Talk:Mammary intercourse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Sexuality Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This topic may attract censorship. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not censored. Articles may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive. Images or details contained within this article, in particular, may be graphic or otherwise objectionable in order to ensure complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to our content disclaimer regarding objectionable content.

Archives 2005 - 2006

Contents 1 Edited Image 2 My Thoughts 3 Interracial? 4 Image removal 5 I'm Back again!! 6 Images 7 Gentle reminder - this is a talkpage for improvement - not a chat forum and that Wikipedia is not censored 8 What "not censored" does NOT mean 9 What the fuck? 10 Common usage terms 10.1 Removed common usage section 10.2 Removed "references" 10.3 Unverifiable reference 11 Title, Picture and "tit wank" 12 Censorship 13 Wikipedia not Pornopedia 14 The Hawaiian Muscle Fuck 15 Blows My Mind 16 How much Slang? 17 Bring the image back 18 Semi protect 19 Protection 20 crap image 21 Vote to remove pornographic image 22 Image removle 23 crap image 24 Proposed merge 25 Decisions

[edit] Edited Image

I edited the image to make it less pornographic in nature. I made it black and white and edited out the semen. Thoughts? Whiskyrye (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so, since I first changed the image its been changed back to the original and then removed completely without any explanation. What gives? Whiskyrye (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

While I wasn't bothered by the old picture, this version is more tasteful. Perhaps toning down the image will reduce the constant vandalism. Kingadrock (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my original thought when I changed it. So far nobody's made any complaints about the new image but it still keeps getting reverted. If any of you have a problem with the black and white one please at least post about it here instead of just auto-reverting. Whiskyrye (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion below, at #Vote to remove pornographic image. Among users favoring inclusion of an image, the color version seems strongly preferred. I believe users are objecting to the B&W image for the same reason you seem to prefer it: it's not as clear a depiction. I'd personally prefer a better image, altogether, but for the time being the color version seems to convey more information to the reader. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] My Thoughts

I love the entire article/entry. I think there should be some more photographs, maybe some black&white photographs of real people practicing this sex act.  ;) More real photos! ;)

Wikipedia prides itself on being something the whole community can access for free. Anyone who is comfortable with grade school kids or younger having access to this image with a few clicks is either incredibly selfish or does not think there should be any boundries with children. It is not Censorship to set up self imposed boundries of displaying images. It is not the same as the state saying you can watch or not watch this. If people want to see pornographic images there are outlets for this all over the internet as we all know but to demand we need this kind of image on wikipiedia while small kids on there computers looking up information can be exposed to it is just amazingly selfish and people could not be more confused to think on a private volunteer site that it is some kind of first amendment issue. Do whats right and remove it if you want to see that kind of image and your adult its not that difficult to find elsewhere. 76.221.200.173 (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kids need to be able to read able to read about tit-fucking without being exposed to satanic prono images!

I think WP:NOTCENSORED might be worth looking at. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Interracial?

Why does 'interracial' always mean black man and a white woman? Why not the other way around? Why not other ethnicities? Seems just like the 'racial equality' aspect of the picture is for porn-related/based purposes then actual racial equality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.80.75 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't always mean that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image removal

A note on the unnecessary image here: multiple editors have removed it now, including Jimmy Wales, where he called it a "useless image". Wikipedia is built on consensus and reverting this repeatedly just makes it more likely it will never be accepted. So, if you have a dire need to have that image in the article, then explain here exactly why you think so (before putting it back). --Kickstart70-T-C 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The image illustrates the subject of the article, in effect explaining the idea more quickly than any combination of words is likely to. The style is not to my personal taste but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. Why do you want it removed? Haukur 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to remove it in any case, but really it's an unnecessary image. The topic itself is not a complex thing, and is easily explained in very few words. No need to add it, just for the sake of adding it. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it isn't absolutely necessary to understand the topic but it's certainly helpful to that end. There must be something more here since very few of the images in Wikipedia meet the requirement of being necessary. Do you object to all unnecessary images? Or all unnecessary images depicting sexual acts? Or all unnecessary images depicting nudity? Could you give an example of a necessary image on these topics? Haukur 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I see no reason to remove the image. —Nightstallion (?) 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody I know calls a breast a mammary. The image helps convey the subject of the article. -- Longhair 12:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who doesn't know what a mammary is? --Kickstart70-T-C 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, many non-native english speakers for example.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the original question, i would like to see a nice illustrative image, but I personally do not think this is a nice one. The primary message I get from is is a sexual one, lust is maybe even a better word to say it with, not an illustrative one, how do you do it.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As it seems that more people are in favour of including the image than against, I've put it in again until we arrive at some kind of consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Are those pictures really necessary? The diagram might be justifiable...but the photo?

I agree - one illustration is enough. Wikipedia may not be censored but it's also not a porn site. Picture temporarily removed, but maybe it should be used in place? Even though it's a photo instead of a drawing, it might be more appropriate, or at least look better. I've included both side by side here to see if a consensus can be reached on which one to use -- Mike Straw 11:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:mamint.png Image:Tfing.jpg

I really doubt that that photo is actually freely licenced and taken as described in the image description page. Haukur 11:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is the only contribution this user has made to Wikipedia. Not exactly a situation where we can just accept his word that this is his girlfriend. For what it's worth, a drawing or a photo is somewhat acceptable, in my opinion. However, that's just my opinion and I'm much more willing to trust the choice of the founder of the whole project on what is and is not acceptable here. I'd rather not get this to a point where we need dispute resolution, but this should have more editor's input before we can call this concensus. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we use the photo. The drawing seems less no nonsense in reality. I am willing to accept that the user who added the photo took it himself -- it is very amateurish. Quepasahombre 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of illustrations is to explain the page, not to add unnecessary complication. We don't need the woman's face, or any background parts currently included in that photo. I'm not completely against a photo, but that one serves no good purpose. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if you don;t understand the text, first you likely wouldnb't understand the pic; if your language is not english, there are plenty of interwiki links here to help. If a pic must be used (I can think of no reason beyond shock value), I agree with Kim that the drawing is not particularly appropriate; the photo very much cropped would be better (cropped enough that it doesn't look as if the male is choking the woman, which the phgoto certainly implies)Bridesmill 03:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are only six inter-wiki links; not too many, relatively speaking.Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 10:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have a better illustration, can the original one either be deleted or overwritten with the new version? That would prevent people from having to revert everytime someone decides to switch it back. --Mike Straw 00:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the image Image:titty.jpg. It is silly to have an article depicting a sexual position only to give and post a PC image. It is what it is.

-Wolverine-101

The current image Image:titty.jpg actually depicts the act correctly, but a) the point of view of the image and b) the general impression given by the image make me feel it would be better REMOVED and replaced by an illustration / drawing that is not pornographic at the start. -- BGL

Remove both. The text is enough. Meeeeep 08:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just restored the drawing. The article needs an illustration and this is a very good one, (especially as someone has restored the woman's face making, her human rather than just a body part). No doubt some people will find the illustration offensive, but then some people seem to find human sexuality offensive. In a world where AIDS and ignorance work as a team, good clear information about sex and sexual health is really needed. --Simon Speed 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual health and well-being through an understanding of mammary intercourse? I fear that my laughing exposes me as misguided. I am obviously missing the point here that an understanding of mammary intercourse is essential to a healthy, functioning society, and that an illustration thereof is key to this. Meeeeep 12:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual health is made up of 2 things, a fulfilling sex life and an avoidance of disease. To get these 2 things you need safe sex. Safe sex isn't just using condoms (or saying you usually use condoms, but..): there's a range of non-penetrative fun things to do with your partner. Don't die of ignorance! --Simon Speed 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this picture is really used to show what "Mammary intercourse" is... or to serve as an interracial agenda? If the later, I see why it's been replaced so much. Since this site is becoming so dirty... Maybe someone can make the picture so the man is white and the woman is black, then the cum will show more... --Saintrotter 1 March 2007

The image has to be a prank. I can't imagine anyone seriously thinking this adds to the article.
by Wild Mountain Thyme 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made it racialy neatral and removed some of the 'dirty, tarty and whore-like' stuff from it to. See-article page.--Bobie Alice Flinker 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So what about the black picture?

Problems with the drawing

1. Cum. All over her chest and face. This is in no way related to the topic, and makes it vastly more pornographic than needed.
2. Eyes. She is looking into the camera. This is another hallmark of porn.
3. Masculine traits on the girl. Yes, I'm thinking she-male when I see that picture.

Really, that drawing looks like a bad joke to me. I think it should be removed until there is a more classy one availiable. Black & white would be preferable, adds to neutrality.

Eyes have been cropped, the article talks about cumming and get over the Masculine traits its all in your head. Seth slackware 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason this picture keeps persisiting is because someone put some effort into creating it and doesn't want that effort to go to waste. Other people support him/her because they're too emotionally attached to the image and can't view it from the perspective of someone who has never seen this page and is not heavily involved in the "wiki" scene. Gregiscool14 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that the picture could do with being replaced by something better as it is "cartoonish". There is no consensus as to what "better" would be and no obvious alternative. The picture is there because it clearly illustrates the article. I doubt if many people have an emotional attachment to the picture though some of us do feel very strongly that access to safe sex information is a right and that an encyclopedia should not be censored. --Simon Speed 11:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It keeps persisting because in part because some of us don't think that pictures of sexual acts should be deleted off hand, and it seems like most of the people deleting it throw around words like "pornographic" and "obscene". --Prosfilaes 01:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Back again!!

Whoever wrote about the different position for Mamary Intercourse, they are right; however, as for finding out where to look for the addition information, just look under porn sites like Pink World Porn or type it in under Google.

Anyways, more to my point, I will do some research on this subject to find out if a woman could have a orgasm about it, but if someone else has done it then I will keep my mouth shut about it. Other than that, I do believe that a woman can have a orgasm from this or become stimulated by this from constant performance. --Zhang Liao 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dare to dream. Nina Odell 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you on drugs, or do you just need an excuse to look at porn sites? I wonder, if Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp offered to do this act, how many admiring female fans would enjoy it? I'll leave this question unanswered. Meeeeep 08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually... while rare, orgasm from breast stimulation alone was documented in the Kinsey Reports. Kingadrock 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

And since I've done more reading; Masters and Johnson recorded it as well. Kingadrock 20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zhang here. I just now reread over my wording and want to say, "I'm sorry. I fucked up!" I will try to be more careful about what I say in the near future. Adios--Zhang Liao 05:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

This article needs more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk • contribs).

Actually, I think one image is enough for this type of article. However, someone added two more images to the article, but they were deemed unencyclopedic, so they were reverted. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 07:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, it's evil and she's been turned in to a African yet again! The pictur's tripe!--Nikki Fagin 07:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So what, why fuss about a black image? --Sontosaintrotterm 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below and follow the wikilinks. Please also read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.Ronbo76 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So what about the black image?--Sontosaintrotterm 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had been apparent. But, it stays. Ronbo76 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, unless a better image can be found, my opinion is based upon my experience as a Recent Changes Patrol editor. However, if you like, I can request a third opinion which should come from a neutral editor. Ronbo76 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

look I thought we where keeping the image, it keeps going away Seth slackware 17:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gentle reminder - this is a talkpage for improvement - not a chat forum and that Wikipedia is not censored

Please keep your comments directed towards improving this article. Do not edit any one's comments but your own. Be WP:CIVIL and keep the conversation on track. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Ronbo76 11:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what about the black picture?--Sontosaintrotterm 11:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the link in the above paragraph. Articles like this one, porno, sex, etc. can/will/might have material/pictures/content etc. that other users may find objectionable. Here is another direct link to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Obvious shock value or inappropriate will be dealt with. If you find the image disturbing or content disturbing, then please do not visit this or other articles with similar content. Ronbo76 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please this discussion. The picture is used for illustrative reasons. Ronbo76 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be censored but I sure hope it has good taste. For example, I don't want to go to the pornography page and see pictures of explicit material that I really don't wish to see. Medical diagrams are okay but hardcore pornography is not. The picture in question is pornography and is not in good taste. Some people are just too attached to this image. Gregiscool14 04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What "not censored" does NOT mean

The oft-cited Wikipedia is not censored page does not compel us to include anything that might be illegal in the United States or Florida. It does not compel us to include anything at all if we don't want to include it. It is simply a notice to readers that there is no central authority at Wikipedia that checks every edit before it goes live. Johntex\^talk 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What the fuck?

Are these pictures with the salmon colored clown penis and the creepy old woman standard issue for wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.187.76 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Common usage terms

I don't object tot the existence of this section. People seem to have a lot of fun adding to it. Unfortunately soem people seem to have fun making up entries to add to the list. I've removed one obvious fake but personally I recognise only a couple more of the others. Any chance of some references? (Or deletions!) I'll stick a dispute tag on the section. --Simon Speed 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree on this. A teenaged editor promptly reverted my attempt to delete it and slapped me with a vandalism warning. Nice, huh? Joie de Vivre 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed common usage section

Here it is:

The factual accuracy of this section is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page.(March 2008)

There is no one commonly accepted name for this act. Slang terms include:

• Australia: "Titty-fuck"
• Brazil: "Espanhola"
• United Kingdom: "tit wank", "French wank", "diddy ride" or "bunny rub" ^{[citation needed]}
• United States: "breastjob", "titjob", "jug/tit/titty-fucking", "titty-banging," "boob sex"
• Japan: "paizuri"
• México: "La Chaqueta Rusa"
• Persian: "Pestan gaeedan"
• Puerto Rico: "La Paja Rusa"
• Romanian: "i-o trage la ṭâṭe"
• French: "Crosse-Teton", "Branlette Espagnole", "Crosse Mexicaine"
• Italian: "Spagnola"
• Polish: "Masaż Hiszpański"
• Ελληνικά: "Βυζομαλακία" , "ισπανικό"
• Germany: "Tittenfick", "Mamalverkehr"
• Spain: "Cubana"

[edit] Removed "references"

These aren't actually referenced in the article:

• Masters, William H. and Johnson, Virginia E. (1966). Human Sexual Response. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-316-54987-8. 
• Viz (2005). Roger's Profanisaurus Rex: the Ultimate Swearing Dictionary. Viz. ISBN 0-7522-2812-9. 

-- Joie de Vivre 21:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever built this article probably meant them as sources. Sources and references can co-exist in the cited manner. Please stop trying to dismantle this article. Ronbo76 21:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The first ref here seems to be a set of lecture notes from a biology class, fails wp:v as far as I can see. The bit about the male nervous system is pretty obvious, we don't have information explaining the biology behind sexual arousal and orgasm in any article about a sex position, so why here? Joie de Vivre 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The female breasts are sensitive to stimulation.^[1] In this case, while form of sex is being performed, the male parasympathetic nervous system receives stimulation causing "erection, orgasm, and ejaculation.^[2]

They come from a Doctor who teaches at that college. They meet WP:ATT as she is an expert in that field. Please replace. Ronbo76 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But they shouldn't even be there. Look at any of the other articles on sex positions. None of them have the biology of arousal and orgasm explained on those pages. What differentiates mammary intercourse as requiring this? Joie de Vivre 19:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple. The article was getting beaten up because it had no sources. Mammary intercourse occurs on two levels - the male and female. Both have different perspectives from arousal to completion of the act. The citations help clarify this and give editors a basis for reverting unsourced edit(s).Ronbo76 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made a case for including information on the biology of arousal and orgasm in this article only, and not in every other article describing a sex act. Joie de Vivre 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that semen can create a "pearl necklace" in any sex act involving fellatio to orgasm. It's not specific to mammary intercourse. I've put pearl necklace under "See also". Joie de Vivre 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And, that involves original research on your part. Ronbo76 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So are the sentences about the semen landing zones. Joie de Vivre 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research to delete unsourced info. Joie de Vivre 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with all the deletions. This is the reason for reverts --Morenooso 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are being a bully. "I disagree" is not a reason. I clearly stated my case for removing some of the info, you reverted without comment. Joie de Vivre 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on your talkpage, I did review the comments here. I did use assume good faith. Your usage of a term to describe me goes contra WP:NPA. --Morenooso 23:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You gave no explanation for reverting. I think it is very bully-like to sweep in, revert, and walk away without saying anything. If someone did that to an edit of yours, I think you would not like it. Joie de Vivre 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Though some of the deletions can be debated, surely the physiology of the male orgasm is quite irrelevant on this particluar page. And how come this page rouses such passions ( in the editors :-) ).--Simon Speed 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This page gets a lot of vandal hits as most topics on this subject. As for the act itself, it can be debated that both partners enjoy what is referenced here. --Morenooso 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Vasocongestion which is linked to Sexual arousal. The Masters and Johnson source probably best sources this entire article. --Morenooso 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Outercourse redirects to Non-penetrative sex. --Morenooso 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So? Joie de Vivre 23:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unverifiable reference

This was used as a reference for the sentence "The female breasts are sensitive to stimulation.". One problem is that this is a set of lecture notes, with no name on it (as I already said). The other problem is that the reference says nothing about the breasts being sensitive to stimulation. All it says about breasts is: "breast (sic) enlarge and nipples erect as result of vasocongestion", in the context of female sexual arousal. It says nothing about mammary intercourse, breast stimulation or anything of that nature. Joie de Vivre 23:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think at least 50 percent of the worlds population could tell you if breasts are sensitive or not. Anyone who is a girl would have a good chance of knowing and anyone who has a girlfriend, chances are they would know too. I'm not sure if this needs to be verified or not, just think about the girls you have been with or if you are a girl yourself, then well, you know. Just touch them, see if they are sensitive or not. I don't think a dispute over this fact is necessary at all JayKeaton 08:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be original research. If the knowledge is as common and accepted as you say, there surely must be plenty of reliable sources. Neitherday 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a real reference on this, but I don't remember where. Specifically, as part of the onset of menarche, nipple sensitivity is increased. It was probably from a personal testimony, but so is most of the Kinsey Insitute's research. 69.104.89.179 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Title, Picture and "tit wank"

Is mammary intercourse limited to those with mammary glands? Can a transexual have mammary intercourse? Or a woman who has had a mastectomy on both breasts? Do bags of silicon/saline count as mammaries? I think the title is questionable, especially as the picture seems to depict a transexual. Also, I really doubt that anyone says "darling, would you like to partake in a brief session of mammary intercourse". Surely "Can I get a titty wank?" would be more commonly used, which leads me onto my last point, I reckon "titty wank" is more common than "tit wank". -- unsigned on 14:22, 19 April 2007 by Howboutpete (talk · contribs)

Good point, not everyone has all natural mammeries. Although it is a funny word all the same JayKeaton 04:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the term "mammary intercourse" is not derived from the term "mammary gland". "Mammary" in both terms means "of or relating to the breasts", therefore "mammary glands" are glands of the breast and "mammary intercourse" is intercourse relating to the breasts.

Second, male to female transsexuals have mammary glands, just as all male and female humans do unless they are removed (male mammary glands are simply not fully developed). Also note that mammary glands are not typically removed in breast enlargement surgery. Neitherday 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture for this article sucks royal balls. The person being titty-fucked looks like a tranny, and the semen is totally unnecessary. Bueller 007 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I didn't even notice the semen. Ejaculation isn't part of the definition of titty-fucking. So what definition is it? What word means "ejaculation during titty-fucking". We already have the picture to illustrate that page, and now I'm just curious. How have I gone my whole life without knowing what the word for it is? 69.104.89.179 03:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Censorship

The illustration has been listed for deletion in spite of being on 2 pages. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Mamintb.PNG. We need to preserve safe sex information on the Wikipedia. --Simon Speed 12:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia not Pornopedia

This is Wikipedia not Pornopedia. I propose that the image be deleted as the article is sufficient.

There is no need for an image.

This is not a question of censorship but of good taste.--87.243.196.167 09:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations are good to have.--Prosfilaes 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And WP is not supposed to make judgements as to taste, just impartially document the world. Aaron Lawrence 10:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Hawaiian Muscle Fuck

That term needs to be added back, most people on the street know it and use the term! --Seth slackware 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add it back, give a reference. Kingadrock 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blows My Mind

Only in the USA would a topic so insignificant and unimportant be given so much attention. Seems your efforts would be better put to use elsewhere, like trying to fix our government, environment or truly racist issues. This is a silly discussion. --Sangandongo 09:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Only in the USA? There's no way for anyone to tell where a logged-in reader is posting from, and at least one of the IPs that posted here posted from Britain.--Prosfilaes 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

lets keep talk to stuff about the page Sangandongo --Seth slackware 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How much Slang?

So butterfly is left to stay? I mean what are we doing with slang? Maybe limited it to a few? Seth slackware 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I removed "butterfly". "Titty fuck" gets used so much it's non-controversial, but of the other terms, some are probably made-up as a bit of fun or used maybe among a small group. We need references. --Simon Speed 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay sounds good --Seth slackware 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bring the image back

Why is it gone?! Seth slackware 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because some random visitor to Wikipedia got offended. It was removed by an anonymous IP, I just rolled it back. If you see it missing, just do a revert. --Jaysweet 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I added it back Seth slackware 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion at the top of this page. Andrew_pmk | Talk 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi protect

I semi protected it for awhile, to many IPs taking out the image Seth slackware 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protection

Can we get a protection back on this page? It's getting a little old to be having all these random IPs (which I assume are the same person, considering their close proximity) removing it every five minutes. OkamiItto 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] crap image

terrible, awful, pornographic image which should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.17.222 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to provide your own free image for inclusion in the article? ^anemone|_projectors 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The combination of the clinical language of the title "mammary intercourse" (rather than "titty fuck") and the pornographic-style of the graphic art seems semantically contradictory to me. Seriously, I came to this page two clicks out of a serious article about religion and homosexuality. I landed at this page and started getting aroused. Mostly because of the art. If you want to match the title, then you should use something more in the style of medical illustration, or kama-sutra type illustration (good examples would be the oral sex wiki entry). Why does this matter? Well, the image is not (IMHO) necessary, many people seem to feel it's at least slightly pornographic (and it is... it's a money shot), and it's not work/library safe. Presumably we *do* want kids and others learning about this topic without their having to feel that it's so tied to a porn mentality?

On an unrelated note, I've heard the act called "Russian" in the US (mostly in a sex-work context I think: french=oral; russian=breasts; etc). It also seems to go along with the Mexican and Puerto Rican synonyms (listed on the talk page) as well which refer to "Rusa", so perhaps you could add "Russian" to the synonyms?--Ajasen (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject is not work-safe, and Wikipedia is explicitly not censored to be work-safe. It'd be lovely to have a new illustration, but so far no one with the ability to create one has offered. (And I got to say, I find that picture the opposite of arousing.)

As for Russian, everything we do should in theory be cited, and getting cites on the slang names could help cut down on the list, especially the ones that are most ephemeral.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote to remove pornographic image

[edit] Image removle

Hello I know this image has been disscused about. But that image is clear pornogrphy. And I do not want this image here it is useless. Are we trying demonstrat sex? So please if you do vote below Please vote delete.--Hardcore Hak (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A vote has already taken place. Kingadrock (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit, what a terrible image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.207.206 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know of a better, free image that can be used, please feel free to let us know! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] crap image

Come on, you can find something a lot better. Or no image at all rather than that junk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.10.169 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then provide us with a better image. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merge

Well come on, mammary intercourse is a pretty awkward title, no? I mean, who calls it that, am I right? So here's my proposal. We should merge the following:

• Mammary intercourse
• Facial (sex act)
• Pearl necklace (sexuality)
• Bukkake

under the article title of "External Ejaculation" (with proper redirecting from all relevant slang terms, of course.)

What do you think, both about the proposed merges and the name of the unifying article? Thanks for your input. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be a bit awkward, but it would be the proper clinical name, and I'm sure there are plenty of articles (tit wank, etc) which link here. I feel there's enough information to make content forking reasonable, so don't see any real need to merge. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper, clinical name? Well, I've never seen the term mammary intercourse anywhere but here, and from sites who have derived their information from Wikipedia. Is it really a clinical term? Besides, mammary intercourse is merely a type of Non-penetrative_sex and, I would argue, is not worthy of an article unto itself. The slang terms that link here are irrelevant. DeeKenn (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is two paragraphs long. This will never become GA on its own. The goal of merging is to have enough information that we can make something out of it. By merging all these together, we give the stub & start class articles a chance to actually develop into a Good Article, which they wouldn't have alone. Don't worry; ALL information will be retained in the merge and that includes edit history. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What about merging facial, bukkake, and pearl necklace together? Merging the ejaculation-targeting sex acts would make the most sense. It could be argued that the so-called "mammary intercourse" could culminate with ejaculation onto any part of the female's body. Also, is it "mammary intercourse" if ejaculation doesn't follow?

On an aside, as I see no mention of it in the article, if this act is pleasurable to the supine partner, do lesbians perform this act with the use of a strap-on? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned? Why is it only represented as a male-female act? DeeKenn (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there are no women on the internet to tell us. Apparently. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be merged with a bunch defined around an external male orgasm. It need not even lead to orgasm and may be a form of foreplay prior to intercourse. As it's going to stay quite short in the foreseeable future, how about a merge with Oral stimulation of nipples and some new material into a new Breast play article dealing with the various forms of breast focused sex play. --Simon Speed (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That certainly sounds reasonable to me. DeeKenn (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge them ALL together. Merge Cum shot, Mammary intercourse, Pearl necklace (sexuality), and Bukkake together. But keep Facial (sex act) as its own separate article. The others are specific/pornorgraphic/group sex acts that should be merged together. Facial (sex act) is its own separate thing. Rustdiamonds (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge -- opposed to merege. If anything would be merged, it would be pearl necklace and cum shot or facial. Bukkake is not related, not is mammary sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding two comments. -88.82.44.253 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging this article with the other articles listed does not make sense. Cum shot, Pearl necklace (sexuality), Bukkake, Facial (sex act) are all ejaculation oriented. Mammary intercourse does not necessarily involve ejaculation. While I see an argument for merging the rest, I say do NOT merge Mammary intercourse. Kingadrock (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Decisions

I don't know what's worse.. the cartoon image depicting mammary intercourse, or the fact that I can actually listen to this article. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)