Talk:Bukkake

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. [1] and [2] (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)

[3] 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" [4] (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: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] (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: [14][15](bottom of page 99)[16]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)

Info added

I have added further info from two sources, by Gail Dines and Russ Kick (cited), and created a subsection on viewers' motivation. --JN466 11:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Photos in article

There has been much disruption in the article lately with the topic being the images. Some have suggested that the article only needs one of the two current images. Some have suggested adding images with a men as the primary subject. Some have suggested replacing the hand drawing with a non-descript symbol. Some have suggested replacing the hand drawn image with a photograph.

This RfC is intended to allow a wider range of editors participate in the discussion in an attempt to talk and reach a long standing consensus that will leave the article stable for a period of time. The goal is to maintain stability in the article, rather than it changing every time an new editor with a different opinion comes along. Atom (talk) 17:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC) In the interests of brevity (desired by some editors), I'd like to have the RfC summarized, hopefully towards some consensus, by the end of March 2011. Atom (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Involved editors

(The following are responses to Enric Naval's post below, now moved to the Uninvolved section:)

I am not sure it makes a difference if her hands are behind her, or if she were tied up or not. Not relevant to the topic either way. Your point about the other image looking like a three some is also a good point, and I agree. One editor suggested replacement of one image with something that adds more information to the article, such as "Gay Bukkake". Although I do not advocate an image of a misnomer, what do you think about an alternative image? Atom (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, what do you think of no image in the article? (removing all explicit images) Or replacing any explicit image with a symbol, as suggested earlier on this talk page? Thanks for your perspective Atom (talk) 20:23, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I am more perturbed by Genevieve's impression that the woman's hand appeared to be tied than by the fact that there are only two males in File:Wiki-bukkake-2.png. Bukkake videos commonly feature only two males in shot at the same time. The image is still a reasonable representation of what a porn viewer might see at any one time.

The Wikipedia gender gap is currently a prominent topic in the press. We should take women's views on these sorts of articles seriously. --JN466 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment Here is an outline of the discussion to date:

• Discussion on removing one of the two bukkake drawings (see earlier status of article) began on 16 February at 07:15, above, i.e. 2.5 days ago.
• Since the discussion began, 8 people (incl. Enric Naval above) have said they are in favour of having just one of these drawings rather than both (two editors, Genevieve and Herostratus, actually preferring we should have neither of them).
• One editor (Cptnono) has said they would prefer both pictures to remain.
• Atomaton has said "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." Yet he has reverted the same image back in against talk page consensus four times [17], [18], [19], [20] during the course of this discussion, and is currently the subject of an AN3 thread.
• Images available in the Bukkake category in Commons are the two drawings, and an abstract schematic [21]. There are presently no bukkake photographs in Commons. --JN466 20:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Comment: Why need RfC if consensus already to remove? As described above there are Seven (7) editors for only one image (now 8 with uninvolved); one (1) for and one (1) undecided. Why do we need an RfC?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Consensus seems pretty clear (disregarding the side tangents). Why is an RfC necessary? Kaldari (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Uninvolved editors

Both images show the same thing in almost the same way, so we would only need one of them. But which one? File:Wikibukkake.png seems to represent the topic well enough (it has more people and a better angle), but it does look like her hands are tied up. No idea of what is the "correct" posture for the hands of a woman in a bukkake, someone with Japanese films of this topic should post here. File:Wiki-bukkake-2.png has the problem that it looks like a threesome. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Do the sources define it in such a way that it requires more than three people? If so, that picture should go. The picture with more men does not show the woman's hands tied, and I don't see what basis there is for coming to that conclusion... that's not directly and explicitly supported by the picture and is rather an analytic or interpretive claim about it. WP:NOTCENSORED allows for pictures of this nature, as far as I can see. Although "WP:IMAGES" states "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." That particular illustration's omission would not do those things. Although WP:PROFANE notes that we don't know what "typical Wikipedia readers" are and what they would consider vulgar and obscene. So it's a tough call. Could a picture that adds more informative value be found, or one that is in itself notable in some way like the first such depiction, or an award-winning depiction or something along those lines? Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It is enough for me that a female editor interpreted the image that way, that the woman's hands were tied. Once I looked at it this way, I could certainly see what she meant. I don't see a major problem in having an image just showing two males. Even if more men were taking part, just from the point of view of camera angles etc., it would typically be just two that would approach the woman at any given time, then to be replaced by others. --JN466 06:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Showing two males and the context of the article expalining what is going on is fine-pretty clear what this is without needing a gallery of photos. Removing the 'hands tied image' is for the benefit of the article-it offends, depicts rape, and is degrading, its enough for me to voice my approval with the above to want it (permantley) removed. Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In the drawing, the woman's right forearm disappears behind her somewhere around her intertubercular line, and her left hand disappears while extending forward along her left thigh. Given an abnormally long right forearm that also bends at an abnormal angle, I guess it's conceivable that her hands are tied together. Or one could suppose that they are not tied directly together, but that the wrists are individually tied and the cord extends some length between them. That is purely in the realm of the imagination though. One could just as easily argue she was born without hands, which given that it is a drawing and when created the hands weren't drawn, is closer to the truth.

Where is the actual evidence her hands are tied or that it is a depiction of rape? One can legitimately argue that the image doesn't belong because it doesn't add anything, so why go about removing it by describing it as having characteristics it doesn't have?

I do note a different problem, though. The German and English descriptions of the file's uploader matched, but in the current description, they do not. Single-edit Commons editor Eco-climber changed the English description 23:27, 9 November 2010 diff such that it no longer describes the picture: "A group of men or women take turns ejaculating on to a single woman's or man's face" (emphasis added). Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One can easily point to where is the evidence that the persons hands are not bound. But as you are pointing out above- We dont know either way. All this aside some have found it to be against the spirit of WP:PROFANE because of the images vague interpretation, and as such we should at the least continue to persue a legitimate alternative to the image. The alternative photo Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png i think (in the mean time) is fine at describing-others disagree apparently and thats their right. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The previous discussion, at #Images_2, was simply about the question whether we should have one or two of these drawings. The overwhelming consensus was that we should only have one, and at the time I was happy for that to be Image:Wikibukkake.png. It is just that the later comment by Genevieve made me note that women might view this image differently, and led me to replace it with Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png instead. I must say that I find it very inconsistent for editors to turn around now and say that Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png doesn't illustrate bukkake properly, when it was in the article since last Septebmer, and Atomaton, whose edits Crossmr now defends, reinserted exactly this image Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png three times [22] [23] [24], against talk page consensus. --JN466 14:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As you so aptly pointed out on Snowballing, the image should represent the most common scenario. That was you reason that two women couldn't do it right? Bukkake is a group act, and 2 guys isn't a group. It's a threesome. As such it's not the most common scenario. one editor objected, and 2 more objected further that they didn't see what she was seeing. You've repeatedly tried to use my name to claim you had consensus for those edits, which is false.I clearly supported removing the latter which is not as representative of bukkake.--Crossmr (talk) 14:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You yourself described Image:Wiki-bukkake-2.png above as "clearly ... 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.", did you not? Now you seem to have changed your mind, which I suppose is your prerogative. Frankly, as I have said before, bukkake videos frequently only show two guys at a time, simply because there isn't room for everyone to ejaculate on the person in the middle at the same time. I would argue that the image and text together give the reader a clear idea of what happens, as indeed you argued yesterday. --JN466 14:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

essentially is not the same as exactly. The second picture showed nothing further than the first because it was simply a similar photo of only 2 men. The lead clearly states "several". Not 2. 2 is rarely considered several. The consensus of people above clearly supported your indication that the second image should be removed. Some even specifically stated that one. You have no consensus to remove the first image in it's place. Can you cite how many people are shown in any given bukkake scene? otherwise this violates WP:OR and WP:V. The lead and citations support several, not 2.--Crossmr (talk) 17:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources cited in the article refer to men "taking turns". I accept that you would rather we used the "hands-behind-the-back" image showing more men, but two editors above object very strongly to using that image. I too think their concerns are valid. --JN466 19:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

And 2 editors thought there was no basis for the objection. Also WP:NOTCENSORED. There is no presence of any rope, handcuffs or any other restraints in the image, so frankly there is no objective grounds for their complaint. It's based on their own subjective feelings which is well covered by something like WP:NOTCENSORED. I asked you to cite how many people took part in bukkake scenes. Taking turns is not the same thing as saying only 1 or 2 people take part in every scene.--Crossmr (talk) 00:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I could try to edit the image to place the woman's right arm on her thigh, as it is in the picture we currently use, rather than behind her back. Would that be acceptable? --JN466 11:25, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

There is always a basis for objection to be raised on a talk page. Granted arguments may not be as strong in merit currently as others, but consensus does (can) change with time-Hence there is always a basis to raise an objection on a talk page to discuss alternatives. In this case more than one have raised a (valid) concern and there would likely be others-Jayen's suggestion would be appropriate i think to ellivate my concerns and likely others though i cant speak for them. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

@Jayen466, yes, that would be acceptable. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done Image edited, uploaded to Commons, and replaced in article. --JN466 02:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I will chime in as a very uninvolved editor. I think the sex act, by definition as it were, involves more than two males. I think the image with the multiple male partners (more than two) is the more accurate depiction. I think if we are going to have an image then it should be the most accurate, even it is the more unsavory; perhaps especially if it is the more unsavory in an act that is, IMO, unsavory in its essence, if you will forgive the brief editorial. I think that, upon inspection, it is not likely that the woman's hands are depicted as tied. Her left hand goes to the floor and very unlikely would be tied in that position. --Lyncs (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Bukkake is a Japanese term that refers to showering a receiver male or female with semen from one, several or many men. " [25] - contrary to Collins defintion. Rich Farmbrough, 22:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC).

See the Talk:Bukkake#2005_world_conference section at the top of the page where Hudson's work is discussed, and it is referred to in the sources section above too. It appears to be circular, we don't know anything about the reliability of Hudson and Doong, and we shouldn't be citing an abstract for a poster presentation at a convention, except perhaps as a primary source for the bare fact of there having been such a poster presentation there, like it is presently being used in the article. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

As described in the title of the RfC, the purpose was because there ws substantial discussion of a number of image related issues. They spanned from removing all images, to removing one of the two nearly identical images (in the article at that time) to replacing the one image with a symbol, to replacing the drawing with a real photograph. One of them (addressed above) is regarding whether one of the images appears that the woman is bound, or not. So, perhaps there has been some progress, but not what I would call a comprehensive addressing of all of the issues and a reaching of consensus. As the article has been here for a long while, and will likely remain being here for a while, there is no real hurry in discussing, and giving other editors time to add their two cents. The real advantage to the editors discussing thoroughly and coming to a consensus is that them when months later someone else cmes along and wants to make a radical change to the article in some way, one of us can stand on the consensus we obtained to maintain stability. Atom (talk) 02:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Promotion of Interested Party (Gail Dines)

While this article could stand a lot of improvement there appears to be self promotional content requiring urgent attention. A person called Gail Dines or persons acting for that party may have inserted references to this person and the tile of a book authored by this person in order to promote sales of this book. There are two references to this person on tenuous grounds. The first reference is a de facto quote within a quote. There second is more direct and simply states the authors name, book title and quotes the author's opinion.87.114.171.235 (talk)

The first reference looks ok, I guess; it could be rewritten from "A said X. B said Y. C said Z." to "X, Y and Z".

The second reference is too tenuous; it's an opinion about money shot, not about actual bukkake, and I have removed it. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, on both counts. I added that content, IIRC, and am not connected to Ms Dines in any way. The money shot reference is not tenuous, as bukkake basically is a long series of money shots, and the quoted passage occurs in a discussion of bukkake. --JN466 02:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The article is too loaded with opinion and too short on fact. The facts that are presented are inaccurate and the opinion is unbalanced. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to rescue the article but if a simple edit like the removal of a tenuous quote from an activist is the cause of controversy then it's unlikely than anyone contentious is going to be willing to commit time to that task. Fourisplenty (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The line is a perfect summary of the source. If the opinion is not worthy of mention or needs a contrary one for balance might be valid arguments. I see no glaring problems with the line (surprisingly). And if you want more facts it would be great if you found some more sources. I want more facts, too.Cptnono (talk) 07:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Etymology

It should be noted that bukkake is not the noun form of bukkakeru, not in its common connotation at least. In it's common context it means something along the lines of, many things placed on top or big things placed on top. The splashing and dashing is indeed a reference to the verb bukkakeru but it's specific to the context of AV, put simply it's a pun. Fourisplenty (talk) 15:05, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Is it only about groups?

I always assumed it just meant ejaculating all over someone's face, regardless of how many are ejaculating...Is it just about groups? On a similar note, does it always involve masturbation or could the male(s) be ejaculating due to stimulation provide by the person being bukkake'd and/or other people? --TiagoTiago (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

Bukkake (sex act) → Bukkake – Last year's discussion above notwithstanding, the current disambiguation page at Bukkake has no links, or redirects, other than this one - just "black-text" non-links. This seems to me to be something that isn't exactly encouraged; and I believe the sexual act is the common useage of the term. Potential dab issues could be dealt with in a hatnote. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

• Comment if a topic is covered as a subtopic in another article, then there would be links of this manner, so I don't find the disambiguation page problematic in itself. If we did not do this, then we could never find topics that exist as parts of other articles instead of being an article on its own. (such as TV episodes, or characters, etc) 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Those would be listed on the disambuguation page as redirects to the sections of the articles they were in. This is not the case with the dab here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Rename move the disambiguation page to Bukkake (disambiguation). Clearly the "facial" is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (NOTE: The article is already residing at the common name.) 70.24.251.224 (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
• Support; de facto primary topic as no other Wikipedia article has this title. Powers ^T 14:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)