Talk:Facesitting
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] question
Why is it necessary to mention the fact that this is "popular amongst Fat Admirers (F.A.'s) and heavyset people"? I really doubt that there's any evidence to suggest a greater inclination to facesitting among fat people than unfat people. Surely this is yet another example of a personal preference in the guise of an established fact? (p)
[edit] Suggestion
The merging of this article with Queening has been responsible for a good deal of the arguments that have plagued this issue. I think a clearer, and more correct, order would be to seperate facesitting from queening (and kinging)and place it in a context which isn't biased towards BDSM. Then there could be links from within the article to seperate queening and kinging pages, thus removing the temptation for people to try to push a gender bias. Queening is, clearly a femdom practice and kinging is maledom. Facesitting, whilst often applied in a BDSM context, is also a popular vanilla practice. Simple, methinks... (P)
- True, but kinging and queening are clearly types of facesitting? The three articles would not be long enough to warrant separation, and description of the acts would be largely the same. It should really not be hard for the wikipedia community to come up with a clear and NPOV article on facesitting, of all things... Jdcooper 17:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- But it is, apparently, very hard to reach an agreement on this issue. Mainly because people can't stop trying to inject their own, narrow, bias into the description. This is a common problem with many definitions of sexual practice. It's because people try to use wiki as a means of titillation as opposed to a factual resource. Seperating this into 3 categories would, at least, remove the temptation by some of the current editors of this article to argue about such trivia.
- I agree that it would prevent edit warring and POV, but that does not justify making them separate, because the subjects are simply not encyclopaedic enough on their own. Recent edits to the article were excellent, and went a long way to removing POV and bias. The answer is watching the article closely, rather than breaking it out, IMO. Jdcooper 17:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
- But it is, apparently, very hard to reach an agreement on this issue. Mainly because people can't stop trying to inject their own, narrow, bias into the description. This is a common problem with many definitions of sexual practice. It's because people try to use wiki as a means of titillation as opposed to a factual resource. Seperating this into 3 categories would, at least, remove the temptation by some of the current editors of this article to argue about such trivia.
I am really interested in practicing queening. I have never tried it from the BDSM aspect, and my partner is fortunately very open minded about new experiences. Does anyone have any advice for me?
Also, I think that the emphasis on face-sitting being mainly in the BDSM-fan's province is incorrect. Many 'normal' (i.e. non-BDSM) couples use this highly-enjoyable position for woman-superior cunnilingus (with the woman kneeling facing the man and partially 'sat' on his upper chest) without any bondage or smothering being involved. Works for me anyway :-) ChristinaG
- I think there's a tad too much BDSM feminist theory on the page. 85.226.122.237 21:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Everyone editing here is trying to alter the sense of the article to reflect their personal activities. Edit what you think is biased, and other people will add their twopenneth. Jdcooper 18:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] smotherbox peer review
I'm having a peer review for smotherbox article. Please leave your comments and improvement suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Smotherbox. --Easyas12c 00:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Edits by anonuser on 25 November
While i completely see what you were trying to do here, please spare a thought for the readability of the article; the article now reads horribly. im reverting these edits for the time being, but i will attempt to re-insert the thrust of them later, since your point was fair enough. Jdcooper 14:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
- for goodness sake, "person" means the same as "man or woman" and is far more readable. we all get the point you are pushing ok? Jdcooper 00:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
-
- I don't see this article as including lesbians particularly at all. Maybe I could sit down and look at every word to see if it said "person" or "man or woman", but it seemed like I kept expecting it to not say "submissive male" and it kept saying it nevertheless. Lets have some sources here people, there's tons of valid work on the subject, and this reads like speculative, original research. I'm nixing the face-sitting picks because what we need are actual informational references. If someone can't imagine facsitting correctly, then that is their own issue I think. Lotusduck 04:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I belive that a man can do it for his enjoyment.
