File talk:Mamintb.PNG

Initial comments

I just love Wikipedia. No really, it's an example I can give to even the most thickheaded, that argumentum ad populum actually IS a logical fallacy. This world is going to shit and this website is a shining reminder. Oh and, I love the lipstick... EndDemocracy - date: a little bit closer to the end, 2008.

Top notch. Wikipedia is full of some stirling work, one just has to look hard enough... HawkerTyphoon 14:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow. I don't think I've ever laughed harder in my life. Thanks Wikipedia. 71.218.240.165 02:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

A Great illustration there's another one by whoever this is on the sexual positions page. It's really good work he should do more as a lot of other pages could benefit from such great work Stellrmn 00:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I vote to change the penis to a darker, brownish tone.

Reminds me of Bomis.

Porno Look or Not?

Can we please decide if the pornographic look into the camera should stay or not? Yes for yes, No for No. After five days, the side with the most users gets their wish. Savvy? --DeadGuy 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not that it's a very good illustration and barely graphic and could not, nor should it be, considered pornographic. You should see the rather graphic picture of a vagina on the vagina page it really should be replaced with something else. This on the other hand is just fine. i vote No

If not a vagina (on a page about vaginas) then what? Adsims2001 07:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the woman's head should stay in the picture, removing it dehumanizes her. The look straight into the viewer's face shows her as an active participant rather than a sex toy or a piece of meat. --Simon Speed 00:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It wasn't suggested to remove the head, but rather to redirect the eyes towards the left--where her partner is. Your comment is ironic because leaving the eyes looking at the observer, rather than her partner makes her a sexual object for the voyeur. If you want her to be an "active participant" perhaps she should be interacting with her partner, rather than the viewer. Jeez. 65.183.135.231 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I assume AdSims is voting Yes, so that is 2-1. It stays.--DeadGuy 18:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Is this just a way of showing Afros as morally slack? This obscene porno has gon Afro again!--86.29.253.98 11:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can we show her bum please thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.153.39 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Offensive Image?

I'd suggest altering this image, as several things about it seem offensive and unworthy of an encyclopedia entry. The makeup and earrings on the female have nothing to do with depiction of the position, and give the image a pornographic (even chauvinist) quality. What appears to be semen on the woman also has no place in a diagram. Could the image be altered to be a bit more academic?--70.227.157.118 03:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I have, see below-

File:Mamintbl.png

.--Bobie Alice Flinker 02:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

File:Mamintb.png

Or this one?

--Wipsenade (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Up-date.

I notice the original image has been recently switched from a European to Afro-Caribbean and back again. I have made it a racially neutral so it's now a mix of all ethnic colours. Now it's neither European, Afro-Caribbean, Oriental, Asian, Arab, Jewish, Latino, Native American, Inuit, Turk or Pacific Islander. See- "Mamintbl.png". End of race crisis! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bobie Alice Flinker (talk • contribs) 02:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC).--Bobie Alice Flinker 02:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yep!--86.25.52.240 03:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort, but I think that the image is more difficult to see now. The similarity between the color you gave to the penis and the color you gave to the nipples is confusing. I have never seen anyone with that combination of skin and hair color. And all the colors are so similar that there is not enough contrast to easily see what is going on in the picture. I don't really understand why we need to obliterate the fact that the woman in the image is white. I have made the man in the image black, which also improves the contrast between the two people depicted in the drawing. Joie de Vivre 18:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that it looks even less realistic now than it did before.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 06:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Greyscale

There is no need for colour and the "pearl necklace" is excessive and does not add to the understanding of the article. Neitherday 21:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfectly good colour illustration. Like most illustrations there is "no need for colour" - they could work in black and white. They're just not so good in black and white. The presence of ejaculate in an illustration of an act involving penile orgasm hardly seems excessive (I believe the correct amount is 5cc, half the band name). Could people just leave this illustration alone: it's an explicit picture used in a non-censored article on a sexual subject. --Simon Speed 22:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Not censored is not the same as having sexualized content for the sake of having sexualized content. Why exactly does the "pearl necklace" need to be included, especially given that it is not integral to or even always part of the act? How do the skin tones help the image? I would argue that greyscale improves the image by making it more racially neutral. Neitherday 22:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding. Having sexualised content for the sake of it is, for example, using a sex act to illustrate "leisure" (possible but gratuitous). What is illustrated here is simply what the article is about, nothing more, nothing less. And this is a more important article than you might think (sex does not equal trivia), as it concerns a safe sex act, currently one of the top public health issues. Also this particular act gets a lot of references in popular culture (I recently heard "tit-fuck" mentioned in the Sopranos) but not much serious coverage. And the illustration is the most informative part of this little article. Whilst I would agree that sexual articles should be as far as possible in good taste, if it appears to some people that a sex act is interracial then tough: interracial sex happens and is a good thing too!!! --Simon Speed 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have not suggested the article should have no illustration. You have not answered either of my questions. Why exactly does the "pearl necklace" need to be included, especially given that it is not integral to or even always part of the act? How do the skin tones help the image? Neitherday 12:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't produce the picture, but as far as I can see it's an attempt at a plain, clear illustration. There have been photographic illustrations but they have proved too controversial. The article does mention the pearl necklace (and has for a long time in spite of many changes) as does casual chat on the subject (such as a Channel 4 sex discussion show I once saw). I suspect the different skin tones were intended to help distinguish between the 2 figures and that both were thought of as caucasian (if the subject was even considered, white males tending to use white males in technical illustrations as generic humans). The picture is easier to understand in colour and it's prittier. --Simon Speed 15:25, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert failed

I tried to revert to an earlier version and now the image is stretched out. I tried to fix it by reverting to another version, which failed. Please fix the image if you know how. Joie de Vivre ^T 17:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that when you revert, not everything gets put back at the same time, so the picture can look a bit weird for a while. --Simon Speed 20:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Wikipedia!

I can always count on Wikipedia to provide me with nut-busting porn under the pretext of "informing" the people!" All about the context," right? I love it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.221.142 (talk) 16:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed! Awesome. --68.50.223.58 (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sick fucks... YaBoiKrakerz

Kirstie Alley?

Is it just me, or is the woman supposed to be Kirstie Alley? Is this intentional? Does this contribute to what is otherwise a well-written, scholarly article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.152.145.79 (talk) 06:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It dose look similar to her.--Wipsenade (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep.Trish pt7 (talk) 18:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Image Dehumanizing to the Man

It appears to me that this image is highly dehumanizing the male that is depicted. Above, the argument was made that the image should not be cropped, because the removal of the woman's head would dehumanize her, leaving her as nothing more than a sex toy. But what about the male figure depicted? His only visible parts are his genitalia, he might as well be replaced by a dildo or another sex toy. It seems only fair to include more of his body within the frame, so he too may be seen as an active participant in the act. I favor finding a more complete "Kama Sutra" style image to use in this article. 71.240.248.72 (talk) 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call. And as I noted above, why is the woman looking at the viewer, rather than her partner? 65.183.135.231 (talk) 15:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: As a reference, look at the article on Non-penetrative sex. If you'll notice, this is the only image on the page where both partners are not fully depicted. Perhaps we could even find a classical work, similar to those in the article, that would be provide a reference image that is less degrading to the man. 71.240.248.72 (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hurrah

In the (unlikely) event I give another Wikipedia speech, you can be sure this discussion is going in there. Thanks, people. --Jscott (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)