Talk:Outercourse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 AfD Decision: Keep 2 Archived discussion 3 Cleveland steamers 4 Picture 5 Merge with Frottage?

[edit] AfD Decision: Keep

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 April 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] Archived discussion

Archive 1

[edit] Cleveland steamers

I don't intend to be yucky, but are Cleveland steamers classed as intercourse (because it involves feces) or outercourse (because there is no penetration involved)? Scott Gall 07:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

For those not aware of the definition, see Cleveland steamer. I would not classify this rarely-performed, fetishistic act as either intercourse or outercourse, because it does not involve either penile penetration (as in the case of intercourse) or genital stimulation (as in the case of outercourse). In my opinion, it does not qualify as either. Joie de Vivre 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

Does anyone else think that the picture paired with this article is inappropriate for an encyclopedia? It seems like it would be more at place in an advertisement for a cartoon pornography site. I would recommend that the image either be deleted, or replaced with a more appropriate (read: clinical) illustration of the concept of outercourse.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.210.163 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I kind of had the same reaction coming to this page, seeing the illustration as even a bit comical, but I wonder where one would find a better picture than this. It may be a bit more "active" than the usually static pictures found in encyclopedias, but it illustrates the point very well. Cybertooth85 01:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for this page. If you're looking up mammary intercourse, fine, have a picture, but if you're looking at this page for a general definition of outercourse, it's certainly not necessary. Wikipedia's role is not to sensationalize. —Emiellaiendiay 06:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that this drawing does not belong here. Please see Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia Content disclaimer and Wikipedia:Profanity. If this image were a photograph of a sex act, I might be more inclined to agree with your opinion on this, but it is only a drawing. Unless the user who removed this image is prepared to replace it with a better image, it should remain on the page. Joie de Vivre 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleated some of the 'slutty and degrading stuff' and made it racialy neatral!--Bobie Alice Flinker 03:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree this picture does not belong here. It's a)a poor drawing b)offensive. The act itself is not offensive, but the pose of the female is (looking lustily at the viewer while being covered in semen). I don't believe this belongs in this article. And considering it was added by the artist himself, it seems a poor attempt to pass his pornographic images around. Save it for your own porn site, please. I don't think the slutty and degrading stuff was a racial issue. 68.196.253.95 01:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not a very good drawing. No offense to the poster, but it should probably be replaced with a better one. --John Kenneth Fisher 02:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge with Frottage?

The proposed merge is already being discussed on Talk:Frottage. Please continue the discussion there. --Simon Speed 23:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)