Talk:Teabagging

This page has been transwikied to Wiktionary.
The article has content that is useful at Wiktionary. Therefore the article can be found at either here or here (logs 1 logs 2.)
Note: This means that the article has been copied to the Wiktionary Transwiki namespace for evaluation and formatting. It does not mean that the article is in the Wiktionary main namespace, or that it has been removed from Wikipedia's. Furthermore, the Wiktionarians might delete the article from Wiktionary if they do not find it to be appropriate for the Wiktionary.
Removing this tag will usually trigger CopyToWiktionaryBot to re-transwiki the entry. This article should have been removed from Category:Copy to Wiktionary and should not be re-added there.

Teabagging survived vfd. See: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Teabagging -- Wile E. Heresiarch 01:46, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Teabagging is the oral sex practice of lowering the scrotum into the other partner's mouth.

...allegedly... (based on Googling, but sources are somewhat dubious).

I saw that on John Waters' Pecker, and it appeared to be simply lowering the scrotum onto someone's head. (The dancer does it to the art critic.) Not that I'm a John Waters fan, mind you. Koyaanis Qatsi

The definition I've always used, in my many and frequent discussions of scrotum-based sex practices, is what was in the article -- simply the lowering of the scrotum into the partner's mouth. Of course, Wikipedia Is Not a Dictionary, so unless some more encyclopedic information can be provided, I vote for deletion. Tokerboy

Okay, not to be an ass, but I fail to see why we have this kind of article on here?!??!--Julien Deveraux 22:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

==Hey!==

Look here you nimwits! Teabagging was started by the Something Awful Goons playing Splinter Cell Pandora Tomorrow. Not in Halo. Regardless, the video game reference is unnecessary and I'm killing it. TotalTommyTerror 17:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image

It is definitely far more appropriate to leave the image as an inline link rather than one that loads with the page. There is a very simple reason for this. It could easily qualify as an obscene image, offensive to a large group of people. People use wikipedia to look up things they do not know. So they may have no idea what teabagging is and be exposed to a (potentially) offensive image. Please leave it as an inline link.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea, I support it 100%. All potentially offending images should be censored because they might offend someone, of course, of course. // paroxysm (n) 18:53, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find the picture HILARIOUS. But I do agree it doesn't need to load with the page. shaddix 11:57, 01 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay this image is by definition of the word, explicit. It shows bare human testicles, on a face. A large portion of the population is offended by something like this, and as this is a public project should not be subjected to it unknowingly and unwillfully. I am reverting again, answer and issue with it here. An article censored so often obviously has reason to be. Judging solely by the number of people censoring, vs the number reverting said censorship I think we have a consensus. Unless of course anyone can cite a wikipedia guideline or policy that explicitly trumps removal of an inline image.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT censored. It's just too bad that the human body offends you and a "large portion of the population." In the end, it also breaks WP:NPOV because Wikipedia is not the judge of what is "explicit" or not "explicit." For example, I happen to consider images of tortured jews more "offending" than someone's scrotum. // paroxysm (n) 20:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point in it. I could care less and am not really offended as a matter of fact. However, it may be in the interest of the article, for the purpose of tactfulness, to consider one of a couple options. It wouldn't hurt to replace this particular image with an artistic rendition, such as the articles in similar context Autofellatio and Tribadism. It has solved problems before and comes across a lot better as a whole. It might also be sensible, although not necessary, to move the image in question nower in the page. It looks like it might belong in the sexual act category anyway, as judging by the picture, the person being teabagged seems consious and without objection (both uncharacteristic of teabagging as a prank)--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it seems to belong in the sexual practice section, since it looks nothing like the actions described in the prank section, and putting it there also has the effect of moving it low enough on the page that most users will have to scroll down a bit to see it. Personally, I'd prefer moving it to a link, since I think most people, while not necessarily offended, would prefer not to have the image on their screen without knowing that it was coming. If nothing else, it makes Wikipedia a bit safer for work. That said, moving the image lower down the page helps. I'm not sure that using a drawing rather than a photo makes a significant difference relative to the tastefulness issue, but that might not be a bad idea simply to address the claim of copyright violation. Swillden 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not supposed to be work-safe. The picture depicts a prank, not a consensual sex act. // paroxysm (n) 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not make it less generally offensive and safer for work if the change can be made without removing the content? The girl in the photo is clearly consenting, even enjoying the situation. Swillden 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the uncensored version: http://www.owned.com/Owned_Pictures/Funny_Owned_Pics/Just__the_Soft_and_Round_Balls/OWNED.html The woman in the picture clearly has her eyes closed.

We are not going to make it "less offensive" because uncongeniality is purely a matter of opinion. WP:NPOV. Since it illustrates the prank, it should be placed beside the prank. // paroxysm (n) 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The woman in the picture has her eyes closed because she's laughing, not because she's asleep, unconscious or unaware of what's happening. She's clearly a willing participant, not a prankee. Swillden 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're clearly ignoring the context of the act, which makes it quite obvious it's being done as a prank, not to turn someone on, here is the original diff of the image being added to accompany the article -- rate above the the prank's description. Hmmm. // Paroxysm (n) 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the image goes is really no big deal. I gave an option, it was not taken, no harm no foul. Paroxysm's right. Somehow that part of wikipedia policy slipped by, so boo on my part, and the image should stay, and does not need to be moved or replaced. However, I still hold that it might be sensible to replace the image with one similar to that on the other sex act articles (even though the image in question is a prank). While there is nothing wrong with the current image, the other one may be "more right" if that makes sense at all.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree about the prankishness of the image, but I seem to be in the minority on that, so I'll give. I've moved the image back, and also re-orderd the sections, placing the sexual practice section at the top. That both pushes the image lower on the page and puts the prank section next to the video game section, which seems appropriate given their similarity. I agree that replacing the image with another (perhaps hand-drawn) image is a good idea, particularly since it would also address the question of the copyright violation. Swillden 14:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rowing drill?

I removed the following recently added content, since I was unable to verify its factuality:

Teabagging is also the term used to refer to the crew rowing drill where a number of members of a boat will simmultaneously tap their oars up and down in the water to practise timming. It is rarely used as a taunt to other crews on the start line. The practise was almost certainly named after the aformentioned sexual practice, a common line of humour among rowers[[rowing]]

I'd like to ask the person who added this to please cite some verifiable source for the claim. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how idiotic Wikipedia can get...

Also, this practice can potentially backfire if a sleeping or unconscious victim unexpectedly wakes up and clenches down upon the testicles resulting in a painful shock or injury to the perpetrator.

WTH is this rubbish? Are you going to add every single 'humorous' scenario you can imagine? This entire article is pretty stupid, but the mind boggles at how a comment like this be part of a serious encyclopaedia. LOL, sheesh.

Prank?

Isn't unconsentually putting testicles on somebody, or dumping them into the water in a sack, better described as sexual abuse or assault than as a prank? It can result in criminal charges, as is alluded to in the article on Averill Park, New York (it doesn't mention teabagging, but that's what it was - Google it or search the Albany Times-Union archives.

Sex act

The "sex" act deserves its own article, and a lot of the trivia needs to be trimmed from it. Normally, I'd be against including a bogus "sex act" — 14-year-olds come up with these all the time, and no well-adjusted person would ever do them — but this one is seminotable. Czar Dragon 01:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]