Talk:Cum shot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

discussion started in 2006

well i have posted a picture,and i have given it as a link with sufficient warning.i hope everybody enjoys it.--Jayanthv86 11:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why this is up here above the TOC?

Well, in general, I think moving it lower and perhaps exchanging it for something less pornographic would be appropriate. Not that I discontent with the woman being happy about the sexual act, a describing cumshot-illustration should involve happy participants, naturally. Yet, the picture screams "american porn-spirit" all over it. /Noffe

There's also an increasing practice of having the receiving partner express sexual arousal or even have a sexual climax during the money shot. This seems to be very popular in mainstream commercial American pornography and usually coincides with a seperation of the money shot from the actual intercourse: instead of just "going on" until he climaxes, the giver pulls out and masturbates in front of the receiver's face until he climaxes. I suspect that this practice is intended to increase the suspense by delaying the money shot as this last scene is oftenly recorded with quick cuts, intense music and increasing groans (of either partner). a pleasure

I suppose this might stem from facial money shots becoming a de facto standard in the industry and the producers trying to seperate the neccessary transition from sexual intercourse to the actual facial to make the money shot a bit less abrupt.

I might be interpreting too much here, after all pornography is all about sexual stimuli, but it's still about competition and thus innovation.

--Ashmodai 16:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

If this refers to older illustrations, it would seem the current cartoon illustrations still scream american porn spirit, just as loudly. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

more information wanted

Here is a quote from the article on facials: Some people consider this act disrespectful to the person on the receiving end, although some people do receive sexual pleasure from it, and some claim that since the human face is an amalgam of our most unique physical characteristics - it is an expression of the desire to copulate directly with the most intimate part of one's partner. Whether it is really an act of disrespect depends on the mutual perceptions and intentions of the participants. What do you believe?

"What do you believe?"? It's a matter of opinion, much like any act or gesture. I'd generally consider it somewhat erotic, but I know a lot of people who consider it simply gross, and thus probably rather disrespectful. In sex, the receiving partner should have the last word. If the giver thinks it's a big turn on, but the receiver doesn't share the sympathies, it's a no-go. If the giver considers it really gross, the receiver shouldn't force it either.

Pretty much what the article says: whether it is disrespectful (i.e. humiliating) depends on the mutual perceptions rather than a dictionary definition. Also, there's still the question whether it's playfully disrespectful (think Dom/sub) or offensively disrespectful (think rape). Despite all the porn clichés, in most cases "no" really does mean "no". — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I think one important issue here is to take into account the statement from Professor Lisa Moore (which is also quoted in the article) "that these actresses exhibit pleasure and that it is their pleasure that many of their male partners enjoy. It is perhaps more accurate to theorize that men, both as spectators and actors, want women to want their semen." For me this was a real eye opener (so thank you for mentioning it in the article) because I was also in doubt about the nature of cumshots for some time since I also found their depiction sometimes very exciting but didn't want to hurt a woman on the other hand. I think the key issue here is to understand that in pornographic movies there are in fact two different kinds of cumshots - the wanted ones and the unwanted ones! In a lot of porn movies you can see the women are in fact rejecting it and were forced to end the scene that way and then the cumshot turns into a hostile act just like ANY other kind of forced sexual activity whether cumshots that are based on mutual consent can be very exciting for men because "men want their semen to be wanted". — 08:31, 20 July 2010 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.222.64.215 (talk)

Does anyone know where there is related information (book, webpage, other) similar to this article.

Illustration or not?

I don't think we need an illustration here. Photos of cum shots of any kind don't seem the best way to go if illustration is neccessary and almost everyone interested in the term knows what a human looks like (which varies widely) and what ejaculate usually looks like (which also varies widely) and SHOULD be able to put both things together (or read up the looks of ejaculate and humans to get the point).

Additionally the main topic of this article is an act, not a result. Since ejaculation is covered by anatomy articles, I think an illustration would fit those articles better than this one since there is little illustrative value in pictures of a person being ejaculated onto or into (again, descriptions should suffice) rather than just showing what an ejaculation looks like (which is again, rather pointless since the intensity can vary between dribbling and squirting and neither needs an illustration to get the point across).

Please use this talk page to discuss what kind of illustration (if any) should be added before adding photos (especially ones with questionable copyright status) on your own. I personally don't see any reason to add any illustration at all, but that doesn't mean I'm right (there is ptill the unlikely possibility for an alien species one day trying to find out about everything eelated to mankind and maybe they WILL need a picture to understand what it's about). nUser:Ashmodai|Ashmodai]] 02:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC) iAlmost everybody knows a hand, a foot, a road or a street when they see one, set these articles still have pictures of normal hands, feet etc - so clearly saying that people SHOULD know what a cum shot looks like, is not a good reason not to have an illustration in this article. I do agree however, that a photograph might not be ideal. How about an animated .gif, showing a cum shot in a loop? David Sneek 08:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The term seems to refer to both, videos and photographs. So a photo might fulfill the purpose just as well. Considering this article is about a particular type of photograph or film sequence, I guess this might be a special case and actually qualify for photographical illustration. I'll stay neutral for now, however.

If you intend to include a photo, I'd suggest starting a poll first, possibly with an example of the kind of (GFDLed!) photo you'd like to include. -- Ashmodai

I'm imaging Wikipedians trying to convince their wives to let them take a GFDL'd cumshot photo. —Casey J. Morris 02:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think a photo would add a little to the article in terms of helping people visualize what one looks like, but it would take away much more. Mainstream reference tools adhere to greater standards than just verifiability. Including images of such a thing lowers our credibility as a mainstream resource. Therefore, I am against having such a photo in this article, or any similar article. Johntex\^talk 19:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Since Wikipedia isn't censored, unlike mainstream reference tools, I think we should certainly have an image. I don't like the animated gif on loop idea: that's just distracting. ^L_Wizard @ 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As I explained at Talk:Ejaculation, censorship is not the main concern. Johntex\^talk 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Johntex here; a photo of a cumshot would be gratuitous in this context. Vastly more people would be offended than educated, and I think many would be wary of following wikipedia links in the future.Jim whitson 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there are uncensored articles on racist terms, nazism, and general obsceneties that seems to be a rather poor argument. Perhaps instead of a direct inline picture a link could be added to the bottom. --Superslash 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake, the request for an illustration was joke. This is an encyclopedia. The description of the cum shot and its variations is about as visual as my stomach can take. ~ Otterpops 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it both strange and funny that mammary intercourse and pearl necklace have illustrations, but not the most normal/natural circumstance with a simple ejaculation? It feels a bit like having pictures of BDSM clamps on nipples, but not pictures on breastfeeding. 213.114.117.233 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence provides a link to ejaculation, with it's picture and video clip. Including a picture here serves no purpose IMO. Unless it was clearly in a pornographic setting, as this is the only difference between cum-shot and ejaculation. But any proffesional porn would be copyvio, or? Yobmod (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the subject to the cumshot happier? It makes it look like a degrading act against women.81.227.51.82 (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name?

It's "come shot" in the title, but "cum shot" all through the article, including headwords. Oughtn't that to be standardised on one or the other? Loganberry (Talk) 04:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. I've changed the article to always use "come shot." This is the spelling preferred by the OED (which includes the phrase since 2002), though it does list both. This choice is certainly debatable, though, since "cum shot" trounces "come shot" in a Google competition (at a ratio over 100:1), and we might want to be guided in our choice of language by actual usage. ^L_Wizard @ 04:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on improving the article for consistency. I think in this case either spelling is defensible. Since you have the OED reference, and since people may come here and be surprised about the spelling, it would be great if you could add a reference to the OED into the article. Johntex\^talk 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do agree the spelling should be consistent though. Should we change the spelling in the article to "come" or should we change the name of the article to "cum"? Johntex\^talk 01:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the article using "come" and not "cum." Then again, I'm a prescriptivist. . . ^L_Wizard @ 01:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't suggest that we blindly follow the Google count, but I think it is an interesting data point on frequency of use: "come shot"=22,000 hits (not all porn related) "cum shot"=4,440,000 hits (seem to all be porn related).
WP:NAME, which is the policy on article naming, does state: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Rationale and specifics: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)" Johntex\^talk 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether this is a Tidal wave case or a Jimmy Carter case. In my opinion, the spelling "cum" is incorrect. As a (contrived) analogy, you can get more Google hits for "L'Hopital's rule" than for "L'Hôpital's rule," but we have our article at the correct spelling. Moving the article to "Cum shot" would just be making a common mistake. ^L_Wizard @ 03:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Cum shot" makes more sense to me (as article title and throughout). The phrase is already in the realm of slang and jargon (unlike L'Hôpital's rule), so it seems disingenous to edit it away from common usage. And, per WP:NAME: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Pretty clearly, cum shot. Fireplace 11:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia rules, the name is decided by the Most Common Name principle laid down in our Manual of Style. All the evidence shows that the MCN here (by a mile) is cum shot. It may once have been incorrect (just as to write cows was incorrect. But just as cows has replaced what used to be seen as the correct plural, kyne, so come on the overwhelming evidence of usage has been replaced by cum. In fact I cannot think of anywhere but here in recent years I've seen it spelt come. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about creating another page for "Cum shot" and then redirect to here? I'd just do it but I'm very new at this and not confident that I'd do it right.

~ Otterpops 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkimage

I changed the photo to a linkimage. This has the advatnage that an ususpecting reader (who may be looking up this term for the first time with no understanding of the meaning) is not confronted with a graphic sexual image. At the same time, it is available behind a single click for those who want to know more. Johntex\^talk 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone reverted it, please if you think it should be deleted discuss in the talk page first. 130.166.81.166

Closed due to no further contributions for over a year

Too heteronormative Gay facials are widely popular in gay sex and porn, yet the article focuses almost exclusively on 'hetero' norms. Also, the issue of male 'domination' in which the receiving partner is also male is not discussed.65.81.27.35 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC) So add to the article...Aar☢n BruceTalk/Contribs 08:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC) The point of this article is not to enumerate genders this action can be performed with, but simply to describe the action itself. Meaning that if it doesn't say "gay" in the artcle it doesn't mean gays are not doing it. And if the person reading it would like to know if gays can have cumshots... Well, this is what Google is for, my man =) Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

copy edit

Grammar, punctuation, language plus removal of hetero-assumptions and reference check. Problem in author citing ribald opinion columns as if they were news articles (the "San Francisco doctor of sexology", Peter Santor Gardos, does not exist on Google apart from these two columns). ~ Otterpops 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Silliness

This article is full of silliness—appropriate, perhaps, for an opinion piece but not for an encyclopedic article. But this is to be expected. If anyone is serious, open the edit window and delete every sentence that looks like the author romancing or indulging. Perhaps anonymous contributors want to display their Quixotic intellect. Meep 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I might note upon that there are surely people (mostly men) who might come read this text in order to get sexually aroused and then masturbate on those two pictures. Let them do it, this is not a pornography website, it's an Encyclopedia first of all, but since it's a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then why not let them what they want to do? The only purpost of this article is to describe what a cumshot is, that's it, that's all. No strings attached (ba-dam-psh!)Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1990s?

First used in the 1990s, the cum shot was usually an ejaculation near the anus or lower back or onto the face depending on the sexual position portrayed.

You've got to be kidding! I'm sorry but the practice of ejaculating onto the other person's body goes back to the earliest days of porn films. It was standard practice when adult films first began to be made and shown openly in the 1970s. How someone could think it was "First used in the 1990s" is beyond me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

In fact, you're both wrong. The earliest of cumshots, including of course the blow job, date to since humanity started having oral sex. However, the TERMS, which this article is about, were invented in the 1980ies. So while the sentence is correct in terms of words, it is not in historical means. Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

you are wrong, too. Cum shots are not exclusive to humankind. My dog uses to rub himself on my old shoes and he cums on them too. 93.219.178.29 (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Poor linking in initial paragraph

old discussion 2007
Hey... I'd consider removing the links to pussy and ass (which lead to either the wrong thing, or a disambiguation page), or even better, changing the wording to somehting more appropriate. I didn't want to pre-empt the author's decision, so I wont change it myself unless it stands indefinately. Jddriessen 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

money shot links here

that's i think a little rough. money shot can mean much more than a cum shot. can we rethink this?

--202.156.13.1 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stupid men

What horseshit is this, that girl on girl scenes don't have cum shots?

No, they don't. Because women don't have sperm. They have menstruasive orgasms instead, called "squirts" in popularity. The cumshot practice has to involve at least one male being, whereas it is a man, an animal or an inanimate object mimicking a male penis with a sperm-like liquid secretion.

Removed image (old discussion)

I have removed the image on this page, as it is pornographic. --carelesshx _talk 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am so not getting into an edit war on this page, but Wikipedia is not censored. --Haemo 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:PROFANITY, specifically: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. I think the article text describes a cumshot in sufficient detail that that particular image is not required. --carelesshx _talk 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ana's pic

Does "Ana" know about her appearance? --84.161.203.227 20:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I put back older version with references

The article has lost all of its referenced content. If any article in WIkiped needs references to keep it from being a den of Original Reasearch and speculation, it is this one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Getting an encyclopedic tone on an article like "come shot" is hard, but we can try. How? Reference the term using reputable printed sources, not Original Research. This older version includes quotes from Filmmakers Guide to Pornography, articles, books, etc. Much more encyclopedia-like. Not all Wkped articles need to be heavily-sourced. But I think this one should be.M.O. (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Facial (sex act) be merged here. The facial is but a subtype of the cumshot and does not have enough notability to have its own entry. DeeKenn (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be more clear: The bulk of the Facial (sex act) article's content is about its role in pornography. If you remove that information, then you are merely left with a definition of a slang term. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DeeKenn (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not correct. The facial article consists of a brief and slightly confused definition of the act (confusing it with the subject of facials in pornography), then goes on to a relatively long and unreferenced description of porn facials (which I agree is duplicative of material in this article though not inappropriate to include by itself) and then briefly discusses (with extensive citations) some ways in which facial ejaculation is important to actual human sexuality. The facial article is one of the wiki series on specific sex acts, not on pornography per se. Ejaculating on the face is a very common practice in human sexuality and one that many people come to wikipedia seeing information on. I do not understand this push to reduce human sexuality to pornography. The facial article needs to keep being expanded and referenced and made more useful to those seeking information on real world sexual practices. Certainly people whose sex lives are centered around pornographic movies should be able to find information on those films and how they are made too, but that is NOT the bulk of the wikipedia audience (though perhaps represents the majority of young editors) and there is no basis to subsume important human sexuality articles under the topic of pornography OR (as has also been proposed) merging them into broad articles like that on semen in general. Are you proposing merging the oral sex, anal sex and other human sexuality articles into articles on porn?? What is the obsession with pornography?Veritas23 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there obviously is no obsession with pornography; it's about proper classification of articles with their respective subject matter. If the facial article is, as you say, slightly confused in its definition, then discuss, expand, and clarify. The way I understand it from your POV is that while facials exist in pornography, you believe that it is also common enough in "normal" sexual activity to warrant an article unto itself. That's reasonable. For your rhetorical: not all sex acts are pornographic, but many occur in pornography, so there will be some duplicity between the articles. DeeKenn (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to merge. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge them ALL together. Merge Cum shot, Mammary intercourse, Pearl necklace (sexuality), and Bukkake together. But keep Facial (sex act) as its own separate article. The others are specific/pornorgraphic/group sex acts that should be merged together. Facial (sex act) is its own separate thing. Rustdiamonds (talk) 15:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see new merge proposal at Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality)#Proposed merge. — Satori Son 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you create a section in this article with a link to the main article describing facials. By the way, why not create a section called "Types of cumshots" and then include stuff like "bukkake", "facial", "gangshots", etc. Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to any of the articles being merged, as they are all about different topics.Willy turner (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

removed image

removed image as per WP:PROFANITY (again). --carelesshx _talk 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting. As per the WP:PROFANITY guideline it only applies when images displayed "serve no other purpose than to shock the reader" - this is an image designed to be illustrative and informative and not for shock value. Exxolon (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This isn't the first time I've made this edit (see above), and the text of WP:PROFANITY has changed since the last edit I made here. The change to the guideline page was made with no comment on the talk page and no indication that consensus was reached, so to my mind should still read as it did before that edit was made. Obviously someone else has reverted back to my edit here, so I don't need to do that so I'll just leave it. --carelesshx _talk 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this will have to be reverted. WP:NOTCENSORED is an official policy and WP:PROFANITY is only a guideline. Policy trumps guideline. I'd rather not get into a revert war so can we agree that the image goes back as per policy? Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that nothing can ever be removed, it has to be applied with common sense. The WP:PROFANITY guideline says that anything that might normally be deemed offensive must have some justification for being in the article in the first place. The image in question does not document any specific event and doesn't even depict its subject particularly well (the article discusses the 'shot', but the picture depicts the results). Unless you (or someone else) can show that the image improves the reader's understanding of the subject (and therefore that removing it would harm the article), there's no reason to revert. --carelesshx _talk 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NOTCENSORED does not compel us to keep any picture on any article. It is mainly a notice to readers that the might find content here that could be objectionable to them. We are not mandated to include such content. We are mandated to follow obscenity laws in the state of Florida, where are servers are based. We are trying to be educational. We are not trying to be shocking for no good reason. I believe a text-only description of this topic serves a good job of describing this topic. A picture with sexually-explicit nudity is not needed. Johntex\^talk 02:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting comment in order to get a wider range of opinions as to whether a photo/image/illustration is appropiate and what form it should take. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of what policies or guidelines are addressed, the image in question (Image:Sperm on female buttocks.jpg) is hardly pornographic, obscene, or otherwise shocking. Let us apply the Miller test to the image:
  1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest?
     • Arguably.
  2. Does the work depict/describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law?
     • Yes.
  3. Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value?
     • No.
• Since not all three conditions are satisfied, this fails the Miller test. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First, looking at the image my opinion is that it is not obscene or offensive. It seems to illustrate the topic accurately. I guess I don't like the quality of the image though, and would like to see a better image. I'm not sure why buttocks were chosen, rather than some other body part, but I suppose that is arbitrary. Probably a persons face, breasts, or genital area would be better but possibly would cause more people to think it was offensive to them. I think probably what bohers me the most about the image is that when I see the image, I don't immediately recognize what the topic of the article is about. That is my usual criteria for a lead image, that at a glance the reader understands ("groks") the article. That is an ideal, and hard to meet. The discussed image woulc probably be better as a scondary image, or illustrating something specific about the content, rather than the lead image. Although I don't like it as a lead image, I don't feel that removing it based on WP:PROFANITY is approriate, as there doesn;t seem to be anything profane about it. Atom (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Atom, I think the image is, no matter if obscene or not, not really useful for the article. I do not think there is reason to exclude a better image from this article. The subject in question is already pornographic in it's very nature and an image to help understanding will not repeal anyone who seeks to learn about. Anyone offended by such things will be offended by the text anyway but this cannot be a criteria for inclusion, this is an encyclopedia and you have to expect things you may find offensive. Otherwise we would need to censor almost every article, for example Criticism of Christianity may offend Christians but noone opts to delete it based on that. I think WP:PROFANITY applies here, but there is "a good reason" to include such an image. So#Why 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This image isn't directly related to the subject of the article. The article is about the showing of ejaculation in pornography - the image does not depict ejaculation but sperm. As we are primarily concerned with WP:NOTCENSORED, we need to be clear that it is not an absolute rule:

“ Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately ”

(my emphasis). Obviously this image is not on that level, but I would suggest that this image isn't sufficiently relevant to the subject of the article to justify its inclusion in the article. I think we should decide this on the basis of Wikipedia principles and making the article as good as it can be. We shouldn't decide it on the basis of what we as Wikipedia users think the Florida law of obscenity means. The Foundation already has a lawyer who, probably unlike most or all of us, is sufficiently qualified to make such a judgement and will have it removed if it violates that law. Cynical (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

It would seem the consensus is that an image is appropiate but not the particular image that was removed. Assuming everyone concurs then we need to re-orientate the discussion to decide what type of image is appropiate, encyclopedic, useful to the reader and then work out where we can obtain a free image of the desired type and quality. Thoughts? Exxolon (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from above:

The first sentence provides a link to ejaculation, with it's picture and video clip. Including a picture here serves no purpose IMO, unless it was clearly in a pornographic setting, as this is the only difference between cum-shot and ejaculation. But any proffesional porn would be copyvio, (or fair use?, but then the image used has to be discussed in the article i thought). Yobmod (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Now i've seen the proposed image, and i agree that doesn't illustrate the subject at all. A cum shot should at minimum include a man coming!Yobmod (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to work out what is needed then. I would say an animated GIF file is the best answer, or failing that a sequence of image frames showing the act? Exxolon (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So glad I was browsing the RfCs today.... The thing is such images may pose privacy or copyright concerns, and I notice we use drawings for many sex-related images. In fact there is a good one at facial (sex act), kindly contributed by User:Seedfeeder (rofl) which would be appropriate here. In fact that article likely should be merged with this one. Fletcher (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As facial is a type of cum-shot,(indeed, one of the most common), the picture at facial could simply be used here. Problems solved!Yobmod (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Per RfC, I agree that the omission of an image is not detrimental to understanding. That is, there's no really good reason to include a sexually explicit diagram or picture in this article. NOTCENSORED is not a reason to include images of every possible sex act--I note that Creampie (sexual act) lacks one as well. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would see no problem with a line drawing similar to facial (sex act) being included in this article, if there really really must be an image at all. --carelesshx _talk 01:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I saw the request for comment and thought that I would. If you are talking about Image:Sperm on female buttocks.jpg, it doesn't show "a man ejaculating onto a person or object" as written in the article. The image may imply that the sexual act has concluded, but it does not show that "the sexual act recorded is authentic" as written in the article. It seems to me that if an image meets what is described in the article, then there may be reason to include it. The Sperm on female buttocks image doesn't seem to bring together all the elements of a cum shot. Suntag (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• The illustration (line drawing) was removed with "against guidlines of wikiproject pronography". Any idea that these guidlines are? If images are discouraged by the project, this should be discussed there, no? Anyway, i re-added it.Yobmod (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All i can find is that we should use free images (which this is), andsuggestions for where to find them (not applicalbe, this is from commons).Yobmod (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

image yes, but only one of an actual cumshot

I've removed the image, which because it's simply not an illustration of a cumshot and thus not only holds no explanatory power for this article whatsoever but actually misinforms the reader (or rather: viewer...) of what a cum shot is. An image yes, why not, but not that image. user:Everyme 10:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image restored. The image is, indeed, of a cumshot. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually that is in dispute on this discussion page. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Image RfC

{{RFCsoc| section=Image RfC !! reason=Dispute over the inclusion of a specific image. !! time= 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC) }}

Image:Semfac01.png should not be included in the article since it's not actually of a cumshot (I should know, I have a good collection of actual cumshot images on my hard drive). Moreover, it's highly inappropriate to have a hidden notice bullying editors into acting against their better editorial judgment by saying "Deleting or changing the image may be considered an act of vandalism."^[1] I'm not trying to censor anything, but this image is not appropriate in this article. It is appropriate e.g. at Facial (sex act). user:Everyme 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Illustration removed

The threat of vandalism for removing the illustration is 100% out of line, and calls into question the poster's motives. I have removed the image because nobody objected to the last call to delete it, and it also does not depict an actual cumshot. We need an actual photo of one, not an illustration. The interracial aspects of the illustration would also needlessly incite many viewers--white and black alike. We do not need that right now, and we can do much better with a real picture. There are lots of them out there. Vasbyt84 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Interracial?

For what purpose is this interracial? Undoubtedly, the interracial aspect is needless. In this context it diverts the attention away from that which it attempts to display, and it would be more useful to simply use a black couple to illustrate this example. It seems to send a sharp message to its audience that it need not send. Also, has cum shot come to mean cum that happens to be on a girls face? This picture stinks of an artist who is more concerned with posting her art than with expressing the term that is in question. Put on your 'objective' goggles and evaluate this photo's necessity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.191.16 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree more. Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? Who gives a damn what race is being represented. Are your feelings REALLY being hurt because Wikipedia doesn't represent minorities under the Cum Shot article??? Political correctness is for politicians, not the public. To be fair however, the man looks caucasian, and the chick looks like a mix of Spanish or Asian. - Gunnanmon (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The drawing in question is simply an example. Nothing in the text indicates that the practice described is usually performed between actors of two different "races." Moreover, the other drawing in the article does not appear to show a racially mixed couple. One drawing in a long article with multiple illustrations is not sufficient to imply whatever your own added biases lead you to believe that it implies. Would you object to an isolated illustration of a "mixed-race couple" in the page on sexual intercourse? And if so, do you object to the idea of sexual relations among individuals of different "races"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.49.232 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of search term "cum"

I have redirected the search term "cum" to the article on orgasm. It seems to fit better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.3.178 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to image

Can I put this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Facialejac.jpg To illustrate cumshot topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.33.190.141 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the more explicit image is superior to the current illustration? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

New image

I have updated this article with a new image created specifically for the subject (as opposed to recycling the facial cumshot image). --SeedFeeder (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In a typical scene of the genre in question, the girl more often looks at the camera rather than at her partner - however, perhaps the illustration is more "disarming" this way.

However, it might be a good idea to move the image a bit lower in the article. I won't discuss its educational value, but it is potentially shocking for someone who's looking this up without having a clue what it means. The Assistrat (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the image should be animated. Why not show the whole act so we can be truely encyclopedic?--217.203.143.149 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag?

The article appears to have a merge tag that directs to an archived discussion. Should it be removed? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an update. I went ahead and removed it as the merge discussion on the various articles has already be resolved or resolved and archived. If this is still a topic to be reviewed, it can be brought back. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No further contributions - probably should be archived
Creampie/Internal Cumshot There probably be some reference to the theme of the Creampie/Internal Cumshot. Surv1v4l1st (Talk|Contribs) 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Garbage

This filth doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.0.135 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What I find really inappropriate on this page is the criticism. I mean come on, people are just trying to have oral sex so they can make each other feel good, and in terms of cumshots it is applied to a woman trying to make a man feel good. Nothing more. Nobody is objectifying nothing. It's not like a man is proud that he shot sperm into a woman or all over her, however this doesn't mean the opposite. Still, it's not an objectifying stance, not in this case at least. Therefore I find argumentation is criticism needless, especially in a context where both persons are trying to relax and spend some intimate time together.

However I might correct myself just about now since it is pornography that we are talking about, not just regular sexual activity. In that case, critics might be appropriate. I would still see whether I can paraphrase that.Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, that is what so few get here, it's about pornography and in particular it is about shooting (filming) a scene in a pornographic movie. It should however state that in the led (intro).In fact it did, but it was changed reverted to it's current erroneous state. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This is information, a definition of terms that explains in no uncertain terms what the subject is. The fact is, there is an article on "filth" and just about any other thing you can think of here on WP and if you find the lack of an article you can make one yourself. In short, this "filth" does belong here. Societal views tend not to be as encyclopedic as we would like, but are a valid topic of discussion so long as they are done in an encyclopedic way, although it might be a good thing to provide a link to the subject of criticism of pornography as a source for that discussion69.224.71.96 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

"Societal views tend not to be as encyclopedic as we would like" What? Who is we?. Whether they in fact are or not is another matter not to be discussed here. However I agree that a link should be included to criticism of pornography. Regarding the image, the article already links to Facial (sex act) so why the need for an illustration here - other than that some editors like it, and the other rationale above is simply WP:NOHARM - which states : Just because having an article does not directly hurt anyone does not mean it should be kept.62.254.133.139 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Racism?

The picture of the woman sucking on a white man's penis is smiling very happily, whereas the woman who has just been drenched in semen by a black man appears very sad. Both females should either be sad or happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.221.81 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• My vote goes to having both women be happy. Everyone should be allowed to be happy. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well some things give people a feeling of disgust. Everyone has a right to feel disgust. But regardless the comments here have no relevance to the article as it stands, so could someone please close this as pointless and unprofitable. Obviously the two above are just having a larf. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Feminist Perspective

Seems POV, but am relatively new around here (I did have another name for this IP, but never gave an email, forgot the password so it is orphaned I assume) The article at the end has this section, then proceeds to mention a male book reviewer with a link to threemonkeysonline.com which bills itself as a current affairs and art online magazine. Not that a male cannot promote or pursue goals related to feminisim, but rather I'm not sure that a book reviewer's opinion constitutes a feminist perspective. Clearly, from at least one male perspective (the reviewer's) it is potentially objectionable. Or is anything one finds to be demeaning to women considered a feminist perspective? ThereIsntAnyIsland 04:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThereIsntAnyIsland (talk • contribs)

A question of social concern

I am concerned about the reasoning behind the pictures detailing sexual acts as I believe that there is no rationale for including them unless one is doing so for the sake of A: a person who cannot read (though this seems an unlikely prospect considering the nature of this site) and B: to illustrate to children what something like a ‘cumshot’ is. I do not see any social or educational relevance to illustrating non-reproductive oriented sexual behavior/acts to people so young that they require cartoon images in order to understand something. The Dick and Jane guide to Pornographic Sexuality?

This particular article “Cum shot” seems to have a bias towards legitimizing the act of ejaculating onto a woman’s face to the point of including dubious counter arguments:

1) The testimony by a sexologist stating that “…his research suggests ‘... the men who get most turned on by watching cum shots are the ones who have positive attitudes toward women’ ” is simply opinion with no scientific basis (what research is this referring to exactly).

2) The following view points by an author that “…it is the pleasure the actresses exhibit that the male partners enjoy”, and an activist that “…there is no reason to interpret ejaculation as a hostile gesture” are not substantiated by the reality that a ’cumshot’ is frequently and explicitly used in pornography to elicit an attitude of degradation (terms like “cum dumpsters” are the rule rather than the exception) as well as the fact that many woman in pornography do not appear to find the act of ejaculation or the taste of semen especially comfortable.

3) The last assertion is by a scholar who “points out” as opposed to suggests “that in western culture male sexual fulfillment is synonymous with orgasm and that the male orgasm is an essential punctuation of the sexual narrative. No orgasm, no sexual pleasure. No cum shot, no narrative closure. In other words the cum shot is the period at the end of the sentence.” This is a statement which, taken on it own merit, brings into question the general attitude toward woman in society itself rather than give any logical argument for why ‘cumshots’ should be considered a healthy sexual activity.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.211.152 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Every article that can have a picture does and should have a picture because this is an encyclopedia. The cum shot pictures are cartoons because no copyright approved, appropriate cum shot photos are available. So what if children can see it? Wikipedia does not deny access to information/knowledge to a person because of their age. Wikipedia does not discriminate and is non-censored. Your 1st point is invalid because, as a sexologist, he is an expert in this field and his opinions are valid as are experts who comment in their respective fields in every other article. Regarding your 2nd and 3rd points; this article does not claim to reflect attitude(s) in a society, only in western pornography; an entertainment genre. Your 2nd and 3rd points are also opinions with no scientific basis. You sound like a feminist thats complaining about this article just for the sake of complaining. Mramz88 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A scientific basis for a point is not an essential prerequisite for validity in every discussion. The IP's (98.117.211.152) points are extremely well made and quite valid. The last sentence of Mramz is ad-hominem and in bad faith. I did not get that impression from the IPs comments. They should be taken seriously and changes made as necessary. I'll take a look at the article in the light of (98.117.211.152's) comments, and see if anything can be done. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 01:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Also being encyclopedic is not primarily about illustrating everything, its about providing knowledge. An encyclopedia is basically for helping to provide an "all-round education". Now Wikipedia purports to be an encyclopedia (allbeit one that can be edited by anyone). At hand I have an OED for Students, so looking up educate it states firstly : to give intellectual and moral instruction to someone. Secondly: to give someone information on a particular subject. So that is what we are about here, ok?. We don't call someone un-educated if they haven't heard of the slang term "cum-shot". If anyone disagrees maybe they'd be better off just focusing their efforts on Urban Dictionary. It (the subject of this article) simply does not exist as an essential or non-essential element of an all-round curriculum of education. Someone will probably say "neither does...blah, blah, blah". Thats fine - it can be discussed another day. The only purpose (and I am stretching my credulity here) I can see for this entry in wikipedia is to explain the origins of the term and that it is derived (by bastardisation IMO) from mainstream film-making lingo. As it stands even for that it is inaccurate and misleading (see section below). I am happy if anyone wants to delete the article.[Special:Contributions/82.18.164.15|82.18.164.15]] (talk) 01:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to try and censor this, then go ahead and nominate it for deletion, but stop trying to deny that that's what you're doing by defining certain things as things people don't need to know.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It could be nominated for deletion, or it could be fixed and shortened to a length proper for defining a slang term. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Move the Image lower

I'm new here, so I won't make this change unilaterally, but I think that the image should be moved to a lower spot on the page. Perhaps stick both of the images together.

I frankly don't see the need for the images here, and in skimming this discussion, all of the substantive comments seem to agree with me. However, the main text says that you all reached an agreement to keep the image. The only possible argument I can conceive of is "cum shots are pornographic, so we need to include pornography to get the point across".

Anyway, the reader should at least have to decide to continue reading about pornography before they are shown a pornographic image.

173.75.148.131 (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Moving the image down seems reasonable to me. — Satori Son 14:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia does not censor or treat any articles or parts/images of/in articles differently than those of other articles simply because the material may be considered objectionable. The picture should stay where it is because it is standard practice to include a picture directly related to the article at the top of every article page whenever possible. Mramz88 (talk) 22:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually the positioning of an image is a matter for editors working on an article. Other articles have re-positioned images of sexual content further down. I agree that it should be moved further down. There is no necessity for it to be right at the top of the page. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Citation, please? Articles start with an illustrating image, like this one is. There is no reason other than censorship to move that picture.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

As the re-positioning was proposed over 4 months ago and during that time there has been only one editor who disagreed, and three who support the moving down, then I think anyone should feel free to move it. I won't myself. But there has been more than ample time for anyone else to respond if they disagree. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSIMAGES "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox." it looks totally stupid to have the images at the bottom. Smartse (talk) 15:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is not a rule. However both images are unnecessary, when there is an article for facial, so I shall take one out. DMSBel (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Why such a long article?

This is a slang term, it could really be explained in a paragraph. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 18:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate and misleading

In reviewing the text I notice several serious problems here.

1. According to the article the term is derived from the term "money-shot" (which is correct), but which has nothing to do with an actual ejaculation on to a woman's face, yet the illustrations are explicitly depicting the "term" as if it was to do with that.

Also, to "come" is vulgar slang for having an orgasm, not for ejaculating. Semen, ejaculatory fluid, is not "come" - this is a misunderstanding being perpetuated by this article. It has to some degree replaced in some peoples vocabulary the more correct term climaxed.

2. Therefore, granting the above, is the the primary meaning in actual fact not a reference to the filming (shooting) of a scene? The article as it stands states that this is it's normal sense. As the porn industry adopted "money-shot" from mainstream usage where it refered to the filming of the key scene in a movie then this I would suggest is actually what it primarily means (within the pornographic context), and the actual scene itself, an orgasm (cumming), an ejaculation, are not what is being refered to, they only are elements within the scene. With that clarified, the incongruity of the illustrations and the fact that they are gratuitous is even more clearly seen. Most obvious of all is that the article text is not about semen on a womans face or in her mouth. Wikipedia is not a anarchistic site yet this article and others are clearly being used to test limits. More attention needs to be given to this, from an admin position. However for individual editors, there is a responsibility here too. Editors are to steer a path between censorship on the one hand, and anarchy, profanity, on the other. When reaction against removing images results in a slide to the other extreme it makes for a bad article. Both extremes are to be avoided. The censorship argument against removing the images is lacking in strength in this instance, simply because the term any way one understands it, and the article any way one reads it is not about the result. We can maintain a sane viligance against censorship only while at the same time maintaining a similiar viligance against anarchism (in the sense of testing limits) and provocative profanity, and against those who can only be bothered to scrape the bottom of the barrel, else arguments against censorship become weightless and absurd. And that is what is happening to WP:ISNOTCENSORED when it is trotted out ad-nauseam.

See WP:NOTANARCHY Wikipedia is free and open, but restricts both freedom and openness where they interfere with creating an encyclopedia. Accordingly, Wikipedia is not a forum for unregulated free speech. The fact that Wikipedia is an open, self-governing project does not mean that any part of its purpose is to explore the viability of anarchistic communities. Our purpose is to build an encyclopedia, not to test the limits of anarchism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

3. Should we not say that the porn-industry bastardised the term "money shot" when it took it from mainstream film-makers lingo?

4. I have said this elsewhere on the discussion page, but I will include it here in summing some of the problems. There is really no need to go into great detail on what is really just a slang term. If an article on it is really necessary at all, then it could be done in a paragraph. Conciseness is a hallmark of any encyclopedia, the nature of wikipedia is such that people will want to add this-that-and-the-other at times, just to feel they made a contribution. Well, if as a result it is just creating a sprawling article full of pointless elaboration then it should be pruned. This article needs serious pruning!

82.18.164.15 (talk) 21:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The noun "cum" is defined on on Wiktionary as a noun as male semen. That accords with the usage of I've seen of the word. Just because it's a phrase that evolved from "money shot" doesn't mean it means money shot. Please come forward with sources instead of arguing ad hoc.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I realise that the word is sometimes used as refering to male semen. However vulgar-slang is often picked up in the playground, not in civil conversation, and often just copied without understanding and often incorrectly.

Wikionary is wrong in this instance. Come / cum is a verb, even when used as slang for have an orgasm. Slang terminology is often used incorrectly. As an example of usage in popular culture, going back a little, the word was used as a double-entendre in one of the Roger Moore Bond movies, very near the end, as he speaks on the phone, while getting his jollies with a female agent. "M" wants to speak to her and Bond says as she reaches a climax: "she's cumming/ coming now sir". Now I am not citing this as an authoritative source, ok? However as I stated it is an early example of usage within popular culture, and it meant having an orgasm. If it did not mean that, no-one would have got the joke. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:09, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Having done a bit more research (don't know why I am wasting time on this) there may be usage as a noun, but Dictionary.com does not cite any references for its usage from the 1920's as refering to semen. Seventeenth century (1650) usage in a poem refers to the experience of an orgasm

seems to be a modern (by 1973) variant of the sexual sense of come that originated in pornographic writing, perhaps first in the noun sense. This "experience sexual orgasm" slang meaning of come (perhaps originally come off ) is attested from 1650, in "Walking In A Meadowe Greene," in a folio of "loose songs" 82.18.164.15 (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the comment below down so that readers will follow what Prosfilaes is refering to. It had initially been inserted above my reference to the 1650 sense. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Slang isn't used incorrectly any more frequently then any other words in the language. It does, however, evolve frequently, and your 1650 senses aren't really helpful here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate, but don't agree entirely with your comments though I agree that words can be used incorrectly whether they are slang or not. It's beside the point here though to compare between slang and non-slang, and I apologise if I gave the impression that slang was more often misunderstood. Evolution of a term and incorrect use are different however, and misuse should not be perpetuated. The sense "the experience of an orgasm" had remained fairly constant from the 1650's up to the 1970s and this sense still persists. I have yet to see any examples of early 20th century usage that would indicate it was used to refer to semen or ejaculation. If such exist, it seems to me that they would more likely be anomalies (temporary divergences) from a more common sense, rather than any evolution, so to speak, in the common understanding of it's meaning amongst those who have heard or use it. But even if this were not the case the article is still misleading, not because it refers to the term as being primarily "adopted" (bastardised rather) from mainstream film-making lingo (which is correct), but because its illustrations are in conflict with the main sense the article is giving to the term. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're going on about. Go to google, and enter cum shot, and you'll find a lot of pictures of women with semen on their faces.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-read my comment and feel free to ask a question if you think I am not making my point clearly. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

How about who cares about early 20th century usage? You're talking about an industry that in the US has developed pretty much from nothing since 1975, and quoting sources from before that. Why don't you go edit the computer articles and remind them that there's no such thing as a laptop because the combined weight of the CRT and computer would be too heavy.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

You think the porn "industry" should be fawned upon by wikipedia? So is this an encyclopedia or not? You want to edit here, like you're working on a real encyclopedia? Make a decision now. We are not here to promote industries. If you want to do that go elsewhere. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

We are here to neutrally report on industries, not abuse them without knowing anything about the subject except what was written in the 1930s.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Who was abusing them? Pornographers themselves will tell you they are in the "filth" business, at least when they are being honest about it.82.18.164.15 (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And you think correcting this (article) has something to do with non-neutral reporting on the porn-industry? I'd rather cool this argument, though. Take a glance up the discussion page though and see as you scroll up if it looks like people agree with the article as it stands.82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Also wikipedia congregates research drawn from reliable, scholarly sources, understandably lacking in regard to this subject, not from Google image searches.82.18.164.15 (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Adult Category

Should not articles like this have like a warning or category before you enter, so it is not inadvertently accessed by underage persons ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.219.10 (talk) 18:46, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

To me it is a fair and valid point. Besides the fact that the article already is erroneous, that anyone who ends up here would only arrive at this page intentionally and already having a idea of the term is a fallacious argument. I see no problem with an adult category. And while it is fair to mention it, I'm not sure that any change in policy could be brought into effect merely from discussion on it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.164.15 (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No. Please see WP:CENSOR and WP:NDA.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles like this only go to reveal WP as an irrelevant academic source.Shouldn't be here in the first place. It is not a matter of censorship, but decency. 98.199.212.25 (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Image request was originally a joke

Looking back through the discussion it's clear to me (and other editors) that the original request for an image here was not serious or meant to be take seriously. There are a few pranksters about just trying to see how dumb wikipedians are. Could we wise up now, please! Thanks. 82.18.164.15 (talk) 00:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the two images present on the page contribute well to the article in explaining what a cum shot involves and how it's typically performed in pornography; I don't think any further images will be necessary, but the two already present seem pretty informative and useful to the article, and the captions are relevant and sum up the images nicely. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion, but I disagree not only because the consensus when considered over the whole time seems to have turned against inclusion, but on the grounds that the definition is in dispute too. In any event the illustrations are giving undue weight to what is basically summed up in a sentence under other meanings. The main sense given in the article is of the filming of a scene, not a sex act. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:39, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any dispute taking place regarding the definition. Also, the article is well-referenced; can you provide reliable sources which contradict the definition? GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Provided above. Illustrations are giving undue weight to what is at best a loose usage (as the article states). 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

With regards to undue weight; I fail to see how using images to adequately demonstrate two of the techniques used in the pornographic industry could be considered undue. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The dispute is on this discussion page. The sense of it as a physiological event of ejaculation is given undue weight by being illustrated as though it was the main sense of the term, the article (correctly) states that this is a loose usage. You are stretching it a bit don't you think?, after all the illustrations do not show any filming techniques. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Unconstructive and contentious
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Any if someone suggested building a fifty metre high doghouse, well sure, is your back garden available?. Anyone able to pick up the wood. What? You can't be serious? Well it's a doghouse, its for a dog. Get someone to paint doghouse on the side in twenty metre high letters. Look it's now a nicely described doghouse. Here Fido, come see you're new home. Fido says: they weren't serious you twit - yup the dog can speak - his owner is so shocked he takes it to the vet! [Special:Contributions/62.254.133.139|62.254.133.139]] (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Keep comments focussed on how to improve the article please. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC) OK. How about take out the kiddie porn cartoons? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Referring to constructive, informative images as "kiddie porn cartoons" is simply disruptive. Note also that WP:IDON'TLIKEIT is not a valid reason to remove content, and wikipedia is not censored, either. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Seriously - the girl in the cartoons looks underage. And such material could be used to groom kids.62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Personal attack by User:62.254.133.139 removed.GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)No. Please see WP:CHILD for our policy on protecting children, and again, I direct you to WP:NOTCENSORED. And even ignoring all that, the woman depicted in the images resembles a woman of approximately 30 years old, imo; but in any case there's neither law nor policy prohibiting the inclusion of cartoon depictions of minors in sexual situations in wikipedia, providing that content is relevant to the article; see Lolicon, for example. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC) In your opinion, as you said. Responsible editing is what is required. And actually I do wonder about the mental health of the defenders of this stuff. That's not a personal attack.62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC) And WP:CHILD is refering to the privacy of children who edit, not the depiction of children. Seriously, you defend this, you bear responsibility. You can't shirk it. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Can you clarify what you mean by "get its come-uppance"? That could be construed as a legal threat. And in future, keep your speculation about my mental health to yourself. As for WP:CHILD referring to children's privacy and safety; exactly. That's our policy on child safety; we have no policy prohibiting cartoon depictions of children of any sort, providing they are constructive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Another personal attack removed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Between legal threats and personal attacks, the IP is over the line, and I've reported him to the authorities. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Oh, look who it is!! Well you can waste the authorities time again if you like. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2010 (UTC) And could you post the link please where you have reported me? Thanks62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Refactoring my remark about refusing to continue the discussion as a personal attack is stretching it a bit, don't you think? By the way there has been a personal attack against me, the other day, would you mind scaning up to the section above and collapsing that too. I don't wish to report the offender. The attack was in the remark about the 20th century usage.62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC) There can't possibly be a personal attack against you from the other day, because you've only been editing here about 5 or 6 hours. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC) For some reason it's given me a different IP today although I am still on the same computer.62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Please provide date and time of the personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:51, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Here: --Prosfilaes (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC) I don't think that was a personal attack, it was just a snippy, sarcastic comment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Oh? Ok. Just leave it then. I can take those on the chin. Biting sarcasm though, totally irrelevant to the discussion and not really called for, could be taken for a personal attack. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC) Can you take this to one of your user talk pages, please? This discussion has no relevance to the article, and the hat is meant to discourage its continuation here. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC) Original comment retracted.62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Redundant in it current form

There is an article for Facial (sex act). This article is redundant in so far as it is a repetition of that. I suggest it be narrowed down to the content refering to the term's derivation from money-shot. I will make some alterations to improve it as far as I can. There is no consensus for keeping the images at the top, and of of course no necessity for that either so I am going to move those down.62.254.133.139 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone has moved both the images back up to the top of the page. This is not a revert it is provoking an edit-war, because that was not the positioning before I moved them. There was one image at the top, and the other half-way down. As the change was not discussed here, I am going to be be bold and put it back to the way it was. I don't want to start an edit war, but the change did not even restore the positioning of the images. Style manual guidelines are not rules. DMSBel (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I will be working on getting the positioning lined up, with section breaks, as I have time. This page is not a priority with me. I have already given considerable time to it. The positioning of either beside critical arguments is contentious. And there is a consensus for moving lower, as per other articles. DMSBel (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Counterarguments contains patently unreliable information

I have removed this section, due to lack of peer-reviewed sources. One individual saying his research "suggests" something to him is not a reliable source. Submit peer reviewed sources so that it can be seen if a researcher's conclusions are considered valid by others.DMSBel (talk) 14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

These are required to provide neutral coverage as required by policy. They clearly state they are someone's opinion, rather than being cold fact and so it is fine the way they are. I have therefore replaced the information that came from books, which are reliable sources, but left out two others for the moment. Smartse (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually no: I have had to do a lot of work to improve the neutrality of this section, and to clarify when mere opinions are being asserted.

Re: the specious logic - It is patently false and absurd. Semen can carry viruses. For the source to suggest surreptitiously that it is as healthy as sweat is the height of intellectual dishonesty. To say "if it is as healthy" is an abdication of intellectual and moral responsibility, as we know it is not necessarily the case. And that infections are not passed on through sweat in any manner like they might be by semen.

How often does semen-skin contact pass on infections? There's reasons that nobody is calling for condoms in these situations. I think you should offer a source that diseases actually are passed on by semen-skin contact before deleting the cited statement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:43, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

In the eye? In the mouth? The reasoning of that author is specious:

In any case, semen from non-diseased humans is as healthy as sweat. Nothing is ever necessarily the case, but the factors you are introducing are not inherent to the original quote.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

That's what I said, the quote is specious reasoning, if those factors, that unfortunately are a fact of life for some, were considered by the writer then she might be considered reliable to quote here. In any event the middle sentence seems to have been deliberately omited for the sake of quote-mining a few specious counterarguments. DMSBel (talk) 20:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As a whole, there's serious bias problems on the new editing. To treat a reliable source, a scholar on the subject, by offering her statements as "has stated her opinion" where authors on the other side get the neutral "writes" is not NPOV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok - change "has stated her opinion" to says, or writes. Or I can if you wantDMSBel (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The previous POV in it was so bad, I may have overcorrected it. DMSBel (talk) 18:16, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no problem with the POV in the original, except that it didn't match yours.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

LOL. Oh yes there was. It was slanted so far towards counterarguments it was nearly tipping over. Nearly every critical arguments was preceded by weasel words. Sign your posts and stop defending POV editing. We'll look up the edit history to see who you are. DMSBel (talk) 19:01, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding the word "controversially" to a quote is never NPOV, especially in a field where all the opinions are controversial. Instead of adding a bias word to one viewpoint, you have to cite a range of viewpoints.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible quote mining in counterarguments

It is not at all clear that the quotes in this section are not merely quote-mined out of larger passages in those authors writings and thus are being used to bolster a section of counterarguments regardless of whether those writers are in fact arguing in favor of this sex-practice. Some writers here might be being quoted out of context and be mis-represented in their wider view in this matter. Beatrice Faust has been quote-mined here because she also states that as ejaculation over someone happens in both homosexual and hetrosexual porn, it cannot be interpreted as an expression of contempt against women alone . I suspect none of these writers would dare to suggest that being ejaculated on by someone whose semen is carrying viruses is a pleasant experience at all. And more unpleasant by far than being showered with germs if sneezed on, given the potentially lethal nature of some sexually transmitted viruses. DMSBel (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No sexually transmitted disease has approached the danger of some flu viruses. And your obsession with viruses seems inappropriate here; you are the only person to bring it up, and it's irrelevant to the main thrust of this article, which is talking largely about people who have regular tests to make sure they aren't infected with an STD as part of their job.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Diagree regarding the danger. [[2]] You are right though that during a flu pandemic being sneezed on would be a worrying experience. So equally would be being ejaculated on by an STD carrier. DMSBel (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

And if I am the first to mention it thats a good thing. DMSBel (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you find a single source mentioning the transmisson of STDs through cum shots though? Please also remember that we only publish previously published information, not what you think about something or have worked out for yourself. Smartse (talk) 19:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You might not get swine flu - but do you like to be sneezed on? DMSBel (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, that's WP:NOR and irrelevant. There's lots of sexual behavior (e.g. BDSM) that's inexplicable to the outsider yet has many eagerly participating.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

This is going off on a tangent lets stick to the issue. No-one is discussing participation, or whether the outsider can understand. It's a simple matter about quote mining. The whole criticism section had been a mess earlier with every critical viewpoint cited under feminist perceptions, whether they were feminist or not. Lifting quotes from here and there because it sounds like the writer is defending something at that point is poor scholarship unless one has a wider grasp of that writer's views. DMSBel (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it shouldn't have been under feminist perceptions. That's a definite improvement.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are refering to it being an improvement as it now is (with everything lumped in together again), or when subdivided. If you are saying it an improvement as it now is, why is it better? What was actually wrong with it subdivided as it was, into criticisms (Relating to misogyny, from within feminism, and from directors) with some counterarguments following? People could then quickly see if the criticisms are from directors, from within the feminist movement, and what they are related to. That was how it was formated. And there was no discusion about what (if anything) was wrong with that. As it now is, it is far more confusing. If there has to be a page on this, clarify it so it can be seen were the criticisms are from.62.254.133.139 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Fallacious arguments in favour of illustration

Besides it being suggested as a joke to begin with. Arguments about keeping it are largely based on:

WP:IDSWN - Editors often perceive only the good points of a proposal/nomination, and do not see the bad ones.... Then, someone might come round and, seeing all these bland supports, close it per WP:SNOW, and there we go — another bad proposal passed through.

WP:EVERYTHING - Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" is not "everything".

A consensus is not formed when those in favor have used no arguments, or fallacious arguments. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Examples? The most significant argument is quite simple: does a diagram contribute constructively to the article? Yes. Does it damage the project? No. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 18:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's just your view, there are many disenting views on this page alone, as even a quick scan up would reveal. Please address the issue that many of the arguments in favor are fallacious. I don't need to cite examples they are all over this discussion page and I am pointing them out where they are, you do the work, or leave it to others. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 18:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for my tone, I have taken considerable time to address these arguments where they are on this page, as have others. The page could be re-factored so that the relevant discussions regarding illustrating it are together, I would be happy to do that, if no one objects. It would make it easier to follow. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

So far I have yet to see any policy-based arguments for the images' removal. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, let the image stay for the meantime, till a review of arguments for and against is done. Do you want me to group the sections together?62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:28, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Some of the discussions on this page are pretty old; it's more constructive and a better representation of current consensus to start a new discussion and determine what should be done with the article. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree it would save repetition old arguments if we keep it open, but group it together. Not meaning that by being old they are neither more nor less valid. But it lets people see what the grounds for removing or keeping so far have been in the discussion. We don't want more cases of WP:EVERYTHING or WP:IDSWN, or other arguments to avoid.62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

The image illustrates the topic of the article and we are encouraged to have illustrations in our articles. Why exactly do you think it should be removed? Smartse (talk) 19:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, I am not going to keep repeating myself for editors with wax in their ears WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, reasons, arguments, grounds have been given (on this page). When reasons have been given repeatedly you are an obvious case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or else can't be bothered reading.62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:50, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You haven't once stated a policy-based reason for removing the images; you are simply using diversion tactics to draw attention away from policy reasoning and trying to make it appear as though consensus is in your favour, when it is not. WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT, indeed. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 19:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

See section above: Redundant in its current form 62.254.133.139 (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not here to play games but I have all the time in the world, legitimate policy cititations have been given repeatedly. You want to spend hours/days/months on this, you are welcome. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, have no time to waste with a user whose sole argument is "there is an argument". I've made my thoughts on the subject clear; I welcome input from other users but will not be responding to any further accusations of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT because I didn't hear something which was never said. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 20:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No, you don't hear because you don't read. Now either go back up the page and look at the sections, or go and do something else. If this isn't your interest, no problem. But I am not spending time re-citing all the arguments on this page. If you think one editor has to re-compile everyone elses arguments to be heard then you are wrong. If you think only my arguments stand you are wrong. If you think arguments aren't needed you are wrong. If you think any old argument - like it illustrates (barrel bottom scraping arguments) will suffice you are wrong. The discussion page can be reviewed by someone else if you don't want to. Shall I see who else is interested?62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I am IP 82... and DMSBel. I can't help if it allocates me different IPs. Thats not my choice. I discussed at length further up the page, the reasons for removal.62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Then why aren't you logged in then? Wikipedia:SOCK states "Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" is forbidden. Please log in as DMSBel and only use that account on this page in the future. I agree with GiftigerWunsch that you haven't cited any policies as to why the image should be removed. Smartse (talk) 21:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Only have one account, but it logs me in as 62.254.133.139 , and 82..., No idea why. I forgot to log in started my discussion as 62..., would have been confusing to change during it. What more can I say? No harm intended DMSBel (talk) 21:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced the image, this hasn't exactly been a discussion because no reasons have been cited as to why it should be removed. Please do so before removing it again. Smartse (talk) 22:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Discussed cited, pointed to. All you have to do is read them. See section Inaccurate and misleading, question of social concern, and also redundant in current form, have already pointed to it. Are you saying one editor cannot delete something for the reasons given by another? I have already given my own reasons and discussed them, I see plenty of reasons and support for removal from others.DMSBel (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Where exactly was this consensus reached? I see nothing in the "Inaccurate and misleading" or the "redundant in current form" section about images and the "redundant in current form" is written entirely by yourself. Even if there was a consensus, it can change, the consensus today is that the image should stay. Smartse (talk) 23:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I find that a very dubious way of ascertaining if there is a consensus. Where was consensus for puting it in to start with? You can't just assert there was. As I look over this discussion page however I see many editors against, or at least questioning the seriousness of the suggestion.62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Should an illustration be included?

{{rfctag|soc}}

There has seemingly been a long running consensus that an illustration (Image:Wiki-cumshot.png) should be included on this page. DMSBel (also editing as 62.254.133.139 and 82.18.164.15) disagrees with this but will not explain why. They have reverted my reinsertion of the illustration three times in the last few days, so I would now like to ask the wider community whether they feel the illustration is suitable to include in this article. Smartse (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a blatant misrepresentation (you saying that I would not explain why), I have told you repeatedly I gave my reasons on this page, there is no excuse, I told you the section, you know my IP and username. You only have to read. That you say "I will not explain why is" completely untrue - I suspect you knew that when you said it. Don't even think of deleting this or marking it as personal attack. I will report you if you do. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop being abusive, and explain why you think this article, unlike most of the others in Wikipedia, should be without an illustration.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I can't see any reasons, as I explained in the thread above, you're the person who wants it removed, so please explain to those who may come to this request for comment why you think it should be. Smartse (talk) 12:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

See WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT again. I didn't start the request, but have no problem with it. I suspect it is not beyond the abilities of most wikipedians to review the sections relevant to the discussion on this page (See: Misleading and Inaccurate, A Question of Social Concern, Illustration or Not, Garbage). But I will give a few of my reasons here:

1. It gives undue weight to a definition which is loose usage of the term and which is not the primary subject of the article.

2. The picture was suggested as a joke.

3. There is already an article more relevant. Facial (sex act)

4. It's not Wikipedia's task to illustrate every variation of a fetish. See WP:EVERYTHING.

All those arguments and several more are expanded on in the other sections of this talk page. DMSBel (talk) 14:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Because you've enumerated them here, we can deal with them here. Apparently you didn't hear the responses. (1) You're wrong. Your unwillingness to look at any source from the last 25 years vitiates your claim that this is not the primary subject of the article. (2) So what? As you've been told before, whoever suggested the picture is just one editor. (3) So what? Articles have illustrations, and illustrations don't just go on the most specific page. We don't strip human of all illustrations because there's an article more specifically relevant to any illustration. (4) Irrelevant. It is the norm that every article in Wikipedia gets illustrated. Illustrating this article doesn't change how much detail we go into, and hence WP:EVERYTHING is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Consensus across Wikipedia is that illustrations of the subject of the article is a good thing to have in an article. This includes sexual articles; in my experience, editor polls invariably turn up on the side of keeping the image, even if dozens of random (and changable) IPs have deleted the image.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The image has been deleted repeatedly by signed-in users, not just IPs. In any case we are not supposed to regard IPs in bad faith unless there is definite evidence they are misbehaving. If you like your edits to be considered to be made in good faith, extend the same courtesy to others. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

We can't tell how many people deleted the image by counting IPs, because IPs change constantly, unlike usernames, which shouldn't unless there's willful abuse going on. Also, IPs are often less familiar with Wikipedia policies on the matter.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

• RfC comment. I came here from the RfC listing, and have not previously been involved with the page. I'm pleased to see that the page is currently full-protected. I've tried to read the discussion above, going back a ways, and I think that, because of the strong feelings on both sides, there is some IDIDNTHEARTHAT on both sides of the debate. My view as an outsider to the debate is to keep the image. Of the numbered reasons for deleting it, numbers 2 and 3 (even if they were true) would not be valid reasons for deletion. Number 1 may or may not be a valid point, but the proper solution would be to offer an alternative image to replace this one. Number 4 seems to me to be the most telling, in that it is basically saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't expect to change involved editors' minds with my comments, but perhaps this will be helpful to objective viewers. Good luck, everyone! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, however you say if reasons 2 and 3 were true. Reason 2 refers to the joke and it was not me alone who thought illustrating this article was a joke suggestion (see debate under section: Illustration or not). Reason 3, refers to another article ie Facial (sex act) so it is true that there is another article more relevant. What I mean is that this article is relevant to the term as defined in the sense that a cinematographer would use it (shot, shooting = filming). The picture here is not relevant to either. There are already articles on the result in other words. I don't see how you deduce from reason 4 that it is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It seems more telling to me that when asked for reasons for illustrating this, the responses never go beyond "it illustrates". How do we know that is not just simply cover for WP:ILIKEIT? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. It looks okay. With all the free amateur porn on the net, I expected a real picture, but it's just a drawing. Tijfo098 (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The only reason there isn't a real photo is because no one has uploaded them with proper fair use rationalization. --13² 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Basically to say "it looks okay" seems to be little more than saying I don't see why not WP:IDSWN - Not a valid argument. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

• Keep. Honestly, I can't believe this is still going on. Wikipedia is not censored and the image accurately depicts the sexual act. --13² 18:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Still not grounds for having an illustration, it's a simple fact that there is a norm of using discretion on Wikipedia when deciding if to illustrate an article. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:CENSORED protects relevant material from being deleted from an article, including sexual drawings. How is that not grounds for having the illustration? You have not even explained yourself here, yet apparently I'm supposed to bow down to your opinion simply because you say so. I've noticed here and elsewhere that you're dismissing anyone who disagrees with you with "not a valid argument" and I've come to the conclusion that it's simply because you don't like it. The image is an accurate presentation of the topic at hand. If anything clearer or, preferably a photo, comes into fair use, it should be replaced by that. --13² 02:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that not what you are doing - dismissing arguments? "Not censored" is not a reason for including an illustration. I'll assume you are simply misunderstanding the policy rather than twisting it. Also "Not censored" does not stand alone, it cannot be wheeled out ad nauseam, every policy is viewed in the light of other policy. One particular policy does not trump all others. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also to those who say policy based reasons have to be given? The requirement is that reasons, and arguments should remain within policy, not be based on a particular policy. The difference is subtle but important. If someone is just looking for a policy statement lifted out of context to support something they like, they can cite from quite a few policies selectively, and thus think they have given a "policy based reason". (this most often happens with WP:NOTCENSORED) The difference is that by seeking to remain within policy, an editor gives wider consideration to other policies and the possible understandings of those that could be supportive of the opposing view. They don't simply seek to bolster their own view from a single policy. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC) 62.254.133.139 (talk) 12:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Keep In general most (maybe all) of the sexual position articles have a drawing in a similar format to this one. They often get removed by someone without warning - usually because it's a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. They always get reverted back and then often semi-protected. Often there are discussions about the inclusion or not of an image, and in all the pages I watch it has been the consensus that a drawing is OK, but a photo is just a little too far (many of the sexual positions articles used to have photos). I think this image is no more a problem than any of the other images used and it should stay.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:01, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet no one has actually stated why an illustration is needed here, except oh we always illustrate things - In actual fact we don't always. Or such and such a page has a picture so this one should have too So basically no one can give grounds for illustrating this page that does not involve spurious reasoning or is not a joke.62.254.133.139 (talk) 20:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

MOS:IMAGES says "Start an article with a right-aligned lead image or infobox." Everything I find says takes it as a given that we should use images to depict the subject of an article, with the main concern being that they are free and not overwhelm the article. If you can give us an example of when we don't illustrate things despite having a free image at hand, I'd like to see it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously why do you care? pornography = dirty movies/pics/books. That's the level. People can dress it up all they want, try to sound scholarly in talking about it, what a waste of intellect, what a waste of webspace, what a waste of bandwidth, what a waste of time! I'd sooner look for some real articles to edit. DMSBel (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've deactivated the RfC template, as it's clear there is a consensus for the image to be kept. Smartse (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Someone reverted subheadings in Criticism to superheadings.

The section on criticism was reverted back to superheadings. Why is this better? It had previously same subheadings but smaller font . Criticism (is a superheading) The larger font within that section should be replace by bold normal size headings sub-headings (ie smaller than the citicism heading). If these are taken out altogether, the section lacks clarity. Please explain first why no sub-headings within the section would improve it. The superheading issue can be resolved very easily, by substituting bold normal font text. There is no need to revert back to the jumbled mess it was before.DMSBel (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently the criticisms section is all lumped together again. Why is this better than sub-dividing it into sections so that readers can see more clearly where the criticisms stem from (as it had been)? Also why is it better to include what was previously under counterarguments together with this? Why would it not be better to have it with sub-headed sections, followed by counterarguments? The only issue for which it was reverted was that it had super-headings (but that was then changed, then someone put back the super-headings) Again those were removed and now it has been reverted back to the mess of having all these criticisms and counterarguments lumped together. This section is easy to clarify. There are three main areas in which the criticisms can be divided, given the criticisms currently in the article. It's fine to have criticisms from several different areas, but probably no more than one example from each.

1. Relating to Misogyny

2. From within the Feminist movement

3. From Directors

Then if there are any valid counterarguments those can be placed under a separate counter-arguments sub-heading within the Criticisms section.

If there are any reasons why it is better all lumped in together without subheadings, what are they? No discussion has taken place.62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Bad introduction

Once again, User:DMSBel has reverted to their introduction, despite it being wrong. Since they are unwilling to check any source from the last quarter-century, I will introduce the cites here.

• Images of bliss: ejaculation, masculinity, meaning, by Murat Aydemir, 2007, University of Michigan Press. "I began by specifying the conventions of the cum shot. In feature porn, ejaculation achieves its prominence under several precise conditions. [...] The first simply demands that ejaculation be visible. It is shown in the closest of possible close-ups. As the camera zooms in, the male performer withdraws from the body of his co-star, proceeds to masturbate, and ejaculates over his or her face, chest, belly, back or buttocks." [3] (I recommend checking out that site; that page and the next, and probably a lot more has useful material for this article.)

• Narrative Theory: Political narratology by Mieke Bal, 2004, Taylor & Francis. "The cum shot forms hardcore's pinnacle. It depicts ejaculation in close-up, always occurring outside the body of the sexual partner." [4]

• Andy Warhol's Blow Job by Roy Grundmann, 2003, Temple University Press. "The focus here is on Blow Job's seeming deviations from one of hard-core pornography's staples, the cum shot or money shot--that is, the ejaculation outside the sex partner's body as visual proof for the camera that male satisfaction has been achieved." [5]

I think this is solid proof that in the 21st century, the original introduction to the article accurate portrayed the meaning of cum shot.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Here for others is the intro before it was reverted:

The term cum shot is slang derived from a related term money shot, and is lingo with pornographic film-making for the actual filming (hence shooting) of a scene culminating in a sexual-climax of one or both actors. It is typically used by the cinematographer within the narrative framework of a pornographic film. Cum shots are often the object of fetish genres. The term also loosely refers to ejaculating onto someone.

Are you saying this is wrong? Why when it includes the sense you mention (I have put it in bold here, so that editors can see that the sense of the term that Prosfilaes is refering to was clearly part of the introduction.) In actually fact I did not re-write the intro entirely in my own words but merely changed it so that it covered more of the content of the article in brief. This would be easy enough to get citations for. And most of them are in the article already.

Are you saying that it is not part of the lingo used by pornographers to describe the filming of a scene, which involves one or both actors having a sexual climax? The article clearly says it is this, here: viewers may believe that the actor was unable to climax or that the scene was cut. Why then should the intro not refer to that and in the order that the article deals with the various definitions. What was wrong with the way it included these different definitions? As you will see from the article that after the table of contents the article immediately begins explaining the derivation from the term "money shot" refering to the filming (shooting) of a scene.

So why, when that definition is clearly articulated in the article should it not be refered to in the Intro? Also, what is meant by "narrative framework" in this article intro? Did anyone know, or was it just cut and pasted, because it sounded clever? Are some editors here just writing an article based on an illustration? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The sources I quoted give very clear definitions of what a cum shot is. It does not refer to "a scene culminating in a sexual-climax of one or both actors"; it is "the ejaculation outside the sex partner's body as visual proof for the camera that male satisfaction has been achieved." It does not also "loosely refer" to that; that is exactly what it means. It doesn't involve one actor having a sexual climax; it involves a male actor ejaculating externally. Your definition is wrong, and you have no citations to even vaguely back you up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:39, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Cititations will be added, there is no need to revert. You could simply have requested citations. Editing is a work in progress. We don't all have this page as a priority.62.254.133.139 (talk) 23:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't rearrange the entire talk section to make it impossible to tell what's new. You don't add material that other people disagree without citations; uncited material can be deleted on sight. If I believed the material was merely uncited, I might simply request citations; however, I believe it's wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Who rearranged the entire talk section? Looks the same to me, if you are refering to this page. You can believe what you like - and what you believe does not make me wrong, if I am not. What I am interested in is whether it (the intro) corresponds to the rest of the article (the definitions where already in, I did not add them) Please see: WP:MASTODONS 62.254.133.139 (talk) 00:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Where in the article does it say that a women having a climax is a cum shot?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Where in the intro does it say that?62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to give it up? You are wasting both my time and yours I suspect. Is there really anything wrong with the intro as it stands? 62.254.133.139 (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:V requires that "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly supports the material in question." Not "I will add citations later".--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The intro is fine as it is. It shouldn't be changed without using other sources. Smartse (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The second Intro citation is invalid. The first one links to a subscription version of the OED only. The second is a broken link. The OED I have gives the definition as : have an orgasm. The third citation states : the come shot was meant to signify the truth of male orgasm, not the distance of the event from "coming inside." Removed the second citation, and restored the earlier intro, but with the following change : culminating in a sexual-climax of the male actor. 62.254.133.139 (talk) 21:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I gave you three citations right here, and I added one to the introduction. The OED definition of "come" is irrelevant, as the phrase is "cum shot", and phrases don't always mean what their individual words mean. Assuming you have a copy of the last printed version that was published in 1989, and what's more the C section of the OED 2 is a combination of volumes first published in 1893 and 1972; I consider it most likely this definition was written in 1972 and predates the use of the word "cum shot" in this sense.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

So I didn't carefully check all the citations on an article I was editing. The intro you are reverting to has a citation that says 'I began to explain that "pulling out" was necessary to the "come shot,"' that contradicts your introduction.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

wait a minute Prosfilaes, we can resolve this fairly easily, and without getting on each others nerves. Give me a moment and I'll explain that citation in context. DMSBel (talk) 21:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Look at the rest of the quote: the come shot was meant to signify the truth of male orgasm, not the distance of the event from "coming inside.". Ok? DMSBel (talk) 21:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, look at the context. She was explaining to a gay student that this wasn't about safe sex, but instead of showing off that the male really did ejaculate.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh wow, he got his rocks off. Wow - what an accomplishment. Must have been tough for him. Heck give the boy a medal. He could have "come" in his pants and we'd never have known all he'd been through. Heck, poor lad would not have got paid. What a method actor! Canoe down a bunch of deadly rapids Deliverance - meh - nowhere near as difficult as getting your jollies on screen (sarcasm). DMSBel (talk) 23:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I have wasted enough time on this opinion piece. It's about as suited to an encyclopedia as an article on the size of a grain of salt.DMSBel (talk) 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll close this since it does not seem to be going anywhere.DMSBel (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I certainly regard this as an active discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Basically I am sorry I have given the article the time I have. I won't be wasting anymore on it. Wikipedia is never likely to cut it as a research tool. What a horrible mess it is now with a pornography project. How could it ever expect to be taken seriously. That some editors actually seem to care about this article is more likely to drive me to despair of wikipedia, inspite of much of the valuable and well written material elsewhere on it. I have come back to my senses. I would not wish other editors to even visit here, in case they actually start to think this is a subject to be taken seriously. Stay here too long and it is almost guaranteed you will lose your sense of the ridiculous. DMSBel (talk) 23:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)