Talk:Fisting/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Delete?

Why don't we just remove filth like this from the internet?! It's disgusting! ---68.103.24.102 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Wikipedia is not censored. Sorry. -- MST☆R ^{(Chat Me!)} 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Image RfC 2.0

Which version of the article image set is better The current version as of 03:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC+8) or the version as of 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC+8)? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

How is a 2nd vaginal Pic a substitute for an anal Pic? They are completely different. what good is two vaginal pics? CTJF83 07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The version as of 1800 has only ONE vaginal pic. The drawing is removed in that version. Please click before you judge thanks! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Version without drawings - As nom Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: The outcome of the recent RFC was to keep the image until an acceptable one, and that means an image that is acceptable by consensus, is found. Playing around and against that RFC outcome by removing/replacing images just so the image in question is no longer present is disruptive just like starting a new RFC as if the previous one doesn't exist or is outdated. Those who want the image replaced should spend more time outside WP searching for a feasible replacement instead of trying to force a change by editwarring or this bogus RFC that ignores the previous one.TMCk (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
• photos: graphics is more abstract and solves no problems. Hope I'll never receive the third request on this topic. &mdas; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
• Current Revision - less graphic, more educational/illustrative (as it has both anal and vaginal). The CGI "wiki-fisting" is also more inline with pornographic images on the rest of Wikipedia (which are all in a similar style, or line-drawn with a pen occasionally), and adds a level of professionalism/polish that is absent when using only live photographs: isn't there something in the MOS about it? St John Chrysostom ^view/_my bias 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
• Can I pick none of the above? I actually don't mind the series of SVGs and line drawings for wiki sexual articles, if only because the photographs are generally of such low quality. The one under contention here is a particularly bad example. Bad composition, bad focus, crap lighting, model has ingrown hairs galore from his shaving - it is not a credit to this encyclopedia. Yes yes wiki is not censored and neither should it be, but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to bait the god botherers and homophobes, fun though it is (vaguely related side note: the only other wiki presently using the anal fisting photo is the Persian language Wikipedia - lol) -Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
• The current version is better than the 14 February version as per TMCk above, but what is really needed is better photos for both anal and vaginal fisting. What we have now isn't good, but it's the best we can do for now. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

If they're that bad (and they are), then they shouldn't be used at all. You wouldn't put an overexposed, blurry picture of a diseased, mangy, three-legged dog with his tail cropped out of the frame as the picture for some article on an obscure breed of dog, even if none other were available. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually we would if there was consensus that having the picture added encylopaedically to the article. In this case, the first RfC explicitly concluded that having the current pictures does add value to the article and that they should be used until something better is available. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

What about this?

Someone should mention shoulder-deep anal fisting and all the info about it.72.82.180.111 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Image double standard

Why is it that the image of a woman engaging in fisting is an illustration, and the male image is a photo? Could this be a double standard? Should we introduce an illustration to replace the photo for the male, if only for the sake of consistency, and to eliminate any double standards? Cr@$h3d@t@^{t@1k t0 m3} 09:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not double standard they are simply the best pictures of each act currently available and having one as a photo is greatly illustrative of the topic. There are more pictures at the commons and you may seek further graphics depicting fisting to meet your educational needs there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Why did you indent so much? And I don't have any issue with the current images other than one is a drawing and the other is a photo, which in my view, at first glance at least appears to be a double standard. I really don't want to scour the commons to find images of fisting though.... Eww. I just was wondering when I found this page to beginning. Cr@$h3d@t@^{t@1k t0 m3} 22:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why there are only photos of women. Seems like men are squeamish. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Michaelangelo's "Last Judgement"

I deleted the first picture of Michaelangelo's Last Judgement because it is a wrong interpratation of the fresco in the church. As you can see in the original image (at the bottom on the right) that hand is not inside the uppper body.

Picture removed from article: (do not repost please) http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Michelangelo_-_Punishment_of_sodomy.png

Original photo of the fresco: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Lastjudgement.jpg (Hi-Res) Please see original image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.82.208 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, if it's not inside, where is the hand going? It looks to me as if it is fisting. 64.27.9.197 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it to me, too. However, It is inappropriate to post the image in this article, because it would be a corruption of the work: The author intends to show punishment for sin, not to depict sin. It was not intended by the author to be an illustration of what is described by this article. -- Newagelink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC).

otoh, michaelangelo's dead, so who cares what he'd want? re-added as it quite clearly illustrates anal-fisting, and is probably the only non-(c) image we'll find.

also: lol at the idea that the punishment for sodomy is anal fisting :D --Dak (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

As Newagelink noted, the image repeatedly reported here (most recently by Dak) is not from the work by Michelangelo -- in the original image (referenced by 88.64.82.208 above), the hand is not inserted; the wrist and curled knuckles are clearly visible. Also, this article is about sexual activity, implicitly between consenting adults. The (altered) image is about punishment and is therefore inappropriate for this article. HalJor (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

well, one man's pleasure is another man's pain... does it really matter what michaelangelo originally meant? are we worried about disrespecting mich' by misusing his work, or about the implication that anal fisting is teh evilz? either way, it's an image that depicts anal fisting, the image inandof itself depicts anal fisting in a relatively neutral way, and it's probably the only open-source image depicting anal fisting that we'll find.

gonna talk about it here rather than edit warring, but please explain exactly why we can't use this free (as in source) image to illustrate the article? --Dak (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

well, if you don't want to talk about it: image re-inserted, as it's a free, public-domain illustration of the subject of the article. (c) expires for a reason, and that's so that we can make use of peoples' work however we want (eventually): what Michaelangelo may or may not have wanted, and wether or not it's been modified, are both irrelivent. --Dak (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Dak, HalJor's points were that A) this is not by Michelangelo -- I don't know, so I won't comment -- and B) it is unprofessional and not befitting an encyclopedia because the context of the image contradicts the context of the article. My point in discussing "what the author intended" was about context: You can't take, for example, the murder of a war prisoner who happens to be black and insert it in an article about racism. "Well it's a picture of a black guy getting killed so we can stick it in about racism" is basically your argument. The image we're discussing does not depict fisting for sexual pleasure, which this article discusses. I am frustrated by your stubbornness; you seem to want the image included simply from its vulgarity, ignoring (or hopefully not understanding) the points that have been made. If you persist, I'll be forced to assume you're trolling. Furthermore, read very carefully http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/What_wp_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored -- I quote: "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, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." The image does not make the article more informative, and actually makes it less relevant (contradicting context) and accurate (not anatomically correct). You have absolutely no ground to stand on for including this image. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newagelink (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that the image is illustrative, then it's ommision DOES make the article less informative, unless you can find a suitable replacement. And if you check the article The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo) you'll find that, OBVIOUSLY ENOUGH, sodomy is not, in actual fact, being portrayed as the punishment for sodomy -- rather, sins and virtues are both being portrayed. Weather Michaleangelo thought that anal fisting was a sin is irrelevent -- the image portrays anal fisting for sexual pleasure.

(as an aside, in the abscence of any actual imagry of racism, i'd consider a black guy being lynched in a non-racist way to be better than nothing, although obviously some actual racism would be better. I have actually looked for CC pictures of fisting, but can find none).

i'm going to put the picture back in. If you disagree, I suggest one of those 'request for commentry' thingumyjoggers to get some other peoples' opinions --Dak (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Know what, the original provided here does not illustrate what the article is illustrating. If a corruption is needed to illustrate it then obviously it cannot be attributed to the original source. But why does there need to be any illustartion at all? The article is illustrative enough and it doesn't require much imagination to see a hand inserted into an anus or vagina. Using no censorship to include a vulgar image isn't reason enough if it doesn't add to the article's usefulness. Even if these conditions are satisfied there is still an issue with copyright. Public domain only applies to the original work so if someone makes substantial changes to a derivitive it may be regarded as their own ip without affecting the status of the original. Biofase ^flame| stalk  22:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

1. How can you claim that an illustration of fisting does not illustrate the article on fisting?
2. why do you persist in calling it a corruption, when Michaelangelo was representing the sexual act of fisting in that part of the murial?
3. if you think that an image of fisting is so vulgar, then why your interest in the (presumably also vulgar) article on the same subject?

• and, as for not 'needing' an illustration, the WP:MOS suggests starting articles with a lead-image or infobox (presumably as it makes the article look better, and is more... umm... 'illustrative' of the subject matter).

--Dak (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Re 1: This is not an illustration of fisting any more than a photo of rape is an illustration of sexual intercourse. Fisting, in the context of this article, is a mutually consensual sexual act. In the disputed illustration, it is an act of punishment (as you have noted yourself) and as such, the recipient is not consenting.

Re 2: It is a corruption, because Michelangelo did not depict the hand actually being inserted into the anus. As I stated above, the wrist is clearly visible in Michelangelo's work; in the disputed illustration, it is not. (Don't believe me? Download the original here, zoom in near center-right, and play with the brightness/contrast if you have to.) Any reference to what Michelangelo intended in this disputed illustration is completely moot.

Re 3: It is not that the image is vulgar. It is merely inappropriate for this article because for the reasons stated in Re 1 above.

Re 4: We are not debating whether this article needs an illustration. It just needs to be an appropriate selection. The claim that the disputed illustration is "probably the only non-(c) image we'll find" is completely false. There is nothing preventing you, or anyone, from producing your own illustration and releasing it to the community. HalJor (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

re 1: as i said, if you check the wp article on the picture, you'll find that it depicts the act of sodomy, not the punishment for sodomy (seriously, the punishment for sodomy isn't going to be more sodomy, is it?). it's fair to assume, then, that the act depicts consensual sodomy, tho, according to you (and i'd agree), "any reference to what Michelangelo intended is completely moot". It appears to be fisting. ergo, it is. claims as to consent or otherwize IN REGUARDS TO A PAINTING are somewhat irrelevent, barring it clearly being one or the other (which it isn't). it just depicts sodomy (neither clearly rape, nor clearly consensual); Michaelangelo probably intended it to be consensual, as he's depicting kinky perversions in that part of the painting (not punishments).

re2: It is not modified (other than the colour drained), tho i do agree on closer inspection that the fist is not in the anus (in either the original or the image in the article... looking closely, you can see the curled fingers in both images). however, it does look like it is attempted, mid, or pre-fisting (or possibly anal fingering), and at a glance the fingers aren't notisable so it just looks like fisting).

re4: ok, then here's my suggestion:

• we leave the image in, on the grounds that it's better than nothing and it's the only picture that is (copyright-wize) acceptable for inclusion that has been presented, but acknowledge that it's no where near 100% satisfactory
• if a better, usable image turns up, we replace the image with that one.
• No, I am not going to make said image... if it bugs you so much, why don't you? (tho, for the record, i searched flickr for creative-commons fisting pics, but alas, there were none...).

An alternative, as the image is in the public domain, is that one of us could modify it to appear more like fisting, release our modifications into the public domain, declair that our derived work depicts consensual sodomy, upload it as 'sodomy (modified from public-domain work by Michaelangelo)', and use that for the article?

--Dak (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

1\ You noted that the image depicts punishment, which is inherently non-consensual, and therefore not appropriate for an article on consensual sex. There is no context for the picture.

2\ The fact that color is drained means it has been modified. And since the fist is not inserted, it cannot be assumed that it ever would be.

Finally, the image is not "better than nothing" because it does not depict the act being described in the article.

Re-inserting the image to solicit comments isn't going to work either, because it leaves the article in an inferior state while discussion happens. Incidentally, you are the only person in this entire discussion who has suggested leaving the picture in -- while two other editors (besides myself) have asked you to not re-insert it. HalJor (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of things that are bothering me about this.

Where is this depicted in the original painting? I have been reviewing it for over half an hour and i cannot find it. Surely since noöne else contests this matter it must be visible somewhere.

UPDATE - i finally found it in the original image. Due to the flesh tones it is clear there that it is a curled hand. In the derivative the lack of colour as well as the low resolution result in the curled hand appearing to be the scrotum of the other man. Genital areas were covered in the painting save for those depicted as entirely in the realm of sin at the bottom. As such the derivative is misleading. jh0367 (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that is has the colour removed and has been isolated from the rest of the original image i would argue that it is a derivative and as such you should be citing the artist who made the derivative as well as /or/ instead of the original painter in both the source and the licensing rights . As such it may not be in the public domain and thus NOT available for use in Wikipedida.

Use of a derivative of a religious painting modified so as to extol the virtues of anal fisting distorts the context of the image and of the article. I don't have personal objections to anal fisting but i was quite surprised to see a Renaissance-era-looking image appear in the article. To even imply that the Sistine Chapel has a depiction of such a sex act when it is not true does not belong in an encyclopædia.

The argument has been stated numerous times that there is no better image available. I would like to advise of two options to resolve that. The first is to have a drawing made, much like most other articles of this genre have in their infoboxes. [1] The other alternative is to create an image/photograph and release it with a CC license, upload it and replace the contested image that is presently being used. [2] I would recommend the former as it would fall in line with the style of similar articles. jh0367 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is the image is attributed to Michaelangelo which just is not true. It's no more true than if you took someone off the street (which is what this is), had them draw a copy of the Mona Lisa with a beard, and then post under it, "The bearded lady, as depicted by da Vinci." It's fine to say it's a depiction of "fisting"; but it's not fine to say it's Michaelangelo's depiction of fisting. Which it is clearly not. The original picture shows the hand outside the person's body, the write and fist clearly visible. The sketch obviously does not show that; but the sketch is NOT by Michaelangelo. Mefanch (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit war reported. HalJor (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If the Sixtine Chapel has an image of a guy putting a fist up some other's guy ass, then I would expect that some source would comment on this fact. Either a sexuality book explaining the sexual ideas at that time or the history of fisting, or a religious book explaining what sort of punishment it was and why it was depicted like that, or even a popular culture book listing curiosities in art. The pictures on the chapel have been very studied, so there should be some source talking about that one. Then, we can use their assesment of the significance of the picture. Without any source, and with so many doubts about the actual action, I wouldn't use that picture at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We will never know if the apparent act is intended. Mich was a practicing gay and is well know for leaving various symbolic messages in his works. 1. The original position of David has his finger pointing in an accusative way at Rome. 2. Creation of Adam shows an outline of the human brain dissected. The message is that God is entirely in mans' mind. 3. Fisting. Perhaps a private joke. One thing completely absent from Mich's work are Cherubs. We can be sure that he wasn't a child molester.220.244.84.234 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Sissy in schoolgirl uniform gets anally fisted.jpg up for deletion

Noting that File:Sissy in schoolgirl uniform gets anally fisted.jpg, which was removed by Largefoot (talk · contribs) (seen here, where the removal was reverted) and by Paulinho28 (seen here, where the removal was reverted) is up for deletion here by one of the editors who watches the Fisting article. So that's three editors clearly objecting to the image, and two clearly wanting it to remain. I'm indifferent on the matter; well, mostly indifferent. By that, I mean that, as was noted on Largefoot's user talk page, it's not a good image for the subject by displaying the man in a schoolgirl uniform, but it's the only image of anal fisting freely available to Wikipedia. It should be cropped to only show the anal fisting, and the title of the image should then be changed to better reflect the imagery; I'm sure that the title of the image (the inclusion of the term sissy) is one of the things that has bugged some editors about the image, though I am not offended by the title. Like the aforementioned linked deletion discussion shows, the image was also up for deletion earlier this year. Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This debate has been stagnant for some time, so I have cropped the image as you suggested. I also renamed it. I can't see a better solution than this unless an entirely new image is put forward.

--Sub12 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like an improvement to me. I support it as completely in line with the RfC consensus. Alsee (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, much improved. Thank you. And for documentation on this talk page, here is the new version of the image that we are referring to. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Accessible by Minors

Firstly, I appeal to the human behind posting the articles and images not the author hiding behind the technical policies and codes on this matter, I'm sure this has been debated and discussed and could be done elsewhere but im doing what i can here and now where i can. This is important. It is not to anyone's significant disadvantage to resolve this issue, but to a majorities advantage, and I ask that you take a closer look at your moral compasses and regardless of what is allowed on Wikipedia by their standards or not, I ask that you would "just do what is right" and don't be a rock in everyone's shoe. Just because you technically can do something it does not mean its right or that you should do it. Again, this is important, perhaps more than you can entirely realize. With far reaching negative effects and consequences.

Secondly, Images for sexuality information on Wikipedia is not necessary. A description is enough. Cartoon pictures do not make it any less inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a How-to manual it is an Encyclopedia. The indecent pictures to these pages could not possibly have been put up by a serious responsible minded researcher and author. Along side information content, Wikipedia should stand for equal access opportunity and consideration for the whole community of users.

Minors could access this and or be exposed to it by other minors and it would constitute carnal knowledge. Whether its allowed or not, you are the one responsible for allowing that to be possible to happen. Think of the children. Everyone should be considered, the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be created for our children, everyone's children and all the future generations of children for educational purposes first and foremost for the education of our young learning minds, who do not need to be exposed to this material in graphical form.

I cant believe I have to be even trying to fight against this. Whoever put these sexuality pages up is inconsiderate for starters but to put up the images and to defend themselves for it is really inconsiderate, irresponsible and inappropriate. I first cam across these sexuality articles with sexually explicit images a few months ago, here today I cannot believe they are still here, I would have thought moderators in the Wikipedia community would have more decency and better discernment than to have it still displayed as it is.

I'm sure most people, most of the intelligent, honest, self respecting, considerate and responsible people out there, would all agree that the user that has put these pictures along the articles, has not done so in a purely innocent manner or an entirely scientific purpose either, surely they have had a laugh about it, it a big joke to them and everyone else is just a winger, just too straight, just selfish and want it removed because they have silly personal problems about it, I think the person that has the selfish personal interests problem is the author themselves. This information is useful but should be in a better location, not on Wikipedia, you could make a great website with all your content, but for the love of children and all humanity, even straight and conservative people, please not on Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, we could value your information contribution but your persistence in showing images approved only by a minority is selfish and not appreciated.

I think the person behind all these sexuality articles should use a more suitable outlet for their content, Wikipedia is not the place for explicit sexual content, I think they should go and make a website elsewhere on the internet where adult users can go and access this kind of information for themselves if they need it, it simply shouldn't be provided in a place where youth should also be respected users and have safe access to Wikipedia content, these articles could lead to Wikipedia not being allowed to be used in classrooms and schools and other places by youth otherwise it could.

Children should be able to learn about sexuality, but within reasonable limits and certain moderation and discretion should and could be exercised. It is not a majority of humans that engage in such activities, and it shouldn't be depicted and given as an impression that these kinds of sexual things are so normal and widely accepted that they can be completely publicly viewed, publicly shown and displayed. Furthermore, showing these images unnecessarily may give false impression that these kinds of things are just purely objective, that sexual acts are less than private, and desensitizes or demoralizes the personal and sacred side to human sexuality. This content is not universal and is not the norm and is not commonly accepted.

Children should have access to Wikipedia's wealth of information, I don't want my children seeing these images on Wikipedia that were put up by some irresponsible adult or pervert or both. Such content is damaging to young minds! and can do unrepairable damage their young developing phsyces and development. If people want to learn about this sort of thing they should find it elsewhere, Wikipedia should give innocent non explicit brief descriptions on these subjects if anything at all, but leave the excessively detailed descriptions and the pornographic adult only content out of it!

To the user that has put images to these sexuality articles; "Please remove all the images" To the Wikipedia community; "Please do what you can to help remove this adult only content" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.47.195 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

When I was growing up the government said that it was wrong to "promote the teaching [...] of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" which sounds uncannily like "it shouldn't be depicted and given as an impression that these kinds of sexual things are so normal and widely accepted". So for me personally I just can't accept an argument like "Such content is damaging to young minds!" without seeing some evidence. --holizz (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Heres some evidence of the harmful effects of such content on young minds: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/real-healing/201208/overexposed-and-under-prepared-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content , and, http://www.news.com.au/world/lancashire-boy-13-raped-sister-8-after-watching-porn-on-xbox/story-fndir2ev-1226819517939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.47.195 (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

See that link near the top of the page, where it says "Wikipedia is not censored."? Read that. It would have saved you a lot of typing. If you still feel like typing more, you could try debating the actual policy over there (instead of this one page out of many you would find similarly disturbing) before you make more revisions that would likely be reverted accordingly. HalJor (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for photos to be removed

Hello, I came across this article via Gawker.com. I found the photos in the article to be totally unsuitable for younger audiences, X-Rated images, and they are basically pornography! Therefore the photos should be removed without questioning and are absolutely not appropriate to be on Wikipedia which is a public website!Polloloco51 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and removed the two images. Wikipedia is a public educational website accessed by all ages, and isn't a pornographic website.Polloloco51 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, and the images are encyclopedic. We also elaborate on this on Wikipedia's content warning, and you can have your browser mask images on Wikipedia, but the article will not be censored just because you don't like the article. Tutelary (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is accessed by people of all ages. Removing the clearly pornographic images is not censorship but rather keeping Wikipedia a healthy educational encyclopedic website. People from 8 years old to 100 can access this article. Unless a warning can be placed prior to someone accessing the article and the pornographic images, the images should be pulled until then.Polloloco51 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not the matter of liking the images or not, that is irrelevant! The images are pornographic, X-rated and are not appropriate for an encyclopedic website that is accessed by all ages!Polloloco51 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me. 'Removing the clearly pornographic images' is clearly censorship by the definition of censorship redacting things just because you dislike it. You clearly don't like the images in the article and as such, based on your own personal disgust of these images, and not for any encyclopedic reason, you removed them. That's acting based on personal views rather than anything else. Again, if you'd actually look at the context that the images are used, they are used in a manner to visually demonstrate fisting. Also, no warnings in articles are allowed per WP:SPOILER. The content disclaimer can be found at WP:CODI. Tutelary (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The images add nothing to learning about "fisting". Again, it is not the matter of liking the images or not, that's totally irrelevant period. The images are what they are. They are pornographic, X-Rated, and extremely inappropriate for younger audiences who may especially accidentally come across the article accidentally. The best way to visually demonstrate "fisting", is perhaps illustrated pictures rather than photos taken by god knows who, during sexual intercourse.Polloloco51 (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Polloloco51. WP:Not censored, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS factor into this matter. I am aware of the Gawker article you are referring to; and like I stated in that interview, comments such as yours are common on these matters -- that readers and editors typically have less of a problem with drawings, paintings or computer-generated imagery of a sex act than they have with real-life images of a sex act. That's clearly why you left in the Seedfeeder image, but removed the other images, which was reverted. If, per WP:GRATUITOUS, there were an "equally suitable alternative," less offensive depiction of each of the images you removed (meaning a drawing, painting or computer-generated imagery), we could remove the images (that you object to) based on Wikipedia reasoning. However, there currently are no "equally suitable alternative," less offensive depictions of the images you removed. And, as you know, Seedfeeder, as far as we know, no longer edits Wikipedia (he also no longer has his Wikipedia email access up); so no Wikipedia editor can put in a request to him to draw images for Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Polloloco51. I realise you have strong feelings about this but these images simply demonstrate the activity which is the subject of this article and as such they have encyclopaedic value. If we removed these images "for the children", we'd very soon have people asking for the entire article to be deleted (actually that's already happened - scroll up), and then where would it end? --holizz (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In addition to what the others have said above, this is not really the best place for this debate. Removing images from a single article on the grounds of being pornographic is pretty much pointless, since policy is well established on this issue and your edits will simply be reverted. If you feel that this debate needs to be had (and you should be aware that that debate and its many variations have been had several times already), then somewhere like the Village pump would be a more appropriate place to bring it up. – RobinHood70 ^talk 15:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Polloloco51. You didn't think these images belonged here, you made a Good Faith edit trying to improve the article. Okay. But now five editors in a row are all politely but firmly telling you that our policy Wikipedia:Not censored applies here. As an editor you're part of the community, you're invited to show up and get an equal voice whenever we create or change the rules, but arguing against Policy on article talk pages doesn't work. The editing community has discussed this sort of image issue deeply. We have established rules for how we handle this. The community has decided we are not going to try to sort out what is or isn't pornography. The community has decided that it is not an improvement to remove an image simply because someone says it is pornography, even if they are 100% correct. The community has considered that children sometimes use Wikipedia, but I remind you that children also use Google. As much as it may worry you that a child might find this article, this article is far better and far more informative than what that child will find by typing fisting into Google. The community has decided that articles about cars will be illustrated with images of cars, and articles about fisting will be illustrated with images of fisting. The discussion on this page is not should we have images of fisting, the discussion is which of the available images best illustrate fisting. The only rule that is kinda-sorta helpful for what you want is: if we have two equally good fisting images then we go with the less offensive one. If you'd like to propose alternative images then I'd be happy to consider whether they are more informative and better illustrate this topic.

A final note to make it clear just how strongly we apply WP:Not Censored. We have sexual-related articles illustrated with videos. I am not going to name any, because telling you not to delete them would violate WP:Beans. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"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. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject―the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive." I don't see how this article needs the two photographs. I can't see them as anything other than their submitters getting their jollies by exhibitionism rather than genuine contribution to the subject matter. The illustration is the "least astonishing"; the two photos do nothing to enhance understanding of the subject matter but only perhaps gratify whoever submitted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.156.163 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If this were an article about the anus or the fist, then those images would be inappropriate and astonishing. This image is about fisting, however, so I don't find it terribly astonishing that we have images of the act. The fact that they're real images rather than illustrations serves to reinforce that this isn't some hypothetical sexual practice that nobody actually does. As to why the submitters chose to upload them, we can only speculate, but I don't see it as any different than any of the other images of real-life genitalia used in other articles. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 02:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal section too UK focused; Needs U.S. legal info

The legal section lacks any info on U.S. obscenity law as regarding fisting depictions in porn films. For many decades, since the Supreme Court handed down the Miller decision, California and other states routinely prosecuted or threatened prosecution for depictions of fisting (anal or vaginal). As a result, most producers of porn avoided depictions of fisting during that time. In 1999, Seymore Butts (real name: Adam Glasser), the famous porn producer/director/star, made a porn video known as "Tampa Tushy Fest part 1", which featured vaginal fisting. Then Deputy L.A. city attorney Deborah Sanchezdecided to file charges of obscenity against him over the video due to inclusion of fisting in it. She argued that the video was filled with scenes that depict sexuality in "a patently offensive way." Mr. Glasser decided fight the charge in court, as he felt he could successfully demonstrate to the jury that fisting could not in this day and age be viewed patently offensive. Part of his argument rested on that fact that in 1999 fisting was common enough in gay and lesbian sex and was also growing in popularity among heterosexual couples. He was going to show several books legally sold in bookstore at the time that explained how to practice vaginal and anal fisting to demonstrate that it was no longer just some rare deviant practice anymore. Shortly before the trial was set to begin, he agreed to a settlement with the Los Angeles city attorney's office. In the teerms of the settlement he plead guilty to a public nuisance charge and paid a $1000 fine to a victims restitution fund. He also agreed to offer an edited version of "Tampa Tushy Fest, Part 1" for California buyers but was also free to sell the unedited version in California without fear of future obscenity charges." (source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/casetowatch.html ) Since his victory, a number of other porn films with fisting in them have been produced by various porn studios and fisting porn has also become easy to access on the internet. The above link provides a good starting point for adding info about fisting related obscenity prosecutions in the U.S. but the article should include info on fisting in porn's legal status prior to 1999 and afterwards in the U.S. If I come across any further info then maybe I will write up a short paragraph or two on the legal situation of fisting in porn in the U.S. but I'm putting this out there for other to tackle too if they wish. --Cab88 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

History

There doesn't appear to be anything in the referenced sources indicating that fisting was invented by gay men, with gay women following their example. The source talks mainly about the genesis of the 'fisting scene' at the Catacombs, and how it was initially only open to gay men. It does not state or imply that fisting was invented at that time, only that it was 'popularized' and a subculture formed around it.

I can find at least one source that states "...fisting has been practiced in China and India for thousands of years." (The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women, Taormino, T. ISBN 9781573440288 https://books.google.com/books?id=wE4gAQAAIAAJ )

Regardless of the claim that fisting is "...perhaps the only sexual practice invented this century." (emphasis mine) it seems absurd to make claims about the "invention" of any sexual practice that isn't dependent on modern technology. It would be more accurate to describe the history of the fisting subculture, and any earliest-known depictions or references to it. --Fievel Fisticuffs (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanx for the info Fievel Fisticuffs. Note that you are invited to be Bold and directly edit articles if you see anything else to improve in the future. That's how we all started. Alsee (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict ]: As you can see with this edit, Alsee addressed your concerns. But I'm not comfortable with removing the "It was 'invented' by gay men, then adopted by women following the gay men's example" aspect since the existence of fisting is usually credited to gay male culture, and the History section's sources are largely about gay male culture. I'm not stating that we should keep that exact line, but I think we should be clear that fisting is considered to have originated in gay male culture. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Alsee (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see this edit by you until after I tried to make this edit and got a WP:Edit conflict note. The way I have it worded is with respect to WP:Due weight. A number of sources believe that fisting is a relatively new sexual practice, and usually attribute (or imply that) its initial existence is due to gay male culture. I'm not seeing other sources that state that "the practice dates back thousands of years." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Changed again here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)