On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com> wrote:
A Google image search for gay cumshot indicates there
are 37.8 million
results. Cumshot -gay has 44 million. If these numbers are correct, then
gay and non-gay cumshots are almost equally common online, and it's a
toss-up (pun intended) as to which we should use.
Let me explain a bit here on how search terms works, this problem
is actually confounded when dealing with image searches than regular
searches. "Gay" and "cumshot" or even "-gay" would be
terms, the results would be optimized by the relation between the first and
second term. I recall hearing a seminar about how google
search algorithms work for this stuff, but can't remember the exact
explanation. For reference there are 78 million results for just "cumshot",
I don't think half of those would be characterized as Gay. Also, the way
these images are characterized might have nothing to do with the content,
quiet like commons, completely unrelated sketches, drawings, non-nude
photos can be tagged along those lines. The only way to say
this discrepancy is related with any amount of certainty, is to look
through all the results.
There is also the other point, Google has multiple filter settings, and
images far more graphic than the one on Wikipedia, show up on all of them.
With moderate search filter, the result for "cumshot" drops from 78 million
to 128,000. And they are quite graphic from the first set.
There are really two separate issues here.
One is that Wikipedia illustrates sexual and pornographic practices that
most educational sources would not. For example, I have yet to find a
medical website that illustrates its article on ejaculation with an
ejaculation video, or a printed encyclopedia that shows a photograph of
ejaculation. So while Wikipedia usually says that due weight should derive
from practices in reliable sources, in this particular case Wikipedia
departs very sharply from practices in reliable sources, because it
understands WP:NOTCENSORED to override WP:NPOV. In other words, it assumes
that reliable sources are censored, and that Wikipedia is not.
My argument is, that it is the limitation of conventional encyclopedias.
Wikipedia is potentially unlimited, go and create an article to your
heart's content, if it valuable to even 5 people, it will probably not be
deleted. Talking about the article in question - it stats with an
appropriate description about the what it means, followed by origin and
explanation of terminology, cites multiple studies by Universities and
researchers, then follows up with Health-risks associated and a large
section about criticisms, with respected writers, columnists, speakers,
weighing in on the topic. I actually found relevant information in that
article, complete with an image, medical facts, opinions, all cited and
neatly arranged, I don't think it would be helpful for a someone not aware
of the term, to listen to a term, and go look at images of cumshot through
google, without knowing all the relevant information about it as well.
I don't think most encyclopedias can produce this well researched article
on a relatively taboo section. I would rather read, the
encyclopedic/informative part of the a sex act there, then go to Google
image to see what it looks like, or urbandictionary or some seedy site with
nothing relevant besides a depiction. In your analogy about a medical
website depicting, ejaculation, it is really not in the same league as
Wikipedia. Wikipedia, is for general reference, medical websites are
usually very specific, they would only depict, and I assure you they do
depict far more graphic content than commons can handle, if it is medically
That is not my understanding of policy, nor is it the understanding of
policy as written, where WP:NPOV / WP:DUE is the senior and WP:NOTCENSORED
is the junior policy, but in practice, WP:NOTCENSORED tends to win out over
WP:NPOV and WP:DUE because of our demographics. So that is our status quo.
The other issue is that Wikipedia in practice IS censored by not
illustrating any of the articles on pornographic terms of art that apply to
both gay and straight porn genres with images taken from gay porn, even
though, as we can see, both are published in almost equal numbers. One
reason is that User:Seedfeeder, the artist who drew most of these images,
is straight and usually declined requests to draw gay images (he has done
one or two, but it isn't what he enjoys doing).
I actually like Seedfeeder (along with several others ) and appreciate his
work. He provides alternatives, to graphic images, and screen-grabs to
depict sex-acts and topics, that might be important to explain the act
I have never interacted with him, but he's really not the type to shy away
from depicting gay acts, he has already illustrated several as you point
out. He is however, I assume, someone with a limited amount of time and his
own personal thoughts, you can not hold Wikipedia responsible for a single
editors' will and what he devotes his time too.
I did once convert one of Seedfeeder's images (of snowballing) so the
recipient of the semen was a male, rather than a female, because that was
actually what the sourced text was calling for. And I confess it did give
me a certain satisfaction to see male users complain that the image was
disgusting, and demanding that it show the woman receiving. So far,
however, no woman has complained.
I am not aware of this case at all, so I can not comment.
The German article still has it wrong by the way, as it confounds
snowballing with cum swapping; they are different activities. Snowballing
originates in gay sex and is when the (male or female) recipient spits the
semen back into the donor's mouth after oral sex. Cum swapping is primarily
a pornographic practice, where one woman spits the semen into another
woman's mouth; it never touches a man's lips.
Ok, I don't know if the entire description was relevant to your point, but
you just made a distinction between gay sex and pornographic practice. They
are really not related, pornographic practice involve gay sex all the time.
The rest I believe is some new act or slang, making its way in the sex
terminology, any guesses where I would/should look for relevant, not
graphic information about "Snowballing"?
It won't be a medical website, it won't be a traditional encyclopedia, and
everything google image will throw up, will just depict the act itself, in
all graphic, unexplained horror that concerns some.
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Morton <
On 27 April 2012 20:54, Béria Lima
*Perhaps the conversation should be more about
equal representation of
gender in articles like this...*
Should I ask what the appropriate equal representation in this case
might be? Female to male.....ejaculation?
I guess Male on Male.
Although in this case that is probably undue because it isn't all that
common in gay pornography (YMMV).
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap mailing list