Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pearl necklace (sexuality)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pearl necklace (sexuality)

Slang, dicdef Donald Albury^(Talk) 11:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete slang dicdef, exactly per nom. Just zis Guy you know? 12:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Come shot, which discusses the larger phenomenon encyclopedically. Powers 13:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Powers. Luna Santin 16:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment No sources and text is only a dictionary definition, so delete or indeed merge with Come shot. Garion96 (talk) 16:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

*Strong delete, no merge Dicdef, probably already at Urban Dictionary where it belongs. Please don't vote "merge," as that is a "keep" vote. Also, I suspect that the young woman in the picture wearing nothing but semen and a smile may be using the article as a forum for exhibitionism of homemade pornography, since she uploaded the picture herself. My suspicions are further supported by the fact that the picture does not, in fact, depict a pearl necklace, but rather a simple "facial." The idea of the "pearl necklace" is not an important topic in sexual activity, and is more of a joke than anything else (cf. the ZZTop song "Pearl Necklace"). Yes, it is possible to ejaculate on women in many different ways, none of which are encyclopedic, in my opinion. Erik the Rude 17:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to agree with Catamorphism below and recommend that it be redirected to the article on the facial. Jesus H. Christ, this is a silly discussion! I just realised that I couldn't make a "pearl necklace" because I'm a shooter, not a dribbler. I know, TMI, but the meds have kicked in. Sorry. Magister Erik the Rude 03:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • How is a merge vote a "keep" vote? I don't want to keep the content, beyond mentioning the term in the Come shot article, but I really want to leave a redirect in place so this is less likely to be recreated. Powers 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Admins frequently count merge votes as keep votes, especially when there is no clear consensus, which frequently leads to a no-consensus keep. It's one of AfD's many problems. Magister Erik the Rude 22:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Because of GFDL issues, I believe. A merge means that the information should be kept, but simply not at this place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete per Erik the Rude Piccadilly 17:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. At least it's a term I've heard, unlike most of the sex acts listed here, but we don't need an article for what amounts to a dicdef. The picture actually is not appropriate to the article, as it looks like a facial, not a pearl necklace. -- Fan-1967 18:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Obviously a notable term. Need references? Try The Sex Book by Suzi Godson, et al, Sex Tips for Straight Women from a Gay Man by Dan Anderson, and the Vice Magazine guide to Sex and Drugs and Rock and Roll, along with countless pop culture references. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Clearly so. The issue is not notability, its encyclopedicness. What else can be said about it that is a) not just a definition and b) not already in the Come shot article? Powers 21:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Plenty. Besides, if you're looking for "Pearl necklace," chances are you're not looking to dig through "come shot" to get to it. I also can't believe I spent 5 minutes hunting those sources down, or that I typed that last sentence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Hello, Jeff. I'm not surprised that you're here, as this is one of your areas of special interest, sexual slang in Wikipedia. I'll be polite and not dig up your history of time after time defending puerile sexual slang and then wave it in your face as other users do. Indeed, you must have the soul of an appeals attorney who specialises in capital crimes, and I commend you for your due diligence. Maybe there should be a Wiki project that deals more rigourously with sexual slang than does Urban Dictionary. Wikipedia, however, is not that project, nor are we Partridge's Dictionary of English Slang. All I can say is, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Magister Erik the Rude 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Hi! Right now, the article is simply a stub. With two books already, and some hope at Google Scholar from other research I've done, it seems there's plenty of room for expansion, and we haven't even talked about pop culture references yet, either. Yes, I tend to be a staunch defender of some of our raunchier articles, and why not? We don't censor ourselves here. Either way, I hope you'll reconsider. At least we agree on the image. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Erik the Rude. We're not Urban Dictionary. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason to start censoring wiki now. Mystache 22:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - people are unlikely to find reference if they aren't looking for it. Wiki provides information - this is a real thing so why censor it? Although pic doesn't really show a pearl necklace does it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.111.149 (talk • contribs).
• Keep, Notable sexual term referred to outside. Photo may need to be considered. Capitalistroadster 23:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, well I considered it, and I think that young lady is pretty hot, minus the semen. (Ugh.) I think the pic is clearly intended to titillate, and is therefore pornography rather than an illustrative picture. Magister Erik the Rude 03:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment The definiton needs work as well, as this activity is normally associated with, uh, genital-mammary contact, which isn't mentioned here. Fan-1967 23:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - the term is notable although the article needs work. I shall selflessly volunteer my time to improve the article, even if I'm forced to wade through several dozens hundreds of images to find one that accurately depicts the topic in question :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect with Facial (sexuality). Catamorphism 02:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Notable (sort of) but with problems, needs a lot of work! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect to Facial (sexuality) Bwithh 06:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - its not a cum shot because no photography is needed to make a pearl necklace. There are many pop cultural references to the term, like the ZZ Top song and a Sex and the city episode. Its association with Mammary intercourse could be disscussed... That's got to result in more than a dictionary definition. It's even a much better known term then "Mammary intercourse" yet that's here too. I agree the photo could be replaced with an illustration or one that shows a better pearl necklace on a woman, but just how does a pornographic picture in this context cross a line? A merger with Facial (sexuality) should only be done if there is a super catagory for both terms to be merged under. Does anyone have an idea what that could possibly be?--Sneezy-pantz 07:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Changing to Keep and clean up per Sneezy-pantz. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 10:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to the more notable term as it's a valid search phrase. I'll not suggest merging the picture to your own personal image collection. MLA 13:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment If you're going to redirect to anything, redirect to Mammary intercourse, which already lists this as a synonym. It's definitely not the same thing as a facial. Fan-1967 14:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment without getting into the technicalities of it all, I disagree. Pearl necklace is an outcome as it were rather than an act so the outcome of facial is more accurate than the act of mammary intercourse. MLA 18:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment without getting into the technicalities of it all (can't believe we're discussing this), it's a separate and different outcome than the facial. I have always heard this term used in connection with the act involving breasts. Fan-1967 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• I can't believe it either, but I also hadn't thought of it in terms of, uh, "mammary intercourse." I'm not entirely sure a merge is proper, given a lack of a useful place to merge it to, assuming merge is the "correct" option. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Having done the Hawaiian muscle fuck myself, against my own will, I might add as I was coerced by a kinky girlfriend with 36D's, I can't see how a pearl necklace is the logical end of the act. A dribbler would most likely dribble semen onto the superior sternum, which would then pool at the cricoid region and run superiorly into the carotid sinuses, lateral to the trachea and medial to the sternocleidomastoid muscle. It's also very possible that the semen would be shot between the breasts, on the belly, or dribble down the belly. A shooter would just blow it all over the chest or face in a blob and spatter pattern. To properly execute a pearl necklace, which I haven't done, one would have to dribble semen at the midline of the neck, superior to the clavicles. I don't think it's that easy to execute properly, it's almost certainly no fun because of the technical skill and control involved, which is why I think it is no more than a joke. Also, the viscosity of the semen would be a possible problem. Some semen is too viscous to "dribble" or "run." I'd be interested in some first-hand reports of successful pearl necklaces. Maybe some research could be conducted at Wikimania 2006, and if this crap doesn't belong in BJAODN, I don't know what does. Maybe merge it all to Deposition of semen during human sexual intercourse. Magister Erik the Rude 22:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • But don't forget WP:NOR. :) Garion96 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Definitely the funniest argument I've seen today. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 00:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment Short, but hilarious :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment "on the belly"? Which direction were you facing? ;-) -- Fan-1967 00:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
      • She was sitting on the floor, reclining against the couch. I was more or less upright, and since it's almost impossible to aim one's dick, I probably would have shot on her belly. She was watching the action in the mirror as I laboured away with no final orgasmic reward. Therefore, I can't vouch for the location of the deposited semen. :-(. Tittyfucking isn't fun, guys. Don't believe the hype. It's weird as anything, and it's really kinky, but it's just stupid and it makes you feel like a douchebag. Don't even try it on anything smaller than a 36C unless you have micropenis. BTW, if anyone wants the name and location of this very busty Filipina-American 3-way girl who loves to do kink, email me. She's a Vice Consul for the U.S. State Dept., and she loves daily sex, so why shouldn't I help her out? Magister Erik the Rude 05:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I believe the more traditional position involves the woman lying totally flat on her back, which would cause the material to run up her chest and down the side of her neck. (Is someone going to BJAODN this discussion?). Fan-1967 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not a dictionary. Mangojuice^talk 03:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, sources and popularity of the term do it for me. Why do we have the other under mammary intercourse, however?? -- nae'blis _(talk) 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Because the slang terms vary too much. It was originally created as Tit wank, which an American would never say. Fan-1967 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

An American would never say Mammary intercourse either, trust me on this one...--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard "Hawaiian muscle fuck" or "Hawaiian style", either. Do you prefer the simple, yet elegant Titfuck? -- Fan-1967 04:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Titfuck is good and should possibly be the primary name of the article if kept. I used "Hawaiian muscle fuck" for cacophemistic humor. However, I still maintain that all the articles on shooting semen on women during sex should be in one place. Folks, it's hard to aim unless you're a professional or you're less than 6 inches from the target. Even porn stars screw up and shoot the lady in the eye. Most of us have seen that many times. Magister Erik the Rude 05:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we've lost the chain of discussion. Tifuck (by whatever name) isn't even the article under AFD. Fan-1967 05:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• This discussion has been transferred to WP:BJAODN on the grounds that it was nominated and seconded. Magister Erik the Rude 05:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Excellent reasoning there, Erik the Rude, but I think the new article should have a shorter name like Ejaculation Deposition maybe? Many possible "targets" could be listed there. I really wish this subject was being discussed in a more erudite and sober manner. Remember, the eyes of your great great great gand childern may one day read these pages and they may try to reconstruct our civilization from them...(shiver). --Sneezy-pantz 06:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Ever see the Rocky Horror Picture show? Tim Curry is wearing a (non-sperm) pearl necklace to signify the sexual act. TruthCrusader 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

  Um, maybe Tim Curry is wearing a pearl necklace because he's PLAYING A TRANSVESTIVE. Kaldari 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He is also wearing a pink triangle. And if you think he is wearing the necklace as a fashion statement then you really must go see the film again :) TruthCrusader 07:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Per above. Notable sexual term. Many references in culture. This article has plenty of sources. Interestingstuffadder 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect or Delete. Obscure slang, better dealt with in a broader article. Kaldari 06:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep seems referenced and the pic is nice ;).  Grue  14:41, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.