were quite some very explicit ones) on the basis that we could not be certain if the subject (who could obviously be identified) had given their personal consent for publication (the photographer obviously had), so all the articles slowly but surely changed to drawings. Since then, whenever it has got round to some sort of !vote then the general consensus has always gone with to keep the drawings. I see no need to seek to change that consensus on this page. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:30, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The artist has not even commented here and has made it clear that they will not so your comment does not make any sense, Interstate295revisited.Cptnono (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Black

Since reverting to combat vandalism has come up: I continue to support reverts to any edit that highlights race.[4] It is not necessary and has even been mocked by IPs on this talk page and racist terms ave been inserte dpreviousley (do I really need ot provide a diff). So to make sur everything is covered in my argument for the complete and understood validation of this comment: 1) we do not need to highlight race since it is not the subject 2) we do not need to highlight one race over another and anyone who does is obviously trolling 3) We all want to fight vandalism.Cptnono (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Captions

Using the captions to the two images to describe the women as "black-haired" and "brown-haired" is just an enlightening as describing one of the women as "unsmiling". There is no rationale for such an asinine caption. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Consensus was formed in December. You have not argued against it. However, the article is now left with a POINTY edit. Someone needs to revert or I will be doing it after 24hrs. 3/rr is not an entitlement but vandal fighting is. Funny these grey lines. Cptnono (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Malik that the qualifier is irrelevant. Furthermore, to me it looks like she has a mild smile, so to say she's not smiling is your POV. If the point of adding a POV caption is to "balance" the lack of smile on the girl in the other picture, we might as well just delete the other picture as it doesn't add anything to the article more than the first picture. N^oformation ^Talk 21:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Have you read the archive discussion and seen the edit history? Both images provide a POV. Losing one and not the other would cause neutrality issues. But so far, there is a previous consensus, editors using summaries, and even a comment at ANI that lead me to believe there is no change of consensus. When that consensus is found then remove it. Until then, the article is now protected which just benefits the editor using edit warring to remove it.Cptnono (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I have and there is an obvious problem. The images are supposedly trying to demonstrate from a recepient POV there are both negative and positive potrayals and views of the sex act (as something to be enjoyed or as something that is degrading) except this is flawed because:

1) No one can agree what the images actually show as evidenced in the original 'consensus' discussion and this discussion.

2) The first image doesn't even say anything about the woman smiling (and didn't in the 'consensus' version). And is in a completely different location, the intro. So the attempt at contrast is largely lost.

3) Even with the caption for the second image, it's still a poor caption that doesn't actually sufficiently explain the point you are trying to make. And also isn't integrated with the discussion in the text of the differing views of the sex act. So the reader is unlikely to understand what point we are trying to make with the images despite the original caption, even more so given 1) and 2) (although I gather one of the reasons why we have 3 is because of 1 anyway).

So I would have to agree, the best thing is probably just to remove the second and fairly redundant image. This would also allay the obvious and valid concerns several people have raised about the unfortunate even if unintentional implication of us having one allegedly 'happy' light skinned woman with a light skinned man and one allegedly 'unhappy' light skinned woman with a dark skinned man. (And ironically if you argue the second image shows an unhappy woman so is needed for neutrality reasons, you can't then ignore the obvious neutrality concerns of skin colour raised by the specific images we are using even if we don't speak of them.)

If a better image appears that we can agree shows the point we are trying to make (although I think it's questionable if a static image can really properly convey whether someone is happy and enjoying themselves or not) then we can reopen this discussion. Or if another image that conveys something that the first image doesn't (e.g. 2 males). But some times, making do with what we have does mean we just don't use something if we already have something else that sufficiently conveys the content.

P.S. I would also note in the original 3 person consensus, one person also apparently held the POV at the end that the second image was redundant.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Evolution of facials in pornography

I have noticed over the years that facials are a lot more common in pornography than they used to be. Anybody know why that is? Was hoping maybe this article would shed some light on the subject. I remember porn in the 80s would sometimes end in a facial if the woman was performing oral sex or giving the guy a hand job, but usually he would just pull out and shoot from whatever position they were in. Now days, it seems like almost every single scene ends in a facial (which I consider to be quite unfortunate), where the two performers have to do some crazy gymnastics to get in position before the guy ejaculates, or the scene just randomly switches to the guy jerking off in the woman's face for no apparent reason. Did we one day decide as a society that pretty much all porn should end this way, and I just missed the memo? Do people find this sort of thing to be more authentic? I've had sex with a lot of different women, and have never came on their face, nor have I ever wanted to. Guess I just don't understand the fascination, or how and why it became so popular in porn. 70.114.146.78 (talk) 05:01, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Images

I agree. The second picture should be removed. It is humiliating for females! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joanakestlar (talk • contribs) 14:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Boy, we really did need those illustrations. I don't think anyone could have understood the article with not one, but two racist, offensive, and pointless images. --173.3.154.230 (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Everyone reads an article differently. And how are interracial couples racist?Cptnono (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

lmao they white dick cums on the girl and she's happy, they black dick cums on the girl and she's sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meanstrade (talk • contribs) 01:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really constructive but might as well respond, Would it be reverse discrimination (or something silly like that) if it was done the opposite?Cptnono (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

(moved to correct location) OK, this may seem childish or trivial, but if you look at the pictures, the one with the two white people shows the woman apparently enjoying herself, while in the case of the interracial couple, she clearly is distraught. I'm not one to nitpick edgy content, but in this case, that definitely looks racist. ProudlyAnon (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

And I think it is racist to assume that it is racist. :) Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cptnono must have made the images, for no rational argument seems to persuade her that the community disagrees. We can't be married to every change we make, we must work as a group, and Cptnono seems to prefer showing off her art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interstate295revisited (talk • contribs) 19:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I see nothing racist about it. The two photos are virtually identical. One photo the woman is smiling, and the other, she looks submissive. I see nothing close to "distraught". Atom (talk) 03:22, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the submissiveness of the photo could indicate that the woman might be willingly used as a bottom like in BDSM. --The Educated 13:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brow276 (talk • contribs)

Unnecessary amount of pictures on this article. Currently the article shows two pictures that are basically the same. One should be deleted for fear of redundancy. Either that or why not add 50 cartooned pictures of sexual facials? Just use one at the top please.

i came here from dramatica, i saw those pics there and was like "omg is that for realz", and am happy to see that yes, it is for real. thanks to artist(s), i had the lulz 91.204.237.181 (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The message of this article appears to be when a white guy does it, it's fun; when a black guy does it, it's abuse. Get rid of the damn second drawing! Ribbet32 (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I removed the second image as it serves no purpose. However, it was added back in with a comment saying that the "consensus" was to have two images for "balance". I cannot see that discussion or consensus anywhere here on the Talk page. I can only see that I am not the only one to believe that the second image serves no purpose as it is nearly identical to the first image (though it seems to illustrate a larger quantity of semen). I recommend the second image is removed, but am not going to get into pointless debates on here, nor bother removing the image again myself. I simply edit Wikipedia occasionally when I see mistaken or irrelevant content. I strongly believe in Wikipedia's potential as a useful online encyclopaedia. Having two images on this article seems pointless. Why did the artist even draw two near identical pictures in the first place? I have seen no other article on Wikipedia that uses two near-identical images like this. An image should uniquely illustrate one unique piece of information. That is done by the first image. Why is a second image necessary? - 12:25 17 June 2011 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.181.72 (talk)

See Talk:Facial (sex act)/Archive 3 for a discussion. I think lots of pages use several images, even several similar images. -mattbuck (Talk) 11:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There were rumblings about it being stereotyped with a black male and a white female (the positions have reversed since then) - I think that's the main reason someone made the second drawing. If you wish to start a new section (at the bottom, please) about image removal then please do so. All pages should be constructed on consensus, and if there is a new consensus to only have one image, then that it what it will be. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Only one picture should be used. Otherwise it just makes the article smutty. I suggest using the one where both the penis and the girl appear happy as happy sex acts are less open to negative perspectives related to any potential racial undertones one may perceive (though i do not perceive any from either photo)

108.17.109.131 (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I deleted the lower picture of the facial with the unhappy girl. There seems to be consensus on too many pictures in this article after reading the discussion page in full. If anyone feels this was a rash decision please revert the image back into the article but post here why you think we need more descriptive images for this short article.

108.17.109.131 (talk) 00:40, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation of consensus. Please make sure to read the archives as well. Both images show different POVs. The article has enough room to support images and one is even related to the section even though the caption was removed. Wikipedia is not censored and even more importantly: it strives to be neutral. Cptnono (talk) 05:45, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

So, this single page manages to sum up most of what's wrong with Wikipedia. Let's take a look, shall we? The problem is the images (well, one of them, I don't even know where to begin with the rest of the page). There are two images here, each portraying the subject of the article. They are almost completely identical. Therefore, the logical assumption is that one of the images is completely redundant, and needs to be removed. Of course, it doesn't end there. It just so happens that the ONLY difference between the two images is 1. the race of one of the participants and 2. the reaction of the other. Basically, the difference is you make the male in one picture black, and suddenly the female has a terrified expression. Cool, so one of the images is racist. Could it be racist to interpret it that way? Well, no, because the ONLY difference is, again, the race of the male, which makes the reason for the change in reaction obvious. More importantly, is it okay to portray the subject in such a light that makes it seem non-consensual?

Obviously, as all the other entries on this talk page will attest to, that second image NEEDS TO BE DELETED. But for a second, lets forget the horrible connotations arisen from the combination of these images. Let's say that the second image was something that actually illustrated something or, at the very least, was identical. Or maybe the woman in the second picture has some sort of muscular disorder, and she's trying her damnedest to smile. Fair enough, but why two? Is wikipedia trying to become some sort of pornographic gallery? No, really, I looked. Just for fun, I checked out some of the other articles on human sexuality. Now, I'm asexual myself, and as a former defender of wikipedia, I'm certainly not going to come out and say images illustrating sexual acts are just out of line. Of course that's ridiculous, it's supposed to be an encyclopedia... right? But, looking at some of these other pages... I mean... wow. Do you really need 5 images for missionary position? Or three for hogtie? As a matter of fact, I've seen that model before. She's from an... australian? I think australian paysite that specializes in bdsm sort of stuff. There was a video she had on youtube but, near as I can remember, it got taken down. So, you're illustrating an article with three images, at least one from a professional porn site that youtube saw as explicit enough to take down just a sample?

By keeping the second image up, your article tells the world that not only is wikipedia racist, but their primary concern with articles on human sexuality is not to educate, but rather to post whole galleries of redundant images just to get off on. But it doesn't have to be like this, wikipedia, oh no. You COULD change. Every last smurfing comment on this talk page says the same thing with one loud unified voice: TAKE THE SECOND IMAGE DOWN. Someone grows some balls and really does delete it. What then? Do we rejoice? Has wikipedia reclaimed it's fast fading integrity? No. It is treated as VANDALISM and the change is reverted.

Lastly, I want to bring up a very important factor in how I even managed to find this train-wreck of an article. I was linked here from a COMEDY SITE. Ecyclopedia Dramatica has a hilarious animated gif that displays the none-to-subtle and outright vulgar display of racism that I thought, surely, not even wikipedia would sink to. So what if they still argue about birds being dinosaurs as if it were the 1920's or some nonsense. They certainly wouldn't display something so outlandish and horrible. The way it's presented in the article I linked, of course, plays it for laughs, because it's so obnoxiously blatant it couldn't possibly be true. Imagine my surprise when I followed THEIR link to find that, yes, the parody of wikipedia is simply THE EXACT SAME CONTENT AS THE SOURCE.

You have a choice, wikipedia. You can either delete the image and act like any of the more reputable wiki's I've seen, or you can remain the butt of a joke so offensive that you've slipped into some bizarre Sarah Palin territory where the parody and the original are the exact same thing.

Haha, no one's even going to read this. Cultistofvertigo (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I have just been told that my link to the original article is BLACK LISTED, so you're actually CENSORING INFORMATION? Wow, wikipedia, forget everything I said, you're completely hopeless. Nothing I or any other editor can do will be enough to save you now. This is really the absolute lowest you can go. Racist, repository for porn, AND blacklists sites that it disagrees with? HUMOR websites? To think I actually used to like you. Cultistofvertigo (talk) 02:01, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Total newcomer to this article, i'm quite sexually liberated etc. but I do think the pictures are a bit of a joke. I was quite surprised and amused to see them, but there is really no need, esp. not for the 2nd one. 2.103.41.112 (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why are these images still up? I see no evidence from the talk page that anyone aside from Cptnono supports this "consensus". We have only the repeated, abject denial that the second image might conceivably be viewed as racist and humiliating. Wikipedia is not censored, but

Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.

Perhaps the first image is useful for people who have never heard of this act. But does anyone seriously argue that omission of the second image would make the article "less informative, relevant, or accurate"; i.e. that readers are unable to imagine a woman frowning and with more semen on her face having seen the first image? Perhaps we should add yet more "educational" images featuring surprised, frightened, and angry women as well. (lws (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC))

Images - It'd be great to have not just women being on the receiving end.

Any chance that we can have an image of a man being on the receiving end? Just trying to keep it gender equal =) SarahStierch (talk) 18:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ask Seedfeeder to do a picture. En.wp is rather prudish and generally refuses to put actual photos on sex articles. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

"act of vandalism"

There's this text at the top of the page:

Mind you, there's already an editnotice template placed on the article, so this text is redundant. But, really, "act of vandalism"? That's a bit over the top. Editors are entitled to make edits that they think in good faith will improve the Wikipedia per WP:BRD without being told in advance that this is "vandalism". Vandalism is pretty serious offense and we want to be careful slinging that term around.

In addition, "consensus has been reached" is probably not a good construction since consensus changes and isn't set in stone.

It's probably not a good idea for editors to remove the images without checking on the talk page first. It'd just be contentious and waste everyone's time. So "Please discuss any image changes on this article's discussion page before editing" is OK, although redundant with the editnotice. At any rate, either the entire passage should be deleted, or if not that then the first two sentences removed, or certainly at rate we shouldn't be preemptively accusing editors of vandalism. Herostratus (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe change it to "viewed as malicious" then. It is appropriate and the message there is more prevalent then the main one. Furthermore, it gives the reminder to editors to use the talk page. It is good if they do. But if they ignore the comment and refuse to use the talk page then we know they are truly acting in a manner that disregards modifying consensus. There are better things to be done with our time then to bicker over an inline comment meant to improve the editing of a page. Cptnono (talk)

I'd go for "viewed as disruptive" as a better option here. One can be disruptive without vandalising or being malicious, after all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, "malicious" is not too good. Perhaps "viewed as evil"? That means the same thing. The question is, viewed by whom?

After all, WP:BRD is the controlling rule here. Editors are entitled to make edits. (And it says "changing the image". So an editor shouldn't even provide an improved image for consideration if he has one?)

I think the situation we're trying to address here is that 1) a typical editor coming across this page is likely to be "WTF? Nooooo!" and remove the image, but 2) this is pointless because someone will just put it back. Right? This is the situation we're trying to avoid, of pointless roiling of the material. So really all we need is this:

We should minimize the amount of text, and avoid any extraneous and possibly contentious material such aswhether or what consensus exists and whether any good-faith edits are disruptive. Herostratus (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Cum shot and Facial (sex act) articles essentially the same

Should these two articles be merged? The Cum shot article is essentially the same as this one. Unless someone would like to expand either or both articles, I would recommend we merge them. Any thoughts? Who Is Christopher? (talk) 19:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A facial is a subset of cumshot, and I'd say that this article is about the general sex act rather than the porn ending. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)