Talk:Pearl necklace (sexual act)

FYI - pearl necklace image deletion nomination

A brave soul chose to anonymously (rather than logging in for odd reason) to nominate everyone's favorite image for deletion on Commons, as I had suggested above to get this settled conclusively, and once for all. Please see Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination. Note--the deletion request is on Commons, so the deletion rules differ slightly there from en. Since this is a perennial problem it will be good to get it sorted with hard facts rather than opinion once and for all. rootology (T) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like strong consensus for keep on the commons site. Atom (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a vote for it being deleted. Wikipedia isn't a porn site and that smut is absolutely disgusting. Find this on a porn site. It will be easy to find. No need for it to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Not Anonymous

I recommended this picture for deletion. It was not anonymous, but I was not experienced in the steps necessary to achieve this and the nomination was defeated. I hope all of those supporting this picture, will become identified with promoting explicit imagery to school-aged children because that is what this picture and this article does. Maybe this will make it easy for law-enforcement agencies to solve a crime one day.

Wikipedia purports to be a pedagogical utility in the service of humanity. It is of especial import to children, humans whose psychological development ill equips them to handle brutal images of sexual acts. The referenced picture is an explicit image of a sexual act and is of a pornographic nature. I question the need for the very article itself, as it is unnecessary and refers to a term which could easily be explained in a dictionary. I protest that Wikipedia should not become an arena for sexual imagery which limits it usefulness to young people. This picture appears to have a prurient value. You may have won because you are more experienced with Wikipedia protocol than I am and have more free time on your hands. I will take this battle outside of Wikipedia to complain of perversion and indifference to school-aged children on this site. This is not anonymous.VaniNY (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

All of wikipedia's content is not for school aged children. And will never be. Please let me know where this article is featured in Weekly Reader, along with waterboarding and the thousands of other articles not suitable for young children.--Milowent (talk) 15:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Would the photograph be more, or less descriptive if it included the penis that was involved in the making of this pearl necklace? If less, how can we justify using the photograph on the grounds that it provides information additional to the text? The text describes that the pearl necklace is made of semen, presented on someone's neck. The photograph is justified below as helpful inasmuch as it demonstrates the means to this end. In which case, a dripping penis should be included in the shot for additional information, surely. But, would this be acceptable? I wonder. Let me also ask - what would the contributors to this discussion suggest as a suitable photographic illustration for the Wikipedia article called Ballistic Trauma? What would the contributors suggest as suitable additional material for illustration of the page called Rape? What would the contributors below consider a suitable watershed for the 'rules of Wikipedia' when it comes to the supporting photography for the page on anal intercourse? May I ask a further question? May I ask that contributors here respond to my previous questions, so that, as a relatively inexperienced editor of Wikipedia, I can know how helpful I'll be if I use the forthcoming weekend to collect the best photographs I can for topics such as these, and offer them up on Wikipedia for the collected readership of this online encyclopedia? Do please let me know what you'd prefer. I'm an excellent photographer, and creative too. On the other hand - I should ask a further question. How should I best resolve the feelings of moral uncertainty, anxiety and guilt which I should undoubtedly encounter? Having correctly, anatomically and explicitly rendered the topics of a gunshot wound, of anal sex, or of a rape, (or even of a properly lit and photographed pearl necklace for that matter, to replace the rather lackluster example found here), and having presented them in the certain knowledge that they would be viewed by countless thousands of children well below the age of consent, I am quite certain that my conscience would cause me a good deal of concern in the days to come. Please don't misunderstand - I'm not making a moral argument, just asking a few questions. Perhaps by considering these, and how one might answer them if you were asked by a responsible parent, editors and contributors here will find a solution to their tricky dilemma. Good luck. And may I humbly ask one final question? May I ask if the contributors here agree with me that, on the grounds of the certain outcome of distaste, dismay and regret that any adult who has an interest in the considered exposure of children, let alone human beings in general, to material which is likely to affect their perception of highly personal issues such as sex, that it might be the best policy, at least in the interim while this discussion is fully expressed and resolved, to remove this photograph? I can't help but wonder if that might not be a decent decision in light of the sensitive subject material. Thanks for reading my questions.

tl;dr 173.58.37.123 (talk) 10:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is porn now?

This "article" will be useful in the campaign to have wikipedia blocked from school use, not only because it's unreliable and often written by idiots, but is also a hard-core porn site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.135.3 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers an extremely wide variety of subjects, including sex-related topics. See WP:NOTCENSORED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know that paper encyclopaedias also cover sex, as do biology textbooks. I will grant you that Wikipedia goes into a lot more depth on sex than say Britannica, but it also goes into a lot more depth on railway stations, politicians and places. As we're not limited by paper we can have articles on pretty much anything, and that makes us a good educational resource. I'm not sure I'd advise learning about sex from Wikipedia, but it would certainly give you a much more comprehensive view of the subject, rather than just the mechanics of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Hidden text application and Bukkake and Gokkun links in the See also section

Rebbing, while the hidden note that was there can be argued to have been worded somewhat poorly, Help:Hidden text#Inappropriate uses for hidden text does state, "When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus."

So some form of a note is appropriate in this case. I didn't find the previous note a bad one except for the notion that removing the image would be vandalism. It obviously would not be.

As for this edit you made, I disagree because Bukkake is about ejaculating on a person as part of a sexual activity. It is relevant to the Pearl necklace topic because a person who is interested in reading about a man ejaculating on person's neck, etc. is likely to be interested in reading about several men ejaculating on a person. In addition to commenting on a see also link needing to be relevant, WP:SEE ALSO also states, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I'm not sure about Gokkun, but the Gokkun article does mention bukkake. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the hidden text, and, if it correctly discourages unnecessary drive-bys, so much the better.

I also restored the link to Bukkake, but I'm not sure that's correct. A pearl necklace is ejaculation on a part of a partner's body that takes place in any of a number of contexts, whereas bukkake is a (fringe?) practice—largely limited to pornography—exclusively focused on the act of being drenched in many men's semen. Also, I don't think the ejaculations in bukkake would ordinarily be called "pearl necklaces," even if some semen does end up on a subject's décolletage. I'm skeptical that a reader coming here would be particularly interested in that article—or even know what it was! That said, if you think it's likely to be useful, it probably is, and it's not like the "see also" section is overflowing. Do you think it would be appropriate to add a short explanatory note, perhaps something like:

• Bukkake, a sex act portrayed in pornographic films in which several men ejaculate on a recipient

I'm much more skeptical about the relevance, even tangential relevance, of gokkun for similar reasons as bukkake but with the additional concern that gokkun isn't even about being ejaculated on. Rebbing 04:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, thanks. And thanks for this. I can't help thinking that bukkake should be there. I would be fine with you adding an explanatory note for it. As for the topic being more so tied to porn, well, there are scholars who argue that facials, pearl necklaces and bukkake occur more so in porn than in real life. As for gokkun, yeah, let's leave that out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome. Thanks for explaining yourself so well and being so pleasant to work with. Rebbing 03:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we please delete the image?

We don't really need a porn diagram in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainythunderstorm (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The image appears to be neither pornographic nor a diagram. I recommend that you read WP:CENSORED. If the use of the image in this article represents a policy violation, please let us know. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This subject is not particularly notable or useful to anyone and the picture is offensive and unnecessary, lots of people would feel that way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:2787:3800:6C9F:879F:84A8:F72B (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, to the point twhere we have an entire archive jsut for this issue. I suggest that you read it. Meters (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)