![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have no idea with the article containing an image, whether that image is linked (silly) or right up front (I agree, the article is titled "Creampie (sexual act)"). But the images Creampie.jpg and Analcreampie2.jpg (apologies - I'm not sure how to link them rather than just including them in the paragraph) are, to my mind, about a 2 on a scale of 1 (pornographic) to 10 (encyclopedic). There's got to be a better way to get the idea across than these pictures - and don't get me wrong, I'm a guy who likes his, er, adult content. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I'm going to remove them. -- 216.114.194.211 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, funnnnaaay a picture of a pie. A nasty pie at that, that's like eating hoola burgers or something. enough with the censorship, you're on the fucking interweb, make it clickity if you have to but damn, your arguments are fucking retarded, I suspect some innocent person typing in creampie would be more likely to find teh pr0n images of their search directly from their search engine, well before they ever hit wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.15.9 ( talk) 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Details about faking a cream-pie and Cytherea's yeast infection were mentioned on an article on the KSex website [1] .
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
in regular sex (=outside porn business) creampieing is the usual act compared to facialing. -- Abdull 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Nobody want to mention a recent 2006 article by Cosmopolitan magazine which showed that many men often lie awake at night wondering how many times their wife or girlfreind had recieved a creampie by another man? It was in US cosmo I think - no idea where to find a source, I read it on an aeroplane.
I have redirected the page to cream pie. Wikipedia is not a porn slang dictionary. There is an article somewhere on idioms of the porn movie industry, where the prior content could perhaps be merged, if someone is interested. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
How can so many porn actresses have been creampied but not one has fallen pregnant? Do they use diaphragms or some other contraceptive device?
hahahahaha you can't be serious 64.228.137.3 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry...But I don't know much about this. lol....But I was wondering, I mean....How could they do it so often and not be pregnant.
Dude there are many ways to avoid pregnancy withiut a condom. check out Oral contraceptive. El Os o 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Christ dude, why not just look at the article on contraception. Maybe they wait until just after their period, or maybe they take the pill, or maybe the morning after pill. Or probably all three. I mean, how long do you think sperm can live inside a woman for? A whole month?
No proven cases of HIV and anal creampie? WTF?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.26.146.129 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
Hello, I am hoping we can stop edit warring about whether to show a picture or not. I have replaced the original linkimaged picture which I think is a very reasonable compromise between the people who don't want to show a graphic sexual image and the people who want to provide an image for the reader. This way, no one sees the picture without deliberately taking action to do so, but at the same time, they don't have to leave Wikipedia to get the information - they just have to click an internal link. This compromise has worked well elsewhere on Wikipedia. Can we agree to this compromise and move on to improving the article? Thanks for your help, Johntex\ talk 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Explanation of why the linkimage is a good idea
Thanks Waelfulf, for the opportunity to further explain why this is a good idea. I'll start first with the idea of "censorship" in general, because using a linkimage is not censorship.
The standard definition of "censorship" is something imposed upon someone by some outside authoritative/authoritarian entity. If we decide for our own reasons not to include something in an article, that is not censorship. We have the freedom to choice to either include it or not. That goes for a fact, an image, a particular source, anything. We often hear people cry out against "censorship" whenever someone wants to delete a controversial article, or remove a controversial thing from an article, but the term is being misused in that debate.
When Wikipedians debate whether or not to include something, that is an internal debate. There is no authoritarian outside entity involved. Therefore, it doesn't fit the standard definition of "censorship".
Now, onto the question of whether Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia absolutely is censored, in the truest sense of the word. Wikipedia is censored by the Chinese government and other authoritatian regimes every day. We even have an article on
Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Therefore, any assertion that we are not censored is provably false, at least in a world-wide context.
OK, but what about in "Western" or "liberal" countries? The German Wikipedia has run afoul of German law before and content has had to be removed on more than one occasion. One of these cases dealt with holocaust-denial. I don't remember the details at the moment, but I can find them for you if need be.
What about self-censorship? All across the EU, there is no concept of "fair use". Therefore, images that are legal and included in the English Wikipedia are "censored" out of other language versions. We do so even though all those non-English language versions are hosted on US servers. In other words, use of fair use images would be just as legal on those other versions of the encyclopedia, yet we decide not to use them.
I'd now like to address "WP:not censored for the protection of minors" because it is often misconstrued to mean somehting that it does not mean at all. People seem to think it means that we have some sort of policy against taking out material that ould be harmful to minors. That is not the case. Going back to the usual definition of "censorship", it refers to action by a central authority. What WP:not is actually saying is that we don't have a central authority reviewing all work before it is posted. It is actually a disclaimer warning the reader that at any point in time any article may contain offensive language, pornographic material, etc. It is not doing anything to limit the decisions that we make as editors. It is just warning people that we may not have taken it out as of the moment they read the article.
Now onto the subject of pornographic images. There are several reasons why I think they should not be shown in articles in plain view:
In all these cases, the person coming to the article would probably appreciate the opportunity to read about the term first, without being confronted immediately with the image.
I think it should be self-evident that our goal is not just to make a comprehensive encyclopedia. Our goal is to make an encyclopedia that is useful and well-used. If we are shut down due to obscene content, if we have to spend excessive amounts of money on legal fees fighting about certain content, if we are dismissed in the public perception as "peddlers of pornography", if people can't trust following any link for fear of what they may find there, then we are not performing well our mission.
On the flip side, putting the image behind one link keeps the image available for the inquisitive reader. That reader is able to inform themselves about what the term means, consider the legal consequences of their viewing it, if any, and then they are able to take an informed action. There is little inconvenience to them since they only have to make one click to see the image.
In conclusion - Censorship is something that comes from the outside, which is not happening here. Putting the image behind a single click brings many benefits as listed above. The inconvenience to anyone who wants to see it is so slight as to be negligible. The linkimage compromise has worked well on other articles in the past. Therefore, it is my hope that it will be a good compromise for this article. Johntex\ talk 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
(Atomaton - my edits are not bad. Everyone is not straight - typical mid west mentality.) 12.35.135.99
Several have made efforts to make Creampie gender neutral, and it seems weird to me. I have always heard the term used in the context of a woman -- cumming in a woman's vagina, and not anal (for either gender). Now, I admit I am heterosexual, but I have many gay and lesbian friends, and none of them seem to think of Creampie as a man ejaculating into a woman or man's anus. In speaking with some of them, that might be called "barebacking". But of course the term barebacking is used more broadly, as in unprotected sex, and is generally anal, but could be considered to be vaginal also.
Some confuse Creampie with Felching, as if it were synonymous. And, although I don't watch porn, it seems that in google, and from a list of porn films, none of the films with creampie as the prominent theme show anal ejaculation, or are featured in gay films. I'm sure there is plenty of porn that features both, but none of them advertise the acts taking place as "creampie sex". When most people hear the word "Creampie" they think of something similar to the image we have posted.
Does anyone have any references to "Creampie" used in contexts other than a man ejaculating into a woman's vagina? Could you find them and show them here? Thanks, Atom 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
So I did a bit of further research. I find numerous porn sites online that reference "creampie" All of the rfere to a man cumming in a woman's vagina. In some instances they refer to an "Anal creampie" They don;t call cumming in the anus a creampie, they call it an "anal creampie". That is to say, like a creampie (in the vagina) except in the anus. On other sites, numerous references to "Anal cumshots". BUt, I could not find one site that referred to a man cumming in a womans anus where it was called a "creampie".
Also, I found many gay sites that featured "anal cumshots". And after looking and looking, never found one site that seemed to refer to a man cumming in another man as a "creampie".
So, I am of the opinion that making it genderless, so that it can refer to a man ejaculating into either a vagina or anus may be reasonable and fair, but unfortunately, just innacurate, and not true to the definition or cultural usage.
We should change the article back to its original form where it clearly indicates a creampie as a man cumming into a woman's vagina. We can give an additional definition that describes an "Anal Cumshot, or Anal Creampie" as a variation of the Original Creampie. Atom 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. "Anal creampie" is just a variation of "creampie" and is a perfectly legitimate topic to discuss in the article since they are both featured in the same sites and publications. Also, the term "gay creampie", while not the predominant term, is in use. - DNewhall 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This should be genderless. Use a search engine to look for 'gay creampie'. There are numerous sites which refer to the homosexual act as a 'creampie' rather than a 'gay creampie'. The terms 'vaginal creampie', 'anal creampie' and 'gay creampie' are subsets of the umbrella term 'creampie' in my opinion, so the article should remove any gender or orifice bias. Sadat.quoraishi ( talk) 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Three major problems with the latest update by 69.69.71.161, so I am reverting to previous version.
1. Inappropriate change of creampie description from being a "sexual" term to a "mating" term. Creampies do not necessarily mean mating, or reproduction, and it is much more accurate to be described as a term within sexology.
2. I have never seen creampie written with a hyphen as in "cream-pie", and do not believe this is accurate. A quick search on Google shows few, if any, instances of the spelling "cream-pie".
3. Use of the third person pronoun "humans" does not conform to wp:1sp. Furthermore it's usage is just plain awkward--I don't believe creampies have ever been used to refer to acts by species other than humans. Parnell88 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody want to mention a recent 2006 article by Cosmopolitan magazine which showed that many men often lie awake at night wondering how many times their wife or girlfriend had recieved a creampie by another man? It was in US cosmo I think - no idea where to find a source, I read it on an aeroplane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.193.212 ( talk • contribs)
The recent addition of this category I think adds reasonable content to the article, and I hope others will pitch in what they know about certain films. I know I will if I can ever find the time. However, can we combine it with the previous category of "Notable creampie films" into a single table? My suggestion would be first column "Film Name", second column "Actresses appearing with creampie" and (maybe) a third column "Creampie genre" (i.e. vaginal/anal/multiple). I really feel this would be an improvement to the few sentences under "notable creampie films" that randomly name two films and provide little detail. Thanks! Parnell88 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed original research. Interracial pregnancy is a turn-on 'for some'? -- Ec5618 11:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Psycology of internal ejaculation
Creampies are considered by some to be a somewhat "nasty" fetish, implying that people who receive them are somewhat perverted or "dirty". This view is particularly prevailant in modern American and British pornography. The possibility of women becomming pregnant is also a turn-on for some, particularly with interracial or non-couples (e.g. pornstars simply doing a job.)
An alternative view is that the creampie is a particularly intimiate moment, since the male reaches orgasm purely from stimulation of his partners oriface, and does not need to withdraw from his partner during orgasm. During orgasm, men often feel an intense bond with their partner, and (like most mamals) there is a evolutionary desire to thrust deeper in order to increase the chances of pregnancy.
Some men and women also enjoy receiving creampies. This can be for either of the reasons mentioned above, or sometimes simply for the feeling of warm seamen inside the body. However, not all people can feel the seamen (since it is already at body temperature) and it is not uncommon for women to be unaware of a man ejaculating inside her.
Compare this to creampies in earlier movies, such as those starring John Holms, or to European movies. In these films, the creampie is often presented as the "natural" end to intercourse, and the couple are shown embracing in a loving manner afterwards.
So, what exactly is it that you are objecting to. I'm afraid you didn't make it entirely clear... is it the "for some"? Because clearly there is a group of people buying these films. If it's just that bit, let's edit the text and put it back shall we? Mojo-chan 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the article. There are lots of reasons. I gave a fair shot at leaving it in, and editing it to try to leave in your perspective. The trouble is, after editing, there was not enough left to be meaningful. Here is my peer review of your suggested addition to our article:
In reality, the Psychological aspects have to do with:
The focus of creampie is not on the interacial aspect, that is just one of my permutations. There is no need to focus on that aspect in your section.
In short, get your section in form first, work out the problems, and then see if it gets consensus with other editors. Forcing it on people and creating edit wars is not the method for doing that. Regards to you~ Atom 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"Maybe they think it's a ticket to the promise land, or maybe they just want to breed. Are they on the pill? Who gives a fuck. Protection. Fuck no. Do I have illegitimate childern in Thailand? Probably. This is the REAL FUCKIN' DEAL."
I just have to interject that this is one of the silliest and pointless arguments I've read in Wikipedia in a long, long time. Thanks for the amusement! (I hate Brussels sprouts, but I do like bean sprouts. Does that mean anything?) Zotdragon 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Words did fail me, I was supposed to write "some" but put "most". I am occasionally prone to this when typing. Zotdragon is right, this is a stupid argument. Clearly, you have decided you 'own' this article and will not allow any new, non-sanctioned ideas. Either that or you can't understand English. Either respond to my points or don't bother at all please. Mojo-chan 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Has been deleted, why though? Does another comparable image exist for this page to use? Mathmo Talk 05:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Atom 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent - edit conflict) Thank you, Atom. I respect your view as well. You have a lot of points here worth discussing. I'll try to address them all if you will bear with me.
Again, we are not here to push boundaries of sexuality. We are not here to campaign against any governments policies. We shouldn't spend too much time trying to push boundaries and be edgy. We should (in general) utilize the time-worn solution of presenting images that are less controversial. Johntex\ talk 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Atom. Your second post (made while I wrote the above) seems to me to be significantly more argumentative. I don't know if you intended that or not. Again, I will address each of your points:
Thanks, Johntex\ talk 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Johntex: My apologies. Perhaps I was carried away by the emotion of the moment. I assume good faith with you, and didn't mean to be too personal. Perhaps I was discussing, with you, the kind of emotions that results from a multitude of people who want to remove whatever they personally find objectionable. Certainly applying such a generalization to you personally would not be appropriate, and not my intention. I think we agree on the motivation to make a better encyclopedia. We have very similar, but somewhat different, views on some aspects of that. My view on sexuality is that the more open and honest we can be, and the more accurately we can document human behavior regarding that, the better we all will be. Information and facts about sexuality does not harm people. The more people know and understand about sexuality and human behavior, the bettr we all will be. As Wikipedia is a forum and platform dedicated to not censoring, and honestly discussing issues and trying to document knowledge, it seems like a perfect forum for frank and open discussion of sexuality to help people get over end remove inhibitions from being "protected" and shielded from the facts. You seem to feel that we can be too honest, push boundaries, to edgy. So, we differ in our opinions on that. Best to you. Atom 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't much care for the list of porn performers either. The article isn't about porn, and just because act of a creampie occassionally occures in a porn isn;t (IMO) sufficient. Should we also add a list of porn performers to penis, breast, sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, vagina, spanking, etc... Atom 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that we decided to not have a list, as it would end up growing and growing. Why did you put it back? Do you reaslly think it adds any value to the average reader of the article? Or is it just more cruft? Atom 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, can anyone tell me which method of care use porn actor about HIV. I mean, yeah, yeah, they made test theyself... but these tests, (according to WHO) take time to produce the result (about two weeks to month) say nothing that you made the test last week and you perform and get HIV from a HIV-POSITIV last night and next days you have sex with your porn-partner!. We know porn actors with several year of trayectory, without having any manifestation of AIDS!. I mean they must have an active sexual life outside de studio, haven't they?. I don't get it ? they have super powers or something ? :-).
I changed the word "Novel" to "Unique" in the first paragraph. The definition of novel is "New" and it doesn't really fit into the rest of the paragraph. I substituted the more appropriate word unique. If anyone feels I am out of line, please revert my change. I think this is subtle enough to fly under the radar, but I'm not trying to make waves.-- Legomancer 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PICTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this silly little drawing of an anal creampie really necessary? Either act like adults and put in one of many readily availible photographs, or just succumb to puritan nonsense and not include an image at all. 69.222.67.35 ( talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
On the eating section, shouldn't there be a reference to simply performing cunnilingus in addition the the more elaborate methods? 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 03:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This reads like cheap advertising, was unsourced, and marked as such by Malik Shabazz. Porn sites hustling for attention on WP is getting a little old, so I removed it until someone finds an actual source for this. Then, even if CreamyPies was the "first internet subscription website" to show the practise, how is that notable when it had been done on video for ages? 212.202.199.190 ( talk) 17:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Per a post I started on Jimbo's talk page, the two images that were on this page have been deleted. While I don't think his suggestion to summarily ban the uploaders of the images will be helpful since there was apparently some confusion about site policy, I also don't think that his stance on photos illustrating this article could be any clearer now. Please report further photos added to this article for speedy deletion as well as possible administrative action against the uploaders. Thanks, Banyan Tree 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If photographs for what is by definition an explicit sexual act(ivity) then the tag "It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality." should NOT be displayed for such entries. This obviously will just invite people to try to post photographs when it appears based on the history and discussion trail of this entry, that none are really desired.
Rayngrant (
talk) 22:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC) RayNGrant
The attached image should be deleted as it is disgusting 2007apm ( talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states "The uncommon nature is due to the fact that ejaculating inside the vagina significantly increases the risk of pregnancy if the actress is not using some form of birth control." Are we sure this is true? Withdrawal has a high failure rate as a method of contraception, so any actress relying on it for birth control is taking a huge risk. Even if there were no accidents, there is still a small risk of pregnancy from sperm in pre-ejaculatory fluid. I thought most filmmakers used external cum shots as a way of proving that genuine intercourse had taken place and that the male has orgasmed. As noted in the article, a creampie is easier to fake so doesn't achieve the goal (at least, not as reliably). That's just my opinion and I can't point to any published information to back this up. However, the article doesn't cite any sources for its statement either. Is there any published information on this? -- Prh47bridge ( talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Some editors above have suggested a Request for Comment re the image, so this is it. There has been discussion already directly above at Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image and Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#re WP:CONSENSUS.
To summarize:
No one has come forward with an improved version, except for the one shown below at right, which is felt by some to be no improvement.
A count of traditional bolded comment summaries above show, so far, 5 Remove, 6 Keep, 1 "Keep or Remove but do not improve". (Of course this is a great generalzation of the many interesting and cogent arguments advanced above.) New perspectives are invited. Herostratus ( talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, are you guys serious? Nooooooo, no photos, please. While we are all in favor of information, there is such as thing as Too Much Information, if you know what we mean. Or, to get more technical, 1) a photo can detract from a scholarly article by overemphasizing the visual, and 2) it's difficult to fully appreciate the scholarly virtues of an article while you are cleaning your breakfast off your keyboard. Herostratus ( talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the use of an animal in illustrating this article has been extensively discussed, and in fact was more or less accepted as preferable. This was after some discussion over the which sex the figure should represent; the consensus being that, with an animal, the fur could cover the naughty bits, rendering the dispute moot. Obviously the requirement for fur would rule out some species, such as giraffe, tapir, or lobster. How about a roundworm? They don't have sex organs. Anyway, leaving up for further discussion the matter of the preferred species, I'll be the first to support this.
Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 09:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Right. If there is an image in this article, it would have to be a male. It's disturbing that in all the sex images I come across here, when a person is shown in an awkward, compromising, unfortunate, or degrading position, it is always a woman. I think the subtext of this is frankly unacceptable. Let the gentlemen step up to the plate and take some of the awkward poses. Herostratus ( talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, discussion has pretty much died down here and so the RfC has run its course. Let's see where we stand.
There hasn't been much support shown for depicting an animal or for using the alternate File:220px-Cumfart 02.png, so let's dispemse with those.
There have been discussions about obtaining a replacement image, but so far nothing has come of that. So that's not an available option at this time.
There was some support for using a photograph (two are available). So the options in play are are:
Prior to the RfC the Keep/No Image "votes" were about even at around 5. The RfC produced few extra "votes" on the Keep/No Image line, instead adding a couple of Use Photo "votes" and considerable discussion around the idea of using a photo. However, the "Use Photo" camp didn't garner enough "votes" to get numbers to match the Keep/No Image camps, and there were also some anti-Photo comments.
In addition: I don't know if the "Use Photo" faction is kidding or not, but if they are kidding they should be congratulated for keeping a straight face throughout. I was hoping for the kicker final post that said just "...the Aristocrats!" But if they're not kidding: of course there isn't going to be a photo. Don't be silly. It would be have immediately removed under the "Obviously inappropriate content" clause, for starters.
So that leaves us about where we were before the RfC: Keep, or No Image. As I said, the "votes" are about the same. But we don't really count numbers of "votes" in a case like this.
Well, what we are left with here is strength of argument. Let's see:
That's a lot of pretty strongly worded negative commentary.
The "Keep" commenters weren't really able to refute any of this. No Keep commenter said anything like "of fully professional quality, comperable or even superior many of our article graphics" or whatever. Because they couldn't, because it isn't. The comments were in the manner of:
Kind of damning with faint praise, as it were. Only one editor really defended the image as being of good quality, saying that it was a "basic drawing that clearly depicts the subject matter", comparable to images in "a physical dictionary, such as Merriam Webster" which are also "all basic line drawings"
So you pretty much have have every single editor agreeing that it's a substandard image. That's not a really good indication for keeping the image. And the folks who don't like it really don't like it, and the defenders don't really like it. So all in all, I don't see any strength of argument on the Keep side. So I deleted the image. I don't think there's any easy way to appeal beyond actually going nuclear, so let's please be graceful and not edit war over this, thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 06:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
RfCs have to be closed by uninvolved editor. This is disruptive, Herostratus. -- Cyclopia talk 08:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, glad to see new blood. My, Tijfo098 is certainly fond of of the term "trolling"! It does roll of the tongue quite nicely. Tijfo098, I understand your frustration in having to deal with other human beings. If it will help, it's OK with me if you put a picture of a U-Haul truck in this article.
Anyway, per the above discussion: OK, sorry if I have offended. How's this: I will henceforth undertake to show proper gravitas and respect for the matter at hand by not referring to the image as "so wretchedly bad that it brings shame to the entire Internet" or ascribe its creation to a "deranged ungulate on an Oxycontin binge" and so forth. Which I haven't done! Instead, I will henceforth refer to the image as The Sublime Image, The Veronica, or The Apotheosis of Human Art. Hopefully this will improve matters.
Well, anyway, if we are having trouble reaching consensus, how about compromise? However, I'm at a loss to figure out what would make a good compromise. All I can come up with is:
Herostratus ( talk) 03:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well? It's November now. Can someone get a Fair Witness to close the RfC and remove the image, please? Thanks! Herostratus ( talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
what about
Aisha9152 ( talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
That's good! Or then again, to capture the general overall reaction to the Divine Image as expressed above, there's
Herostratus ( talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I have no idea with the article containing an image, whether that image is linked (silly) or right up front (I agree, the article is titled "Creampie (sexual act)"). But the images Creampie.jpg and Analcreampie2.jpg (apologies - I'm not sure how to link them rather than just including them in the paragraph) are, to my mind, about a 2 on a scale of 1 (pornographic) to 10 (encyclopedic). There's got to be a better way to get the idea across than these pictures - and don't get me wrong, I'm a guy who likes his, er, adult content. In accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, I'm going to remove them. -- 216.114.194.211 00:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, funnnnaaay a picture of a pie. A nasty pie at that, that's like eating hoola burgers or something. enough with the censorship, you're on the fucking interweb, make it clickity if you have to but damn, your arguments are fucking retarded, I suspect some innocent person typing in creampie would be more likely to find teh pr0n images of their search directly from their search engine, well before they ever hit wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.255.15.9 ( talk) 22:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Details about faking a cream-pie and Cytherea's yeast infection were mentioned on an article on the KSex website [1] .
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabercil ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
in regular sex (=outside porn business) creampieing is the usual act compared to facialing. -- Abdull 21:08, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Nobody want to mention a recent 2006 article by Cosmopolitan magazine which showed that many men often lie awake at night wondering how many times their wife or girlfreind had recieved a creampie by another man? It was in US cosmo I think - no idea where to find a source, I read it on an aeroplane.
I have redirected the page to cream pie. Wikipedia is not a porn slang dictionary. There is an article somewhere on idioms of the porn movie industry, where the prior content could perhaps be merged, if someone is interested. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 02:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
How can so many porn actresses have been creampied but not one has fallen pregnant? Do they use diaphragms or some other contraceptive device?
hahahahaha you can't be serious 64.228.137.3 23:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry...But I don't know much about this. lol....But I was wondering, I mean....How could they do it so often and not be pregnant.
Dude there are many ways to avoid pregnancy withiut a condom. check out Oral contraceptive. El Os o 07:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Christ dude, why not just look at the article on contraception. Maybe they wait until just after their period, or maybe they take the pill, or maybe the morning after pill. Or probably all three. I mean, how long do you think sperm can live inside a woman for? A whole month?
No proven cases of HIV and anal creampie? WTF?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.26.146.129 ( talk • contribs) 06:07, 2006 April 25 (UTC)
Hello, I am hoping we can stop edit warring about whether to show a picture or not. I have replaced the original linkimaged picture which I think is a very reasonable compromise between the people who don't want to show a graphic sexual image and the people who want to provide an image for the reader. This way, no one sees the picture without deliberately taking action to do so, but at the same time, they don't have to leave Wikipedia to get the information - they just have to click an internal link. This compromise has worked well elsewhere on Wikipedia. Can we agree to this compromise and move on to improving the article? Thanks for your help, Johntex\ talk 23:11, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Explanation of why the linkimage is a good idea
Thanks Waelfulf, for the opportunity to further explain why this is a good idea. I'll start first with the idea of "censorship" in general, because using a linkimage is not censorship.
The standard definition of "censorship" is something imposed upon someone by some outside authoritative/authoritarian entity. If we decide for our own reasons not to include something in an article, that is not censorship. We have the freedom to choice to either include it or not. That goes for a fact, an image, a particular source, anything. We often hear people cry out against "censorship" whenever someone wants to delete a controversial article, or remove a controversial thing from an article, but the term is being misused in that debate.
When Wikipedians debate whether or not to include something, that is an internal debate. There is no authoritarian outside entity involved. Therefore, it doesn't fit the standard definition of "censorship".
Now, onto the question of whether Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia absolutely is censored, in the truest sense of the word. Wikipedia is censored by the Chinese government and other authoritatian regimes every day. We even have an article on
Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. Therefore, any assertion that we are not censored is provably false, at least in a world-wide context.
OK, but what about in "Western" or "liberal" countries? The German Wikipedia has run afoul of German law before and content has had to be removed on more than one occasion. One of these cases dealt with holocaust-denial. I don't remember the details at the moment, but I can find them for you if need be.
What about self-censorship? All across the EU, there is no concept of "fair use". Therefore, images that are legal and included in the English Wikipedia are "censored" out of other language versions. We do so even though all those non-English language versions are hosted on US servers. In other words, use of fair use images would be just as legal on those other versions of the encyclopedia, yet we decide not to use them.
I'd now like to address "WP:not censored for the protection of minors" because it is often misconstrued to mean somehting that it does not mean at all. People seem to think it means that we have some sort of policy against taking out material that ould be harmful to minors. That is not the case. Going back to the usual definition of "censorship", it refers to action by a central authority. What WP:not is actually saying is that we don't have a central authority reviewing all work before it is posted. It is actually a disclaimer warning the reader that at any point in time any article may contain offensive language, pornographic material, etc. It is not doing anything to limit the decisions that we make as editors. It is just warning people that we may not have taken it out as of the moment they read the article.
Now onto the subject of pornographic images. There are several reasons why I think they should not be shown in articles in plain view:
In all these cases, the person coming to the article would probably appreciate the opportunity to read about the term first, without being confronted immediately with the image.
I think it should be self-evident that our goal is not just to make a comprehensive encyclopedia. Our goal is to make an encyclopedia that is useful and well-used. If we are shut down due to obscene content, if we have to spend excessive amounts of money on legal fees fighting about certain content, if we are dismissed in the public perception as "peddlers of pornography", if people can't trust following any link for fear of what they may find there, then we are not performing well our mission.
On the flip side, putting the image behind one link keeps the image available for the inquisitive reader. That reader is able to inform themselves about what the term means, consider the legal consequences of their viewing it, if any, and then they are able to take an informed action. There is little inconvenience to them since they only have to make one click to see the image.
In conclusion - Censorship is something that comes from the outside, which is not happening here. Putting the image behind a single click brings many benefits as listed above. The inconvenience to anyone who wants to see it is so slight as to be negligible. The linkimage compromise has worked well on other articles in the past. Therefore, it is my hope that it will be a good compromise for this article. Johntex\ talk 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
(Atomaton - my edits are not bad. Everyone is not straight - typical mid west mentality.) 12.35.135.99
Several have made efforts to make Creampie gender neutral, and it seems weird to me. I have always heard the term used in the context of a woman -- cumming in a woman's vagina, and not anal (for either gender). Now, I admit I am heterosexual, but I have many gay and lesbian friends, and none of them seem to think of Creampie as a man ejaculating into a woman or man's anus. In speaking with some of them, that might be called "barebacking". But of course the term barebacking is used more broadly, as in unprotected sex, and is generally anal, but could be considered to be vaginal also.
Some confuse Creampie with Felching, as if it were synonymous. And, although I don't watch porn, it seems that in google, and from a list of porn films, none of the films with creampie as the prominent theme show anal ejaculation, or are featured in gay films. I'm sure there is plenty of porn that features both, but none of them advertise the acts taking place as "creampie sex". When most people hear the word "Creampie" they think of something similar to the image we have posted.
Does anyone have any references to "Creampie" used in contexts other than a man ejaculating into a woman's vagina? Could you find them and show them here? Thanks, Atom 00:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
So I did a bit of further research. I find numerous porn sites online that reference "creampie" All of the rfere to a man cumming in a woman's vagina. In some instances they refer to an "Anal creampie" They don;t call cumming in the anus a creampie, they call it an "anal creampie". That is to say, like a creampie (in the vagina) except in the anus. On other sites, numerous references to "Anal cumshots". BUt, I could not find one site that referred to a man cumming in a womans anus where it was called a "creampie".
Also, I found many gay sites that featured "anal cumshots". And after looking and looking, never found one site that seemed to refer to a man cumming in another man as a "creampie".
So, I am of the opinion that making it genderless, so that it can refer to a man ejaculating into either a vagina or anus may be reasonable and fair, but unfortunately, just innacurate, and not true to the definition or cultural usage.
We should change the article back to its original form where it clearly indicates a creampie as a man cumming into a woman's vagina. We can give an additional definition that describes an "Anal Cumshot, or Anal Creampie" as a variation of the Original Creampie. Atom 20:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. "Anal creampie" is just a variation of "creampie" and is a perfectly legitimate topic to discuss in the article since they are both featured in the same sites and publications. Also, the term "gay creampie", while not the predominant term, is in use. - DNewhall 23:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This should be genderless. Use a search engine to look for 'gay creampie'. There are numerous sites which refer to the homosexual act as a 'creampie' rather than a 'gay creampie'. The terms 'vaginal creampie', 'anal creampie' and 'gay creampie' are subsets of the umbrella term 'creampie' in my opinion, so the article should remove any gender or orifice bias. Sadat.quoraishi ( talk) 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Three major problems with the latest update by 69.69.71.161, so I am reverting to previous version.
1. Inappropriate change of creampie description from being a "sexual" term to a "mating" term. Creampies do not necessarily mean mating, or reproduction, and it is much more accurate to be described as a term within sexology.
2. I have never seen creampie written with a hyphen as in "cream-pie", and do not believe this is accurate. A quick search on Google shows few, if any, instances of the spelling "cream-pie".
3. Use of the third person pronoun "humans" does not conform to wp:1sp. Furthermore it's usage is just plain awkward--I don't believe creampies have ever been used to refer to acts by species other than humans. Parnell88 16:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Nobody want to mention a recent 2006 article by Cosmopolitan magazine which showed that many men often lie awake at night wondering how many times their wife or girlfriend had recieved a creampie by another man? It was in US cosmo I think - no idea where to find a source, I read it on an aeroplane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.193.212 ( talk • contribs)
The recent addition of this category I think adds reasonable content to the article, and I hope others will pitch in what they know about certain films. I know I will if I can ever find the time. However, can we combine it with the previous category of "Notable creampie films" into a single table? My suggestion would be first column "Film Name", second column "Actresses appearing with creampie" and (maybe) a third column "Creampie genre" (i.e. vaginal/anal/multiple). I really feel this would be an improvement to the few sentences under "notable creampie films" that randomly name two films and provide little detail. Thanks! Parnell88 16:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed original research. Interracial pregnancy is a turn-on 'for some'? -- Ec5618 11:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Psycology of internal ejaculation
Creampies are considered by some to be a somewhat "nasty" fetish, implying that people who receive them are somewhat perverted or "dirty". This view is particularly prevailant in modern American and British pornography. The possibility of women becomming pregnant is also a turn-on for some, particularly with interracial or non-couples (e.g. pornstars simply doing a job.)
An alternative view is that the creampie is a particularly intimiate moment, since the male reaches orgasm purely from stimulation of his partners oriface, and does not need to withdraw from his partner during orgasm. During orgasm, men often feel an intense bond with their partner, and (like most mamals) there is a evolutionary desire to thrust deeper in order to increase the chances of pregnancy.
Some men and women also enjoy receiving creampies. This can be for either of the reasons mentioned above, or sometimes simply for the feeling of warm seamen inside the body. However, not all people can feel the seamen (since it is already at body temperature) and it is not uncommon for women to be unaware of a man ejaculating inside her.
Compare this to creampies in earlier movies, such as those starring John Holms, or to European movies. In these films, the creampie is often presented as the "natural" end to intercourse, and the couple are shown embracing in a loving manner afterwards.
So, what exactly is it that you are objecting to. I'm afraid you didn't make it entirely clear... is it the "for some"? Because clearly there is a group of people buying these films. If it's just that bit, let's edit the text and put it back shall we? Mojo-chan 16:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
I reverted the article. There are lots of reasons. I gave a fair shot at leaving it in, and editing it to try to leave in your perspective. The trouble is, after editing, there was not enough left to be meaningful. Here is my peer review of your suggested addition to our article:
In reality, the Psychological aspects have to do with:
The focus of creampie is not on the interacial aspect, that is just one of my permutations. There is no need to focus on that aspect in your section.
In short, get your section in form first, work out the problems, and then see if it gets consensus with other editors. Forcing it on people and creating edit wars is not the method for doing that. Regards to you~ Atom 13:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
"Maybe they think it's a ticket to the promise land, or maybe they just want to breed. Are they on the pill? Who gives a fuck. Protection. Fuck no. Do I have illegitimate childern in Thailand? Probably. This is the REAL FUCKIN' DEAL."
I just have to interject that this is one of the silliest and pointless arguments I've read in Wikipedia in a long, long time. Thanks for the amusement! (I hate Brussels sprouts, but I do like bean sprouts. Does that mean anything?) Zotdragon 20:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Words did fail me, I was supposed to write "some" but put "most". I am occasionally prone to this when typing. Zotdragon is right, this is a stupid argument. Clearly, you have decided you 'own' this article and will not allow any new, non-sanctioned ideas. Either that or you can't understand English. Either respond to my points or don't bother at all please. Mojo-chan 22:39, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Has been deleted, why though? Does another comparable image exist for this page to use? Mathmo Talk 05:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Atom 16:44, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
(reset indent - edit conflict) Thank you, Atom. I respect your view as well. You have a lot of points here worth discussing. I'll try to address them all if you will bear with me.
Again, we are not here to push boundaries of sexuality. We are not here to campaign against any governments policies. We shouldn't spend too much time trying to push boundaries and be edgy. We should (in general) utilize the time-worn solution of presenting images that are less controversial. Johntex\ talk 21:13, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Atom. Your second post (made while I wrote the above) seems to me to be significantly more argumentative. I don't know if you intended that or not. Again, I will address each of your points:
Thanks, Johntex\ talk 21:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Johntex: My apologies. Perhaps I was carried away by the emotion of the moment. I assume good faith with you, and didn't mean to be too personal. Perhaps I was discussing, with you, the kind of emotions that results from a multitude of people who want to remove whatever they personally find objectionable. Certainly applying such a generalization to you personally would not be appropriate, and not my intention. I think we agree on the motivation to make a better encyclopedia. We have very similar, but somewhat different, views on some aspects of that. My view on sexuality is that the more open and honest we can be, and the more accurately we can document human behavior regarding that, the better we all will be. Information and facts about sexuality does not harm people. The more people know and understand about sexuality and human behavior, the bettr we all will be. As Wikipedia is a forum and platform dedicated to not censoring, and honestly discussing issues and trying to document knowledge, it seems like a perfect forum for frank and open discussion of sexuality to help people get over end remove inhibitions from being "protected" and shielded from the facts. You seem to feel that we can be too honest, push boundaries, to edgy. So, we differ in our opinions on that. Best to you. Atom 22:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I don't much care for the list of porn performers either. The article isn't about porn, and just because act of a creampie occassionally occures in a porn isn;t (IMO) sufficient. Should we also add a list of porn performers to penis, breast, sexual intercourse, oral sex, anal sex, masturbation, vagina, spanking, etc... Atom 22:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that we decided to not have a list, as it would end up growing and growing. Why did you put it back? Do you reaslly think it adds any value to the average reader of the article? Or is it just more cruft? Atom 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Jeff G. 23:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, can anyone tell me which method of care use porn actor about HIV. I mean, yeah, yeah, they made test theyself... but these tests, (according to WHO) take time to produce the result (about two weeks to month) say nothing that you made the test last week and you perform and get HIV from a HIV-POSITIV last night and next days you have sex with your porn-partner!. We know porn actors with several year of trayectory, without having any manifestation of AIDS!. I mean they must have an active sexual life outside de studio, haven't they?. I don't get it ? they have super powers or something ? :-).
I changed the word "Novel" to "Unique" in the first paragraph. The definition of novel is "New" and it doesn't really fit into the rest of the paragraph. I substituted the more appropriate word unique. If anyone feels I am out of line, please revert my change. I think this is subtle enough to fly under the radar, but I'm not trying to make waves.-- Legomancer 06:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PICTURE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is this silly little drawing of an anal creampie really necessary? Either act like adults and put in one of many readily availible photographs, or just succumb to puritan nonsense and not include an image at all. 69.222.67.35 ( talk) 19:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
On the eating section, shouldn't there be a reference to simply performing cunnilingus in addition the the more elaborate methods? 66.191.19.217 ( talk) 03:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
This reads like cheap advertising, was unsourced, and marked as such by Malik Shabazz. Porn sites hustling for attention on WP is getting a little old, so I removed it until someone finds an actual source for this. Then, even if CreamyPies was the "first internet subscription website" to show the practise, how is that notable when it had been done on video for ages? 212.202.199.190 ( talk) 17:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Per a post I started on Jimbo's talk page, the two images that were on this page have been deleted. While I don't think his suggestion to summarily ban the uploaders of the images will be helpful since there was apparently some confusion about site policy, I also don't think that his stance on photos illustrating this article could be any clearer now. Please report further photos added to this article for speedy deletion as well as possible administrative action against the uploaders. Thanks, Banyan Tree 22:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
If photographs for what is by definition an explicit sexual act(ivity) then the tag "It is requested that a photograph or photographs be included in this article to improve its quality." should NOT be displayed for such entries. This obviously will just invite people to try to post photographs when it appears based on the history and discussion trail of this entry, that none are really desired.
Rayngrant (
talk) 22:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC) RayNGrant
The attached image should be deleted as it is disgusting 2007apm ( talk) 00:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
The article currently states "The uncommon nature is due to the fact that ejaculating inside the vagina significantly increases the risk of pregnancy if the actress is not using some form of birth control." Are we sure this is true? Withdrawal has a high failure rate as a method of contraception, so any actress relying on it for birth control is taking a huge risk. Even if there were no accidents, there is still a small risk of pregnancy from sperm in pre-ejaculatory fluid. I thought most filmmakers used external cum shots as a way of proving that genuine intercourse had taken place and that the male has orgasmed. As noted in the article, a creampie is easier to fake so doesn't achieve the goal (at least, not as reliably). That's just my opinion and I can't point to any published information to back this up. However, the article doesn't cite any sources for its statement either. Is there any published information on this? -- Prh47bridge ( talk) 12:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Some editors above have suggested a Request for Comment re the image, so this is it. There has been discussion already directly above at Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#Upgrade to image and Talk:Creampie (sexual act)#re WP:CONSENSUS.
To summarize:
No one has come forward with an improved version, except for the one shown below at right, which is felt by some to be no improvement.
A count of traditional bolded comment summaries above show, so far, 5 Remove, 6 Keep, 1 "Keep or Remove but do not improve". (Of course this is a great generalzation of the many interesting and cogent arguments advanced above.) New perspectives are invited. Herostratus ( talk) 14:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Ah, are you guys serious? Nooooooo, no photos, please. While we are all in favor of information, there is such as thing as Too Much Information, if you know what we mean. Or, to get more technical, 1) a photo can detract from a scholarly article by overemphasizing the visual, and 2) it's difficult to fully appreciate the scholarly virtues of an article while you are cleaning your breakfast off your keyboard. Herostratus ( talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
Actually, the use of an animal in illustrating this article has been extensively discussed, and in fact was more or less accepted as preferable. This was after some discussion over the which sex the figure should represent; the consensus being that, with an animal, the fur could cover the naughty bits, rendering the dispute moot. Obviously the requirement for fur would rule out some species, such as giraffe, tapir, or lobster. How about a roundworm? They don't have sex organs. Anyway, leaving up for further discussion the matter of the preferred species, I'll be the first to support this.
Anchoress · Weigh Anchor · Catacomb 09:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Right. If there is an image in this article, it would have to be a male. It's disturbing that in all the sex images I come across here, when a person is shown in an awkward, compromising, unfortunate, or degrading position, it is always a woman. I think the subtext of this is frankly unacceptable. Let the gentlemen step up to the plate and take some of the awkward poses. Herostratus ( talk) 14:13, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Well, discussion has pretty much died down here and so the RfC has run its course. Let's see where we stand.
There hasn't been much support shown for depicting an animal or for using the alternate File:220px-Cumfart 02.png, so let's dispemse with those.
There have been discussions about obtaining a replacement image, but so far nothing has come of that. So that's not an available option at this time.
There was some support for using a photograph (two are available). So the options in play are are:
Prior to the RfC the Keep/No Image "votes" were about even at around 5. The RfC produced few extra "votes" on the Keep/No Image line, instead adding a couple of Use Photo "votes" and considerable discussion around the idea of using a photo. However, the "Use Photo" camp didn't garner enough "votes" to get numbers to match the Keep/No Image camps, and there were also some anti-Photo comments.
In addition: I don't know if the "Use Photo" faction is kidding or not, but if they are kidding they should be congratulated for keeping a straight face throughout. I was hoping for the kicker final post that said just "...the Aristocrats!" But if they're not kidding: of course there isn't going to be a photo. Don't be silly. It would be have immediately removed under the "Obviously inappropriate content" clause, for starters.
So that leaves us about where we were before the RfC: Keep, or No Image. As I said, the "votes" are about the same. But we don't really count numbers of "votes" in a case like this.
Well, what we are left with here is strength of argument. Let's see:
That's a lot of pretty strongly worded negative commentary.
The "Keep" commenters weren't really able to refute any of this. No Keep commenter said anything like "of fully professional quality, comperable or even superior many of our article graphics" or whatever. Because they couldn't, because it isn't. The comments were in the manner of:
Kind of damning with faint praise, as it were. Only one editor really defended the image as being of good quality, saying that it was a "basic drawing that clearly depicts the subject matter", comparable to images in "a physical dictionary, such as Merriam Webster" which are also "all basic line drawings"
So you pretty much have have every single editor agreeing that it's a substandard image. That's not a really good indication for keeping the image. And the folks who don't like it really don't like it, and the defenders don't really like it. So all in all, I don't see any strength of argument on the Keep side. So I deleted the image. I don't think there's any easy way to appeal beyond actually going nuclear, so let's please be graceful and not edit war over this, thanks. Herostratus ( talk) 06:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
RfCs have to be closed by uninvolved editor. This is disruptive, Herostratus. -- Cyclopia talk 08:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Well, glad to see new blood. My, Tijfo098 is certainly fond of of the term "trolling"! It does roll of the tongue quite nicely. Tijfo098, I understand your frustration in having to deal with other human beings. If it will help, it's OK with me if you put a picture of a U-Haul truck in this article.
Anyway, per the above discussion: OK, sorry if I have offended. How's this: I will henceforth undertake to show proper gravitas and respect for the matter at hand by not referring to the image as "so wretchedly bad that it brings shame to the entire Internet" or ascribe its creation to a "deranged ungulate on an Oxycontin binge" and so forth. Which I haven't done! Instead, I will henceforth refer to the image as The Sublime Image, The Veronica, or The Apotheosis of Human Art. Hopefully this will improve matters.
Well, anyway, if we are having trouble reaching consensus, how about compromise? However, I'm at a loss to figure out what would make a good compromise. All I can come up with is:
Herostratus ( talk) 03:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Well? It's November now. Can someone get a Fair Witness to close the RfC and remove the image, please? Thanks! Herostratus ( talk) 18:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
what about
Aisha9152 ( talk) 18:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
That's good! Or then again, to capture the general overall reaction to the Divine Image as expressed above, there's
Herostratus ( talk) 04:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)