Talk:Jock sniffing

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I consider this article's existance to be valid; however, a how-to in this instance might not be quite on topic. I don't think that encyclopedias are battlegrounds for appropriateness in that they provide an unadulterated, mostly objective snapshot of a given subject. In any event, I removed the equation between paraphilia and "safe sex" since non-penetrative sex is definitely a great way to spread disease. For example--not to be graphic, but--anything that comes in contact with the anus has the potential to transfer Hepititus A, which is not substantivly safe sex. Triptenator (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it really necessary/appropriate to list methods of sniffing a jockstrap? This is an encyclopedia entry, not a howto. I also think the controversy section is an unnecessary and unbalanced copy of information on the Paraphilia page. Edwards 22:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is the creepiest thing I've ever seen. Please please PLEASE do something about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Afrohead (talk • contribs) 10:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This page does not need to exist. Aside from being downright creepy, it contains very little actual encyclopedic content. Therefore, I'm proposing that we merge this entire page into the the underwear section of Garment fetishism. Edwards 02:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Addendum: This page is composed of two distinct kinds of content: very general information about garment fetishism and paraphilias, and fancruft. The former can be merged into the appropriate page, and the latter can be discarded. Edwards 02:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to read "creepy", read the Wikipedia article on "Donkey show" which includes a "how-to" craftily disguised as a "description". A link to a pic of a woman apparently sitting on a donkey's penis is included. We should exercise our indignation upon something other than an innocent, harmless, and legal safe sex practice like jock sniffing. May I suggest bestiality and cruelty to animals for starters?—Preceding unsigned comment added by TimmyTruck (talk • contribs) 17:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) TimmyTruck 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try and hide this (blanking talk page, removing mergeto template). This merge is obviously controversial, therefore it will be discussed, and a consensus will be reached. I'm adding my propsed merge to the list of Proposed mergers. Edwards 21:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

This topic isn't controversial at all -- only to you. It's obvious you have problems with sex and wish to suppress it. I doubt if this is the first sex related article you've attacked at Wikipeida. So close the topic down. You'll feel better for doing so. That's the important thing. TimmyTruck 09:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Frankly, I don't find anything objectionable in this article, although a minor cleanup might be in order. --ざくら木 15:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Quite simply, I don't think there's enough actual content on this page to warrant its own independent page from Garment fetishism. As it stands, it's largely one person's pet page in need of a clean up by a third party. IMO, a full cleanup (e.g. removal of obvious dupe info like the Controversy section, and boiling down the highly repetitive "common methods" section) would reduce the page to a stub that would be better off as part of a larger article. Edwards 20:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I see your point. I guess that would be best after all, so my vote goes to merging this article. --ざくら木 21:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you betrayed yourself, Edwards when you initially said the article was "creepy" and then tried to cover your tracks by falling back on technical details about Wikipedia editorializing. You've had a "gut" reaction to the article ("Oooo, this makes me sick! It's disgusting! It's creepy!") and want to get rid of it on that basis alone. There are lots of disgusting topics at Wikipedia yet they can't be dumped because some people find them disgusting. The article is fine as it stands with perhaps some minor clean up. My own research indicates jock sniffing is not uncommon and the article is not fancruft simply because jock sniffing is "creepy" for you. Pancakepatty 20:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I do think this article was creepy. I found the section on common methods unnecessarily descriptive. There were several instances of POV wording that acted to support jock sniffing in a way I'm not OK with on Wikipedia. Maybe it doesn't need to be merged into a larger article. I've tried to clean up the page to be more encyclopedic. I haven't just deleted what I don't like, I've rewritten parts with the goal of providing information on Jock sniffing, without having a bias. I'm not into sniffing jockstraps. That's my POV. Anyone who edits this page who is into it, also has a POV. Thus, we must compromise, so we can have an informative article without bias. Sound alright? Edwards 20:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Pancakepatty, why is it that you and TimmyTruck seem to edit similar articles, like those related to Lassie? The similar file names of these two images ("Lovely Ruth" & "Lovely Bee") in particular seem odd, especially since they were uploaded by two different people... Coincidence? --ざくら木 21:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Justification for my edits

Common methods: I rewrote this section as a couple of sentences in the description section. The existing section was highly repetitive and was easily boiled down to a concise description of the method as opposed to listing all the possible ways of holding a jockstrap while sniffing it. Controversy: I removed this section because most of its content could be easily found on the Paraphilia page. This was content that applied to all paraphilias, and did not need to exist in multi-paragraph form in this specific article. I added a sentence to the introduction explaining both the deviant behaviour side and the safe sex side. Edwards 20:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UrbanDictionary

I question the relevance of including that fact that Urban Dictionary has multiple definitions for "Jock sniffing". 76.0.93.233 00:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relevance of Urban Dictionary

It's relevant. It establishes the fact that the term is not a neologism coined for this article. 'Jock sniffer' and 'jock sniffing' have been used pejoratively in the sports press for some time. I remember hearing the term used at least 10 years ago in reference to a sportscaster in my area. I believe the term dates back to the days of Billy Jean King and Bobby Riggs. I recall hearing the term on late night talk shows. The term suggests homoeroticism, not necessarily nor strictly homosexuality.

Jock sniffing is about ODORS from the male sexual areas transmitted to the jock sniffer via an unlaundered jockstrap. Jock sniffing is legal, harmless, and a safe sex practice in an age of deadly sexual diseases.

Jock sniffing is NOT strictly a garment fetish and the article should NOT be merged with an article about garment fetishism. Jock sniffing is an olfactophilia/osmolagnia paraphilia. Jock sniffing is about ODORS rather than garments. Garment fetishism is NOT about ODORS. It is about garments - principally wearing them or looking at someone else wearing them.

Jock sniffing is certainly not a common practice among males but it is not so infrequent as to be summararily merged in an article about a distantly related paraphilia. As noted in the article, jock sniffing is an oft encountered element in gay art and literature. Jock sniffing should have its own space at Wikipedia. TimmyTruck 04:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] removed image

The subject of this article is not something that needs to be seen to understand. The image is gratuitous and was most likely added for the jollies of the image subject rather than anything else. --Marcg106 (talk) 03:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)