Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on July 22, 2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on May 8, 2008. The result of the discussion was no consensus.
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.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Censorship warning

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored.

Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.
Archive
Archives
About archives • Edit this box

Contents

[edit] Building consensus for the image

JeffGent, Prolog and others have argued that they "don't see consensus" for using Linkimage on this page, choosing to reinstate the image. I find this troublesome, because I do not see consensus for including the image on the page. Dalbury, 67.101.64.229, Force10 and particularly Johntex have each voiced concerns, and numerous users have removed the image outright or used the {{Linkimage}} template without discussion. The repeated removal and linking of the image, the repeated comments that the image should be removed demonstrate that many people have a problem with including this image on the page. The subsequent reinstatement and protest shows that we have no consensus, period.

The academic-style discussion above was interesting, but it largely skirted around the matter: many people want to read about this sexual topic, without having a photo of the aftermath of a sex act as an integral part of their reading experience. Of the people who object to this, I want to ask the following:

Are you kidding me? A visual is not needed to describe what ejaculate looks like on a persons neck. I can not believe something so graphic would remain on an educational website. This is completely unnecessary and bordering on offensive.

1) Including the image caters to those already comfortable with the topic, instead of those who are newer to the subject or more hesitant about the subject matter. If you believe this is the best choice, can you justify the loss of readers who will not read the page with the image inline, who would be able to educate themselves on the topic if the image required a click?
2) What is lost by requiring interested users to click to see the image? Can you demonstrate that this loss is greater than the loss of readers?
3) Can you demonstrate the necessity of the immediate accessibility of a photo of a young woman with semen dribbled on her?

Thanks in advance for helping build consensus. Joie de Vivre 15:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The image was inline and unchallenged for months before one user turned it into a link. Of course there will always be image removals on certain pages, such as this, penis, Muhammad, et cetera. These usually happen because users are not aware of our policies and guidelines. We do not censor because some people find some content offensive: "Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers."
Not having the illustration would make this article less informative. The linkimage template is also dislaimerish and gives the impression that the editors of this article have judged the image to be offensive, which raises neutrality concerns. Prolog 23:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
We are on the same page about not wanting to remove the image entirely. Regarding usage of the Linkimage template: I would like to point out that the Linkimage template has survived two nominations for deletion, so apparently there is consensus that it has legitimate uses. It is mainly used to provide a discretionary layer for individual images which are deemed by consensus to be disruptive to a significant number of readers if included inline. The repeated protestations here show that concern over this image bears legitimate weight.
The way I see it is this: this is an encyclopedia article whose primary purpose is to educate. Using Linkimage improves the educational value of the article, by increasing the number of readers who will be willing to read the piece. We can provide a text-based resource to those who want it and a photographically-enhanced version to those who wish to see it. We can help people who are otherwise uncomfortable with the topic to learn about it.
I don't see this as a censorship issue; because nothing is actually gone. The Linkimage template puts control in the hands of the reader by providing an interactive choice as to what images they see. I see a user-controlled option as particularly beneficial in this instance. Thoughts? Joie de Vivre 15:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
The template survived the Tfd's, but even many of those wanting it kept emphasized that it must be used carefully on consensus-basis. I do not think we should aim to educate when building articles, but only to provide free textual and visual information to the reader, whether he/she likes the presentation or not. Since this not creampie, the image is very unlikely to prevent the reader from concentrating on the text part. It could be a distraction to many but due to both personal and cultural differences, it is like that with many articles; Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy, Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse, etc. This project would be too large to deal with all the different objections anyway, but I think the neutral approach to all images and text is one of our strengths. Prolog 06:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As always, I strongly support the use of Linkimage for images of a graphic or potentially shocking nature, and I continue to do so here. I regard it as the best possible compromise between those who want the image freely available, and those who want it removed entirely. While it is undeniably true that WP is not censored, I've never regarded Linkimage usage as censorship because the image remains available to any that wish to view it. I would push for a consensus to use Linkimage in this article, but until we have one I will continue to revert those who delete the image entirely without joining this discuission. Doc Tropics 03:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This subject's name ("pearl necklace") is dependent upon its appearance, so, the inclusion of an image might help to illustrate this point. On the other hand, I agree that a graphic depiction of this nature might be distracting or off-putting to some readers, especially those who are accessing this article from a work or school setting, and who might not know what exactly to expect regarding the meaning of "pearl necklace" in a sexual context. I think Wikipedia should aim to balance informativeness with maintaining readability for a wide audience, and, the linkimage template is a good compromise. Also, I don't advocate widespread use of the linkimage template throughout sexuality-related articles, but, in a lot of such articles, the images are either diagrams or illustrations, and I think a distinction needs to me made between real depictions and fictional depictions (see Metawiki, Potentially offensive images). In this case, we are dealing with a real photograph, so perhaps we should base any editorial judgments around this distinction. -Severa (!!!) 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Would anyone object to using the linkimage template here? Several people have made thoughtful contributions regarding support of its usage. Joie de Vivre 03:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't oppose implementing the linkimage template in this article. What about everyone else? -Severa (!!!) 05:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been two weeks and no one has objected. I've instated the template. Joie de Vivre T 14:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I didn't noticed this discussion before. Yeah, I object the "linkimage", that's censorship. --BMF81 14:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
You have not responded to any of the points I made about accessibility. The linkimage template has survived two TfD nominations. It has a purpose. Joie de Vivre T 14:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't deleted, but many of the voters are against its usage. To use it on this soft image is quite silly...--BMF81 15:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the adjectives "soft" and "silly" adequately address the concerns about accessibility that several editors have raised. Joie de Vivre T

PS. When you said you got no abjection you forgot Prolog. Currently there's no consensus on linkimage, please don't reinsert it..--BMF81 15:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I asked again, waited two weeks, and when I got no response, I instated the template. In terms of consensus, currently there is no consensus to include the image either. Joie de Vivre T 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
considering the disputed status of linkimage in general, the need of consensus is on those that want it.--BMF81 15:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I object to the usage of the linkimage temoplate in general, but especially in this case. I have great difficulties in realizing what is offensive about the image, it is just white spots on some girls neck. The image should just be included as any other picture. --Morten LJ 17:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I fail to understand the debate. Hiding the image from the main page is censoring it, and Wikipedia isn't censored. Seems fairly straightforward to me. --Xiaphias 06:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

People likely to be viewing this article are those that would come here by choice. Also the image isn't exactly explicit; very little is shown. I can think of far worse representations, but this one is somewhat tasteful, the woman's breasts aren't shown, and nor is the man's penis. Overall I personally don't find this image offensive, it's illustrating something which is not easy to describe accurately. In summary, considering my first point I think the image should be shown by default.

From a technical point of view, the image would be shown if a user had JavaScript disabled or not available. Therefore i suggest such methods of hiding the image not be used (you can't rely on JavaScript being available) and only a plain text link be proveded to the image. — Lee Carré 00:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Look, the image is fine. How ELSE do you people want to describe it?. The 'hemisected' artists representation on intercourse is useless enough. Now don't tell me you want something like a pixelated monochrome artists representation of a pearl necklace in order to make it 'decent'. Look, I know the main thing is if a 'minor' sees it. But trust me, I'm 14. And A LOT of other kids I know have looked at porn and view it, (hardcore too), on a regular basis. They're not mentally messed pu whatever you claim. And the picture of the ejaculate on the womans neck is FAR MORE benign than hardcore pornography.

If you think it's innapropriate, then PLEASE don't visit this aricle. And hey!. Maybe someone who arrives here by accident (or ont). Might actually LEARN something, which is the whole point of Wikipedia isn't it?. Knowledge... and knowledge can't be spread if censored to protect minors. (If a 6 year old visits this page I doubt they'll even know what it is. Much less be able to read it.)

So quit worrying. It's really annoying. Sorry to go on am pseudo-rant there. But the level of censorship found in articles relating to sexuality on the English Wikipedia is a bit frightening. Nateland 17:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

As stated by numerous others, Wikipedia is not censored. As Lee Carre noted, the photo is cropped in such a way to make it reasonably tasteful given the subject. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Does the image contribute substantially to the body knowledge on this topic that the description does not? I thought that the image was unnecessary, and if the argument stands that it should exist (as opposed to that it should not be "censored"), then our efforts should be as forceful in adding other images to Wikipedia. For example, should we include images from "2 Girls 1 Cup" in the article?
On a second note, I would say that not everyone who visits this page is necessarily predisposed to seeing it. My mother, for example, has no idea what a pearl necklace is... and if she was doing her research, she might want to see an academic article on the matter but not a graphic depiction of the same. The difference between academic information and depiction is vast. Should we include a picture of a person eating feces in an article about eating feces? Don't we get the idea from the description just fine (assuming that we are competent writers)? I'm no prude, but just thinking of this academically. Just my $0.02.71.143.153.191 (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need for this picture. WIkipedia is turning into an escalating diorama of shrewdness. The servers are located in Florida, and I assure you Florida obscenity laws prohibit this image without disclaimer. One cannot simply post any such picture with no prior warning, especially when the title of the article could be commonly mistaken for a rather standard piece of jewelry. In absolute utilitarian terms I agree that the image carries information, but prudence is necessary here. Linkimage is not censorship, and no logical argument has or can be made to that effect. Linkimage is actually more in line with liberal philosophies than leaving the image as is, because it gives the user a greater degree of choice over what they want to see. I believe that forcing someone to view the image is nearly as bad as telling someone they cannot view it; in any case these two offenses are equal. Furthermore, there is no assigned proof that the model in the picture is 18 years of age or older, and without proper record keeping, under the latest federal statutes the image is illegal and prosecutable under United States law. It does not matter if there is consensus in the comminuty that she is over 18, the abscence of record is enough. It is also highly doubtful that this image would pass the Miller test, and so therefore is quite likely considered obscene by Florida law. I am sure there are hundreds of images such as this one on porn sites hosted in Florida, but the difference is that all of them are required to have records of their models, and all of them must have a disclaimer of adult oriented material. Pornography is clearly legal in Florida, and I certainly don't object to its existence when the law is followed; however I believe that this is a gross misuse of an academic resource, and at the very least linkimage should be used. The only consolation I can offer any of you is that no prosecutor cares enough about this to act on it, so th elaw will probably never be enforced here. Also, if you respond to this with a one line aside stating that "linkimage is censorship, WP is not censored" please be aware that you have made no appeal to logic of any kind and should carry no weight in this discussion. Furthermore, I believe those here who oppose censorship so vehemently do so not because they fear repression, but because it is a convenient catchphrase that aligns them with popular opinion. This entire article is also not framed within the scope of human sexuality in a way that is realistic. While some humans practice this technique in private, it is well known and well characterized that visual ejaculation techniques were perpetuated and popularized by pornography because it is more titillating to the viewer to have confirmation of the completion of the sex act. I think what we are compiling here is perhaps an extended profile of visual techniques in pornography, not articles that genuinely address human sexuality.


Whiteknight521 (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Revert War

Ok folks, clearly there must be another dispute resolution than a revert war, no? Otherwise the page is just going to eventually get locked Baiter 04:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The consensus has previously been to keep the image on the page, various IPs and user remove the image and I revert to enforce this consensus. None of those persons has apparently taken up the discussion on the talk page. --Morten LJ 07:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Something to note. A couple of people have cited WP:NOTCENSORED in support of the image, which is fair enough, but they seem to be missing a very important page which is one link away from that one - WP:PROFANITY, which states: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. Given that this is a pornographic image (and it is) and that it appears at the very top of the article (a shock to anyone who may have clicked the 'random page' button), I think we should seriously consider removing the image. --carelesshx talk 00:19, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I have two objections to your argument:
  1. You state that the image is pornographic as if this is the absolute truth. I think the vast majority of people in this world does not find this image arousing (I don't). The definition of pornography is a representation with the intent of sexual arousal.
  2. The nutshell of WP:PROFANITY states: "Wikipedia articles may contain profanity — but only for good reason. ..." The text goes on in the same lines stating that images that might be offensive should be removed if and only if their removal does not remove information from the article. A picture in this article is essential to visualize the subject of the article and can thus not be removed with reference to this policy. --Morten LJ 07:47, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


Whatever happened to good taste? Can we at least pretend that wikipedia is a wholesome site suitable for viewing by all people? Show this picture to any other person and they would cringe at its crudeness. Stop trying to defend an offensive picture with your smoke and mirror arguments. Clear writing = clear thinking. This picture is offensive and unnecessary. Gregiscool14 05:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The picture is not offensive to me, should your concepts of good and bad taste be imposed on me? --Morten LJ 16:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
If we let every halfwit delete a picture because it's offensive, we'd have no pictures left because everyone would find something offensive and delete it. Vampire Warrior 22:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The picture is not offensive it could be milk and I couldnt tell the difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Blizzard King (talk • contribs) 22:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this image is unnecessary and downright gross. We don't need pictures showing semen on a woman's neck to explain what this particular sex act entails. I don't see why we couldn't use an illustrated example, such as the former graphic used on the cream pie article. I think a drawn image would be much less revolting. Bottom line, the image is not necessary and it is unseemly.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weenerboy (talk • contribs)

However distasteful I may find the image, these things are settled by consensus in Wikipedia, and a consensus does not exist to remove the image. -- Donald Albury 12:54, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the picture quite informative because it conveyed exactly what the term 'pearl necklace' meant. After seeing the image there was no real need to actually read the description in the article. It certainly should stay on here 86.80.122.213 (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC) LCV

Agreed. Wandered into the article after seeking the definition of a rather more obscure sex act. Not only is the image immediately informative as to the nature of the act, it's downright pleasant as compared to a couple other sexuality-related articles I've visited. The subject is attractive and if not for the context it might simply seem a messy and poorly cropped portrait. 203.171.75.177 (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] PORN?! On MY wiki?!

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.26.128.109 (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more likely than you think. Fantom (talk) 21:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wiktionary Item

After the first sentence, or being generous, the first two sentences, the text of this article is just unencyclopedic chit-chat. The Wiktionary entry covers the topic, and this Wikipedia item is unnecessary.

What do other editors think?

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs clean-up (feel like being bold Wanderer?) but I think there is decent article potential here, with enough people chipping in. Baiter (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think it has zero potetntial. The definition and categorization of slang is for a dictionary. I have initiated the deletion process. DeeKenn (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

There are quite a few short stub/start-class articles that are quite related. The practice of Bukkake is, for example, very similar to Facial (sex act). So here's my proposal. We should merge the following:

under the article title of "External Ejaculation" (with proper redirecting from all relevant slang terms, of course.) What do you think, both about the proposed merges and the name of the unifying article? Thanks for your input. clicketyclickyaketyyak 23:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

What about merging facial, bukkake, and pearl necklace together? Merging the ejaculation-targeting sex acts would make the most sense to me. Thoughts? DeeKenn (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking that a merger here is possible. I see a lot of growth in the "Facial / Sex Act" Genre. The only way to apply the group format may be to tell a brief hypothetical story of a young lad and and perhaps a Milf. The Lad may have been seduced by the Milf and her over-sized mammaries which inevitably led to Mammary intercourse. The lad appeared to have no choice but to offer the Milf a Pearl necklace (sexuality) but instead made a courageous move to blast the Milf with a Facial (sex act). If I can get someone to go over that and insert Bukkake at some point then I think we can close the book on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.214.43.65 (talk) 09:41, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- All of these articles should NOT be merged. I agree some smaller merges may be appropriate, (such as Facial (sex act) & Bukkake), but that should be proposed and discussed separately from this suggested 4 article merge. Kingadrock (talk) 19:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)