Jump to content

Talk:Facial (sexual act)/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Picture

I have uploaded a good high quality picture of the real thing: [1]. I suggest we use it to replace the illustration at the top. The rationale for this is that we don't censor and that a picture illustrates the subject better. If there is no disagreement I'll make the change in a few days. Bomazi (talk) 21:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Bomazi. I don't see how your image, simply because it's of the real-life act, illustrates the subject better. The image that is currently up there as the lead image is pretty life-like and illustrates the topic very well. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a valid reason to change a perfectly adequate image. There is WP:GRATUITOUS to consider. Many of our readers take more offense to images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts than of images of these types that have been drawn. And if we can minimize such offense with an alternative image that adequately conveys the same message, we should. Like WP:GRATUITOUS states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in this article; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images. Our readers more readily state or shout "That's porn!" or something about the article not being encyclopedic or detracting from its encyclopedic value more so when it's a real-life sex image being shown instead of a drawn one, though they make a fuss over some of the drawn ones as well (especially the ones by Seedfeeder, such as the lead image we are currently debating). And there is a valid point that using a real-life image to illustrate a sex act distracts from the text and makes the article feel pornographic and less encyclopedic; there is no need for that when an equally suitable alternative is available. Flyer22 (talk) 21:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
You said it: the illustration is "life-like"; but it is not life, because life doesn't look like a cartoon, and we should try to describe life as accurately as we can. If people take offense at this picture they should not be reading this article in the first place.
Your suggestion that this would be gratuitous is ridiculous. How could a picture illustrating a sex act be considered gratuitous when used to illustrate an article on that very act ? If I had suggested its use on the Woman article it would have been, but not here. I read WP:GRATUITOUS and all it says is that offensive material should not be used simply "because we can". That is not what I am suggesting. Additionally readers should not be required to "imagine" things when we can just show them. I should add that offensiveness is relative. Personally it is your attempt to water down wikipedia on topics you feel uncomfortable with, without regards for those who don't, that I find offensive.
That being said I could accept as a compromise that this pic be linked to in the external links section, with a warning. That way those that want to see the real thing can and those that don't don't have to. I think this is wrong but I could live with it (assuming of course that a majority of editors agree with you).
The proper long term solution would be to tag potentially offensive content throughout wikipedia in a manner compatible with common content filtering software. That way we could write this encyclopedia in an unadulterated way and the easily offended readers could get the kids version if they so desire. But that would require software changes. Bomazi (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
What you consider the cartoon image is life-like to me, and Seedfeeder's images are life-like enough that many people have complained about them in the same way that I mentioned people complaining about images of real-life sex acts. In fact, some people consider Seedfeeder's images so life-like that they have suggested that he traces lines over porn to create the images, as seen in this accusation. Either way, on Wikipedia, people complain less about his images, and other drawn images of sex acts, than they do about real-life sex images, which shows that WP:GRATUITOUS is very valid. WP:GRATUITOUS states exactly what I mentioned it states, and more than that. Yes, images of sexual acts fall under WP:GRATUITOUS, as it clearly states; ask about it at the WP:GRATUITOUS talk page if you feel that they don't. Images of sexual acts are not excluded from WP:GRATUITOUS solely because they were not added simply "because we can" add them. All sexual images are subject to WP:GRATUITOUS, which is why it states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."
I don't see how you don't consider an image of a real-life sex act of a facial as something that falls under WP:GRATUITOUS. You may not consider the image gratuitous (you clearly don't, obviously), but many people would. WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS are about things that people may find offensive. Of course what people find offensive varies, but many people find an image of a facial (the sexual act) offensive, as this article's edit and talk page histories show, just as they do many other sexual acts. Seedfeeder's images have helped clean up matters concerning the many complaints and much WP:Edit warring that have gone on at Wikipedia over images of sex acts, and it's now standard practice to use a drawing of a sex act instead of an image of a real-life sex act. Per what I stated above, I don't at all see why we should trade out the adequate drawing of a facial for your real-life image of a facial. My opinion on this matter has nothing to do with "[my] attempt to water down wikipedia on topics [I] feel uncomfortable with, without regards for those who don't." I am not uncomfortable in the least when it comes to this topic. My opinion on this matter has to do with my experience with many sexual topics, and sex anatomy topics, on Wikipedia. For example, the complaints I have seen at the Vulva article (this and this for starters). But, hey, maybe other watchers of this article, such as Herostratus, will weigh in on this image matter. My opinion on this won't change. Flyer22 (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
It's not going to happen, Bomazi. Don't waste your time. Seedfeeder's images are the best compromise between WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GRATUITOUS that we're likely to get. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:10, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
FWIW there's a deletion request for the pic at Commons (here). The subject (or the photographer) has requested that the pic not be hosted at Commons and consequently smeared all over the internet. That probably won't cut much ice at Commons but things are a little different here I hope. Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Archetypal non-penetrative sex act

That's what this now is, since oral sex is generally penetrative. What is the legal position in the US or UK, or anywhere. This wouldn't be rape or unlawful sexual intercourse because there is no penetration. But at what age can one consent to it? And if one hadn't what offence would it be - sexual assault? --LeedsKing (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

(Please note that this entire response does not make sense taking in mind that there is only one race of human. It is not squirrel people and human people, just human people.)


(Please note that this entire response does not make sense taking in mind that there is only one race of human. It is not squirrel people and human people, just human people.)


I don't understand the comment following LeedsKing's signature, and seeing it twice in a row doesn't help. But my real point is that ejacuating on someone is unquestionably a sexual act, and if done without consent, it is sexual abuse, an act of sexual aggression. The fine points of the law(s) might be interesting to read, but it shouldn't be necessary. I wouldn't want anybody thinking the courts will go easy on them simply because they jizzed on someone without consent, but did not penetrate. I would think any laws mandating that penetration must occur for the action(s) to be illegal would be quite antiquated. Hopefully this comment itself is unnecessary. Don't blow your load on anyone without permission, folks!
--Ben Culture (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Why we gotta have this miscegenation crap?

Why?Its Billy! (talk) 02:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Because WP:CENSOR. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed! Stop multiculti now! It's simply a code word for eradication of the Whites! 85.139.105.55 (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

If a cartoon on Wikipedia is causing the eradication of "whites" then Darwinian principles say they don't deserve to survive. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

What about guys?

As a bisexual male I've been on the receiving end quite a few times. It has never felt demeaning to me, this article, however, is written from a heterosexual only POV. I am sure that it could benefit from a gay/bi input, but there is very little literature out there that I would consider sufficiently 'academic' to use as a reference. Any thoughts from the rest of you? Luv2cucum (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

My thought is, that's a perfectly reasonable point. My other thought is, my thoughts don't matter. In case this Talk page doesn't make it abundantly clear, "reasonable" does not drive consensus here. An unreasonable consensus beats rationality every time. And an admin can shape the discussion any way he wants through selective editing, as admin Malik Shabazz did in the section "Oh, God." above.
In other words, you're right -- but being right doesn't matter on Wikipedia anymore.
--Ben Culture (talk) 08:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Ben Culture, WP:Verifiability and other WP:Policies and guidelines are reasonable and rational; they are what drive Wikipedia. If anyone can't accept that, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. And per reasons made perfectly clear at WP:Administrators, admins cannot shape a discussion any way he or she wants through selective editing, unless it's how they decide to format a talk page discussion they created (meaning that initial post, as long as that initial post does not violate any Wikipedia rule). There's also the fact that we can think on our own; an admin's words do not automatically sway me. Also, as you may have noticed, Malik Shabazz is not currently on administrative duty; he is also currently retired; see here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, God.

I'm not going to argue with anyone, because it's my experience (see my own Talk page) that if you argue against the majority persuasively, in such a way that they can't ignore or defeat you -- but nevertheless, they have no intention of following your persuasive suggestions -- you are in danger of being banned. These, obviously, are the words of a man falling out of love with Wikipedia and the editing of articles. Anyway. Let me make my statement:

I do not think the woman in the interracial picture necessarily looks "sad" or "distraught", as has been claimed by some. I think she merely looks submissive, and there's nothing wrong with that. Hell, a lot of women (and doubtlessly some men, as well) like to cry during or after sex, and it doesn't mean she's been mistreated. Would it be so evil to post a picture of a woman crying?

Some may feel that the "happy", all-Caucasian picture is, in fact, the more offensive one. In the interracial picture, it is clear from the woman's expression that heavy emotions are at work -- quite likely, someone's in love -- whereas the "happy" picture depicts care-free, recreational sex that is possibly casual. It's more reminiscent of hard-core pornography than the interracial picture, which is more like a love scene. For those who feel that sex scenes are only justified in a love story (not me), the interracial picture is clearly the more appropriate.

The realm of sexuality is a realm in which political correctness and "color blindness" have no place, and in fact do not work. Sexuality is not racist but it is racial. For a Caucasian, having sex with an African-American (and, I've been told, vice versa), the interracial aspect is always there. They may be in love, they may be happily married, but on some level they're thrilling to the interracial aspect -- loving it, of course, but very much AWARE of it. It's not necessarily foremost in their minds, every time, but it's never entirely or permanently absent. Obviously, I am speaking from personal experience on this, and can't edit the article with it. I am merely defending the interracial picture, and voting in favor of its being used.

By the way, where do these pictures come from?!? They're very nice. Artistic but unpretentious. INCLUDING the interracial picture.

Is the issue settled yet? If not, I Vote: KEEP.
--Ben Culture (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Er, what can I say. I don't know what you're talking about. Did you perhaps write all this on the wrong talk page. Anyway, PEOPLE, DO NOT FEED THE TROLL, if that's what he is. Just writing irrelevant jibberish isn't really trolling. I suppose one can enjoy the uber-postmodern ranting as a kind of satire. Since I am required to address the article itself, I see nothing wrong with the current picture. --LeedsKing (talk) 23:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I can't agree with your characterization of the contribution. It seems entirely authentic to me. It is a perspective I'm familiar with, and I'm glad to see it represented here. 178.38.9.61 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, 178.38.9.61. One year ago, I would have been flabbergasted and outraged that your comments were deleted, while the ones violating actual, hard-and-fast rules of Wikipedia were not. But now, it barely fazes me. Through selective deletion, an admin like Malik Shabazz (neither the first, nor the worst) can make one look like a lone nutjob, rather than just another voter. It's kinda funny, if one doesn't take it too personally. But I wish I had been able to see your supportive comments without looking into this page's History. Hope you're okay with my restoring them. →Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)←
Er, thank you, LeedsKing, for proving my point that WP:CIVIL is no longer enforced, which is why I no longer contribute with the level of commitment and quality I maintained for over ten years. Which you could have checked for yourself, and thus known I am not a troll. If you honestly didn't know what I was talking about—if "I am merely defending the interracial picture, and voting in favor of its being used" wasn't clear enough for you—you could have asked me politely. But, as you made clear, you were not commenting in an attempt to improve the article. ←Ben Culture (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)→

Yeah, that could possibly be a really good troll you posted I'm keeping my eye on you. Besides, we're not Bomis any more ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.219.139 (talk) 05:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

A good place to start with that eye of yours would be my 10+ years' history of quality edits. Anybody can review that. There is no need to wonder if a registered user is a troll. His edit history is an open book. Also, you could simply choose to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH because they are good principles, even though they are no longer enforced.
←Ben Culture (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)→

Has anyone here ever had a girl smile when you jizz on them? Usually they open their mouth but never smile.(Citation needed) I think the interracial picture is better because she isn't smiling.(Thanks for sharing!) I would feel better if the races were reversed though. 68.228.222.149 (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Smiling is not uncommon, nor is laughter. There's a difference between a real girlfriend or wife trying something new, and a jaded porn star sitting through her 43rd facial.
I ask without assuming anything, why would the interracial picture be better with the races reversed? Just curious to hear your reasoning.
--Ben Culture (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I know this isn't very 'editor'-y, but this has to be the most entertaining (to me) Talk page on Wikipedia. Probity incarnate (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Then you obviously haven't read the one on Feces. --Anonymous 02:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.105.160.50 (talk)
@68.228.222.149, maybe she is just unhappy when she sees your wiener. Herostratus (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Even if Wikipedia's philosophy was "WP:CIVIL can be tossed out the window if an insult is funny enough", your "wiener" joke doesn't even begin to approach such a level of humor. Furthermore, that isn't Wikipedia's philosophy, anyway. ←Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)→
@Ben Culture, re "Hell, a lot of women (and doubtlessly some men, as well) like to cry during or after sex". I assume this is based on personal experience, so: no, they don't like to cry; they do cry, but only during or after sex with you. Are you sure you've got your various ah entry points sorted out? That could be your problem right there. Or it could be your mask. A lot of men (and doubtlessly some women, as well) like to wear horse head masks during sex. If you're one of them, your partners may simply be crying from fear, shame, and horror. Remove the mask and you'll be all set. And re "Would it be so evil to post a picture of a woman crying?" Yup it would. Herostratus (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
This kind of personal attack doesn't belong on the talk page. 178.38.9.61 (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, 178.38.9.61. That your comment above was removed by admin Malik Shabazz, instead of the comment which provoked it . . . is insane. I'd rather think it was some sort of giant typo on his part.→Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)←
Herostratus: Really? You're seriously going down the path of least resistance, to the easiest insult possible, after I set it all up for you, and drew you a map?
You're seriously cashing in your not-helping-the-article-at-all chip on that?
Please, let's try NOT be absurd. Can we? Can we TRY assuming that the sum total of my knowledge on sex is not limited to personal experience? Can we consider that perhaps (a.) I have female friends; and (b.) I can read?
Can we step out of the masculine mode of thinking for a moment, just to acknowledge that many people, especially but not exclusively women, weep when they are happy? Have you honestly never encountered the term "tears of joy" anywhere? Have you never read a novel? You've never seen it in a movie? You've never seen anyone do it while watching a movie? Do you know any women on any personal level at all?
I said "... like to cry during or after sex" because that was accurate. I know what I'm talking about. Viewing your labored effort at the cheapest and easiest joke possible, it seems you do not.
I'd also like to know why you brought up horse masks. Again, how does this help the article? And on what planet DO people wear horse masks during sex? I find this all very, very strange. It doesn't enhance your stale joke, much less help the article. Throwing random concepts at the Internet =/= comedy. It's just plain weird.
Also, please explain how publishing a picture of a woman weeping is inherently evil. Nobody said "crying during sex". Nobody said "crying while wearing a facial cum shot". Just "crying". Posting a simple picture of a woman crying is evil ... WHY?
Finally, you kow better. I've done nothing to you. Whether or not you've had enough sex to know what I'm talking about, that's still no excuse for your rudeness, hostility, and insults.
→Ben Culture (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)←
P.S. I tend to accept apologies and forgive people easily.

I'm not entire sure who this is addressing either. Maybe the discussion was removed. Anyhow, the first point is correct. The "puppy dog" expression being exhibited is submissive, not sad or regretful. It's play-begging in teasing and/or BDSM. And before any femi-nazi gets all >:@ about it, it's done because it's gratifying to the male to know that the woman wants it, not because it's gratifying to see her as a helpless slut. Well, actually, for BDSM, it is usually both, but it's consentual amongst both as well and both find that satisfying.

Seriously. Some people just don't understand sexual submission at all... when practiced in real life and practiced right, it requires mutual consent and is usually discussed before the act (what's a yes and what's a no)... can't really look at eachother more equal than that. /endrant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.190.141.132 (talk) 08:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for being a voice of reason, 173.190.141.132! Yes, I recall quite some discussion and debate about the picture(s). There were strong feelings on both sides. I don't know why it was archived separately, leaving my comment on this page. (Maybe I posted it separately instead of as part of the debate thread.) The only area in which I disagree with you is, I would say "MOST people don't understand D&S at all..." In fact, I think if it were up to voters --god forbid-- BDSM would be criminalized in the U.S. It's just as contrary to Fundamentalist Christianity as homosexuality is. Once people understood that sometimes the man is the submissive, they'd want to outlaw the whole concept immediately. I don't understand why everybody who doesn't actually practice it misunderstands it so wildly ("So ... She spanks you with her hairbrush ... but then she owes you a blowjob, right?"). I mean, I'm not gay, and I'm not a woman, yet I have a rudimentary understanding of what gay sex is, and I can sympathize with a woman going through PMS or menopause, without having to experience it myself. (I know, I've just opened myself up to a rude violation of WP:CIVIL. . . .)
--Ben Culture (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, let's all promote multiculti until all Whites, _who, I remind you, are a minority in the world_, are extinct! You lot will be known in History as the ones that promoted the White holocaust! 85.139.105.55 (talk) 09:46, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I Vote: DELETE. There's plenty of real trolling here, but even without it this is an insane talk page and thread. This article falls WELL BELOW the wikipedia standard and not because of what it lacks, but because of what it includes. 80% of these wikipedia sex "cartoons" manage to be benign and informative. Some manage to be INADVERTENTLY into uncanny valley, gratuitousness and distressing to most viewers of the page. This page has TWO pictures that fail in this way. Epic fail, not that anyone called a vote in the first place... There's no point in engaging with the militantly multicultural. LeedsKing (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

How cum we can't have a picture of a Black chick who's in love with getting facialed by a White guy? Becasue you know as well I do that that wouldn't be allowed, but I want you to tell me why? Also I'm not entirely convinced thats a "look of love" on that White ladies face, are you sure that's not fear or abuse? 98.248.180.61 (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Feminist views of the depiction of male-on-female facials are primarily critical

The statistics to support this statement are where? Referencing a few feminists being critical does not constitute "primarily". This statement alludes that facials are anti-feminist, implying feminists have no choice in the matter of whether they support or are against the idea of facials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.198.224.214 (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Is good... Josemar André (talk) 15:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Facial (sex act). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Facial (sex act). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:51, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Please Remove Drawings

This article does not need artwork (or photographs or videos) of facials. Sorry, I don't know all the wikipedia jardon to explain why it shouldn't be on wikipedia, but it adds nothing and actually makes the article worse. Hopefully someone will step in and articulate what I mean in response to anyone who barrages me with those acronyms because they want cartoon porn to say in the article. I'm not one for censorship and I'm not a prude or offended by it, but I feel distracted by it because it makes the article look like it was created in part by manga fans or sexual perverts. Anyone 8 years old or above can find picture or videos of cartoon or actual facial cumshot if that's what their intent is, rather than seeking information and different points of view on the act which should be the purpose of the wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.32.199 (talk) 08:10, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to refer you to the relevant Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia is not censored. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:42, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Racially Motivated Graphic

Why is there an obvious racial, and humiliation themed graphic of a black man giving a facial to a white woman on wikipedia?.... ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:2EC1:2600:AC12:825F:3E06:6295 (talk) 21:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

why this "article" will be cut

The implicit case seems to be that a facial is a subtopic of Cum shot. I don't agree, as the former is (at least peripherally) a sexual act and the latter refers specifically to visual pornography — requiring respectively a (presumably human) face and an audience.

There is presently substantial word-for-word overlap that make up the bulk of BOTH pages: Origin and features, Health risks, Criticisms and responses. I intend to remove from each all content that actually discusses the wrong topic.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is decently sourced, but the sources in the "Health risks" section should be improved per WP:MEDRS. We shouldn't be cutting anything in the article if the sources are about facials and that content is valid to retain. And that especially goes for cutting content sourced to sources we don't have access to. It cannot be helped that there is significant overlap between the topic of facials and cum shots. This does not automatically mean that the topics should be merged. Like Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles states, "Articles on distinct but related topics may well contain a significant amount of information in common with one another. This does not make either of the two articles a content fork." In other words, there are cases where content that is in one article should also be in another article. What Wikipedia editors should do is make sure that there is not so much of an overlap that the articles are essentially the same topic. In those cases, a merge is best. As for definitions, or what is a subtopic of what, we of course go by what reliable sources state.
Pinging MShabazz, HalJor, Polly Tunnel and Curved Space for their thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
First off, I'm in the "overlap is okay" camp. If the information is valid for both topics, I should be able to get that information by reading either article -- I shouldn't be required to read both. Additionally, it would be a challenge to split the duplicate information between the two articles "fairly", and having it all in one article makes the other significantly less informative. I don't like the "word for word" thing either, but you wouldn't necessarily notice that unless you read both articles in full. Not everyone will do that.
Second, I don't consider "facial" to be a subtopic of "cum shot" either, nor would I agree to merge them, at least at this point. IMO, a cum shot is explicitly and entirely about the visual aspect -- that's the "shot" part. It also doesn't necessarily require the participation or even the presence of another person. A facial, on the other hand, does require a second person, and there is appreciable value (for lack of a better work) in the reaction of the recipient -- happiness, humiliation, whatever. These differences seem strong enough to me to warrant separate articles.
All that said, there does seem to be a fair amount of bulk, just from a quick scan. (The facial article, for example, doesn't need the third paragraph in the lede, mentioning the foreplay, volume of ejaculate, or what happens to it when exposed to the air.) If a section is about excessively about the setup or the cum shot in and of itself, it probably doesn't belong in the facial article. Similarly, excess weight about facials in the cum shot article would be better directed over here. If the end result of this is either article being too sparse, then maybe a merge would be a good idea. But I'd have to look more closely at the end result to decide. HalJor (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Only just seen this, but in essence I agree with HalJor. The only divergence is that I do think facial is a sub-topic of cum-shot, but I also think that pretty much any ejaculatory sex act is a subset - Creampie (sexual act) for example. However, overlap and duplication is Ok, because they are notable topics in their own right.
Irrelevant material can be reasonably removed, but not simply because it's duplicated in another article.
Another comment is that I'm naturally against any topic that starts off by saying why this "article" will be cut -- which is basically stating that the action will be carried out regardless of discussion and including the "scare quotes" to imply this isn't a real article. Such behaviour is anathema to Wikipedia, and deserves to be opposed merely on principle. Curved Space (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Maybe remove all the unnecessary "artwork" by uploaded by the guy with the username Seedfeeder, who obviously has a massive fetish and is getting off over "splashing his work" all over this article. THREE pictures? Seriously? While you're at it, clean up the "Cum Shot" article for the same reason. 37.152.239.174 (talk) 18:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Consensus for this change is needed first. The Seedfeeder artwork deters people from engaging in exhibitionism by fighting to include their own photographs, a common problem on sexuality articles. Crossroads -talk- 04:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Lips

"...could come into contact with broken skin or sensitive mucous membranes (eyes, lips, mouth),..." The lips are not mucous membranes.--2A02:8071:2191:8F00:E527:4E59:78C0:5A3F (talk) 19:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Genders

The "criticisms_and_responses" section is mainly about main ejaculating on women. Is there any information about facial cumshots where the ejaculator is not a man and/or the ejaculee(?) is not a woman? Apokrif (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 February 2021

I believe the image depicting a white woman receiving a black man's cum should be changed to a similar image of a black woman receiving white man's cum. This will help racial diversity, improve race relations, and make Wikipedia a place for all to enjoy. Thank you. Spyseaguy789 (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

You'd have to find another free image to use and start an RFC to see if anyone wants to change the status quo. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:12, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
OP Indefinately blocked. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 19:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Pearl necklace (sexual act) into Facial (sexual act). Currently the pearl necklace article is a dictionary definition plus a collection of pop-culture trivia. Most of the current sources are passing mentions or dictionary definitions; the closest thing to WP:SIGCOV is the entry in Sex Tips for Straight Women from a Gay Man, which definitely isn't WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I looked for additional sources and found only dictionary entries (example), junk sources, and trivial coverage. Cheers, gnu57 14:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for edit

As wikipedia is not censored and there are a bunch of images available on commons, I ask to add a real photo to the article.

File:Facial Cumshot.jpg

For example, see Ejaculation. This photo is fone, illustrative, and article will be better with this photo. 37.214.60.112 (talk) 19:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

We already have plenty of illustrations here, and this photo is not better than those. Crossroads -talk- 00:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Trans inclusivity

"in which a man ejaculates semen" is cisnormative. The language should be gender neutral as to include people with penises who are not men. Riverraleigh (talk) 04:35, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This is standard writing on Wikipedia, matching the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources. More reasons can be seen at this community discussion. Crossroads -talk- 19:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

hey

Hi I would love to know more about this 2601:441:8202:DA70:A4A7:5FD5:6220:5214 (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I hear you man. Give it a read. Zanahary (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Facial_(sexual_act)/Archive_4&oldid=1243105750"