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 |
Do you agree or disagree with placing this image in the article? File:Vagína se spermatem.jpg. Pass a Method talk 18:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I refer to this recent revert. I had already reviewed the initial edit, and considered it appropriate since the statement was not supported in the reference cited and also contained a WP:WEASEL word or phrase, "Following perhaps the example..." Since there has already been the Removal of the BOLD edit per WP:BRD I am now opening the required Discussion. I think the initial removal/substitution of the phrase should be re-instated, as being neutral, and the uncited weasel worded statement removed. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Should we add an actual human having it? Also, this article doesn't tell that this predates human history - in order for a woman to get pregnant, she has to receive an internal ejaculation from the male in the vagina in order to get pregnant. Until artificial insertion of sperm material came about, this was the only way. I would like to edit it, but it's understandingly protected. The image that was requested up a few threads would be an appropriate thing. It also puts to much weight on pornography, although it wasn't always like this. -- Lesbiangirl ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC) EDIT: this image would be better File:Penis_Insertion_Ended.JPG -- Lesbiangirl ( talk) 20:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Before I begin: English is not my first language, so I might just misread something, but the following sentence reads as though only porn actors could get in trouble by having unprotected sex: "The production of pornography featuring internal ejaculations involves unprotected sex, increasing the risk of pregnancy in women and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV." Could someone with better language and grammar skills update that part to reflect that the same is true for everyone else? -- 84.165.155.20 ( talk) 04:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
A user has added an additional image at the top of the article, File:Vagína se spermatem.jpg a closeup photograph of the article's subject. I personally tend to argue against photos of sexual acts in favor of artwork, as this has less of an association with porn. However this new addition is at least not performing an insulting mooning gesture at the viewer. One option might be to move it to where the current poor quality drawing is to replace that. I don't think the article needs both illustrations. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No, i dont support this picture. We need additional a Photo for Example Gay Porn Creampie of a male Cream Pie Photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyBoySophi ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creampie (sexual act). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Pikachu165, as seen here and here, you have so far been reverted by Melonkelon and later by me. I cited WP:GRATUITOUS, stating that your real-life image addition is not needed because the drawing suffices. What is your argument for choosing the real-life image over the drawing? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is pregnancy given as an example of health risk? Since when pregnancy is a health risk thing? Tashi Talk to me 23:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Pregnancy is I suppose a medical condition, but I think it's hardly fair to include it as a health risk considering all it is is literally sex in the default and natural way which is the beginning of the pregnancy process. Also, what if she's using birth control?? -- Nelson21101805 ( talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've also heard the term "breeding" used in heterosexual contexts as well, but I'm not aware of any citations that will meet Wikipedia's standards, unfortunately. 2601:8C:4581:1150:2DB8:3A11:7D57:FA70 ( talk) 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that we have two articles (or portions of articles), which describe the same sex act in very different ways. Insemination#Natural insemination is also about ejaculation during penile-vaginal intercourse, but approaches it purely from a non-sexual PoV. On the other hand, creampie lists pregnancy as a health risk on the assumption that the act is performed purely for pleasure or pornography. While both are valid, encyclopedic approaches, maybe the two articles should reference each other and explain the continuum of motivation from creampie purely for pleasure and natural insemination purely for reproduction? I'm considering making the changes myself, but I don't necessarily want to be the guy adding references to pornography to an article on human reproduction.
On a related note, could the commons category vaginal creampie be renamed "natural insemination in humans" (and the same for the "videos of" subcategory)? The files there are a useful depiction of human reproduction even when separated from the use of this act in pornography. I feel like this is a bit like the petrol/gasoline naming dispute, so I wouldn't make that change unless more people agree. -- Just Some Wikipedian ( talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The name origin for Creampie is missing. Are there any reliable sources to back up the name origin of this act? Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 00:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
SkyWolf369 why did you delete my question? Wikipedia is not and should not be censored. I asked to add real photos to the article, instead of this, you just deleted my question. That's not a friedly wiki behaviour! 37.214.60.112 ( talk) 12:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
As Wikipedia is not censored, please add this photo to the article
See for example Ejaculation, this photo is fine, shows the subject well and the article will be better with a real image. 37.214.60.112 ( talk) 14:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The article claims the word originated in the early 2000's. While this might be the more common usage of the word, clearly it was around prior to this. This very article has a reference of a book published in 2000 ('Popular modernity in America: experience, technology, mythohistory' by Michael Thomas Carroll) in which the book is about the internet of the 1990's. This implies the word was in use in the 1990's. Not only that but you can find references of this word being mentioned as early as Jan 1999. For instance Wiktionary lists a quote from Jan 26, 1999. In that quote the author felt the need to give a short definition of the word creampie in parenthesis (ie internal cumshot), which implies it must have been new enough to warrant the need for giving a short definition for clarity. So I am going to edit the article to include its use was as early as the beginning of 1999. With that quote reference from Wiktionary. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher ( talk) 02:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
wikipedia is not censored, so pls add real photos to the article: File:Analsex2.jpg File:Creampie 3.jpg File:Human Intercourse.webm 2A06:C701:4BD8:F600:24A3:CDCE:C5A6:3A59 ( talk) 12:47, 21 December 2023 (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 |
Do you agree or disagree with placing this image in the article? File:Vagína se spermatem.jpg. Pass a Method talk 18:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I refer to this recent revert. I had already reviewed the initial edit, and considered it appropriate since the statement was not supported in the reference cited and also contained a WP:WEASEL word or phrase, "Following perhaps the example..." Since there has already been the Removal of the BOLD edit per WP:BRD I am now opening the required Discussion. I think the initial removal/substitution of the phrase should be re-instated, as being neutral, and the uncited weasel worded statement removed. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 13:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Should we add an actual human having it? Also, this article doesn't tell that this predates human history - in order for a woman to get pregnant, she has to receive an internal ejaculation from the male in the vagina in order to get pregnant. Until artificial insertion of sperm material came about, this was the only way. I would like to edit it, but it's understandingly protected. The image that was requested up a few threads would be an appropriate thing. It also puts to much weight on pornography, although it wasn't always like this. -- Lesbiangirl ( talk) 19:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC) EDIT: this image would be better File:Penis_Insertion_Ended.JPG -- Lesbiangirl ( talk) 20:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Before I begin: English is not my first language, so I might just misread something, but the following sentence reads as though only porn actors could get in trouble by having unprotected sex: "The production of pornography featuring internal ejaculations involves unprotected sex, increasing the risk of pregnancy in women and sexually transmitted diseases such as HIV." Could someone with better language and grammar skills update that part to reflect that the same is true for everyone else? -- 84.165.155.20 ( talk) 04:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
A user has added an additional image at the top of the article, File:Vagína se spermatem.jpg a closeup photograph of the article's subject. I personally tend to argue against photos of sexual acts in favor of artwork, as this has less of an association with porn. However this new addition is at least not performing an insulting mooning gesture at the viewer. One option might be to move it to where the current poor quality drawing is to replace that. I don't think the article needs both illustrations. -- Simon Speed ( talk) 16:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
No, i dont support this picture. We need additional a Photo for Example Gay Porn Creampie of a male Cream Pie Photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LadyBoySophi ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Creampie (sexual act). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Pikachu165, as seen here and here, you have so far been reverted by Melonkelon and later by me. I cited WP:GRATUITOUS, stating that your real-life image addition is not needed because the drawing suffices. What is your argument for choosing the real-life image over the drawing? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Why is pregnancy given as an example of health risk? Since when pregnancy is a health risk thing? Tashi Talk to me 23:45, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Pregnancy is I suppose a medical condition, but I think it's hardly fair to include it as a health risk considering all it is is literally sex in the default and natural way which is the beginning of the pregnancy process. Also, what if she's using birth control?? -- Nelson21101805 ( talk) 22:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I've also heard the term "breeding" used in heterosexual contexts as well, but I'm not aware of any citations that will meet Wikipedia's standards, unfortunately. 2601:8C:4581:1150:2DB8:3A11:7D57:FA70 ( talk) 22:16, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that we have two articles (or portions of articles), which describe the same sex act in very different ways. Insemination#Natural insemination is also about ejaculation during penile-vaginal intercourse, but approaches it purely from a non-sexual PoV. On the other hand, creampie lists pregnancy as a health risk on the assumption that the act is performed purely for pleasure or pornography. While both are valid, encyclopedic approaches, maybe the two articles should reference each other and explain the continuum of motivation from creampie purely for pleasure and natural insemination purely for reproduction? I'm considering making the changes myself, but I don't necessarily want to be the guy adding references to pornography to an article on human reproduction.
On a related note, could the commons category vaginal creampie be renamed "natural insemination in humans" (and the same for the "videos of" subcategory)? The files there are a useful depiction of human reproduction even when separated from the use of this act in pornography. I feel like this is a bit like the petrol/gasoline naming dispute, so I wouldn't make that change unless more people agree. -- Just Some Wikipedian ( talk) 16:21, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The name origin for Creampie is missing. Are there any reliable sources to back up the name origin of this act? Qwertyxp2000 ( talk | contribs) 00:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
SkyWolf369 why did you delete my question? Wikipedia is not and should not be censored. I asked to add real photos to the article, instead of this, you just deleted my question. That's not a friedly wiki behaviour! 37.214.60.112 ( talk) 12:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
As Wikipedia is not censored, please add this photo to the article
See for example Ejaculation, this photo is fine, shows the subject well and the article will be better with a real image. 37.214.60.112 ( talk) 14:53, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
The article claims the word originated in the early 2000's. While this might be the more common usage of the word, clearly it was around prior to this. This very article has a reference of a book published in 2000 ('Popular modernity in America: experience, technology, mythohistory' by Michael Thomas Carroll) in which the book is about the internet of the 1990's. This implies the word was in use in the 1990's. Not only that but you can find references of this word being mentioned as early as Jan 1999. For instance Wiktionary lists a quote from Jan 26, 1999. In that quote the author felt the need to give a short definition of the word creampie in parenthesis (ie internal cumshot), which implies it must have been new enough to warrant the need for giving a short definition for clarity. So I am going to edit the article to include its use was as early as the beginning of 1999. With that quote reference from Wiktionary. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher ( talk) 02:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
wikipedia is not censored, so pls add real photos to the article: File:Analsex2.jpg File:Creampie 3.jpg File:Human Intercourse.webm 2A06:C701:4BD8:F600:24A3:CDCE:C5A6:3A59 ( talk) 12:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)