Talk:Bukkake/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

2005 world conference

from above discussion: "a presentation at the World Sexology Conference in 2005 by Dr. Jeff Hudson and Dr. Nicholas Doong [[1]][[2]]"

The relevant part of the presentation is here:

Information on bukkake in the context of it’s actual nature is not commonly available and appear to be found in non scholarly resources such as the online resource web site wikipedia and pornographic web sites focused on bukkake.

Bukkake, supposedly originating in ancient Japan, refers to showering a recipient with semen from one or several men who ejaculate by turns or simultaneously.

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.

Emphasis added. The article itself has evolved from "[...]all over these girls' beautiful faces. The girls really love this and I know you will too! See it online at <link>" (June 2003) to "Although there is a back story describing it as an ancient Japanese feudal punishment, there is no evidence for this, and the practice appears to be a recent invention of the Japanese fetish pornography industry" (most of 2003), to "It is possible that bukkake was an ancient Japanese feudal punishment. There is a misconception that bukkake is a recent invention of the fetish pornography industry." (Sept 2003) to having the historical explanation removed in Feb 2004, then re-added by an anonymous user on [24 April 2004], describing it with a "theme of degredation" and "feudal" origins. On [28 July 2004], a note added to talk page that the historical origin is an urban myth. Removed from article on [18 Aug 2004], re-added [7 Nov 2004] but describing it as an urban myth, citing the "interesting discussion" on the talk page which was the reason it was removed from the article in the first place! ([Old talk page] can be [so interesting]...) This is probably around when it was used for the world conference.

Changed to "[apocryphal information]" on 13 July 2005, and [deleted] as "nonsense" the same day by a different user. (no edit wars! lol)

re-added again on [4 Aug 2005], but not before someone put [this] up...

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

Lol.

Anyway, the original speculation removed 26 Aug 2005, reverted 27 Aug 2005, etc etc... so many edits zomg. [16 Nov 2005] the page stated that the historical origin is "the imagination of the writer of a certain adult website, who concocted the story to entice readers to subscribe".

Removed again on [5 Nov 2006], re-added March 2007, re-removed again on [8 Nov 2007].... on [29 Oct 2008] "restore the popular but false theory of its origin"?? -_- 24.19.135.175 (talk) 09:04, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Just looking in after the big controversy. Yes, all the above confirms my suspicions mentioned earlier: A hoax/myth that somehow got mentioned in a scholarly paper (after having been allowed to remain on WP for some time). A glance at the History section as it currently stands seems correct. Any further reappearance of the "Ancient origins" claim should be removed. The only question is whether to mention it as a hoax/myth. But barring a "reliable source" debunking it, just keeping it out seems best. Dekkappai (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Disambig Link

What does folks think about redirecting this page to a disambiguation page with links to both this article and to the page on cold udon. I know that the normal disambiguation guidelines tend to favor the current set-up do the more widespread use of the sexual term in English. That said, I think we might want to make an exception this time. I've gotta say, by the time I manage to make it through the text of the disambiguation link and realize where I should be going, I'm not longer particularly hungry for noodles. —mako๛ 05:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'd have a very hard time arguing that the name is ever used for noodles in English, much less that they have a shot at being an equally common usage. Jpatokal (talk) 11:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

NYTimes Dining Section article that brought me to this page:

"The same is true for the bukkake udon ($6.95), smothered with yam foam and cod roe, though some seem to enjoy the gluey texture. The restaurant is from the :::company behind the Beard Papa cream puff chain, but there isn’t much dessert." http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/dining/29dinbriefs.html?ref=dining 68.81.146.208 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.146.208 (talk) 01:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be a hard argument to make that the sexual act is not the primary topic since Bukkake (food) is not its own article.Cptnono (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think bukkake is being used for noodles in that section; the name of the dish is "bukkake udon", and I don't think it's decomposable in English. The word there is "bukkake udon".--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Images

There's clearly been quite a lot of discussion on this article, which I'm not a party and haven't read all of (I read some). So excuse me for jumping in. Anyway, what I'm saying here refers only to the images and not the article content (which is a different issue).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems (besides the culinary definition) there are or were three reasons for considering this practice notable:

1. Old-time Japanese practice.
2. Porn genre.
3. Actual modern-day practice.

The first seems to have been pretty much dismissed, but if it were to be included, we would want, if any image at all, an authentic old Japanese woodcut or whatever. The images we have now show no insight into old Japan (e.g, is there any reason to believe that the participants were all naked, and so forth). So the image is certainly not appropriate for that.

If illustrating a porn genre, we shouldn't do that. While Wikipedia is not censored, there's no call for specifically including images mimicking scenes from hardcore pornography movies. These are many seriously uh problematic images in the Wikipedia, but I think that most of them at least make the case that they are illustrating real-life sex positions and practices, e.g. double penetration etc. If this is supposed to be illustrating a scene from a hardcore porn movie, it would be the most hardcore image we have in an article on the Wikipedia, I think, and should be removed.

If it's the third, then I also don't think we should have an image, but if we do have an imagew, at least it should show a male as the victim, on these grounds:

• Assuming we are illustrating a consensual encounter, there's no reason to believe that this is a primarily heterosexual practice, and we shouldn't imply that. (In fact it could be considered Heterosexualism bordering on homophobia.)
• And if we are not illustrating a consensual encounter, this would mean we are showing an actual rape/abuse scene and there is no good reason for doing that.
• And anyway, can we give the sisters a break? All or almost of the sex pictures I see in the Wikipedia that show a person in a degrading position show a woman in that position. Would it not be gentlemanly for the dudes to step up and take some of the heat for a change? Herostratus (talk) 18:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why we shouldn't illustrate a porn genre just like any other article.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:45, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It's more than a porn genre, its a genre of noodles, which is what brought me to this site. One solution would be to do a disambiguation - Bukkake Porn vs. Bukkake Noodles (which predate the porn genre.) Including these pornographic images is like illustrating the article on "trombones" with a graphic cartoon of a sex act. Also, the image serves no educational function, as it does not show a real example, only an illustrator's fantasy drawing. The image of the noodle stand gives evidence of the existence of bukkake noodles to those who may be skeptical that the word has traditionally referred to food. 68.81.146.208 (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.146.208 (talk)

Not in English speaking countries it's not a type of noodles. There's nineteen hits for bukkake and noodles on Google Books, compared to 600 for bukkake--and many of the first are mentions in passing that bukkake also means noodles. The illustrations show exactly what bukkake means in English. If you wish to object to a specific inaccuracy in the illustrations, then do so, but to object to them being illustrations is absurd, especially as you would react even more vehemently to photos. I find it bizarre to include a photo that doesn't include the word bukkake in it at all, and claim it's a great photo.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This Wednesday's NYTimes Dining Section would beg to differ:

"The same is true for the bukkake udon ($6.95), smothered with yam foam and cod roe, though some seem to enjoy the gluey texture. The restaurant is from the :::company behind the Beard Papa cream puff chain, but there isn’t much dessert."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/dining/29dinbriefs.html?ref=dining 68.81.146.208 (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure. It doesn't seem worth arguing over; if you want to put a hat note on the top of the page, or even make it a disambiguation page, I won't object.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I notice that there is a hat note on the top of this page. This is an article about a sex act; go to that article if you want the article to be about food. There's a lots of pictures in Wikipedia that don't go well with food; shall we depicture Intensive pig farming, too?--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, but I don't search "intensive pig farming" when I want to learn aboutbacon. I search "bacon", and expect to find food. If someone has named a sex practice "Bacon", that's their right, but the disambiguation should go with the original meaning of the word. 198.17.30.124 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Herostratus. I think the images are unnecessary. The description is already explicit, and the images only appear to recreate hardcore pornography which is unnecessary for the educational purpose of the article. In fact, I was a little shocked and taken aback by the image. Now I understand the irony of that since I was looking up the word in question, but I was actually looking up the origin or "bukkake udon" after a mention in the NYTimes and the images ruined my appetite. Although I don't think it's necessary to have images at all since they add almost nothing to the article, I do think that if images are included, it would be more egalitarian to show both men and women in the submissive role, but I really see no justification for including the images (except for the noodle stand, which I found quite helpful). (Sorry, I do not know how to sign this) 08:15, 29 September 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.146.208 (talk)

OK, such defense as there has been of the current image is as in illustration of pornography. I'm not saying that it couldn't be an illustration of a real life practice that people do at parties or during a gang rape or whatever, but that defense hasn't been made. So if it's an image from pornography, then:

• The image is, itself, hardcore pornography. While it's proper to cover pornographic subjects, such as the business of pornography and the social poistion of ponography etc. it's not really a good idea to drill down to the level of showing actual hardcore pornography. This smacks of a fanboy-enthusiast desire to display a stroke picture. While we allow fanboy-enthusiam to permeate our articles on Pokemon and so forth, we need to take a more rigourous approach on the fraught subject of hardcore pornograhy, and demand an especially high level of encyclopedia necessity before showing out-and-out hardcore images.
• The image is degrading to women. Absent an overriding encyclopedic need, we shouldn't show images that are degrading half our potential readership. The Wikipedia has a very serious problem attracting female readership and editorship, and the mileu that supports the inclusion of explicit hardcore misogynist images is a factor in this. This aside, the Wikipedia should not be taking an explicitly misogynist position as a matter of principle; in the war between the sexes, we should remain neutral.
• It's not a still from a pornographic movie, it's somebody's artistic representation of a pornographic movie - maybe the saw such a move and this is their personal recollection of what it looked liked. As such, its veracity may be questioned. Both images tell me, for instance, that the participants are all naked. Is this true? Maybe the usual method is for the male participants to just unzip their pants or whatever. I don't know, and I don't know if the image is correct. At least a still from a movie would be an actual example. Herostratus (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need an excuse to accurately illustrate a subject, and I think these images are very much the case of a picture being worth a thousand words. The pictures illustrate the subject, and are exactly as misogynist as the subject. Should we delete images of Vietnamese burned with napalm because they're anti-Vietnamese?

You're setting up a catch-22; there's no way you'll tolerate a photograph, but you'll attack the illustrations for not being photographs. Again, anything can be wrong; the text on the page can be incorrect, and a photograph could be completely unrepresentative or out of context. Criticize the illustrations for being wrong, not for possibly being wrong.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Re Kenilworth Terrace, this is a cogent point. Re Prosfilaes per Catch-22, you are correct. Without necessarily conceding the point, I will say that the image is probably accurate, and that a movie still would also not necessarily be accurate (it could be unrepresentative), and anyway this is peripheral point and the image has more serious problems than that.

Regarding other points:

"We don't need an excuse to accurately illustrate a subject"

Yeah we do, in this case. Look, there is encyclopedic and there is encyclopedic. There is Theory of Relativity and Raphael and so forth, and then there is say List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door or whatever. The first two articles are typical of articles that significantly enhance the value of the Wikipedia, and the third is cruft. However, there's no reason not to keep List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door and any images it might have because there's no downside. It doesn't hurt anyone to keep the article, as Wikipedia is not paper. However, if List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door contained images that horrified, degraded, harmed, saddened, and drove away customers, then of course the images would have to be deleted because it's not worth it. OK? There has to be a sense of proportion here. Well Bukkake is List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door for grownups. It's a marginal article about an obscure practice in a few movies that no one has ever heard of. All things being equal, fine, keep the article and its images. However, there is considerable cost to hosting these images, and its just not worth it. Oh, I forget to include "harmful to young people" in the list above. Viewing images such as these is harmful to young people's development into healthy sexual beings. So there's that, too.

"The pictures illustrate the subject, and are exactly as misogynist as the subject."

If the pictures were accompanied by some discussion of misogyny, you might have a point. However: c'mon. The artist, User:Seedfeeder, is a skilled pornographer and, I infer from his work and writings, not terribly fond of women. These images are not presented to us so that they we may condemn what the represent. They are presented as, not to put too fine point on it, stroke pictures for our admiration. It might make sens to include these images in the article Misogyny in Japan or whatever (although they would still be problematical), but they're not in that article. Context.

"Should we delete images of Vietnamese burned with napalm because they're anti-Vietnamese?"

Again - the Vietnam War versus an obscure pornography genre. Let's keep a sense of proportion here. Herostratus (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Summary: I just don't like it. Is there any objective criterion that could possibly be set up to distinguish the two categories of image Herostratus wants to use? Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

So now we're getting into personal attacks on the artist who drew the images. Great. There's no evidence that anyone has been driven away by the pictures on the page; nor that viewing the images has a great effect that reading the article doesn't. I object to your separation of encyclopedia articles into "important" (high culture) and "unimportant" (low culture; things that occur in day-to-day life). I don't buy your claim that seeing the images are going to be any more harmful than reading the article, and again I find your definition of "harm" to be not NPOV; historically, the legally important form of harm to the child was heresy.

As for pictures, we have a billion Muslims who log onto Wikipedia and go over to Mohammed and get outraged about the pictures. Why is it not worth removing those images, that provably are losing us editors? I know, you're going to say sense of proportion, but the proportion is that this page is a bee in the bonnet of a couple users, and the Mohammed page is a huge, very real, issue. You want to talk about "images that horrified, degraded, harmed, saddened, and drove away customers", let's talk about images that we know are doing that on a daily basis.

No, these pictures are not presented so that we may condemn what they represent. Welcome to Wikipedia; I invite you to read WP:NPOV. They are neutral depictions of what goes on in a bukkake scene. That you think they are stroke pictures says more about you than the pictures.

The sense of proportion I'm interested in keeping is not deleting images because someone claims to be offended and makes big huffy "think about the children" noises, and gets terribly dismissive of an article available on 27 Wikipedias, which 25 more than List of villains in Codename: Kids Next Door, and 8 more than Edna St. Vincent Millay.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe the drawings are perfect as is. Recycling a few points made on other articles here:

• Wikipedia is not censored and these provide media which is useful to some readers since no one reads an article the same. Whole essays on and off Wikipedia have been written on that point. They provide a better understanding of the topic when also considering the captions and prose.
• The images are no more distracting than the text since it is a sexual topic.
• The images are simplified so there are no distracting funny faces, sexy lingerie, or distractingly low quality
• Race should not be an issue. It is hard to tell what races or nationalities are portrayed in the second drawing which might be a good thing. The article is part of Wikiproject Japan and clearly points to the pornography industry in Japan in the prose so it should be acceptable to have a subject who might appear to be Japanese.
• Sexual preference should not be an issue. I don't think two images provides undue weight in this article. I do understand the concern to a certain extent but not enough to remove one of the drawings. Removing one of the drawings would come across as limiting content due to what might be an overreaction. This also touches on the race issue since which drawing would be kept if one was removed? Also, no one is preventing someone from uploading an image of a guy.
• Plenty of women enjoy the practice or watching the practice and it should not be assumed to be degrading to women. Plenty of women have no opinion on it. Of course many do feel it is degrading. Adult movies often feature men ejaculating on women and if the images are degrading then the subject is degrading. Removing one of the drawings would again be an overreaction. Furthermore, the artile even discusses the criticism so there is no question that some people have raised concerns. But again, no one is preventing an image of a guy being uploaded.
• The drawings limit any legality concerns based on model release or age confirmation.
• Any discussion on if there needs to be two articles has nothing to do with the images in an article discussing the sexual practice. Noodles and sex are two different topics and need to be handled in two different articles except for any lines discussing a relationship between the two. Wikipedia is not a dictionary where multiple topics can be listed under a common name (disregarding disambiguation pages, of course).

Like always, the illustrator should be thanked for his work (disclaimer, I have previously supported inclusion of his drawings).Cptnono (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I personally find the images incredibly distracting. Images are far more visually arresting than text. If that was not true, billboards, and all advertisements would

merely be paragraphs of prose. To deny the power of images seems silly and deliberately contrary.

"Plenty of women enjoy the practice or watching the practice and it should not be assumed to be degrading to women."

Would you care to cite your source on that? 198.17.30.124 (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that's an argument against images in this article in particular. If these images are worth a full kiloword, then that's a good thing.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• I don't think we need two images of bukkake in this article, essentially duplicating each other. I propose we remove one of them. As far as Seedfeeder's work in general is concerned, it is technically competent and informative, and if we look at what reliable sources do, books like Joy of Sex contained similar drawings to illustrate sex positions etc. I also sympathise with people who say it is pornography, and understand the concern that an article about pornography should not be pornography, but it's a very delicate balance, and I'm narrowly on the side of those who say that his illustrations may be a good compromise between having no illustration, or having an actual photo of the act, which to my mind would actually cross the line to the article being pornography.
• If there is a danger of people looking for noodles ending up here, then we should create a disambiguation page, according to the principle of least surprise, and move this page to Bukkake (sexual act) (and write an article on the noodles!). --JN466 01:55, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
  • I note that Bukkake udon is presently covered in the article Udon, so I guess it might make sense to move this page to Bukkake (sexual act), as suggested above, and make this a disambiguation page pointing to Bukkake (sexual act) and Udon. --JN466 02:01, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, User:Prosfilaes makes some cogent and reasonable points. This is a fraught subject about which people are likely to have entrenched opinions, so I can't say I'm convinced. Without addressing all of his points at this time, a couple of responses to specific points:

• Re "I just don't like it" - it is true that I don't like it, and it's reasonable to take this into account when addressing my points. However, my points go well beyond that, in my opinion.
• Re personal attacks - although I can see how it could be taken that way, I don't see any personal attacks. But another editor made this claim on my talk page, and when I addressed his concerns, his response was "Well, since I'm right, I couldn't be bothered to read your response". So I'm not inclined to discuss this further if it's just going to be typing into the void. But whatever, moving on.
• Re the Muslims and Muhammed, in my opinion this is a red herring, and it's two different things. It's an interesting point, and one that could stand much more discussion, which may be forthcoming.
• Re NPOV, I would say that as the article stands it definitely takes a position via juxtoposition of text and imagery. User:Cptnono claimed that "Plenty of women enjoy the practice...", and this is a reasonable inference from the way the material is presented. And if that isn't true, we shouldn't imply it. However, perhaps this can be corrected by the presentation of text rather than removing the images, and I'll address that in a separate section below.

User:Cptnono's point that "Plenty of women enjoy the practice" illustrates one of the problems here. In fact, this isn't an accurate statement as far as I can determine. But it is understandable that, if a person is a consumer (or addict) of pornography, one could be led to believe that it's an accurate statement, given human nature to tend to accept the veracity of imagery, on a preconscious level as it were (a thousand words, and all that). But at Wikipedia, we shouldn't be abetting this false idea through strategic use of imagery, nothwithstanding that we have many editors who are consumers (or addicts) of pornography. We are not supposed to take sides in the war between the sexes.

Perhaps an RfC is in order. But before going there (any other editor can of course initiate one), let's see if we can effect a compromise by chaninging the way the images are presented with the text, so I'll start a separate section below about that. Herostratus (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

re text, and references

The article lead sentece (at this writing) is "Bukkake is a sexual practice that features a person being ejaculated on by several men." And there are six references given. So lets look at them.

All six of the references are not online, but in two of them, Google Books lets us peek inside to the relevant entry. There are:

• The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. The small section that is shown doesn't show what its references are, but the namesake author Eric Partridge is a respected slang lexicographer and Taylor & Francis is an established publisher of academic works. The definition is is A photograph or video depicting multiple men ejaculating onto a single woman. OK, not a "sexual practice" but "a photograph or video".
• Fantabulosa: The Dictionary of Polari and Gay Slang. I don't know who the author, Paul Baker, is, but Continuum International Publishing Group is described as an academic publisher. The small section that is shown doesn't show what its references are. The definition is "A term found in pornography..." Again, pornography. (FWIW, the book's cover and title (there is a 2002 book Polari: The Lost Language of Gay Men) indicates that it probably applies primarily or entirely to males.)

So the two refs that we can see are about porn. What about the others?

• The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English. Routledge is an academic publisher. The author, Tom Dalzell, is also one of the authors of the book The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. The book's Google Books page includes a review from Library Journal of 05/01/2009 volume 134 issue 8 page 104, which says Dalzell... here "extracts" from the New Partridge those words and short phrases that are clearly American... (I have no idea why there are scare quotes around the term "extracts".) So it seems likely that the definition in this book is probably just a republishing of the definition in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, (although this is not certain) and, if so, again would refer to pornography.
• A book titled Pornified: How Pornography Is Damaging Our Lives, Our Relationships, and Our Families. Judging by the title, this book is also about pornography.

So four of the refs are about, or probably about, porn. Now to the last two.

• Another reference is, in its entirety, "La palabra y el hombre. Issues 125-128. Universidad Veracruzana. 2003." I'm not sure what to make of this, since citing three whole issues of a journal is not conventional or very helpful. The University of Veracruz describes this journal as its flagship publication, and it was founded by the accomplished Sergio Galindo. But he was a novelist. And it seems be mostly a literary journal, although it also covers culture and politics. Anyway, no author is given, no title is given, no indication of the provenance or content is given (it could be in a short story for all I know), and citing three issues is pretty close to saying "Here is the name of a Mexican journal, somewhere in there is the reference to my edit" This is a malformed reference and, per Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence regarding sources for contentious assertions, I'm deleting it.
• The final reference is a book, The Illustrated Dictionary of Sex. I Don't know about this one. Lotus Press publishes new-agey titles on alternative healing and tarot and stuff like that; it's an arm of Lotus Products, which makes new-agey natural health and personal care products. Nothing wrong with any of that, but this is not an academic publisher and you have to wonder how much rigor went into verifying the entries in this book. It's not possible to get this book from most libraries, since libraries generally carry books that have scholarly value, or are popular, or are of high quality, or have other worthwhile attributes. But this book presumably doesn't meet any of these criteria, so its not reasonably obtainable. So we have no reasonable way of checking what it says (it quite likely also defines the term as a porn term). The assertion that "Bukkake is a sexual practice" accompanied by two images indicating it's a heterosexual sexual practice is highly contentious, and per Wikipedia:Verifiability for contentious material that reference must "clearly support the material as presented in the article", and should be from a source with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and so forth, this is not a good source, so I'm removing it.

Not to get ahead of myself, the seventh source given in the article (and it is cited six time altogether) is an abstract of a lecture titled "Bake a Cake? Exposing the Sexual Practice of Bukkake". I don't know who the authors/presenters (Jeff Hudson and Nicholas Doong) are, what any of this has to do with Dr Doong's Surgery, Burwood, NSW, Australia, or what the World Congress of Sexology is, but this is quite a poor reference. For one thing, a good chunk of it is apparently taken from, not just Wikipedia, but from what turned out to be a hoax on Wikipedia. If this doesn't call the authors' rigor into verifying their sources into serious question, I don't know what would. The remainder of the abstract is quite unclear what is supposed to be referring to pornography, what is supposed to be referring to real life, and what (if not indeed all of it) is just fairly outlandish stream-of-consciousness riffing. Certainly we would need much better references for assertions that the "practice has grown worldwide with organized groups" and so forth. So I removed this ref also, again per Wikipedia:Verifiability.

So that is three references removed, and, with zero references supporting the assertion that this is an actual heterosexual sexual practice, the lead sentences being refactored also. Obviously there is much more to do but that's a start. Herostratus (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't too hard to find "La pornografía: ficción y violencia simbólica sobre los cuerpos" by Alba H. González Reyes in "La palabra y el hombre. Issues 125-128. Universidad Veracruzana. 2003." The definition of bukkake is on page 81. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, excellent! I wasn't able to find it online, but I obviously didn't try hard enough, and I thank you for your diligence. I can't Spanish so I can't tell much about the article, but it's a respected magazine from a respected university so that's good enough in my book. It should be restored, and I will do this soonest. From what I can tell, it also seems to be about pornography (the title, as near as I can puzzle out, means "Pornography: Fiction and Symbolic Violence Against the Female Body", is that right? "los cuerpos" means "the bodies" (I think), but Spanish is gendered and "los" is the feminine, so using "los" instead of "las" makes it refer to females, I guess. And the definition given on page 81 refers "mujer". If this is not correct, then I guess it should be just "Pornography: Fiction and Symbolic Violence Against the Body". Thanks again for finding that. Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The last sentence of the lead paragraph: "There is debate on whether to class bukkake as a paraphilia such as hygrophilia, sexual arousal from contact with bodily secretions." This doesn't make sense to me as sexual arousal is not an issue, these are actors. If nobody does it (except for the camera) how can it be a paraphilia? Either the sentence refers to the audience, or it's an artifact. At any rate, it's not cited, and I think it should be removed. Herostratus (talk) 11:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I restored the Hudson/Doong ref, but only as a citation showing that the sentence "The 17th World Congress of Sexology in Montreal in July 2005 included a presentation on bukkake" is true. I don't think the text of the abstract is reliable or should be used for any other purposes. A program or something from the congress would be a better ref. Herostratus (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Order of sections

Just as a disclaimer, let me say that while I'm opposed to the images, I'm not against the article itself, provided that it's accurate and the sources are good (both of which appear to basically true), and I'm not operating some agenda, not to imply that anyone has suggested this.

OK. To my mind, putting the "Etymology" section immediately after the lead makes the article less clear. It is true that etymologies are often included up front, and putting it at the end would be unusual. But this is a long etymology and it breaks the flow, in my opinion. The inclusion of an image of a noodle stand in the middle of an article about pornography is somewhat confusing, in my view.

Actually we really don't need an etymology section, or the one we have could be shortened instead. The etymology section doesn't really shed light on the topic, or a one-sentence version ("it means 'splash' in Japanese") would be sufficient. But it's not harmful, and it would seem a shame to throw away all that good work. But in a way it's a little bit like a trivia section (though interesting) and putting it at the end seems appropriate to me. Herostratus (talk) 18:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It could be reduced easily. I still see no reason to move it though. There is a precedent to have etymology sections after the lead across the project. They are not trivia on other articles and it is not trivia here.Cptnono (talk) 18:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, no on else has jumped in, so it looks like it's you and me. I'd rather move than reduce it. Would you be willing ask for and abide by a WIkipedia:Third Opinion? I will if you will. Herostratus (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to move it to the end. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Reasoning, Kenilworth Terrace? I like third opinions but thought I would take it somewhere specific. The MoS project has some editors that keep up on this sort of thing so I made an inquiry at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (layout)#Etymology.Cptnono (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. I think the etymology section should be after the lead. Because the word "bukkake" is only a porn term in Japan and not a standard word. A lot of Japanese do not know its pornographic usage. Bukkake has big wings in English. So the etymology is needed at the top to let readers understand the word correctly. That is the role of an encyclopedia, isn't that? The usage of the word in English reminds me of totally incorrect use of the word hibachi. I suspect the reason that the word spread this widely in English speaking world is it's a foreign origin and, unlike cum shot, there is no psychological resistance for native en speakers to utter the word. It seems to me a kind of a whitewashed expression and, as a native ja speaker, I even feel a racial slur in the word's popularity in English. Oda Mari (talk) 07:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't exactly agree with that reasoning but it is similar to another editor's thoughts made over there. Basically, it makes it clear at the top and should be kept in mind. Of course, we could go with a disambig but I would still keep it at the top since it is common and a quick note makes it even better.Cptnono (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have made a reply to Herostratus on his essay that is relevant reading for those here [3]. Regarding etymology, it's true that it's a common word for things like food (rice splashed with egg, tamago bukkake meshi), so the etymology is more relevant here. Gigs (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Term not limited to Pornography

Bukkake "It appears over time the act of bukkake has gained wider interest across the world and has gone from cult like status to an accepted sexual practice for some."

"Countless active groups have formed world wide on the internet that have a shared sexual interest in bukkake, each with its own variations within its country, group dynamics and individual preferences. These groups through forums and chat rooms advertise for members and promote bukkake events"

Atom (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The focus of this article should be describing the *act* called Bukkake, and not the film Genre. It had previously been edited as if ther act only existed within the context of film Genre. I have not asked that editor to "prove a negative", but rather, if he wishes to assert that Bukkake is limited to a film genre (and does not exist independently) that he provide a reliable source and reference that says that, so something like that at least.

I think it is given that the term Bukkake did originate from Japanese erotic film, and then gained explosive growth (as an interest) in the Western world as a film genre. The activity depicted in the film Genre certainly is one that exists outside of the realm of film, and to suggest that it doe snot would be ludicrous. I provided a reliable source and quotes above that says precisely that. "...has gone from cult like status to an accepted sexual practice...".

Also, I think it is pretty likely that men have ben giving women facials, and multiple men giving a women facials, as long as humans have been having sex. For a really long time.

For one editor to suggest that the act itself did not exist prior to the film Genre, is like a 16 year old thinking that he invented the cowboy position. We (those of us living) didn't invent sex -- it has been around for a very long time. Pretty much every sexual position and act that we can imagine has been tried ten thousands years before any of us was born. Also, there is evidence that the act of several men ejaculating onto a womans face as an act of domination and humiliation existed in Japan prior to the film Genre, and in probably in every culture long before that. No one has been able to provide reliable sources for that, which is why nothing of that sort is stated in the article.

But common sense should tell most editors that although the act of what we now call Bukkake may have been a relatively rare thing in history, that it has happened throughout human history as long as men have dominated women. To suggest that prior to the film genre being invented in Japan that the act had never been done, and is currently now done *only* for filmaking and not independently is about as believable as that same editor telling us that he has never masturbated. Or suggesting that "group sex" only occurs on pornographic videos. So if an editor wants to change the article to say that the act only occurs within the context of pornographic film -- then I say, please provide a reliable source for that statement. Atom (talk) 03:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(See also this thread] on Atom's talk page for some preliminary discussion on this.)

OK. Jeff Hudson is not a reliable source. This is has been discussed and incontrovertibly proven in some of the sections of this talk page, above. See for instance the section "2005 world conference" etc.

For instance, In Mr Hudson's "Bake a Cake" lecture (which he cites as one one of his "references" in the citation you give) he states "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."

His reference for this? Wikipedia. And not just Wikipedia, but a hoax on Wikipedia, inserted by a troll. Again, all this is discussed and proven above. Obviously Mr Hudson is not only not any kind of scholar, he is an idiot. Or a provocateur, if you prefer.

So, you know, when you say "[T]here is evidence that the act of several men ejaculating onto a womans face as an act of domination and humiliation existed in Japan...", you are not just promulgating a lie, you are promulgating a racist lie. There is no such evidence.

I won't speculate on your motives, but your use of Mr Hudson as a reference (and he is your sole reference) basically places you outside the pale of serious-minded and scholarly persons, and casts a shadow on anything else you might have to say.

You asked for a reference, and I provided one. I was not surprised that you did your best to shoot down the reference. We have indeed discussed this source before, however that was in the context of the origins of Bukkake. To suggest that a scholarly reference from a paper given at a world recognized conference by a recognized expert is not a reliable source is silly. Yes, we decided that since that scholar had referred to Wikipedia as a source for the origins of Bukkake, and that we could find no other for that "myth", that we did not feel comfortable keeping the origin explanation in the article. That decision on our part, however, does not suddenly make Dr. Jeff Hudson "not any kind of scholar, he is an idiot. Or a provocateur" (your words). The context I was quoting him on in this case was in reference to his opinion that Bukkake "has gone from cult like status to an accepted sexual practice". Indicating that it is a sexual practice and not just a film genre. In short, just because we Wikipedia editors chose to be conservative about using a sole source as foundation for supporting the existence of Bukkake in ancient Japan within our article, does not suddenly make a recognized scholar into an unreliable source. I suspect any other further sources I come up with you will object to on the grounds that they are unreliable, because you do not agree with what they say.

So, when you say "I think it is pretty likely that... multiple men [have been] giving a women facials, as long as humans have been having sex", that tells me something about you. But it doesn't tell me anything about actual verified human sexual behavior. I don't actually much care about what you, personally, do or do not "think is likely" and I don't consider you to be a reliable source. Appeals to "common sense" in lieu of references also do not generally cut much ice on the Wikipedia.

Common sense is used frequently in Wikipedia by most editors. We don't require reliable sources for the obvious, or the facts that are likely. Atom (talk) 15:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not asserting that, in the course of human history, this has never happened even once. But what we are looking for here is a notable level of prevalence in some populations, backed by reliable sources.

Again... your statement "[I]f [Herostratus] wishes to assert that Bukkake is limited to a film genre (and does not exist independently) that he provide a reliable source and reference that says that" is asking me to prove a negative - the "does not exist independently" clause gives this away. I cannot do this. It is logically impossible. I have explained this now three times, I think (including on your talk page).

Tell you what. Rather than continuing to fight over this, why don't we go to mediation, either formal or informal? I'm willing to if you are. (Unfortunately, User:Cptnono has joined in the revert war, probably more on general principle than anything else, so he is also a party to this dispute now, and would also have to agree to mediation, or to step aside. He probably won't listen to me (doesn't seem to like me much) but he might to you.)

So do you prefer informal mediation, formal mediation, or some other method of resolving this dispute? Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The only one who is unhappy with the new wording is you. I doubt mediation will change that. You can of course continue to discuss it or even open an RfC. And yes, being told I am basically a racist misogynistic does not foster any fond feelings.Cptnono (talk) 05:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

@Herostratus -- I respect you and your editing (in many other places) and I would be happy to talk further or RfC if you would like. So much discussion over something so simple. The article is about an *act*. That is to say, an activity that people have done in the past, and continue to do. The article is not limited to discussing the *act* as a film Genre (Although, of course, a section discussing the *act* as a film genre is certainly welcome.) The intro paragraph should help the reader to understand what the act is. When you change the intro article to focus on this act as being exclusively a film genre, you change the basic nature of the article.

This specific act has existed for a long time, but giving it the specific name of "Bukkake" is relatively recent. So, research based on the use of the word will naturally bring up primarily references to the film genre. I can appreciate your desire to have "a notable level of prevalence in some populations, backed by reliable sources" we are on the same page. Clearly the fact that an entire film genre has exploded regarding this act, it is notable.

It should be obvious to you that your position is untenable. Consider if you were to rewrite the intro on the cowgirl position article or the rusty trombone or Facial (sex act) articles to say that they were limited to pornographic video's, and tried to suggest that these acts never happen outside of the context of someone making a video. Other editors with their own life experiences (personal knowledge that you were wrong) would laugh at you. They would ask you to cite your rewrite (that the act was limited to porn videos) as an effort to get you to realize that it was not possible, since it is not true.

I agree with editor Cptnono, an RfC is the next step. Atom (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sources, sources, sources. There either are sources discussing bukkake (the English term) as a sexual practice outside pornography, or there are not. --JN466 19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Where the sources are required is for the editor proposing that this well known act is only limited to Pornography. It is an interesting premise. So, if he wishes to make the bold statement that Bukkake is limited to Pornography, he needs to provide a source for that theory. Merely stating that theory or opinion as fact and changing the article to state that is not sufficient.

As for sources discussing it as a sexual practice -- I provided one, I am sure there are more. There is no problem here in determining or documenting whether the sexual practice actually exists. The hundreds of porno films that exists are only part of the evidence of that. This article is to describe that act, not the film genre. User:Atomaton|Atom]] (talk) 22:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The source you cited actually said that bukkake has not been investigated as a sex practice and is not discussed as such. There are some sources describing it as a practice, but it seems to be a practice in pornography: [4], [5] (this is an interesting one for the article, saying it is more than 50 years old), [6]. Most sources are like this one. I found a few erotic novels and the like talking about (fictional) bukkake parties, as well as a few self-published books describing it as a group sex or swinger club practice. There may well be more in google books; I haven't gone through the entire listing: [7] --JN466 00:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not averse to changes on the article, but we strive for stability on Wikipedia. We need to discuss the change and gain consensus, not change the imeges once a day. In many of the sexuality articles I participate, changes in the lede image can take months. Waiting four hours to change the image without getting feedback from other editors would not be working to build consensus.

It is appropriate as per WP:BRD to change an article if you think it needs it. However, when that change ir reverted, it is time to discuss. We should be doing that at this time, and not changing the article until we have some kind of consensus. Bickering over an image and changing it over and over is not good for Wikipedia. Atom (talk) 16:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kaldari, Carol, Genevieve and myself all have expressed a preference for one picture, or none at all, in a discussion that began a day and a half ago. Cptnono prefers to have both images. You yourself said, "I have not formed an opinion as to whether a second image adds to the article or not. I am leaning towards that it is not." Even so, looking at the page history, you have reverted the second image back into the article three times now, edit-warring against two editors, and consensus, while exhorting other editors to keep the article stable. I think your behaviour is outrageous. --JN466 18:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

An image is always better than no image if it illustrates the subject, however based on the length of the article, 3 images is a bit image heavy. The second image is unnecessary at the given length and doesn't show anything drastically different than the first. I'd support it's removal only based on a length/content issue. There is no reason to remove the lead image. It adequately describes the act.--Crossmr (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Another attempt at a correct Intro

The intro paragraph should be a short paragraph to describe the topic. In this case the topic is the act of Bukkake. The origins of the term or word, as well as the places it may, or may not be found to exist, are best placed as sections later in the article. I have modified the intro to do just that. To briefly describe the act. If another editor wishes to have a sub-section describing the frequency of occurene of that act in film media, or outside of flim media, that is certainly clearly acceptable with supporting citations.

The article has not been written to focus on a specific type of film genre in the past, and attempts to change that are not appropriate.

As I have writen before, a section discussing the prolific use of the term within Pornopgraphic film, and the origins of the term itself from within Japanese Pornography seems perfectly fine. It is just that the intro paragraph should focus on what the act is, not on where it is predominantly done. Atom (talk) 04:01, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not think the lead needs to pigeonhole the scope but also think some mention of porn is appropriate. Is that acceptable to you? I think some mention increases the understanding and the lead is supposed to be a stand alone summary.Cptnono (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine. In fact, because porn video has played such a stroing role in bringing the sex practice into the limelight (apprently not even having a name before that) I have left that in the intro. "The practice is a relatively prevalent niche in contemporary pornographic films." Atom (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Sweet.Cptnono (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

@Herostratus You reverted a recent edit that is discussed above. You offered no commentary here. It read "Bukkake refers to the act of a woman being ejaculated on by several men.[1][2][3][4][5] Bukkake is similar to a related term used in pornography, gokkun, in which several men ejaculate into a container for the receiver to drink.[3] The practice is a relatively prevalent niche in contemporary pornographic films. Some authors have argued that bukkake involves the implied or overt humiliation of the woman involved.[6] There is debate on whether to class bukkake as a paraphilia such as hygrophilia, sexual arousal from contact with bodily secretions."

Five sources are given for the first line, which seems to back that sentence up. These sources have been used for a long time.

You changed it to say "Bukkake is a term used in pornographic productions. It refers to scenes featuring a person being ejaculated on by several men.[1][2][3][4][5] Bukkake is similar to a related term used in pornography, gokkun, in which several men ejaculate into a container for the receiver to drink.[3] The practice is a relatively prevalent niche in contemporary pornographic films.[citation needed] Some authors have argued that bukkake involves the implied or overt humiliation of the woman involved.[6] There is debate on whether to class bukkake as a paraphilia such as hygrophilia, sexual arousal from contact with bodily secretions.[citation needed]

Could you be specific about what problem you have with the text I used from the citations give? Are you asking for additional citations or what? Your edit summary said "Per talk, sources are required for contentious assertions of fact." As sources for the facts *are* given, and it seems like an accurate description, and the change was discussed several times prior to the change, what is your issue? As discussed, the article is about the sexual act, and not about a pornographic genre. Your continued effort to force your words without any attempt to reach compromise, against at least three other editors is tendentious and unwelcome. Atom (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Herostratus is edit warring against two other editors. Consensus appears to be against her. Anyone mind if I revert? More discussion is fine but we should not simply allow her to force info in when there has been a fine agreement between us in this subsection.Cptnono (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with what Herostratus has boldly written. Clearly Bukkake is both a sex act and a genre of pornography featuring that act. Equally clearly each of these meanings is well sourced. I prefer the wording "is a term used to refer to a woman being ejaculated on by several men" found here. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

Bukkake does not mean "to splash with water". "kakeru" means "to put on" (http://eow.alc.co.jp/%E3%81%8B%E3%81%91%E3%82%8B/UTF-8/?ref=sa) as in put the table cloth on top of the table. "Bu" is a prefix effectively meaning "very" or "a lot" or. "Bu" can be used with many many words. "Bu-atsui" meaning "super thick". "Bu-kowasu" meaning to totally destroy (as opposed to kowasu which would just mean "destroy". "Bu-korosu" meaning to totally kill. You hear this one in anime all the time. It effectively means "I'm totally going to kick your ass."

So, put "bu-" with "kake" and it means to totally pile on. There is much more than just "bukkake udon" (which means udon which lots of stuff piled on top). For example here's a menu (http://www.kiwa-group.co.jp/brand/wantsu_menu.html) from a large change in Japan. On that menu is (中国辛味ぶっかけ土鍋ごはん) Chinese Spicy Bukkake Claypot Rice. It effectively means rice, cooked in a claypot, with a bunch of spicy stuff pilled on.

You can go to gnavi (A Japanese restaurant guide), search for bukkake (ぶっかけ）and find plenty of things not udon. For example here is Bukkake Lunch (http://r.gnavi.co.jp/ga1n800/menu1.html) It's basically a fairly large lunch with lots of rice piled on.

Here's another (http://r.gnavi.co.jp/p701508/menu1.html）with ラー油のぶっかけ水餃子 Spice Oil Bukakke Steamed Dumplings. In other words, there is a ton of spicy oil piled on.

Here's another (http://r.gnavi.co.jp/g310100/menu8.html) with お好み焼きぶっかけネギ Okonomiyaki Bukkake Neki. In other words Okonomiyaki with lots of onions piled on.

Greggman (talk) 00:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Images

I propose removing one of the drawings. The two drawings are very similar, and the second one is redundant. --JN466 06:42, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Disagree. Do you want a discussion on both individually or as a whole?Cptnono (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with either image, as the depiction of the postures and relative positions of the performers arguably does add value, but given that the positions in both images are so similar, the 2nd image does not add anything new. It risks coming across as male locker-room decoration, which is something we should avoid. YMMV. --JN466 11:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

One is enough. What is the term for a group of women defecating on men? Is there an article? I want to make sure there aren't too many graphics there too.

More alarmingly, I see there is no article for Circle jerk which just redirects to mutual masturbation, and of course circle jerks are guys masturbating themselves. This article is a clear subset of the circle jerk. Whoever wrote it should get busy and create a well sourced article of that name. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with JN. 2nd image is redundant. Why do we need both? Kaldari (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the second one. JN466 20:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, lets see if we can get more feedback first. Atom (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OOPS! Deleted right graphic for wrong reason - that's another article. Anyway, one is enough to make the point. But feel free to get busy on that Circle Jerk article, Atomaton. It really is desperately needed to round out the whole Bukkake topic, and the encyclopedia in general. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, no interest in your pet project. I monitor sexology and sexuality articles and do too much reverting of vandalism. If your removal of the image is not vandalism, then please leave the article as is until a discussion can take place. We prefer stability on Wikipedia. Removing it the first time is perfectly fine, and part of the BRD cycle. You've done that, and it was reverted in the interest of maintaining consensus. Personally, I have not formed an opinion as to whether a second image adds to the article or not. I am leaning towards that it is not. But, lets discuss this on the talk page and involve other editors before disrupting the article please. Atom (talk) 03:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, BRD. And "What is the term for a group of women defecating on men? Is there an article?" Don't change the subject. We are talking about images on this page. I think both images show tow different versions. It does not necessarily mean a gang bang or a threesome. Neither are overly graphic. Both accompany the text. Both have value. We cannot expect (and should assume based on various research) that not all readers will fully read the prose. Both images do harm except to those who object to such images at all. Articles are better with images. Also, you failed to address which one you would like to go. So are we having a discussion on if one is better than the other? If not, stop removing it since that is also an important discussion.Cptnono (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

There is no point in having both images; they are almost identical. If we have a second image, it should perhaps illustrate the practice in a gay context, but even that seems unnecessary given present article size. --JN466 05:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did get this article confused with another one and it didn't occur to me to revert since I rarely make mistakes like that. Anyway, that said. We have two guys masturbating in one picture and five in another. The captions don't explain the difference and the text wasn't clear (though i got rid of some controversial long tagged and unsourced material). The five guys also touching each other is a different form or something and people too shy to say it? We don't want to miss a nuance. Please explain. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

[Insert]: Still waiting for description of difference between two graphics. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bonjour, Goodmorning, the Illustration depicting the act of bukkake seems to me inappropriate for a site serious as Wikipedia. The woman seems to have hands attachés behind? Has when then the images of rapes the back. Wikipedia go to tolerate images which degrade the women ? This image must be removed, thanks, merci --Geneviève (talk) 12:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've put in the alternative picture; this does not imply that the woman's hands are tied. I have no objection to doing without an illustration altogether here. The Commons link provides access to these images for readers who wish to see one. --JN466 13:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for assisting. That is something we should talk about. Atom (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Looking at that image, I can't see any reason that someone would assume that the image depicts that the woman has her hands tied. I see no rope or anything like that. So, if an image makes one reader think that she could have her hands tied, and hands being tied is not a necesary component to Bukkake, then we should not have an image that makes them think that might be the case? That seems a stretch to me. She seems to merely have her hands behind her back. Perhaps she is supporting her weight? Perhaps she is relaxing? Atom (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Genevieve has stated her opinion. No one is interested in what you think about what she thinks. Her voice counts just as much here as yours. Just knock it off. --JN466 18:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and I didn't seem him address genevieve personally, though you just addressed him personally, with a statement that sounds a lot like ownership of this discussion. What I did see him address was the idea that the woman's hands were tied. I don't see anything in the picture that implies her hands are tied. There is no indication of rope or any other restraints. This is a discussion if someone brings up a argument other people are allowed to address that.--Crossmr (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the second image due to article length and a bit of redundancy. If the article were expanded and further illustration required, it could be returned. The lead image should stay.--Crossmr (talk) 22:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Jayen, I'm sorry, I did not mean to step on your toes. You seem to take this personally. As for the article, well, the topic is not exactly urgent, and an image being there a little longer, or not being there isn't a critical issue I think. I am concerned about your words as it seems to not be assuming good faith. If you look at my edits, I have basically said that when it comes to debating whether we need to have two images or not, that I haven't made up my mind. So, my edits to protect the integrity of the article have nothing to do with what my opinion on the issue may be.

My first edit[8] was to restore the article back to the consensus after you removed the second image. Your removal of that images was commented "per talk". The talk page essentially was only the beginning of a discussion where you proposed changing it, one editor said that they did not agree, and another editors said that they did. With only three hours in the interim, not really enough time for other interested editors to participate. You made a change, well within the BRD policy, and it was reverted, which again, indicated it was time to talk.

My second edit[9]to restore the article back to consensus, was after editor CarolmooreDC mistook an image in the article for the image in another article, the snowballing article. Her edit summary was "WP;RS say Only Men&men or Men&Women do this; get appropriate graphic" On the talk page she said "Actually, I did get this article confused with another one and it didn't occur to me to revert since I rarely make mistakes like that". An honest mistake. As it was, she was confused about the image in the snowballing article too, as that image did have a source supporting it. I note that at that time there was some discussion on the talk page, but no consensus and no comment by that editor regarding the images on this article. This edit was completely independent of the first edit. And in both cases, I did not assert my opinion, but only asked for us to talk and reach consensus before changing anything. I am a big fan of consensus.

My third edit[10] was when one image was replaced by another image, the issue apparently being that someone had a concern that with the womans hands behind her back, they could have been tied. I am not sure why her hands being tied, or not tied was pertinent, but that was the issue. A different issue than the first edit, and a different issue than the second. Note that I did not argue whether such a change was appropriate or not, or if I would be for it or not, only that we should discuss it on the talk page and work towards consensus.

Three edits all independent of one another, and all calling for talk and discussion before changing the article consensus.

Now this issue regarding Genevieve, I have no idea where you may have gotten the idea that I was negative towards her at all. I addressed the issue that she raised, honestly. It is true that I disagreed, but I was not unfriendly and did not even address her. I assume good faith by all parties, often to a fault. I certainly have indicated that in all three of those edits. An editor removing an image is being Bold, and that is fine, but when they are reverted, it is time to talk and find consensus, not claim that the person who disagreed with them is edit warring. In this case, as we all seem to be feminists, it is possible that I would agree. My concern is about following the process properly accortding to Wikipedia policies, which I believe that I have done. Atom (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If there already is a good response on the difference between the two images and why two images are necessary, that really is necessary to prove not POV WP:Undue. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There already was a response. Don't know if it is good but you seemed to ignore it. There is a difference between a gang bang and a threesome. Each image shows a different scenario. Both scenarios have different implications. Neither are the same. Since images are overall a good thing in showing a topic (don;t bother trying to argue against that assertion) then I see no problem. There could be a concern that it is over the top but both are drawn depictions instead of actual photos and neither overruns the text since the prose are long enough to handle it layout wise. Consensus has been that images assist some readers and the project has always embraced that medium as long as it is inline with the law in Florida (copyright, child porn, and others will always be removed). So the only reason to not include would be based on moral objections. Those are not discussed in the policy so they should simply be ignored. Please, provide reasoning to remove an image that is based on guidelines and policies instead of morals and then chose which one you would like to see go.

And when you are done figuring out how to address the above, please also stop treating other editors like idiots and simply lay out reasoning based on your moral objections. We already have images barely related on Good Articles (not the best but articles that pass some sort of test) so we know that the only reason to object is morals. Make an argument based on policy and guidelines and please please address which image should go and then please address why that image would stay after one was removed. There has been a level of honesty lacking in these debates and all it would take to get others on board would be some honesty.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not quite. Having images on both sides of the article in the same place is usually not acceptable as it is here. This is a fairly short article, and 3 images is excessive. IUP clearly states that wikipedia isn't an image repository and the number of images in the article should be in-line with the amount of text in the article. If at least one more full section were added to the article another image could be used, but the second image clearly is a duplication of the first. While the amount of people in them vary, what they're illustrating in relation to the subject is essentially the same.--Crossmr (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, this time I see a response, but not a sufficiently policy-specific one. What implications do the different images have and are they explained in the article and are they sufficiently noteworthy to warrant two photos? I don't have problems with morality if it's voluntary activity, just with WP:Undue/POV. I'd be delighted to see a third image IF it was guys, since it's probably males who do it most voluntarily. The whole issue of women coerced into it seems to have some WP:RS I'll investigate for adding. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

You've got no evidence to support that women are forced into this nor that guys do it mostly voluntarily. 2 photos could be warranted if they were illustrating something different and the size of the article supported 2 images fitting neatly inline with the text. When I suggested 2 images, I meant the lead and the udon image. Not the 2 bukkake images. I also recommended keeping the main image, not the second one which has been moved to main.--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• To summarise discussion to date, the following editors support (at least) removing one of the two images (I'd say this should be the one that gave one editor the impression that the woman's hands might be tied behind her back):
  1. Jayen466
  2. CarolMooreDC
  3. Kaldari
  4. Genevieve
  5. Crossmr
  6. Oda Mari
  7. Herostratus (I think)
• Editors in favour of keeping both images:
  1. Cptnono
• Undecided:
  1. Atomaton (but possibly in agreement that the second image should be removed)
• The discussion has now run for more than two days, and that is a pretty clear result. I have therefore restored the article to the version just featuring one image. In doing so, I also restored some other changes that Atomaton had reverted:
• The lead now mentions again that the person ejaculated upon can be a male as well as a female. This information is cited and relevant. It was already included in the article body, and as Carol has pointed out, there is plentiful RS coverage of gay bukkake. I have added another book reference to the article which clearly states that the person receiving can be either a woman or another man. Note also that an unfiltered google image search for gay bukkake finds several million hits.
• I have moved the one-sentence mention of Gokkun from the lead to the article body. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should not contain information not included in the article proper.
• I have added some words to the lead mentioning that the woman is not generally brought to orgasm by participation in bukkake. This information was already contained in the article, is sourced, and is worthwhile mentioning in the lead.
• I have removed a fact-tagged sentence about bukkake being a form of hygrophilia from the lead; again there is nothing about this in the article body, and it needs a source before re-adding.
• Please review. Thanks, --JN466 10:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, this is the second day of discussions, so it hasn't been discussed for TWO days. In most articles discussion of such changes tkaes weeks or months. For you to force your change after less than 36 hours, claiming consensus, when two of the four people that you mention wanted to change the image for other reasons (not remove it), or wanted to remove the other image, not the one you advocate. Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy, even if all of the people you listed supported your viewpoint, that is not an attempt to reach consensus. I am offended by your desire to force your viewpoint without actually trying to let people take the time to discuss their views and reach consensus. We should revert back to the article consensus (the way it has been for years) and then put out an RfC to get a wider participation, and then discuss it as long as needed. If we do it that way, then it will form a real consensus, not the kind of artificial change you are trying to create. That consensus will then keep the article stable again for a long time, rather than it flip flopping every time an editor sees the article for the first time and wants to change it again. Atom (talk) 16:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The first day this was discussed was the morning of Feb 16. The second day was Feb 17. Feb 18 was the third day. Agreed? There is no point in maintaining an article version for months when there is clear talk page consensus against it, and I assure you that this is not how Wikipedia works. --JN466 04:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry JN, but you're now trying to use us to misrepresent. In your opening statement, you claimed the "second one is redundant". That is the one most people agreed with, unless they specifically stated otherwise. I did not support the removal of the lead, only the removal of the redundant second image. This is generally a group act, and a threesome is generally not considered a group. After all the hype over at the other article of ensuring an image was used that described the most usual scenario, we suddenly change our tune over here, because we don't like the way she's holding her arms? Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. Did you forget what you wrote over here? [11].--Crossmr (talk) 00:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Given that this image shows a woman in a position that sources describe as degrading, and that a woman editor objected, strongly, against an image that implied the woman's hands were tied behind her back, I changed the lead image against the other one, and posted a note here on this talk page that I had done so. I do not recall you objecting at the time; at the time you said "the lead image should stay", the image where the woman's hands are clearly free was the lead image. If I misunderstood you, you have my sincere apologies. --JN466 04:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Gay bukkake image

Well, I have not seen support for removal of the second image from CarolMooreDC, or Genevieve or See books.google search. Looks like there's enough WP:RS for a whole paragraph and a graphic, which would settle the issue of two images of women with no significant difference explained in captions (or elsewhere?). Then it would OK to have two graphics. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Carol: I don't follow your point, sorry. There are two images in this article, both are showing men ejaculating onto a woman. Neither seems to be an example of "gay Bukkake". In my view (and I am in the minority) Bukkake was originally an act whose intent was to subjugate and humiliate a women. In my view (OR -- so not in the article) no different from the Salem Witch trials in purpose.

The sex act depicted in Pornography with men ejaculating on men is not Bukkake. The reason that it is disputed is because of the popularity of the Bukkake genre in film, many films with that act were titled "Gay Bukkake". This genre is recent (last ten years) and prior to that the subject of Bukkake was *always* a woman. I see the act itself as a form of misogyny. Because the film genre originated in Japan, people having taken offense when it is suggested that the genre is intended to subjugate and humiliate women, as that implying so is somehow a racial slur against Japanese people. Of course the act has existed for along time, and did not originate in Japan, but was popularized there. The biggest issue is that documenting this has been very difficult. The existing historical documents are in Japanese and there has been no interest by anyone there to uncovering proof that this act was part of their past or culture. Also, there was a general destruction of many historical documents during the time period that this act is alleged to have been prominent. I have not been able to find any archeological or anthropological sources that have addressed the issue either. I did find a source some time back that indicated that prior to the that time period in Japan the act existed in eastern Europe (Serbia/Yugoslavia) But, looking for proof of this has proven to be fruitless so far also.

My point is that "Gay Bukkake" is a label that exists for a certain kind of pornography. It is a misnomer, as the act of Bukkake is the degradation and humiliation of a woman by many men ejaculating onto her face. Bukkake is not generically the exact of many men ejaculating onto someone else. The gender of the subject is pertinent, not because we wish to discriminate against gays and lesbians, but because we wish to not lose the history that it was an act against women. Atom (talk) 00:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If another image should be uploaded is a fine discussion but the keeping of the current images should not hinge on that. Please feel free to go get an image of two men doing it. Until you do so, it is worthless discussing. Also, feel free to start contributing information from that search instead of focusing on the image. That would be great. Cptnono (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Undue#Undue_weight and Wikipedia:Images#Offensive_images (and evidently many people would consider having even one image offensive). However, among us, there is little doubt that having more than one unless there is some pressing need is clearly WP:Undue. I have yet to see some pressing need explained. Having another one of a male of course would be informative. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with OP, CaroMooreDC and others. I find no reason that the two similar images should be needed in the article. One is enough. @Atom, please explain this comment of yours. "Also, there was a general destruction of many historical documents during the time period that this act is alleged to have been prominent. " Please specify it. General destruction of many historical documents during the time period...? When? By whom? What documents? Can you provide a name or two of the documents? As far as I know, there was no book burning/destruction in Japan . Oda Mari (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

No, he can't, since the only refs for this are a Wikipedia hoax. This is discussed at the top of this page, Talk:Bukkake#2005 world conference and elsewhere. Herostratus (talk) 07:03, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

UNDUE is misused in that argument. We can present another viewpoint but you have failed to add it. That has nothing to do with prominence given. Please reread WEIGHT before calling it since you do nothing but present a false image of standards otherwise. Like I said, go get an image of guys and add it. That has no bearing on the images currently in or the creation of more content. Your point is moot otherwise.Cptnono (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, the fact that some may find an image offensive is not relevant. There exists a reference that is not verifiable (as you speak of). As for "hoax" that is your term. We have agreed that the reference mentioned can't be used, but that says nothing about the possibility of other references being used. I am not trying to introduce this into the article at this time, and so the argument is moot. We need to have proper citations before that can happen. I'll try to find the reference for the loss of historical documents during the Edo period. That isn't the point though. Atom (talk) 16:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, unless people think a Gay Bukkake article is necessary, one place to find images is google image search and then contact owners and see if wikipedia can use their graphics. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Alternative image

Alternative image

I've noticed that there is an alternative in Commons which we could use as a lead image as well, shown here to the right. Some editors might prefer this as a more suitable lead image; the drawings will still be available under the Commons link. Views? --JN466 11:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support this per WP:HARDCORE. Herostratus (talk) 14:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

That is an essay, not a guideline or policy, so it adds no support or legitimacy. Apparently even as an essay it is highly debated and like previous policies along those lines, does not have wide support.

As per the image, you are moving in the wrong direction. We need an image that is an actual picture, not one that removes details. Atom (talk) 16:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Are you absent a camera? John lilburne (talk) 19:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This image does little to describe what is happening during this act. It isn't remotely clear what they're doing in it. It is simply insufficient to illustrate this subject.--Crossmr (talk) 23:46, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

If you rotate the symbol for 'male' about it's central axis, as has occurred in this figure for all but one of the outer circle of symbols, you not longer have the symbol for male. This makes this figure erroneous in addition to adding nothing to the clarity of the depiction of the act. If Wikipedia wants to begin a diagrammatical standard to depict sex acts in such an abstract way then a debate needs to occur on that in a more centralized place than this talk page Gippies [gip-eez] (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation, rename

I propose we move this article to Bukkake (sexual act) and turn this page into a disambiguation page with links to Bukkake udon (a noodle dish) and Bukkake (sexual act), according to the principle of least surprise. Are there any objections? --JN466 10:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess not. Although the article name should be Bukkake (pornography) (and the lede should also say this). I vetted the references very thoroughly some months ago, and there were no reliable sources showing this as other than a pornography term. Refs may have been added since then, though. Herostratus (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's above at Talk:Bukkake#re text, and references. No it seems like the same references are used. There's no indication of its use outside of pornography. And at any rate the entire rest of the article is about pornography. I'm not sure how that mistaken lede got back in there, probably a mistake. So Bukkake (pornography) would be the appropriate name for the new page. Herostratus (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I take your point and would be fine with that. --JN466 14:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I withdraw my suggestion, in the interests of moving foward, "sex act" is OK with me. Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I object. There has already been a long discussion about this topic in the past. The recent one does not override that. The article is about the sexual act, not about the pornography genre. Just like Cunnilingus and Fellatio are about the sexual act, not film genre based on the sex act. There were reliable sources, once a spanish language source going back to 1957 at one point, long before the film genre, but those seem to have been removed at some point. Even if we currently do not have specific references, the concept that it only exists as a fictional act within the porn industry is really silly. Also, as I have said, there is evidence that the act has existed for a logn time and the name "Bukkake" itself is relatively new. Atom (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Disambiguation: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous, and so may refer to more than one topic which Wikipedia covers...Ensuring that a reader who searches for a topic using a particular term can get to the information on that topic quickly and easily, whichever of the possible topics it might be. Someone searching "bakkake" and thinking of noodles has to know they can get more information at Udon and Japanese noodles. Let's not get them confused thinking perhaps that this is the way Japanese make their noodles! The Disambiguation is absolutely necessary. At least at the top of the page so people don't get confused. And having the photo helps somewhat keep things from getting confused. But a separate disambiguation page for Bukkake with this renamed Bukkake (sexual practice) would keep things from getting too confusing for readers, especially young kids who want to figure out how to suprise mom and dad with their culinary skills. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with Bukkake (pornography). It's more accurate. See these translation. [12] and [13] (see the bottom entry). Oda Mari (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm a little confused. Even if it is mostly done in pornography films or with prostitutes or by gay men (or in fantasies), it still is a practice, isn't it? Limiting it to pornography which is just a representation and only one of several actual uses would seem to be POV. And obviously something that would not get consensus here where I think people have some concern about sparing the Japanese noodle lovers confusion and even distaste. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

There was no slang bukkake as facial ejection/facial (sex act) before the pornography film industry started to use it in '80s in Japan. Oda Mari (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the sex act, not about the word. The sex act is different than facial in that its purpose is th subjugate and humiliate women, and the subject is a woman. With a facial, it can occur between two people of any sex combination, and is not about women at all. Atom (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

One of the users here has a secondary agenda. If the article can be renamed to focus on the film Genre, then the case can be made that as it is not a real act, that an image in the article may not exist. It is a roundabout effort to censor the image from the article because it is viewed by some as pornographic. An image in an article about sexuality is inherently *not* pornographic because it has serious Scientific, Artistic, Literary or Political value. As long as an image is directly on topic on that sexuality article, it is appropriate. If an obscure sex act that happens rarely in real life can be labeled as only a genre of pornography, then anyone trying to add an image to an article is then accused of adding pornography to Wikipedia. (See Wikipedia:Hardcore_pornography_images)

This article however is about the sex act, and not about the film genre. The sex act itself is Misogynistic as its purpose is to subjugate and humiliate women. Documenting misogyny is important to prevent it from reoccurring. The film genre based on this sex act is considered to be Misogynistic. If people can prevent the article from discussing the history of the sex act, and relabel it as a film Genre, then it can be blocked and censored on the grounds that we in Wikipedia will not propagate Misogyny. As this sex act is a very rare thing in history, it is not well documented. It has not been a popular topic for study by feminists, sociologists or anthropologists for obvious reasons. (stigma attached, and the very little recorded history of the act.) Atom (talk) 17:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Google translate is notoriously bad for Asian languages, trying to use that to justify a pov word choice just won't fly. While the term may have been created in the porn industry (most terms were) it doesn't mean people don't do it outside of porn films. Many people do many things without even knowing the proper names for them. Sexual act is just fine for naming.--Crossmr (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Responding to JN466's comment in the sources section below up here under disambiguation... Bukkake might be the primary topic, in which case standard practice is to create Bukkake (disambiguation). Such a page might be of some help, but the issue of ASTONISHMENT isn't addressed by that. Astonishment is being used here to describe a broad range of negative reactions that might be experienced by a reader who wasn't expecting to find an article about a sexually explicit subject along with sexually explicit content. Included under astonishment are confusion, shock, offense, trauma, and other similar reactions.

Sections of WP:DISAMBIG and WP:MOSDAB do explicitly allow for editorial discretion regarding a number of different things relating to disambiguation. They are also both guidelines, and guidelines are "best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply."

Bukkake is a term of some ambiguity. Being a Japanese word, the meaning of it is not inherently clear to the average English-only-speaking person with no prior knowledge of any of its applications, and a person familiar with one of its applications wouldn't necessarily know there are any others. The Japanese word has a literal meaning, and additional differing specific meanings in the category of food (bukkake udon, bukkake soba, bukkake tempura, sankai-bukkake noodles, bukkake meshi, Bukkake-tei: a "renowned noodle shop" in Okayama), and in the category of human sexuality where it is a sex act in pornography/genre of pornography. MOSDAB states "the primary purpose of the disambiguation page is to help people find the specific article they want quickly and easily." A disambig page at Bukkake would serve that purpose, which would also help address the problem of astonishment, and does so without censoring anything. There might be disagreement about what the article about the sex act in pornography should be called. It falls into the broad category or class of human sexuality, so Bukkake (human sexuality) would seem reasonable. There may be other good options. Bukkake scene, possibly. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources?

• What sources are there that treat the term as anything other than a pornographic genre? I must confess, everything I have seen to date describes it in the context of pornography, except the Jeff Hudson article, which appears to have been based in part on Wikipedia and other Internet research. --JN466 00:11, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

[14] indicates that there was an article written about private parties being done that did not involve porn films, unfortunately I've got to go out. I'll follow up later unless someone else gets to it first.--Crossmr (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I withdraw my objection Bukkake (sex act) is fine with me if others feel that way. (I do this in the interest of moving forward, reserving my right to discuss this at some future date). (Actually, maybe two separate articles"sex act" and "pornography" are in order, but I am NOT making that suggestion NOW; one thing at a time.) I'm seeing everyone on board, then, with JN's disambig proposal? Herostratus (talk) 03:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Crossmr's Press Gazette magazine article linked above is perhaps closer to being a source that actually supports the claim that it is a sex act rather than a sex act in pornography/subgenre of pornography, which is what all the sources currently used for the definition in the lede of the article that I was able to check say. I wasn't able to check Dalzell (2008) yet. However, the PZ article is describing a live sex show performed at a private sex club for voyeurs who paid for the privilege, according to the Sunday World. The defense of the complainant in the PCC case against the SW said, in the PCC's words, "He organised the events, which were not illegal, as a hobby and did not profit from them. They were staged for the sole purpose of producing footage to be sold on the professional female models' websites" [15] (emphasis added). So... those who want to define it as being both a sex act and a sex act in pornography need to keep looking for sources for the former. Defining it as a sex act only without also referencing its role in pornography strikes me as completely untenable per NPOV.

In a prior discussion it was thought the Reyes article defined it as a sex act - but that's only after it was taken out of context. The article states "Voyeurs look [on the Internet] for things from the traditional perversions (by the way already known in the 18th Century with the works of Sade) [...] to the existence of practices and grotesque forms of sexual staging:" after which bukkake is the last item listed. Thus, it's defined as "escenificación sexual" within the context of images and video found on pornographic websites. So at the moment this diff is problematic in that it leaves the article ascribing a particular definition to sources that don't have that definition. The part of the edit summary that states "take your point of view elsewhere" is not WP:CIVIL and the part which states "You've provided no sources which indicate no one outside a pornographic film has ever done this" fallaciously shifts the burden of proof.

There are problems of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV as it currently stands. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with that analysis by Шизомби, including the analysis of the Spanish source, and that of the press complaints document, which makes it clear that the event described in the Press Gazette article was being filmed. Going by the sources that we have, Herostratus had it right. --JN466 06:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing uncivil about it. It's an apt description of herostratus and his edits. He has previously tried to push this definition before, with no sources claiming it's solely in the realm of pornography and now with a new essay he's trying to push, that kind of edit tries to push this article under the domain of that essay. And unfortunately you could find any number of reliable sources and not be able to prove that no one ever partook in private bukkake. As I mentioned that was one source I found after a very quick search and was on the way out. I didn't have time to investigate it further.--Crossmr (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are reversing the burden of proof. You cannot add "the moon is made of Cheddar cheese" to moon and then tell editors who revert you that they haven't brought a source to the table saying the moon isn't made of Cheddar. If all our sources describe bukkake as a pornographic genre -- and all currently cited sources do -- then so should we, regardless of whether you or any other editor has ever participated in a bukkake session that was not filmed. --JN466 14:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The status quo was sex act, not pornography only. Do you honestly think on the entire planet not one single group of individuals has ever done this without a camera present, because that is the claim you're trying to make. I'm still digging for a reliable source, but in searching I've found several personals and other things (including a blog brought up in a reliable source which points to a bukkake club existing in new york) which indicate private individuals are indeed organizing and likely participating in private bukkake.--Crossmr (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You simply don't understand that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. That is the first sentence of WP:V policy. I think it most likely that someone, somewhere, has done this without a camera present. This is not the question. The question is whether this is a notable practice, worthy of article inclusion. If it is covered in reliable sources, then it is and will go into the article, no question. But a personal ad (if that is what you mean), or someone relating anecdotal evidence of it in a blog, does not meet our standard for reliable sources. --JN466 15:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Try reading that again. I said I was still looking for reliable sources. I indicated that there was evidence (not reliable sources) that the act took place outside of pornography. I did note there was one reliable source (a newspaper) which makes mention of a private bukkake club in new york. I didn't say that what I had found was sufficient to support the claim.--Crossmr (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The "status quo" may have been to describe bukkake as a sex act and not as a sex act in pornography. That "status quo" may have changed. Regardless of the nature of the status quo, describing bukkake as a sex act outside of the context of pornography is not something that can accurately be ascribed to the sources currently supporting that claim. To be accurate, the lede should really read "Bukkake (ぶっかけ?, pronunciation (help·info) /buːˈkɑːkeɪ/ or /bʊˈkækeɪ/) is a sexual act in which a woman or man is ejaculated on by several men^{{{citation needed}}} in a form of pornographic films^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}" or something to that effect until such time as a source or sources are found to support the foremost claim. Then the differing significant views that have been published by reliable sources must be represented fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias per NPOV. I don't know that that need necessarily be done in the lede, but it does need to be addressed in the article somewhere where it would appropriate. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

No, but the question is how to describe it. It's a sex act, plain a simple. It predominantly appears in and is discussed in the context of pornography, but it is first and foremost a sex act. Trying to describe it only in a pornographic sense implies that no one outside of pornography has ever tried to do it. Which is a ridiculous claim to try and make since you'd have to prove a negative to support that.--Crossmr (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that reasoning is sound. Describing something that happens in films as something occurring in films does not imply that no one has ever tried to copy the action depicted in the film in real life. People do copy what they see in films. --JN466 19:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Exactly which makes it a de facto sex act which appears predominantly or is discussed predominantly in the context of pornography. But it is first and foremost a sex act. Even if it appeared only in pornography and no one ever did do it outside film it is still an act used for sexual purposes making it a sex act.--Crossmr (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think neither Шизомби nor I would deny that it is a sex act portrayed in pornographic films; Шизомби referred to is as such above. I've added a source to that effect in the lead; this also discusses it in the context of pornography. It also mentions the custom for female performers in Japan to be dressed in school uniforms; I've added that info as well, cited to the same source. Cheers, --JN466 02:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources? This actually proposes a theory on its origins. This actually discusses exactly what we are discussing. And although that last one was from someone who writes for MSNBC, we have even more that at least erify that there is discussion on it not solely based on porn. Here for example. Is bukakke cnnected with porn? Certainly. Exclusive? Verified not.Cptnono (talk) 04:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The first source, Sex at Dawn cites an online abstract for a poster presentation at a convention, and that source was addressed above at Talk:Bukkake#2005 world conference; one of the problems is that it is WP:CIRCULAR. America Unzipped: In Search of Sex and Satisfaction uses the same poster though without formally citing it, the author having seen it in person at the convention. Nexus Confessions, wherein the editor explains the book solicited fantasies from readers on their website and compares it to the letters in adult magazines, and the back cover states Nexus is "the world's leading publisher of fetish fiction" I would not take to be a reliable source. I've seen the snippet on GB from Dirty Words, but I'd like to see the context; freelance writer and editor Natalie Danford authored the essay it appeared in, titled "Fantasy." Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that analysis by Шизомби, in particular the WP:CIRCULAR issue. The chapter from Dirty Words I cited is "Facial", by Lawrence Douglas, who is the James J. Grosfeld Professor of Law, Jurisprudence & Social Thought at Amherst College. --JN466 10:27, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Here are links to see the snippet in context: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] (this is the chapter end, with the chapter "Fantasy" then following). --JN466 10:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting that. I had been wondering more about what comes before "Without doubt, the source of greatest concern" (i.e. greatest concern to whom, in what context)? And after seeing the additional snippets above, I wondered what the full reference for Tuttle (2005) is. Page 100 was the only hit inside the book for Tuttle. I was unable to find likely candidates on Google Books or Worldcat with author Tuttle and publication date 2005. I think Sussman's subtitle "A Literary Encyclopedia" in conjunction with the following excerpts from Douglas, p.99: "Discharge distance is, of course, a function of many factors, including prevailing wind spped, barometric pressure, air tempurature, and altitude from sea level. Doctors agree, however, that greater propulsion can be achieved by conditioning the puboccoccygeus muscle, which controls ejaculation (see Axel Felch, MD, " Treating the 'Dribbler': Some Suggested Therapies," Journal of Genitalia 8)" (I would hope your suspicion is being aroused at this point, but if not see Felching) and "see Calibrating the Penis, with Special Attention to Ethnic and Regional Differences: A Statistical Survey, Bureau of Weights and Measures, www.usgov.org" and "The failure to take the deviation angle into account may lead to an errant or otherwise misdirected facial ("Not in My Eye, Please!" Semen Today, July 2007)" give one, shall we say, a fairly reasonable basis to conclude that Douglas' entry is a work of literary fiction, as might be all of the entries. If somebody had read the entire book (as I would think professional encyclopedists do) - or at the very least read the jacket, introduction, and article - they might know this. I think your adding it was an honest slip-up, but it could have been avoided. There's a real danger in sourcing claims on the basis of Google Books snippets, which there really ought to be a policy against doing or linking.

Another way of detecting the problem with the source, is to see what has been written about it. One of Sussman's other contributors, Jonathan Ames, states in his book The Double Life is Twice as Good that for Dirty Words "Writers were asked to select a word or phrase from a very extensive list—I chose 'vaginal ejaculation'—and then define that word or phrase however we saw fit" (157). Or see "Dirty Words is an unusual book. It's not really an encyclopedia--it's more of a multigenre collection of short writing on hot topics by over 90 published writers, including poems, short stories, essays, numbered lists, quirky quizzes and even a one-act play." http://www.metrosantacruz.com/metro-santa-cruz/07.02.08/arts2books-0827.html or "The novelist and poet Kim Addonizio manages to contribute an entry on 'necrophilia' but only by coming up with a brand-new definition: 'sexual obsession for men who are incapable of having a real relationship because they have no heart in their chest cavity.'" [(Hi-hat)] http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/words-you-cant-say-on-this-blog/ Some of the entries might be wholly truthful, and some of the fictional ones may contain some truth, but this source can't be used for this article except perhaps in a section on fiction, if one could find a secondary source referring to Douglas' entry in some detail.

If someone were to start with a faulty original "research" premise (e.g. bukkake must refer to a real life sex act outside of pornography, because it just must) and then pull quotes that might appear to support that original research, provided that they are taken out of context or that the reliability of the source is disregarded, is not a good way of doing real research. It is a good way of committing academic dishonesty, though (were Wikipedia actually academic). I hope nobody on Wikipedia is doing that. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for completeness' sake, the context prior to the "source of greatest concern" snippet is this: [25][26](bottom of page 99)[27]top of page 100 --JN466 16:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you're right; the source is not up to muster. My apologies. Tuttle is an existing publisher (not author) on books about the Far East, but I am not actually able to locate the title indicated. I had added some more plausible-looking (and probably factually correct) information from the source, but I'll remove that also; it's just not a good source. Thanks again for your thoroughness, and apologies again. I'll be more careful in future.

I am not completely averse to referring to Bukkake as a sexual act (here an alternative and more suitable source). I would not want this description to imply that it occurs to any notable degree outside the world of pornography. As far as I am concerned, it is, going by reliable-source coverage, a genre of pornography and should be treated as such here. Even the source I have just linked refers to it, at the beginning of the chapter, as "a popular genre of pornography", as does this one. You are of course right that googling for "Bukkake" + "sex act" is putting the cart before the horse. There are over 700 book sources in Google books mentioning bukkake, and there are only two that refer to it as a sex act. Still, I succumbed to it in the interest of having peace on the talk page.

We really ought to be doing the redirect. What should it go to? Bukkake (pornography)? Bukkake (sex act)? Bukkake (sexual practice)? I am leaning towards the first. --JN466 16:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

No worries. My last paragraph in my last post is a general one that is not specific to Bukkake, which is only given as an example, and it is general advice, not meant to be directed at you specifically. The Moore & Weissbein article in Everyday Pornography also situations the definition within the context of a discussion of pornography, although it's possible the source given, Aydemir, does not. At the moment I haven't found the bukkake reference in Aydemir but I will look more later.

I'll get back to you on the question of the article title a bit later. Tentatively, I would say that if the food dishes use the word only in conjunction with other words and are never referred to solely as "bukkake," the present title would seem to be fine. Though if someone is interested in the food dishes and winds up here simply by following the search window autocompletion suggestion of Bukkake or by typing in the whole word bukkake in the search or URL window, that would be unfortunate. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI. See this. WP is an encyclopedia! Oda Mari (talk) 17:07, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what basis JN466 had or what basis Oda Mari has for believing that Douglas was referencing an actual publication and that it is one by Tuttle Publishing specifically. While it's correct that the reference given in Douglas' work of fiction which contains fictional references is "(see Katumura Makinnukami, Hello Kitty, Goodbye Dignity: The Woman in Today's Japan [Tuttle, 2005])" and that that might possibly mean a book published by some publisher named Tuttle somewhere, rather than an article by Makinnukami in a book edited by Tuttle, as I supposed, there's really not grounds for believing it to be a real source. My guess would be that Katumura Makinnukami might mean something funny or obscene (Makinnukami=making you cummy, i.e. covering you with semen, i.e. bukkake), as with "Dr. A. Felch" above, or the supposed U.S. Government publication on "Calibrating the Penis." So, I hope Oda Mari is pulling my leg here.

I'm not sure of the relevance of the comment "WP is an encyclopedia!" Yes, it is an article of faith for Wikipedians that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I've noted in the past though, I forget where, that Wikipedia sadly doesn't think that the question of what an encyclopedia is proves to be compelling enough to make Encyclopedia a Good or Featured Article, or at least boost it beyond C-class Talk:Encyclopedia. Perhaps my comment about Wikipedia not being academic was the subject? I don't think Wikipedia makes any claim to be academic. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

if someone is interested in the food dishes and winds up here simply by following the search window autocompletion suggestion of Bukkake or by typing in the whole word bukkake in the search or URL window, that would be unfortunate That happens. One of the Foundation employees mentioned just the other day on one of the mailing lists that he was shouted at by a female friend who was looking for the noodle dish and wound up here. --JN466 18:41, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a "sex act". Even if it is mainly in porn it is still a "sex act". What is the point in limiting the scope through the title? "Winning"? But since an article on the dish does not exist, it would be against the MoS to add the disambiguation to the title. Feel free to start the other article, though. Cptnono (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In response to Cptnono, certainly the claim "it is a sex act[period]" can be stated in the article in that way if it can be followed by a reliable source that states the same, where nothing has been added, substracted, or changed in meaning from the reliable source. Nobody contests that AFAIK. The problem is that thus far that claim has been either misattributed to sources that don't state that, or the sources have been quoted out of context, or the sources prove to be unreliable, in some cases very obviously so. I don't entirely object to having to check what the sources say, and then document here my findings, although I suppose it might be nice if a little more care were plainly taken in the first place so that this process wouldn't keep having to repeat itself.

I'm having trouble, though, understanding why if it is such a simple matter as claimed that it "is a sex act [period]" why it has not been such a simple matter to find a source stating that. I am also having trouble understanding how the "scope" of the article is in any way "limiting." What reliably sourced claims are currently prevented from being added by the scope, and what are the diffs evidencing the prevention of the scope of the article being expanded with reliable sources?

I am for the moment, as I stated above, tentatively inclined to agree that the MoS is that the article's title should remain "Bukkake" unless there is something else called just "Bukkake" alone. It's not being suggested that a Bukkake (pornography) be created in addition to this article, right? That would be a WP:CONTENTFORK and would be a WP:NPOV violation. The offer must then refer to creating an article on Bukkake as a food dish. If there are reliable sources for that, that's absolutely a reasonable suggestion. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In full agreement with the first part of Шизомби's statement. As for the second, no, it is not suggested to create Bukkake (pornography) in addition to this article, but it would be wise to move this article there, or to a similar title, and turn Bukkake into a disambiguation page, for the reason mentioned above. The inconvenience to people looking for the noodle dish ending up here outweighs MOS style concerns. The noodle dish on the disambiguation page should link to Bukkake udon. --JN466 03:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha. Yeah, I can see how someone could end in the wrong page. The damned search function dumps you in the first result, instead of giving you a list of options. I have to click the little magnifying glass before typing anything, then it sends me to a search page that only gives lists of results. Very annoying.

Usually, disambiguations are not done until there are at least three items to disambiguate. I think that we can pull it off:

• Bukkake is a group sex act in pornography.
• A variety of udon, a Japanese noodle soup.
• American Bukkake is a pornographic series by JM Productions.
• Bukkake Ski Trip, a 2006 record by Foreign Beggars.

--Enric Naval (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks ideal, Enric, as long as we include the image on the dab page. Rich Farmbrough, 22:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

Sounds good, Enric. --JN466 22:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done --JN466 20:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I have not checked the recent edit since I am at a machine with some oversight (well... she is kind of a dirty girl so maybe I should tell her my little secret) but it is a "sex act" as well as something seen in porn I have shown you that already. Yes, porn is predominant but it is still a sex act that is in both in porn and bedrooms. So Bukkake(sex act) (describing it as a sex act seen in porn most often but not limited to porn) along with even one other article "Bukkake(noodles/dish/whatever)" would be fine. The page "Bukkake" could then be a disambig since the primary topic could be disputed and I doubt anyone would actually argue against IAR here to make it happen (surprising since I typically argue against IAR). But if we do then have a third to make it even more inline with the MoS then fantastic. So when it is all said and done, my opinion is disambiguate it as long as it does not limit the scope to just porn or act as an attempt to remove images. Is that too much to ask for or do you want to keep on bickering and begging for even more bickering? Note, a similar thing was done for the Teabagger article (I know some of you do not assume good faith but check it out: Tea bag (disambiguation)) and it has worked out just fine. This really isn;t that complicated as long as no one is playing games.Cptnono (talk) 06:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Not sure where you've shown us that already. But I think we're in agreement about having the disambig page, and having an illustration in the article if it is useful, etc. Not so happy with these comments: "Is that too much to ask for or do you want to keep on bickering and begging for even more bickering?" "I know some of you do not assume good faith" "This really isn;t that complicated as long as no one is playing games." I'm not thrilled with the title given to this article to disambiguate it; I made some other suggestions above that I thought were broader and more appropriate, but beyond bringing up my dissatisfaction here, I don't plan on moving the page. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)