Talk:Fisting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fisting article.
Article policies
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
It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool (FIST) may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Contents

[edit] first section

I am not worrying about this sounding trivial. "Fisting" needs disambiguation. I came across the word in a salon.com article in a context that I knew was not sexual (well, there may have been a double entendre.) In fact, while I could tell from the context what the author meant, I wasn't entirely sure she was using the word correctly. So I came to Wikipedia. After scanning this article I looked it up in an online dictionary. In any event, Wikipedia is my first choice. Disambiguation should have referred me to Wikipedia's dictionary.

Perhaps this may sound trivial, but when Noah Webster was confronted with a complaint that he had defined a presumably obscene and offensive term in his dictionary, he replied "Ma'am, if it's offensive to you, why did you look it up in the first place?" In other words, no one would look up fisting if he or she didn't already have some inkling about what it is.

Uh, does this really need to exist as an article? I mean, if this is accepted then you're opening the door to a whole lot of even more wacky things--like snowballing and worse. My vote (like that matters) is to kill this. -- 206.156.242.36

Look, what do you need a dictionary for: You are working on some thing or come to one topic by chance, or you want to understand something. You go to your dictionary and you get information. Today I wanted to know something about fisting, so I used wikipedia. I think it is perfectliy legitimiyed. I learnd something, the same way I would on other topics. I do not see that any sexual article should be removed. (Especially in Science we need freedom to do research). What is necessary on sexual articles is a distant and objective language as in all dictionariey articles. FOr this Article this is the case.

Davoud Taghawi Nejad


I would like to read an article on snowballing. But I really only know the definition, which would make for a bad stub, so I won't write it. (I haven't even ever done it myself.) -- Toby 07:17 May 2, 2003 (UTC)

Chasing Amy only grossed $1.642m. It is a stretch calling any scene in this film "famous" and it is a stretch claiming this movie widen public knowledge. Kingturtle 08:27 May 1, 2003 (UTC)

It did pretty well on the rental market like a lot of indie films tend to. One might as well suggest El Mariachi isn't a famous film because it grossed nothing at the box office when it was absolutely huge on the VHS sales market and was more-or-less responsible for starting Robert Rodriguez' career as a director (Desperado, Spy Kids, Once upon a time in mexico, Sin City, and so on and so forth). --81.104.23.228 08:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an open content project. It has no limits of "decency" other than those prescribed by law. If you continue to remove legitimate text from articles, you will be treated as a vandal, i.e. your changes will be reverted and you will quite possibly be banned. --Eloquence 13:34 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Seconded. "you should use your judgement, user 212, or become an administrator". Adminstrator privileges are neither here or there. While I find the fisting article distasteful (judgement), I don't think the content should be removed because of that or because it will offend some ill-defined group or my decency. ²¹² 13:36 29 May 2003 (UTC)

We have no problems with the article (being raised from very tolerant Norse parents) - however we feel that the article will be used as example that the editorship of Wikipedia does not work, by those who want to discredit the fine project of wikipedia, and we are concerned it will endanger the cooperation of decent editors and administrators, maybe the funding of the whole project - it has nothing to do with "free speech", it is just the question: do we really want such content in the encyclopedia (An Erik --Eloquence: uns gefallen Deine Beitraege sehr gut, findes Du nicht, dass auch sie durch solche Gehalte gefaerbt werden?) Viking 13:52 29 May 2003 (UTC) (a group of students, teachers and professors)

Come to that, there are plenty of articles that might be considered distasteful, offensive, vulgar, etc. etc. but I think it would be a definite step backwards to remove anything that could potentially be so. An encyclopedia is a collection of knowledge, and its editors do a greater disservice when they remove that knowledge on the basis of possible offense. I'd say we most certainly want such content in the encyclopedia. -- Wapcaplet 14:00 29 May 2003 (UTC)
As editors we are not interested to remove interesting knowledge, but we have the liberty - and responsibility - to keep an eye on the suitability of the resource for education. If we are quiet about such content (as administrators) we agree that wikipedia will become a project only endorsed for use by adults, or endorsed be only a few. We do not think the benefit of holding this content is worth this risk - it holds also the risk of loosing wikipedia altogether. There is plenty of opportunity for the web cruiser to find in-depth information about fisting, but we will never point our students and children and colleagues actively to these spots - as we do currently with wikipedia
Viking 14:14 29 May 2003 (UTC)(a group of students, teachers and professors)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is primarily aimed at adults, and therefore contains articles on topics which are offensive to some people. A filtered children's Wikipedia would be entirely possible, by filtering out only "approved" articles from the adult version: you are welcome to start such a project: the source code and raw data are available for you to do so. Arthur Frayn 14:22 29 May 2003 (UTC)


Viking - Not to give you any ideas or anything, but why the obsession with Fisting, necessarily? Why aren't you blanking the articles on rimming, felching, Transvestic fetishism, etc.? How about Shock site? There are probably hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on Wikipedia (and in any encyclopedia for that matter) that are not appropriate for children. -- Wapcaplet 14:26 29 May 2003 (UTC)
many articles we edit, and nobody calls that filtering. we hoped that as a group we can produce a tastfull and serious product. Do we really need to host such content? apparently there are many who defend such and want it - we will give up now, it was a try of how good well meant editorship works on this media - but we will stop to cooperate or endorse wikipedia in the future - we do not give our names on the board overseeing a project which incorporates such stupid content - be happy with your fisting!
Viking 14:38 29 May 2003 (UTC)
Well, seeing as how Fisting, Talk:Fisting, your own and a couple other talk pages comprise the sum total of the "many articles" you have edited, I don't think many of us will miss your contributions. Feel free to return when you become interested in contributing. -- Wapcaplet 14:45 29 May 2003 (UTC)
why don't you become an adminstrator?
Viking 15:21 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Viking,

this issue has been discussed in some depth and if you would like to participate in those discussions, you are invited to do so by joining the Wikipedia:Mailing lists. However, there is a current consensus that articles in Wikipedia will not be censored based on the moral standards of a few. There are several reasons not to give in to those demands for censorship:

  • What is or is not "appropriate" is highly subjective. Some parents do not want their children to know about the various aspects of sexual behavior, other parents do, and encourage their children to experiment sexually and learn as much as they can about their bodies. It is not Wikipedia's mission to define any limits for parenting.
  • Wikipedia is not just a resource for children, but also one for adults. Adults can and should expect to find articles about subjects that interest them in an encyclopedia, instead of it being watered down according to some ill-defined standard.
  • The rules for what can be studied in schools and universities do not only vary by country, they vary by the regions in a country. If we were to abide by the smallest common denominator, we would probably have to remove 30-40% of content in Wikipedia.
  • Wikipedia's primary goal is to be an encyclopedia, not to be used in schools. If one goal conflicts with the other goal, the goal of creating a comprehensive encyclopedia has a higher priority.

If you want to create a children's Wikipedia, download the database, install the code and get started.

Oh, by the way:

tr.v. fist·ed, fist·ing, fists

  1. To clench into a fist.
  2. To grasp with the fist.
  3. Vulgar. To insert the fist into the rectum or vagina of (another) as a means of sexual stimulation.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

--Eloquence 14:41 29 May 2003 (UTC)

Viking, just to make a comparison: I would imagine that if you were to count articles about sexual behaviors, you would end up with 50 to 100 articles (see List of sexology topics). This is out of more than 120,000 articles on the Wikipedia: thus, less than 0.1% of our content refers to things you find objectionable. Compared with any bookstore or newsagent's shelves, the content of Wikipedia is at least 1 to 2 orders of magnitude less interested in sex than other media. Arthur Frayn 14:50 29 May 2003 (UTC)

that is about the number of articles we wrote for wikipedia (and many are well visited) - we were much, much more constructive than "destructive" - it is just a matter of taste, and of course there are borders, you will also find no hard core porn pictures on wikipedia. Just try to upload one and make an article about it. I am an sysop and we wanted to see what happens if a parent - which I am also - or an adult - which I am also - tries to do some good judgement editing on an ugly subject. If we would limit the article to about what is in Britannica or Webster there would be no problem - with this kind of unedited pornography we take possibilities from our project beyond the imagination of those who defend the stupid fisting page. We have not in mind a children's version only, but one that is attractive for everybody. I could have just erased the page, but I did not, because I am still confident that such content will slowly get pushed out or limited to some usefull lines. We tried today - with little success - I do not want my name associated with a public distribution of fisting, that is why I do not use my administrators name but viking - which I am also - on all other articles I have my name on
Viking 15:19 29 May 2003 (UTC)

I restored the reference to Crisco, since otherwise people might not know what "heavy vegetable grease" is -- I wouldn't have. But we need something better than a brand name that doesn't have an article on it (yet) and may not exist everywhere. If "heavy vegetable grease" is a standard phrase that can be made into the title of an article, then writing such an article and linking to it may be the best solution. -- Toby Bartels 12:41 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hmm? I would have thought that "heavy vegetable grease" would be grease derived from vegetables, and which has a higher than average density. :) Or am I wrong? Adding a reference to "Crisco" doesn't really help me, as I haven't heard of it. But from the context, I'm guessing it's some sort of heavy vegetable grease. ;) -- Oliver P. 15:25 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure that heavy vegetable grease has a higher than average density, but that doesn't relate to my past personal experiences very well. OTOH, Crisco -- ah, now I know what heavy vegetable grease is in practice! Unfortunately as you note, you've never heard of it, so I was probably right in my worry that it doesn't exist everywhere. So "Crisco" helped me a lot, but it doesn't help you at all; we still need something better. -- Toby Bartels 19:18 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, it's very little to do with density, if at all. "Heaviness", in this context, has much more to do with viscosity, or the mass of the individual molecules, if you want to go into details. -- John Owens 07:50 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Aha... Thanks for that explanation. I see that the matter is not as simple as I thought it might be. If "Crisco" helps the American readers understand what is meant, then that is a Good Thing. Perhaps an article on vegetable grease would be more helpful, with an explanation of the different types, and how their physical properties differ. Who on earth knows enough about vegetable grease to write an article on it, though? -- Oliver P. 12:11 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Not me, unfortunately. But I just remembered another common name for Crisco: "vegetable shortening". If I'd seen that, then I'd have thought of Crisco and known what it was. So, in the absence of anybody for whom "vegetable shortening" doesn't help as much as "Crisco", I'll change it to that. -- Toby Bartels 20:58 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Why was the text on spirituality removed? -- Toby Bartels 10:42 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"Vaginal fisting was exposed to wider public knowledge" (emphasis mine) seems an almost intentional pun. Anybody up to re-phrasing this? orthogonal 04:51, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Can someone review and delete what appears to be two items of vandalism about some person called "Buckmaster". Or am I being obtuse?

rturus 11:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] rewrite

On the whole, a very good re-writed Exploding Boy, though I too question why your removed Kingturtle's edit below, clarifying that drug use is not altogether that common or specific to fisting. Lestatdelc 23:52, Apr 11, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] drug use

"Although most participants in fisting do not partake simultaneously with recreational drugs..." really needs to be there. Otherwise, it looks like most fisting activity involves drugs. Kingturtle 22:46, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I removed that sentence because handballing (in particular) is associated with poppers. I thought the next sentence (...sometimes associated with...) covered the rest. Feel free to rewrite th3e above sentence so it's clearer and re-insert it. Exploding Boy 02:44, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
But plenty of handballing occurs among sober partners. More often than not. Kingturtle 05:58, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How about something like "Many (most?) people do not mix fisting with recreation drugs, but..." ? Exploding Boy 07:44, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)

That part I think is good, but how about changing "as a muscle relaxant is particularly associated with handballing." to... "as a muscle relaxant is at times associated with handballing."...? Since "poppers" are done recreationally for reasons other than handballing. Lestatdelc 23:29, Apr 12, 2004 (UTC)
What I meant was that poppers (more particularly than other drugs) are associated with handballing (more particularly than other forms of fisting). Exploding Boy 01:48, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)

Actually, while I've read about people using drugs in this context, I've never met anyone who did so, nor have the people I've talked to ever met anyone who has. It really isn't necessary to do so, as the level of discomfort associated with "getting used to" it isn't all that great if it's done gradually. Of course, some people actually do it for the discomfort. I've tried this with a recipient who had no prior experience with it, and I could get most of the way in on the first try without causing significant discomfort. Remember that one usually does not start this activity until the partner is significantly aroused, which makes it a lot easier to do.

A very important point not mentioned in the article, is that most sources clearly state that you should not use drugs in connection with this activity. Not under any circumstance. The reason is that it is reasonably safe, even if done violently, *provided* that you do not use anything to lower the sensitivity. There is a distinct difference between the pain associated with doing it roughly, and the pain caused by puncturing the rectum/colon, and while the risk is not great of doing so for the first 15cm or so, it is something you want to be aware of immediately if it should happen, as it should be treated in less than 2-3 hours. 212.169.96.218 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it a good idea to recommend using oil based lubricants in the same sentence as latex gloves? --Brockert 23:37, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Good point. Warning added. Exploding Boy 08:09, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, there is a great deal of association between fisting and recreational drug use, at least among the gay community. Poppers are certainly common amongst gay men who fist, but I would venture to suggest that Ketamine is one the most popular drugs within the gay fisting community. There are fisting clubs in the gay community. These are private affinity based organizations that meet on regular or irregular schedules. These gatherings can and do regularly consist of dozens of men at one time.

The gay community is a bit of a special case in this regard; they are not representative of the heterosexual or lesbian practicioners. Perhaps this has something to do with male behaviour and patience when greatly aroused? 212.169.96.218 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Separately- I should also mention that there are plenty of people who do in fact insert the fist in a clenched position, although this practice is generally know as 'punch fucking' and typically only occurs after a period of slow buildup in activity or as a climatic related activity. There is also a behavior commonly referred to as 'piston fucking' or 'jackhammering' in which one male parter inserts both his erect penis and complete hand and then proceeds to masturbate within his partners rectum.

Yes, punchfucking is more common than one might initially assume.
However, google does not turn up any useful information under the term jackhammering. Is there another term that is more common, perhaps? Off topic, links to information and material regarding that subject would be appreciated on my talk page ;)
A reference might also be added to the practice of inserting the penis into the rectum and the hand in the vagina, and subsequently masturbating. I haven't tried it, but my girlfriend knows a few that have.
These practices should probably be placed under a seperate heading. Any title suggestions? Zuiram 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Also separately- another significant medical risk that should be noted is that of damage to internal organs apart and aside from rectal or vaginal tears or ruptures. Also during case of extreme penetration, I have witnessed people in up to the shoulder, it is possible to stimulate primary nerve trunks in a way that may be fatal.

The main risk when progressing that far is actually associated with the sigmoid colon. The tissue here is often quoted as being about as strong as a wet paper towel, something a doctor I know confirmed. As no part of the arm is flexible enough to traverse the bend without changing the alignment of the sigmoid, something that should not be attempted by anyone whose knowledge of the subject derives from wikipedia, I think it would be best to ignore the problems associated with deeper penetration, and leaving it at a comment that the sigmoid is as far as it is "safe" to go without expert supervision and significant prior experience. 212.169.96.218 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
This link provides details about how to progress that far. You actually bend your arm, so you're obviously not going further up than the diaphragm. Zuiram 01:38, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be a annectdotal information section on wikipedia entries for people to chime in? -anonymous wikipedia reader

[edit] Picture Please

I am having difficulty understanding. Please include a picture. Guy La Douche likes pictures!

You might want to ask Rama, who does drawings of that sort of thing. grendel|khan 06:40, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Why are so many people narrow minded about the topic of fisting? If two or more people can have a fist in a safe and enjoyable manor, why should they be criticised? For the last five years I have been fisting by the fistful and find it to be very fruitful. All the women I have fisted enjoy it, i would never fist a woman who didn't want to be fisted. Us fisters are not rapers, or any kind of crass animals that many conservative, narrow minded people think we are. Many normal people like to fist! Keep fisten y'all!

are we allowd to put pictures of it here? Im sure my other half wouldnt mind as long as it cant be seen that it's her (not likley with the camera "down there"). spinnanz

My suggestion is quite simple, spinnanz. Take such a picture, taking great care that it has a "documentary" rather than explicit character, make a node with the name "Fisting_OPT_IN_Image", and provide a link in the text with the title "Click here for an illustrative picture. Warning! This picture may be offensive to some of the viewers of the article, and has therefore been moved to a seperate page." 212.169.96.218 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
A photo is not needed. Exploding Boy 18:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

A picture is needed. My reading makes me think that the subject of fisting would surely suffer enormous pain; if anyone fisted me, I think I would cry, go ballistic, and whatnot. This can't be pleasure; I think that it is pointless savagery and no fun.Patchouli 22:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, ha ha ha and all that. Without putting too fine a point on it, your personal opinion on fisting is irrelevant. We don't need a photo. Exploding Boy 23:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
While I think a photo would probably be a bit too much, general WP policy on good articles suggests a well-drawn line drawing, such as those appearing in infamous articles like missionary position, autofellatio, etc. would be a nice idea. Confusing Manifestation 13:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Exploding Boy, you're arguing against yourself. The only thing you've offered is your personal opinion (viz. "We don't need a photo"), whereas others have actually advanced reasons for including a picture. Thus by arguing against the importance of personal opinion, you support the inclusion of a picture. Anyhow, I think an image would be informative. I'd settle for a line drawing, but they are often enough a bit off that a photograph is preferable. LWizard @ 08:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is the height of hypocrisy. "Your personal opinion on fisting is irrelevant"? If that's true, than so is yours, Exploding Boy. Opinions aside, there have been several good arguments made for the inclusion of a photo, and I have really not heard any single solid argument why one shouldn't be included. (And 'ewww, gross!' or 'I don't want to see that' is not a solid argument.) Personally, provided that the photo was informative and accurate, I see no reason why it should not be included. With all due respect to the people who have done the line drawings for some of the other sexuality topics, they're a pretty poor substitute when anything more than gross anatomical positions are required. They're fine for giving the general idea of a sex position but nothing more. A good diagram would be better than a bad photo, but a good, well-labeled photo would be better than a diagram any day. That said, I have no personal interest in contributing a photo myself, but if someone else is willing and able, I think they should be allowed. --Kadin2048 19:12, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree. There is no need to add a picture to the article. *However*, it would be a good idea to link to one that is more illustrational than explicit. Adding a picture to the article itself would be offensive to a large segment of the viewers; just as looking up an article is "opt-in", so should the viewing of such an image be "opt-in". 212.169.96.218 15:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that a picture would be fine to put in, as long as it is:

a) not under copyright (as with all images - or if it is, with permission) b) less pornographic, more informative - maybe labelling

If the person opts to go and visit the page, as they are the one clicking the link toward it (unless the have the unfortunate luck of visiting the page through the random page option (less a 1 in a million chance)), then it is their own fault if they become offended. The picture relates to the subject matter. The picture is providing information that text on its own cannot. Pictures from war articles (e.g. the Armenian Genocide) are offensive to some people, and I personally find them disturbing, yet, if you want to become knowledgeable about such events/acts, then you will be presented to media that relates to it. Also, WP:NOT states that censorship is not a part of Wikipedia. Thus, from these reasons, I think that we should put an informative picture of fisting in the article. Chimpman 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

A picture can't harm the aritcle or the site, of course that depends on the type (i.e Hardcore etc). I'm all for a picture being added, either photo or line drawing.--5starsuplex 16:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Porn site link?

[http://korny.adultbouncer.com/category/fisting/fisting_movies.html Offer fisting adult movies] re-added by 200.164.122.107. Yank it or crank it?

I see it was yanked as SPAM.Dlohcierekim 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] legal things

"However, pornographic videos involving fisting are not allowed to be shown in England."

What is the source for this claim? LeBofSportif 23:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

The only source I could think of is censorship in the U.K, not just England.Just to note,I didn't add "However, pornographics videos involving fisting are not allowed to be shown in Endland".--5starsuplex 16:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] g-spot/prostate

check the g spot page for the problems with drawing direct analogy with the prostate

[edit] Vinyl Gloves

What is the reason for not using vinyl gloves? I don't think you can say that in the article without justification. tomohawk 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I have only ever used vinyl gloves with no problems. Perhaps it is more irritating? Or perhaps it is because some vinyl gloves are covered in a dessicant powder? Agree that it should be yanked from the article unless a source, or at least an explanation, can be added. Zuiram 23:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it has something to do with vinyl being more susceptible to breaking down with oil-based lubes, or being a porous material and therefore harder to clean? Not that either of those are necessarily true -- I'm just guessing. HalJor 03:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the Herrman reference I just added, "Vinyl gloves are better than nothing, but they...permit less sensitivity. They break down with standard wear from lubricants". I wouldn't consider this definitive -- he also says vinyl gloves feel scratchy and rough, which can be POV or based on the manufacturer. HalJor 19:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The reliability of vinyl (PVC) gloves will depend on the brand, the type of oil they have been exposed to, and for how long. Mineral oils are the least problematic. Cooking oils and fat are the worst. The oil draws out the plasticizer. However, there are some kinds of plasticiser that will not degrade in contact with oil. I usually use disposable vinyl medical examination gloves, and with the brands my local apothecary sells there has been no degradation, even after extended exposure to things like oil based lubricants, petroleum jelly (I know; don't use this) and skin-identical fat bases.
Sensitivity is reduced, this is documented by the medical community. I'm not convinced this is a big problem unless you're going for some fairly edgy play, however. Cleaning is a non-issue. You really don't want to reuse gloves.
I'm putting a cite tag in there, and will pull the reference eventually if noone objects. Zuiram 12:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incidence

"Due to the potential risks, lack of knowledge, perceived pain level and taboos, the number of people who engage in fisting of any kind is likely much smaller than for other sexual activities."

This looks like conjecture and without citation I believe it should be removed. Mefanch 20:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You could change it to likely smaller than for *many* other sexual activities. It is not something many people engage in, even within the BDSM and fetish communities, for the exact reasons he gave. I can't provide sources here, but I am speaking from experience with the community, and talking to people who perform various "odd" acts. 212.169.96.218 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate and personal comment

I can´t see what use the phrase "It is soooo pleasurable I love it when me do it to me!!!" has to the article.

Perhaps it should be removed.

85.53.0.230 00:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)Andy Nov. 20, 2006

It has been. --Chickenflicker---♣ 03:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sterility?

How would fisting cause sterility? There is no source F17 19:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's still "citation needed". HalJor 20:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this warning needs a qualifier. Being sloppy about the safety can, at least in theory, lead to a number of complications. The potential complications could be grouped into three categories, two covering "basic" fisting (properly done vs improperly done), and one covering "advanced" fisting. In any case, what the article is lacking, is a way for a novice or interested party to determine whether the kind of fisting they want to try fits their personal definition of acceptable risk.
Ignoring basic hygiene can cause serious infections, if you're unlucky and that is relevant to improper basics. Even properly done, however, it's possible to transmit STDs if you're not using gloves, and small tears etc. are not entirely uncommon, and that is relevant to proper basics. Violent edgeplay (high speed, ignoring pain, etc.) can lead to all sorts of complications if you get unlucky, or don't know what you're doing. Blunt trauma (cervical bruising, cervical prolapse) is not par for the course at the "basic" level ;)
Zuiram 13:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible OR

Until some of the {{cn}} tags are filled in, the facts can't be verified yet. So I put an {{Originalresearch}} tag there, that should be removed when enough {{cn}} tags are filled in. F17 09:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I added some references for some of the more obvious things, but it's a little ridiculous to require a reference for the statement, "For some men, fisting is pleasurable because it results in direct stimulation of the prostate", but not for the next sentences, "Men and women with very flexible bodies are able to fist themselves (self-fisting). Perineal massage, an exercise recommended to couples who are preparing to give birth, sometimes results in fisting." And why require a citation for "Pain and/or bleeding are warning signs of injury during fisting; significant bleeding could indicate a ruptured bowel or a major tear in rectal or vaginal tissue"? We have to draw the line somewhere, or we'd be forced to give citations for every sentence in every article. HalJor 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
F17, adding cn tags after every sentence makes no contribution to wikipedia. It mostly just makes articles unreadable and amounts to little more than graffiti. If you feel compelled to illucidate a particular articles lack of references, either research some references yourself or (sparingly) add an unreferenced tag to either the article or one particular section of the article you find most lacking. CheshireKatz 01:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
There appears to be consensus that some of these citation tags are superfluous, so I'm taking them out. If anyone wants to put them back in, please provide some rationale here on the talk page. Zuiram 13:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there was only one remaining. The stuff about UK might actually need a cite, though the UK being a bit ... conservative ... about this kind of thing seems fairly commonsensical ;)
Can we remove the OR tag now, btw? Zuiram 13:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External Link not working

As of this writing, January 29, 2007 (UTC) the external link in the article: http://bitchingandmoaning.org/archives/2005/04/fisting.php and the website http://bitchingandmoaning.org are server not found on Internet Explorer and Firefox 67.169.31.35 02:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long-term risk of anal incontinence

The German article has some information related to the risk of long-term consequences. This risk seems to be substantial enough to be at least mentioned in the article. There seems to be a real risk of sphincter damage which will show its effect only at an advanced age, when the musculature of the pelvic floor eventually dwindles. Many believe that, because anal fisting does not cause immediate continence defects, it was not damaging to the sphincter. However, as I understand the discussion in de:Diskussion:Fisting, this is an illusion: Sphincter damage, if existing, may go unmentioned as long as the pelvic floor musculature is still at its full capacity. The true extent of possible damage will only reveal itself at an advanced age, when the muscular system of the pelvic floor inevitably dwindles, thereby loosing its ability to support the sphincter. The level of the risk involved has not been systematically researched. However, clinical studies in the long-term effect of therapeutic anal dilation show, that here the risk of sphincter damage is quite high. (cf. Nielsen et al.:Risk of sphincter damage and anal incontinence after anal dilatation for fissure-in-ano. An endosonographic study. Dis Colon Rectum. 1993;36(7):677-80. PMID 8348852) --Johannes Rohr 08:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaginal Looseness

I'd like to see some reference in this article to whether or not regular fisting causes any long term or permanent change in elasticity to the vagina. However, (big surprise), I'm unable to find any studies or reliable resources. How can we address this topic in the article?

MariahBetz 04:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So basically you're asking how you can include original research into a wiki article.

[edit] fisting in North American porn

"Until the 1980s and 1990s, depictions of fisting were taboo in North American-produced pornography,..."

Is the above statement accurate? I have never heard of any mainstream porn films from the 1980's that contained fisting. From what I know I think it wasn't really until the late 90's that fisting made it's way in North American porn. --Cab88 04:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It needs a citation. (H) 13:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Viginal looseness is as loose as your mum when i put two of my size ten feet with those green wellington boots with the funny frogs eyes on the side of the boots (you know the ones i mean!!) up in her stretched viginal cavity.

Bosundave Responds: The answer to your first question is that the statement is 100% inaccurate. Please read my "Fisting in films and pop culture" at or near the bottom of this discussion page.75.202.91.115 08:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Insert non-formatted text here==Fisting in UK porn== Your article claims depiction of fisting is "allowed" in UK porn, which is untrue. So I changed this to state that it was prohibited, and to give my source ( http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/0/7CAA9A795456C702802572EC0030AD1E?OpenDocument ). A user reverted the changes saying that my source was "not valid". What is invalid about my source, and why do you claim that showing fisting is allowed in UK porn when it isn't? Now, obviously, the source I gave was just the BBFC comment on a specific movie, but it says quite clearly "Cut required to sight of fisting, in accordance with BBFC Guidelines, and in line with current interpretation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959". In other words, it is illegal to show fisting in UK films or videos. Also, go to http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/faqvideo.htm and search for fisting, where you'll find the statement that under the Obscene Publications Act "it is currently considered illegal to publish extreme pornography such as scat, bestiality, fisting and pissing". The specific statement here is referring to internet porn, but as the BBC source notes, the Obscene Publications Act applies equally to film and video. See also http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/guide05.htm ; see also http://www.bbfc.co.uk/website/Classified.nsf/ClassifiedWorks/54FBFB32C61FB3EC80257026004221F3 ; http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/bbfcdec.html ("virtually the only proscribed acts are now fisting, bestiality, and non-consensual sex"); http://www.bbfc.org.uk/website/Classified.nsf/e8ea0df3a881175480256d58003cb570/69bb30a53fdcfd9a802572ac003ff216?OpenDocument&Click= . Hope this helps. -86.146.46.45 06:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one who reverted all of your changes, back to the "fisting is allowed" and leaving the "citation needed" intact. The reference you included was indeed a BBFC comment on a movie, but it was not clear from that reference who BBFC is. Personally, I thought it was the film's distributor -- after all, the title of the film is "Bareback Spunk Frenzy", and BB is a common abbreviation for bareback (BBFC begins with BB -- "Bareback Film Company"?). Among the other links you include here, this one and this one are closest to what would be appropriate -- they don't appear to be BBFC-owned sites (now that I know who they are), but they do give some idea of the relevant guidelines. You're welcome to edit again -- the information you provide here is much more informative than what was in the article yesterday. I just wouldn't use film-specific references. HalJor 17:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the explanation. It's difficult, since I'm not sure whether the non-BBFC sites are regarded by Wikipedia as "reliable sources", but if they're taken in conjunction with the BBFC pages, and with the fact that the BBFC cuts are clearly applied regardless of film and mention the Obscene Publications Act (and bearing in mind that if a video is refused BBFC classification then it's illegal to sell or distribute it in the UK), the situation seems clear. However, we'd need a long footnote to explain that. I don't know if it's right to include such a long footnote or if it detracts from the main point of the article. In the meantime however, I am going to delete the statement that "fisting is allowed", since the evidence points in the other direction, and I suspect that the original author intended to include the word "not" anyway, and missed it out by mistake. -86.146.46.45 17:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fisting in films and pop culture

The statement "Until the 1980s and 1990s, depictions of fisting were taboo in North American-produced pornography" is totally and patently false. Little Orphan Dusty (1978), Anyone But My Husband (1975), Candy Stripers (1978), all depicted extreme fisting scenes. In Candy Stripers the guy's watch disappeared. If it wasn't waterproof, it was certainly ruined. Candy Stripers has ANOTHER fisting scene, this time girl-girl. This little girl gets in almost to her elbow which is bizarre enough until she inserts her OTHER hand. So PULEEZE do not say there were no fisting movies until the 80's. I believe there were DOZENS more made in the 70's. I cannot find a source for the date that fisting scenes were made ILLEGAL, but I believe it to be in the 1980's. 100% opposite of the stubs opening statement. I have used Wiki extensively for scores upon scores of topics. I have been incredibly impressed with the wealth and apparently highly accurate information...until now.

Except for a hidden Easter Egg in the Candy Stripers DVD, ALL scenes of fisting have been completely removed from current DVD releases of Porn from the 70's and from ANY year as well. Point and case is the huge scandal and trial over the 1999 video, Tampa Tushy Fest. All versions depicting the fisting scene were pulled.

Illegal bootleg copies on VHS or poor transfers to DVD +R are available of 70's fisting movies. But just try to go to a mainstream porn video store and try to get movies involving fisting scenes. You may get lucky, but it is ILLEGAL

.

If anyone can source out the date and reason the Feds made fisting scenes illegal, this ridiculous portion of the otherwise excellent Wiki article can be corrected.Bosundave 01:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstandings section?

I don't know why the anonymous user at 76.65.188.251 removed the Misunderstandings section without comment, so I am restoring it.

I do feel, however, that the section seems rather unencyclopedic. Personally, I am rather repelled by the entire topic and don't wish to spend time dwelling on how to rewrite / improve. I only stumbled on this page to confirm that another user was indeed doing nothing but vandalizing. -- Eliyahu S Talk 20:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I deleted it again. It basically has no reason to be there. Unless you want to argue for it.66.214.170.247 (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fisting in Popular Culture- problems

It seems as if someone vandalized this section. I haven't heard of this stuff- porn films about lesbian women dominating gay men(?), and how that promotes the "homosexual transgender agenda", or however it was phrased here- and I know I haven't ever heard people use the word "sodomite" in anything but a derogatory, POV way. Yes, I absolutely know that just because I haven't encountered it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but the sentences that mentioned it sounded strange in other ways as well. I don't know enough about this subject at all to be able to fix the article, and I've never done more than edit basic spelling/grammar mistakes on wikipedia, so... should that all be corrected, and is there a good way and a bad way to go about doing it?

   --Lauren  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.181.43.249 (talk) 04:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the sentences in question. It appears to me as both rambling and POV, and also nearly impossible to understand. --Taurik (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)