Hi Andreas Some observations-
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 2:02 AM, Andreas Kolbe <jayen...@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 separate search 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 relevant. > > 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). > > http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:ListFiles/Seedfeeder > 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 itself. 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. Regards Theo > > Andreas > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 8:56 PM, Thomas Morton < > morton.tho...@googlemail.com> wrote: > >> On 27 April 2012 20:54, Béria Lima <beria.l...@wikimedia.pt> wrote: >> >>> *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). >> >> Tom >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
