Talk:Anal bleaching/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who would pay?

anyone who would pay $75 for this has got to have more money that they know what to do with...Gringo300 03:43, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Really deserve to be here?

What the hell...does this topic really deserve to be in the wikipedia? Would someone pick up an encyclopedia britannica and read about anal bleaching? Let's leave this to the underground of the net shall we? --24.115.247.145 20:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I personally think that one of the strongest point of Wikipedia is that you can find articles that no "proper" encyclopedia would deign to contain. I'm not saying that this article is a particularly shining example, but it certainly deserves to be here, although perhaps it needs a little more info regarding whether or not its a hoax. Deleting it would set an unfortunate precedent. Lewyblue (talk) 03:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 04:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Reason it is done

to me it seems obvious that anal bleaching - if it exists - is be done because dark skin around the anus might look like the result of poor wiping habits, especially on video. thus a dark anus could make a porn film less pleasant to look at for those who prefer to see clean anii. however, not beeing a porn star myself nor knowing one, nor having found any reference to support this hypothesis on the web i will not put it in the article as a fact. if someone can confirm it, however, it would be interesting. (actually i came to this article because i hoped it could confirm this in the first place) gbrandt 15:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I had always thought that darker skin was poor wiping habits. I guess most of what I do see happens to be women with this procedure preformed. PirateMonkey 00:23, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Still not much real evidence of this actually being a real thing & not a hoax. Most references are circular reporting, most google links point to hoax aspect, even au article linked focuses on feasability of skin bleaching, does not mention people actuially doing this, & points out that this would take much longer than the other articles claim. Yet another article detracting from Wiki quality - need to get some less POV, state facts in proper context, and {{fact}}. Additionally, how proper is it to use gossip collumnists as 'proof'? Shall we start citing 'News of the World' as a primary source next? Bridesmill 02:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm is there some kind of Wikipedia macro or similar to mark this article as disputed. i think there is some kind of "factual basis disputed" macro. it should be marked like that. in any case, the article should stay, even if it is a hoax or urban legend. i've been to parties where people discussed it as the latest craze as if it was real. this is of course no proof that it is, but its a sign that at least the meme is real and important enough to be documented in here. gbrandt 10:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if as a hoax it fits meme status, but the article needs to be clear that the origins (if not the current status) of this are hoax - it's all becoming quite interesting as there are some signs that if not totally for real, some people believe it enough to be interested in the procedure, including some products (prob not much more credible than the famous 'spurious spanish fly' of yore) And all of it based on thin air. From cult anthro perspective, actually quite worthy of mention Bridesmill 21:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I nowikied the fact template so that this talk page does not show up in the articles lacking sources category. -- User:Kjkolb—Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC).

i've bleached my anal and so have lots of my friends... no hoax guaranteed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.234.207.117 (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Image

image:Human_female_anus_(bleached).jpg (19KB, MIME type: image/jpeg) - I removed this, as the source ('I found it on wiki so it must be GFDL') sounds spurious. Plus it looks remarkably photoshopped...Bridesmill—Preceding undated comment added 02:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC).

Anal Bleaching

Spam deleted

Firstly, please sign your post with four tildes (~). I don't undersatnd why you say that my mentioning that hydroquinine is a potential carcinogen is "dangerous", when in the next line you say it shouldn't be used. I don't know what your product contains, but others admit to theirs containing this substance - in fact, I'm not the person who wrote that here, and it is the cited ingredient in two of the external links. You cannot advertise on WP - it is an encyclopedia, not a yellow pages. Plus the content you feel is 'important' is nothing but advertising copy and not verifiable (WP:V) - if you're the person who invented this stuff, it's also original research (WP:NOR which is also not allowed here. In terms of 'important info' - I didn't see any here or in the 'article', which reads more like an ad. Bridesmill 16:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Anal Bleaching Follow Up

Hello,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions. First, sorry for any form mistakes. I am a newbie. That said, I would like to contribute the information I have gathered on this topic over the past year of dedicating my life to it in an appropriate manner. So many people (men and women both) are looking for good information on this topic. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you and your willingness to sift through it and help decide what is valuable to the readers. I can appreciate how difficult that might be.

I want people to know that anal and vaginal lightening is real. That seems to be one of the biggest issues. People think it is an urban myth. It is not. My original research and article (upon which many other prominent articles have been based) is the first that brought this topic to light as a real treatment being performed by a few salons around the world. I hoped my information on the origins of the treatment and causes of the dark discoloration of the anal and genital area would be valuable information.

Next, the issue of hydroquinone is an important one (as you know) as it is commonly found in general skin lightening products. These products are inappropriate for use on the anus and genitals because of the potential problems that they can cause. Namely irritation and other long term side effects. Many people resort to using these general lightening products because, until now, no appropriate product has existed on the marketplace. Your reference to hydroquinone seemed to imply that this ingredient is what should be used for anal bleaching. Our product has been specifically formulated for use in these sensitive areas and is all natural. It does not contain any hydroquinone or kojic acid and utilizes a unique technique to achieve results unlike general lightening products that simply bleach the top layer of skin using harsh chemicals.

Thank you for your patience and consideration. While I do want people to know about my products, I am passionate about this topic and want people to get good information.

Sincerely, Bill--Mysterycrapper 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Subsequent destruction of sources and content.

Look at the changes done in the last 50 reverts to this article. Most of it has neutured the article of its content and even removed various source which make it notable. The article is in decay and is almost irrelevant now due to heavy over editting --TrollHistorian 22:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence!

For what it's worth, a British TV show a while back showed this, ahem, procedure performed live on a willing, ahem, patient. By a clinician who claimed to have done several in the past.

It was indeed done by smearing a paste onto the subject's browneye, and then leaving for a while.

Vanessa Feltz presented it, on UK Channel 5. It got a bit of media attention in the media generally. Same series covered labiaplasty, and whatever other pornographical old nonsense they could get away with by draping it in surgical gowns.

Bunghole colouration is not believed to be caused by inadequate wiping. A simple proof of this would be to find someone with suitable qualifications, then seeing if it washes off.

217.171.129.69 (talk) 00:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC) x

Howard stern show

This article was mentioned and read from in the howard stern show. Just an interesting side note! SwedishPsycho (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

20% hydroquinone

Hi all,

I can I ask who wrote that? 20% hydroquinone would most probably caused heavy injury on your skin - it is really nonsence. I did ass bleaching myself, commonly for the purpose, it is used 2% hydroquinone, which is concidered "safe" in most countries. 4% hydroquinone is only given on subscribtion (legaly) and there are much of debates of using it, since it might have negative aspects, but reproductive aspect of it has been denied http://toxsci.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/21/4/420?ck=nck. I never saw more then 4% hydroquinone in my life. Hydroquinone is commonly used for healing Melasma.

For USDOL see http://www.osha.gov/dts/sltc/methods/partial/pv2094/pv2094.html.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.207.210.115 (talk) 15:50, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a hoax. I recall Anna Nicole Smith admitting she had the procedure done. It's just surprising that anybody would actually have this procedure performed. Usually it's porn stars that have it done. --Davidqwikk (talk) 06:16, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A Valid Question

This is not a personal attack but a question, do you have proof of who is in those pictures on the article for this talk page? If so please let us know. Any action taken to not do so is a reason for me to further investigate this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh2xx (talk • contribs) 02:53, May 21, 2009 (UTC) UTC)

Blatant Plagiarism

Several sections of this article have been copied verbatim from http://www.crappersquarterly.com/features/analbleaching.htm 72.93.1.18 (talk) 03:12, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

This article should be deleted

The cited references were of questionable quality and many were commercial site where products relevant to the title was sold, which makes this article as self-promotion by affiliates of those sites. ParasiticToxin (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The article lacks any credible references and the many references I removed were commercial websites who offers for sell, "anal bleaching" products directly or filled with affiliate links. ParasiticToxin (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It has been nominated for deletion in the past some time ago. The quality doesn't appear to have been improved with backing with backing with neutral, credible sources. ParasiticToxin (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

@ParasiticToxin, it looks like a neutral, credible source, The Australian, probed this rather colorful phenomenon in a 2005 story. A number of bloggers linked to that article at the time (for example: here and here); however, the links in those posts and others point to a 404'ed URL (maybe the editors got squeamish in the end?) that was not retained by the Internet Archive due to the newspaper's robots.txt policy (and certainly their resolute good taste). Rather than continuing to impact the regular flow of discussion on this talk page with an incessant discharge of delete requests, perhaps you could put your finger on another article that would provide a suitable terminus for the topic? Personally, I recommend that we merge or "smerge" this with the article on Skin_whitening. Aaronshaw (talk) 05:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed most of scammy clearly commercial affiliate links. See earlier revisions. Significant portion of the page came from pages marketing the product and rather apparent that its intended to bring traffic to their sites by having it included in sources. They do not meet eyclopedic source standards and conflicts with the purpose for Wikipedia. ParasiticToxin (talk) 12:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also removed the Yahoo Q&A as a source. One of the sources was looping back to this page. Second source was to another questionable credibility source with a heavy bias as the article is trying to sell the products, even includes the phone number to call to purchase them. ParasiticToxin (talk) 12:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The obvious question...why?

It seems pretty obvious to me that those of us who are blissfully ignorant of this procedure would naturally ask what the motivation for this practice might be. Thanks to those good 'ole poker players in a sleep little community in Florida, I now have knowledge that I would have been much happier remaining ignorant of.

If the article must stay, then please address the obvious for those of us who don't keep up with what's popular: "Why would anyone want to bleach their bum?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.163.168 (talk) 18:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Documentation vs. Legitimation

"[...] which can be mistaken for poor personal hygiene."

Doesn't this legitimize (by value-freely documenting) a level of ignorance and stupidity that's outright dangerous? There's also no reference for this, so why not just delete it? (The sentence!)

BTW, for anyone who can read german: The german article seems to be of higher quality. Maybe something should be borrowed from there... --Hyrsebrigh (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

expansion

this article should be expanded to show the history of the act — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markstar (talk • contribs) 11:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

thankfull reader

I am very thankfull about finding this article on the bleaching of intimate parts of the human body and I really can t understand all this fuss on the suitability or the need to publish it on wikipedia .. I find it extremely usefull since in the past 3 years I developed some white patches in the underarms and around the scrotum that looks unesthetical and is somewhat embarrassing, finally I have a clue of what to do thanks to this article ... so cut the fuss and to the writer I wish to say : welldone and keep on writing if possible ! frank — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.12.46 (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry for arriving so late. Thanks much for the compliment. It's great that this article helped an anonymous person on the Internet learn how to bleach his balls. I'll pass on to the editorial council that we ought to expand it to cover scrotes 'n pits as well as anii. Nuttish (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Sources

This article has no sources. If anyone wants to incorporate these then please do.

• http://www.marieclaire.com/sex-love/relationship-issues/anal-bleaching
• http://www.cosmopolitan.com/advice/health/anal-bleaching-trend

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

http://theskunk.org/2011/04/gingrich-paid-for-anal-bleachings-with-government-funds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.142.219 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, The Skunk is not a reliable source. It even states on its website, "The articles are 100% made up ...." HairyWombat 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Tone

The article several times says "no one knows" implying both a lack of knowledge and a casualness that is inconsistent with WP:TONE, as well as being uncited and unprovable (how do you prove even one person doesn't know something never mind everyone...?). As the article currently only contains citations to support media mentions, I assume the incorporation of cited material will fix this. Hyacinth (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1