Talk:Bukkake/Archive 1

Early text

"The practice supposedly originated in the feudal age in Japan to punish unfaithful women. A woman who had disgraced her husband was first tied to a post in a kneeling position and then forced to endure being ejaculated on by every man in the community."

This is an urban myth. The practice originated in Japanese pornographic movies. The most likely explanation is that in Japanese pornography, male and female genitalia cannot be shown and are therefore either pixellated or blurred. However semen can be shown so the only real way to make Japanese pornography more extreme and hardcore is to increase the amount of semen, hence the invention of bukkake style videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.42.159.108 (talk) 02:06, 28 July 2004 (UTC)

Not at all clear that bukkake is degrading

If this is to be said it needs to be very carefully argued: degrading or exploitative sexual depiction of course is wrong and few if any have a genuine erotic interest in such nonesense. Bukkake however has strong and distinct aesthetic content, is completely harmless and an erotic and powerful experience for the woman- it's highly defendable and people are getting seriously confused by the wider context of Western sexual repression and the conflation of sexual activity with unequal power relations. The men are intimately giving themselves to the woman- she takes from them not vice versa.

Be without the three gunas, O Arjuna (talk) 09:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

How do I cite video evidence

There is no "legitimate" source to cite regarding the emergence of multiple females ejaculating on males/females. But there is video. Since the video is pornographic how do I cite? - theseeman

Rephrased disambiguation sentence?

Is it really proper to introduce the article with the words "Bukkake can also mean a Japanese noodle preparation method [...]", e.g. if the readers are unsure of the intended content of the article and/or unfamiliar with the word "bukkake" itself? -- Zelaron 14:10, 5 Feb 2006 (CET)

Tied to a stick?

I always thought that the whole "feudal Japan wife-punishment" thing involved the woman being buried in sand up to her neck, with her husband ejaculating on her face before beheading her with a sword. Or am I just way off here? -- Viro 00:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you wanna see something funny regarding BUKKAKE go to http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/bukkake.php

Bukkake long predates modern Japan and has existed in many different societies

This is manifestly obvious. Gangbangs, gangrapes, and various forms of degradation have existed throughout time. You know, it's not exactly complicated for multiple men to ejaculate upon a woman's face. The idea that out of (about) 60 BILLION people throughout time, no woman was ever ejaculated upon by a group of men until 1970s Japan... well, that idea is simply ridiculous.

The act of multiple men masturbating and ejaculating onto a single woman was given a name and popularised in the first bukkake movies in Japan. No doubt this had happened before but was not recognised as a specific sexual act.

Where there are gangbangs (and there have been throughout human time), things like bukkake are going to happen. Stay tuned...more references and evidence coming soon.
-- Angela

Klonimus: "I would like to see some evidence for this, I cant imagine a single reference to bukkake like activity in western literature"

Well, you don't have much imagination because there's a lot of it. For starters, here's part of a review by Dr. Susan Block of "The Sexual Life of Catherine M." Ms. Millet discusses her experiences getting gangbanged, covered in sperm and filth. Is anyone really *ignorant* enough to believe getting cummed on was "invented" by the Japanese? It's always been around so long as humans have existed!

"Getting cummed on" covers a multitude of sexual acts, bukkake being one example.

"The Sexual Life of Catherine M. serves up an art critic's detailed, almost dispassionate perspective of being in the center of a gigantic gangbang. The book makes you feel that this is, in a way, what women's bodies are built for, to lie like an egg, waiting to be fertilized by millions of sperm, penetrated by dozens of cocks, fucked by dozens of men, all vying politely to get inside. Or, as Millet herself alludes, like a spider in her very sticky web. My least favorite parts of the book are the ones about dirt. This is not just "dirty" in a spiritual sense, as in "talking dirty," although Millet covers that subject pretty well too. This is dirt in the sense of real, physical grime, crud (human and otherwise) and lack of a shower. We Americans already tend to think that the French don't bathe enough (thus, the fabulous perfumes), and Catherine M. confirms all our worst fears about this aspect of the French. She's constantly having sex in filth with dirty disgusting men with rotten teeth and foul smells. It's a wonder she hasn't picked up a lot more than just "the clap" along the way. She calls it raising herself "above prejudice." I call it yucky."[1]

"Appears to be pornography-only, unless anyone here knows better. What's in it for the woman? Even if her motivation is masochistic, this does not feature in most reports of female fantasies."-Karada

Ridiculous! Even if it doesn't appear in "most" reports of female fantasies (a clumsy statement that I seriously question), it still does appear in some. How can you ignore these very real female desires?

And even if no women desired it (which some clearly do), that would not mean bukkake is confined to porn. That is a total non sequitur on your part. I am sure that bukkake (and far worse forms of humiliation) have occurred in gang rapes throughout time.

Why not just alter the entry so that it says something to the effect of "While the act of multiple men ejaculating on a woman's face and/or body is likely as old as the gangbang itself, Bukkake (the word) is a fairly recent Japanese invention."? Dr Archeville 02:43, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a solid reference from classical literature, from Marquis de Sade's 120 Days of Sodom:

I follow him, we enter, he shuts the door and, having posted me directly opposite him:

"Well, Francon," says he, pulling a monstrous prick from his drawers, an instrument which nearly toppled me with fright; "tell me," he continues, frigging himself, "have you ever seen anything to equal it?... that's what they call a prick, my little one, yes, a prick... it's used for fucking, and what you're going to see, what's going to flow out of it in a moment or two, is the seed wherefrom you were created. I've shown it to your sister, I've shown it to all the little girls of your age, lend a hand, help it along, help get it out, do as your sister does, she's got it out of me twenty times or more.... I show them my prick, and then what do you suppose I do? I squirt the fuck in their face.... That's my passion, my child, I have no other... and you're about to behold it."

And at the same time I felt myself completely drenched in a white spray, it soaked me from head to foot, some drops of it had leapt even into my eyes, for my little head just came to the height of his fly. However, Laurent was gesticulating. "Ah! the pretty fuck, the dear fuck I am losing," he cried, "why, look at you! You're covered with it." And gradually regaining control of himself, he calmly put his tool away and decamped, slipping twenty sous into my hand and suggesting that I bring him any little companions I might happen to have.

This is clearly an example of Bukkake, dating from 1784 when Sade completed this work. However this activity was not explicitly referred to by name in story, so I would assume the French language lacked a word to describe it back then. I suggest this article should mention that it was the Japanese who first termed “Bukkake” but the activity was practiced in various cultures and in various times throughout history.

This 'de Sade' reference is NOT bukkake, it is merely a facial. 213.140.9.230 20:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Bukkake about women

It is inherently about a woman as a subject. Sure, men are the subject of semen facials, and men are also the subject of humiliation by others, but those things are not called Bukkake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 17:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

tentacles in japanese cartoons

I would agree with your opinion, and have thought the same thing about the origin of this and other sexual practices in Japanese pornography: ie, Tentacles/monsters etc. I would be interested to know whether there are any other countries that share similar censorship laws, and the type of pornography in those countries.

The idea that bukkake exists in Japanese porn because of "censorship" is utter rubbish. For one, bukkake also exists outside of Japan, and is NOT confined to pornography. For two, countries that have virtually no censorship of porn (like Denmark and the Netherlands) have porn that is just as "perverted" as Japan's. There is lots of bestiality porn in those countries, and porn where women get defecated and urinated upon (and you thought -bukkake- was extreme. LOL!). This is again why the idea that modern Japanese people "invented" bukkake is -pathetically laughable-: erotic humiliation is a theme in just about every society one looks at. It's nothing new or unusual.

-- Angela

Disgusting and unnecessary

I agree that bukkake is disgusting. In fact, I think that it is even slightly more disgusting than anal sex and almost as disgusting as scat fetishism. I am not sure whether it is unnecessary, though. In any case, if we are going to remove disgusting subjects, I would start from cannibalism. Rafał Pocztarski 21:07, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, if I think that (just as an example) the United States is disgusting, that is reason enough to put it on VfD? More seriously, subjects such as murder and rape are also disgusting, but they still have articles. Furthermore, "disgusting" and "unneccessary" are POV terms, which has no place on Wikipedia. No, this is a real sexual practice that should be documented, as the others that Rfl mentioned above; the existence of articles should not be influenced by personal sentiments, prudish or otherwise. Oh, and lastly, the person who put this article up for deletion should have a good look at clitoris for a real heart attack. Elf-friend 21:31, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There has been another request to delete an article because it is disgusting and children shouldn’t read about it. Should there be (or is there) any separate from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion list of articles which were requested to be deleted not because there is a copyright violation or the article is redundant or of low quality, but because it covers a taboo? Rafał Pocztarski 16:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't it be better to use software, such as NetNanny?

This is the last place on earth that should have censorship. If you are even capable of having such an idea in your mind as a possibility, you do not belong here. This is a resource for Everything, paticularly things which make up a large part of popular culture, which is where wiki derives its very strength in numbers. Take your morals and go make your own censored version. WikiMyWay wouldn't be very popular though, I can tell you.

I would direct the writer of that deletion request to the WP:NOT page: "Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors."

you guys wikipedia shouldnt be censored its an informational thing if you cnat take it then leave. Dappled Sage 02:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Whoever thinks that this page should be deleted clearly does not understand what Wikipedia is. Besides one persons disgusting is another persons normal. Cls14 11:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I can hardly believe you are an admin, rfl. With such childish statements about deletion based upon personal preference...admin or not, you don't decide what's best for wikipedia. the consensus does. And breaking the rules because of personal preference is "meh" at best. Mattz1010 05:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I had an ex girlfriend that lived in Japan and talked about how civilized and better Japan was than the US. Whenever she talked about that all I could think about was how can some one think that from the society that brought the world bukakke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.202.98.90 (talk) 05:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to cite this as a hilarious (albeit absurd) statement. Thank you and good bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.98.93 (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Why does link to bukkake.com keep getting removed?

Hi-

I keep trying to add an external link to "Bukkake.com" and it keeps getting removed. I am not trying to add this link to any other article, only the one about bukkake. The Bukkake.com web site has over 100 pages of bukkake-related content. It is a safe bet that whoever wrote the wikipedia article checked out bukkake.com for a lot of their info. Although the bukkake.com web site carries some adult advertisements it is not a porn site and is informational. Bukkake is, after all, a word with sex-related connotations.

The Bukkake.com web site PREDATES the wikipedia article and contains a superset of information about this topic.

While I realize that the topic "bukkake" might be offensive to some people, it seems somewhat hypocritical to have a 2-paragraph article about it in wikipedia, but refuse to link to 100 pages of additional information about the topic. I mean, why publish a page on this topic in wikipedia at all if attempts to provide a source of additional information are going to be stifled?

Who can I talk to about this? Thanks. :-)

Please read: [2]

Thank you for that link. This is what I saw on there:

What should be linked to

1. Official sites should be added to the page of any organization, person, or other entity that has an official site. Bukkake.com qualifies

2. Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism. Bukkake.com qualifies

3. If a book or other text that is the subject of an article exists somewhere on the Internet it should be linked to.

4. On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of what their POV is. Bukkake.com qualifies

5. High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Bukkake.com qualifies

What is the problem?

Your claim that "bukkake.com" is somehow an "official site" -- this is, of course, nonsense. Your claims that the "bukkake.com" site was used as a reference for the creation of this page are also... disingenuous. I have a good knowledge of the creation history of this page, and it does not appear to have used your site as a primary reference. Your claim that "bukkake.com" is a "high content site" also appears to be unwarranted: it appears to be a generic porno-links site, with some text added to pull in search engines. Finally, the "multiple points of view" argumnent does not seem to apply here. Against this, we have two principles: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, nor is it a mere collection of links. Wikipedia does not exist to drive traffic to porno sites.

The remarkable thing is that you have had your link removed by so many users, most of whom have offered similar explanations, yet you persist in re-adding your link, and asking for a justification. -- Karada 13:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You claim that Bukkake.com is not the official bukkake site. What is the basis for this claim? Just your opinion? Can you show me a better example? No, because there isn't one. Bukkake.com really is the official site. You use the word "disingenuous" to describe the use of Bukkake.com as a reference, which implies that my assertions are at least partially correct. You claim that Bukkake.com "appears" to be a generic porn links site - NOT TRUE, There are a set of ads that appear on every page, but there is a TON of content about bukkake, well over 100 pages in fact. Although people have removed the link, there have also been people who added it.

No one is being forced to click on the link. It has that little graphic that shows that it is NOT affiliated with wikipedia. Someone even added in that warning text. It is totally related to the content on the page. It makes sense for it to be there.

You claim that Bukkake.com is the official bukkake site. What is the basis for your claim? Dictionary definition of "official": having official authority or sanction; "official permission"; "an official representative". So, from which organization do you derive this standing or endorsement?

Also please note the following sentence in the linked page mentioned above: "Persistently linking to one's own site is considered Vandalism and can result in sanctions." In other words, if you keep this up, you are likely to be banned. Elf-friend 16:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A better external link

I've now added an extlink to The X Factory: Anatomy of a Bukkake, a spectator.net article by Anthony Petkovich. This external reference is more representative of the sort of quality required. -- The Anome 10:28, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sexual Urban Legend

So, um, I somewhat question this practice's inclusion in the "urban legend" category. There's numerous pieces of evidence on film and about a billion blind link jokes. Any objections to removing it from this category? -- PeterWoodman 06:10, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Obviously there were, as it got removed. Please, this is not accurate. PeterWoodman 20:56, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Picture

Who agrees that there should be a picture of bukkake? It would help casual readers get a good idea of what it is exactly. - without name

Right now, there's a rather explicit picture in the article. Although I don't feel that we should censor this topic's words, is the picture appropriate for the site?

Is the picture under someone else's copyright? It seems to be showing some URL in the bottom right corner.

I think that the words explain it well enough. The picture there now is pornographic. I have no problem with pictures displaying nudity on this site but i think pictures graphically displaying sex acts have no place in an encycolpaedia. Not to mention that the picture's information gave no mention of whether or not they have the rights to display it here

I have removed the picture. Chip Unicorn 14:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

And there's another pornographic image on this page... 08:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm sure in no time we'd have a few Wikipedians upload a GFDL version of their making. What is Wikipedia without such spirit of intersecting the public good and petty vanity? 218.162.117.120 05:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Seppukake"

I have removed the following from the article:

"Some scholars believe the origins of bukkake is from an ancient ritual practiced during the Pekku era in which bukkake was used during seppuku (ritual suicide). This was known as "Seppukake" and was once considered the most humilating punishment for a nobleman to endure."

If true, this would be very interesting; however, I can't find any evidence to support it. Cite, please? -- The Anome 11:39, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

This souds very likely to be a joke of questionable taste. Rama 18:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I prefer the IRC version: "seppukake! the newest craze in japan! woman dips her face in the entrails of several hundred disgraced samurai." DS 17:23, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I've heard the term used on QDB, so I do not think it to be true. 24.151.114.64 03:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Word origin

There are two different explanations for the word:

• (from the Japanese verb ぶっかける, bukkakeru: "to douse, to pour").
• ... is the noun form of the Japanese verb bukkakeru (打っ掛ける, to dash [water]), and means simply "splash" or "dash".

Maybe both are right, but they should be consistent. 68.163.183.218 05:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Kirk Gibson anecdote: is a joke, should be removed

That last paragraph under history is someone having a joke. It is not true or helpful.

The "urban legends" stuff...

I think it would be best if the "urban legends" bits were either omitted or downplayed. The one about bukkake having "originated in feudal Japan as a method of punishing women who had comitted adultery" is maybe notable only because it is a myth that some seem to believe. But the one about bukkake being some kind of "underground initiation" among sororities seems to be the product of an active imagination, but seems to lack the popularity of being a true urban myth. I would omit this part.

Bukkakke a "Japanese invention", indeed

Utterly ridiculous. If the writer of this entry believes this he simply is poorly educated in American pornography of the 1960's and 1970's, including 1979's Caligula.

"A Japanese invention"? Please. The word is of Japanese origin and therefore you will not see this word appear in usage outside Japan before the assimilation of Japanese sub-culture into general / fringe American society, circa late 1980's / early 1990's (invasion of Japanese Anime). Therefore to seek 'bukkake' in description of the act outside Japan is a fallacy - that, simply, is all.

Please correct this grotesque mistake in this Waki entry as soon as possible.

Such anger. First of all, on this Wiki, you can edit the entry. Second of all, it will help a lot if you can cite evidence, preferably with a book or website, that bukkake was available in the west before Japanese porn started doing it. I don't recall any part of Caligula that counts, but I haven't seen much of it. --Golbez 06:07, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Please research facial, one of the forms of bukkake. Please examine the Caligula synopsis at http://www.caligulathemovie.com/Synopsis.html , section 18 - ' While she is being (sic) masterbated on by several slaves, Ennia remarks to Caligula that she doesn't really want to move to Egypt after they marry.' Caligula, copyright 1979 and filmed from August 5th to December 24, 1976 therefore predates the quote of 1980's bukkake.

Please buy a dictionary it's 'masturbation'.192.206.151.130 (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Please buy a brain and use it to look up what those funny letters in the brackets mean. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.216.193 (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

pwned (sic) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.253.36 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

The following is a sentence taken from the introduction:

Various styles exist, but a common form of bukkake seen in such publications will involve…

There is no mention of any publications prior to this sentence, and it seems strange to mention it in the description of a sexual act. If a reference is being made to pornographic materials, it should be explicit and separate from the description of the act itself.—Kbolino 22:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

One more source of info

Some "How To" on bukkake, including techniques and even recommended nutrition!

I have no time at the moment to "rip" it "off" properly, so may someone else take the advantage and "import" it to Wikipedia.

(Link to www .4-bukkake .com edited because of URL blacklisting Katana 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC) (original section not written by me))

Pictures

Are pictures really necessary for this article? I think readers will get the point without having to be shown illustrations. Stanley011 06:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Do we ask ourselves whether pictures are really necessary for the apple article? People will get the point without having to be shown illustrations, too... Seriously, though, WP:NOT censored. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 13:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to be one to censor Wikipedia, BUT, you have to ask if the use of the explicit images that are currently displayed is rather gratuitous. From the description of the opening paragraph alone it seems pretty obvious what constitutes an act of bukkake, without the need to show photos which are so 'in your face' (ahem). Also the captions of 'An example of bukkake', and 'Another example of bukkake' seems laughable. What? Didn't you get it the first time? It is not an absolute necessity for articles to be accompanied by visual representations, so it does beg the question whether any arguments defending censorship are in this case just blindly crusading the issue, without contemplating the real requirements of a comprehensive definition of the subject matter. I feel that there is no point whatsoever to display graphic images on this page, as exemplified by the pages for anal sex, fisting and cumshot. Your average joe-schmoe is not so lacking in imagination that if he can't get the idea from a description, he is incapable of searching the interweb for examples. Wikipedia server space is not infinite, so we ought to exercise some discretion when it comes to deciding whether it is worthwhile uploading pictures. 81.153.179.152 19:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, deleted pages and images take up just as much or more space on servers as/than extant ones. I do agree that one picture will suffice, but I still don't see any reason to illustrate the apple article, but not the bukakke article. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 19:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

That was a quick response! Well, at this juncture I think that one image should definitely be removed. I would still like a response as to the point of having an image at all. External links are just as useful, and without wanting to jump on a rather trite line of argument, shouldn't we be considering wikipedia's credibility, to some degree at least? Beerathon 81.153.179.152 19:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

We could consider in-lining the image, but I still think that the article should be illustrated in some way. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 08:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The image is downright offensive, degrading and obscene. It should NOT be shown at all in the article. If readers are so curious as to want to be shown an illustration, then a link to the image at the bottom of the page would be appropriate. Thank you. Stanley011 16:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the image unless someone can produce documentation as to its copyright status. I haven't seen anything indicating consent by that woman to be shown on this website with semen all over her face. It's unnecessary, inappropriate, and probably illegal to include the photo in this article. Nightstallion: give it a rest. If you don't understand the material difference between a picture of an apple and a picture of some woman with cum all over her face, you shouldn't be participating in this project. But the fact is that you do, and you think you're standing for some kind of anti-censorship principle. You're not. You're illustrating instead why proponents of censorship may have a point. I am staunchly against censorship, which is why I know how important it is for communities to self-police. The image is gone. --Mrnorwood 18:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

You have a point regarding copyright status, it looks like it was taken from a commercial Japanese site. However, even then, it is more appropriate to flag its copyright status and then delete it (by an admin) after the prescribed period has passed, if no copyright status information is forthcoming. If you just delete it from the article and not flag it as a possible copyvio, it still remains available on Wikipedia's servers, in contravention of any copyright law. So, you actually didn't do Wikipedia any favours by just deleting it from the article. However, your other points are more debatable (e.g "unnecessary, inappropriate") and your action was not taken in the spirit of consensus. In any case, your input would be taken far more seriously if you had more than just three edits to your name, which looks like a single-purpose account. Elf-friend 05:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Elf-friend: it's not a single-purpose account, but it is new; most of my edits have been made anonymously, and this is the first debatable/controversial edit I've made. I recognize that my edit was not undertaken in the spirit of consensus, but I felt that it was better to remove (or at least hide) the image first, then debate its appropriateness. I would have done the same thing had an analogous image shown up on the Child Pornography article. My primary concern is not, in fact, copyright (although that's clearly an issue), but consent; clearing copyright can, however, often act as evidence of consent. But even if copyright and consent issues were cleared, I would find the image inappropriate. Not necessarily offensive to me, mind you, but inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. From Wikipedia:Profanity: "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, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." The image was gratutious. As pointed out above, the motivation behind its original inclusion can be ascertained by the tongue-in-cheek accompaniment of "Another example of bukkake". Ha ha, all well and good for a little laugh, but Wikipedia should be a resource for learning about something without necessarily being exposed to it. We don't rub people's faces in photos of rape, child pornography, bodily mutilation, etc. We can point them toward such things elsewhere on the web, but we should allow people to read about them before being confronted by such images. This is not censorship. Text and images are different from each other, and images, while often informative, also have a cognitive impact that text does not. We should be sensitive to people's aversion to certain images, while balancing it against our mission of informing readers. Here, the image was gratuitous and distracting, and I do not believe it was included in good faith (one of the three main requirements for Wikipedia edits, along with civility and consensus). For a more reasonable (IMO) approach to illustrated articles on pornography, see e.g. Pornography, which seems to strike a better balance. Mrnorwood 16:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

A note on the citation of Wikipedia:Profanity: that is a guideline, not a policy. Instead, WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not censored is a policy. Therefore one may argue that a specific case should be an exception for a guideline, unlike policies that should have no exceptions.--BMF81 15:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why in the world should we be sensitive to people's aversions? There are people out there who would faint from looking at an anatomical diagram, much less a real-world picture. I'm certainly averse to some pictures in the Armenian Genocide article, but they serve a function that no textual summation could. Judging an illustrative image (the only one on the page, mind you) as gratuitious or profane is condescending, human beings live in a complex world that includes both the profane and the sublime. Also, comparing this article to one on rape sets up a straw man argument, since rape is not the subject of this discussion. A graphic rendering or photograph of Bukkake is perfectly legal and relevant to the article.

All that being said, the picture currently used is infringing on copyright, as the photo itself is a commercial product. However if an appropriate free-use or fair-use image is found, any attempt to censor it will be an action of personal bias. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 00:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For an already ongoing, related debate, see also Talk:Gokkun. -- Ashmodai 20:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Anetode: 1. Are you suggesting that, if distributing photographs of rape were legal, it would be a good idea for wikipedia? If so, you and I disagree more profoundly than we will be able to work out here. Photographs of rape share with the photograph in dispute here two material characteristics: they are exploitative, and they are likely to be found offensive to most wikipedia readers. 2. While you seem to agree with my primary objection, the question of consent by the photographic subject (or at least its proxy, copyright), you disagree with my secondary objection, that of upsetting readers without informing them. Why, all things being equal, should we wish to upset people? Are you such a free speech absolutist that you wish to live in a society where a man is free to follow your mother, your wife, your children down the street, naked, masturbating, yelling about how much he'd like to fuck them? After all, he's just "informing them" of a fact, and communicating visual information about profane elements of the world they live in, right? While I don't trust our government to regulate obscenity, I do believe that some things are inappropriate for public display, and I do trust the wikipedia community to do define them. And I believe that the photo here qualifies.--Mrnorwood 20:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

1. No, I am in no way suggesting that. What I meant is that rape is a completely different subject, and unless you are suggesting that the practice of bukkake is directly equivalent to rape (i.e. a forced criminal act), then that topic should not enter at all in this discussion.

2. There is a difference between supporting free speech and actively (not to mention perversly) disseminating obscene or repugnant material. To say that I am advocating stalking women and children while masturbating and yelling obscenities is a silly and unnecessary appeal to ridicule. There are two ways that anyone might stumble upon the Bukkake article on Wikipedia: they follow a Wikilink from an article that concerns human sexuality (such as Group sex or Hentai), or by searching for it directly. Either way, Wikipedia does not force the topic upon an unsuspecting person, but acts as an online multimedia repository of human knowldege and culture, one that does not discriminate between topics. The argument that potentially offensive topics are not worthy of illustration is a prejudiced act of censorship, your personal aversions should not dictate the scope of coverage. Figuring out what might be the more appropriate way to integrate a potentially offensive illustration is a more reasonable concern, and there already is a seperate discussion devoted to that. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 09:11, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Anetode: We seem to be crossing our wires over the "rape" analogy. I use the analogy for at least two reasons:

1. I am trying to figure out whether you think that community self-censorship is ever a good idea. If you actually think that legality is the only barrier to posting obscene or exploitative images on Wikipedia - and that therefore, child porn or rape images would be appropriate if they were legal - I think you will find yourself in the minority and not in accord with the general consensus on obscene or exploitative images. If you do think that we should practice self-censorship in some cases where the images are not illegal, I'd like to know what your reasons are. It's difficult to argue with someone who won't state the premises of his argument.

2. I don't know the facts surrounding the production of this photograph, but given what I know of conditions for sex workers - especially in developing countries, but even in countries like the US and Japan - the image may well have been produced under circumstances involving substantial coercion and exploitation, and is possibly in violation of international human rights treaties to which those two countries, at least, are signatories. Huge amounts of pornography is produced under illegal working conditions, and wikipedians have access to enough information about those conditions that they should be wary of incorporating the products of that industry into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrnorwood (talk • contribs)

1. See, that's just it: I am not letting you pull me into a discussion about "child porn or rape images" because those are completely irrelevant to the context of this article and your mention of them only serves to imply guilt by association. The premise of my argument concerning an illustration of a legal sex act has absolutely nothing to do with the practice or depiction of criminal activities. If you want to argue about posting prurient images of rape, go to Talk:Sexual abuse.

2. This specific image (Image:Bbsk05-6.jpg is no longer of any concern, it is unusable due to a copyright conflict. If there is evidence that Wikipedia is hosting a photograph that features a person who was coerced into, or exploited during, its production, then that image could be illegal and should be deleted. However barring all visual content associated with the pornographic industry because of speculative claims about human rights abuses is an untenable position. There are many responsible and professional pornographic actors who would resent any implication that they were criminally manipulated into working for the industry. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 00:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright people, setting aside the self-censorship discussion, putting up an explicit photograph of the act in question will always cause it to be taken down. Now, i've seen that the community approves of drawings depicting sexual relations as fair pictorial representation. As drawing takes too much work how about taking an existing image and solarizing it or using some effect that while keeping the main point well depicted greatly reduces the shock value of the image. This is an image i edited using the 'stamp' effect of Microsoft Photo Editor (the original image is NOT public domain. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EnvyGangbangStamptemp.jpg Could something of this nature be the solution? If so provide a better image in the public domain, or suggest a different solarizing technique or make one youself. --AnYoNe! 20:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Linkimage

• Notwithstanding any copyright issues, I propose we linkimage any photo that we decide to show.. It is a very simple solution that keeps the informaiton readily available here, but gives people the option to read the text first and then decide if they want to see a picture. Johntex\^talk 21:11, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
• Totally disagree with the link image idea. The photo at the top of the article is not patently obscene and for an individual who hasn't read the article to fully understand what it represents they would need to at least already be familiar with the concept (or similiar) depicted therein. Why this push for pre-censorship? Netscott 01:52, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not censorship if it's not something imposed upon us. Why would you oppose giving someone the chance to read what bukkake is before seeing a picture of it? It is not a common word in English and it is totally reasonable to expect that many people will come here not knowing what to expect on this page. Johntex\^talk 02:00, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't call it censorship, but pre-censorship the problem I see in making such a move is that it begins to set up a slippery slope toward actual censorship. I think the argument that a person is going to possibly come here with no inkling about what the topic of Bukkake may cover is false one. Don't forget about Wikipedia's not-censored disclaimer, it's there for a reason. My view on being against this idea is in accord with the reasoning behind why the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy image isn't link-imaged... that is what the article is about after all! Netscott 02:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the decision not to linkimage at Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy is also a bad decision. Muslims have a right to be able to read the text about the controversy without being immediately offended by the image, in my opinion. Still, I think there is more of an arguemnt to show the iamge there, than there is here. The reason being is that the cartoon article is actually about the image in question, whereas here the article is about the general practice and the picture is just an illustration. Johntex\^talk 16:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, browsers have the Block images from upload option. No one is obligated to see any particular imagery anywhere on the internet. I don't take the no-censorship view lightly and have been mindful of those who are not inclined to want to see images they do not agree with.

I noted a number of hours ago an editor removed the image from this article but I did not revert it... I've never edited on this article and don't know what the true consensus is for displaying images on this article or not and until I do I'm not inclined to involve myself in editing relative to this question. But if an image is going to be available relative to a given article I am nearly 100% opposed to it's being link imaged due to my earlier slippery slope concerns and the potential for censorship becoming policy. Netscott 17:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think asking users to turn off all images is a good solution. People come to encycolpedias, dictionaries, googele, etc., to look things up. Sometimes they may know what the term means and want more info, other times they may not even know what it means. There is always the first time to hear about a new term, so it is perfectly reasonable to expect that some visitors here don't know the meaning of the term. Therefore, it would be unreasonable for people to turn off their images prior to visiting the page. Also, please consider that not everyone knows as much about computers as you do - they may not even know how to turn the images off. Johntex\^talk 17:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

It may surprise you to know it but I actually agree with you about the block image loading part. Netscott 18:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Then how about placing the image further down in the article? If someone is generally offended or disgusted by the concept as it is desribed in the introduction, it's doubtful they'll scroll down. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 19:35, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that is an idea worth considering, certainly. On the pro-side, it gives people a chance to at least see what the word means before they scroll down - especially if there is the equivalent of a "spoiler-type" warning first. Also, it is very easy to do. On the con-side, some people have very high screen resolutions, and this is a fairly short article, so for some people it may be immediately viewable even if moved down the page. Johntex\^talk 19:46, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Alternately the image might be displayed like this:

A typical example of bukkake. File:Bbsk05-6.jpg

anetode╞┬╡ 02:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This is how the Autofellatio image is displayed, because it lives on the MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. You could always flag the bukkake image the same way. Earwig 03:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

In response to the "slippery slope" argument offered above against "pre-censorship": the "slippery slope" concept as you are using it is not a logical argument, it is a logical fallacy. It is premised on the idea that if we censor apples, we will end up censoring oranges, because we are unable to differentiate between apples and oranges. But we are, so we won't.--Mrnorwood 20:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Proper wording vs "heterosexual bias"

Someone once rewrote the descriptions to remove "heterosexual bias", whatever that means. But the changes made for bad grammar and ambiguity. "They" is never a proper pronoun to use for a single person. Correct grammar is to use "he" unless there is a high likelihood that the target is female, in which case "she" is used. (BTW, "He/she" and "he or she" are not proper grammar, either, despite gaining ground in recent years.) Furthermore, use of "they" implied that the non-targets were participating in things that previous, non-PC versions made clear only the target was doing.

Also, it's unclear to talk of a participant opening "the mouth", as that implies it's a mouth belonging to someone or something other than the target. It needs to be "her mouth", etc.

Since the target is usually female, "they" has been changed to "she", "their" to "her", etc. Where it didn't matter, wording was not changed from the non-"heterosexually biased" version.

Finally, is it really a bias to write about the most common version of what happens? Isn't 99% of the time the target a female? Sheesh, PC police, much? How about if you really have an issue with it, include a note at the end that the target, though usually female, can be a male as well? That sure beats making things read horribly in pursuit of cheering on some political goal.

99 % a female?

The claim that "the target is 99 % a female" can only be made from someone restricting himself / herself to the consumption of exclusively heterosexual porn - thus being exactly the kind of hetero bias talked about here. --Tmg1165 09:38, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes 99 % (or 95%) a female

A google search for "bukkake" and the phrase "on her face" returns 479,000 hits. A google search for "bukkake" and "on his face" returns 24,800 hits. This yields 95.08% instances of female targets (479000/503800), and 4.92% instances of male targets (24800/503800). Broadening the search to 'bukkake "on her"' vs. 'bukkake "on his"' (which, note, is more inaccurate) still yields 289000 for "on her" vs. 108000 for "on his", still indicating that the overwhelming majority of labeled bukkake material on the web involves a female target. Furthermore, the more bizarre kinds of bukkake (such as ejaculation on food which is then eaten) tend to originate in Japan and typically show only female recipients. The numbers indicate that there exists a bias towards female targets in available bukkake material. Note that this does not necessarily imply a "heterosexual bias," since bukkake, even with a female target, does involve a group of several men collectively participating in a sexual activity with only one woman; such an activity perhaps cannot be easily classified as either "heterosexual" or "homosexual".

Other quantitative evidence is of course welcome.

It doesn't really matter, there's no reason to be gender specific in the article. Sure, we should mention that the vast majority of bukkake is male-on-female, but I see no reason to change every single pronoun. --Golbez 06:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Pronounciation?

Does the prounciation of Bukkake sound like Booka-key or Buck-cake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.209.159 (talk • contribs)

I don't speak from a Reliable Source, but I'm fairly certain it's the first one (three syllables). ^L_Wizard @ 01:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The best way I can put it is Boo-ka-kay. So yes, three syllables. Bu kka ke. --Golbez 02:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[bu'ka:ke]. —Nightstallion (?) 12:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Origin?

Travel Sick - a british show - visited Japan recently and I believe they said that the word came from a tradition that sailors would bury a maiden except for her head and then gather around her and ejaculate on her. Presumably to get rid of any sexual desires before a long journey.

Yeah, I saw that episode, too. Though, since that is a comedy show, I'm not sure if the information is accurate. 64.121.36.5 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

General Immaturity

(15 Sep 06) Many sentences in this article seem to be of the juvenile sort (porn slang, etc). Believe or not, this article seems to be attracting a lot of vandalizers too.

Live Bukkake

I would like to know if I can add my forum Live Bukkake in this article? Because it is always removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.78.73.92 (talk • contribs) .

No, you can't. Per the guideline WP:EL, we don't link to forums. ^L_Wizard @ 20:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Soup men

Just wondering why the mention of "Soup men" was removed [3] without comment? It appears to be accurate, and sourced. --84.9.191.165 21:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic

This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for OPINIONS on whether or not bukkake is degrading to women. The goal here is to explain what bukkake is, not present conjecture and opinion relating to the topic. I've flagged this article for neutrality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pygmypony (talk • contribs) 19:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Indeed, you are right, it is not a forum for just opinions. We document what others have said about a topic, and give references, as in this case, with the statements here. To keep it from being NPOV, people with other views document those alternative views and give references for them. Please feel free to offer alternative views from others. The article is not non-neutral in POV merely because you or someone else has not added that alternative view yet. Atom 19:33, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

-It is NOT properly cited. An random article on some site, is not a sociology source. This is a very easy concept. and don't erase comments and reply under reasons. 68.51.193.190

First, please sign your posts with ~~~~ and people will not think it is drive-by vandalism.

Second, the citation that has been attached to the sociologic comment all along is, and has been a journal article[4]. It isn't a random article, and it ias much a siologic source as anything else in society. If you would like further citations, you can look for them, and I will find some also. Atom 02:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Poor citations and plagarism

Citation 5, from "Craccum" is not a journal. It is a magazine. It is not peer-review, and it is not written by experts. Secondly, the craccum article does not support the statements that it is used to back up. Secondly, the citation -6- (Enacting Masculinity) can not be reached from the URL in note 6. If you do look up that article you find that the last two sentances of the "sociology" section are completely plagarized. "The current popularity of bukkake, a symbolic group rape in which multiple men—up to 75 at a time—degrade a woman by squirting semen on her face attests to the prevalence of such contempt. A Google search for this term in March 2004 met with 3.4 million hits, with web sites that glory in the degradation and objectification of women". The article itself gives no citations or evidence of any kind supporting the idea that bukkake is a symbolic rape, or has the purpose of degradation or objectification of women. I'm editing that section. Bilz0r 19:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, a magazine is a journal. No one claimned it was peer reviewed, or authoritative. Indeed a peer reviewed journal would be a better source. An article written by recognized experts would, indeed, be better. This reference does mee the Wikipedia standards for verifiability as required. If you have an alternative opinion, and it is backed by a recongized expert in a per reviewed journal, I am sure it would carry heavier weight.

Plagiarization is when someone uses someone elses work, and takes credit for it. The proper way to do that is to quote the person, or source, and give a reference. Quoting and citing the reference is not plagiarism.

As for citation on note 6, I have no problem getting to it. Do you?[5]

Atom 20:00, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that that craccum article does meet the inclusion criterion. It's definatly not Scholarly. There's no evidence of Attributability, or Expertise. There is no mention of Editorial oversight. The Replicability is dubious and there are no sources. And I doubt craccum is recognized as a reliable source.

I have no trouble getting to citation 6 any more. But meanwhile, that's not a quote. If you tried to publish something like that in an actual journal, you would get rejected; as it is not in quote marks, or any other symbols to give you the idea that it is a quote.

But either way, do you not think it would be better that you changed the emotive sentence to something along the lines of "Clinical & Forensic Psychologist Karen Franklin said 'A Google search for this term in March 2004 met with 3.4 million hits, with web sites that glory in the degradation and objectification of women'"? I can't cite authoritative articles on the psychology of bukkake because there are none, I might as well cite http://www.wikiafterdark.com/index.php/Do_Bukkake or http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=101712, but these are even more pointless that citing a student newspaper article written by someone under a pseudonym. Bilz0r 00:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure, I may have put quotes in originally. Quotes are not essential for a cited reference, but optional. The citation is never optional. The emotive sentence attribution you suggest could work, but I don't want to put undue weight on the attibution. (Clinical Psychologist) People should come to their own conclusions, and research the source if they feel that is needed. Otherwise, every POV would be segmented off with quotes, and with peoples names and titles. As it is in a section titles "sociology", I think that sections it from the other information as sociologic perspective.Atom 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give the reliability of the source some more thought, and research it deeper to be sure that it I am comfortable with it meeting Wikipedia standards. I'll get back to it. Atom 00:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I definitely get your point about not saying "clinical psychologist". But surely there is a way of making the sentences in question slightly less authoritative sounding for instance, (I know there are some weasel words in here) :

"The current popularity of bukkake, which some claim is a symbolic group rape, attests to the prevalence of such contempt. A Google search for this term in March 2004 met with 3.4 million hits, with web sites that some people see as glorifying the degradation and objectification of women"

Or "Bukkake is a population fetish/paraphilia, a Google search for this term in March 2004 met with 3.4 million hits. Classical feminist views on pornography see bukkake as an extreme form of glorifying the degradation and objectification of women"

(The fact that up to 75 men do it, seems to me, to have little bearing on whether or not bukkake is symbolic group rape). Bilz0r 21:39, 28 January 2007

Well, we can either represent the statement as accurately as possible, in order to not change the meaning, and not do synthesis, or we can paraphrase, doing our best to maintain the key elementrs of the thoughts. If we were to paraphrase, I would not put the 3.4 million google hits, as google hits are meaningless, and the point really is that bukkake is not an unknown fringe phenomenon. I would tend towards something like:

Some have suggested that Bukkake is a form of symbolic group rape, with its primary purpose the humiliation, degredation and objectification of women. Others have described bukkake as a fetish culture beyond sex. Since the primary fetish focuses on a passive female humiliated by men, it has been called an expression of male insecurity and fear of loss of control.

Of course, both of them with the proper references. Atom 03:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I love that example, apart from "Since the primary fetish focuses on a passive female humiliated by men,". Again, I like it a lot more if it was, "it as been said", "some claim", "authors suggest" etc... Bilz0r 06:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, but that is what the quote explicitly says. Its kinda hard to get around. "It has been said..." sounds a little too poetic. With "some claim" makes it sound like you rather doubt it, but feel obligated to include it for NPOV sake. We should avoid the appearance of our own editorial opinion. "Authors suggest...." seems better than the other two, but still a but strange.

A better approach might be to say that the subject spawns strong reactions, and that some people have this view, and others have that view. Atom 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

So by removing the "up to 75 men" and the "3.4 million google hits" thing, and the redundancy that goes with it, the section is very short. Bilz0r 22:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. If we keep working on editing the other sections, eventually we can tweak the entire article down to a succinct seven characters ;) Atom 02:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The name you have quoted as writing the article from Craccum is also incorrect - it was written by Simon Coverdale - Aaron Haugh is the advertising manager for the magazine.

History?

I'm reverting the following section because it is unsourced (and doesn't sound true)...

Bukkake is a practice originating from Feudal Japan, 12th to 19th century. A woman accused of adultery or being sexual promiscuous would be restrained in a public area, usually a village square, and the male citizens were invited to ejaculate onto the woman’s body and face. The mentality of the prosecutors was that if the woman was willing to share herself with someone other than her husband, than she would be punished by sharing her body with any man.

Bukkake was seldom part of the law, but a cultural tradition, primarily practiced in remote villages. The adulteress would sometimes be paraded through the village nude prior to being tied up an ejuaculated upon. Other times, the accused would be lead to the town center and be tied to a post in a kneeling position. Paper screens were sometimes used to shield the males, so that only the adulteress could be seen.

Other variations include digging a hole in which the woman is buried up to her neck, leaving only the face and head to experience the bukkake.

While Bukkake was originally intended as punishment for a woman, men who had committed adultery or any specifically heinous act could be punished this way as well. However, men being subjected to a bukkake was quite atypical.

Also, it appears that some porn links have been snuck into the page masquerading as "references". They'll be going away too. - Big Brother 1984 08:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Somebody can explain me?

They erase my reference Bukkake Techniques and allows to this blog Bukkake with some announcements!

Very strange!

Kazuhiko Matsumoto?

I know nothing about the history of bukkake, but the page for Kazuhiko Matsumoto was listed in the category for bukkake and it says that he (I assume its a "he," but my knowlage about Japanesse names in not a good as I'd like it to be) is credited as inventing the genre. It seems that he should be listed here in some way.

PS - The link in One more source of info section is now blacklisted. So it will have to be removed to edit this page or you can just click to edit this section only and use the wiki code "== NEW SECTION NAME HERE ==" like I had to do. I don't know how to fix this problem with out removing the section altogether. Scaper8 06:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism; Missing audiofile and picture added

The edit "06:20, 9 June 2007 71.96.128.69" changed several things;
1: Silly diagram added
2: Link to pronounciation audio file replaced and later removed completely when reverting the vandalism
3: Links replaced and added.
I'm not used to editing, so I suggest that someone takes a look at previous versions and see if any more elements (in addition to the above specifics) have been lost along the way. (The reason I noticed, is that I went to get the audio file, to play it LOUD at work ;-D ) Katana 19:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The diagram is gone, the pronunciation is back, but I don't know what links you refer to. --Golbez 22:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

UK Bukkake

There are several uk bukkake films produced by Alasdair Irving of Campster Videos Ltd. Although made in the uk, their main sales bases are in Holland and Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.204.223.101 (talk) 22:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Me

Can we put a picture of me after i did a facial porno film? Little miss jenna 19:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

nope, but if i could just take your phone number and any photographic evidence for future reference... ;) lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark wounds (talk • contribs) 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Definition missing?

Is it just me or does this article never actually describe what Bukkake is. That is actually why I was referred to the article, to get a definition. I now know the history of the word and some legal issues surrounding the act, but I still can't tell from the article what the word actually means. Anyone venture a definition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyh (talk • contribs) 11:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Women included

Women also perform bukkake . I've edited the article to fit this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soporaeternus (talk • contribs) 20:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Uncited Howard Stern reference removed

I've removed the following unreferenced assertion from the article:

The term Bukkake reached a wider audience in the United States through radio host Howard Stern when he mentioned the website Bukkake.com on his nationally syndicated radio program. Controversy arose regarding the meaning of the word when station managers began censoring its use, inadvertently creating more interest.

Cite, please? -- The Anome (talk) 22:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what bukkake means

It's not normally used to describe something of a sexual nature, it just means something is soaked. This could be for example noodles. This is another example of a word being grossly mistranslated and used in English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.99.199 (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

silly diagram

This diagram is completely unnecessary and silly. I'm not going to monitor this article, however, as I have better things to do. Any serious editors of this article ought to send this to arbitration or some such, it's absurd. - superβεεcat  20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I also just saw the diagram and agree it's silly and inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. Interlingua 02:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing again then. I will send this to arbitration if it is reverted again. This is really really absurd. - superβεεcat  18:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

That diagram is hilarious but i think someone should replace it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.121.184 (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Image:Bukkake.svg from article

• I'm RfC on the Image:Bukkake.svg image in the top section of the article. It appears unencyclopedic and vague. It does not illustrate the topic of the article in any useful way and should be removed. My removal has been reverted multiple times -09:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree, the image is silly and unnecessary. Not every sexuality article needs a picture to prove Wikipedia is not censored. --Phirazo 04:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I disagree. The image illustrates, in a clear, unoffensive and yet humorous fashion, what bukkake is about. 7 March 2008 07:37 GTM 195.218.72.250 (talk) 07:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Please elaborate on how it is "clear". It is vague (at best). It is akin to saying that a female symbol next to a male symbol is a clear diagram for fellatio. Please don't revert the picture unless you can clearly articulate how it clarifies the article. The consensus, at the moment, is to the contrary- please don't revert it unless the tide changes. - superβεεcat  07:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I don't see what this has to do with language or linguistics, but the picture is clearly pointless. It doesn't actually explain anything that isn't perfectly apparant in the text and seems more humorous than encyclopedic. This is not the place for it. Peter ^Isotalo 10:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• There is a consensus that it doesn't belong. I'm removing the RfC.

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:

• Bukkake
• Mammary intercourse
• Facial (sex act)
• Pearl necklace (sexuality)

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. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 23:10, 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) 15:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I would NOT include Mammary intercourse with External Ejaculation, because it is not ejaculate-specific. Mammary intercourse is generally how a pearl necklace is produced, but mammary intercourse can be either foreplay or only-play, the way oral sex can. Mammary intercourse is already properly listed under Non-penetrative sex as a link, the way the other non-penetrative sex acts are, including to Frottage, Tribadism & Intercrural sex. wbm (talk) 19:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge them ALL together. Merge Cum shot, Mammary intercourse, Pearl necklace (sexuality), and Bukkake together. But keep Facial (sex act) as its own separate article. The others are specific/pornorgraphic/group sex acts that should be merged together. Facial (sex act) is its own separate thing. Rustdiamonds (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- I see very little commonality between these. Bukkake: a practice of ritual humiliation, Mammary Intercourse: other than being a sex act, has no relation to the others, Facial: An erotic act primarily used for pornography. Facial and Bukkake are very similar in nature, as the end result is semen on a persons face. However the purpose of the two, and their history, is quite different. Bukkake is limited to many men shooting spunk on one woman the purpose bing humiliation. A facial the purpose is erotic excitement, or for pornography. I don't see how putting them together will clarify either, but will confuse people, as there is already a great deal of confusion people thinking that Bukakke is the same thing as a facial. I vote to leave them all seperate. If there were some merge, pearl necklace and facial would be the candidates -- not the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- These are very different subjects. Bukkake, for example, could be a very, very long article by itself; as mentioned above, it has its own unique history and ritual. For the others, the qualitative nature of the act/experience varies significantly. It seems that the only commonality between them is the possibility they would be perceived by some/many as fetishes/bizarre/fringe/etc. To me, this motion is akin to suggesting that homosexuality, pedophilia and bestiality be merged--no offense to anyone intended. 65.183.135.231 (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose -- I agree that ALL of these articles do not belong together, for many of the reasons stated above. While some smaller merges may be appropriate, (such as Facial (sex act) & Bukkake) I feel those should be proposed and discussed separately from this suggested merge of 4 articles. Kingadrock (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with a recent editor who stated that there was "no consensus for a merge at this time" and removed the merge tag. Atom (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Any truth to this?

I just received spam in my inbox. It read the following:

You might be thinking to yourself, how did an exotic Oriental fetish such as bukkake could become so popular. It's pretty simple, really. It's all about traditional, conservative values. And what can be more common or conservative than publicly humiliating women who cheat on their husbands by taking them into the public square, binding them tightly with ropes and having every able-bodied male in town shoot hot loads of thick, burbling man-sap into the offending wenches' pleading, upturned faces?

Nowadays, bukkake isn't a penalty... it's a way of life! Modern, liberated young women of all races, colors and creed have awoken to the sexual potentials of this practice, and nowadays, you cannot swing a dead cat without hitting a gal who loves it right up on the face, or directly down the throat, or in the eyes, or all over their heads, whatever way they can get it, really.

The last bit is obviously crap but is there any truth to it being used as a form of punishment for a cheating slapper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prince Paul of Yugoslavia (talk • contribs) 10:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically no, there isn't. Darn hard to find any halfway decent references for this, but I've now added a rudimentary History section. Jpatokal (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The section I added debunking this was removed with (AFAIK) no comment. It's sourced, so I've restored it. (A better reference for it not being true/intentionally invented would be welcome, but it's hard to prove a negative.) Jpatokal (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

female only

I've reverted the ascertation that only females can be recipients in bukkake. This is not the case. Teh citation mentioned is a link to a book on pornography. Simple one persons opinion. Here is a citation from reference.com stating males and females can be recipients of bukkake. it is defined by the act, not the gender. --Brideshead (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.reference.com/search?q=Bukkake

I've re-reverted this edit. Bukkake as "female humiliation" is a theory, not a proven fact. The appropriate non-biased statement is to refer to a person being ejaculated on not specifically a female or a male.

Does anyone else have an opinion on this matter which can be discussed here or we are going to end up in an edit revert war. Any contributions? --Brideshead (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I might point out that the reference.com article definition originated from an older version of the Wikipedia Bukkake article. One that incorrectly stated that the subject could be male or female. Circular reference. 75.72.34.245 (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I intend no racism toward Japan. Japan, like the U.K and U.S. has a variety of less than favorable historical facts. Also, you should note that my comments are in regard to historical acts against women, not a race. These acts (against women) occur throughout most culture's histories. The act called Bukkake has Japanese origins, but I have no doubt that every other culture has a similar history. Why the Japanese act/term is engraved in history and not the acts/terms of other cultures is beyond me. Perhaps because of the Japanese occupation of China and Korea? Perhaps just a matter of the timing of the growth of porn on the Internet -- Who knows. 75.72.34.245 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bridesmaid: Quote "The purpose of Bukkake is female humiliation". This is YOUR opinion, NOT fact. bukkake can involve a variety of participants, not simply the narrow definition you ascribe to it. I'm reverting the edit. --Brideshead (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion of course. But, I was not giving opinion but supporting the citation that was given. As a feminist it is also my perspective, but that isn't really relevant in the article. The act knows as "Gay Bukkake" is a recent phenomena. I am a strong supporter of GLBT/LGBT, and could care less what the genders of the people involved in any given sex act are. I am sure there is a long history of groups of people (male or female) ejecting or "splashing" their ejaculate upon a single subject/victim for a variety of reasons, including for eroticism or humiliation or punishment -- whatever. The article is about Bukkake though, not about porn films, or "facials" or pearl necklaces or group sex or LGBT. Bukkake is of Japanese word and cultural origin. As I just said, the article is about Bukkake, not sperm ending up on someone elses face. There probably is a much broader and more diverse history of Bukkake in Japan than I am aware of -- I am no expert on Japanese culture. One may need to be a good student of Japanese culture to really understand that. But, in a limited Wikipedia article, certainly the primary elements are 1) Multiple men ejaculate on the face of their subject. 2) The subject is a woman. One can speculate the motivations of this cultural acts. (history suggests punishment of the woman, and ritual humiliation of the women is part of that, but there may be other contexts) The history does not, as far as I know, describe groups of men ejaculating on other men. (Although Japanese history does describe men urinating on other men as an act of domination/humiliation.) It does not describe describe groups of women ejaculating on men or women. So, when I emphasize that the Bukkake article should stick to the historical references, rather than a fairly recent trend of pornography of various kinds (regardless of the genders involved) it is not mean't to show bias against LGBT but intended to be true to the facts, regardless of what I would prefer. 75.72.34.245 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I will look for some more concrete citations, but after we get a chance to talk this through on the talk page, I will probably put the article back to the factual basis, rather than the porn basis. Reference.com is not a good citation either as it is just a list of people's opinions based on pop-culture, not on historical references or research. It is also written using an older version of this Wikipedia article as it's source. 75.72.34.245 (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an approach to take might be to break the article into different sections, one part discussing the historical (mythology or factual) aspects and another the current pornographic or cultural aspects. 75.72.34.245 (talk) 16:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's start with a reference to the definition that is not based on a previous wikipedia entry. I am still looking for further cultural and historical references. "A photograph or video depicting multiple men ejaculating onto a single woman." http://books.google.com/books?id=4YfsEgHLjboC&pg=PA288&dq=bukkake&lr=&sig=XhFIqOXDVVeUDP2F9uapeUCEdlU The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English; Taylor and Francis Publishers, Published 2006. Page 288. ISBN:0415259371

"Japanese term for a sexual practise where several men ejaculate on face of a woman." Keath Roberts, Published 2007 by Lotus Press, SBN:8189093592. "The Illustrated Dictionary of Sex", P. 35.

"Una práctica que consiste en que una mujer recibe en el rostro chorros de semen de decenas de hombres." La palabra y el hombre By Universidad Veracruzana, Published in 1957. http://books.google.com/books?id=XNcSAAAAYAAJ&q=bukkake&dq=bukkake&lr=&pgis=1

75.72.34.245 (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

gay bukkake

I added a section to try to explain the new usage of the "Gay Bukkake" term. It needs some work, and it needs citations. I will try to find some more.

Bukkake is inherently sexist, yes. It was originally a method of subjugating women. Japanese culture is not unique in this, as there is a history of this in most cultures. Why the Japanse Term has exploded in use is unknown to me -- probably pure random chance. Japanese culture is not better or worse than any other in this regard, in my opinion.

Many people seem to want to try and change the Bukkake definition form "Many men ejaculating on a woman's face" to "Many men ejaculating onto another person". The basis for this desire, I believe is 1) They see advertisements or porn movies that use the term Bukkake incorrectly. 2) They think that it is sexist to suggest that the act can only happen against women (even though that has historically been the case.) In Japanese culture, subjugation of men by other men has often been shown by men urinating upon other men, not ejaculating. 3) GLBT advocates feel that there is an attempt to slight them by focusing on only one sex. A way of denying that gay culture exists, I think.

I think the fact is (and the citations support) that historically the term Bukkake was, and has been sexist. Trying to erase this history by forcing the term to be inclusive as men as subjects may be a nice and noble idea. It just is not historically accurate.

I believe that the act of multiple men ejaculating onto the face or body of another man does indeed exist. It just is not called Bukkake, it is called something else. (Like Facial, for instance). It has been incorrectly called "Gay Bukkake" in very recent culture (not historically outside of the last ten years). This is incorrect usage, as the term "Bukkake" always implies a female subject.

I think the reasoning for using this term is purely a marketing tactic to make money off of the explosive growth in interest in the Bukkake subject. Or, also, perhaps, that there really *is* no term for the same kind of act performed on a male subject.

Atom (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

How did you decide that bukkake always implies a female subject?

Also, just because a word has a historical meaning doesn't mean that it can't ever mean anything else as culture develops. The word rap meant "to knock, as on a door" up until the late 70s for example. Would you deny the more modern use of the term? The English language has no board to regulate it, as French does with the L'Académie française, so you have no basis for defining what the word means. We have groups and documents that define the proper use of words like "you're" and "your", for example, but none such for words like bukkake. If it can be shown that it is used in a particular way, that is valid. My personal belief is that there is no need for the qualifier "gay", just as there is no need to call men having anal sex "gay anal sex", but that's really irrelevent.

I think it is important to make clear the historical implications, but not to deny that we are currently creating and modifying language. Even the fact that we have taken the word bukkake, "splash", from Japan and created this very specific connotation of splashing not just anything, but specifically semen and specifically onto a person's face shows that this term is elastic and subject not to rules that we impose on it, but by the meaning that it has to the people who use it. Conical Johnson (talk) 02:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you hadn't heard, information added to an article must be verifiable, and facts included must be attributed to a reliable source. Thanks. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quite aware of that. Also please note (I know it is difficult to keep track of this) that I have never added or edited anything in this article about the term "gay bukkake". I am just challenging the assertion that because bukkake was in the past used to refer to men ejaculating on a woman, that the term can never mean anything else. As I said in my previous note, I would personally never use the term "gay bukkake" because I think it is unnecessary. I don't think there needs to be a different term for this act when it involves a male recipient. I don't really care at all about the phrase "gay bukkake", I just think it's silly for this guy to have decided what bukkake can and cannot refer to if it is being used in other ways. I have never heard anyone talking about bukkake with a male recipient before, but if it can be shown (yes, using reliable sources) that it is being used, who are we to say it is invalid? The question should be a matter of a proper source, not the editor's preconceptions of how a word is supposed to be used. Conical Johnson (talk) 03:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

See the references for why people felt that the subject is a woman. That is the history of the term. My preference had nothing to do with it, historical accuracy did. You are correct that Gay Bukkake is a misnomer, as Bukkake refers to women as the subject. It is true that people misuse language all of the time, and will continue to do so. That would not be a reason for misusing it in the encylopedia article though. A dictionary entry could add one more definition of a term if it becomes commonly used differently. This may happen to the word Bukkake eventually. As this is an encylopedia article, we should discuss what the origins and accurate usage is. Ten years from now, someone may update the encyclopedia based on a newer usage of the term.

No one doubts whether the act of more than one man ejaculating on another mans face exists. It just isn't Bukkake. Call it a facial, call it a cum shot, call it what you choose, as the article is not trying to restrict your language usage, only trying to give correct guidance. Atom (talk) 08:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Humiliation?

It is neither self-evident nor widely agreed-upon that bukkake is about humiliation, so this bit that reads "The use of ejaculation is part of a humiliation ritual and generally does not involve any of the female characters experiencing orgasm." is not NPOV. I have changed the sentence a few times to reflect that this is an opinion, by adding something like "these people claim that..." or "it is claimed that..." and it keeps being reverted. Editors should remove their own personal beliefs from this article, and make it clear that there is no universal consensus of what the psychological implications of bukkake are for all participants.

The edit history says "citation trumps opinion", but the thing you are citing is an opinion itself, not an objective fact. When we cite opinions, we have to point out that this is what they are.Conical Johnson (talk) 01:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

When you change a quotation from a ciated source to mean something else, you are offering your personal opinion of the matter, over the cited source. WP:NPOV does not mean that all material in an article should be neutral, but rather that different perspectives should be allowed in an article. If you have an opinion that differs with the citation, it is certainly welcome in the article to help balance other viewpoints. But -- you have to cite a source for that perspective, not just claim that someone feels a certain way. I respect that your view differes with the cited source. My opinion does somewhat also. But, your and my opinions are not appropriate in the article, citable, verifiable sources for facts and opinions are important.

When you prefix the quotation with "Here, it is claimed that the" you alter the meaning of the article. It is not for us to judge, or suggest that the statement is true, or not true. We need to stick true to the article, and not try to weaken, or strengthen the statements based on whether we believe them to be true or not.

Is it a quotation? I see no quotes. Put that phrase in quotes and it will not be changed. I could find a source that says Jews are the Devil (Mein Kampf perhaps?), but to say "Jews are devils" in a Wikipedia article without making it clear that this is a quotation would be inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conical Johnson (talk • contribs) 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe putting it in quotes would be a good idea. If one reads the citation, it is clear that it is quoted from that citation. If the article were about genocide, or WWII history, then quoting Mein Kampf accurately and citing it would indeed be an acceptable POV for the article to contain, and other views (especially more dominant views) would be in the article as well. In that article it would say: "It was Hitlers view..." to qualify the statement and the citation would be attached. In this article it says "Some feminists have described..." and "others have described..." it does not present the material you qestion as factm but ascribes the source, and gives a citation fot the user to follow so that they may use their own judgement as to the context and credibility of the original source. Atom (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

The assertion is POV as it involves a subjective judgement. It needs attributing to an author or at the very least, the feminist consensus on bukkake. forestPIG^(grunt) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

POV is acceptable in an article. All articles contain some POV. The WP:NPOV policy insures that competing POV's are allowed. Its purpose is not to eliminate POV's. Other POV's are allowed here(but also must be cited). In this specific case, as you say, that POV needs to be attributed. Indeed it is cited in the article. Atom (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

---

I don't have access to the book, but I was able to access a PDF of the other article:

"The current popularity of bukkake, a symbolic group rape in which multiple men—up to 75 at a time—degrade a woman by squirting semen on her face attests to the prevalence of such contempt. A Google search for this term in March 2004 met with 3.4 million hits, with web sites that glory in the degradation and objectification of women."

I see a problem with this source, as that's the only thing it says about bukkake at all, as the article is about gang rape and anti-gay violence. It's just a lone statement not backed by anything. Her specialty is hate crimes, so it would actually be a violation of NPOV to use her as an expert.

We need to consult some more sexologists and sociologists to provide sources for this article, with balance.

-Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 03:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I've looked pretty extensively to try and find reliable and verifiable citations, but they are pretty sparse. Bukkake is a topic that had very little notability or coverage before 5-10 years ago. There may be more informaitin in the coutry of origin, but the language issue is a problem. In the west, primary experience and usage seems to be primarily based on pornography, with no record of previous cultural experience, or corresponding sociologic or sexology research to be found. Atom (talk) 04:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I don't think the new added pronunciations (2 & 3) are correct. I do think a revision could be made to the original. For those not familiar with the IPA, see IPA, IPA chart for English dialects, and this handy interactive, audible pronunciation chart.

The last link there is the most handy, as you can click to hear what it sounds like quickly and easily.

I'm no expert myself, but I do know a little. Correct me if I'm wrong.

(1) /bɯkːakeː/

Roughly: "boo-kaah-kay."

(2) /bü̜ˈkɑ̘ke̞/

Roughly: "buh-kahh-kay."

I checked, but couldn't find the u with an umlaut, nor umlaut alone, as an IPA symbol.

Aside from the primary stress ('), the other three symbols are (in order): less rounded, advanced tongue root, and lowered articulation.

I'm not as familiar with these three symbols, but this still doesn't sound right, mainly with the first syllable.

(3) /bʊˈkæke/

I'm not sure how to do an intuitive form of this. These are forms of the characters in a General American (news broadcaster style) accent: ʊ = good and æ = bad.

The first and second syllable of this seem wrong.

Proposed final:

I modified the first to change 'a' to 'ɑ', add syllable breaks and

/bɯ.'kːɑ.keː/

This would roughly be "boo-kahh-kay."

Is there even a reason to have two different pronunciations?

I think that both an intuitive and IPA pronunciation should be provided, as most people can't decode the IPA alone.

Also, the link to the IPA article was removed and I'll reinsert it once this is settled.

-Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The source of those is wiktionary The ü is probably intended to be a long u, ipa-[u:], and the ɑ should be ipa-[a] 1: IPA: /bü̜ˈkɑ̘ke̞/ -- boo-kah-keh 2: IPA: /bʊˈkæke/ -- buh-kaeh-keh

See IPA.

We can fix wiktionary after we work it out here. Atom (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Atom (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Except that that a vowel isn't a phoneme in Japanese. See Japanese Vowels. It really should be /a/, especially if you're going to use the high-back-unround vowel /ɯ/, which is not part of English phonology. 72.130.185.65 (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

History section

So, the section about bukkake supposedly being an ancient feudal Japanese punishment was removed entirely as "an urban legend as even one of the references pointed out", and when I restored it with a comment to make it clearer that this is an urban legend, the clarification was reverted with "the previous version struck me as way too POV" and again with "why not let the facts speak for themselves?".

My two yen: the legend is total bullshit, and we don't need to dignify it by pretending it's factual. However, it crops up with such frequency (nearly 800,000 hits on Google for "bukkake ancient") that it has to be debunked. Jpatokal (talk) 05:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to debunk anything. You need a reliable source that says it's bullshit. The wording you used, "almost certainly incorrect" violates WP:WEASEL, so it's not acceptable. You are being prescriptive rather than descriptive, and that should always be avoided on Wikipedia. The fact is, it's one of several explanations for where bukkake originated. My version does not take sides. It just explains, which is what we're here to do. I have reverted your revision for this reason. DO NOT revert again without posting here. Since you made WP:BOLD changes that are disputed, we have to follow WP:Bold, revert, discuss, until we come to a consensus. --Pwnage8 (talk) 12:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"You need a reliable source that says it's bullshit." No. If someone says the adult Bukkake started in "ancient Japan", he/she must show records/text and specify at least from when the adult Bukkake existed. Luckily, Japan has such a long history of writing and there are tons of historical writings available. A text referring to Bukkake should be provided. This is especially a must because the adult Bukkake has not been a custom historically existed in Japanese life. Also there is a log time lag between "feudal" and "ancient." There is no reliability and preciseness. I propose that the "legend" section be deleted. See also my comments below about the origin of the adult Bukkake.Hrkoew (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that the paragraph goes on to discuss the lack of evidence and the origin of the theory. It is already properly debunked in the article; not by opinions, but by facts. --Evb-wiki (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The current wording was what I originally wrote, so I'm not too averse to keeping it. However, I still think the words "One theory" sound too scientific and should be changed to "A popular urban legend", akin to other WP articles discussing popular misconceptions (eg. Ich bin ein Berliner#Jelly doughnut urban legend). Jpatokal (talk) 06:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph on "common legend" does not read that way. It was not denied explicitly, but rather, it came with sources, which were in fact, totally pointless writings or bullshits in English. Why is there no Japanese source? This way of writing guides readers to believe that the "legend" could be true. But the answer is no. In Bukkake page, what is totally missing is that the use of "bukkake" in the pornographic meaning is a recent invention. Japanese adult video industry invented the Bukkake performance in order to make videos visually appealing because they are, by law, prohibited from capturing sexual organs in videos without mosaic.Hrkoew (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Noodle

Isn't there also a noodle which shares this name? No pun intended. Beatle Revolver (talk) 18:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, it's called Bukkake Udon. If you want a recipe I can give it to you. What I'm a little concerned about is why Bukkake links directly here, when it should link to a disambiguation page for a few obvious reasons. I'll list them if you ask.'''Aryeonos''' (talk) 09:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

archive

Is anyone going to bother archive this talk page?--Uksam88 (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• Are you implying that it is "messy?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beatle Revolver (talk • contribs) 18:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Gender of subject

The subject of Bukkake is always female. That is the definition of Bukakke -- see references given, see previous discussion. The term referes specifically to that act. Yes, men ejaculate upon the face of other men -- but that is called a facial. It is not Bukkake, as the subject is MALE. See definition of Bukkake -- see references. If the term has been used more widely, or mis-used or incorrectly used, that does not change the definition or origins or history of the act -- it merely adds a 2nd dictionary entry. Which, as far as I can tell researching, has not occured.

So, please don't change the definition in the article just because you disagree. Find and cite a reference beyond your opinion -- or leave it alone please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.39.145 (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

[6] shows a gay porn video called "Scoop! the BUKKAKE EXTRACT", with graphic evidence of what is obviously group man-on-man ejaculation. Thus, the name "bukkake" is demonstrably used for the act.

Now, you are asserting that "the definition" of the term is limited to man-on-woman. Do you have a reliable source for this? Jpatokal (talk) 07:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the four references given? There is not limitation of the term implied. Despite my distaste for the sexism involved, (on Wikipedia) we need to use the term correctly as it is historically defined -- not as we prefer, or misunderstand the term. Bukkake is not the act of a man ejaculting on a person, but the act of a man ejaculating on the face of a woman. (See origin of the word, act and references.) Yes, there exists porn where men ejaculate onto other men -- and it is advertised as Bukkake. Incorrect usage of the term does not redefine the term. The fact that the origin of the term is sexist, and founded on the humiliation of women may be uncomfortable, but correct historical ackowlegment of sexism is the best tool against sexism in the future. On Wikipedia we should stick with the correct usage, and not mar the term or history just because of commercial interest in taking advantage of the popularity of the term to advertise yet another porn film.

No one disputes whether there are films where men ejaculate onto other men, or that some people call that Bukkake (something new within the last few years). To meet Wikipedia standards, a reference to neologistic usage based on a porn film (or a few porn films) does not make the grade. Citations based on historical usage of Bukkake being ALSO used in the context of men ejaculating on men seemed to be nonexistent. I have done due diligence to look for those. Feel free to also do the same. Absent any credible citation that the term ALSO applied to men ejaculating on other men using historical and literary references, we can't just say that is the case because someone points to a porn film with an errant title. We can't say that it SHOULD be used that way because otherwise the historical facts would be sexist, or not sensitive to LGBT PC. The act WAS sexist, and about the humiliation of women. Those facts further feminism, rather than hindering it. (And regardless of that, it simply is factual.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.39.145 (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

WTF? Sexism has nothing to do with this. The referenced fact is that the term "bukkake" is used in gay porn, and your personal opinion about whether they "should" use the term for gay porn is irrelevant.

Also, I find it rather funny that you're demanding "historical and literary references" and denigrating "neologistic usage based on a porn firm", since the term "bukkake" dates back to a porn film in the misty antiquity of 1986. Jpatokal (talk) 08:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

If you read the reference four, it predates the porn usage. The term Bukkake referes to the act of humiliating a woman by ejaculating on her face. Later usage in a different context does not change the origin or definition of the term. It may (in time -- one no longer a neologism) may add a secondary definition to the dictionary term. Right now, it is merely incorrect usage.

By reference four, you mean La palabra y el hombre. Universidad Veracruzana. 1957.? Let's have the ISBN and an exact quote, since the history section definitely needs a rewrite if the term "bukkake" was already in use back then, and in Mexico to boot! Jpatokal (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Bukkake is gender specific. If you want to add a para (with citation) that says that some gay porn is mis-labelled as Bukkake, that would be appropriate. Trying to say that Men ejaculating on other men is Bukkake, merely because someone who made porn called it that is not a reliable citation for redefining the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.39.145 (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Like many other Wikipedia articles, I think some editors (in an attempt to be more accurate I presume) are inadvertently elevating random outlying data up to the status of the normative. To satisfy the myriad Wikipedia standards, the intro sentence would be rendered as: "Bukkake is a sexual practice that features a group of people of undetermined size excreting bodily fluids onto the bodies of a relatively smaller group of people or an individual person."

Of course that statement is patently ridiculous but is "Wikipedia Correct". We all know the sky is blue. No "reliable source" is required for that. But in the Wiki world it can be noted, that it's not blue at night, or when it's overcast, or at sunrise and sunset... ad infinitum.

So basically, I think it's fair to say that an accurate description would include something to the effect of: "Since no official standard of bukkake exists, the term has been applied to a number of different sexual activities. Though works have been produced that incorporate homosexuality and female ejaculation, bukkake is typically depicted as a large group of men ejaculating onto the face of a single woman."

I am all for including all relevant information on a given topic, but I think that it's relative weight must be made clear to the reader.--SeedFeeder (talk) 20:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You talkin' to me? To be perfectly clear here, I fully agree that "by default" and probably 99% of the time the term bukkake is used to mean man-on-woman, but it is verifiably used for the man-on-man act as well. As far as relative importance goes, currently six words are used to cover this little factoid in paragraph eight, which seems about right to me. I also think stating that "the term has been applied to a number of different sexual activities" is going too far -- AFAIK, all forms of bukkake can be quite concisely defined as "men whacking off on people". Jpatokal (talk) 11:42, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yah, but the issue is not what you want to call Bukkake, or what other people want to call Bukkake. It isn't a dictionary, it is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia requires a reference. Historical references are given in the beginning of the article. Bukakke is not the act of men ejaculating onto someone, it is the act of men ejaculating on a woman. Sure, the term has been used incorrectly by others -- including filmmakers trying to make money on a popular porn topic. The mis-use doesn't change the term. So, in your language "all forms of bukkake can be quite concisely defined as "men ejaculating onto women". The two required elements of Bukkake are "a man ejaculating onto" and the subject is "female". If the men masturbate, but don't ejaculate, it is something else, not Bukkake. If the subject is a man, a horse, or a picture of George Bush, it is something else, not Bukkake. If it is a man or men ejaculating onto a woman, and it is at the top of a building, it is still Bukkake. If it is in the snow, it is still Bukkake, if they are different races, it is still Bukkake. Again -- necessary to meet the definition -- 1) Man or men ejaculating onto subject 2) Subject is female. 75.72.39.145 (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've expressed your opinion quite clearly multiple times, but we're still waiting for you to come up with a reliable source that says any of that. Jpatokal (talk) 13:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You did read the cited references, right? Which of those is not reliable? Just because a term is mis-used does not mean that the terms origins or correct definition changes. This article towards the end references the current trend towards using the term for things other than Bukkake. (Men on Men, Women on women, etc).

I do not believe any of your sources say what you are saying, namely that men ejaculating on (non-women) is not bukkake. If they do, please post up scans. I will also be removing the "1957" reference unless you provide some proof of its existence, since that date considerably predates any other mentions of the term. Jpatokal (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the weasel warning

I removed the tag with the weasel warning, after reading the article and the talk page. I didn't see much scope for making things more explicit without recourse to slang so the warning seemed unnecessary. It is possible it was put on earlier and subsequent edits have improved the article since. Alice (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

picture

is stolen from a h pack, you're going to want to remove that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.23.94 (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

If that is the case it's better to discuss it on the talk page of the image or better yet nominate it for deletion on commons and provide the evidence there. Biofase ^flame| stalk  13:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Urine

Perhaps interesting to mention in the article, is the existence of watersports bukkake, where - instead of being ejaculated on - the man or woman in the centre is being urinated on by several men and/or women. MrEvers (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Appropriateness of image

The currently displayed image Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png is not a clear and unambiguous depiction of the act of bukkake. The term bukkake refers to the act of a large number of men ejaculating on one woman. A scene where two men ejaculate on one woman would usually be called a threesome or MMF (male-male-female). A better depiction of the act of bukkake is Image:Wikibukkake.png - note that this image is used on equivalent page in the Japanese Wikipedia: ja:顔射#ぶっかけ. (Note that I can't address the issue myself due to the fact that the English bukkake page is protected, and the images in question are censored via the "bad images" mechanism.) 118.209.1.72 (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the original image Image:Wikibukkake.png is more descriptive, and of better quality. When did it change to the Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png with two people -- and was that with consensus? I will research. In the mean time I changed back to the original image of many people versus two. Atom (talk) 17:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Objection to proposed Deletion

The reasons for deletion were neither clear nor relevant to this page, as I would hardly describe Bukkake as a work of fiction, and then put it under deletion according to the notability guidelines on fiction (which I might add were not linked to correctly). Furthermore, this is NOT cult following - no matter your feelings on the subject it is one that has influenced the pornographic industry greatly, which may have been realised had the article been fully read. The page exists to portray athe subject correctly, which is does, and is reliably sourced and referenced. I see no reason for deletion beyond narrow-mindedness, thus my removal of the deletion tag. AJ (talk) 20:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Japanese legend

Once more: there is not a single shred of evidence that anything like the bukkake legend has ever existed in Japan, and misinformed sources repeating the legend do not make it historically accurate. Jpatokal (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I understand your perspective. The problem is that we can't just say that it is a legend because you or I say so. If that were the case, we should remove it entirely from the article -- not say that it is legend. In the case of other topics we could say that something is mythology or folklore, but would still need to cite it. In this case we have two credible citations that support what is said. I changed the text to exactly match the first and most credible sourcve to say "The origins of Bukkake are as ritual degradation in the villages of rural Japan". This leave out all of the other stuff that was previously there, that was not true to the citations. Also, "The existence of such a practice in ancient Japan is disputed." is in the article -- which has no citation. I will try and find more citations, hopefully ones that support the view that it is legend -- but whatever credible sources I find I will quote accurately. Atom (talk) 13:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... no. You are presenting "bukkake existed in ancient Japan" as an unquestioned fact, when it should be presented as an assertion of a fact -- and if you look a bit more closely, the first source says "Theory has it that in ancient Japan" (without any cite), and the second is a comic book (!) that probably does not qualify as WP:RS anyway.

I quoted to citation exactly -- without paraphrasing. We must follow the citation, not make it up as we go along. Atom (talk)

Huh? The exact wording of the first source is "Theory has it that in ancient Japan, women who were found to be unfaithful were publicly humiliated in the town center by being tied up while every man in town ejaculated all over her to show his distaste." The article says "...state that bukkake originated in ancient Japan, where unfaithful women were supposedly publicly humiliated by being tied up as every man in town ejaculated onto her face." That's close enough to verge on plagiarism! Likewise "...but, with no historical evidence, this explanation sounds like a Western myth." → "No historical evidence of such a practice exists, and the legend has been dismissed as a 'Western myth'". Jpatokal (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what, exactly, is your problem with the paraphrases above? Jpatokal (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've added a source (from Eye Weekly, the Toronto Star's magazine) that states: "legend has it that bukake(sic) originated in olden Japan as a punishment for errant wives but, with no historical evidence, this explanation sounds like a Western myth." Jpatokal (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for adding a citation -- The Toronto Star sounds credible to me. Atom (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

And suddenly you changed your mind? It's a syndicated column and the Toronto Star passes any conceivable bar for WP:RS. For extra credit, please explain why it does not, while "Best Erotic Comics 2008, illustrated edition, Last Gasp" does. Jpatokal (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Atom, there is no reason for you to change person to woman. A man can be ejaculated on just as much as a woman. CTJF83 GoUSA 19:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a reason. The citations show that Bukkake in its origins is precisely one or more men ejaculating upon a woman. Later in the article citations about how the word has been used since its origins in Pornographic movies to mean other things. That does not change the facts of its origins. Calling something bukkake in a pornographic movie does not inherently change the definition of the word. Atom (talk) 22:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, and the word is used for gay porn as well. Jpatokal (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not using person is IMO not NPOV. Origins? most things change from their origins hundreds or what ever years ago to more updated current status. Phones are no longer corded, houses aren't log cabins, and transportation isn't horse driven, just like Bukkake can be ejaculation on a man. CTJF83 GoUSA 00:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. The main element of the act called "Bukkake" is the humiliation of a woman, not "semen on a face". The motive for the act is humiliation, and the means of accomplishing it is "semen on the face". I am not suggesting that the usage cannot change, but the term does not change just because it is mis-used in a series of porn films. I am not sure what your point is about NPOV. If the term was used to describe an act of humiliating women, and we have citations that show that, how is using the citations not neutral? The fact is that the act is sexist. We are not sexist because we describe a sexist act. Indeed there are porn films that show women ejaculting on women, and men ejaculating on men. That's fine, and they can choose to call a film whatever they like. But those acts are not Bukkake, because Bukkake is humiliation of a woman by means of semen on the face. That is what the references and citations the precede the porn phenomonon indicate. Atom (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

First, that seriously smacks of WP:OR: neither the lead paragraph nor (AFAIK?) any of its sources say anything about humiliation. In fact, reference number 5 — a dictionary of gay slang — explicitly states "person", not "woman". [7] I've changed the text to "person, usually a woman" -- better? Jpatokal (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I read most of the references, and only one of six say "person". The others say "woman", including the 1957 reference. The best reference, the "The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English" says "...a photograph or video of depicting multiple men ejaculating onto a single woman". As for for wp:or, you must be thinking of something else. The first reference, Pornified has something like "I know a lot of this violates the dignity of a woman..." Ref 14 says "The current popularity of bukkake, a symbolic group rape in which multiple men—up to 75 at a time—degrade a woman by squirting semen on her face attests to the prevalence of such contempt." and Reference 6 says "this presentation will richly describe and chronicle the major events in the history of bukkake from it's beginnings as a ritual degradation in the villages of rural Japan". You or others can disagree with the sources used in the article, but it is pretty clear that it is not original research on my part. Atom (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you telling us you actually read the text of "La palabra y el hombre" (1957), and that it contains a definition of bukkake!? Please do share a link or scan! Jpatokal (talk) 08:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

[[8]] "o bukakke, ina practica que consiste en que una muher recibe en el rostro chorros de semen de decenas de hombres." roughly "or bukkake, a practice that consists of one woman receiving spurts of semen in the face from many men. Atom (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That source is from 2003, not 1957! Jpatokal (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I updated the reference to the newer date. When I get a chance I will try to figure out if the original reference was incorrect, or if the newer one is a digest of the older stuff or a reprint or what. Atom (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And oh, your OR is asserting that a) the main element of bukkake is humiliating the woman and that, through some twist of logic I'm unable to follow, b) only women can be thus humiliated. a) the sources don't say that, and b) dunno about you, but I'd find it kinda embarrassing to end up at as the centerpiece of a bukkake party... Jpatokal (talk) 09:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not say that only a woman could be humiliated in that way. Obviously modern day porn depicts men being humiliated in that fashion. It is not up to you or I to call that Bukkake though. (The conventional term used has been facial) If we follow what the citations say, they describe it as an act meant to humiliate women. That I insist on following the citations avilable, rather than describing as we would prefer is in fact, avoiding OR. Again, the sources say that the word is used to describe a method of humiliating women. No one has suggested that this method could not be used in other ways or situations. I am certain there are other methods of humiliating women, or humiliating men, but those are besides the point. The method described used to humiliate women is called "Bukkake". That method could possibly have been used in other ways -- who knows -- but to suppose that without a reference or citation would be OR. We should follow the citations. Atom (talk) 13:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I still entirely fail to understand your logic here. Bukkake, as an act, "is a sexual practice that features [X] being ejaculated on by several men." This definition does not say anything about the rationale for the act, it just defines what it is. Correct? Now, we have lots of sources that say X is a woman, and we have a few sources that say X can be a man as well. So why not "a person, usually a woman", for X? Jpatokal (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a compromise that I can live with for now on this (your) wording. However, Bukkake is an act of humiliating a woman by ejaculation on her face by several men. The issue here is that we have no citation to support that at this time. So, I think the compromise works until such time as a good reference to support Bukkake as an act of humiliation against a woman is produced. Atom (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Jpatokal did a good compromise that can stratify all. CTJF83 GoUSA 08:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

History

I took out "No historical evidence of such a practice exists, and the legend has been dismissed as a "Western myth". " Yes -- again.

The cited reference does not say that anywhere. Also, suppose every disputed event described in Wikipedia has "NO historical evidence of such a practice exists." after it. You can't have evidence that no evidence exists.

The cited reference says "with no historical evidence, this explanation sounds like a Western myth", so yes, it most definitely does say that.

Obviously we cannot claim that "bukkake never existed in ancient Japan", because we can't prove a negative. However, we most certainly can state that there is no known historical evidence for something, which is the case here. See. eg. Urban legend#See also for how Wikipedia treats a whole slew of fanciful claims that are highly improbable, yet cannot be proven to be false. Jpatokal (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That is the reason that Wikipedia requires citations. If in fact there were no historical evidence that Bukkake existed, then we would remove it. The reason the previos paragraph "Various sources state that bukkake originated in ancient Japan, where unfaithful women were publicly humiliated by being tied up as every man in town ejaculated onto her face.[6][8]" is allowed to remain is because there are citations that meet the requirements for Wikipedia. Following up with a sentence to try and reject the previous statement, when the previous statement is cited and the statement that it did not exists cannot be cited is ludicrous.

There is no historical evidence that bukkake existed in ancient Japan. There are two references which claim it did exist, one of which is a comic book, but neither offers any evidence to buttress this claim. In other words, this boils down to a kindergarten dispute of the "Did not"/"Did too" variety, and all we can do is state that there are differences of opinion -- not fact -- over this, offering examples of each. Jpatokal (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Either the description of the history of Bukkake should be there, or it should not based on Wikipedia policies. Please desist from trying to offer a personal opinion that no historical evidence of the practice exists.

If we can find a good citation where the historical accuracy is disputed, then we can rewrite the whole sentence to say that. "There is dispute as to the historical accuracy that say that bukkake originated in ancient Japan, where unfaithful women were publicly humiliated by being tied up as every man in town ejaculated onto her face." Or something to that effect. We need to prove that there this is disputed though using reliable outside sources, not just the opinions of one or more editors. Atom (talk) 13:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection

I protected the page after a request at WP:RFPP ([9]). I've had a request for unprotection on my talk page. I'd like to have some discussion on this prior to unprotection. Regards, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 06:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not entirely happy with the extent of reverting going on, both sides are making compromises and I think we can hammer out something sensible in a few days, so protection seems unnecessary to me. Jpatokal (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Better than being blocked for 3RR, right? :) CTJF83 GoUSA 10:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the page protection is great. The current version as is is true to the citations as much as possible.

Ha! It's obvious that it has been protected to The Wrong Version =P Jpatokal (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm frustrated by you saying that. That seems to be the source of the problems. The version as it exists currently quotes the citations directly. How could it be "the wrong version"?? Could you please open a new section and enumerate the changes you would like to make, and what citations support those things? Atom (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

My primary issue with the current Wrong Version(tm) is that you have deleted referenced content. We already have a section for this, please respond to my message of 08:56, 26 February 2010 above. The short version: why do you consider an unsupported assertion that "X existed" OK, and an unsupported assertion that "X did not exist" unacceptable? Jpatokal (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What we need is long term rewrite project that starts with substantial online and offline research. Particularly engaging someone who can thoroughly research the Japanese side of things, something myself, and many of us are not capable of accomplishing. My goal is that the article is as true to the facts as possible, and place any urban myths aside (not in the article.) Given that the topic/subject is fairly new, at least in the English language world, and being dominated by pornographic use at this time, I would prefer to have two sections, one on the origins, and one on current usage -- both accurate and cited. It is clear (at least to me) that the word originally was used soley to talk about an act of intentionally humiliating a woman. And also, clearly that current English language adaptation of the word has migrated to the physical act of ejaculation by many onto one or few. We should not argue about which is more right, but document the usage and transition over time.

The problem I currently see is that many sources of information on the Internet are contaminated, often by earlier versions of this Wikipedia article. Then those citations are attempted to be used here in the article to support something. If, in fact, the origins are in Japan, Korea or Okinawa, then supporting documentation will likely be in books and sociological research that are not in English, and not obtainable online. The lack of finding those references does not mean that no information exists, but Original Research can't be used to say that some information is either true, or that no information exists.

One aspect of this seems to be that if its origins were in the ritual humiliation of women, then it should be documented as such. The purpose of that is not to further humiliate women, but that documenting misogynistic history is an important part of feminist history.

Another aspect is the gays and lesbians perspective. Bukkake has origins that had nothing to do with gays or lesbians, as far as I can tell. Yet, current pornography, and indeed sociological behavior show that male on male and female on female of the act of ejaculating on the face of one or few by many do occur. If one has the perception that ejaculation onto the face is the primary aspect of the topic, one can understand why some people want to claim that the topic includes gays and lesbians. If one looks primarily from the historical or feminist perspective, and feels that the primary aspect is the intentional humiliation of a woman (not ejaculation onto the face), then this changes the perspective somewhat, and calling Bukkake applicable to the male on male or female on female context is less supportable. The article needs to (with appropriate citations) allow for the presentation of both views in following the Wikipedia NPOV policies.

One aspect of this discussion is that the history of Misogyny is deep within many cultures. The subjugation of women in the past did occur in Japan, just like it did occur on the United States, and in Europe. The fact that it still occurs is not relevant to the article. But someone who has a sense of national pride, and would prefer to not highlight some historical events because it paints their country in a negative light should be avoided. That is why we need to find good citations for the facts, and stick to those. Trying to whitewash history does not benefit ourselves, or our children.

Atom (talk) 14:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fluent in Japanese and will be happy to translate anything you can throw at me. Unfortunately, the whole bukkake-as-ancient-ritual-of-humiliation thing appears to have been invented in the West, which is while you'll find no Japanese references even mentioning it. (Cf ja:顔射#ぶっかけ, which states that the first known occurrence of the act on video dates to 1985 and the term "bukkakeru" comes slightly later.) Jpatokal (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have a preceding bias that this act did *not* occur in feudal Japan, or in the occupation of Korea. As someone who has an extremely high opinion of Japan, it bothers me to see things that happened long ago brought forward as if they were the current values of Japanese society, as they are not. But we should be faithful to history. If you could consider that the kind of ritual humiliation of women was very likely, as the ritual humiliation of men, criminals and training of women for subordinate roles is documented in Japanese history. I would suppose that things like this can be documented in any cultures history. The act is what we speak of, and not the word for the act. So searching for old references to the word "Bukkake" will likely not surface anything. A deeper sociologic research would be necessary. If it is documented that the act of urinating on criminals or strangers as a humiliation ritual took place in feudal Japan, then why would a similar humiliation of women be so far fetched? If the use of rope to subjugate or humiliate women as an art form is documented, then why would other forms of subjugating and humiliating women be unlikely in history? Atom (talk) 16:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipedia article on Public_humiliation. Clearly there is a long history of this, in ALL cultures, including Japan. I understand your pride in Japan, but trying to suggest that these kinds of things happened in other cultures but not Japan is unlikely. Atom (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

See the article Korea under Japanese rule. The kinds of unsavory and shameful things that happened on Korea were not "invented" for the purpose of punishing Koreans. They were carried over from preceding culture. I don't mean to pick on Japan for this. All cultures have these kinds of issues in their history. Trying to whitewash and pretend that they did not id not the correct approach. I am from the Unites States, and many Americans, even though born after World War II carry the shame that we are the only country to have used the Atomic Bomb -- killing/murdering hundreds of thousands of innocent men, women and children. Should we Americans deny that? Should Germany deny the holocaust? Certainly the history of Japanese culture is significantly more honorable than many other countries. Back to the point. There is history of subjugation and humiliation of women in many places, and Japan is not unique in this. Atom (talk) 16:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... ever heard of Godwin's Law? You just lost =)

But I'll humor you: there's an enormous amount of evidence that the Holocaust, the bombing of Hiroshima, and a whole slew of atrocities in Japanese-occupied Korea took place. There's also a lot of historical evidence regarding various acts of painful and humiliating punishment in premodern Japan, eg. crucifixion (haritsuke) and bondage as punishment (kinbaku). However, I am aware of zero (0) evidence that the act of bukkake, by any name and for any reason, existed in pre-modern Japan, so if you have anything to back up your claims, please share it. Jpatokal (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(And oh, while I'm not sure what this has to do with the matter, I am not Japanese and have no particular interest of protecting the image of the country. Hell, bukkake would probably be a little more justifiable if it did have a tradition, as opposed to being just the latest brainwave of porn producers in the country that brought us animated schoolgirl tentacle rape...) Jpatokal (talk) 11:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. What it all boils down to is that we both are editors obligated to following the rules of Wikipedia. You are personally convinced that there is, and has never been, an incidence as described in the article of humiliation in japanese villages of the past. I am equally convinced that such a humiliation ritual is not only not unlikely, but extremely likely. We've both given our reasons. Neither of our opinions matter on the issue. We should find reliable citations and edit the article in accordance with that. Neither my opinion that it certainly existed, nor your opinion that there is no evidence for the act can be supported by reliable citations, and so neither should not be in the article. When the article protection expires, as in the past -- I will expect the statements made in the article to be consistent with the reliable citations. Atom (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I find your continual mischaracterization of what I am saying and the way you continue to ascribe personal motives to me borderline offensive.

For one last time:

1) I am unaware of any historical evidence for the existence of pre-modern bukkake in Japan. Maybe it existed without leaving any traces... and maybe there are Invisible Pink Unicorns out there. Neither should be presented as fact in an encyclopedia without supporting evidence.

2) I have presented you with a reference in a reliable source that states there is no historical evidence, and you yourself initially called it "credible", so please explain why you deleted it. Jpatokal (talk) 09:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I got that you are unaware of historical evidence. Should we remove material from all Wikipedia articles that you are unaware of? Or just put disclaimers on any historical facts in articles that you are unware of? The reason in the past that I supported removal of the quote is because there were no citations supporting it. When an editor supplied those, it went back in. I am glad that we agree that statements that can't be supported should not be in the article. You did provide a reference, and after reviewing it, it seems to be just another advaice columnist giving their opinion. I don't recall saying I thought it was credible -- but if I did once, I don't now. It is just another guy with an opinion on a Toronto street rag, not a reporter who has researched an investigative story for a major newspaper or magazine. The other sources, although I don't like them are credible. Atom (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Having said that, I found another academic citation recently that could be helpful. I will address this later -- when I have more time. Atom (talk) 13:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Folklore? Legend? In what historical text can I find it? I want to see reference in ja. And what was the word then? Japanese language in ancient era was different from modern ja. I G-searched, but could not find any so far. First of all, Japan was not strictly monogamous. Please use web translation and read the links below, As for the ancient era, see [10], [11], and [12](encord shift_jis). This is a law in Kamakura period. 第３４条 is the punishment on adultery. No mention about bukkake. And these are written about punishment in Edo period. [13], [14], and [15]. No mention about bukkake. IMHO, the word seems to have wings. Bukkake in English definition is different from ja definition. There's no connotation of humiliation in ja and it's just a slangy porn term used recently and with no entry in dictionaries. Oda Mari (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick literal translation of the 34th article mentioned above:

第３４条：「人妻と密懐（びっかい）することの禁止」

人妻と密通をした御家人は所領の半分を没収する。所領がない場合は遠流にする。相手方の人妻も同じく所領の半分を没収し、ない場合は遠流とする。

Article 34: Prohibition on secret relations with a married woman

Men who have relations with a married woman to lose half their property. If they have no property, they are to be exiled. The married woman also to lose half their property, or to be exiled. Jpatokal (talk) 07:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Atom, I've read through the entire talk page, and I must say I agree with Jpatokal on this. I once read an interview with an anthropologist who claimed that in his view, cannibalism a hundred or hundred and fifty years or so ago was, while probably not non-existent, only a very limited occurrence even if it was nevertheless widely reported by amateur researchers of the time - thing is, they went into the jungle with preconceptions about the man-eating savages they'd meet, and when they asked one tribe whether they ever ate humans, the tribespeople would say: Goodness no, but the neighboring warlike tribe we don't really like that much does. See, if you then just report that and don't go to the neighboring tribe, you end up with cannibalism blips all over the map, even if the neighboring tribe (and the next one, and the next one) would have replied in the same way. It is in a similar way that many modern day preconceptions about Japan are formed - people claim something, or exaggerate something, and other people repeat those claims without bothering to research if they have even a shred of truth in them. This goes back to ridiculous preconceptions like the one that Asian womens' vaginas were sideways and it continues in a similar way to this day (for instance, it is true that a producer in Japan produces(d?) a number of cubic shaped watermelons, but I get asked all too often whether all watermelons in Japan are cubic, or worse even, get told so by people who know this for a fact). Now, I will freely admit that I am no expert in the history of bukkake, but I get that same old "this is bullshit" feeling about your position on "bukkake as punishment in ancient Japan". First of all, did you ever ask yourself when exactly this "ancient Japan" was supposed to be? Ancient in the European sense? That would make it somewhere around 0 AD, give or take a couple of centuries. Written sources about Japan from that time are sketchy at best. On the other hand, there is no lack of written sources for Japanese history from somewhere after 1000 AD, and once you get to 1750 or 1800, there is relatively speaking possibly more of them than for Europe. Doesn't it strike you as odd that the time this practice was supposed to be punitive is so vague, when it's either supposed to have happened in a time that is poorly documented, or in a time that is excellently documented? Me, my red BS flag goes up at that. Especially since the reason bukkake was first filmed in the porno industry is clearly explained in the article.

You scold Jpatokal for wanting to whitewash Japanese history. Is that really the case? You provide no proof that what you say is historic fact, s/he, on the other hand is willing to accept it, if you do present such proof (and no, I don't think the sources in the article are particularly trustworthy). You say this practice of humiliating women in ancient Japan should not be concealed, but let known to the world, and operate with terms like feminist history. Can you honestly say that you know for a fact that this punitive method was practiced in this vaguely defined "ancient Japan", or do you only know this for a fact? If you wish to expose the ugly history of misogynism in Japan's history, god knows there are plenty of recorded facts you can work with, not the least of them the shameful way sex slaves were used during WWII.

Now, as I don't have any references or anything to back this somewhat longish post up I don't intend to interfere in the actual article. I freely admit I have no idea whether the claim in question is true or not. I do, however, feel it is no more than one of those post-colonialist "Asian womens' pussies are sideways" type of claims I've come to know and get really annoyed with in the 15 years of so since I started pursuing Asian studies. No historic evidence of the claim that "bukkake was used in ancient Japan as a way of humiliating unfaithful village women" has been presented, and the references you hang on are iffy at best. I urge you to at least consider stating this factor of uncertainty in the article and help inform people, rather than letting them believe that every single tribe in Africa is a tribe of cannibals or that all watermelons in Japan are cubic in shape. TomorrowTime (talk) 20:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts and comments. I want to point out though that my position is that the article should follow the citations. (wherever they lead) There was a point, several years back, where I supported the position that the description of history of the act as being from Japan should not be in the article. That was because it was stated as urban myth, with no references. Someone came along afterward and provided the current reference. The article should follow the references accurately, regardless of what we think may or may not be true. I agree, my lengthy discussion to suggest to another editor that it was perfectly plausible does not help clarify the fact that my position is that we should keep in the article what is accurate and cited, and remove what is not. Atom (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Having very quickly looked into this, I also agree with Jpatokal and think that TomorrowTime's persepective above is very reasonable. Regarding references for the belief or theory that it has origins in ancient Japan, there seem to be only two on the current (locked) page. The second is a link to another encyclopedia which copies parts of the wikiepdia article, so that should be removed. The first is more interesting, the one I assume Atomaton refers to above as the correct reference, is an abstract for a presentation at 2005 World Congress of Sexology "Bake a Cake?...etc ". But has anybody actually viewed a record, written or otherwise, of tha actual presentation? I want to know what the authors' source is - given the authors apparent specialty is in STD prevention/medicine, not Japanese history I assume, I doubt its primary research. Is a citation to an abstract enough? FYI I've only skim read the talk page archives and page histories so apologies if I have missed something.--Yugyug (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

You agree to what? That we should put uncited material in the article? That is what Jpatokal has bene trying to enforce.

The issue is not whether we like the quote or not, but more towards that last part of your analysis where you discuss the two citations. As I said before, there was a time when I helped keep out of this article uncited text that people kept putting in, something to the effect of "On pornography websites, it is often claimed that the bukkake practice had its origins in a Japanese custom where adulterous women were ejaculated on and/or urinated on repeatedly in public." At some point someone added it back WITH a citation. The current version has two citations. The quote in the article needs to come from those citations, and not be a matter of some editors opinion. Editor Jpatokal has added -- a number of times " No historical evidence of such a practice exists, and the legend has been dismissed as a "Western myth". "

The most recent, he offered a citation[16], however, the citation is an opinion piece, where the writer offer her opinion "Interestingly, legend has it that bukake originated in olden Japan as a punishment for errant wives but, with no historical evidence, this explanation sounds like a Western myth." and offer not references or citations. it is more like a blog, and is not a credible source for WIkipedia. The writer did not even spell Bukkake correctly, and also has makes the statement "My wife does almost everything, like swallowing my come and letting me come all over her face. But my ultimate fantasy she doesn’t allow — either MFM or else a bukkake on her with five or six guys." Not what I would call a credible expert having done research on the topic. Just another opinion.

What!? I provided a citation. If you question its reliability, the proper response is to tag it with {{dubious}} and raise the issue on the talk page, not delete it wholesale. Jpatokal (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you actually read the source? That quote is from a letter to the author whose writer is asking about bukkake, not the author. Incidentally, Sasha wrote the column in question for 10 years for several major newspapers and is definitely a "credible expert" on the topic of sex. Jpatokal (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I did, indeed read the article.[[17]] The newspaper that is cited is a Toronto street rag, largely advertising. He offers his opinion about Bukkake. The reference is indeed, better than no reference, but not a credible source. Atom (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of credibility is fair -- lets evalute the two citations for the statement made in the article "Various sources state that bukkake originated in ancient Japan, where unfaithful women were publicly humiliated by being tied up as every man in town ejaculated onto her face.":

• Bake a Cake? Exposing the Sexual Practice of Bukkake. Hudson, Jeff; Doong, Nicholas. XVII World Congress of Sexology, Montreal, Canada.
• pp.31-37 My, My American Bukkake by Susannah Breslin in Greta Christina, Daniel Clowes, Best Erotic Comics 2008, illustrated edition, Last Gasp, 2007. ISBN 0867196866

The first is a scholarly article, not a Blog. Apparently a presentation at the World Sexology Conference in 2005 by Dr. Jeff Hudson and Dr. Nicholas Doong [[18]][[19]] "Originating from Japan, bukkake is a practice in many parts of the world. There is a paucity of literature on bukkake however;", "Bukkake has been reference to incidents when unfaithful women were publicly humiliated by being tied up while every man in the village ejaculated all over her to show his distaste."

The Second From a book -- Described as Erotic-Art comic book. [[20]] Not really what I consider a good source. "According to legend, Bukkake was the method by which an adulterous woman in a small village was punished. She would be taken to a cave, bound, and forced to kneel. There, all the village men would masturbate onto her face."

The quote in the article follows the more credible source. It is not an editors opinion, or a paraphrase, it is a quote. There is no hint in either of these citations that they got information from Wikipedia, or form any Internet source.

Our choices -- Put in the article what is backed up by our citations, or to put in the article what we think may be true. Wikipedia policies clearly say that putting what we wish in the article is considered to be Original Research WP:OR, and that following the citations exactly is expected. Atom (talk) 04:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

So why are you requiring citations within the article that disagrees with you, and not requiring them the two sources that happen to side with you? Jpatokal (talk) 08:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Huh? First they are not my citations, they are citations provided by other editors. They are required, as I said, or the quote would not be in the article. The citation that you provided, Sasha, does not disagree with me. My position is that we can't have OR in the article, but must have credible sources. Atom (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Instead of wasting our time arguing about who is mischaracterizing whom, could you start a new section and propose what you would like in the article, and provide citations? If you can find more than the one citation you have proposed in the past, that would be excellent. Then, lets evaluate the statements, and the citations, and find consensus on whether we are satisified with each of the references or not. I think we can all agree that we have no really strong citations. The academic paper is the best, and as one editor pointed out, we only have an abstract of that. I am interested in making a better article, based on facts, not on peoples opinions on the matter. The article should say what the citations say, and not urban myth, or speculation that it doesn't exist because one or more editors are unware of the history. Atom (talk) 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the reference we are talking about is unsourced and groundless. The description "Theory has it that in ancient Japan, women who were found to be unfaithful were publicly humiliated in the town center by being tied up while every man in town ejaculated all over her to show his distaste" is too vague. "Theory"? Whose and what theory? "Ancient Japan"? Exactly when? "Town"? Which town? Or all over Japan? Please show us the historical evidence. This denies the ancient/federal Japanese origin. What do you think, Atom? Oda Mari (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Please, a simple yes or no

I'll try this again. Continue with full protection, yes or no? I've got Atomaton I think on Yes, Jpatokal arguing that it's not really necessary, and Ctjf83 supporting protection (I think). At this point I'm disinclined to remove protection, unless I can get more info. And please keep any discussion short (see WP:TLDR). I'm not really interested in the topic, per se, just the protection question. -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• yes till consensus. CTJF83 chat 05:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You know, I'd appreciate a couple of opinions from the tea gallery here about the content of the debate as well. Jpatokal (talk) 10:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Ugh, don't really wanna read all that...can you summarize for me? Or I can say I still think it should say person and not woman. CTJF83 chat 10:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• yes We compromised on the initial language as there are references both ways. I don't have confidence that the citations will be respected on the other sections. Atom (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• protection continued. Please continue to discuss the issues here (preferably under a relevant header). Feel free to request unprotection (or extension of the protection) if there is consensus either on my talk page or at WP:RFPP. Otherwise the protection expires on March 12. Regards, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit proposal

This section is to discuss proposed changes to the article, since it is edit protected. I think that editors are in agreement that we should provide citations for controversial content, and not provide Original Research or personal opinion.

---

Starting out, I would like to spend some time to see if there are more references that are independent. These would ideally be historical in nature, rather than opinion as to the origin. Particularly, the one citation we have that is scholarly, we need to find the full draft of, rather than an abstract and see if we can glean what the sources of the information in the paper are given as.

Already a few people capable of doing Japanese research have given opinions that a cultural act of this nature is not well documented, if it is at all. That unfortunately is not citeable in the article. It would be great to have a citation outside of Wikipedia that said exactly that. Where a historical researcher publishes in a book our journal that says that "No historical evidence supporting an origin of the act in Japan can be found."

For obvious reasons, I am unhappy with two of the three citations we have, and propose that we should reliminate them from the article. That would be the "http://www.eyeweekly.com/fun/lovebites/article/31096"[[21]] citation, and the "pp.31-37 My, My American Bukkake by Susannah Breslin in Greta Christina, Daniel Clowes, Best Erotic Comics 2008, illustrated edition, Last Gasp, 2007. ISBN 0867196866" citation.

I found this reference "http://www.scribd.com/doc/97158/Bataille-and-Bukkake-Symbolic-Human-Sacrifice-in-Japanese-Pornography"[[22]] But I am not satisfied with it as a credible source either.

At the time of my writing, the article says "Various sources state that bukkake originated in ancient Japan, where unfaithful women were publicly humiliated by being tied up as every man in town ejaculated onto her face."

This is a direct quote from the most credible source we have, the scholarly article. As I said previously, I want to find the full content of that paper and see what sources are cited in the paper. For the moment, it is credible enough IMO. I realize that others may differ.

SO, I propose we leave this quote in, and the one credible source, and removing the source that is an erotic-cartoon book.

Atom (talk) 15:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Atom, you found that "Bataille and Bukkake" too. Sorry that I posted it on a wrong thread. I moved it to the Protection thread . Did you read my post? Please explain why you are not satisfied with "Bataille and Bukkake". What you think the most credible source could not convince a native Japanese editor. I don't think scholars are always right and correct. "Various sources", "ancient Japan", and "town". Nothing specific. No citation. As long as there's no specific fact like a name of a historical text, it's not a credible source at all. Just another Western myth. Please give us concrete facts, Atom. Thank you. Oda Mari (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Oda Mari the source "Bataille and Bukkake" is not credible (for this particular matter only) because ITS 2 sources, used to justify the statement that origins in ancient japan are a "myth of unknown origins... .... almost universally disputed", are 1. this wikipedia page itself (duh) and 2. a bukkake fan website offering a personal opinion. In other regards its a seemingly well referenced paper for a student discussing the philosophical aspects on the act, but not in regards to the history of Japan. --Yugyug (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I should add that I agree with Atom in that the abstract for the Sexology conference presentation is the only reference remotely close to being usable, but am of the opinion that an abstract is still not sufficient. What's the general Wikipedia position on citing abstracts?--Yugyug (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

My 2-cents on the "bukkake legend": I first ran across this "legend" at another Wiki-like project when it was added by another editor. I investigated the "source" and tracked it down as much as I could, and came to the conclusion that it is a Western myth, originating from some something like the nearly-entirely fictional "Exotic sex practices" fantasy articles I used to read in US Men's magazines in the '60s... Also, I've been following Japanese adult entertainment for decades, and, in my experience, the "bukkake" term is fairly recent-- I don't remember seeing it before the late '80s-- which gives me further doubt about its supposed "ancient" origins. In any case, unless there is strong evidence, with a good source-- I'd prefer one in Japanese for something like this-- then I say just leave out all mention of it. No need for us give credence to the "legend" by acknowledging it at all. Dekkappai (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The word to describe this act is recent, as you say, the 80's. The act of ejaculating onto the face as humiliation is much older. Regardless of opinions on the matter, I agree that with no good source, it should be left out entirely. Atom (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, we have one source, but not a particularly good one. I would like a better one. If I can not get a copy of the references for the current source, then I would be inclined to discount it. My feeling is that it may have just been a talk given at a conference, and not a paper. I have found the email address of one of the people on the abstract, but not the other. I will send an email asking for more information. Atom (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, I've done a few articles on Japanese cinematic erotica which deals with punishment/humiliation/torture etc. of women in a historical context (Absolutely Secret: Girl Torture (1968), Shogun's Joys of Torture (1968) come to mind). It seems like one of these films would have included mention of a practice like this, if it existed, and, as far as I am aware, none do... though this doesn't prove anything, of course. Dekkappai (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

My point about these films is not that they are to be taken for historical accuracy, but that they are exploitation films, and, as such, would likely have exploited such a practice-- or even the myth of such a practice-- if it had been known then. And not only had I never seen the term "bukkake" used in a sexual context before the late '80s, I'd never seen the depiction of the act in erotic films or videos before that time. Looking through this article, based on my own observation of Japanese erotic entertainment through the years, the part about its being an invention of an AV director seems most accurate-- though I've seen its invention attributed to more than one director.) This was a way of getting around Japanese censorship by showing sexual climax while still remaining within the letter of the law. Despite the strict censorship of depiction of the genitals or pubic hair, the interest in seeing "honban"-- the "real thing"-- has long been part of Japanese erotic entertainment, and exploited in titles going back at least to Kan Mukai's 1968 pink film, Yoru no honban: mibōjin no shimei (夜の本番　未亡人ご指名). (Though searching the JMDB comes up with this intriguing double-coincidence: Real BukkakeButtsuke Honban (ぶっつけ本番), (1958)[23] which, for various reasons, could not possibly have had anything to do with the subject at hand.) (Oops-- strike that last example. It's early here and my eyes aren't quite open yet-- it says "buttsuke" not "bukkake" :) Dekkappai (talk) 15:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Uh-oh

I'm a Japan-born Japanese, and eventually found this article. I have never heard of it, and suspect it's rather a Western sexual fantasy imposed to Japanese. Honestly I feel it racism and very unpleasant. If this article is allowed to exist, I think, it should be noted there is no factual and historical relationship to the Japan in real life. --Aphaia (talk) 11:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

What specifically do you feel is racist? I've re-read the article carefully, and don't see anything attributed to any particular race. I can see how the act being described as originating from Japan (correctly or incorrectly) could be interpreted as offensive to someone who is Japanese. That would be a matter of cultural pride or honor, and not a racist matter. For instance, the article does not generalize to suggest something negative about Koreans, Phillipinos, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Chinese and Indians. Also, keep in mind that despite finding a really good source for the origin hypothesis, that the first films on the topic did originate in Japan.

I don't think anyone editing this article has expressed any generalized negative opinion about Japanese people or culture either. In fact, just the opposite has been expressed. So, I am not sure why anyone would feel an offense against their national pride either. Atom (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think she's talking about the origin stuff. Oda Mari (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the myth of the historic origins may very well have racist origins. But I don't think this article is racist, except unintentionally by presenting that myth as valid. The fact that the word is more often used in other contexts, and that the average Japanese may not even be aware of this use of the term is no more relevant than the fact that the average English-speaker only uses the term "Pearl necklace" for a pearl necklace or Bear for a Bear... It is an aspect of Japanese AVs and the term is used in Japanese AV media, and so, as long as well-sourced, it's a perfectly appropriate subject in the correct context.

The problem with the "reliable" World Conference abstract, I think, points out the problem with the absolutist views so many at WP take towards such things. "A is 100% 'reliable' and B is 100% 'unreliable'". (I've seen IMDb get things right when University Press publications have got wrong.) In this case, simply put, I think the article is wrong. When I've come across "reliable" sources that get things wrong, I just ignore it and cite another "reliable" source that gets it right. In this case, I suggest just ignoring it. It costs the article nothing, and avoids giving credence to a very dubious and, indeed, probably racist myth.

I've got a few issues with the article however: First, I admit I don't know much about this genre, but from what little I have seen of it, it is usually a one-on-one thing, and rather than intending humiliation, the actress usually puts on a show of enjoying it. (I don't doubt the existence of the gang-act, or that it is used in a humiliating way in some videos. I'm just saying it is not always so, and I doubt whether it is even usually so.) I note that at least one of the sources used for these aspects of the definition, while technically "reliable", has a very clear bias ("How Pornography Is Damaging Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families"). So, I'm not volunteering for the job, but I recommend that a Japanese-speaker find a Japanese source which defines the act in neutral terms. Dekkappai (talk) 19:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

This might have already been discussed, but the JA-Wiki article does seem to say that the term was used in the '80s just as a "facial"-- no group-involvement necessary. In the '90s the group-participation aspect evolved. I must have missed that development-- I'm actually more a cult film/pink film guy than an AV fan... Also: a search on the term "ぶっかけ" at dmm.co.jp (one of the largest Japanese AV dealers) brings up about 51,700 titles... I doubt all those are videos on bukkake udon, so I think we can safely assume that the term is used in Japanese AV... ;) www.arzon.jp gives a mere 43,900 hits, but this site might actually be useful for looking into the history of the term in videos-- they include listings for VHS going back to the '80s. (Though this might be OR-ish...) Dekkappai (talk) 21:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I talk about my feelings regarding the one reference from the world conference earlier in the talk page. I am trying to research it further to find out where their sources were. If they cannot give us anything useful, or we cannot get anyway beyond the abstract, IMO, we should lose the reference, and therefore, completely remove any mention to the origin given (myth or not). What I have said over and over is that we should *not* give the origin with a citation, and then add OR saying that is is a myth and not real. (removing it entirely is preferable to that) The act of ejaculating onto a woman's face is called a facial, and is distinct from Bukkake. Keep in mind that real Bukkake has no sexual interaction of any kind other than the ejaculation onto the face of the woman. If there is sucking and fucking going on, it is just another porn film with a facial, whether it is one on one or group sex. I don't watch porn videos, and even so, any porn video produced since the term came into use and was splashed onto the screen for the first time is just a dramatic production and says nothing about the act prior to the specific word. The article does discuss the growth of the term usage originating with only ejaculation by many men onto a woman's face, to include ejaculation onto other parts of her body, ejaculation for her pleasure, ejaculation for the purpose of consumption (Gokkun), to ejaculation of men onto men and the ejaculation of women onto women or men. That all has to do with hijacking of the term by porn. None of it has to do with the origin legend. Naturally I would prefer that the article was about the topic of the claimed sociologic phenomena as another example of the cultural humiliation of women -- but only if that can be accurately cited by reliable citations. The problem is that study, research or investigation of sexology, especially something of this nature, is not likely to get respect, much support, and most importantly, funding. Since that research would have to be done in Japan, by Japanese speaking researchers, given the cultural perspective on things that explicit in nature, and the desire to ignore dishonorable acts of the past and avoid documenting the, it isn't very likely. Atom (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree we don't put our own criticism of the source into the article-- which is why I recommend just removing it outright. It would help a lot to be able to see the whole paper, but given the wording in the abstract, I doubt that the paper includes very strong sourcing to support the claimed historical origin... As far as how the term is used and how it developed in the AV industry-- I would prefer a source (English or Japanese) which actually has some basis in reality-- such as basing its statements on an actual survey of the videos and/or their titles-- rather than one that makes judgments based on various preconceived agendas (which is what I strongly suspect from at least one of these English sources)... Dekkappai (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I also have to take issue with the assumption that no Japanese source would cover this topic because it is "shameful". Actually, I've seen many examples of very healthy self-criticism from individual Japanese authors, artists, filmmakers, etc. and I don't doubt that one would write about such a tradition if it actually existed. Dekkappai (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I had meant the act of ejaculation on a woman's face by many men to humiliate her, and not the Japanese history of films on the topic. I think that if it is recorded in historical documents, that it would be rarely done so, and not easy to find. Atom (talk) 06:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

...and then we have the 1994 Sachi Hamano-directed film, "Real Action" Lessons: Bukkake on the Big Boobs! (本番授業　巨乳にぶっかけろ！, Honban Jugyō: Kyonyū ni Bukkakero!)[24] [25]... Interesting that a self-described feminist director would use this term, supposedly a historical way of degrading women, in the title of one of her films. Interesting too that nearly a decade after the term's apparent introduction into erotic entertainment, half-way into the decade in which its definition was supposedly fixed into the one we see at this article, that it is still being used in a very different context... Really, I think we need Japanese sourcing here-- sourcing that has some basis in what is/was actually going on. I get the impression that we have Westerners using the term for their own activities, and using those activities to re-define the term. Then we have the "scholarly" sort that comes along, too "dignified" to take a look at what is actually going on in the Japanese films/videos, but perfectly "dignified" enough to define it and to judge it. Dekkappai (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Oda-san you are right: I suspect the origin myth is hoaxed and take it racism to give its credit to the real and historic Japan. Although my field is not feminism, I've read Japanese feminist scholars. No authors I've read mentioned to that. If such a thing had happened and recorded, it is unlike they had missed. Unless a sure historic record supported, the origin myth shouldn't be related to a real existent ethnic group, and such hoaxed mention is based on racism and humiliation in my opinion. --Aphaia (talk) 08:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Aphaia I don't think the origin myth, as a likely hoax, carries any explicit or implicit racism, I wouldn't read so much it into it. Its probably just an example of someone's overactive imagination trying make sense of an act on the fringes of acceptability, and spreading because it creates a false legitimacy, making it sound more believable to those people unfamiliar with Japanese porn and porn censorship laws.--Yugyug (talk) 13:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Racist or not, I think the "historical origin" thing, at least, is a hoax... Also, I Google-imaged on the term in Japanese last night, and found the one-on-one pictures outnumbered the gang-act pictures at about 10-to-1. Also, the actresses were smiling in about half the images. Sorry to be trying to bring reality into this discussion, but I suspect, more strongly than ever, that some fundamental aspects of our definition, based only on these English-language sources, are incorrect. Dekkappai (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dekkappai, if what you are saying is that the japanese term bukkake is better translated as facial, then that should go into the article. However, the way bukkake is used in english, as a loanword in Western porn, is closer to the article's current definition.--Yugyug (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not proposing a definition of my own, I'm just saying the current one appears to be incorrect in the Japanese context, and goes even further by judging the Japanese context based on these misconceptions. If the article clearly stated that this is a Japanese loan-word which has been re-defined by English-speakers, fine, but it doesn't. In fact it seems to claim that the use in English is in fact the Japanese one. I propose that someone with access to a good Japanese source on the AV industry rewrite the definition based on how it is actually used, and has developed in Japan. The current English-based view should be put in a section explaining that is just that-- the English usage. The only Japanese scholarly source on the AV industry I have access to was written in the late '80s, so it can't cover this subject, and it's not a subject that interests me enough to dig into much more than I have. I am interested in us not presenting Western myths about Asia as facts, however... Dekkappai (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

... Just took a look at a couple of random "Bukkake"-themed DVD listings. "ぶっかけ大全集 リップドール総集編 ２"[26] ("Bukkake Encyclopedia, Lip Dolls 2") and "ＡＶアイドルぶっかけ制服ＦＵＣＫ！　どっぴゅん！　コスチューム８連発！　６[27] ("AV Idol Bukkake Uniform Fuck"). The cover of the first one-- claiming "encyclopedic" coverage of the topic-- appears to show only oral sex leading to "facials". The cover second one also appears to show the same: oral sex leading to "facial"-- though one image does have two men. I know the axiom about judging a book from its cover, and maybe I just happened to pick the only two out of the 50,000-or-so DVDs which don't support our article, but I think something is seriously amiss with our definition: Many men, no sex, only ejaculation on the woman, who is humiliated. This is all "OR", of course, and not acceptable in the article, but I believe our definition is based on a definition created in English and at odds with what I have seen actually going on in Japanese videos. I think our definition only repeats a English-language misconceptions. Dekkappai (talk) 20:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dekkappai. The definition is different from Japanese meaning like hibachi. Also like the general conception of ninja and the conception and popularity of Domo (NHK). Those things changed somewhere when they came to the English speaking world and I think the definition and the origin of bukkake is one of them. Oda Mari (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, words change in meaning when borrowed from other languages-- I see this all the time with Korean and Japanese use of English words, and, naturally, it happens when we borrow from other languages as well. But I would like to point out that bukkake is a term used in Japanese erotic entertainment-- many Japanese deny this just because they do not watch AVs, and so are not aware of this usage. But even within that context, I think the English usage is different from the Japanese usage. I don't know enough about this genre to say exactly how the Japanese AV community defines the term, and I don't have enough time or interest to find out... If there were a Japanese-speaking AV expert, maybe s/he could help. I know there is one editor at ja-wiki who works very extensively in the AV world, but I couldn't get a response out of him the one time I asked for help (my poor Japanese language skills no doubt did not help)... Dekkappai (talk) 18:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

gotta love the wp talk pages.. LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.8.39.205 (talk) 21:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

New References

I contacted Dr Hudson by email and he was kind enough to send me some more sources.

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/SEN/INDEX.HTM (search the left side index)
Dr Hudson has co-authored numerous other papers on sexuality, listed here: http://abstracts.co.allenpress.com/pweb/sexo2005/termindex/author-H.html
He has made 2 other presentations on the subject:

• Hudson J, Weerakoon P and Skowronski D. Bukkake: A missing Paraphilia or Pornography? 8th Congress of the European Federation of Sexology, Prague – Czech Republic June 04-08, 2006 (poster presentation ID 171: T09-P-04).
• Hudson J, Prestage G and Lee G. The Practice of Semen Play (Bukkake) Among Married Men who have Sex with Men (MMSM). XIX World Congress of Sexual Health, Goteborg, Sweden 21-25 June 2009 (Poster N° PO-2198)

and is currently working on a journal paper. Go nuts, wikipedians. --+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I find nothing new on the linked pages. Besides, the second link is not a new ref.. They are just the same person wrote the same thing. There is still no reference on the origin. Dr. Hudson wrote in the first link "Bukkake, supposedly originating in ancient Japan..." It seems to me he doesn't know whether it really is a historical fact. If so, his writings cannot be used as ref.. If you would contact him again, please ask him what was the source of the origins as a ritual degradation. Oda Mari (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree-- The mention of the "ancient origins" in these papers seem to be based on hear-say. It's very suspicious that rumors of this ritual have only surfaced in the last year or so (as far as I know), after the use of the term in AV and its adoption into English, and that they have surfaced only in English-language sourcing. Looks very much like the product of an English-language adult fiction writer's fantasy. It's too bad that it seems to be catching on in the English-speaking world, but we should not help spread it.

About the general definition of the term in this article-- Group-sex, masturbation, "facials", etc., etc., etc., are all part of Japanese erotic entertainment. It's a huge, very diverse industry. Scholarly English works I've seen on the subject hesitate to make any generalizations about it just because of the impossibility of viewing even a fraction of the output and all the genres. I suspect that an English language writer saw a group-sex bukkake video or two which were performed in the manner described in this article, and then helped spread the idea that this is the usual act that "bukkake" describes. Again, from what I've seen of Japanese AVs, this seems to be an incorrect generalization. Dekkappai (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the references to origins is ambiguous and I've asked Dr. Hudson to clarify and provide a source. Well see how he responds. Dekkappai, I take your point that the Japanese AV scene is larger and more varied than most westerners grasp, but regardless the word 'bukkake' is known in the west as a word for the group sex style described in the reference (a style which, ancient or not, did begin in Japan) and is not known in the west for the broader meanings it might have in Japan. By all means, this distinction should be mentioned in the article, but the idea that an academic had any influence on the misconstruction of the loanword is laughable. --+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say an academic influenced the interpretation of the word in English, I said a "writer". I had in mind a "writer" on erotic entertainment, one with probably poor to non-existent knowledge of Japanese. I don't object to our interpretation of the word if it is presented as how that word has come to be used in English. I do object that, apparently, English has changed the meaning of the word, imposes that meaning on the Japanese industry, and now concocts an ancient "origin myth" to back up that false-- by Japanese standards-- definition. And frankly, I find it laughable that you think that an English-language writer-- academic or not-- could not influence the misconstruction of a word, loaned or not. Dekkappai (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Theoretically, sure. Practically, no. The porn industry codified the meaning a long time before Hudson wrote about it. But if you didn't mean him, it doesn't matter. I want ask though; why do you think the western meaning has been imposed on the Japanese industry? --+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 22:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeat: I'm not saying Hudson created the western definition of the term. You say the "porn industry" codified the term-- which one? The Japanese or the Western? And how was it codified? If not by writers on the subject, then how? I'm saying Hudson is reporting it from the definition created on the Western side. Has he used any Japanese sources to define this Japanese term and its alleged historical basis, or only English ones? As someone very interested in the Japan, I do look forward to seeing these mysterious sources proving the claims which are oddly made only in English, and, equally oddly, seem to be unknown in Japan... Really. I'm not being sarcastic. Please show them... I strongly suspect a Western-concocted meaning is being imposed on the Japanese industry because that's what I think I see at this article: A definition of a Japanese genre, in English, which poorly fits what I have seen in Japanese videos & DVDs. Dekkappai (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't see the relevance of what you are talking about. We are dealing with the english wikipedia, not the japanese wikipedia, so the article should (predominantly but not exclusively) talk about the western meaning of the word. It is no longer only a Japanese genre. --+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 09:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Come on, let's not play games. If you disagree, at least do so honestly. Not only is it a Japanese loanword, the second word in the article (ぶっかけ) is hiragana, and the bulk of the article-- the etymology, and most of the history section-- is about Japan. To claim, "But obviously we're just describing the US term! This has nothing to do with Japan!" is, to be generous, inaccurate.

That the definition: "a person, usually a woman, being ejaculated on by several men... often though not always involves the implied or overt humiliation of the woman involved..." has come, in the English-speaking world, to be equated with the Japanese use of the word is proven by the recent appearance of this "ancient Japanese origin" myth.

Also, many points of the article are either unsourced or inaccurately sourced. According to the article, this source says, "popularization of the act and the term for it has been credited to director Kazuhiko Matsumoto in 1998." This is incorrect. The source says, "...bukkake is a Japanese invention, credited to adult filmmaker Kazuhiko Matsumoto in 1998." The source says Matsumoto created the AV use of the term in 1998. So, if we accept that it was actually started in the '80s, then this source is simply wrong. Dekkappai (talk) 16:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not playing games at all. And if you talk about specifics like you have just now you'll find that I actually agree with you on many points. I feel that you are driving an agenda though, a correction to the meaning or use of a word, that is beyond the scope of what wikipedia does. But anyway, to address your 3 last paragraphs.

• we are not "just" describing the western term, the article should definitely address the Japanese origin of the word and act as it is known in Japan. Yes the history section is mainly about Japan at the moment but with information from the new reference, the Hudson article in the archives of Humbolt University, it can safely be expanded to cover US, European, Czech and gay variations.
• re; " implied or overt humiliation of the woman involved" ... well, as far as I can see those references for that phrase, the slang dictionaries, don't actually say that anyway. The Humbolt University article does relate the origin myth to the punishment of women, but doesn't conclusively say either is true. Personally i think the origin myth is false AND that, true or not, it does create a relationship between bukkake and humiliation, but 1. the relationship between bukkake and humiliation would exist even in the absence of the origin myth, and 2. the origin myth should be included in the article anyway, as ungrounded or un-verified, or just plain false. To remove it would be redundant, because sooner or later some other editor is going to come and add it again. Its so widely spread that its better to have it put in correct terms as "supposed" or "without basis" than to see it continually added to the article as true. Furthermore, its status as a myth warrants its inclusion, true or not.
• Yes that comment by Peter Payne about Kazuhiko Matsumoto does seem plain wrong. Possibly we could email him to find out what he really meant. As the owner of J-List he probably does know a lot about the subject though, and just because he gets one thing wrong, perhaps unintentionally, doesn't mean his other comments are incorrect.--+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 21:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what agenda I could be pushing when-- as far as I know-- I've never edited the article significantly, and have no intention of doing so even when it's unprotected, and am not even saying for sure that the article is wrong, or offering a definition of my own. I'm just commenting that, based on my own experience and views (yes, "OR")-- as a long-time observer of Japanese erotic entertainment-- many points in this article seem biased and incorrect. I think the definition we currently have is based in western writings of a dubious nature. (Yes, even "ancient origins" mentioned in the scholarly paper-- I strongly suspect this is based on dubious writings/hearsay, but I do await Dr Hudson's source for the claim with an open mind and with interest.) I hope that we work to fix those problems, and I think some input from Japanese sources and/or Japanese-speaking editors who know this genre well will be beneficial. As far as presenting myths as myths-- I have no problem with that, but I do not think that the article does that. "Various sources state..." gives too much credence, and too vaguely. Also, stating that this myth is a myth without a reliable source that actually says it's a myth would be OR. That's why I recommend completely leaving it out for now... Yes, I too would think that Peter Payne knew better than the "1998" quote, and I suspect it's a typo at the site... That all said, I think I've got my views across here at length and repeatedly. Got other projects to attend to, and I'll bow out for others to offer their input. Regards to all. Dekkappai (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had correspondence with an academic source, and though obviously this not citable, here is the content in brief:

• there are no concrete sources for bukkake having origins as an 'ancient tradition'. An extensive search for historical evidence has been performed, but its difficult because of the translation resources required, a 'censorship' period in Japan's history when sexual literature was destroyed, and the relative lack of free academic discussion on sexual topics in Japan today "Sexual text from Japan are vague or do not even mention bukkake because of it’s pornographic nature and content."
• "As researchers we can only present what is available to us until new information or evidence is available to offer a contrary. It would be a disservice (negligent) to not report the supposedly Japanese origins however distasteful the facts are."
• Academic studies show that the word "bukkake" is used as 'choice' word by homosexual interviewees to describe the regular sexual activity of semen play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugyug (talk • contribs) 21:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Good God, that's pretty sloppy scholarship. Can't find literature on sexual practices in Japan? And so reports it with no source? Is he kidding? Sorry, said I wouldn't comment more, but that is mind-boggling... Dekkappai (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Dekkappai no where does it say that literature on sexual practices couldn't be found, nor has anything been reported concretely without a concrete source. You are missing the point and re-phrasing those comments as incorrect rhetorical questions. +|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Yugyug, what does 'censorship' period in Japan's history when sexual literature was destroyed...' mean? I've never heard of that period. When was it? Oda Mari (talk) 05:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Oda Mari, I don't know. I'm just relaying what was said to me.+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 10:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC) The article Censorship in the Empire of Japan mentions censorship of pornogaphy in the Meiji Period, but I don't know if that's what is meant.+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 12:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Yugyug, please ask your source when was that 'censorship' period in Japan's history? This must be a mistake or a misunderstanding. As far as I know there was no book burning in Japan. Nor a period when sexual literature was destroyed. The censorship in the empire of Japan was not a book burning. It was basically a media control. As for the GHQ'S censorship, this EL is very helpful. IMHO, that Sexual text from Japan are vague or do not even mention bukkake... is because there is no such record /text. An extensive search for historical evidence has been performed...? When? By whom? Everything is too vague again and not worthy of an academic source reply. If there is no concrete source, I think scholars should not use it as a fact. It would be a disservice (negligent) to not report the supposedly Japanese origins however distasteful the facts are. and but its difficult because of the translation resources required, sound lame excuses and very arrogant to Japanese. In short, there is no evidence found, isn't there? Then it would probably be a Western myth. Oda Mari (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

In my readings, pornography/eroticism has often been linked with social/political criticism or satire in Japan, and that's why it has been repressed during periods of authoritarian government-- because it often is used to criticise the government. However, in the post-war period-- especially in the '60s-- all the sexuality, together with the social and political aspects, came back in full force. Directors ranging in political affiliation from left-wing radicals like Kōji Wakamatsu to a right-winger like Tetsuji Takechi used the erotic film to make political statements (besides the obvious erotic statements). Even the mainstream director Shōhei Imamura seemed to revel in exposing all manner of "shameful" things-- especially sexual-- in his films-- scenes of rape, bestiality, extravagant female ejaculation come to mind... yet, in all this, the great, and potentially cinematically interesting, "bukkake" tradition is missing... Why?... And it suddenly surfaces in very dubious English sources, and we should give it credence?... No. Dekkappai (talk)