Talk:Facial (sex act)/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Proposal to merge with Oral Sex

  • Merge I think this article would fit comfortably in an Oral Sex subsection.
  • Keep While the two are similar, they should stay separate as Oral Sex is a separate part of the subject, and Oral Sex does not always lead to a facial, and vice versa.Lan Di 18:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Definetly keep, they are two very different things, the two can not occur at the same time. --Publicgirluk 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep "Facials" and "Oral Sex" are two separate and distinct sex acts which may or may not occur within a given sexual encounter. Cross-reference them but allow each their distinction.--MadMom2 10:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Distinctly different topics. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 07:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Oral sex is an act that leads to a Facial, but they are not the same thing. 74.65.39.59 21:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Has anyone asked Jimbo Wales what he thinks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.101.197.77 (talk • contribs)

Nearly every editorial decision on Wikipedia is made without any input from Jimbo Wales. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep They're obviously two separate things, and one needn't accompany the other. PseudoAnon 07:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep separate. Distinct topics. —Nightstallion (?) 11:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Changes

This article had a strong bias towards quasi-feminist views of the facial--that a facial always represents subjugation of women and so on. That's a fringe view of (mostly male) feminist academics. I have rewritten the article to make it more balanced, but the quasi-feminist view is still represented. In addition some of the article was poorly written and I tried to clean that up--a facial is an ejaculation, not a depositing. If you drip semen from a cup onto someone's face, you may have deposited semen but you haven't given a facial. Thanks.

"Disrespectful"?

Here is a quote from this article:

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?

i think this line

"The people that claim a facial is "disrespectul" and don't engage in it however, are most likely very conservative people who refuse to explore and experience in life."

is a little 'disrespectful' towards people who don't enjoy the act - it doesn't make them conservative, it just means they may not like it !

I am a 28 year old married woman my husband gives me regular facials & i enjoy them a lot for me its a loving act & for both of us a good alternative to him coming in my mouth .

Pretty sure a 15 year old unmarried boy wrote this btw. Trevor GH5 15:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Yo, some girls really get turned on by facials... there's an intimacy there that is legitimate. When people go out in public, the girl knows that the night before, she had her man's cum all over her face. And he knows that he had her cum all over his face, too. It's intimacy. I do think that more guys like to do this than girls, but, it's only as juvenile as wanting sex itself. And for people who've watched enough porn and have been desensitized to it, they may expect that it be a part of their sexual life more than someone who's not aware of it.

If people think desensitization is wrong or bad... then think of oral sex in general, contraception, homosexual sex and so on. It's something people do, and increasingly so. Let's understand it. And if people accept all the other sexual practices, why draw the line at facials? Everyone is different. Response over reaction.

(Sorry for saying "you" before, it wasn't intended.)

Related information?

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

--Marta 63 14:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Substitute sex act?

It is OK to consider this act as a substitute sex act for those girls who are not yet ready to engage in other sexual activities. In my experience most girls like to remain passive while ejaculation on their face is occuring, mostly to avoid other areas, specially their hair, from receiving the semen

Yes of course it can be a substitute sex act I agree with the comments above i like my husband to straddle me when I am lying with my head on a pillow that way I can watch him mastubate or I can matubate him or suck him its sometimes hard not to get it in the eyes or hair but thats a minor problem when one considerers the great turn on when that first squirt hits your face.


Did anyone else catch this? It sounds like a corporate shill, but I don't get what they're trying to sell...--81.233.252.181 09:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pictures?

What, no picture to accompany the article? How are we young'uns supposed to learn if there are no visuals for reference? Tut. Sigh. Off now to watch more porn. Bye.

I don't really think sarcasm is necessary here. As for no picture, I think the description is more than adequate Welshy 20:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, sarcasm is completely inappropriate for a subject of this importance. Save that for something trivial. BrianH123 20:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

well,happy news,i have posted a picture.--Jayanthv86 11:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There must be pictures! That's right, multiple! --User:Elcella

Take out the picture. Its unnecesary. The topic is self explanatory; "Semen shot in the face". Remember this is an Encyclopedia, people shouldnt come to it to fullfil their kinky needs...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.204.135 (talk • contribs)

Agreee. The picture seems unnecessary. Anonymous6494 06:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of link

Removed the link to Facials. It is a pay site and not really relavent to the page as the topic is description of the act, not the act in pornography as such Welshy 20:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Silly

Much of this article comes across as silly. "Some people think it's disrespectful." "Others don't." "It's OK if both partners are into it." "Don't get cum in my eye." (OK, some of these are paraphrases.) And to cap it all off, "A facial may also occur accidentally." (not a paraphrase) Why don't we just say what a facial is and leave all the angst out of it? BrianH123 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I trimmed the article. Hope no one is upset. BrianH123 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Bukkake

The addition about strawberry shortcake is the common term that is actually used for the act described. If the strawberry shortcake description doesn't belong here, then the bukkake description is unnecessary as well, as I believe it has its own article.

"Strawberry shortcake" is a fictitious sexual practice, is it not? There are bukkake videos. Do you know of any strawberry shortcake videos to substantiate that this is a "real" practice and not a joke? But go ahead and delete bukkake from the article if you want -- I almost did so myself. BrianH123 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
bukkake has it's own article so it isn't needed in this one. I don't know of any strawberry shortcake videos but I believe they would be of questionable legality because of the violence. There are entries in slang dictionaries on strawberry shortcake in slang dictionaries such as urban dictionary, although I acknowledge that that is not a reliable source. Also this entry is incredibly brief after taking out the bukkake information as well. maybe it should be just put into the oral sex entry and deleted?
This page has a whole list of these humorous but fake (I think) sex acts. If you add Strawberry Shortcake, I guess you should add Angry Dragon as well. I thought about your suggestion of deleting the page and putting the content in Oral Sex, but didn't want to go that far. Maybe others have some additional content they want to add that has to do with facials per se but isn't just a bunch of angst about whether they're proper, how they can happen accidentally, etc. For example, the first porno to depict a facial, the prevalance of the activity in various cultures, etc. BrianH123 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Pharrell1's favourite

Or so i heard.


Merge with cum shot?

Seems redundant. —Casey J. Morris 02:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The acts are related, obviously, but are not the same. It's all about where the semen ends up, I suppose. Juan Balboa 18:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Male Domination?

"...some believe that if the partner is a female, the act may be one of male domination". It seems that it may be an act of male domination regardless of the partner's sex.--Son of Somebody 14:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The link to a BDSM-related article is misleading, I think. Maybe I'm wrong, but I believe that the term "male domination," in the context of the article, refers to the social (as well as sexual) subjugation of women to men. Mike1981 17:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Definitely needs pictures

take out the picture. The topic is self explanatory; "Semen shot in the face". Remember this is an Encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.237.204.135 (talk • contribs)


if copyright is an issue i have many pictures of my wife taking a "facial." i would be happy to share these since the pictures are "area specific" (chin, cheeks) and you cannot tell who she is.

shrugs If you upload them under GFDL, sure. —Nightstallion (?) 17:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
We do not post pornography on Wikipedia. Michael 03:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm, check out the actual article on pornography. Also, please see WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_censored. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Umm, Wikipedia:not censored is not a license to violate pornography laws, which in the US (where our servers are based) requires things like model release forms and gate-keeping to keep people under the age of 18 off the site. Wikipedia:not censored is simply a legal disclaimer in case somebody *does* upload something illegal and we haven't caught it yet. If we do include pornographic images, we should linkimage them. Johntex\talk 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel the picture is necessary? Michael 03:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel the picture is unnecessary? I fail to see how an image of semen on a woman's face will be problematic. Juan Balboa 18:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from providing an instant visualation of the text much of the article is about whether the act represents male domination. The image is taken from the perspective, of what some, would consider a dominate male position (man standing, women kneeling)and therefore helps the reader reach their own conclusion as to how dominating the act is. Multiple pictures are probably excessive and uncessary but a single photo is OK. Publicgirluk 06:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

  • I have set up the image so that anyone can see it by clicking on the link, but the image does not appear without the conscious decision to view the image. This should help us stay within the law. Johntex\talk 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Which law are you referring to? The one about not tickin' off the prudes? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 11:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
There is no reason to call anyone "prudes". In the United States, where our servers are based, it is illegal to provide pornographic images to minors. People could innocently stumble across this article at school or at work. Remember that it is easy to write a wikilink that doesn't even give the full name of this article. Giving those readers a chance to read what the term means, consider if they are legally allowed to view the image, then click on the link makes good sense. Johntex\talk 02:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Linkimage is a sensible editorial compromise, but the whole "Wikipedia provides pornographic material to minors" argument is pretty weak. Federal laws pertain to the commercial distribution of pornography to minors, not to non-profit educational use. Even if someone were to commercially distribute the offending article (in its current revision) they would face roughly the same risk of prosecution as National Geographic. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:19, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
You might be right. I think it is better to err on the safe side since it so little extra work for a reader to choose to see the picture. I am happy you are OK with the compromise. Johntex\talk 22:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
It's not just about US law. Whatever Wikipedia's actual practice, we can't ignore the fact that pictures like this are things that people don't generally expect to find in an encyclopedia. Since some/many people find the sight of the act rather disgusting or shocking, it is likely that some/many might want to read something encyclopedic about it without actually seeing a graphic photo of it, or at least without the photo popping up like this. At least they should be given a choice. The article on diarrhea doesn't have a picture of somebody having a diarrhea; the reason is apparently that there have been fewer editors who like the sight of the process and consequently want to impose it on everybody else. --194.145.161.227 11:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

That's great guys.Now it's apparent you dopn't want kids looking at porn, can you all go over to the article on the male erection and do the same to the photos showing a penis? That would be great! 74.65.39.59 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Responding to those saying a picture violates certain rules of Wikipedia, take a look at the pearl necklace page with full picture included.

Societal Attitudes

It seems to me that first paragraph of this section is the only one that is on topic (i.e., society's attitudes toward facials as sex acts). The rest of the section deals with facials in pornography, and is replicated almost verbatim in the Critiques of cum shots section of Cum shot. To me, its inclusion here is decidedly *not* NPOV. It doesn't seem reasonable to consider a facial as pornographic (with the usual negative connotations) just because many (maybe most) pornographic cum shots are facials. To ramble on to the conclusion that a facial, by extension, is "...implicitly violent...eroticized hatred" is ludicrous.

To me, a facial is a sexual act between (usually) two people -- nothing more, nothing less. If one of those people has a serious problem with it, just don't do it. The same goes for oral sex, anal sex or anything else. Either a partner is compatible, or at least willing to participate, or they're not. If not, live with it or find a different partner.

Without any studies (and I haven't seen any) to quantify the prevalence of facials in a given society, I think it's difficult to say what societal attitudes truly are. So what we're left with is "some like it, some don't". Everything else is POV, and does not belong in the article.

Comments are welcome.

--NotThatJay 05:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and have boldly revamped the whole section. I removed much that seemed POV and restructured what was left. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

"Much depends on the positioning of the couple as to how dominating the act may be. The classical dominating position is with the female kneeling at the feet of the standing male and masturbating him while maintaining eye contact."

I suspect that these are an editor's personal reasonings, so I'm moving them here until they're sourced per WP:NOR. Of course, I am partly motivated by the fact that I partly disagree with them, but that's another story.--194.145.161.227 11:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Techniques section

I have removed the section below from the article page because it has been two months since I requested citations for the material in the section, and there has been no attempt to supply references. Per the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy,

  1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
  2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
  3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

By that policy, the naterial below may be turned to the article only when it can be verified from published reliable sources.

Techniques
{{unsourced}}
A man can either perform intercourse or receive fellatio and withdraw his penis before ejaculating and position it near his partner's face or masturbates (himself or by his partner) to orgasm with the penis positioned close to the partner's face. The ejaculate is sometimes partially directed into the mouth. Since semen can sting the eyes, receivers may close their eyes or ask their partners to avoid the area. If the receiving partner is female, the act may be seen as an act of male domination. Much depends on the positioning of the couple as to how dominating the act may be. The classical dominating position is with the female kneeling at the feet of the standing male and masturbating him while maintaining eye contact. Many men find it exciting if she smiles or extends her tongue while waiting for her partner to ejaculate. A facial may also occur accidentally during an act of fellatio, where the partner recoils with the first ejaculation into their mouth such that subsequent ejaculation land on their face.

If the above material is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, then it should be fairly easy to find reliable sources and cite them. If it is not verifiable from reliable sources, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 14:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The illustration

Couldn't we get someone to draw a better picture? The woman in this picture looks surprised to find herself with load all over her face. She should have her eyes closed, maybe even a wry little smile on her face. Right now she looks like she feels violated. It almost looks like a cartoon frame--like from a Batman comic book gone horribly wrong. Either that or it looks like it is out of a MERCK medical manual. We can do better. Questions, comments, concerns, or to just sound off, write a little something underneath this. We need to clear this up.

I concur. After all the work in getting the text to be somewhere near NPOV, this drawing has a decidedly POV anti-facial look to it. If we need to have a graphic -- and I'm not sure we do -- a neutral (not necessarily smiling, but not shocked or frowning, either) photo would be a whole lot better than this drawing. --NotThatJay 01:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Jay. This is the first time someone has actually agreed with me on Wikipedia--maybe even the entire WWW (including forums, MySpace groups, or YouTube comments).
Aren't there any public domain resources for erotic images on the Net? I experimented with modifying a very nice picture the origin of which I don't know, but is any amount of modification enough (copyrightwise)?
Well there WAS a picture.....that was donated under the GNU license so it was public domain......but it was removed.....I think Jimbo coughed or something...... --RaggTopp 02:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
can you link to the talkpages related to that image?--BMF81 21:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Why would you want to do that? Trevor GH5 00:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I put the drawing behind a linkamge along the lines of the discussion several sections up. Johntex\talk 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I suppose an actual pic would be too gratuitous. Trevor GH5 12:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Related terms

Is bukkake even a related term considering it is not at all restricted to the face, but is just generaly the location of said act? Doddsie

What the fuck?

That picture is fucking retarded. Why the fuck is that guy's helmet salmon colored. And that woman is just creepy looking. She's looking at the audience from the corner of her eye.

Yeah dude's helmet is cherry red, maybe it's some kind of infection. Lol. Trevor GH5 11:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate picture

The picture is hilarious, but looks like he dumped his load in her mouth, and then she spat or dribbled it on her own face. And we all know dumping it the mouth is not a facial. This is misleading for any confused children that might want to learn about this wonderful act of disrespect, please remove it. (lol) Howboutpete 14:10, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Trevor GH5 01:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

"... legitimate."

"Many practitioners enjoy the act and assert it as legitimate."

What a ridiculous statement! Exactly what does it mean? What makes a sexual act "legitimate" or not? Who decides?

Even sexual acts which are against the laws of a given country are "legitimate" between consenting adults.

81.178.212.236 19:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

FOP —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.212.236 (talk) 19:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

? Trevor GH5 03:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
What is "FOP"? Trevor GH5 00:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm just a wild guess, but I think its a swear word F**K *FF PR**K! Mike33 13:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
let's see...FOP. Trevor GH5 16:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
BEST lol all day another wikibiz.com site lol!!!!! kewl ;-) Mike33 18:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Picture is back

my fave pic is back to descibe the article. Although lovely but dim asked me if the penis was a lipstick?! I think chris that composed the pic mis cool. Just want him to make 3 pix about strawberry shortcake! Thank you Chris u are a star and the picture is cool. Mike33 05:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The picture is disgusting, redundant and puerile —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wideheadofknowledge (talk • contribs) 02:12, June 7, 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.