Talk:Creampie (sexual act)/Archive 3

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

Photo RfC

Do you agree or disagree with placing this image in the article? File:Vagína se spermatem.jpg. Pass a Method talk 18:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Agree - Per nom Pass a Method talk 18:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
    • What "per nom"? Nom is "Do you agree or disagree with placing this image in the article?". How can one "agree" with that? Just wondering... Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
      • Per "nominator". Maybe i should have worded it different. I meant, "do you support or oppose adding the image". Pass a Method talk 19:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Oh, you mean "support, as nom[inator]". "Support per nom" usually means "Support, per [arguments made in] nom[ination]", at least that's how I usually read it. No, there was nothing wrong the formation of the nomination. I have seen "Neutral, as nom" with no argument given (for procedural noms etc.), but I have never seen "Support, as nom" with no argument given... but there's always something new, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:14, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree We have had this discussion previously. Consensus was to retain the drawing while a better image was found. The above image does not fulfill that criteria. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Does this mean i should close this RfC, because a consensus has already been reached previously ? Pass a Method talk 18:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No, this is a legitimate RfC - I was just noting the consensus of the earlier one, and placing my opinion on whether the image suggested fulfills the criteria noted there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment How does the image not fulfill the criteria? It is of higher quality than the drawing. That was part of the reason editors claimed to be against the current one. See the last RFC.[1] A photo was requested by more than one editor. I personally am hesitant to use this one as already explained.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • In what way do you suggest that it is higher quality - technically I agree it does, but aesthetically I consider it offers no improvement and may be considered by some viewers as unappealing. I would also say that this is my opinion only, and I concede that consensus may fall elsewhere. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Well, no, I don't think this would be a good idea. It's a fairly extreme image and probably not a net benefit for the Wikipedia to host it. Also, in my opinion this term is basically found mainly or only in pornography (and to the extent that it's not it's probably in part because of the existence of this article, which is not how the Wikipedia is suppose to work, but whatever), so WP:HARDCORE would apply to this image as well as any other. Herostratus (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • It is a good thing that HARDCORE is an essay explaining a minority opinion. Please be careful in citing your own essay in a way that might appear to give it more prominence than it deserves for those not more informed on the issue.Cptnono (talk) 02:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
      • While Herostratus may have originally created the essay, there have been a lot of additions by multiple editors since he last edited it,[2] so it shouldn't be regarded as "his essay". It gained significant support at MfD, including from Jimbo Wales, so it does have community support and more prominence than you've suggested. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
        • Citing an essay is basically a convenience, an alternative to pasting the actual text of the argument into the line of the discussion. Herostratus (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
          • I have informed you how to cite an essay on your talk page. No need to do it here.Cptnono (talk) 08:06, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
            • And tough luck, Aussie Legend, Jimbo Wales made a decision that was rejected by the community. So in the future, cite an essay as an essay and stop pretending it is anymore. (and Aussie Legend, also take note of the multiple editors and IPs continuing to raise concern). Games. I told you so.Cptnono (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
              • I really don't understand what you mean about Jimbo or the IPs. I only looked at the essay, its history, and the MfD. There's nothing wrong with the way Herostratus has referred to WP:HARDCORE here. Your MfD failed and you need to accept that. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
                • AS cute as your edit summary was, you obviously do not know the background. If you would have looked at the talk page of the essay you would have seen that background. Jimbo failed at getting consensus when he tried to remove such images. Several editors have brought up concerns. Jimbo wheel warred. So "deal with it"? How about you look into it.Cptnono (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
                • And just a reminder: I have already expressed why this image might be problematic.Cptnono (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • comment lot of people are saying that the image in unappealing. wouldn't the same people think the article is also about something unappealing? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 04:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
    • True, but a "not unappealing" photo/image would quickly indicate what the subject is, which some might find unappealing and who would then be able to leave without reading the text. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Weak disagree The quality of the photograph is better than many we have had placed into articles (blurry shots of something) and the quality of the drawing is not high. I'm keen that sexuality articles should be well illustrated (like all articles) as for many readers this is a major factor in understanding the subject matter. However, I'm also keen that anyone casually coming across an article (through a Google search) or looking over someone's shoulder, should feel it's a sex education page rather than a shock or porno site. (This can be a difficult issue when dealing the subject of pornography.) I still feel that the artwork is a better choice as it adequately gives an understanding of what it illustrates and gives a marginally better general impression. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Support adding the photo. It is illustrative, relevant, topical and Wikipedia is not (or should not be, sigh...) censored. Nymf hideliho! 15:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding the photo, per Simon. --JN466 00:31, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose adding photo. Oppose adding any photo or picture. I suppose I'll be framed as a puritanical ninny and an agent of censorship for pointing out the obvious. Let me also say this: If Wikipedia had as many female as male editors, we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree - Wp is not censored and photo accurately illustrates topic. Edinburgh Wanderer 18:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Breeding

  • Secondary source: [3]; primary sources: [4] --JN466 12:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Recent revert, verifiability and WP:Weasel words

I refer to this recent revert. I had already reviewed the initial edit, and considered it appropriate since the statement was not supported in the reference cited and also contained a WP:WEASEL word or phrase, "Following perhaps the example..." Since there has already been the Removal of the BOLD edit per WP:BRD I am now opening the required Discussion. I think the initial removal/substitution of the phrase should be re-instated, as being neutral, and the uncited weasel worded statement removed. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The reference is Dean. As I recall, he noted that creampie images in gay pornography predated those in heterosexual porn by a little, and surmised that the idea had migrated from gay to straight porn. --JN466 14:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I do not see the comment in the cited material. I note that the reference commented that it existed previously in gay pornography and that it later appeared in straight porn, but not that the former influenced the latter (although it is entirely feasible that it did, with many production houses and talent involved in both genres). If it is clearly stated, then the edit might be amended by removing the "perhaps" and if it is not clearly stated then the entire line should be removed/substituted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Could you have a look at pages 170–171 in Dean? I don't have the book to hand, and Google Books will no longer show me page 170 (nor the other pages that are cited). Page 171 however I still can see, and it includes passages like "Even as the most extreme forms of straight porn come to approximate bareback gay porn ...", "Has straight porn started imitating gay porn? Although it remains unclear whether the new conventions surrounding internal ejaculation originated in gay or straight genres, the latter increasingly seems to resemble the former." Could you tell me which page the other comment is on that you mention, "it existed previously in gay pornography and that it later appeared in straight porn"? I'm having trouble finding it again. Cheers, --JN466 16:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually, looking at it again, the whole discussion on page 171 is interesting. We could give a fuller account of it, mention the precedence in time of the gay variety, and then dispense with the weaselly subclause. I agree with your comment that the crossover theory seems feasible; someone in the business may have noticed, hey, this breeding video is selling well, let's try putting out a hetero version. While we can't state that this is what happened, the time sequence and the similarities between the gay and straight genres are sourceable, and of encyclopedic interest, as is Dean's comment that the taboo breaking is the common element, and that it ultimately does not matter where the convention originated. (It's curious in a way that the most complete scholarly discussion of this topic I was able to find is in a book written 90% from a gay perspective.) Cheers, --JN466 17:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I was not quoting a line of text when I said that the reference notes that the practice was originally/historically found in gay porn, and is now found in straight porn - I was summarising two aspects commented in the reference to point out that there is no singular statement that linked any relationship or transfer of practice between the two genre. The closest that can be found is the chapter title "Conclusion:Straight Porn Mimics Gay Porn" (and is repeated in the text) but does not indicate that the relationship was the result of influence - it also does not limit itself to creampie but also (non) use of condoms and interracial couplings, amongst others. While the conclusion is that creampie (what is the past tense?) is an area where straight porn mimics gay porn, it does not address how this came about (although it does suggest why).
I also find it interesting that the most scholarly study of such practices is in a gay pov orientated book, although I would also comment that the wide availability of gay porn is fairly recent and my... er... experience of straight porn is that some of the practices now considered risky (non use of condoms and relaxed/negligent attitude towards health issues generally) was not so apparent in the pre-AIDS era. Of course, I am no expert and WP goes with what the available best resources note.
To conclude (and Google Books works fine for me) I do not see a statement that the practice of creampie in straight porn derived from familiarity with its use in gay porn. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree (and believe I said above) that we cannot claim derivation; the source does not go so far as to say that. All we can do is to comment on timing (we still would need a page number), and the apparent mimicking. (Note that the level of access Google Books gives you varies from country to country, and also depends on how often you've looked at the book before.) Cheers, --JN466 18:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the formatting. It is page 169 of the Dean book, with the chapter heading as noted previously, and page 170 where it is noted that the internal cumshot is established in gay porn but a new and, ah, rising trend in straight (also, in passing, I note that it mostly deals with the anal creampie, with only passing mention of vaginal "pop shots"). Personally, I am not sure if it is notable that its portrayal was initially in gay hardcore and subsequently in straight porn, but I am not inclined to argue the point; it exists, and has apparently existed longer in gay productions than straight. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the page reference. I'll do some work on this over the next couple of days, and will replace the offending subclause in the process. If you would like to remove it in the meantime, that is fine. Cheers, --JN466 00:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Ahem, I am a sysop - I know nothing of this content malarky... LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
Sysop do love ignoring it.
I would love more about some man on man action. I know nothing of it but do enjoy a party on Capitol Hill (Seattle). The only thing that concerns me is trying to relegate straights. I can find you as many "creampie for straights" videos as you want. Cptnono (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps...?

Should we add an actual human having it? Also, this article doesn't tell that this predates human history - in order for a woman to get pregnant, she has to receive an internal ejaculation from the male in the vagina in order to get pregnant. Until artificial insertion of sperm material came about, this was the only way. I would like to edit it, but it's understandingly protected. The image that was requested up a few threads would be an appropriate thing. It also puts to much weight on pornography, although it wasn't always like this. --Lesbiangirl (talk) 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC) EDIT: this image would be better File:Penis_Insertion_Ended.JPG --Lesbiangirl (talk) 20:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem that only affects the porn industry...

Before I begin: English is not my first language, so I might just misread something, but the following sentence reads as though only porn actors could get in trouble by having unprotected sex: "The production of pornography featuring internal ejaculations involves unprotected sex, increasing the risk of pregnancy in women and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV." Could someone with better language and grammar skills update that part to reflect that the same is true for everyone else? --84.165.155.20 (talk) 04:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you're right. I made the requested edit. Alsee (talk) 12:07, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Alsee, regarding this edit you made, I'm guessing that piece was limited to the pornography industry because this article is mostly about pornography. And it's mostly about pornography because the term creampie, in terms of sexuality, is used with regard to pornography far more than any other aspect of sexuality. It's not a term that is typically discussed in mainstream sexuality books; it's almost always discussed in sources as being an aspect of pornography. And experts on sexuality state that creampie, in terms of sexuality, is not mainstream among the general public; the same goes for a lot of other acts that are standard in pornography, but are not standard among society in general. Flyer22 (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I tweaked the first sentence, per the WP:REFERS essay; that diff-link also shows that I tweaked your edit to mention unprotected sex. Flyer22 (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I tweaked the first sentence again, this time to note "without use of a condom." Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
And like I stated with this edit, creampie, in terms of sexual activity, usually means "visible seeping or dripping of semen from the vagina or anus"; I made that clear; it should not be presented as a side definition. Flyer22 (talk) 13:14, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
I undid the change, because you can't just write what you want and put it in front of a footnote. The source is about the risk of pregnancy and STDs in pornography. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 18:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Clarification: Malik Shabazz is referring to Alsee's aforementioned edit, and this is Malik Shabazz's edit on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Newly added photograph

A user has added an additional image at the top of the article, File:Vagína se spermatem.jpg a closeup photograph of the article's subject. I personally tend to argue against photos of sexual acts in favor of artwork, as this has less of an association with porn. However this new addition is at least not performing an insulting mooning gesture at the viewer. One option might be to move it to where the current poor quality drawing is to replace that. I don't think the article needs both illustrations. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

  • Convenient that the photos and illustrations are always of a woman being creampied for something that originated with gay pornography, no? Almost as though women as sexual objects is a more comfortable subject? 97.113.16.114 (talk) 07:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I also support this picture. Please add. PizzaOven (talk) 01:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No, i dont support this picture. We need additional a Photo for Example Gay Porn Creampie of a male Cream Pie Photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyBoySophi (talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Creampie (sexual 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Latest image dispute

Pikachu165, as seen here and here, you have so far been reverted by Melonkelon and later by me. I cited WP:GRATUITOUS, stating that your real-life image addition is not needed because the drawing suffices. What is your argument for choosing the real-life image over the drawing? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Health risks question

Why is pregnancy given as an example of health risk? Since when pregnancy is a health risk thing? Tashi Talk to me 23:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at the article Complications of pregnancy. 96.84.8.30 (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Pregnancy is I suppose a medical condition, but I think it's hardly fair to include it as a health risk considering all it is is literally sex in the default and natural way which is the beginning of the pregnancy process. Also, what if she's using birth control?? --Nelson21101805 (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Breeding

I've also heard the term "breeding" used in heterosexual contexts as well, but I'm not aware of any citations that will meet Wikipedia's standards, unfortunately. 2601:8C:4581:1150:2DB8:3A11:7D57:FA70 (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Natural Insemination in Humans

I've noticed that we have two articles (or portions of articles), which describe the same sex act in very different ways. Insemination#Natural insemination is also about ejaculation during penile-vaginal intercourse, but approaches it purely from a non-sexual PoV. On the other hand, creampie lists pregnancy as a health risk on the assumption that the act is performed purely for pleasure or pornography. While both are valid, encyclopedic approaches, maybe the two articles should reference each other and explain the continuum of motivation from creampie purely for pleasure and natural insemination purely for reproduction? I'm considering making the changes myself, but I don't necessarily want to be the guy adding references to pornography to an article on human reproduction.

On a related note, could the commons category vaginal creampie be renamed "natural insemination in humans" (and the same for the "videos of" subcategory)? The files there are a useful depiction of human reproduction even when separated from the use of this act in pornography. I feel like this is a bit like the petrol/gasoline naming dispute, so I wouldn't make that change unless more people agree. --Just Some Wikipedian (talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a separate topic and specifically includes the aspect of "resulting in visible seeping or dripping of semen from the vagina or anus". This topic therefore isn't something to include at the natural insemination page. Crossroads -talk- 21:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Name origin?

The name origin for Creampie is missing. Are there any reliable sources to back up the name origin of this act? Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 00:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Censorship

SkyWolf369 why did you delete my question? Wikipedia is not and should not be censored. I asked to add real photos to the article, instead of this, you just deleted my question. That's not a friedly wiki behaviour! 37.214.60.112 (talk) 12:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Request for edit

As Wikipedia is not censored, please add this photo to the article

File:CLASSISCHER CREAMPIE.jpg

See for example Ejaculation, this photo is fine, shows the subject well and the article will be better with a real image. 37.214.60.112 (talk) 14:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@37.214.60.112 that would be better to have a real image if you could add the image 41.116.227.73 (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Please don't troll the Wikipedia, especially under multiple URLs, thanks. We're busy. The way forward here for you would be a WP:RFC. However, an RFC started by a anon URL with little or no useful edit history is going to start out behind the eight ball, and votes and comments from similar WP:SPAs are going to be discounted. I wouldn't, but if you want to, nobody can stop you I suppose. There might be other websites that you would find more worthy of your attention, just saying. Herostratus (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Word origin

The article claims the word originated in the early 2000's. While this might be the more common usage of the word, clearly it was around prior to this. This very article has a reference of a book published in 2000 ('Popular modernity in America: experience, technology, mythohistory' by Michael Thomas Carroll) in which the book is about the internet of the 1990's. This implies the word was in use in the 1990's. Not only that but you can find references of this word being mentioned as early as Jan 1999. For instance Wiktionary lists a quote from Jan 26, 1999. In that quote the author felt the need to give a short definition of the word creampie in parenthesis (ie internal cumshot), which implies it must have been new enough to warrant the need for giving a short definition for clarity. So I am going to edit the article to include its use was as early as the beginning of 1999. With that quote reference from Wiktionary. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Add real photos

wikipedia is not censored, so pls add real photos to the article: File:Analsex2.jpgFile:Creampie 3.jpgFile:Human Intercourse.webm2A06:C701:4BD8:F600:24A3:CDCE:C5A6:3A59 (talk) 12:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Creampie_(sexual_act)/Archive_3&oldid=1214684217"