Talk:Cum fart

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2006. The result of the discussion was merge and redirect to Oral sex.

Note

I have restored the material material removed by the previous editor. Generally speaking, deletion of talk page material is encouraged only when absolutely necessary -- attack, libel, copyvio, gross profanity, and so forth. Also, I thought that the material was germane to the general history of the article. In deference to the sensibilities of the removing editor (and perhaps others), I edited the restored material to encompass a more genteel aspect, while retaining the sense of the original Herostratus 16:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An editor questions the seriousness of this article

are you people f'ing serious? (unsigned|71.10.233.117}}

Poorly phrased question, but yes, we're serious. Did you have a specific question about the article that you wanted to ask? -Harmil 15:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Poorly phrased question? I think not, sir. [In heaven's name,] you wrote an article on cum fart, you [plural characterization referring to persons of of diminished intellectual capacity][strong emphasis]. This article should be deleted simply because it is cum fart, you [characterization of less-than-optimal health (presumably moral health in this context)][plural characterization referring to persons of deformed physique].—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freedom skies (talk • contribs) .

Deletion of advertising

I deleted all the ads.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.165.4.55 (talk • contribs) .

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. Owen× ☎ 18:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Astonishing. So long as the uninformed pipe up, a consensus cannot be formed, and the article stays put. I look forward to reading future articles on subjects such as Rusty trombone, Felching, Gerbilling, Fisting, and suchlike material^[1]. I think that Wikipedia took a step backwards on this one.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.196.42 (talk • contribs) .
[Caps Lock ON] Surely you are jesting, good sirs. Who [on earth] wrote this article?^[2] Is not Wikipedia, in countenancing the continued existence of articles such as this, in effect, when it asks our good patrons for donations, asking for money so that more [similar material of less-than-scholarly value] can be created?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.215.196.42 (talk • contribs) .

Notes

^ It may be presumed that the writer was employing sarcasm here.
^ User:213.84.150.226

Cum fart vs. Creampie and Queef vs. Fart

I thought that a "cream pie" was the same as an "internal cum shot" and that the only requirement was for a man to cum inside the vagina or rectum. I didn't think it required the semen to come out at all. Also, I'm quite sure queef only refers to air being released from the vagina, not the anus. Comments? Lawyer2b 06:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely needs a lot more detail. What muscles are involved in the expelling of the semen? How soon after intercourse does this occur? What is the chemical composition of a cum fart? Does it differ from an ordinary fart? I would think it would, since it must include introduced external air as well as gasses produced in the inteste by bacterial decomposition. Also... Felching -- need more detail, diagrams or photos would help here. Article states that semen is "ingested" but little else. Is this done through mouth-to-anus contact, or is the semen collected from the anus first? How? With the hands, or are utensils involved? A straw? Are there specially designed utensils, or can one use an oyster spoon? If there are specially designed utensils, are they offered in standard patterns by reputable silverware manufacturers? How is such a utensil typically described on one's bridal registry? Details, please! Herostratus 08:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding muscle involvement in semen expulsion, anatomically I would think a cum fart utilizes the same muscles as a "normal fart"; I have not heard of any semen specific rectal musculature, although a liquid being involved gives one pause. For both that and gaseous composition, the Farting talk page participants might have some input. The Felching entry doesn't mention semen injestion, only extraction. Perhaps some experts can advise. Lawyer2b 16:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might the FAQ of the newsgroup alt.binaries.erotica.nospam.creampie be considered a reliable source? Joey Q. McCartney 05:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram

File:Woman cumfart.jpg

Woman releasing sperm out of her anus after anal sex

This image originally accompanied the article. It was removed by User:Zordrac in December 2005 with the edit summary "I think we can at least make the picture nicer." I agree. If anyone with graphics editing skill wants to take a go at it, could we at least replace the plain white sheet with a nice Marimekko pattern, or something? Thanks! Herostratus 08:55, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This diagram is not very clear as to what is happening. It borders on pornographic indulgence. Also, can we have a male squeezing cum out of his ass instead of a full view of a spread-open vagina? AnAn 03:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And this makes things more acceptable how?! Good grief, that's absurd. This is not a nice topic, there really is no way of sanitising it. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of operational efficiency, obviously we need a female pictured, as a female has two orifices from which to display this phenomenon but the lowly male only one. Two is greater than one, silly! :-) Lawyer2b 07:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnnaAniston -- if you're ever in the mood for a stern and quite humorless lecture, try running that second sentence past the Category:Wikipedians against censorship. Also, we can't have a male because the whole thing is a porn-film phenomena, the article was written by a porn-film buff, and in that world its girls girls girls, I daresay. I do, however, have another quibble with the diagram: that is a fart? It looks rather more like a dribble... I'd like to see a little more of an explosive feel, there. Herostratus 13:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

File:Woman cumfart2.jpg

Woman releasing semen out of her anus after anal sex, onto a cheerfully printed bedsheet

OK, I took a first pass at improving the graphic per Zordrac's comment. (Also, caption should say semen not sperm, missed that before.) Is this good to go or does it need more work? Herostratus 05:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just put back the original image, let's not violate WP:POINT. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hero, the pattern is a definite improvement, providing instruction on appropriate coloring to hide potential staining. An excellent safety tip! What the picture still lacks though are some "smell lines" arising from the anus (this is still, after all, flatulence) and perhaps an anal array of "explosion lines" to change the appearance of dribbling you so keenly noted. Lawyer2b 02:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - Can we do something about that gauche fingernail color? Perhaps User:AnnaAniston can provide guidance. Lawyer2b 02:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got it. Two words: animated gif. Herostratus 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I see what you mean about the nails -- how about some of those little press-on appliques? Those are cute. I definately want this to get the standard to be nominated for Picture of the Day. And before anyone says anything about that, remember: Wikipedia is NOT censored for children. Herostratus 23:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If its about a fart then it really doesn't have to be a female in the picture - that's all I'm saying. When there is the option, we should consider showing a ball-sack instead of a splayed cunt, just to counter systemic bias. It also could be better drawn to show that its actually semen being expelled from an anus, rather than some kind of grey cord being draped over an open vag. In my opinion, the vag is the central focus of the picture, which makes the whole thing flippant pornography rather than an instructive diagram. User:Herostratus, I'm sure that wikipedians against censorship wouldn't mind a dangling dick being shown. I don't see how you can say that the phenomena of cum farting can only be about females - I'm sure that some male porn would show it. AnAn 01:14, 10 February 2006 (UTC) (which is not to say that I know that male pornfeatures cum farting, but that I expect it features something similar. AnAn 01:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

AnAn, you do make a good point. I'll work up a male version and perhaps with the other improvements mentioned (not right away, sometime in the next couple weeks when I get time) and post it here for further discussion. Herostratus 16:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Most sexual encounters (and porn for that matter) that result in cum farts are heterosexual in nature. I think the importance of having an image accurately portraying the overwhelming "gender" of cum farts vastly outweighs the need to counter systemic bias. Lawyer2b 17:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. How about using an animal, a dog or something? That way the fur could cover the, er, naughty bits, and the sex could be indeterminate. That sounds like a fair compromise that nobody could object to, right? Herostratus 06:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You must be kidding me. We want to see cum from an animal's anus now? This makes things better because?! This whole argument is stupid. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about a side-view, with the cum being sprayed out in an explosive farting movement? That way we don't have to gender the person, and it also would focus on the fart, not the genitals. AnAn 02:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think animals should seriously be considered. Although the term "cumfart" might have originated in porn, as a phenomena, we could do greater justice to it. AnAn 02:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember WP:NOR Joey Q. McCartney 05:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right. I'm getting excited (in more ways than one!) by the whole animal idea. I think it would be nice gesture for the oft-ignored AnimalLove Community. I wonder if it would be OK to also have blood and pus oozing from the animal's nether orifice? That way the same picture could be used in the Animal abuse in homosexual beastiality and Disgusting anal diseases in animals articles.

Also, what animal? I was thinking a kitten, but there's always gonna be some prude who doesn't get it that Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored who's gonna be all like You did WHAT to a KITTEN???... Hmmmm. A tapir? Maybe a giraffe? How about a lobster? Possibilities abound... Herostratus 04:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While a kitten might be plausible, a lobster would clearly violate WP:NOR AnAn 10:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno... there might be a LobsterLove Community out there ("We just want to love whom we choose to love... is that so wrong?). I'm not sure I want to find out. Also, even it I did undertake some OR with a vidcam and a powerful waterproof lubricant, that in itself could become notable ("WIKIPEDIA EDITOR CHARGED IN BIZARRE LOBSTER ANAL RAPE CASE"), thus completing the circle. Of course, that raises the key question: do lobsters even fart? I think it shows something about Wikipedia that a fine article like this one is put up for deletion, meanwhile you can't even find the answer to a simple question like that. Flatulance in Crustaceans, Arthopod Flatulance, etc. -- nothing. SpongeBob Squarepants is a lobster and he farts, but I'm not sure how accurate that is. Of course, that points to something else... why not use a cartoon character instead of an animal? SpongeBob Squarepants himself might actually make a fine subject... Herostratus 13:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary or Merge

This article is tagged for not being up to wikipedia standards, but I don't necessarily believe it is the article so much is the fact that there isn't enough information. Also it seems like a dictionary definition - at least a "slang" one - so maybe we should consider moving it or something. What do you think? Chooserr 01:02, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we get so many crap articles like this one is the rather unfortunate convention of redlinking every second word instead of just defining or explaining them in the article. They have a definition list feature for a reason! And you CAN use BOLD to show "key" terms, they don't ALL have to be those lovely blue links to a useless five word article. Internal links should only be made to topics that a chance of being an encyclopedia (like those ones you get on the shelves) article, not to emphasize a word. Anyways, delete this crap at once. Zero encyclopedic value. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.126.246.247 (talk • contribs) .