Talk:Cum shot

well i have posted a picture,and i have given it as a link with sufficient warning.i hope everybody enjoys it.--Jayanthv86 11:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

There's also an increasing practice of having the receiving partner express sexual arousal or even have a sexual climax during the money shot. This seems to be very popular in mainstream commercial American pornography and usually coincides with a seperation of the money shot from the actual intercourse: instead of just "going on" until he climaxes, the giver pulls out and masturbates in front of the receiver's face until he climaxes. I suspect that this practice is intended to increase the suspense by delaying the money shot as this last scene is oftenly recorded with quick cuts, intense music and increasing groans (of either partner). a pleasure

I suppose this might stem from facial money shots becoming a de facto standard in the industry and the producers trying to seperate the neccessary transition from sexual intercourse to the actual facial to make the money shot a bit less abrupt.

I might be interpreting too much here, after all pornography is all about sexual stimuli, but it's still about competition and thus innovation.

--Ashmodai 16:26, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

more information wanted

Here is a quote from the article on facials: Some people consider this act disrespectful to the person on the receiving end, although some people do receive sexual pleasure from it, and some claim that since the human face is an amalgam of our most unique physical characteristics - it is an expression of the desire to copulate directly with the most intimate part of one's partner. Whether it is really an act of disrespect depends on the mutual perceptions and intentions of the participants. What do you believe?

"What do you believe?"? It's a matter of opinion, much like any act or gesture. I'd generally consider it somewhat erotic, but I know a lot of people who consider it simply gross, and thus probably rather disrespectful. In sex, the receiving partner should have the last word. If the giver thinks it's a big turn on, but the receiver doesn't share the sympathies, it's a no-go. If the giver considers it really gross, the receiver shouldn't force it either.

Pretty much what the article says: whether it is disrespectful (i.e. humiliating) depends on the mutual perceptions rather than a dictionary definition. Also, there's still the question whether it's playfully disrespectful (think Dom/sub) or offensively disrespectful (think rape). Despite all the porn clichés, in most cases "no" really does mean "no". — Ashmodai ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know where there is related information (book, webpage, other) similar to this article.

Illustration or not?

I don't think we need an illustration here. Photos of cum shots of any kind don't seem the best way to go if illustration is neccessary and almost everyone interested in the term knows what a human looks like (which varies widely) and what ejaculate usually looks like (which also varies widely) and SHOULD be able to put both things together (or read up the looks of ejaculate and humans to get the point).

Additionally the main topic of this article is an act, not a result. Since ejaculation is covered by anatomy articles, I think an illustration would fit those articles better than this one since there is little illustrative value in pictures of a person being ejaculated onto or into (again, descriptions should suffice) rather than just showing what an ejaculation looks like (which is again, rather pointless since the intensity can vary between dribbling and squirting and neither needs an illustration to get the point across).

Please use this talk page to discuss what kind of illustration (if any) should be added before adding photos (especially ones with questionable copyright status) on your own. I personally don't see any reason to add any illustration at all, but that doesn't mean I'm right (there is ptill the unlikely possibility for an alien species one day trying to find out about everything eelated to mankind and maybe they WILL need a picture to understand what it's about). nUser:Ashmodai|Ashmodai]] 02:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC) iAlmost everybody knows a hand, a foot, a road or a street when they see one, set these articles still have pictures of normal hands, feet etc - so clearly saying that people SHOULD know what a cum shot looks like, is not a good reason not to have an illustration in this article. I do agree however, that a photograph might not be ideal. How about an animated .gif, showing a cum shot in a loop? David Sneek 08:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The term seems to refer to both, videos and photographs. So a photo might fulfill the purpose just as well. Considering this article is about a particular type of photograph or film sequence, I guess this might be a special case and actually qualify for photographical illustration. I'll stay neutral for now, however. If you intend to include a photo, I'd suggest starting a poll first, possibly with an example of the kind of (GFDLed!) photo you'd like to include. -- Ashmodai

I'm imaging Wikipedians trying to convince their wives to let them take a GFDL'd cumshot photo. —Casey J. Morris 02:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• I think a photo would add a little to the article in terms of helping people visualize what one looks like, but it would take away much more. Mainstream reference tools adhere to greater standards than just verifiability. Including images of such a thing lowers our credibility as a mainstream resource. Therefore, I am against having such a photo in this article, or any similar article. Johntex\^talk 19:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

• • Since Wikipedia isn't censored, unlike mainstream reference tools, I think we should certainly have an image. I don't like the animated gif on loop idea: that's just distracting. ^L_Wizard @ 08:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As I explained at Talk:Ejaculation, censorship is not the main concern. Johntex\^talk 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Johntex here; a photo of a cumshot would be gratuitous in this context. Vastly more people would be offended than educated, and I think many would be wary of following wikipedia links in the future.Jim whitson 08:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Considering that there are uncensored articles on racist terms, nazism, and general obsceneties that seems to be a rather poor argument. Perhaps instead of a direct inline picture a link could be added to the bottom. --Superslash 21:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh for pete's sake, the request for an illustration was joke. This is an encyclopedia. The description of the cum shot and its variations is about as visual as my stomach can take. ~ Otterpops 21:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I find it both strange and funny that mammary intercourse and pearl necklace have illustrations, but not the most normal/natural circumstance with a simple ejaculation? It feels a bit like having pictures of BDSM clamps on nipples, but not pictures on breastfeeding. 213.114.117.233 18:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence provides a link to ejaculation, with it's picture and video clip. Including a picture here serves no purpose IMO. Unless it was clearly in a pornographic setting, as this is the only difference between cum-shot and ejaculation. But any proffesional porn would be copyvio, or? Yobmod (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't the subject to the cumshot happier? It makes it look like a degrading act against women.81.227.51.82 (talk) 06:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Article name?

It's "come shot" in the title, but "cum shot" all through the article, including headwords. Oughtn't that to be standardised on one or the other? Loganberry (Talk) 04:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. I've changed the article to always use "come shot." This is the spelling preferred by the OED (which includes the phrase since 2002), though it does list both. This choice is certainly debatable, though, since "cum shot" trounces "come shot" in a Google competition (at a ratio over 100:1), and we might want to be guided in our choice of language by actual usage. ^L_Wizard @ 04:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Good work on improving the article for consistency. I think in this case either spelling is defensible. Since you have the OED reference, and since people may come here and be surprised about the spelling, it would be great if you could add a reference to the OED into the article. Johntex\^talk 05:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I do agree the spelling should be consistent though. Should we change the spelling in the article to "come" or should we change the name of the article to "cum"? Johntex\^talk 01:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favor of keeping the article using "come" and not "cum." Then again, I'm a prescriptivist. . . ^L_Wizard @ 01:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't suggest that we blindly follow the Google count, but I think it is an interesting data point on frequency of use: "come shot"=22,000 hits (not all porn related) "cum shot"=4,440,000 hits (seem to all be porn related).
WP:NAME, which is the policy on article naming, does state: "Convention: Use the most common name of a person or thing that does not conflict with the names of other people or things. Rationale and specifics: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)" Johntex\^talk 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The question is whether this is a Tidal wave case or a Jimmy Carter case. In my opinion, the spelling "cum" is incorrect. As a (contrived) analogy, you can get more Google hits for "L'Hopital's rule" than for "L'Hôpital's rule," but we have our article at the correct spelling. Moving the article to "Cum shot" would just be making a common mistake. ^L_Wizard @ 03:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

"Cum shot" makes more sense to me (as article title and throughout). The phrase is already in the realm of slang and jargon (unlike L'Hôpital's rule), so it seems disingenous to edit it away from common usage. And, per WP:NAME: "When choosing a name for a page ask yourself: What word would the average user of the Wikipedia put into the search engine?" Pretty clearly, cum shot. Fireplace 11:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Under Wikipedia rules, the name is decided by the Most Common Name principle laid down in our Manual of Style. All the evidence shows that the MCN here (by a mile) is cum shot. It may once have been incorrect (just as to write cows was incorrect. But just as cows has replaced what used to be seen as the correct plural, kyne, so come on the overwhelming evidence of usage has been replaced by cum. In fact I cannot think of anywhere but here in recent years I've seen it spelt come. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 01:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

What about creating another page for "Cum shot" and then redirect to here? I'd just do it but I'm very new at this and not confident that I'd do it right.

~ Otterpops 11:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkimage

I changed the photo to a linkimage. This has the advatnage that an ususpecting reader (who may be looking up this term for the first time with no understanding of the meaning) is not confronted with a graphic sexual image. At the same time, it is available behind a single click for those who want to know more. Johntex\^talk 22:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone reverted it, please if you think it should be deleted discuss in the talk page first. 130.166.81.166

Too heteronormative

Gay facials are widely popular in gay sex and porn, yet the article focuses almost exclusively on 'hetero' norms. Also, the issue of male 'domination' in which the receiving partner is also male is not discussed.65.81.27.35 10:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So add to the article...Aar☢n Bruce^Talk/_Contribs 08:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of this article is not to enumerate genders this action can be performed with, but simply to describe the action itself. Meaning that if it doesn't say "gay" in the artcle it doesn't mean gays are not doing it. And if the person reading it would like to know if gays can have cumshots... Well, this is what Google is for, my man =) Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

copy edit

Grammar, punctuation, language plus removal of hetero-assumptions and reference check. Problem in author citing ribald opinion columns as if they were news articles (the "San Francisco doctor of sexology", Peter Santor Gardos, does not exist on Google apart from these two columns). ~ Otterpops 21:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC) Hi Otterpops, Dr. Gardos is a psychologist who offers sex therapy. Here's his info: Template:WP LoCE Peter Sandor Gardos, Ph.D., Clinical Psychologist, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University, 601 West 168th Street, Suite 21, New York, NY 10032, Phone: 212-923-7479, E-Mail: Sexologist@aol.com, Website: http://members.aol.com/sexologist/. General Psychotherapy and Sex Therapy with individuals, couples,, and groups. http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Gardos_Peter_7101644.aspxM.O. (talk) 00:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Silliness

This article is full of silliness—appropriate, perhaps, for an opinion piece but not for an encyclopedic article. But this is to be expected. If anyone is serious, open the edit window and delete every sentence that looks like the author romancing or indulging. Perhaps anonymous contributors want to display their Quixotic intellect. Meep 15:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I might note upon that there are surely people (mostly men) who might come read this text in order to get sexually aroused and then masturbate on those two pictures. Let them do it, this is not a pornography website, it's an Encyclopedia first of all, but since it's a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then why not let them what they want to do? The only purpost of this article is to describe what a cumshot is, that's it, that's all. No strings attached (ba-dam-psh!)Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

1990s?

First used in the 1990s, the cum shot was usually an ejaculation near the anus or lower back or onto the face depending on the sexual position portrayed.

You've got to be kidding! I'm sorry but the practice of ejaculating onto the other person's body goes back to the earliest days of porn films. It was standard practice when adult films first began to be made and shown openly in the 1970s. How someone could think it was "First used in the 1990s" is beyond me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Beetfarm Louie (talk • contribs) 13:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

In fact, you're both wrong. The earliest of cumshots, including of course the blow job, date to since humanity started having oral sex. However, the TERMS, which this article is about, were invented in the 1980ies. So while the sentence is correct in terms of words, it is not in historical means. Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Poor linking in initial paragraph

Hey... I'd consider removing the links to pussy and ass (which lead to either the wrong thing, or a disambiguation page), or even better, changing the wording to somehting more appropriate. I didn't want to pre-empt the author's decision, so I wont change it myself unless it stands indefinately. Jddriessen 13:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

money shot links here

that's i think a little rough. money shot can mean much more than a cum shot. can we rethink this?

--202.156.13.1 14:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Stupid men

What horseshit is this, that girl on girl scenes don't have cum shots?

No, they don't. Because women don't have sperm. They have menstruasive orgasms instead, called "squirts" in popularity. The cumshot practice has to involve at least one male being, whereas it is a man, an animal or an inanimate object mimicking a male penis with a sperm-like liquid secretion.

Removed image (old discussion)

I have removed the image on this page, as it is pornographic. --carelesshx _talk 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am so not getting into an edit war on this page, but Wikipedia is not censored. --Haemo 00:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

See also WP:PROFANITY, specifically: Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate. I think the article text describes a cumshot in sufficient detail that that particular image is not required. --carelesshx _talk 00:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ana's pic

Does "Ana" know about her appearance? --84.161.203.227 20:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I put back older version with references

The article has lost all of its referenced content. If any article in WIkiped needs references to keep it from being a den of Original Reasearch and speculation, it is this one. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Getting an encyclopedic tone on an article like "come shot" is hard, but we can try. How? Reference the term using reputable printed sources, not Original Research. This older version includes quotes from Filmmakers Guide to Pornography, articles, books, etc. Much more encyclopedia-like. Not all Wkped articles need to be heavily-sourced. But I think this one should be.M.O. (talk) 12:26, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that Facial (sex act) be merged here. The facial is but a subtype of the cumshot and does not have enough notability to have its own entry. DeeKenn (talk) 00:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

To be more clear: The bulk of the Facial (sex act) article's content is about its role in pornography. If you remove that information, then you are merely left with a definition of a slang term. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. DeeKenn (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not correct. The facial article consists of a brief and slightly confused definition of the act (confusing it with the subject of facials in pornography), then goes on to a relatively long and unreferenced description of porn facials (which I agree is duplicative of material in this article though not inappropriate to include by itself) and then briefly discusses (with extensive citations) some ways in which facial ejaculation is important to actual human sexuality. The facial article is one of the wiki series on specific sex acts, not on pornography per se. Ejaculating on the face is a very common practice in human sexuality and one that many people come to wikipedia seeing information on. I do not understand this push to reduce human sexuality to pornography. The facial article needs to keep being expanded and referenced and made more useful to those seeking information on real world sexual practices. Certainly people whose sex lives are centered around pornographic movies should be able to find information on those films and how they are made too, but that is NOT the bulk of the wikipedia audience (though perhaps represents the majority of young editors) and there is no basis to subsume important human sexuality articles under the topic of pornography OR (as has also been proposed) merging them into broad articles like that on semen in general. Are you proposing merging the oral sex, anal sex and other human sexuality articles into articles on porn?? What is the obsession with pornography?Veritas23 (talk) 12:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, there obviously is no obsession with pornography; it's about proper classification of articles with their respective subject matter. If the facial article is, as you say, slightly confused in its definition, then discuss, expand, and clarify. The way I understand it from your POV is that while facials exist in pornography, you believe that it is also common enough in "normal" sexual activity to warrant an article unto itself. That's reasonable. For your rhetorical: not all sex acts are pornographic, but many occur in pornography, so there will be some duplicity between the articles. DeeKenn (talk) 23:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a reason not to merge. Carl.bunderson (talk) 07:01, 14 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) 15:21, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see new merge proposal at Talk:Pearl necklace (sexuality)#Proposed merge. — Satori Son 18:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you create a section in this article with a link to the main article describing facials. By the way, why not create a section called "Types of cumshots" and then include stuff like "bukkake", "facial", "gangshots", etc. Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly object to any of the articles being merged, as they are all about different topics.Willy turner (talk) 22:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

removed image

removed image as per WP:PROFANITY (again). --carelesshx _talk 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverting. As per the WP:PROFANITY guideline it only applies when images displayed "serve no other purpose than to shock the reader" - this is an image designed to be illustrative and informative and not for shock value. Exxolon (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This isn't the first time I've made this edit (see above), and the text of WP:PROFANITY has changed since the last edit I made here. The change to the guideline page was made with no comment on the talk page and no indication that consensus was reached, so to my mind should still read as it did before that edit was made. Obviously someone else has reverted back to my edit here, so I don't need to do that so I'll just leave it. --carelesshx _talk 00:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I think this will have to be reverted. WP:NOTCENSORED is an official policy and WP:PROFANITY is only a guideline. Policy trumps guideline. I'd rather not get into a revert war so can we agree that the image goes back as per policy? Exxolon (talk) 01:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that nothing can ever be removed, it has to be applied with common sense. The WP:PROFANITY guideline says that anything that might normally be deemed offensive must have some justification for being in the article in the first place. The image in question does not document any specific event and doesn't even depict its subject particularly well (the article discusses the 'shot', but the picture depicts the results). Unless you (or someone else) can show that the image improves the reader's understanding of the subject (and therefore that removing it would harm the article), there's no reason to revert. --carelesshx _talk 01:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• WP:NOTCENSORED does not compel us to keep any picture on any article. It is mainly a notice to readers that the might find content here that could be objectionable to them. We are not mandated to include such content. We are mandated to follow obscenity laws in the state of Florida, where are servers are based. We are trying to be educational. We are not trying to be shocking for no good reason. I believe a text-only description of this topic serves a good job of describing this topic. A picture with sexually-explicit nudity is not needed. Johntex\^talk 02:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm requesting comment in order to get a wider range of opinions as to whether a photo/image/illustration is appropiate and what form it should take. Exxolon (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Regardless of what policies or guidelines are addressed, the image in question (Image:Sperm on female buttocks.jpg) is hardly pornographic, obscene, or otherwise shocking. Let us apply the Miller test to the image:
  1. Would the average person, applying contemporary community standards, find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest?
     • Arguably.
  2. Does the work depict/describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law?
     • Yes.
  3. Does the work, taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value?
     • No.
• Since not all three conditions are satisfied, this fails the Miller test. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

First, looking at the image my opinion is that it is not obscene or offensive. It seems to illustrate the topic accurately. I guess I don't like the quality of the image though, and would like to see a better image. I'm not sure why buttocks were chosen, rather than some other body part, but I suppose that is arbitrary. Probably a persons face, breasts, or genital area would be better but possibly would cause more people to think it was offensive to them. I think probably what bohers me the most about the image is that when I see the image, I don't immediately recognize what the topic of the article is about. That is my usual criteria for a lead image, that at a glance the reader understands ("groks") the article. That is an ideal, and hard to meet. The discussed image woulc probably be better as a scondary image, or illustrating something specific about the content, rather than the lead image. Although I don't like it as a lead image, I don't feel that removing it based on WP:PROFANITY is approriate, as there doesn;t seem to be anything profane about it. Atom (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreeing with Atom, I think the image is, no matter if obscene or not, not really useful for the article. I do not think there is reason to exclude a better image from this article. The subject in question is already pornographic in it's very nature and an image to help understanding will not repeal anyone who seeks to learn about. Anyone offended by such things will be offended by the text anyway but this cannot be a criteria for inclusion, this is an encyclopedia and you have to expect things you may find offensive. Otherwise we would need to censor almost every article, for example Criticism of Christianity may offend Christians but noone opts to delete it based on that. I think WP:PROFANITY applies here, but there is "a good reason" to include such an image. So#Why 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This image isn't directly related to the subject of the article. The article is about the showing of ejaculation in pornography - the image does not depict ejaculation but sperm. As we are primarily concerned with WP:NOTCENSORED, we need to be clear that it is not an absolute rule:

“ Obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately ”

(my emphasis). Obviously this image is not on that level, but I would suggest that this image isn't sufficiently relevant to the subject of the article to justify its inclusion in the article. I think we should decide this on the basis of Wikipedia principles and making the article as good as it can be. We shouldn't decide it on the basis of what we as Wikipedia users think the Florida law of obscenity means. The Foundation already has a lawyer who, probably unlike most or all of us, is sufficiently qualified to make such a judgement and will have it removed if it violates that law. Cynical (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Section break

It would seem the consensus is that an image is appropiate but not the particular image that was removed. Assuming everyone concurs then we need to re-orientate the discussion to decide what type of image is appropiate, encyclopedic, useful to the reader and then work out where we can obtain a free image of the desired type and quality. Thoughts? Exxolon (talk) 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Copied from above:

The first sentence provides a link to ejaculation, with it's picture and video clip. Including a picture here serves no purpose IMO, unless it was clearly in a pornographic setting, as this is the only difference between cum-shot and ejaculation. But any proffesional porn would be copyvio, (or fair use?, but then the image used has to be discussed in the article i thought). Yobmod (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Now i've seen the proposed image, and i agree that doesn't illustrate the subject at all. A cum shot should at minimum include a man coming!Yobmod (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We need to work out what is needed then. I would say an animated GIF file is the best answer, or failing that a sequence of image frames showing the act? Exxolon (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So glad I was browsing the RfCs today.... The thing is such images may pose privacy or copyright concerns, and I notice we use drawings for many sex-related images. In fact there is a good one at facial (sex act), kindly contributed by User:Seedfeeder (rofl) which would be appropriate here. In fact that article likely should be merged with this one. Fletcher (talk) 23:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As facial is a type of cum-shot,(indeed, one of the most common), the picture at facial could simply be used here. Problems solved!Yobmod (talk) 10:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Per RfC, I agree that the omission of an image is not detrimental to understanding. That is, there's no really good reason to include a sexually explicit diagram or picture in this article. NOTCENSORED is not a reason to include images of every possible sex act--I note that Creampie (sexual act) lacks one as well. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I would see no problem with a line drawing similar to facial (sex act) being included in this article, if there really really must be an image at all. --carelesshx _talk 01:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

• I saw the request for comment and thought that I would. If you are talking about Image:Sperm on female buttocks.jpg, it doesn't show "a man ejaculating onto a person or object" as written in the article. The image may imply that the sexual act has concluded, but it does not show that "the sexual act recorded is authentic" as written in the article. It seems to me that if an image meets what is described in the article, then there may be reason to include it. The Sperm on female buttocks image doesn't seem to bring together all the elements of a cum shot. Suntag (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• The illustration (line drawing) was removed with "against guidlines of wikiproject pronography". Any idea that these guidlines are? If images are discouraged by the project, this should be discussed there, no? Anyway, i re-added it.Yobmod (talk) 00:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All i can find is that we should use free images (which this is), andsuggestions for where to find them (not applicalbe, this is from commons).Yobmod (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

image yes, but only one of an actual cumshot

I've removed the image, which because it's simply not an illustration of a cumshot and thus not only holds no explanatory power for this article whatsoever but actually misinforms the reader (or rather: viewer...) of what a cum shot is. An image yes, why not, but not that image. user:Everyme 10:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image restored. The image is, indeed, of a cumshot. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 10:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Image RfC

{{RFCsoc| section=Image RfC !! reason=Dispute over the inclusion of a specific image. !! time= 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC) }}

Image:Semfac01.png should not be included in the article since it's not actually of a cumshot (I should know, I have a good collection of actual cumshot images on my hard drive). Moreover, it's highly inappropriate to have a hidden notice bullying editors into acting against their better editorial judgment by saying "Deleting or changing the image may be considered an act of vandalism."^[1] I'm not trying to censor anything, but this image is not appropriate in this article. It is appropriate e.g. at Facial (sex act). user:Everyme 11:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Illustration removed

The threat of vandalism for removing the illustration is 100% out of line, and calls into question the poster's motives. I have removed the image because nobody objected to the last call to delete it, and it also does not depict an actual cumshot. We need an actual photo of one, not an illustration. The interracial aspects of the illustration would also needlessly incite many viewers--white and black alike. We do not need that right now, and we can do much better with a real picture. There are lots of them out there. Vasbyt84 (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Interracial?

For what purpose is this interracial? Undoubtedly, the interracial aspect is needless. In this context it diverts the attention away from that which it attempts to display, and it would be more useful to simply use a black couple to illustrate this example. It seems to send a sharp message to its audience that it need not send. Also, has cum shot come to mean cum that happens to be on a girls face? This picture stinks of an artist who is more concerned with posting her art than with expressing the term that is in question. Put on your 'objective' goggles and evaluate this photo's necessity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.225.191.16 (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't agree more. Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The drawing in question is simply an example. Nothing in the text indicates that the practice described is usually performed between actors of two different "races." Moreover, the other drawing in the article does not appear to show a racially mixed couple. One drawing in a long article with multiple illustrations is not sufficient to imply whatever your own added biases lead you to believe that it implies. Would you object to an isolated illustration of a "mixed-race couple" in the page on sexual intercourse? And if so, do you object to the idea of sexual relations among individuals of different "races"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.28.49.232 (talk) 05:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Redirection of search term "cum"

I have redirected the search term "cum" to the article on orgasm. It seems to fit better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.3.178 (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed change to image

Can I put this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Facialejac.jpg To illustrate cumshot topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.33.190.141 (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think the more explicit image is superior to the current illustration? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:04, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

New image

I have updated this article with a new image created specifically for the subject (as opposed to recycling the facial cumshot image). --SeedFeeder (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely done. 66.191.19.68 (talk) 23:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. In a typical scene of the genre in question, the girl more often looks at the camera rather than at her partner - however, perhaps the illustration is more "disarming" this way.

However, it might be a good idea to move the image a bit lower in the article. I won't discuss its educational value, but it is potentially shocking for someone who's looking this up without having a clue what it means. The Assistrat (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the image should be animated. Why not show the whole act so we can be truely encyclopedic?--217.203.143.149 (talk) 00:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge tag?

The article appears to have a merge tag that directs to an archived discussion. Should it be removed? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Just an update. I went ahead and removed it as the merge discussion on the various articles has already be resolved or resolved and archived. If this is still a topic to be reviewed, it can be brought back. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Creampie/Internal Cumshot

There probably be some reference to the theme of the Creampie/Internal Cumshot. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 03:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Garbage

This filth doesn't belong here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.89.0.135 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

What I find really inappropriate on this page is the criticism. I mean come on, people are just trying to have oral sex so they can make each other feel good, and in terms of cumshots it is applied to a woman trying to make a man feel good. Nothing more. Nobody is objectifying nothing. It's not like a man is proud that he shot sperm into a woman or all over her, however this doesn't mean the opposite. Still, it's not an objectifying stance, not in this case at least. Therefore I find argumentation is criticism needless, especially in a context where both persons are trying to relax and spend some intimate time together.

However I might correct myself just about now since it is pornography that we are talking about, not just regular sexual activity. In that case, critics might be appropriate. I would still see whether I can paraphrase that.Shadiac (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is information, a definition of terms that explains in no uncertain terms what the subject is. The fact is, there is an article on "filth" and just about any other thing you can think of here on WP and if you find the lack of an article you can make one yourself. In short, this "filth" does belong here. Societal views tend not to be as encyclopedic as we would like, but are a valid topic of discussion so long as they are done in an encyclopedic way, although it might be a good thing to provide a link to the subject of criticism of pornography as a source for that discussion69.224.71.96 (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Racism?

The picture of the woman sucking on a white man's penis is smiling very happily, whereas the woman who has just been drenched in semen by a black man appears very sad. Both females should either be sad or happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.221.81 (talk • contribs) 11:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

• My vote goes to having both women be happy. Everyone should be allowed to be happy. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Feminist Perspective

Seems POV, but am relatively new around here (I did have another name for this IP, but never gave an email, forgot the password so it is orphaned I assume) The article at the end has this section, then proceeds to mention a male book reviewer with a link to threemonkeysonline.com which bills itself as a current affairs and art online magazine. Not that a male cannot promote or pursue goals related to feminisim, but rather I'm not sure that a book reviewer's opinion constitutes a feminist perspective. Clearly, from at least one male perspective (the reviewer's) it is potentially objectionable. Or is anything one finds to be demeaning to women considered a feminist perspective? ThereIsntAnyIsland 04:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThereIsntAnyIsland (talk • contribs)

A question of social concern

I am concerned about the reasoning behind the pictures detailing sexual acts as I believe that there is no rationale for including them unless one is doing so for the sake of A: a person who cannot read (though this seems an unlikely prospect considering the nature of this site) and B: to illustrate to children what something like a ‘cumshot’ is. I do not see any social or educational relevance to illustrating non-reproductive oriented sexual behavior/acts to people so young that they require cartoon images in order to understand something. The Dick and Jane guide to Pornographic Sexuality?

This particular article “Cum shot” seems to have a bias towards legitimizing the act of ejaculating onto a woman’s face to the point of including dubious counter arguments:

1) The testimony by a sexologist stating that “…his research suggests ‘... the men who get most turned on by watching cum shots are the ones who have positive attitudes toward women’ ” is simply opinion with no scientific basis (what research is this referring to exactly).

2) The following view points by an author that “…it is the pleasure the actresses exhibit that the male partners enjoy”, and an activist that “…there is no reason to interpret ejaculation as a hostile gesture” are not substantiated by the reality that a ’cumshot’ is frequently and explicitly used in pornography to elicit an attitude of degradation (terms like “cum dumpsters” are the rule rather than the exception) as well as the fact that many woman in pornography do not appear to find the act of ejaculation or the taste of semen especially comfortable.

3) The last assertion is by a scholar who “points out” as opposed to suggests “that in western culture male sexual fulfillment is synonymous with orgasm and that the male orgasm is an essential punctuation of the sexual narrative. No orgasm, no sexual pleasure. No cum shot, no narrative closure. In other words the cum shot is the period at the end of the sentence.” This is a statement which, taken on it own merit, brings into question the general attitude toward woman in society itself rather than give any logical argument for why ‘cumshots’ should be considered a healthy sexual activity.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.117.211.152 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)