Talk:Fingering (sexual act)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Recent changes to the lead

The current lead states, Fingering is typically the use of fingers or hands to sexually stimulate the vulva (including the clitoris) or vagina. Vaginal fingering is legally and medically called digital penetration or digital penetration of the vagina. Fingering may also include the use of fingers to sexually stimulate the anus.

Fingering may be performed on oneself (masturbation) or by or with a sexual partner. When performed on the vulva or vagina by a sexual partner, it is a form of mutual masturbation, and is analogous to a handjob (the manual stimulation of the penis). It may be used for sexual arousal or foreplay, constitute an entire sexual encounter, or be used as a form of non-penetrative sexual activity. Fingering may be used in association with other sex acts or acts of intimacy, or to enable the woman to achieve orgasm after her sex partner has.

---

The version that IiKkEe changed it to states, "Fingering is the use of the fingers or hands to sexually stimulate the female genitalia. </ref> Fingering may be performed on oneself (masturbation) or by or with a sexual partner. It may be used for sexual arousal or foreplay, constitute an entire sexual encounter, or be used as a form of non-penetrative sexual activity. Fingering may be used in association with other sex acts or acts of intimacy, or to enable the woman to achieve orgasm after her sex partner has. When performed on the vulva or vagina by a sexual partner, it is a form of mutual masturbation, and is analogous to a handjob (the manual stimulation of the penis).

Vaginal fingering is legally and medically called digital penetration or digital penetration of the vagina. Fingering may also include the use of fingers to sexually stimulate the anus.

---

Here are the reasons I reverted:

Stating "typically," "usually" or similar is fine when a matter typically refers to one thing, but has other definitions or aspects. Often, when we just state "is" instead "is typically" or similar for the lead sentence in such cases, disputes break out because editors and/or readers don't realize that we are prioritizing the main/usual definition first per WP:Due weight. They feel this way even when the second (or third) sentence addresses the less common definition or definitions. They feel that the lead sentence is contradictory and/or that we are excluding the other definitions or aspects. And then disputes about how to define the lead sentence begin (or continue, depending on how many times the matter has been discussed). This can happen even with use of the words "typically," "usually" and similar, but these words lessen the blow and help to dissuade such objection. Furthermore, in the case of this specific article, one or more of the sources do state "typically" or something to that effect.

I also reverted because having the lead sentence state "vulva" and "vagina" is clearer than "female genitalia." Notice that IiKkEe's version later mentions "vulva" and "vagina," but without the wikilinks.

I also reverted because the lead paragraph should define what the topic is first. The topic is first and foremost about sexually stimulating the vulva and vagina. So the "Vaginal fingering is legally and medically called digital penetration or digital penetration of the vagina." sentence belongs there in the lead paragraph. Beyond sexually stimulating the vulva and vagina, fingering may also (but significantly less commonly) refer to sexually stimulating the anus. So that belongs in the first paragraph as well.

I also reverted because that fingering may be performed on oneself or by or with a sexual partner is something that should be covered in a new paragraph. These are not definitions of fingering. These are aspects fingering. There is no need to stuff the lead paragraph with material about masturbation and fingering a sexual partner.

IiKkEe sometimes speaks of logical flow. I believe my flow -- defining what fingering is in the first paragraph and then including aspects of it in the second paragraph -- is the logical flow. Not, for example, hopping back to defining vaginal fingering in the second paragraph. And, yes, IiKkEe accidentally left in that "</ref>" piece. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and as for IiKkEe stating, "instead of naming 3 of many anatomical parts of the female genitalia, which excludes labia minora and majora, use the more general term 'female genitalia', with link," the text is not excluding the labia minora and majora by stating "vulva." Those are the two main things that people and sources are referring to when they state "vulva." The clitoris is mentioned because it is the main reason fingering the vulva is pleasurable, and it's often overlooked/not thought about directly. It's also mentioned lower in the article. That's why it's mentioned in the lead. And since it's an aspect of the vulva, the lead states "including the clitoris." We could state "vulva, clitoris, or vagina," but this gives the impression that the clitoris is not an aspect of the vulva. There is no need to mention the other aspects of the vulva with regard to fingering, because sources are not, for example, speaking of fingering the Bartholin's glands. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't have time before to closely examine the changes myself, but after reading this, I prefer the way it was and to which it has been restored, per the reasoning given here. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

_____

References

Removal of recently added image -avoiding edit warring

I have removed a very recently added moving gif image which I don't feel adds anything significant or encyclopaedic to this article (diff), but it has been readded, and I have removed it once again. The editor involved has already been warned for edit warring on related page and is currently being discussed at WP:ANI. I would expect justification for the use of this or similar image to be given here - and consensus on its value/lack of value to be reached -before further edits are made to add it back in. I am aware there is already a clear link to many Commons images on this topic in the See also section. That would seem to suffice for anyone seeking further material. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:36, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Nick Moyes, What is your basis for removing it? It appears to be a valid, animated image that has been on Commons for six years. Let me see if I can narrow the discussion to discrete questions:

• Do you object to the presence of this File on Commons? If so, then:
  • I'd be willing to hold off arguing for reinsertion of the image here, until you file an Afd at Commons, and attempt to get it deleted, and await the outcome.
  • Is the objection due to the fact that it is a moving image? Would you support a still taken from this animation, instead of the animation?
• If you don't support removing it from Commons, then exactly which article should use this image, if not this one?

By asking these questions, I'm trying to tease out exactly where your objection lies. Because so far, I don't understand. Also, I have to disagree with your first statement that it "[doesn't] add anything significant or encyclopaedic to the article". On the contrary, it shows exactly what the activity is, corresponding to the topic of the article. If a Martian anthropologist was reading the article trying to understand the topic, the image would be the best quick explanatory introduction to it, although probably having text would be needed, too. If you object because it is highly graphic and sexual, then I think a lot of people (including me) would agree with you that it certainly is that; but then, so is the sexual act of fingering, which is what this article is about; so it seems kind of appropriate to me that an accompanying image would have those characteristics as well. Can you give a policy- or guideline-based reason why you object to it? (Clarification: I am not the editor mentioned above. To date, I have zero edits to the article.) Mathglot (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's now rather a moot question because the editor has today been indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet, and was clearly out to cause a degree of mischief on a number of issues. See this ANI thread, raised there by Cullen328. And also the helpful comment by Flyer22 Reborn added at the end of the closed discussion at Talk:Masturbation#Masturbation pictures are being censored. But to answer your questions, Mathglot, I thought I made it clear in my edit summary what my basis for removing the sock's recently added image was, and why it should not be added back in. It would actually be for anyone wanting to re-add it to justify why it should go back in not the other way around. Does an image genuinely add to understanding, or enhance the encyclopaedic nature of the article in a way that the existing images and text used in an article does not? If the answer is 'no', then those additional images are simply superfluous, and that applies almost as equally to views of mountains as it does to views of genitals. We use a range of drawn images, rather like Alex Comfort's helpful handbooks did, because they aid understanding, give clarity and successfully communicate a topic in a way that is gentle and informative, and has the effect of following 'the principle of least astonishment'. So, the guideline I would point you to before anyone considered repeating the blocked editor's addition of earlier today would be WP:GRATUITOUS, and I also suggest you might like to read Flyer Reborn's observations. WP:ASTONISH, which is also relevant. And to quote from WP:OM: "...controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article.". In a similar, non-sex-related way, would readers expect to see a close up graphic of a person being shot through the head in a Wikipedia article about Murder? And what video clips or animated gifs should the encyclopaedia utilise at Rape? You see, it is that principle of least astonishment and the need to be both educational and encyclopaedic, whilst not being unduly graphic, or offensive to readers (just because we could be), that is the huge responsibility of all those great editors here who collaborate on topics of sex and sexuality. There are many prudes in the world (and I'm far from one of them, I can promise you!), but when it comes to getting the balance right here on Wikipedia, I believe a careful balance has to be struck so as to make serious content accessible to as wide a readership as possible, and as neutrally as possible. That's the responsibility all of us have.

But with respect to my own personal views about the image being on Commons: I'm quite happy to see it there, and have no problem with it being there. It seems there is no copyright issue. For those wishing to view it, and numerous other related images, they simply have to click the helpful Commons link at the bottom of the article to view the relevant Commons category and sub-categories. I think it is for the Commons community to apply their rules over there, not for me to dictate or suggest what should happen to it from over here. You asked the question "If you don't support removing it from Commons, then exactly which article should use this image, if not this one?", but that is a really odd thing to ask, as there are hundreds of images on Commons relating to individual Categories of topics (probably tens upon tens of thousands of unused images in total) and just because an image has been uploaded there doesn't mean it has to be deployed on Wikipedia. You would be very mistaken if you thought otherwise. Hoping this aids your understanding? Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)