Talk:Facial (sexual act)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Updates

Hi Everyone... I did some changes to the article today that I hope will improve it. I added some titles to give the article more organization. I also expanded on some of the sections and added a new section: Mechanism of Arousal. It is tough to find academic references on the topic however I think the article should be expanded further so that it is no longer a stub. I hope I help improve the article and I look forward to watching it evolve. Unkle25 06:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive Edit/Blank Out

Just because an article lacks proper citation is not a reason to blank out over 50% of the text. Please demand citations rather than deleting the work of others. Unkle25 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

STD risk

Should be information on health risks. Isn't oral with facial safer than swallowing or fucking? Lena Bimbo 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced opinions and conclusions

I have marked several paragraphs in the article with {{fact}} because they are full of opinions and attributions of motives without any sources cited. Such material particularly cries out for citations of reliable published sources that support the claims. -- Donald Albury 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is trying to argue about whether or not this act is sexist in some way.Lol I can has cheezeburgerz? (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes there is some very strange agenda behind some of the editing here. Very anti-sex. But most importantly, someone just reverted a very simple factual statement backed up by direct evidence that the practice was common citing an issue with references while virtually nothing else in this strange article is referenced at all! To my mind that is proof of POV and should not be permitted.Veritas23 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you are welcome to tag any unsourced material you want to challenge with the {{fact}} template. Given the history of this article, I would advise against removing unchallenged material that has been present for a while without discussing on this page first. On the other hand, some material has been challenged for a while with no sources being offered, so I'll go look at them. -- Donald Albury 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex Magick

They do who in the what now? I'm sorry, that part isn't very clear. . .--75.82.69.178 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What is confusing you? Divination means reading future events before they happen. Diviners often use seemingly "random" results such as the fall of I Ching coins, the clumping of tea leaves at the bottom of a cup, the particular shapes revealed by the intestines of sacrificial animals, or the way semen falls across the face of the facial recipient in order to "tell fortunes". Like a crystal ball or mirror scrying except one is working from "random" patterns instead of a blank slate....74.72.168.46 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Image?

Does anyone feel it necessary to use an image of a real act or should we stay with the drawn one. Because as you can see in this diff there has been an attempt to change the image into an image that could be conceived as pornographic. I know we are not censored but I do feel it overkill when the drawn one seems to be perfect. Rgoodermote  14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• The image which you're referring to violates the guidelines at WP:P*, which governs this article. So you did right. Tabercil (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Good thing, I really did not want to piss anyone off. Sorry it took so long. I am not an editor in these sections. Rgoodermote  00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Propose removing tags

Any objection to the removal of the "original research",etc tags now? Seems decently cited compared to many articles...Veritas23 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference is incorrect.

The article notes that "ritual semenancy has been documented as early as 1900 BCE in ancient Mesopotamia" and cites Oppenheim's book as the source. Nowhere does Oppenheim's book Ancient Mesopotamia mention such a practice.

Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[citations really needed?]

The [citation needed] marker is used too often in my submission. Many of the cases where it is used are "common knowledge" much the same way that it is common knowledge that "some people like jacket potatoes with butter on then" but we wouldn't require a citation for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.31.122 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I certainly can't argue that fact can be overused , truly common knowledge is often not useful to include in an article in the first place. "People have faces." At the other end of the argument, maybe the common knowledge is not detailed or specific enough. "Whales are big animals." -> "Whales are large ocean mammals ranging from 10 to 1000 meters long." And once the phrase is more specific, citation is appropriate. Citation is an easy way to settle disputes about the correctness of a statement, by referring to a more authoritative source than "random editor".

To specifically address the topic, pretend you are someone who was raised by wolves (who inexplicable taught you English and have access to the Internet). Reading this article, would you be at all confident that this is not someone's joke? Citations are evidence that what the writer perceives as common knowledge is in fact common knowledge.--Marcinjeske (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Revert War.

The continual reverts of my edits are being done so without sound explanation. If someone here would like to tell me why seven [citation needed] tags are needed in one paragraph, and how a "facial" in this context has anything to do with semen's role in personal grooming or sex magick, please say so here. Also keep in mind that when you revert you are taking away the merger proposal as well. DeeKenn (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all may I respectfully suggest you slow down. There is no need to make drastic deletions to long established and referenced articles in Wikipedia without a period of open discussion. Secondly, there are no "continual reverts without sound explanation". There was a sudden and significant edit without time for comment and it wss reverted by editors who have long contributed to the article. In any case, re your and clicketyclack's suggestion. You both seem to propose incorporating this article into articles about pornographic movies....This article is about the sexual practice of facial ejaculation in the real world - something real adult human beings do every day. As such it is only sensible that it should include appropriately referenced information about all aspects of that very popular sexual act - such as its use in religious rites, for skin care, or whatever other practice it involves in the real world. NOT in pornography - or at least not necessarily in pornography. The "cum shot" reference in the lede is confusing and should have been deleted before as again - "cum SHOT" refers to the movie SHOT that is a "facial money shot" in pornography - not the day to day sex act. The pornographic facial articles you mention are quite extensive compared to this simple article, yet not nearly as well referenced as the material you deleted. I agree the "citation needed" tags should go from the paragraph on facial in pornography. Why don't you work to develop this article by adding to it instead of removing a few bytes of useful and interesting real world information? Hopefully now we can all wait a few days to let other people give their opinions....Veritas23 (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I do not find this article well referenced. In fact, the references listed for the two sentences under Sex magick are not verifiable. Another editor above has mentioned the dubiousness of one and, through my own research - having read the cited chapter - has shown the divination reference nonexistent as well. The "sudden and significant edit" was, as I said, made in good faith and should be assumed as much. As you can see by my contributions, I am not a passing "vandal"; my editing was noted as vandalism, to which I took offense. I challenge the need for an independent article on the matter. That people do it everyday is not an issue. Regarding semen's use for skin care, again, nothing is noted about how the semen gets to the face in the first place, which is what this article is about, is it not? Is the article about ejaculation on to the face in a sexual context, or is it about the once-believed magical and actual skin care properties of semen? Someone needs to make up their mind. DeeKenn (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree your edit did not constitute vandalism - it was merely a bit rude. I'm not a wikigeek and described it as such on a visceral level, not as defined in wikispeak, so point taken. I accept that you in good faith felt you could improve the value of wikipedia by removing the referenced material and leaving in a paragraph about pornography. I disagree in good faith and apologize for offending you. Now, two substantive things: First, could you please clarify which references you are questioning? The editor you mention was referring to an earlier version of the article. Which chapter of what did you read? It seems strange to nitpick on references when even a casual reading of the literature (or even a web search) will reveal the importance of semen in general, and facial ejaculation in particular, to ritual religious practice in various traditions. And of course, anyone with a broad circle of friends (in Europe and the US at least) will certainly know someone who practices this sort of sex magick. In truth the section on semenancy could and should be an entire article in itself eventually. Second, could you please respond to my question re the basis for deleting an article on the human sexual act of facial ejaculation (and needless to say, a sexual act may absolutely involve much more than the biological scenario itself - sex is also mental and spiritual and may cross over into areas such as spirituality, medicine, fashion, etc, etc) in favor of huge articles on this act in the context of pornographic movies?? One would think that if wikipedia is to be a serious reference source for the world that actual information about ALL aspects of an act that we all do in our bedrooms would be of more use than endless information about pornography, no? Fortunately, plaintext takes up very little storage space in the scheme of things and therefore wikipedia has the capacity to address ALL issues pertaining to human facial ejaculation (we haven't even started to address female ejaculation onto the face in this article yet...) and we can therefore all work towards bettering an encyclopedia that contains thorough articles BOTH on the medical, spiritual, aesthetic and hedonistic aspects of this very popular sexual act I work to document AND on the pornographic "cum shots" you work to document. It would disturb me to think that a young person confused by human sexuality would seek information on the serious practice of facial ejaculation and cultural/historical issues pertaining to same only to be led to information merely about hard core pornography. So why don't we ensure that both separate but related topics are well developed for everyone's benefit?74.72.168.46 (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to address your three points:

First, could you clarify which references you are questioning?"

• Sure! I will speak to four (1,2,3,4 - there are only five altogether). It took me all of 10 minutes to check each source. The first three are used to reinforce the fact that semen has "long been used as a natural skin cream". A read of those references, however, only says that Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown recommended the practice. The only part of that sentence that is verifiable, then, is that she said it; it does nothing to the claim of it having long been used. That type of referencing is misleading and specifically discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines. Reference number four attempts to prove the veracity of the divination claim. I read that entire chapter, The Yoga of Sex, pp. 81-108, and found nothing saying anything of the sort. The only mentions to semen had to do with the ingestion of it, sometimes mixed with feminine bodily fluids, to empower or bring an individual closer to the divine. In the context of Tantric Yoga that makes absolute sense. Not surprisingly, there was nothing in there about fortune telling or divination from ejaculate patterns on a recipient's face. Now, given that 4 out of 5 of the references in this article are misleading, at best, I must question the last one. I love fact checking and will see if I can verify it soon. Now, if you find it strange to nitpick references, let me also point you to another Wikipedia policy. This one is very important: claims must be verifiable Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for anecdotes. If you can find specific references that back up the assertions being made, then please do so; that's the idea! Furthermore, there is no assumption to be made that anyone with a "broad circle of friends" will know someone who practices sex magick. Uhm, well, not much needs to be said about that, I'm afraid.

Second, could you please respond to my question re the basis for deleting an article on the human sexual act of facial ejaculation ... in favor of huge articles on this aspect in the context of pornographic movies?

• I'm not quite sure what you mean, or where you inferred such an idea. My contention is, does this article deserve an entry unto itself, or would it be better placed in a single article covering similar practices? Now, if I understand you correctly, the act that these articles are in plain text and do not occupy much in the way of Wikipedia's database is reason enough for them to have their own little space. That I do not understand if education on the subject is what you sincerely desire. It is far easier for a reader to reference a single article than to dance from stub to stub.

Lastly, I don't know why you feel a dichotomy between our goals exists. I am no more interested in pornography than any other subject. What I am interested in is providing a resource for readers in a logical manner. If that means fat needs to be trimmed then that is what happens. If it means that sources need to be checked and verified, then that is what's going to happen. Oh, and the relevancy of sections to the article should be looked at, as I mentioned before. DeeKenn (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The Eliade you mention was added just to expand on the background of the religious and magical use of semen. I was going to continue with more specific additional references but it is obvious that would be pointless. 90% of wikipedia is completely unreferenced, and it is clear from most of the discussion on this page that the distinction between facial ejaculation in real life and the "facial cumshots" of the pornography beloved by so many wiki editors is unclear to many here. But it is not for me to speculate one why pornography and not common adult sex is the primary focus of wikipedians. I leave you to your "cum shot" article.Veritas23 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[Undent] If 90% of Wikipedia is indeed unreferenced, then help! If you have specific references regarding the divination process, then share! If the section can't find a home here, then it will elsewhere as I'm sure others find it interesting. From what I can tell, there certainly is a blurring of common sexual practice and pornography here in Wikipedia. Since pornography depicts human sexual practice I find that understandable. If that needs correcting, then please, be part of the solution. DeeKenn (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, you two are like a married couple arguing about sex. :oP clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that there will be any make-up sex, though. Say, do we need an article on that? DeeKenn (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm shocked it doesn't exist already! Alright, I'm heading over to Mammary intercourse to propose the merge to them. That article name still cracks me up. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)