Talk:Pearl necklace (sexual act)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Proposed merge

There are quite a few short stub/start-class articles that are quite related. The practice of Bukkake is, for example, very similar to Facial (sex act). So here's my proposal. We should merge the following:

under the article title of "External Ejaculation" (with proper redirecting from all relevant slang terms, of course.) What do you think, both about the proposed merges and the name of the unifying article? Thanks for your input. clicketyclickyaketyyak 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What about merging facial, bukkake, and pearl necklace together? Merging the ejaculation-targeting sex acts would make the most sense to me. Thoughts? DeeKenn (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- All of these articles should NOT be merged. I agree some smaller merges may be appropriate, (such as Facial (sex act) & Bukkake), but that should be proposed and discussed separately from this suggested 4 article merge. Kingadrock (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For -- Sounds like a fine idea to me, all the topics cover semen being put some place other then a sex hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.16.130 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- We can merge pearl necklace and facial with cum shot; but bukkake, although closely related with those acts, is a very specific term, so is gokkun. However the pearl necklace article has all sorts of cultural/popular references that might be lost during such a merger. Mammary intercourse is a completely different sexual act. Anyway I'm going to edit that article to include links to here. Best regards. Evren Güldoğan (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

  • This article should be merged with Facial (sex act) and Cum shot at the very least, and possible Bukkake as well (although I agree this may have further cultural connotations etc. I don't really like the article title "external ejaculation" - by definition, all ejaculation is external - is there a better term? Neıl 龱 10:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree with merger. No idea what title to use, but every synonym everyone can think of could redirect to it, so what you specifically call it doesn't really matter. It could just as easily be called "semen adrift" or "spilled seed". That reminds me, I'm thinking of renaming my parrot as Onan. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Also agree with the merge. The merge articles could go under the title of Sexual acts. Bidgee (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Bingo. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Except I think the proper term would be "sex acts". This topic is a sex act. Jenna Jameson is a sexual act. Do you get the distinction? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
        • I do but if you think about it Jenna Jameson does an sexual act not really is a sexual act. I'm happy for both Sex acts or Sexual acts. Bidgee (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
          • No, I'm just being too subtle, for once. I regard any public figure as being a public persona or "act" vs. a private individual. We don't know anything much about her private life other than who she's seeing this week. All we know about is her public life, i.e. her career, such as it is. Hence, her public persona is a "sexual act". Knowwhatahmean, Vern? :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There are a million and one sexual acts, that's probably too broad. What about "Ejaculation acts"? Neıl 龱 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    Oh, and bukkake isn't a particularly big article, but is well constructed, and would fit nicely into this proposed article. Neıl 龱 11:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    Suggest you all "hijac" that one as a model. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    Ejaculation acts fits with the merger so I support it. Bidgee (talk) 11:23, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Then you could have one link to it from an umbrella article on sex acts, as opposed to 17 or whatever. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Strongly support the proposed merge, though I'm having trouble deciding which new name would be best. I'll throw out another option: Ejaculation as sex act. — Satori Son 14:37, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Agreed and so tagged. There was a previous proposal to merge it discussed at Talk:Mammary intercourse, but I consider this a new and different merge proposal. — Satori Son 17:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Opposed. Pearl necklace is a distinct sexual practice and quite different from Bukkake and the rest. Cum shot, by the way, is a term from the porn industry which is also distinct from both of these. A facial, is on the face while a necklace is not. Banjeboi 10:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
    • And Gokkun is focused on swallowing which is yet another reasonably seperate article. Banjeboi 10:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • OpposePerhaps I'm a bit late to the discussion but I don't see the logic in merging them. There are huge fetishes for these drastically different acts and many unique facets to each as such. Just because YOU don't have the fetish, it's all the same to you see... "it's all external ejaculate, so who cares". etc.

Not really a neutral point of view. Bukkake is specifically about humiliation by most accounts (and while I'm too lazy to get reference, the logic alone should allow you to agree :). And frankly, one guy ejaculating on a neck, or a face, is faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar from bukkake, which may consist of a HUNDRED men ejaculating on a female or male face and/or body. You thus could merge bukkake and an entry such as "sperm shower", etc. But to equate bukkake and "facial" is simply ignorant. The only question then remains on this particular point: At WHAT point does it cease to be a "facial" or "Multiple facial" and then become a bukkake? Based on cultural evidence, I would say it requires at least several. There is a whole genre of pornography devoted to bukkake, and if you were subjected to it, I think you'd quickly see that it merits its own category. The suggestion to merge is comparable to equating "intercourse" and "gang bang", is that really the same either? I think not. Personally I do think "pearl necklace" could be lumped in with "facial/s" but again, perhaps I too am being subjective now. However, I really haven't seen much of a pornography genre for this specific concept. Lastly, a fetish of this nature can be quite complex and really isn't the same as something so relatively "mainstream" as a facial (mainstream in that it's in the majority of hardcore porn but bukkake is not). I would also agree that gokkun merits its own section. If you think they are the same talk to one of the porn stars lol. There's a big difference between a woman getting showered by 50 loads vs. collecting them in a glass and drinking them.... don't you think? And, it is notable that bukkake really is a japanese phenomena that has spread, due to their censorship of genitals....again making it in methodology, nature, and motivation MUCH different than a facial. Again, to put it in terms everyone can understand, this particular merge (bukkake and facial) would be comparable to suggesting a merge of "murder" and "battery".

Reiterating the most important point: This is a fetish issue, so if you don't have that fetish it seems silly and hardly different to you, but the two things are drastically different to those who both commit these acts, and those who actually view them for pleasure.(Jerry the Cowboy (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC))

Test article

I have created a test article - you can see it at User:Neil/ejac - that merges this article, cum shot and Facial (sexuality), as well as aspects of Bukkake and Gokkun. Thoughts, please! Neıl 龱 11:43, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I think a straw poll linked from all the talk pages concerned (possibly on the talk page of your user page) might put the lid on this issue. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Well the article you are proposing is not bad -- but my critique is 1) This is the Pearl Necklace article, and nothing about Pearl Necklace is incorporated. 2) Bukkake should have its own article, as the primary topic there is about the act of men humiliating women, and the other articles are about pornogrpahy or sexuality. Atom (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

You may want to read the page again. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it looks like there is a section there now. (was there before? I did not see it... *shrugs* We need to put the pearl necklace image in with the section. I am still against putting Bukakke there though. Atom (talk) 16:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

The main article on Bukakke would remain, the test article only includes an excerpt (ditto for gokkun). Neıl 龱 16:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image Removal

Per the discussion above, a decent vote in removing the image from the article seems logical.

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

The result of the proposal was

Resolved

Support

  • Strong Support - This image needs to be removed. I'm already in shock of how easily images like this can be accessed on Wikipedia, which is visited by thousands of students everday for information, but this is inappropriate and needs to be taken off immediantly as such with all images like this. --eric (mailbox) 10:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support the picture should be removed, but could be replaced with an artist's depiction, as per the norm in other articles of a sexual nature. Theserialcomma (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

*Strong Support This image should not be on here. Simply because WP is not officially censored does not mean we can't self regulate. Let common sense and moral responsibility guide us in what is included. Even Porn sites make an effort to prevent children viewing what is within. --The High Commander (talk) 11:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Support The description is clear enough. I know a picture is worth a thousand words and all that but, sometimes, a thousand words is wiser. Pictures of semen are best confined to articles on semen. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 12:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support because the picture is rubbish, and poor quality, not because it's "rude". Also, no evidence subject is >18. Also, of dubious origins; I think this image has been uploaded before, and it looked like a crop from a copyrighted porn image last time, too. This sort of article is better off with an artist's impression. Neıl ☄ 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The larger original image was enlarged and cropped by the contributor, which is why it is more grainy. They state their age clearly[1].Atom (talk) 08:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support echoing my comments from AN/I: It has been my rather unfortunate experience that many of the images of this sort have completely garbage licenses. By which I mean they inevitably are categorized as "self-made" and inevitably are copyrighted material downloaded from a porn site. I therefore think that extreme caution regarding these images is appropriate. That's not "censorship", that's common sense. Have we all forgotten the User:Publicgirluk debacle already? Looking more closely at this image, it's the only contribution (modulo talk pages) of the editor in question, the lighting in the photo is professional-quality (not tungsten, not flash, proper white balance), and the photo has no EXIF metadata. In short, if this is a self-made image and not something taken from the thumbnail gallery of a porn site, I am Marie of Roumania. Nandesuka (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support (changed from Oppose) On second thought, although I am STRONGLY against censorship, this image is ultimately pointless in this article. Unless it is really, really needed it should not be here. --mboverload@ 20:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support image a derivative of another version, and thus fails CC 2.5 copyright status when it does not note who the originaly photographer was, the original uploader, or the original editor, nor does it mention the secondary editor who cropped the photo along with appropriate dates. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Aside from the licensing problems mentioned above, I see no encyclopedic purpose served by this image. -- Donald Albury 23:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

*Oppose. Slippery slope I think the image is kind of tasteless but I'm a sucker for SS arguments. MOVED TO SUPPORT REMOVAL --mboverload@ 10:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Oppose Removing an image that isn't doing any real harm would start a wave of image removals from a large number of article since some may see this as a test case. Wikipedia is not censored and if you don't like it you have means to block the image using software that is online or there is a tool on wiki that can be used so you can't view the image. Bidgee (talk) 10:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Why use an artist impression when there is a perfectly good photo of the same thing. If this image is a copyvio or really dubious it should be deleted of course. Garion96 (talk) 13:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - an image of the subject should be shown. If we have another, better one then use it instead. Licensing issues aside, of course.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, students, conservatives or goats, and the image has been nominated for deletion and kept twice on Commons. Prolog (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The whiny religious right arguments for morality and child protection on everyone's shoulders but their own don't hold up against WP:NOTCENSORED. They need to learn how to raise their children, not spend their time cultivbating mini-dramas to feed their own egos like children. If they have to act like that, they shouldn't have kids. "Gouge their own eyes out"? Really? hyperbole much? and how many above said flat out ' i don't like it'??? THis is a non-debate on a non-issue. Monitor your kids, not the rest of the world. ThuranX (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Wikipedia is not censored (as many others have pointed out), and for good reasons. On sexuality and similar articles we should strive to keep as informative as we can (without being vulgar of course). Images should be used in exactly the same way as in other articles - to provide a visual aid to the article. If its a copyvio it should be exchanged, with a similar picture. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose WP:NOTCENSORED, we don't censor informative images that are fit an article just because some people think that they should be censored for moral or religious reasons, or because kids could see them. If you can prove that this is a copyvio (instead of simply saying that most porn images are copyvios), then replace by equivalent image. Use artist impression only if no photos are found, and replace when one is found (unless the artist impression is so good that it's better than the photo, of course!). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cropped sufficiently to focus on subject. No evidence that it's an obvious copyvio. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not censored. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. At this time, wikipedia is not censored. If there's a problem with the policy, it should be taken up with the policy, and not just by picking off individual images. That's a very slippery slope. Dayewalker (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose I remember history. Original image was larger, contributor offered cropped version (this one) to meet needs of article as original showed full face and more of the body.old new [ Not a copyvio, and has passed that already. Illustrates topic accurately. Not obscene, only a picture of semen. Been in article since 2006, why is it controversial now? Here is the talk page of the contributor who discusses their ages. Talk Atom (talk) Also see talk archive where we discussed this in two different sections in 2006 when people tried to censor via linkimage[2] 08:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

*Oppose the calls for removal are censorship, plain and simple. In addition, this !vote is a waste of time - the page cannot remove itself from our wider consensus on images and censorship. If someone provides a good quality image - it goes in, that's the start, middle and end of it. --87.114.131.159 (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)strike comment by banned User:Fredrick day --Abd (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose, not a copyvio, not underaged, not censored. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose I am strongly unconvinced by claims that this image is a copyvio. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if it turned out to be one but that's true for many images we have here that appear to be properly licensed. The standard for removal is not "would you be terribly surprised if this turned out to be a copyvio?" Moreover, using the sort of evidence in question, such as the skill of the photographer essentially punishes users for making photos that aren't amateurish. This is aside from the fact that I'm not at all convinced that the photo in question could not be made by a decent amateur. There's no reason to believe that there's any other compelling reason to remove the topic. Standard practice for good reasons is to provide illustrations of topics. Legal claims are also uncompelling. We should follow Common's lead. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (Also adding an additional note that Ottava Rima's claims of other copyright issues are also not persuasive. There is a relevant discussion on my talk page and on OR's talk pages which interested readers may wish to see). JoshuaZ (talk) 14:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is actually one of the stupidest arguments I've ever seen. And I've watched Trekkies argue. HalfShadow 23:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The rule is quite simple--NOT CENSORED. This is a topic that can be appropriately illustrated by an article. The only question is finding the best free image. If the copyright status of the image is challenged, the normal rule applies: one must find the evidence. DGG (talk) 00:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence of it being a copyright violation. If someone has belief or evidence of this, please go ahead and nominate it on Commons for deletion, and it can be reviewed in the appropriate venue for that discussion. But barring evidence of copyright violation, I can't see a reason based on that to remove it. On the question of propriety, it's illustrative. We're not censored, even for the nasty bits. rootology (T) 05:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose No evidence of copyright violation. Moreover WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an excuse to go around removing random images. TotientDragooned (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose unless we're removing it to replace it with something better. Copyright is an important consideration, but I think is being used as an excuse, here; regardless, the appropriate place to handle that is at commons (not, as my recent posting would seem to indicate, poor JoshuaZ's talk page :p ). – Luna Santin (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Think of the children is a terrible policy proposal. Banjeboi 11:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Wikipedia is not censored. Nuff said. --Alecmconroy (talk) 11:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion/Comments

  • Why should we care? Guy (Help!) 10:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Why should you not care? --eric (mailbox) 10:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Even Porn sites make an effort to prevent children viewing what is within." from the above comment by The High Commander. Porn sites have to show that they are doing something since Governments in some countries can block them or shut them down but it really doesn't stop kids from looking at it and content on porn sites are worse then what can be found on Wikipedia. Bidgee (talk) 11:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation is law abiding, which means they should take the same measurements to do the same, just like those porno sites. --eric (mailbox) 11:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Only ones who know what laws Wikimedia Foundation have to abide by is the Board Members and the Lawyers. Porn sites are totally different to Wikimedia. What about Docos of the human body on Discovery or the BBC? Bidgee (talk) 11:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Adult content is universal as governed by State government and laws. --eric (mailbox) 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
No, 'adult content' differs according to different governments. THere's nothing universal about it. Go watch european or brazilian TV for a clue. ThuranX (talk) 17:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense - this picture could have been in a sexual education book for the 7-9th grade in Denmark, and noone would lift an eyebrow. You can see worse and more explicit pictures in any shop, where magazines and newspapers are sold (here in Denmark). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
As governed by State government and laws, states being countries. :/ --eric (mailbox) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
And your point being? Since Denmark is both a country and a state? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
My point being is that when I refer to states I'm refering to countries which is common in Economics and Government. --eric (mailbox) 23:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes? And i've just given you an example that shows that it isn't "universal" - so i'm still waiting for your point. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
You're mistaken. When you go to any adult related web site these terms still apply. It doens't matter if it is hosted in another country. Universal means globally. --eric (mailbox) 23:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Which is utter nonsense, there is no such restriction here [3][4]. Sorry. But of course you could cite your claim - so that it gets beyond assertion. (feel free to redact the links - after you've seen that it isn't "universal" at all). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Viewing adult material is still insisted per U.S.C. TITLE 18, SECTION 2256 COMPLIANCE, when you are viewing material within the United States by a website hosted by a outside country. the law still remains. Which no one under 18 is allowed both by the website and the viewer.--eric (mailbox) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an international site not just in the US of A and again the law side of things are best left with the Wikimedia Board and Lawyers. Bidgee (talk) 00:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
First of all US law isn't "universal" or global either. That particular law has no relevance outside of the US. As for adult material - please define it. Since the picture in question doesn't break that particular section of title 18[5] (which is quite specific as to the types of images it encompasses). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Just as it is illegal to be in it, it's illegal to view it if you are under 18. WMF is an American company and I feel they should be binding to take measurements as well.
Incorrect. Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit charitable organization not a American company. Bidgee (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
and organized under the laws of the state of Florida - Last I checked, Florida was part of the U.S. --eric (mailbox)
As I understand it those laws apply to commercial corporations. We are not. Of course IANAL. In any event, it is the Foundation's job to deal with legal issues not ours. They can intervene if they wish. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • If you feel that the image is poor quality in terms of low res or blurry then nomate it for deletion. I've got no issues with that. I just feel that we as a community should becareful on what we censor. Bidgee (talk) 12:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
we should also be careful about throwing around the word 'censorship' just because something is being removed. for me personally, i am not offended or disturbed in any way by the picture, i just don't think it's appropriate. so it's not just an issue of censorship, but also legitimate objections to the content. 12:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theserialcomma (talk • contribs)
I'm not throwing it around "Censorship is the suppression of speech or deletion of communicative material which may be considered objectionable, harmful or sensitive, as determined by a censor." Bidgee (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It isn't censorship just removal of "inappropriate" content? If that's not the definition of censorship, what is? JoshuaZ (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
this is not censorship. this is collaboration. Theserialcomma (talk) 13:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Depiction of human ejaculate is not in and of itself pornographic, even if it is depicted on the body of another person. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Are you kidding? People makes millions putting it on the internet every year. --eric (mailbox) 02:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
That people make millions doesn't make the image pornographic. And indeed it isn't ... per the law you've cited.[6] --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 09:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Section break

This conversation is really getting off-topic. This is not the place to decide the legality of a given image. In any case, there are no legality issues with the image currently under discussion, since there is no depiction of a sex act or human genitalia, or even a human face.

Removing this image is indeed a slippery slope. There are those who want Wikipedia cleansed of every image relating to human sexuality, and they create problems like this on every article where there is one. It has to end. Wikipedia is not censored for anybody's comfort. The argument "but children come here and might be shocked" simply does not apply; Wikipedia is not censored for the benefit of children. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Also User:Nandesuka is out of line by removing the image on the grounds of Copyvio[7] which the image has not be tagged for deletion and hasn't been deleted and if it's an obvious copyvio then the image should be easy to find. The image should be readded until this matter has been cleared up and if anyone feels that the image is a copyvio then tag it on Commons. Bidgee (talk) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
My first thought was to say "Oh, if it's so easy to detect a copyright violation, why don't you spend a few hours trolling through porn sites looking for an image match." But actually, it typically is not that hard to track down images like this. I've done it before and, if I do say so myself, I have a pretty good track record. But I'm frankly getting pretty tired of the "reward" of getting to say "I told you so" when I prove that yet another image that people stalwartly defended was an obvious copyvio.
But all of that being said, we want the best content for our encyclopedia. We do not have to, and should not take an "innocent before proven guilty" approach towards copyright violations. Anyone who has edited the Wikipedia sexuality articles for a few years should be able to tell at a glance that this image is a copyvio. Suddenly getting indignant and saying we need proof positive before doing a little research is exactly backwards. In my opinion, an image like this needs to prove its provenance before being used in an article. There are any number of en.wikipedia editors with proven track records who could provide an image of unquestioned provenance. Hell, I bet you could find an appropriately CC-licensed image on flickr in 10 minutes. Insisting that we keep an image with such a shady provenance is nonsensical. This is not a court of law. This is an encyclopedia with strict content requirements. Copyright violations, along with WP:BLP violations, are one of the places where it turns out the absolutely correct thing to do is to shoot first and ask questions later. It hurts no one for this image to be kept off the article while we either verify its provenance or find a replacement image that has more credible licensing. It hurts Wikipedia for a questionable image to be pushed on the article in the face of all the very serious warning signs that this image carries. Nandesuka (talk) 03:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
If you are worried about the copyright you would have marked the image for deletion first and not remove the image using the excuse for a so called copyvio image which has NO deletion tag on it. You should revert the removal of the image and take the copyright issue to commons which is where the image is located. Bidgee (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It's worth noting that the image survived a deletion nom at Commons, where it was pointed out that we should m:Avoid copyright paranoia. Exploding Boy (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
No one really looked into it's copyright status that time. Given it's upload date and the seo games porn sites play we would have a hard time proving it was coppied from the web.Geni 04:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 2nd nomination was closed only because the admin thought "we can't see the face, so we don't have to ID the person." According to the uploader's userpage, they are over 18 years old. I admit both deletion discussions were IP infested and dealt with the same words tossed around here. If you feel this is a copyvio Nandesuka, please, tell us where the original source is. If not, then restore the photograph in the article. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The original contributors gave a larger image on the first page of the article, and in fact created the article under an older user name.[8] The image showed more detail or her face and body -- don't recall if he was in the image or not. An enlarged, cropped version which is the image being discussed was offered[9] because some editors objected. The original was delted eventually as it was an orphan. The contributors specifically addressed the age and copyvio concerns.[10][11].Atom (talk) 08:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a wee bit clueless, but why is there no metadata on the image if it is indeed self made. I thought the metadata always appeared whenever someone uploads one of their own images at Commons...smack me with a trout if I am wrong. Is it because it is a png image instead of a jpeg?--MONGO 00:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

PNG related. Image:1989 Newcastle earthquake map.png has no metadata. Bidgee (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The original image had metadata. The couple who produced that image responded to criticism that her face, and too mch of her body (breasts) were in the image, and so they replaced it with a cropped version (the current one). Cropping destroys metadata. Atom (talk) 20:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Not sure about cropping destroying metadata...unless it depends on just how much cropping is done. I cropped this image here and the metadata is still available and it is accurate.--MONGO 23:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
The metadata is independent of the image size and manipulations. It depends on how the graphics program is configured. There is usually a checkbox on the "Save as.." dialogue. In particular, in Photoshop, if you save using "Save for web...", then it will automatically perform some tasks like removing all metadata and using by default a certain PPI in order to save space. Mind you, the metadata left by digital cameras is only about 1KB of space (personal estimation), but this is important when you are talking about a page with hundreds of thumbnails and each thumbnail being 2-3KBs. Also, some people want to remove the name of their camera and all its settings (the EXIF data) for privacy and to avoid being tracked for controversial photos, so all graphics programs worth their name have that option, and it might be on by defaul when saving to jpg format. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of transparency, I've just asked on AN/I and Zscout370's talk page if it may be time to consider unprotecting the article. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I will ask for an image

User:Seedfeeder kindly created an illustration for Bukkake recently, I will ask if they are willing to create an appropiate freely licensed image for this article too. Exxolon (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a new one when we had a perfectly good one (which will easily survive a highly specious copyright argument over at Commons) that was unilaterally removed against both policy and consensus? TotientDragooned (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Some people feel that if an established user can make a photograph, then concerns that were raised about this image will not be raised with this image. People still question the age and other stuff. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:56, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
The new image will not be a photograph! Seedfeeder does graphic illustrations that avoid problems with copyright, personal identification of particpants, age issues and negate the need for records compliance under USA law - general consensus is that drawings/illustrations/paintings etc are preferable for these kind of articles. You can see examples of his work on Bukkake and Cum shot. Exxolon (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

The image has been kept - next?

On Commons: see here. Is there any other discussion required on that image, or can we archive the above threads/discussions which had no consensus to remove it? rootology (T) 01:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've topped the poll off, no need keeping it open, there had been no new votes in over 24hrs and I think that consensus was obviously in support of keeping the image. Best to leave the thread on the page and gradually move it to the top in case anyone proposes the same thing again. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I've requested unprotection here. rootology (T) 13:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have unprotected the page. Consensus is clear to keep the image in the article. Commons has kept it. Wikipedia is not censored. Please let me know if you have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 23:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Current Consensus of Images - statement

The purpose of this statement is to state clearly the existing consensus formed. This is the diff from the current state[12]. The discussion took place here being judged a consensus for maintaining the image. Eight people supported removing the image, and twenty people opposed removing the image. An admin judged this to be a consensus to keep the image in the article.[13]

The image Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png should not be removed just because one editor is squicked by it, or that it may be viewed as unencylopedic by an editor. Removal or replacement of the image should be discussed first and a new consensus formed for that action.

I welcome any comments or corrections from the people who helped to bring the current consensus, and will correct the above as needed. Atom (talk) 00:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

As I stated above I've requested an alternate image in the form of a graphic illustration rather than a photograph - these are preferable. Exxolon (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Why are these preferable? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
An illustration is preferred by you, and perhaps others, but we have an image and it's a good one. Banjeboi 00:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The is clear consensus to keep the photo. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
As I stated above, graphic illustrations...avoid problems with copyright, personal identification of particpants, age issues and negate the need for records compliance under USA law - general consensus is that drawings/illustrations/paintings etc are preferable for these kind of articles. - if you look at most sexuality related articles you'll see that drawings/illustrations/paintings are the norm. Exxolon (talk) 00:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
But this image doesn't have any of those issues, as determined by the recent RFD. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It is preferred by some but hardly by all. And personally I think some of those illustrations are less helpful but accept that sometimes it can be acceptable until a photo is found. Banjeboi 01:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Most editors seem to be of the opinion that a real image is preferred over an illustration. As photographs for topics become available on a topic, they tend to replace a graphic illustration. This image does not depict sexually explicit conduct as defined by US code: Title 18 Sect. 2256, and so the records compliance of 2257 is not applicable. Graphic illustrations are covered in exactly the same manner under copyright law that photographs are. Atom (talk) 01:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • "Why use an artist impression when there is a perfectly good photo of the same thing. If this image is a copyvio or really dubious it should be deleted of course. Garion96"
  • "On sexuality and similar articles we should strive to keep as informative as we can (without being vulgar of course). Images should be used in exactly the same way as in other articles - to provide a visual aid to the article. If its a copyvio it should be exchanged, with a similar picture. --Kim D. Petersen"
  • "Use artist impression only if no photos are found, and replace when one is found (unless the artist impression is so good that it's better than the photo, of course!). --Enric Naval"
I think it's enough for now to say that there's a clear consensus for the current image, and that any replacement would have to be a clear improvement; if other potentially suitable images become available, there will be ample time to revisit the issue at a later date. – Luna Santin (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
The image creator has stated they will go ahead with creation. There's no reason we can't have more than one image in the article anyway, and if in the future the photo image is lost for some reason we will still have an image in the article. Exxolon (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
This is the best answer. A photo is always better than an illustration and would go first, but the illustration can certainly supplement it beneath the photograph. rootology (T) 15:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
I would tend to agree that under most circumstances a photograph is preferable to an illustration. Notable exceptions being illustrations of complex mechanical devices, industrial/manufacturing processes and intricate anatomy. In the end, I feel that "image retention" trumps accuracy. An accurate image that is frequently removed (and thus rarely seen), is of less value than a less accurate image that survives consensus. --SeedFeeder (talk) 20:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
True. Of course, if someone keeps removing an image for which there is overwhelming consensus to keep, that person would quickly be disruptive and made to stop, so... rootology (T) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think what we need is a banner to state that removal of the image will be seen as disruptive, so that those who attempt to go against consensus cannot say they have not been properly warned. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Once a consensus has been reached that an image is necessary for an article, then the only reasonable course of action should be to replace the current image with another one. Deleting or blanking the image should not be an option, and automatically reverted IMHO. --SeedFeeder (talk) 09:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is my view. The last survey failed to gain a consensus for removal of the current lede image. The survey did show support (more than half) for replacing the current image though. In other sections (above) we have been discussing what kind of image would be a good candidate. I would like to solidify that discussion, come up with one strong candidate, and then propose that strong candidate as the new lede. Without splitting votes over many images, and given the existing majority view that another image is desirable, I feel we can get a strong consensus for it. By continuing the discussion (above) we can work out issues now, rather than end up with a divisive consensus survey. Atom (talk) 13:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually I see there was strong support to keep the present photo with continued discussion that a better photo would be worth considering if one is presented. And, of course, that it is a free-use one to help avoid all the drama. Banjeboi 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Pearl necklace image deletion nomination

Resolved
 – Kept. -- Banjeboi 00:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to inform any editors interested the pearl necklace image has been nominated for deletion on Commons. Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 4th nomination‎ Bidgee (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

1984?

"It appeared in the US about 1984."

I deleted this line as it cannot be correct. ZZ Top's song Pearl Necklace was released in 1981. So obviously the term came into use then, if not earlier. Kingadrock (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Slang Terms

Isnt there a WP policy about not listing endless slang terms? i think we would only need a link to an urban dictionary in External links, instead of listing two possibly not very common slang terms for this slang term.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag?

The merge tag currently suggests a merge to the facial article. Has there been any discussion of merging this article to the Mammary intercourse article? Seems like a good fit.Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 03:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

See the deletion discussions linked at the top of this page for ample discussion.--BelovedFreak 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this article even actually relevant to Wikipedia?

I would think that a colloquial, slang term for ejaculation onto a woman's (or man's?) neck isn't really Wikipedia-caliber material in general. I'm thinking that it could be a slippery slope - who decides which slang terms are to be included and which aren't, since there will always be an endless number of names, descriptions, and anecdotes for various sex acts. I suppose "Pearl necklace" is common enough to be considered the most well known slang in this particular case, but it still raised the question in my head. I apologize if this was already discussed and established.

173.49.56.210 (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

There are thousands of one sentence articles on Wikipedia about obscure physics theories, or biochemical processes that nobody has ever heard of, but articles like this are what you deem irrelevant or not "Wikipedia-caliber". Seems to me someone is offended by taboo... please peddle your beliefs elsewhere. - Gunnanmon (talk) 02:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not been speedily deleted because it appears on some notable reliable sources, which means it's a bit more notable that just one more colloquial term, and can be verified as existing. Now, you see, some (many?) editors question wheter it is notable enough to warrant its own article, which is a wholly different matter. See the deletion discussions linked at the top right of the page, below the archive links, where no consensus was reached on the notability question. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Additional/Alternative image

Another image of the act in question exists on Wikipedia. Thoughts about adding it or replacing the current photo with it? [14]66.191.19.68 (talk) 20:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • The photo is better. Both because its a real life illustration, and because it isn't more explicit than needed, which the drawing is (imho). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • The photo is better, and, surprisingly, less graphic. There is some article about men ejaculating between women's breasts but I'm unsure the name. That illustartion might be good there. -- Banjeboi 00:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Does no one of the editors who inserted the cartoon image in the article read discussion pages anymore? Per comments above, photo image is better. Garion96 (talk) 08:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
  • We're not a porn site, and there is no way to guarantee this isn't someone mad at their girlfriend and posting it here online. The drawing is not only a better depiction of the sexual act, it is also a much safer alternative than using a questionable image. Go with teh drawing obviously. JBsupreme (talk) 07:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
As said in previous discussions, there is absolutely no reason to assume bad faith regarding the picture. The drawing is good, albeit in my opinion more explicit than needed - but a picture is better. (ot: why is that a drawing for some reason is better on sexual articles, when (almost) everywhere else it would be considered worse?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:42, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
In addition the photo has been put up for deletion 4 times on WM, and survived. So fears of some kind of "revenge" posting are baseless. It better illustrates the subject. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree, the drawing is more general and the photo is both more specific and more accurate PollyWaffler (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC) ...Oh, and the photo just survived Deletion Request FIVE. PollyWaffler (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Please don't remove the photo, it's waaay more accurate and clear on graphically explaining the term. The drawn image explains only the mammary intercourse term so it's not good enough to replace the photo, it simply depicts a different related tecnique. I don't care if the drawn image is removed or not. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd prefer a vector drawing instead of a photograph. --FollowTheMedia (talk) 08:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
On what grounds? PollyWaffler (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • I am happy having both the photo and the drawing. I think removing either would detract from the article (although it would be good to get a clearer photo at some point). PollyWaffler (talk) 12:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel that the photograph is distasteful for an encyclopedia. Even the articles on Fellatio and Cunnilingus have drawings, not explicit photographs. --UltraEdit (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Because the photo shows an actual, real sex act, I think it should be removed, or replaced. (I just came across this article out of curiosity for the name.) I was shocked to see it considering the other articles have much tamer images. Maybe look for a drawing depicting a "pearl necklace" instead.. the photo makes me feel ill, it's just too much, far too graphic. Granted, it's a good demonstration, but it's still too much. A drawing would be more 'theoretical' and help to keep the boundary between a diagram of a sex act and erotica because it doesn't use real people. There isn't porno on the "Pornography" article, so why is it here? 81.159.227.16 (talk) 14:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd get rid of the photo merely on the grounds that it sucks. If it were a photo of anything else we wouldn't even be having this discussion -- it would've been gone a long time ago simply because it's not of a quality usually associated with Wikipedia content. While I'm completely aware that it's an amateur photo, this one looks like an amateurish home photo. And we generally don't use the argument that "it's the best we could get so it stays". A photo isn't paramount here, but it would be nice to have, if a good one worthy of an encyclopedia could be found. Equazcion (talk) 20:43, 5 Jan 2012 (UTC)

calling for discussion

In this edit] a contributor excised a large part of this article, providing their only explanation in their edit summary. I suggest edits likely to be contested really need to be explained on the talk page.

I haven't looked at this article in ages -- maybe since its {{afd}}. I was quite surprised to find it did not contain any references to the use of this term in popular culture. I am one of those who had never heard the term until I watched episode 69 of Sex and the City. The surprising absence seemed so inappropriate I took the time then and there, to search for references to substantiate its use there, and start a section.

I am quite cross to find my efforts were wasted, duplicated earlier work, discarded by an exciser who did not see it as necessary to leave an explanation on the talk page. Even if, for the sake of argument, if the exciser knew, for a certain fact, my opinion would turn out to be a minority view, I suggest it was a very bad idea to fail to tell people let good faith contributors waste their time duplicating work already performed.

The excising contributor's edit summary was "Deleted 'In mass media' section - items belong on the referenced pages, if anywhere." I have no idea what items belong on the referenced pages, if anywhere" means.

So, in addition to calling for a discussion, I am restoring the excised material.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

disambiguation

Another contributor twice removed the disambiguation hatnote from this article.

I checked WP:NAMB, which says:

However, a hatnote may still be appropriate when even a more specific name is still ambiguous. For example, Matt Smith (comics) might still be confused for the comics illustrator Matt Smith (illustrator).
A hatnote may also be appropriate in an unambiguously named article when an ambiguous term redirects to it, as explained in the "Proper uses" section above.

Since the song is also a potentially sexual topic disambiguation is useful. Geo Swan (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the song, but if you think it could be confused with this article then I agree a hatnote is appropriate. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 16:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pearl_necklace_(sexual_act)/Archive_4&oldid=1156288416"