Talk:Sexual slang/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

Contents

Murder, not sex.

I removed "Very Unhappy Ending" from the page because this is not a sex act, it is an act of murder. (This is the act of having sex with a woman then killing her as the killer comes.)

--Victor

Um...

Why, on May 21, 2005, at 4:30 PM GMT -8, does the article say simply, "dyke!"?

i am a fan of michael jackson one of the greatest artists ever i feel very its very offending that his name is used under Pedophilia please concerned people remove it. many thanks.

On deletion and so forth

Why did 212.135.252.149 remove "grinding the wode" a recognised term for male masturbation in the South of England - derived from the Saxon tradition of apply wode mixed with semen as a war paint to scare enemies

I remember Larry's deletion of a page similar to this one without discussion. Do we need to discuss now to erase this one?II

I noticed that there used to be an old one, which was subsequently deleted. This page was then created, simply to provide a place to the slang which had later re-appeared on the Penis page somehow. There seems to be no real consensus around here??? People scream "free speech" if you remove it and "that offends me" if you don't....
Since when did enteries have to be non- offensive? To whom - everyone? Would you like to see a list of pages I consider "offnsive"? Andy Mabbett 14:22, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is dreary rubbish. Please delete.

Why? I see nothing wrong with it. If it's not interesting to you, well, you don't have to read it. --Camembert

I don't see why this should be removed. What would be better would be if we could explain where the slang terms come from. But these terms do exist and we have a right to have a page mentioning it. JTD 21:06 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with JTD; they don't omit this stuff in a paper encyclopedia --Merovingian

It needs to include actual descriptions of their use but the bare list is also useful. JamesDay 11:08, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This stuff would be better off in Wiktionary. Feel free to set list & definition pages up there and include a link. --Brion 11:18, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Critics, give it some time. Advocates, give it some substance. E.g., i'm adding blowing rock & will be linking it appropriately. That is mostly bcz i want
Blowing Rock is also a euphemism for fellatio.
off the page that will soon be Blowing Rock (land feature); i'll be disappointed if this avenue for handling such contributions is lost. --Jerzy 14:42, 2003 Dec 1 (UTC)
I guess this is what's called a historical note: I got conned by a vandal, and the entry and page i referred to just above resulted. I've removed the entry here and the page is on VfD with 3 Del votes & no Keeps. Sayonara. --Jerzy(t) 18:19, 2004 Apr 1 (UTC)
I agree with Brion, this belongs in Wiktionary.--AstroNomer 05:24, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

there is no place for censorship in the wikipedia, this page must stay for the good of humanity.

This belongs in wikibooks, doesn't it? Citizen Premier 04:14, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Remarks on specific terms

Is the term sex worker really a slang term? I hear newsreaders often refer to prostitutes as sex workers. SimonMayer 14:15 18 Feb 2004 (GMT/UTC)

Indeed, my impression is that "sex worker" is the exact opposite of slang. It's usually used as the polite term for prostitute, not the crude one. [ Jerzy notes that the above contrib is from User:ShaneKing.]

Sex worker is not a polite term (the polite term is prostitute and the euphemism is or was call girl or street walker accordingly; "sex worker" is too tied to de-facto slavery to be polite), but rather

  • in origin, a technical term of sociologists and social workers and perhaps clinicians, whose definition none of us probably precisely understand. (Does it cover strippers? Lap dancers? Sexual massage practitioners who merely masturbate their customers? I think it includes pornographic actors of both sexes, who psychologically and (at least in some jurisdictions) legally are not engaged in prostitution; it may include pelvic models at medical schools, and the off-duty prostitutes that Masters and Johnson hired for (IIRC) their dildo-cam research; it may include the sex therapists who are usually described as "legitimate" as opposed to those who are usually described as "so-called" or with quotes around the term. Is this stuff in a sex worker article?)
  • when used ironically, e.g. the way Letterman might in his monologues, pretending to be polite, it is slang, just as non-technical use of "waste management" or (repetition of the old Ed Norton gag) "subterranean sanitation" is slang.

--Jerzy 20:53, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)

Actually, "sex worker" is often used by "prostitutes" themselves as a preferred term, for example:

What does this mean? lunchbox (UK, especially of Linford Christie), Gbleem 08:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lunchbox is the general shape of male athletes' private area, which can be observed when they are in their running kit. I am embarrassed to know that. I suppose you could apply the term to any man wearing boxers or tight clothing. I have no idea why it's called a lunchbox.
SimonMayer 10:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Your mom" is listed as slang for prostitute? Was that someone's idea of a joke, and should it be kept?

  • Yes, it's a joke. And I'm fairly certain I know the guy who put it there. Rob, if you're reading this, somebody removed "your mom" from the entry. Redxiv 17:53, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bulleted lists vs. comma-separated

(Moved from User_talk:Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason)

Your formatting changes to the article (changing from plain lists to bulleted lists) make it harder to read and too vertical. --Andy5 04:34, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

On the contrary, i changed the list type exactly because it was too hard to read, and the old style was also in going against the reccomendations of the Manual of Style, or more specifically the Wikipedia:List subpage, it states about the old style:
[...] and is preferred if there are only a few entries in the list [...]
and about the bullet lists it says:
[...] style is appropriate for long lists, or lists of entries which consist of both a link and explanatory text [...].
If you wish to argue that this isnt such a good idea, or about the defenition of few enteries i suggest you take it up on Wikipedia_talk:List, however until then this is the admitted policy of making list and therefor we should keep it this way. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 10:57, 2004 May 8 (UTC)

Once a significant proportion of the terms have explanations or clarifications following them, then a bulleted list would be more appropriate. - dcljr 07:11, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why in the world are some of the lists divided up by initial letter ("B-K", etc.)? This confused me to no end until I figured out they didn't stand for different types of sexual acts or participants (S&M, GLB, etc.)! - dcljr 07:35, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Classification schemes

The overall topical classification scheme is a logical one, but might I suggest the lists of terms themselves should be further divided into categories such as:

  • Historical - for terms used mainly before, say, the 20th century (or 19th)
  • Modern - terms in common use today
  • Obscure/Comedic - less common terms and/or those that appear to be invented mainly for (modern) comedic effect

This could be one step along the way to further "encyclopediation" of the article -- e.g., "explaining the joke" for the comedic terms, and giving sources ("Shakespeare") or geographical info ("chiefly British") for the others. - dcljr 07:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm... okay, maybe I take back what I just suggested. I dunno. Until I tried to develop a logical superstructure to further organize the page (my latest edit), I hadn't realized just how many levels of structure there already were! Maybe further splitting the terms as I was discussing is overkill. (OTOH, there's always bullets...) - dcljr 21:32, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Use of capitalization

I'd like to formally propose that we make all the terms on this page lowercase (i.e., not capitalized) -- except things that would usually be capitalized, of course, like "Big Ben". I find the fact that almost every word on the page is capitalized to be quite disconcerting. - dcljr 22:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I proposed this here so people could argue for the capitalized version if they wanted. But Cclarke just changed everything to lowercase, so... nevermind, I guess. Thanks, Cclarke. - dcljr 22:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Encyclopedization

(Yeah, I know that's not a word...) I've started to try to make this article more encyclopedic by adding brief preambles to each section. These preambles should be where links to potentially unfamiliar terms are given, not in the headers themselves, following Wikipedia style guidelines. - dcljr 22:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Intercourse

"merged 'Sexual intercourse' and 'Vaginal intercourse': no difference!"

Actually, sexual and vaginal intercourse are much like the square and the rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All vaginal intercourse is sexual intercourse, but not all sexual intercourse is vaginal. See: Anal intercourse and Intercrural intercourse. Hyacinth 04:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, this was a mistake. It's been changed. Thanks. - dcljr 07:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Avoid the use of "-in'" for "ing", and initial "the"s

I think we should avoid the use of the abbreviation -in' for -ing:

  • example: avoid "bumpin' uglies" in favor of "bumping uglies"

We're already dealing with slang terms here; we don't have to make them sound more "colloquial".

Also, we should avoid initial articles like the, unless absolutely necessary:

  • example: use "Aztec two-step", not "the Aztec two-step"
  • but: use "the deed" or "(the) deed", not just "deed" (still alphabetize under the letter d).

Right?

- dcljr 08:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC) (updated version)

Formatting of parenthetical remarks

I just made an edit in which I "standardized" some of the parenthetical remarks by putting them in italics (well, ''double-apostrophes'', anyway). Looking at the page now, I can't tell if that's standard anymore. Is someone removing the double-apostrophes? - dcljr 05:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion

This article was proposed for deletion on 12 July 2004. The consensus decision at that time was to keep this article. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sexual slang for the details of the discussion.

Woo-hoo! - dcljr 06:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete - I think this topic is stupid (and a bit gratuitously vulgar) & should be deleted. Besides, how commonly used are 99% of the terms listed? The Necrophilia section was really gross. Cheese Sandwich 22:13, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Oral Sex

I made a lot of edits today to this section simply to clean it up. Don't be alarmed.  :) -- Stevietheman 16:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Duplication?

There seems to be almost a complete duplicate of this article at Sexual Slang (case-sensitive). I don't see anything instantly obvious in the history as to an explanation. This article seems the more active/polished; should the latter be deleted? Rossumcapek 03:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The respective page histories reveal that it was a complete duplication of this page, back on July 6th — maybe an editing mistake. I just deleted all of the content from Sexual Slang and REDIRECTed it to this page (Sexual slang). Only 2 new terms were added to Sexual Slang after the divergence, so I added them here. - dcljr 09:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Disclaimer?

Do we need the disclaimer? It is the first wiki page I have ever seen that has it. Especially in all caps, bold, italics. Just about ANY page could be offencive to SOME readers... I can see the need for a 'plot details' disclaimer, but this self-censorship seems to be contrary to the free-information nature of wikipedia. AgentSteel 08:53 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, we do (IMO). How many other articles have you seen with content as extreme as this one? (Well, except for the List of sexual slurs.) It packs the double-whammy of being about "profanity" and "sex". The page just went through a vote for deletion last week. I added the warning (and put a lot of work into the page) to try to prevent such things in the future. (At the very least, it makes it less likely people will find themselves reading offensive material without meaning to — after all, who knows what other articles and websites will link here, and in what manner?) And a warning is in no way censorship, no matter how one's browser renders it. The warning is there to help prevent censorship. - dcljr 09:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Oops. Heh... I forgot, I didn't add the warning, I just made it bold instead of italicized (and, strangely, in 'single-quotes'). Sorry fer lyin'... So, well, anyway, I still think the warning serves a noble purpose. - dcljr 09:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I noticed that the warning was removed at one point, so I restored it and also took out the single quotes. You're welcome.  :) -- Stevietheman 15:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Omissions

Dry humping (found this from everything2), some "___" week related to menstruation (forgot what fills the blanks). And "Wham, bam, thank you, ma'am" -- Anonymous Coward

I just added "dry humping" and "Wham, bam..." -- Stevietheman 15:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed "94-degree evil" which I posted a few days ago. I heard it in a movie and thought it was pretty widespread, but it turns out it's not. Besides, it's a disgusting little phrase. 259 22:00, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Non-English terms

Since this is the English Wikipedia, it may be a good idea to determine which of the non-English terms in this article are actually used in everyday spoken English and which are not (and should be removed). For example, English speakers often say "derrier" (for posterior), but do they often say "dupa"? There has been a major influx of non-English words lately, and I'm concerned that much of the English-speaking world has never heard of the terms. As this is an encyclopedia, this article cannot be used to introduce terms, but to document terms already widely in use. -- Stevietheman 14:54, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Stevie, they're still there. lysdexia 02:41, 10 Oct 2004

(UTC)

Define "slang"?

My understanding is that slang means that a term is actually in use, at least somewhat commonly. I severely doubt that any number of people have actually referred to nipples as "Janet Jackson's super bowl jewelry holder" - shouldn't jokes like this be removed from the slang list, as they aren't "real slang"? -- (Booyabazooka 03:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC))

In short, Yes. -- Stevietheman 14:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Spun off body parts

As this article was getting extremely long, I took it upon myself to separate out the body parts slang. Now, the size and length should be a lot more reasonable. -- Stevietheman 18:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Refactor this page

OK, I don't think an absurdly long list (and yet an incomplete one!) is doing anybody any good, and besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think a far better idea would have a short list of examples accompanying a description of the manner in which sexual slang terms are coined. It's easy to invent sexual slang on the spot, after all, and I would suggest this is done to an even greater degree than with most other slang. I'm willing to do some of the effort if nobody else is. - Furrykef 06:12, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I started a revision: User:Furrykef/Sexual slang. It doesn't have much yet. Feel free to add contributions there, but please don't turn it into a dictionary list like this page already is. - Furrykef 23:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I gave up on this revision due to lack of interest, both on my part and on the part of, um, whoever else is uninterested. Yeah. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fetishes?

I've noticed that in the Fetishes section, many of the described fetishes use slang themselves, which I feel is not right. I may not know exactly how Wikipedia expects each page to be like, but I'm pretty sure when describing slang, one shouldn't use additional slang (unless saying "also known as ___" or somesuch). The acts should be described without other terms which may require additional dereferencing. For example:
Riding the Crimson tide - To engage in vaginal intercourse while the lady has the painters in.
Shouldn't this be more like:
Riding the Crimson tide - To engage in vaginal intercourse while the female is having her period.
Or at least SOMETHING more standard than "having the painters in"...

Also, what is with these? Should these even be here?:
Scottish Ladder - Not currently defined, but would definately be interesting.
Whirling Dervish - Currently only a theoretical act. Once determined it will be updated

I think that many entries in this list need to be kept to a standard, without resorting to strange slang terms in order to help define the slang in the first place... In addition, vague descriptions of the fetishes various slangs represent are unhelpful and should either be clarified or simply removed, as in the case of:
Texas Chili Bowl - Involves Tabasco Sauce, a telephone, and the anus

You are absolutely correct. Slang should not be described using other slang, ever. By the way, don't forget to sign your posts by using four ~'s :) --Naha|(talk) 13:48, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Fetishes - 'AbraCadaver'

Does anyone know how common this is? I'm not really sure it belongs here. It is risible, granted, but it does sound like a fantasy induced by ganja usage.

Sexual slang be a disambiguation page?

I was thinking, since the article is long and hard to read, it should be a disambiguation page. People could go to "sexual slang", then it can link to say, "Vaginal intercourse slang", "Masturbation slang", etc. Tell me what you think VfD-style. MessedRocker 15:18, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

a lot of this seems to be taken from

from http://www.answers.com/topic/hanky-panky

  • Actually its the other way round - Answers.com is using wikipedia content. Djbrianuk 13:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Duplication

Somehow the article up to the end of oral sex repeated twice at the beginning. I removed the duplication. Djbrianuk 13:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)