Talk:Facesitting

question

Why is it necessary to mention the fact that this is "popular amongst Fat Admirers (F.A.'s) and heavyset people"? I really doubt that there's any evidence to suggest a greater inclination to facesitting among fat people than unfat people. Surely this is yet another example of a personal preference in the guise of an established fact? (p)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peat2000 (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 February 2006

• Agreed, done, and Be Bold! Jdcooper 17:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
• Why don't you grow a pair and let it be. You People ruin everything and make it all politically correct, Just because you're packing on the pounds doesn't give you the right to change random things on Wikipedia. Anonymous 03:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.117.176 (talk)

Suggestion

The merging of this article with Queening has been responsible for a good deal of the arguments that have plagued this issue. I think a clearer, and more correct, order would be to seperate facesitting from queening (and kinging)and place it in a context which isn't biased towards BDSM. Then there could be links from within the article to seperate queening and kinging pages, thus removing the temptation for people to try to push a gender bias. Queening is, clearly a femdom practice and kinging is maledom. Facesitting, whilst often applied in a BDSM context, is also a popular vanilla practice. Simple, methinks... (P)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.18.20.226 (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2006

• True, but kinging and queening are clearly types of facesitting? The three articles would not be long enough to warrant separation, and description of the acts would be largely the same. It should really not be hard for the wikipedia community to come up with a clear and NPOV article on facesitting, of all things... Jdcooper 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • But it is, apparently, very hard to reach an agreement on this issue. Mainly because people can't stop trying to inject their own, narrow, bias into the description. This is a common problem with many definitions of sexual practice. It's because people try to use wiki as a means of titillation as opposed to a factual resource. Seperating this into 3 categories would, at least, remove the temptation by some of the current editors of this article to argue about such trivia.
    • I agree that it would prevent edit warring and POV, but that does not justify making them separate, because the subjects are simply not encyclopaedic enough on their own. Recent edits to the article were excellent, and went a long way to removing POV and bias. The answer is watching the article closely, rather than breaking it out, IMO. Jdcooper 17:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

---

I am really interested in practicing queening. I have never tried it from the BDSM aspect, and my partner is fortunately very open minded about new experiences. Does anyone have any advice for me?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.176.68 (talk) 17:10, 22 July 2005

Wikipedia is not the place for advice on things, sorry. --Phroziac (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, I think that the emphasis on face-sitting being mainly in the BDSM-fan's province is incorrect. Many 'normal' (i.e. non-BDSM) couples use this highly-enjoyable position for woman-superior cunnilingus (with the woman kneeling facing the man and partially 'sat' on his upper chest) without any bondage or smothering being involved. Works for me anyway :-) ChristinaG— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.213.215.153 (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2005

I think there's a tad too much BDSM feminist theory on the page. 85.226.122.237 21:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Everyone editing here is trying to alter the sense of the article to reflect their personal activities. Edit what you think is biased, and other people will add their twopenneth. Jdcooper 18:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Queening Stool Picture and Interview

I contributed both a picture to the commons using an actual model as well as conducing an interview with a faceistting couple. I am not sure why people keep removing the picture in favor of an artist drawing.

Featured Article Status?

This seems like the kind of wiki page that could easily be a Feature Article. Please TAKE CHARGE and do not SIT on the responsibility to brush it up a little. Make it so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.210.186 (talk) 08:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Since when is it kinky!?

Gee, and for the last 100 years, 98% of the population thought facesitting was cunnilingus, aka eating pussy, an oral sex act performed on a female. Not only has this article devalued that definition, it's been 100% censored! El zippo. Ya gatta luv wikipedia at times like this, huh? Why, anybody can make ANYTHING up!!
68.127.84.95 (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)Do-Wacka-Do!

Facesitting can be either guys or girls, so using oral sex is more inclusive than using cunnilingus and this is the definition given by the article(emphasis mine):

Facesitting, also known as queening, or kinging, is a sexual practice in which one partner sits on or over the other's face, typically to allow or force oral-genital or oral-anal contact

I don't know how this can be more clear, the very first line states that it is where someone sits on somebody's face so that they can perform oral sex.

There is nothing inherently kinky about it, but it is common in BDSM—as the second line of the article says:

It is common for this position to form part of BDSM, involving dominance and submission, though this need not be the case.

Again, the article explains this very clearly. AerobicFox (talk) 16:49, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

This article is awfully focused on the BDSM aspect of face-sitting, and makes it seem like almost exclusively a BDSM practice, which really isn't accurate. It's a fairly widespread practice among non-BDSM sexual partners, and as someone else pointed out, it's generally implicating cunnilingus. This article should be cleaned up for accuracy. (Plus, more than half the article is about smother-boxes, and not the subject.) MaximumMadnessStixon (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with MaximumMadnessStixon. The article is POV focussed as BDSM or Femdom aspect. Whereas in reality it is a fairy widespread practice in normal sexual relationship. Someone please clean up article. Jethwarp (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)