Talk:Facial (sex act)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Facial (sex act) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Archive
Archives
Archive 1
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Image

The image in question, Image:Cumface_color.png, does not accurately depict a facial. It depicts a woman drooling semen out of her mouth. I feel that the image would be best removed and replaced with a drawing of a facial. Joie de Vivre 14:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

C'mon that is clearly a facial, until a better image is provided, that should stay.--BMF81 17:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not a facial. It's the aftermath of oral sex with the man ejaculating in her mouth. If he ejaculates in her mouth, it isn't a facial. Joie de Vivre talk 18:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Have you a reliable source for that? Or an alternative free pic? No? Well until you do... ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Done! Joie de Vivre T 22:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Damn, that was quick! ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
We try. Joie de Vivre T 23:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I preferred the old pic and where the hell did you get this notion that facials don't involve any semen in the mouth? Trevor GH5 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Because it's called a "facial", not a "mouthcial". Joie de Vivre T 03:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
lol dunno new pic seems fine. Think there might be a new edit war that its a guy getting a faceful, but it works and makes the article WP:GOOD. I did pefer the old pic, it was funny and kinda worked. but if a facial is pure ejaculation on the face, I follow consensus. Mike33 05:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
That's bullshit, Joie just made that up on the spot. I've watched tons of porn all over the internet, listened to Howard Stern, seen interviews, and never once heard that. Trevor GH5 05:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If you do a Google search for (facial semen), you will see a few people with a little semen around the mouth, but many more with semen all over the cheeks, between the eyes; essentially, all over their faces. Take a look at Urban Dictionary, people are in agreement that "facial" means "ejaculating on the face". That's not what the image you placed depicts. All the rivulets of semen originate from her mouth. Unless the guy was dancing around her in a circle while he ejaculated across her mouth from several directions, the semen first landed in her mouth, and she drooled it out afterwards. That's not a facial, it's someone drooling semen after a blow job. The other image, Image:Facial.png, depicts ejaculation on the face and it is completely accurate for this article. Joie de Vivre T 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant, both pictures are bad pictures, simple as that. That's what this is about, not niggling details about which area of the face the semen is on.
Complete bullshit and OR Joie. Every vid that includes any ejaculation above the neck is listed as a facial vid on the porn site I frequent. Trevor GH5 18:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I really like that girl pic with the lipstick and stuff on her face. yeah I know the yoghurt is cummin out of her mouth, but the lipstick might of spat it b4 all over her face? perhaps? I think its cool. Mike33 - t@lk 18:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Updates

Hi Everyone... I did some changes to the article today that I hope will improve it. I added some titles to give the article more organization. I also expanded on some of the sections and added a new section: Mechanism of Arousal. It is tough to find academic references on the topic however I think the article should be expanded further so that it is no longer a stub. I hope I help improve the article and I look forward to watching it evolve. Unkle25 06:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Massive Edit/Blank Out

Just because an article lacks proper citation is not a reason to blank out over 50% of the text. Please demand citations rather than deleting the work of others. Unkle25 11:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Negative tone?

I think the description part has a negative tone. As if it's somehow wrong with facials. Not sure how to write it better, english is not my language.

[edit] STD risk

Should be information on health risks. Isn't oral with facial safer than swallowing or fucking? Lena Bimbo 09:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced opinions and conclusions

I have marked several paragraphs in the article with {{fact}} because they are full of opinions and attributions of motives without any sources cited. Such material particularly cries out for citations of reliable published sources that support the claims. -- Donald Albury 22:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is trying to argue about whether or not this act is sexist in some way.Lol I can has cheezeburgerz? (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes there is some very strange agenda behind some of the editing here. Very anti-sex. But most importantly, someone just reverted a very simple factual statement backed up by direct evidence that the practice was common citing an issue with references while virtually nothing else in this strange article is referenced at all! To my mind that is proof of POV and should not be permitted.Veritas23 (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you are welcome to tag any unsourced material you want to challenge with the {{fact}} template. Given the history of this article, I would advise against removing unchallenged material that has been present for a while without discussing on this page first. On the other hand, some material has been challenged for a while with no sources being offered, so I'll go look at them. -- Donald Albury 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sex Magick

They do who in the what now? I'm sorry, that part isn't very clear. . .--75.82.69.178 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

What is confusing you? Divination means reading future events before they happen. Diviners often use seemingly "random" results such as the fall of I Ching coins, the clumping of tea leaves at the bottom of a cup, the particular shapes revealed by the intestines of sacrificial animals, or the way semen falls across the face of the facial recipient in order to "tell fortunes". Like a crystal ball or mirror scrying except one is working from "random" patterns instead of a blank slate....74.72.168.46 (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image?

Does anyone feel it necessary to use an image of a real act or should we stay with the drawn one. Because as you can see in this diff there has been an attempt to change the image into an image that could be conceived as pornographic. I know we are not censored but I do feel it overkill when the drawn one seems to be perfect. Rgoodermote  14:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The image which you're referring to violates the guidelines at WP:P*, which governs this article. So you did right. Tabercil (talk) 23:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Good thing, I really did not want to piss anyone off. Sorry it took so long. I am not an editor in these sections. Rgoodermote  00:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Propose removing tags

Any objection to the removal of the "original research",etc tags now? Seems decently cited compared to many articles...Veritas23 (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reference is incorrect.

The article notes that "ritual semenancy has been documented as early as 1900 BCE in ancient Mesopotamia" and cites Oppenheim's book as the source. Nowhere does Oppenheim's book Ancient Mesopotamia mention such a practice.

Special:Contributions/ ([[User talk:|talk]]) 18:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] [citations really needed?]

The [citation needed] marker is used too often in my submission. Many of the cases where it is used are "common knowledge" much the same way that it is common knowledge that "some people like jacket potatoes with butter on then" but we wouldn't require a citation for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.31.122 (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I certainly can't argue that fact can be overused [citation needed], truly common knowledge is often not useful to include in an article in the first place. "People have faces." At the other end of the argument, maybe the common knowledge is not detailed or specific enough. "Whales are big animals." -> "Whales are large ocean mammals ranging from 10 to 1000 meters long." And once the phrase is more specific, citation is appropriate. Citation is an easy way to settle disputes about the correctness of a statement, by referring to a more authoritative source than "random editor".
To specifically address the topic, pretend you are someone who was raised by wolves (who inexplicable taught you English and have access to the Internet). Reading this article, would you be at all confident that this is not someone's joke? Citations are evidence that what the writer perceives as common knowledge is in fact common knowledge.--Marcinjeske (talk) 00:59, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article is weak

I cleaned this one up (bad, I know). The two sections that had nothing to do with facial "cum shots" were removed. They should be worked into the Semen article. Also, the multiple inline tags were awful; it's best to just use the template for now. I actually think this article should be merged with Cum shot, as it is just a subtype of that. DeeKenn (talk) 23:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

It truly is a mess (hahah!), but I don't think it belongs with cum shot because facials do not require (video) cameras whereas the "shot" part entails it in the other. I was reading through your AfD nom of pearl necklace and its previous AfD nom and it got me thinking about merging a bunch of the articles together. They had some really awkward suggestions for the name of the compiling article ("Deposition of semen during human sexual intercourse" and "Ejaculation Deposition"). What if it is instead called, perhaps, "External Ejaculation". It could encompass the following:
Additionally, I propose Gokkun be merged with Cum shot. It really is just the same thing, Japanese-style. clicketyclickyaketyyak 09:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems that if all of those pages could successfully be merged into one, that then the article would actually resemble something encyclopedic! Quality versus quantity, and all of that... DeeKenn (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to make massive deletions of content without discussion and consensus first. "Cleaning up" would be fixing grammar, links and so forth. Furthermore, the topic here is neither "cum shots" per se (a feature of pornography) nor semen per se but the sexual act itself in a social and historical context. Improve it and add to it but do not delete it, especially without consensus and reworking the important factual material into some other article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veritas23 (talk • contribs) 11:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Reply
  • This wasn't a "massive deletion"; completely irrelevant information was removed
  • There is a merger proposal that you deleted with your revert
  • Contacting me beforehand would have been courteous. I was editing in good faith. (which you assumed, right?)
I am now reverting your revert to restore the original merger proposal. What you do with the two sections based on trivia is up to you. Perhaps you can try and work them into the Semen article, as mentioned in my edit summary.DeeKenn (talk) 15:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant? The deleted sections constituted the only referenced material in the article and practically the only content in the article actually about the sexual act and not about a convention in or style of pornography. This article is about the sexual practice of ejaculating on the face and not about the use of that practice in pornographic films - therefore it is not a subtype of "cum shot". It makes sense to have information about the pornographic custom here to be sure, but it is not the focus of this important article - one which in truth needs to be expanded considerably to include much more about this popular sex act.Veritas23 (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant per the lead-in. In a sexual context, a facial (also known as a facial cumshot) is the slang term for the sexual activity in which one person directs an ejaculation onto the face of another person, often following oral sex, intercourse, or other stimulation. That is, this article is not about the health benefits of semen for the skin nor about its use in magic; it's about the sex act. Those items should be worked into the Semen article. DeeKenn (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All the same, the article is about semen on the face, which means that the material about its health benefits can be relevant—it constitutes the perspectives or even social impact of the topic and is part of why it is noteworthy enough to have a page on WP. The sex magick stuff is just weird though. I don't think it was referenced. If we can agree to look into a merger with the other three articles I mentioned rather than Cum shot, and instead merge that with Gokkun, then maybe we can move forward with this? So is "External Ejaculation" a good consolidating title? I'm open to suggestions. If DeeKenn and Veritas can express their opinions about this and if we end up in some sort of agreement about the mergers and information inclusion, my next step would be to seek consensus at Mammary intercourse because its talk page is actually active.clicketyclickyaketyyak 03:03, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Breasts always get the most attention ;-) The magick reference is out of place. I briefly glanced through the referenced book and did not see any pertinent information, but it was a quick glance (through some very small print). Anywho, about possible names, I wouldn't know where to begin. There's certainly no shortage of vulgar (in terms/phrases for the redirects! External ejaculation is certainly a start. I'm open to ideas. DeeKenn (talk) 06:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

My edit should now be more clear. DeeKenn (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Just merge'em all together. Goddamn they're all the same thing in substance. Do you? yes...|or no · 04:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge them ALL together. Merge Cum shot, Mammary intercourse, Pearl necklace (sexuality), and Bukkake together. But keep Facial (sex act) as its own separate article. The others are specific/pornorgraphic/group sex acts that should be merged together. Facial (sex act) is its own separate thing. Rustdiamonds (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Facial (sex act) works as its own article. I see no reason to merge it. CinnamonCowgirl (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War.

The continual reverts of my edits are being done so without sound explanation. If someone here would like to tell me why seven [citation needed] tags are needed in one paragraph, and how a "facial" in this context has anything to do with semen's role in personal grooming or sex magick, please say so here. Also keep in mind that when you revert you are taking away the merger proposal as well. DeeKenn (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all may I respectfully suggest you slow down. There is no need to make drastic deletions to long established and referenced articles in Wikipedia without a period of open discussion. Secondly, there are no "continual reverts without sound explanation". There was a sudden and significant edit without time for comment and it wss reverted by editors who have long contributed to the article. In any case, re your and clicketyclack's suggestion. You both seem to propose incorporating this article into articles about pornographic movies....This article is about the sexual practice of facial ejaculation in the real world - something real adult human beings do every day. As such it is only sensible that it should include appropriately referenced information about all aspects of that very popular sexual act - such as its use in religious rites, for skin care, or whatever other practice it involves in the real world. NOT in pornography - or at least not necessarily in pornography. The "cum shot" reference in the lede is confusing and should have been deleted before as again - "cum SHOT" refers to the movie SHOT that is a "facial money shot" in pornography - not the day to day sex act. The pornographic facial articles you mention are quite extensive compared to this simple article, yet not nearly as well referenced as the material you deleted. I agree the "citation needed" tags should go from the paragraph on facial in pornography. Why don't you work to develop this article by adding to it instead of removing a few bytes of useful and interesting real world information? Hopefully now we can all wait a few days to let other people give their opinions....Veritas23 (talk) 03:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I do not find this article well referenced. In fact, the references listed for the two sentences under Sex magick are not verifiable. Another editor above has mentioned the dubiousness of one and, through my own research - having read the cited chapter - has shown the divination reference nonexistent as well. The "sudden and significant edit" was, as I said, made in good faith and should be assumed as much. As you can see by my contributions, I am not a passing "vandal"; my editing was noted as vandalism, to which I took offense. I challenge the need for an independent article on the matter. That people do it everyday is not an issue. Regarding semen's use for skin care, again, nothing is noted about how the semen gets to the face in the first place, which is what this article is about, is it not? Is the article about ejaculation on to the face in a sexual context, or is it about the once-believed magical and actual skin care properties of semen? Someone needs to make up their mind. DeeKenn (talk) 16:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree your edit did not constitute vandalism - it was merely a bit rude. I'm not a wikigeek and described it as such on a visceral level, not as defined in wikispeak, so point taken. I accept that you in good faith felt you could improve the value of wikipedia by removing the referenced material and leaving in a paragraph about pornography. I disagree in good faith and apologize for offending you. Now, two substantive things: First, could you please clarify which references you are questioning? The editor you mention was referring to an earlier version of the article. Which chapter of what did you read? It seems strange to nitpick on references when even a casual reading of the literature (or even a web search) will reveal the importance of semen in general, and facial ejaculation in particular, to ritual religious practice in various traditions. And of course, anyone with a broad circle of friends (in Europe and the US at least) will certainly know someone who practices this sort of sex magick. In truth the section on semenancy could and should be an entire article in itself eventually. Second, could you please respond to my question re the basis for deleting an article on the human sexual act of facial ejaculation (and needless to say, a sexual act may absolutely involve much more than the biological scenario itself - sex is also mental and spiritual and may cross over into areas such as spirituality, medicine, fashion, etc, etc) in favor of huge articles on this act in the context of pornographic movies?? One would think that if wikipedia is to be a serious reference source for the world that actual information about ALL aspects of an act that we all do in our bedrooms would be of more use than endless information about pornography, no? Fortunately, plaintext takes up very little storage space in the scheme of things and therefore wikipedia has the capacity to address ALL issues pertaining to human facial ejaculation (we haven't even started to address female ejaculation onto the face in this article yet...) and we can therefore all work towards bettering an encyclopedia that contains thorough articles BOTH on the medical, spiritual, aesthetic and hedonistic aspects of this very popular sexual act I work to document AND on the pornographic "cum shots" you work to document. It would disturb me to think that a young person confused by human sexuality would seek information on the serious practice of facial ejaculation and cultural/historical issues pertaining to same only to be led to information merely about hard core pornography. So why don't we ensure that both separate but related topics are well developed for everyone's benefit?74.72.168.46 (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Allow me to address your three points:
First, could you clarify which references you are questioning?"
  • Sure! I will speak to four (1,2,3,4 - there are only five altogether). It took me all of 10 minutes to check each source. The first three are used to reinforce the fact that semen has "long been used as a natural skin cream". A read of those references, however, only says that Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown recommended the practice. The only part of that sentence that is verifiable, then, is that she said it; it does nothing to the claim of it having long been used. That type of referencing is misleading and specifically discouraged by Wikipedia's guidelines. Reference number four attempts to prove the veracity of the divination claim. I read that entire chapter, The Yoga of Sex, pp. 81-108, and found nothing saying anything of the sort. The only mentions to semen had to do with the ingestion of it, sometimes mixed with feminine bodily fluids, to empower or bring an individual closer to the divine. In the context of Tantric Yoga that makes absolute sense. Not surprisingly, there was nothing in there about fortune telling or divination from ejaculate patterns on a recipient's face. Now, given that 4 out of 5 of the references in this article are misleading, at best, I must question the last one. I love fact checking and will see if I can verify it soon. Now, if you find it strange to nitpick references, let me also point you to another Wikipedia policy. This one is very important: claims must be verifiable Wikipedia:Verifiability. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for anecdotes. If you can find specific references that back up the assertions being made, then please do so; that's the idea! Furthermore, there is no assumption to be made that anyone with a "broad circle of friends" will know someone who practices sex magick. Uhm, well, not much needs to be said about that, I'm afraid.
Second, could you please respond to my question re the basis for deleting an article on the human sexual act of facial ejaculation ... in favor of huge articles on this aspect in the context of pornographic movies?
  • I'm not quite sure what you mean, or where you inferred such an idea. My contention is, does this article deserve an entry unto itself, or would it be better placed in a single article covering similar practices? Now, if I understand you correctly, the act that these articles are in plain text and do not occupy much in the way of Wikipedia's database is reason enough for them to have their own little space. That I do not understand if education on the subject is what you sincerely desire. It is far easier for a reader to reference a single article than to dance from stub to stub.
Lastly, I don't know why you feel a dichotomy between our goals exists. I am no more interested in pornography than any other subject. What I am interested in is providing a resource for readers in a logical manner. If that means fat needs to be trimmed then that is what happens. If it means that sources need to be checked and verified, then that is what's going to happen. Oh, and the relevancy of sections to the article should be looked at, as I mentioned before. DeeKenn (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
The Eliade you mention was added just to expand on the background of the religious and magical use of semen. I was going to continue with more specific additional references but it is obvious that would be pointless. 90% of wikipedia is completely unreferenced, and it is clear from most of the discussion on this page that the distinction between facial ejaculation in real life and the "facial cumshots" of the pornography beloved by so many wiki editors is unclear to many here. But it is not for me to speculate one why pornography and not common adult sex is the primary focus of wikipedians. I leave you to your "cum shot" article.Veritas23 (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[Undent] If 90% of Wikipedia is indeed unreferenced, then help! If you have specific references regarding the divination process, then share! If the section can't find a home here, then it will elsewhere as I'm sure others find it interesting. From what I can tell, there certainly is a blurring of common sexual practice and pornography here in Wikipedia. Since pornography depicts human sexual practice I find that understandable. If that needs correcting, then please, be part of the solution. DeeKenn (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

lol, you two are like a married couple arguing about sex. :oP clicketyclickyaketyyak 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I doubt that there will be any make-up sex, though. Say, do we need an article on that? DeeKenn (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm shocked it doesn't exist already! Alright, I'm heading over to Mammary intercourse to propose the merge to them. That article name still cracks me up. clicketyclickyaketyyak 22:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)