Talk:Teabagging

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Teabagging 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.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

See also Talk:Turkey slap

Contents

[edit] Definiton

Teabagging is the oral sex practice of lowering the scrotum into the other partner's mouth.

...allegedly... (based on Googling, but sources are somewhat dubious).

I saw that on John Waters' Pecker, and it appeared to be simply lowering the scrotum onto someone's head. (The dancer does it to the art critic.) Not that I'm a John Waters fan, mind you. Koyaanis Qatsi
The definition I've always used, in my many and frequent discussions of scrotum-based sex practices, is what was in the article -- simply the lowering of the scrotum into the partner's mouth. Of course, Wikipedia Is Not a Dictionary, so unless some more encyclopedic information can be provided, I vote for deletion. Tokerboy

Okay, not to be an ass, but I fail to see why we have this kind of article on here?!??!--Julien Deveraux 22:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hey!

Look here you nimwits! Teabagging was started by the Something Awful Goons playing Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow. Not in Halo. Regardless, the video game reference is unnecessary and I'm killing it. TotalTommyTerror 17:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

How does it matter which game started it, what matters is that if you have "corpse humping" redirect to "teabagging", you should definitely have some mention of the video game aspect.

[edit] Image

It is definitely far more appropriate to leave the image as an inline link rather than one that loads with the page. There is a very simple reason for this. It could easily qualify as an obscene image, offensive to a large group of people. People use wikipedia to look up things they do not know. So they may have no idea what teabagging is and be exposed to a (potentially) offensive image. Please leave it as an inline link.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Great idea, I support it 100%. All potentially offending images should be censored because they might offend someone, of course, of course. // paroxysm (n) 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I find the picture HILARIOUS. But I do agree it doesn't need to load with the page. shaddix 11:57, 01 January 2006 (UTC).

Okay this image is by definition of the word, explicit. It shows bare human testicles, on a face. A large portion of the population is offended by something like this, and as this is a public project should not be subjected to it unknowingly and unwillfully. I am reverting again, answer and issue with it here. An article censored so often obviously has reason to be. Judging solely by the number of people censoring, vs the number reverting said censorship I think we have a consensus. Unless of course anyone can cite a wikipedia guideline or policy that explicitly trumps removal of an inline image.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOT censored. It's just too bad that the human body offends you and a "large portion of the population." In the end, it also breaks WP:NPOV because Wikipedia is not the judge of what is "explicit" or not "explicit." For example, I happen to consider images of tortured jews more "offending" than someone's scrotum. // paroxysm (n) 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see the point in it. I could care less and am not really offended as a matter of fact. However, it may be in the interest of the article, for the purpose of tactfulness, to consider one of a couple options. It wouldn't hurt to replace this particular image with an artistic rendition, such as the articles in similar context Autofellatio and Tribadism. It has solved problems before and comes across a lot better as a whole. It might also be sensible, although not necessary, to move the image in question nower in the page. It looks like it might belong in the sexual act category anyway, as judging by the picture, the person being teabagged seems consious and without objection (both uncharacteristic of teabagging as a prank)--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it seems to belong in the sexual practice section, since it looks nothing like the actions described in the prank section, and putting it there also has the effect of moving it low enough on the page that most users will have to scroll down a bit to see it. Personally, I'd prefer moving it to a link, since I think most people, while not necessarily offended, would prefer not to have the image on their screen without knowing that it was coming. If nothing else, it makes Wikipedia a bit safer for work. That said, moving the image lower down the page helps. I'm not sure that using a drawing rather than a photo makes a significant difference relative to the tastefulness issue, but that might not be a bad idea simply to address the claim of copyright violation. Swillden 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to be work-safe. The picture depicts a prank, not a consensual sex act. // paroxysm (n) 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Why not make it less generally offensive and safer for work if the change can be made without removing the content? The girl in the photo is clearly consenting, even enjoying the situation. Swillden 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Look at the uncensored version: http://www.owned.com/Owned_Pictures/Funny_Owned_Pics/Just__the_Soft_and_Round_Balls/OWNED.html The woman in the picture clearly has her eyes closed.
We are not going to make it "less offensive" because uncongeniality is purely a matter of opinion. WP:NPOV. Since it illustrates the prank, it should be placed beside the prank. // paroxysm (n) 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
The woman in the picture has her eyes closed because she's laughing, not because she's asleep, unconscious or unaware of what's happening. She's clearly a willing participant, not a prankee. Swillden 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Since you're clearly ignoring the context of the act, which makes it quite obvious it's being done as a prank, not to turn someone on, here is the original diff of the image being added to accompany the article -- rate above the the prank's description. Hmmm. // Paroxysm (n) 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Where the image goes is really no big deal. I gave an option, it was not taken, no harm no foul. Paroxysm's right. Somehow that part of wikipedia policy slipped by, so boo on my part, and the image should stay, and does not need to be moved or replaced. However, I still hold that it might be sensible to replace the image with one similar to that on the other sex act articles (even though the image in question is a prank). While there is nothing wrong with the current image, the other one may be "more right" if that makes sense at all.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree about the prankishness of the image, but I seem to be in the minority on that, so I'll give. I've moved the image back, and also re-orderd the sections, placing the sexual practice section at the top. That both pushes the image lower on the page and puts the prank section next to the video game section, which seems appropriate given their similarity. I agree that replacing the image with another (perhaps hand-drawn) image is a good idea, particularly since it would also address the question of the copyright violation. Swillden 14:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Copyright violation will not be an issue seeing as though I am the owner and the person involved in this picture. It was definitley a prank, but the resipricant happend to be a good sport and allowed a picture to be snapped. I would undoubtedly argue to keep the picture on this page, because if you try to search for another "teabagging" picture on the internet to help better understand what one is, you come up with results that are MUCH more distasteful then this current picture. A side note... I am also quite amused that this lengthy of a discussion has been taking place with my testicles as the topic :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.25.200.14 (talk • contribs)
I see one major problem with this whole argument. Proof of ownership would be needed. Also, I have removed the email address from your statement for a couple reasons. The first being that it may not be yours, and you may be exposing someone to unwanted email traffic. If you wish to be contacted by email it is best to create an account and enable wikipedia's email system. Second, if it is yours, it is not a good idea to ask people to come looking for you to verify your claims, that should be provided on wikipedia itself so that it is documented for future reference.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 20:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rowing drill?

I removed the following recently added content, since I was unable to verify its factuality:

Teabagging is also the term used to refer to the crew rowing drill where a number of members of a boat will simmultaneously tap their oars up and down in the water to practise timming. It is rarely used as a taunt to other crews on the start line. The practise was almost certainly named after the aformentioned sexual practice, a common line of humour among rowers[[rowing]]

First I didn't know what "teabagging" was, now I don't know how it improves "timming", whatever that is. Myles325a (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to ask the person who added this to please cite some verifiable source for the claim. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An example of how idiotic Wikipedia can get...

Also, this practice can potentially backfire if a sleeping or unconscious victim unexpectedly wakes up and clenches down upon the testicles resulting in a painful shock or injury to the perpetrator.

WTH is this rubbish? Are you going to add every single 'humorous' scenario you can imagine? This entire article is pretty stupid, but the mind boggles at how a comment like this be part of a serious encyclopaedia. LOL, sheesh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.213.1.151 (talk • contribs)

Then take the damn thing out if its such a problem, and mention why in the edit summary. No need to be asinine about it.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prank?

Isn't unconsentually putting testicles on somebody, or dumping them into the water in a sack, better described as sexual abuse or assault than as a prank? It can result in criminal charges, as is alluded to in the article on Averill Park, New York (it doesn't mention teabagging, but that's what it was - Google it or search the Albany Times-Union archives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schizombie (talk • contribs)

Not necessarily. Almost any prank qualifies as some form of assault or abuse if the "victim" wants to take it that far. As sexual abuse that would be considerable as the sex act, just commited on an unwilling recipient. If the cops are called to a party or lan or something, because some dumb kid passed out drunk is pissed that someone smooshed their nuts on his face, they are probably going to laugh at him and leave. Also, and for future reference, its not a good idea to tell someone to google something. If you want to provide evidence you provide it, don't just say "look it up" because they're going to say exactly what I'm about to. I googled it and saw no evidence to support your claim.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:08, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if cops reacted that way they'd probably be exposing themselves to legal problems. As for googling, I'm sorry I didn't supply links for the lazy, but results still show for me just like they did when I originally posted e.g.: http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=23AF4DDA-E9FC-44E3-B68CD0F5D2F30FF9 and http://www.timesunion.com/archives/summarylist.asp?DBQUERY=%28averill+AND+teabagging%29&DBLIST=allpub%5Falbanytu&SORT=d%3Ah&NITEMS=25&qtype=q_string&action=Search&outputtype=XSLT&papid=albanytu&view=rtemplate&templatetype=legacy Esquizombi 21:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I just said that because I didn't feel like looking it up myself and doing your job for you. Telling people to search themselves when you're the one making the argument is a really, really bad idea for a multitude of reasons. As for these sources, all either of them say is that there was a lawsuit, neither saying the outcome of such a case. Saying something can result in criminal charges does not mean a lot either. You can get arrested and charged for doing just about anything technical. Whether or not it actually qualifies as a felony, misdemeanor, or what have you is another story. In any case, the police leaving in my previous anectdote is probably a little over the top, but its doubtful as all hell that they'd take it seriously. The point is it can be either a prank OR a sex act OR a sexual assault depending on how the recipient feels regarding the act.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 22:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I strongly suspect unconsensual genital contact constitutes a sexual offense in most jurisdictions whether the bullies who engage in it think it is or isn't. I'll have to see if I can find the outcome of the Averill Park case. As for "repeated dunking of a person restrained inside a bag into water" I can't believe anybody who wasn't drunk (as I expect anyone who would do that would be) would call such assault and battery merely a prank especially when it could easily result in involuntary manslaughter. Esquizombi 23:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, how the recipient views it. As for the dunking in water, that is an old use that is probably never used anymore (Especially since boarding schools have fallen somewhat out of favor and hazing laws have become stronger and more present). I changed the article to reflect that. And you must admit, not too long ago it would have been seen as nothing more than a prank. Also I have (unfortunately) been present for many prank teabaggings (although not involved on either side thank god). It is definitely viewed and used as a prank very often. --Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 00:03, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, how the recipent and the law see it. The perp's intent is pretty much irrelevant. I had never heard of the practice until a few years ago. If it's actually common, I have to wonder where and why. Esquizombi 00:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly if the recipient is over the age of consent and does not claim assault, it doesn't matter what the law says. In any regard, its mostly drunk college kids at keg parties and people at LAN parties that do it, and yeah, for some bizarre reason that I want nothing to do with it happens a lot. Bottom line here is this... it can easily be a prank. Pranks are almost always technically considerable as either assault, destruction or property, or harassment if the person on the recieving end chooses to see it that way. A prank is different from a joke in that you are actually doing something to somebody. As a result nearly any prank can be considered a transgression of one sort or another against the recipient.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 05:22, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Expansion of article

Tokerboy rightly said that the article needs to be deleted if there isn`t really any encyclopedic info. Perhaps as an idea for expansion we could make reference to the above mentioned:

http://www.guidemag.com/magcontent/invokemagcontent.cfm?ID=23AF4DDA-E9FC-44E3-B68CD0F5D2F30FF9

and http://www.timesunion.com/archives/summarylist.asp?DBQUERY=%28averill+AND+teabagging%29&DBLIST=allpub%5Falbanytu&SORT=d%3Ah&NITEMS=25&qtype=q_string&action=Search&outputtype=XSLT&papid=albanytu&view=rtemplate&templatetype=legacy

Any more ideas or feedback is welcomed. Plebmonk 01:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sex act

The "sex" act deserves its own article, and a lot of the trivia needs to be trimmed from it. Normally, I'd be against including a bogus "sex act" — 14-year-olds come up with these all the time, and no well-adjusted person would ever do them — but this one is seminotable. Czar Dragon 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Why does it deserve its own article? It will simply be take 1 article and make 2 stubs that will probably never be expanded. Also as a sex act or a prank, they are effectively the same practice and carried out in the same way.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth do you get the idea that this is a bogus sex act? It may not be called teabagging, but I can assure you that people do it. Vashti 23:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consolidation

I consolidtated the most of the sections into the Sexual Practice and Prank sections, as most of the other sections seem to fall within those two sections and serve better as subsections. I also trimmed the Sexual Assault section down as it was very repetitive and seemed to suffer from TMI syndrome. That is, it contained a lot of information that was either not immediately relevant to the topic, or adequately covered in its own article.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding my recent edits, I created a disambiguation page to cover the extrenous topics that probably did not belong in the main article. I left video games as it is essentially an extension of pranks. If it turns out to be an issue its easy to copy the informatin back and have the empty disambiguation article deleted. I am still reluctant to give The prank and sexual practice seperate articles though as they are both essentially the same physical act, just under different circumstances.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 18:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latent homosexuality

The see also reference was simply pointless. There is absolutely no [b]supported[/b] assertion of a tendency towards latent homosexuality in the section. Plus "see also" insertions are generally bad form. They are better suited to their own section at the end of an article, if the article's subject matter has some direct corellation to the article cited as a "see also". Better to use an inline link such as the following. "Experts have stated that teabagging as a prank may be the result of latent homosexual tendncies." If you cant cite a reliable source, dont even bother putting it in the article as wikipedia is having too many problems with unsourced bs as it is. In any case, it doesn't belong in the format that it was in. It was a subjective association made with no evidence supporting it. Also, who's to say it only happens between two males?--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:15, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Look, dude, all I'm saying is that if you think it's fun and/or funny to put your sack in another dude's face you might just consider questioning your sexuality. And it's only applicable to the "As a prank" section because the rest of the article is about a straight-up gay lifestyle and a guy going to a gay strip club to get teabagged probably doesn't need a heads up that he might be gay. No matter what your frat buddies told you. Ewlyahoocom 17:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Look "dude" this is an encyclopedia not a place to make random suggestive comments. I see you haven't read WP:MOS or WP:NOT yet. Please do so.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 22:32, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
But dude, the MOS is huge -- can't you point out something a little more specific? (I find Help:Section#"See also" line or section but it doesn't support your argument.) See also's are really kind of a grey (or brown) area: suggesting another article barely counts as content, much less "research" (original or otherwise), don't ya think? Ewlyahoocom 00:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
No, not at all actually. When any connection is made or implied in a wikipedia article, it needs to be cited. If you dont want to read wikipedia guidelines and policies, perhaps its not for you.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 03:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
No, really, I looked. I couldn't find anything about See also requiring citation. (In fact, I find very little about See also at all.) I was just hoping, that since you appear to be a an expert on policy and guideline, you could, you know, give me a pointer. But let's compromise, I'll restore the link for now and when you find something in the MoS that requires its removal I won't add it back. Deal? Ewlyahoocom 07:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm reverting again. MoS or not, without making a cited connection it does not belong. Get a source or stop this nonsense. Also, for simply stylistic reasons, it makes no sense to isolate it so much. If you can prove expert support for it then include it, but it will likely be copyedited into the paragraph as it makes much more sense that way. And yes see-alsos imply a connection so they need citation, just as anything else on wikipedia. If you don't want to cite sources for your additions, wikipedia is not for you.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 15:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Dude, I can see you have some real issues with Teabagging, so I'm going to let it go. But do yourself a favor: find someone to talk to. Maybe the house mother? The fellas over a Delta Lambda Phi? Whoever. But take care yourself, OK? Ewlyahoocom 16:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I dont have any issues with this, or anything else for that matter. I simply choose to conduct myself according to wikipedia guidelines on every article, even if its as absurd as this one.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 19:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Halo

Why isnt Halo mentioned? It makes sense, people always teabag in HAlo.--64.121.1.55 05:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

  • People always kill in halo too, but halo isn't listed in that article either. Vicarious 06:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teabagging in rock climbing

The verifiability of this term is apparently more difficult than I thought. It's mentioned in a variety of magazines (including, but not limited to, Urban Climber Magazine), and it's a well-known, commonly used term among climbers. In rock climbing, many terms are used that aren't considered 'official', but are ubiquitous in the sport. A good example is "beta": the term comes from early climbers videotaping their sessions on the rock to work out a sequence, and they did so using Betamax. Hence, anytime information on a climb's sequence is passed along or determined, it's called 'beta'. The sport is still relatively young, and slang-ish terms find a great deal of purchase in it to describe consistent events (i.e. "I took a huge whipper and ended up teabagging.") Understandably, it's pretty difficult to find verifiable references to this online, even though it's very commonly used at the crag. El Guapo 21:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't question the good intentions of adding the climbing reference to this article, but there is an unambiguous policy on this issue, Wikipedia:Verifiability. However, including a source doesn't have to be website, if this term has been defined or at least used in a helpful context in a magazine, that'll work; just cite the magazine. Vicarious 03:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In Video Games...

Recently (pre-registering this account), I put in a small blurb about teabagging in video games, such as Halo 2. It was taken out less than a day later saying that is was irrelevant. This, of course, brings the question how exactly it's irrelevant when typing "corpse humping" into the search box redirects you to the teabagging article. There should absolutely be something in there about its application in video games as a way to taunt one's opponent. Yet I fear if I add it in there again, some idiot is going to just remove it right away. Any suggestions, or backup even? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mutated Spleen (talk • contribs) 23:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, teabagging and video games are related concepts. I'll keep an eye on the article and revert anyone who removes the section. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Corpse Humping"

Okay, I don't know of any way to verify this, but in my art history course last year our professor pointed out that the Greek word for "knee" comes from the same word for "scrotum," because (and I quote), "The kneecap floats over the knee the way the testicles float within their sac." He then pointed out that in a lot of photographs of soldiers, they will have their knees down on their fallen enemies with their guns pointing in the air, as a way of "teabagging" them. I just thought this was an interesting point to add to the video game idea, but again, not sure how I would cite that. Rubinia 20:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)rubinia

[edit] Teabagging as a spoken article - is this a joke?

Sure, it made me laugh, but it sounded like it was made by a couple of stoned American high school students...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

it is a little bit odd, isn't it. Plus, it isn't complete as of the date cited. Vashti 21:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded my own version, which actually includes the whole article. I sort of think the first version was kind of akin to vandalism, because the guys reading it were so obviously just taking the piss.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:59, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you all would like to have an intelligent discussion on the specific merits and faults of my SpokenWikipedia recording Image:Teabagging.ogg, I am open to constructive criticism. I believed my method of illustrating sound makes SpokenWikipedia articles sound more interesting, and thought they would at the very least be considered and properly discussed before deletion; not re-recorded (by the way,
Image:Teabagging2.ogg
appears to be an incorrectly encoded .ogg file and is possibly confusing Project:SpokenWikipedia users).
As for the complaint RE: incompleteness, I was under the impression that section-specific or introduction-only SpokenWikipedia articles were allowed. At the very least, a semi-complete article is better than one that sounds like a beep noise when opened under Audacity and Wikipedia's in-browser player. As such, I am re-adding my file until there is a discussion beyond "it's a bit odd", and "it sounds like stoned American high school students." I would appreciate No Personal Attacks in our discussion. Nonetheless, I thank all involved for their input thus far. -WAZAAAA 04:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
My problem with your recording is simply that highlighting all the rude words with funny voices makes the recording sound juvenile. However, I'm no expert on the spoken articles project, and perhaps this kind of thing is okay. You have an excellent voice for spoken articles, however - I wish I did. :) Vashti 18:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that. I think your recordings are really good and would like to see more of them on Wikipedia.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
That's a vote for, why was the link to this file removed? Are there any objections to replacement? -WAZAAAA 19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
I do object, I'm afraid, for the reasons I gave earlier. I can certainly see how putting on funny voices for saying "scrotum" and like words is interesting, but I cannot see what makes it encyclopaedic. Vashti 02:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone interested in getting this article to GA status?

It'll take a lot of work and finding of reliable sources, but it could be an interesting one...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Problem is that too much of the article just reads like a list of trivia and occurrences... well, all of it except the lead does.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
If you could find one or more serious academic work(s) on the phenomenon, then I could see it getting to GA. Unfortunately, I think this article is somewhat restricted by its topic. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 17:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Four results on teabagging from Google Scholar.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
None of those results have to do with the subject of this article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
With the addition of the content from Turkey slap, it looks like you might have a good chance at GA status. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 18:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the two practices, although related, are distinct. I'd like to gain consensus first over whether this merger was a good idea. Obviously the article has a fair bit of work to be done before it even has a chance at GA.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger of Turkey slap into this article

That one is an expanded dictionary definition, most of which is unsourced and prattles on excessively about one incident in the Australian Big Brother show last year. I'm almost certain that I could nail that one at AfD so easily right now and gain consensus for it, but I do think it would be better off merged and redirected here. Consider it a 'variant' of teabagging.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 11:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Just did it. If anyone has any objections raise them here.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
And have expanded article to a more decent size.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
I like how turkey slap redirects here and is even cited as an instance of teabagging in the media, but isn't actually defined. For great justice! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.168.12 (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Is that picture really necessary? It's explicit and not very good. Vashti 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, that picture is atrocious. Like the earlier "spoken article", it comes across as having been made by children who are excited about a "rude" article. If we have to have an image, let's have it be an anatomically correct line drawing of the kind you'd see in an encyclopaedia - not something some naughty schoolboys might draw in a boring IT practical. Vashti 07:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I was just bored one night when I got back from work.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
If I remove it, will you object? Vashti 15:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I am removing it, I am sorry but it is just ugly :) -- lucasbfr talk 15:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other slang uses, in sports

"In the rock climbing community, teabagging is the recognized term for when a heavier climber falls (usually a hard fall known as a whipper) an extensive amount, passing, while falling, a lighter belayer who is lifted up off their feet and, usually, a significant distance up."

The term may also have some use in windsurfing, I seem to remember. Very, very hard to verify though, if not impossible.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I just found a ton of info about teabagging, potentially sourcable

[1]--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

It's striking how much that version of the page resembles the new version that exists currently, as all of that unsourced presumed original research was removed, yet we were definitely able to source some of it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 23:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why isn't there an article for the female version?

According to Urban Dictionary, it's called camel stomp:

When a female smushes her vagina on a sleeping person's face. The female version of a T Bag

– Camel Stomp

[2]

But no other source seems to use that definition.

Does anyone know for sure how is the female version called and if it ever was reported in the news or seen in movies, like Teabagging was? -88.153.14.147 12:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How come there is no picture for this article?

I think it would be fantastic if someone was able to upload a tasteful picture of teabagging. I uploaded my own personal interpretation of the act but it was deemed vulgar and although I disagree, I respect the decision to remove it. Any help?

  • I'm not sure this poorly drawn picture added anything to the article: [Diff] --User:RandomHumanoid(talk) 00:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe that I have added a better quality picture with color and more detail. Hope this is helpful. -- User:Bill Sapperton (talk)
  • MediaWiki:Bad image list has a way of restricting the inline display of an image in an article. Perhaps they can be consulted on what to do. -- Jreferee (Talk) 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, the written description seems quite sufficient. Are you sure an illustration or diagram is required in this instance? Please explain (without using the term pornography or prude or uncensored) what an illustration could possibly add. --Knulclunk 02:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be hard to find an image that would be appropriate for this article, but as Knulcklunk says the written description seems sufficient. --Mikecraig 02:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:John and Ashley administering the turkey slap.jpg

Image:John and Ashley administering the turkey slap.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 04:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition formulation

placing his testicles, specifically the scrotum, in the

Pardon me for stating the obvious, but "specifically" doesn't fit. The scrotum is not more specific than the testicles, it contains them. AxelBoldt 16:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Turkey slap

Why is Turkey slap in this article and not in its own? I don't see how they are related in any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyHearns321 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

    I'm removing it.

[edit] I have returned this article

To it's full glory! I have fixed some sourcing issues, removed some spammy links, and found the best picture I could...that is completely fair use!!!. So, let me know your thoughts :) 68.143.88.2 22:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

And I have reverted you. Please don't simply revert 160+ edits because you liked an old version better. --Onorem♠Dil 19:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Seriously, what is wrong with this image?
Image:TeabaggingArtistsImpression.jpg
An artist's impression of teabagging. Note that of the man's testes, the left is being licked by the woman's tongue and that the right is on her forehead.
The image above is proposed for deletion. See images and media for deletion to help reach a consensus on what to do.

[edit] Who trimmed this article down?

Yes, the page was a mess, but there must have been some good content there removed, surely...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:BilboTBaggins.jpg

This image was re-added to the article under Fair Use rationale as the previous image was listed under fair use but did not have a non-free fair use template completed. As you can see in this image's info page that this template has been completed by me. The main reason why this was added was because this image serves as the primary means of visual identification for the act the article describes in video games. This is in accordance with wiki's fair use policy.

Many people have requested, as you can see above or in archives, that this article needed an image to better illustrate the act. This image also serves this purpose as previous images have been deemed vulgar or inappropriate. Screen shots Do Not have to illustrate the "game/movie/show" that it originally came from for several reasons listed under fair use policy WP:FU. The one's that apply to this image are listed in the template on the image's info page but I will reiterate some here. This image is the primary means of visual identification of the act and cannot be suitably replaced by an equivalent libre image of comparable educational value. The image is used for educational purposes only. The image is used in context that cannot be suggested to be endorsed or produced by the original copyright holder. This is a low resolution screen capture from a video game to illustrate the act performed in that video game and others like it - this screen capture is an extremely small portion of the copyrighted work, it is also low resolution. Finally, the image is extremely significant to the article as its presence greatly increases the readers understanding of the topic and it's absence would hurt the readers understanding, especially to one with no prior experience of First Person Shooter video games.

Please read meta wiki here for more information and discussion. Please do not simply delete images suspected of copyright infringement without discussing if it's appropriate first, especially if it has good rationale under the non-free fair use defense. Use the {{fairusereview}} tag to mark questionable images for review in the future. --Papajohnin (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't copyright paranoia, it is a violation of fair use, plain and simple. Screen caps can only be used in articles discussing the viedo game or video game characters. This is an article on a sex act, not Halo 3. y'amer'can (wtf?) 13:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In the interest of process, I've opened a WP:IFD discussion for the screen cap and restored it to the article, pending the outcome of the deletion debate. y'amer'can (wtf?) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rotten.com references

Rotten.com is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as a reference. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Rotten.com's library articles are written by an unknown person, based on unknown sources, and the rotten library does not have any reputation for integrity, it's unknown whether any fact checking is done, etc. "Reliable source" is not just a vague term which means that something tends to be well written or true, but instead is a specific piece of Wikipedia jargon which has a specialized meaning. See our policy articles to see what that meaning is. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You have made absolutely zero points as why the rotten library is not a reliable source. The rotten library article referenced does not disagree with either Wikipedia:Verifiability or Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Having said that, the article is extensively written with source's such as the film Pecker and dates and places that can be used to confirm if someone wished to. Just because the articles are written with tongue-in-cheek humor which does not disqualify them being referenced. The subject of this article deals with pop culture - something that rotten library is very good at. Pop culture is always humorous. I'll settle for you providing a different source that list the movie Pecker and the Pittsburgh Catholic high school incident and other sources which provide a definition of tea bagging but as I said earlier, most of this wiki article deals with the events noted in the rotten library article so just deleting the reference isn't an option. Even if you give a sufficient reason why the article should not be referenced we still need to find a suitable alternative for this wiki article.--Papajohnin (talk) 22:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I came here from WP:RS/N, where I argued that Rotten.com is reliable enough as an "extra" reference for commentary about a movie. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Incorrectly. It is a self-published website about which we know nothing. Jayjg (talk) 01:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
It's a self-published website with no demonstration of its content being verified. I fail to see how it meets RS criteria. Carl.bunderson (talk) 19:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)