Talk:Bukkake/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Info added

I have added further info from two sources, by Gail Dines and Russ Kick (cited), and created a subsection on viewers' motivation. --JN466 11:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Photos in article

There has been much disruption in the article lately with the topic being the images. Some have suggested that the article only needs one of the two current images. Some have suggested adding images with a men as the primary subject. Some have suggested replacing the hand drawing with a non-descript symbol. Some have suggested replacing the hand drawn image with a photograph.

This RfC is intended to allow a wider range of editors participate in the discussion in an attempt to talk and reach a long standing consensus that will leave the article stable for a period of time. The goal is to maintain stability in the article, rather than it changing every time an new editor with a different opinion comes along. Atom (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC) In the interests of brevity (desired by some editors), I'd like to have the RfC summarized, hopefully towards some consensus, by the end of March 2011. Atom (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors

(The following are responses to Enric Naval's post below, now moved to the Uninvolved section:)

I am not sure it makes a difference if her hands are behind her, or if she were tied up or not. Not relevant to the topic either way. Your point about the other image looking like a three some is also a good point, and I agree. One editor suggested replacement of one image with something that adds more information to the article, such as "Gay Bukkake". Although I do not advocate an image of a misnomer, what do you think about an alternative image? Atom (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of no image in the article? (removing all explicit images) Or replacing any explicit image with a symbol, as suggested earlier on this talk page? Thanks for your perspective Atom (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am more perturbed by Genevieve's impression that the woman's hand appeared to be tied than by the fact that there are only two males in File:Wiki-bukkake-2.png. Bukkake videos commonly feature only two males in shot at the same time. The image is still a reasonable representation of what a porn viewer might see at any one time.

The Wikipedia gender gap is currently a prominent topic in the press. We should take women's views on these sorts of articles seriously. --JN466 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Here is an outline of the discussion to date:

• Discussion on removing one of the two bukkake drawings (see earlier status of article) began on 16 February at 07:15, above, i.e. 2.5 days ago.
• Since the discussion began, 8 people (incl. Enric Naval above) have said they are in favour of having just one of these drawings rather than both (two editors, Genevieve and Herostratus, actually preferring we should have neither of them).
• One editor (Cptnono) has said they would prefer both pictures to remain.
• Atomaton has said "Personally, I have not formed an opinion as to whether a second image adds to the article or not. I am leaning towards that it is not." Yet he has reverted the same image back in against talk page consensus four times [1], [2], [3], [4] during the course of this discussion, and is currently the subject of an AN3 thread.
• Images available in the Bukkake category in Commons are the two drawings, and an abstract schematic [5]. There are presently no bukkake photographs in Commons. --JN466 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Why need RfC if consensus already to remove? As described above there are Seven (7) editors for only one image (now 8 with uninvolved); one (1) for and one (1) undecided. Why do we need an RfC?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus seems pretty clear (disregarding the side tangents). Why is an RfC necessary? Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Both images show the same thing in almost the same way, so we would only need one of them. But which one? File:Wikibukkake.png seems to represent the topic well enough (it has more people and a better angle), but it does look like her hands are tied up. No idea of what is the "correct" posture for the hands of a woman in a bukkake, someone with Japanese films of this topic should post here. File:Wiki-bukkake-2.png has the problem that it looks like a threesome. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources define it in such a way that it requires more than three people? If so, that picture should go. The picture with more men does not show the woman's hands tied, and I don't see what basis there is for coming to that conclusion... that's not directly and explicitly supported by the picture and is rather an analytic or interpretive claim about it. WP:NOTCENSORED allows for pictures of this nature, as far as I can see. Although "WP:IMAGES" states "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." That particular illustration's omission would not do those things. Although WP:PROFANE notes that we don't know what "typical Wikipedia readers" are and what they would consider vulgar and obscene. So it's a tough call. Could a picture that adds more informative value be found, or one that is in itself notable in some way like the first such depiction, or an award-winning depiction or something along those lines? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is enough for me that a female editor interpreted the image that way, that the woman's hands were tied. Once I looked at it this way, I could certainly see what she meant. I don't see a major problem in having an image just showing two males. Even if more men were taking part, just from the point of view of camera angles etc., it would typically be just two that would approach the woman at any given time, then to be replaced by others. --JN466 06:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Showing two males and the context of the article expalining what is going on is fine-pretty clear what this is without needing a gallery of photos. Removing the 'hands tied image' is for the benefit of the article-it offends, depicts rape, and is degrading, its enough for me to voice my approval with the above to want it (permantley) removed. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In the drawing, the woman's right forearm disappears behind her somewhere around her intertubercular line, and her left hand disappears while extending forward along her left thigh. Given an abnormally long right forearm that also bends at an abnormal angle, I guess it's conceivable that her hands are tied together. Or one could suppose that they are not tied directly together, but that the wrists are individually tied and the cord extends some length between them. That is purely in the realm of the imagination though. One could just as easily argue she was born without hands, which given that it is a drawing and when created the hands weren't drawn, is closer to the truth.

Where is the actual evidence her hands are tied or that it is a depiction of rape? One can legitimately argue that the image doesn't belong because it doesn't add anything, so why go about removing it by describing it as having characteristics it doesn't have?

I do note a different problem, though. The German and English descriptions of the file's uploader matched, but in the current description, they do not. Single-edit Commons editor Eco-climber changed the English description 23:27, 9 November 2010 diff such that it no longer describes the picture: "A group of men or women take turns ejaculating on to a single woman's or man's face" (emphasis added). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One can easily point to where is the evidence that the persons hands are not bound. But as you are pointing out above- We dont know either way. All this aside some have found it to be against the spirit of WP:PROFANE because of the images vague interpretation, and as such we should at the least continue to persue a legitimate alternative to the image. The alternative photo Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png i think (in the mean time) is fine at describing-others disagree apparently and thats their right. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion, at #Images_2, was simply about the question whether we should have one or two of these drawings. The overwhelming consensus was that we should only have one, and at the time I was happy for that to be Image:Wikibukkake.png. It is just that the later comment by Genevieve made me note that women might view this image differently, and led me to replace it with Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png instead. I must say that I find it very inconsistent for editors to turn around now and say that Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png doesn't illustrate bukkake properly, when it was in the article since last Septebmer, and Atomaton, whose edits Crossmr now defends, reinserted exactly this image Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png three times [6] [7] [8], against talk page consensus. --JN466 14:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As you so aptly pointed out on Snowballing, the image should represent the most common scenario. That was you reason that two women couldn't do it right? Bukkake is a group act, and 2 guys isn't a group. It's a threesome. As such it's not the most common scenario. one editor objected, and 2 more objected further that they didn't see what she was seeing. You've repeatedly tried to use my name to claim you had consensus for those edits, which is false.I clearly supported removing the latter which is not as representative of bukkake.--Crossmr (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You yourself described Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png above as "clearly ... a duplication of the first. While the amount of people in them vary, what they're illustrating in relation to the subject is essentially the same.", did you not? Now you seem to have changed your mind, which I suppose is your prerogative. Frankly, as I have said before, bukkake videos frequently only show two guys at a time, simply because there isn't room for everyone to ejaculate on the person in the middle at the same time. I would argue that the image and text together give the reader a clear idea of what happens, as indeed you argued yesterday. --JN466 14:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

essentially is not the same as exactly. The second picture showed nothing further than the first because it was simply a similar photo of only 2 men. The lead clearly states "several". Not 2. 2 is rarely considered several. The consensus of people above clearly supported your indication that the second image should be removed. Some even specifically stated that one. You have no consensus to remove the first image in it's place. Can you cite how many people are shown in any given bukkake scene? otherwise this violates WP:OR and WP:V. The lead and citations support several, not 2.--Crossmr (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources cited in the article refer to men "taking turns". I accept that you would rather we used the "hands-behind-the-back" image showing more men, but two editors above object very strongly to using that image. I too think their concerns are valid. --JN466 19:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And 2 editors thought there was no basis for the objection. Also WP:NOTCENSORED. There is no presence of any rope, handcuffs or any other restraints in the image, so frankly there is no objective grounds for their complaint. It's based on their own subjective feelings which is well covered by something like WP:NOTCENSORED. I asked you to cite how many people took part in bukkake scenes. Taking turns is not the same thing as saying only 1 or 2 people take part in every scene.--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I could try to edit the image to place the woman's right arm on her thigh, as it is in the picture we currently use, rather than behind her back. Would that be acceptable? --JN466 11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is always a basis for objection to be raised on a talk page. Granted arguments may not be as strong in merit currently as others, but consensus does (can) change with time-Hence there is always a basis to raise an objection on a talk page to discuss alternatives. In this case more than one have raised a (valid) concern and there would likely be others-Jayen's suggestion would be appropriate i think to ellivate my concerns and likely others though i cant speak for them. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466, yes, that would be acceptable. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Image edited, uploaded to Commons, and replaced in article. --JN466 02:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I will chime in as a very uninvolved editor. I think the sex act, by definition as it were, involves more than two males. I think the image with the multiple male partners (more than two) is the more accurate depiction. I think if we are going to have an image then it should be the most accurate, even it is the more unsavory; perhaps especially if it is the more unsavory in an act that is, IMO, unsavory in its essence, if you will forgive the brief editorial. I think that, upon inspection, it is not likely that the woman's hands are depicted as tied. Her left hand goes to the floor and very unlikely would be tied in that position. --Lyncs (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bukkake is a Japanese term that refers to showering a receiver male or female with semen from one, several or many men. " [9] - contrary to Collins defintion. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

See the Talk:Bukkake#2005_world_conference section at the top of the page where Hudson's work is discussed, and it is referred to in the sources section above too. It appears to be circular, we don't know anything about the reliability of Hudson and Doong, and we shouldn't be citing an abstract for a poster presentation at a convention, except perhaps as a primary source for the bare fact of there having been such a poster presentation there, like it is presently being used in the article. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As described in the title of the RfC, the purpose was because there ws substantial discussion of a number of image related issues. They spanned from removing all images, to removing one of the two nearly identical images (in the article at that time) to replacing the one image with a symbol, to replacing the drawing with a real photograph. One of them (addressed above) is regarding whether one of the images appears that the woman is bound, or not. So, perhaps there has been some progress, but not what I would call a comprehensive addressing of all of the issues and a reaching of consensus. As the article has been here for a long while, and will likely remain being here for a while, there is no real hurry in discussing, and giving other editors time to add their two cents. The real advantage to the editors discussing thoroughly and coming to a consensus is that them when months later someone else cmes along and wants to make a radical change to the article in some way, one of us can stand on the consensus we obtained to maintain stability. Atom (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Promotion of Interested Party (Gail Dines)

While this article could stand a lot of improvement there appears to be self promotional content requiring urgent attention. A person called Gail Dines or persons acting for that party may have inserted references to this person and the tile of a book authored by this person in order to promote sales of this book. There are two references to this person on tenuous grounds. The first reference is a de facto quote within a quote. There second is more direct and simply states the authors name, book title and quotes the author's opinion.87.114.171.235 (talk)

The first reference looks ok, I guess; it could be rewritten from "A said X. B said Y. C said Z." to "X, Y and Z".

The second reference is too tenuous; it's an opinion about money shot, not about actual bukkake, and I have removed it. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, on both counts. I added that content, IIRC, and am not connected to Ms Dines in any way. The money shot reference is not tenuous, as bukkake basically is a long series of money shots, and the quoted passage occurs in a discussion of bukkake. --JN466 02:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is too loaded with opinion and too short on fact. The facts that are presented are inaccurate and the opinion is unbalanced. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to rescue the article but if a simple edit like the removal of a tenuous quote from an activist is the cause of controversy then it's unlikely than anyone contentious is going to be willing to commit time to that task. Fourisplenty (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The line is a perfect summary of the source. If the opinion is not worthy of mention or needs a contrary one for balance might be valid arguments. I see no glaring problems with the line (surprisingly). And if you want more facts it would be great if you found some more sources. I want more facts, too.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

It should be noted that bukkake is not the noun form of bukkakeru, not in its common connotation at least. In it's common context it means something along the lines of, many things placed on top or big things placed on top. The splashing and dashing is indeed a reference to the verb bukkakeru but it's specific to the context of AV, put simply it's a pun. Fourisplenty (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Bukkake (sex act) → Bukkake – Last year's discussion above notwithstanding, the current disambiguation page at Bukkake has no links, or redirects, other than this one - just "black-text" non-links. This seems to me to be something that isn't exactly encouraged; and I believe the sexual act is the common useage of the term. Potential dab issues could be dealt with in a hatnote. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment if a topic is covered as a subtopic in another article, then there would be links of this manner, so I don't find the disambiguation page problematic in itself. If we did not do this, then we could never find topics that exist as parts of other articles instead of being an article on its own. (such as TV episodes, or characters, etc) 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Those would be listed on the disambuguation page as redirects to the sections of the articles they were in. This is not the case with the dab here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename move the disambiguation page to Bukkake (disambiguation). Clearly the "facial" is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (NOTE: The article is already residing at the common name.) 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support; de facto primary topic as no other Wikipedia article has this title. Powers ^T 14:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support per nominator and Powers^T. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk}_{about my edits?} 00:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Although I find the act of bukkake very disgusting, and am currently trying my best not to think of it (and all this despite being kinky myself), from what I have heard the sexual act is the primary meaning, and most of the other entries on the disambiguation page are named after it. Facial (sex act) shouldn't even be listed, as it doesn't contain the word "bukakke". The Japanese noodle serving thingy could be served with a hatnote. JIP | Talk 21:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Edit request on 14 June 2012

After the line in paragraph one, which reads: Some authors have argued that bukkake involves the implied or overt humiliation of the person ejaculated upon; the women performing in bukkake scenes are not generally brought to orgasm.

please add the following sentences : Not all persons share this view. An argument can be made that bukkake is a Japanese ritual of high respect. 69.11.85.242 (talk) 07:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Mdann52 (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

C class seems reasonable for this page - there's much that could be improved.

This page currently has the taint of feminist anti-porn propaganda, from the lede onwards. Contrast with the page on Urolagnia for a radically different and more encyclopaedic tone.

From the current body text, a reader would be lead to believe that bukkake is a kind of violent, misogynous gang rape, performed and enjoyed only by men, upon unwilling and exploited women.

I'm no expert on this stuff, but a quick read of the page suggests the need for at least the following refinements:

• Needs GBLT and FemDom sections for lesbian bukkake, gay bukkake, and female-on-male bukkake. Especially since Lesbian bukkake currently redirects here.
• Needs opinions from practitioners, producers, and connoisseurs of all genders and sexualities.
• Needs other, equally valid viewpoints, such as seeing it as a form of tribute or worship to a "queen", etc, to be represented.
• Secondhand quotes, cherry-picked by people who disagree with those they are quoting, are VERY BAD FORM to use as quotes. These should replaced with first-person quotes so that context is preserved. (eg "anti-pornography campaigner Gail Dines [...] quotes veteran American porn actor...")
• The term "implicit subordination of the woman" is used as if it were fact rather than opinion, and indeed as if women were the only receiver - should be fixed to, eg.
• The section "Viewers' motivation" needs rewriting to remove the implication that the only viewers are straight men.
• Or, better to merge Viewers' motivation" with "Reception" in a single section like "Controversy" or "Accusations of misogyny".
• The multiple cites of Gail Dines are redundant. The point is made: she thinks it's misogynist. Collecting the negativity into one section would allow her opinions to be more easily edited down to a length proportional to the article.
• The lede states "[receivers] performing in bukkake scenes are not generally brought to orgasm". That the act is one-sided is a fact made obvious by the definition of bukkake, just as with oral sex, fellatio and cunnilingus: if this point has no place in the ledes for those pages, or the lede of the urolagnia page, it certainly has no place here, and is an example of the kind of bias that currently permeates the whole article.
• Discussion of the differences between western and Japanese practices is spread out - could again do with being collected in one place, and expanded upon.

Overall, the fact that 9 of the 24 refs are offline feminist ISBNs suggests that much of the article was written by a single person with a large feminist library, and an equally large axe to grind. --72.182.18.36 (talk) 08:31, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it only about groups?

I always assumed it just meant ejaculating all over someone's face, regardless of how many are ejaculating...Is it just about groups? On a similar note, does it always involve masturbation or could the male(s) be ejaculating due to stimulation provide by the person being bukkake'd and/or other people? --TiagoTiago (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The term is normally used specifically to describe acts involving a group of male agents and one or more female (or male in gay bukkake) patients (I don't like "victims" in this context). There are other terms (which I don't need to itemise) to describe 1-on-1 121.99.84.227 (talk) 03:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Possible additions

1. There is a claim that bukkake (which is certainly false) represents a traditional punishment of a wayward female by her community, involving severe humiliation.

2. In some non-Japanese bukkake, the males then urinate over the female (? or male in gay scenes), which provides ther audience with an image of further humiliation and reinforces the point (made elsewhere in the article) that bukkake is about domination and submission. 121.99.84.227 (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Teriyaki, the origin of bukake?

A non-reliable source says "Bukake: Derived from a Japanese verb, meaning “to splash or “dash,” the word originally referred to a dish in which toppings were poured upon noodles. Best not to ask for this at your local Teriyaki parlor, however."[10]

And in The sci.lang.japan Frequently Asked Questions; "Bukkake (ぶっかけ) in Japanese means "splash on". Kakeru means to pour over or splash on something, and the bu before it emphasizes the action. Bukkake is part of the name of dishes like bukkake soba, soba (buckwheat noodles) with dashi (broth) poured over them, and bukkake meshi, "bukkake rice" as seen in the illustration."6.10. What does bukkake mean?.

And in a blog of Singaporean food: "When we saw the menu “Bukakke Udon,” we knew we had to try it. (...) both kake udon and bukkake udon are priced the same"[11]

--88.26.168.80 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Bukkake - you're confusing totally different terms

Bukkake itself is a sexual act of straight men cumming on a woman (or on women who are besexual). When men ejaculate on another man it's a separate thing, it's called "gay bukkake". When women squirt on another woman it's called "lesbian bukkake". When women squirt on a man it's called "reverse bukkake". So please, DELETE the phrase "..or another man" from the main sentence, suggesting that bukkake is a gay act. That's a lie, and lies shouldn't be present on wikipedia. You can also visit Bukkake Chatzy, a website entirely devoted to bukkake, and ask John Thompson how does he see it. 159.205.249.91 (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)