Talk:Cum shot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cum shot is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

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)

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).

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)

Contents 1 more information wanted 2 Illustration or not? 3 Article name? 4 Linkimage 5 Too heteronormative 6 copy edit 7 Silliness

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] 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 still the unlikely possibility for an alien species one day trying to find out about everything related to mankind and maybe they WILL need a picture to understand what it's about). Ashmodai 02:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Almost everybody knows a hand, a foot, a road or a street when they see one, yet 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

This article, or a portion of it, was copyedited by the League of Copyeditors in February 2007. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Copyeditor(s): Otterpops 21:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)