Talk:Mammary intercourse/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Intercourse

I was just thinking, wouldn't this be called mammary outercourse because the penis does not actually enter any part of the woman? Not to mention, it is a form of outercourse. I'm probably wrong, but hey, an explination for this would be nice. Anyone?

I think so. Since "outercourse" is a form of "intercourse" ("outercourse" is a pun anyway -- the correct term would be "external intercourse" because "inter" does not imply whether it's an internal or external act), "mammary intercourse" is as valid, although maybe not as specific (but nobody would expect mammary intercourse to be practiced as an "internal" act somehow anyway, would they?). Ashmodai 12:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

No, you are confusing this set of prefixes. The opposite of "outer" is "intra," not "inter". "Inter" means "between" (between people in this case), so your suggestion is actually wrong. 165.123.140.215 00:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you just repeat what I said or am I misreading your post? -- Ashmodai 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

He/She is saying that hte article's title is referring to the fact that the act happens between two people, not the way it is done. OOZ662 06:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's what Ashmodai said, which was why it was questioned. Still, on this note, I have to wonder, would intracourse be masturbation then? Tyciol 01:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Slang

The slang usages taken together are more frequent in common speech than "mammary intercourse", but since there are so many of them that no one of them is sufficiently universal, I've moved this article to the more prosaic non-slang term. -- The Anome 12:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, however, the term is universally recognized in the states as "russian". I have no idea why. --Viriditas

I call it tit-fucking, and my girlfriend calls it Spanish fucking (first I'd heard that), and I've never personally heard it as "russian". I think any generalization here is dangerous. Kd5mdk 05:50, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to have this many slang terms? It doesn't seem that useful to have a list of terms from 20 different languages when this article is in English. Perhaps simply deleting them and saying, "many other cultures also have terms for this act." -- Beatdown

Agreed. Other language articles can list their own slang terms, so I don't see any reason to have them here. -- Ashmodai 20:28, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

In Spain it is called cubana. :) I wonder what the Cuban name is. --Error 04:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think is usufull to have the slang term in the english page as soon as the english version is taken in most of the cases as the "master one", about Spanish or cuban sex: Surprising this term across Europe receibe the name Spanish except in Spain. I that way in Spain is said that other countries ignore what is spanish love and they shortly know part of what was taked from Cuba. Acording the origin of the terms, can somebody explain which is soupose to be the place where to keep this info ??((20-05-2006))

I've never heard of it being called a "Russian," and I'm in the states. I have to admit, though, it's pretty funny just how many European countries relate it to Spain...--Hausman 19:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

In Great Britain and North America, there's a word for it "Dutch fuck" to mean the sex act originated from the Dutch or Belgians. I have my doubts on this one, but most countries treat this a Russian or Spanish thing. --207.200.116.198 01:56, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have lists of non-English slang terms in the English encyclopedia? I don't see how the Japanese term is of any relevance here. Ace of Sevens 21:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Commonness

Where is the study saying how common this is? I am removing it for NPOV. User:PhatJew

Female orgasm

Who says the woman can't have an orgasm during "mammary intercourse" or whatever you choose to call it? It's more than possible for a woman to climax as a result of stimulation of the breast and nipples.

Perhaps reword "the woman cannot achieve orgasm" to "the woman does not usually achieve orgasm"? -- 24.1.63.132 02:13, 9 Jul 2005

I've changed the note accordingly. --Ashmodai 01:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The woman does not "usually" achieve orgasm no matter what type of intercourse is taking place. --Smooth Henry 20:33, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

wrong. sorry you can't please your lovers, but you're wrong. - unsigned

Actually, I'm fairly certain he's right. Quick searches of the net, at least, back him up. There's a lot out there on how women should not feel like its their fault if they don't achieve orgasm, as for women on the whole, it's actually quite common not to.--Hausman 19:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, women can have four different types of orgasms in addition to having multiples. i, for one, have had 30 orgasms in a session before, and although i'm aware that's a bit unusual, i know of very few adult women who don't orgasm. Women enjoying sex is sort of central to the evolutionary process, not only because the muscle spasm helps the sperm reach the egg, but also because women enjoying sex is central to it happening a lot. --jess

I'm suddenly reminded of a friend of mine's running gag of the "Clonk'n'Drag" technique being popular in the early das of humanity; clonk 'em over the head, drag 'em back to the cave.--Hausman 19:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

hmmm... wonder if that was me! I've written heaps about the "technique" of Clonk'n'Drag. Mathmo 13:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Abbrasion

How abbrasive is mammary intercourse to the chest skin exactly? Judging from documentary material I've seen so far, lube tends to be commonly used (because there is no natural lubrication on the female side and the male lubrication is rarely bountiful enough to make up for that). I'd imagine not using any artificial lubrication would abbrade the male's skin as much as it would abbrade the female's -- and considering the affected area on the male is even more sensitive, I don't see how the mammary skin's abbreviation is particularily noteworthy. Also, when the male is the passive partner (analogous to a handjob; which is indeed more of a "tit wank" than a "tit fuck"), how is it degrading to the woman (considering she isn't "used" as a sex "object")? I'm not a specialist on feminism and related ideologies, but this doesn't seem any different from any other act of mutual masturbation. --Ashmodai 01:07, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

you can give a handjob without lube, thus of course you can easily tittie fuck without lube too. just is not quite the same, and you need to apply more thought to the amount of pressure which is being applied to create the friction Mathmo 13:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Without lube it's impossible to have a pleasant tit fuck. Absolutely impossible. My gf didn't experience any discomfort when we tried it without lube, but it didn't feel good for me (kinda like sandpaper, actually), and the head of my penis was too raw to continue after only a few minutes. I doubt I would've been able to climax even if we had continued.

My gf doesn't consider it degrading at all--I commented above about her nipples--maybe it's different when the woman can't/doesn't reach orgasm. I don't consider it to be masturbation at all, mainly because it ain't passive: with a good grip on her nipples I can thrust pretty vigorously without hurting her (sensitive nipples and all) or losing my grip. She's an active participant too, far moreso than with boring ol' missonary, where the woman might as well be a hole in the mattress.

"Documentary evidence"? Please--"mammary intercourse" is already a chickenshit euphemism, let's not hem and haw about watching porn too... -- 69.143.169.112 20:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

With "mutual masturbation" I was not referring to the classical "tit fuck" but the male-passive variant (I think examples of that can be seen in the sample videos of a porn site going by the lovely name "Tug Jobs"), which is indeed analogous to the classical hand job, just with breasts in it.

If abbrasion isn't an issue in the male-active, I don't think it should be mentioned as a pseudo-reason for mammary intercourse to be considered degrading. -- Ashmodai 07:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Abrasion is an issue without lube--it doesn't matter if it's male active or not. -- 69.143.169.112 12:43, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but you have to be masochistic in order to practice either variant without lube (at least if you intend to do so long enough for abbrasion to become an actual problem) and I'd wager that mammary skin (nipples excluded) isn't quite as sensitive as penile skin (glans included).

Lest you're giving a tit wank to the Man of Steel, I don't think the woman is the sole partner affected by the abbrasion, so it's a nonsense statement to say abbrasion would matter in the "degradingness" of the act (unlike, for example, anal sex, where you can get a sore ass even IF you use a lot of lube, or so the joke goes). -- Ashmodai 11:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Addendum: I think it might be less unpleasant for the male partner if he is uncircumcised (or "intact" for the language police), but saying it depends on the amount of foreskin is about as much of an argument as saying the strain for the female depends on the size of her breasts (as it is obviously easier to play that part if you are well endowed and the actual "pushing" and the resulting strain in the mammary tissue thus tend to be worse for those with less to push (considering it's difficult to create a "canyon" deep enough with a very juvenile chest).

I removed the nonsense argument from the article. Unless someone can come up with a decent explanation as to why the act is more abbrasive to the average female partner (which makes me wonder what the average (natural) female breast size is in the first place) than it is to the average male partner (which makes me wonder what the "foreskin situation" looks like with the average male in the first place, considering how uncommon it happens to be in Europe and Asia and how common it is in the US, Israel (I assume based on the fact it's very Judacentric if that's even a word) and most of the Islamic world), I don't think this should be put back. Ever. -- Ashmodai 11:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the Latin because it was incorrect. I don't see the point in putting the phrase into Latin, because I've never seen a Latin description of this sex act.BrianGCrawfordMA 23:29, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Cheney

The inclusion of Cheney/pearl necklace is bringing in politically motivated edits. Rather than blanket remove factual, cited, truthful content, please add to discussions here of this issue. Kickstart70 00:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

A request for semi-protection has been made. --Kickstart70 00:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Right so, I will put this page on the watch list and help to remove the political motivated irrelevant info. The usage of a single columnist does not warrant inclusion in Wikipedia, it has to be a solid usages among people. Untill it has solidly entered the slang culture, it is Non-notable and as such does not have part in wikipedia. --KimvdLinde 00:42, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. I didn't add that Cheney stuff; I just protected it from politically-motivated edits. At best I'd say that that particular piece of info belongs on the disk jockey's page, though even that's a stretch. Thanks. Kickstart70 03:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

You are welcome. --KimvdLinde 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Soap and hot water

For those of you who enjoy playing 6 degrees of separation, you may attempt to find out how I got from Asian Elephant to this article. But I digress. I was just wondering about this sentence, in the introduction:

"As long as the semen is cleaned using soap and hot water, it is a form of safer sex with a low risk of leading to pregnancy."

Now, I may be reading too much into this, but the above seems to imply that if semen is left on someone's lovelies, it might just be absorbed into the skin, pass through many layers of fat, muscle and tissue, and end up depositing itself in the vagina. Leading to pregnancy and all the horrors that follow.

I don't think I know anyone short enough to have trouble keeping semen away from their bajingo, when it's on their boobies.

I'm not joking, I'm honestly wondering what this sentence is trying to tell me. — riana_dzasta • t • c 14:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The sentence looks like it should be split in two...there is some risk of disease transmission with semen to any part of the body (Herpes Simplex 2, for one), but I don't think anyone thinks that the sperm can migrate and cause pregnancy. --Kickstart70-T-C 15:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure they don't. That part was a joke. :) — riana_dzasta • t • c 15:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, how *did* you get from Asian Elephant to this article? :) - Someone who doesn't really need an account

To answer his little "6 degrees of seperation" question :) :

Asian Elephant to Sexual Maturity to Breast to Mammary Intercourse. Wasn't that hard ;)

• • • Please don't be silly gooses. There's no risk of any transfer of anything as long as the skin is unbroken. HIV dies in less than 20 minutes of exposure to air. Besides Hep B or C is many thousands of times more likely to be in there. Give it a few minutes, and it all dies. Doesn't anybody know any medicine here or have a primary care doc? Magister Erik the Rude 05:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I went mammalia, mammary glands, breast, mammary intercourse... 72.9.6.64 23:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

i just typed in "mammary intercourse" - hehe 41.243.49.116 21:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Title

Isn't this a form f outercourse, and thus should be called mammary outercourse? 84.13.62.139 20:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Thsi has been discussed. outercourse is a slang term for certain forms of intercourse. it isn't really an accepted word. Ace of Sevens 04:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Forms of sexual interaction

The term might be used to describe efforts to induce fellatio. 15:56, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Slang terms, revisited

Slang terms notoriously vary people to people, can any of these be cited(other than the Hawaiian Muscle Fuck posted on some forum by: Anonymous on May 17, 2005 - 04:53 PM)? An encyclopedia is not the place for long lists of uncited terms. HighInBC 16:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I have removed a large block of uncited speculation. I would better serve wikipedia if citations were given for anything you wish to return. HighInBC 17:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Combining Pearl necklace & Mammary intercourse pages

I'm against combining the two pages. A pearl necklace can be given (& received) without the mammary intercourse taking place, surely. A pearl necklace can be the result, for example, of a fellatial ejaculation with the giver removing the penis from her mouth, for whatever reason, and finishing off the ejacualtion over her breasts and upper chest. Indeed, this can result in a more necklace-like appearance, as the penis can be moved around more freely than one squeezed between two breasts. The ejaculate can be more widely spread and be more like a necklace than a pendant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donkeebrain (talk • contribs)

I agree, two different subjects. HighInBC 14:55, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Two subjects, but we still need to find a different title for this article, I say. -- nae'blis 22:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, "pearl necklace" is a widely known term and easily recognised. Donkeebrain 16:00, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge, two separate subjects. PseudoAnon 08:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, they're different subjects. And both mammary intercourse and pearl necklace (I'm not sure which article "this" article refers to) are common, non-vulgar names for the articles.--Prosfilaes 08:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose, totally different things 82.25.23.173 21:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- two different things Hayford Peirce 21:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Image

Why is the woman looking at the viewer? Has this been drawn from a pron pic?--Light current 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's likely, or drawn as a pron pic... I wonder if the original is copyrighted... @_@ 惑乱 分からん 15:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It's called porn not pron. user:24.203.182.6

Please see (GeekSpeak). "Pr0n" is a deliberately inaccurate spelling/pronunciation for porn. Also, please sign your posts. Atom 20:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

My P.O.V.

Weather I know a lot on this subject or not it is not the case right now, but I will try to add my own two cents about it. As far as I know, Titty fuck (Or Mammary intercourse) is just another form for a man to bust a nut. A simple task but takes quite a bit of time depending on the size of the woman's breasts; however, as for the woman reaching an orgasm, I doubt that is possible but then again, what would I know of a woman's bodily function. More importantly, I see this whole Mammary Intercourse just as a new means for a guy to get off. Kind of like the woman jerking him off (Excuse me language) but only with her breasts rather than her hands. --Zhang Liao 07:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

OK... 惑乱 分からん 21:34, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As this can stimulate the nipples, your argument would be better to move to an article about that subject, if orgasm can result from nipple stimulation. Tyciol 01:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

good grief, are you trying to tell me a woman won't enjoy this?! for sure some won't, just like i suspect there are a few who also don't like chocolate! lol however plenty enjoy this too, because just like how i can like it when i see the woman is enjoying herself then likewise the same is true for her in how she would take pleasure from seeing the other partner. likewise nipple stimulation is easily obtained during a tittie fuck, which is highly pleasurable or even orgasmic. why be surprised about this? some lucky women can bring themselves to orgasm through mere thought! Mathmo 13:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I've talked to a number of women about the subject; some rather enjoy the act, whether it's because of the sensitivity of the breasts, or, as a friend of mine bluntly put it, "having a cock thrusting in my face." Other women have expressed interest in it, even if it doesn't get them off. Other women have absolutely no interest in it.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.67.100.125 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC).

Oral sex mention

I've mentioned this. Due to the viscinity to the mouth, and that I've seen it combined in much pornography, it makes sense to include it. Anyone care to argue against it, like saying it is impossible or something? Tyciol 01:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

it is possible if you are trying for that, feels great Mathmo

current drawing is terrible, this needs a well taken photo

the current image is shockingly bad, the garish colours and style of it is not at all ideal. plus all drawings even well done ones do lack a certain realism that even a basic photo would contain. what is really needed for this article is a good photo to illustrate this. Mathmo 13:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. See discussions above. - I've cropped out the face of the woman who was giving an obvious pronagraphic look to the camera, making this a bit more clinical. --Monotonehell 09:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

weirdly enough that does slightly improve the picture, because it removes part of the worst drawn section of the picture. still would be better of with an accurate photo Mathmo ^Talk 19:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, unless you and your Kutie want to get together and produce a non-copyrighted photograph, we're probably going to have to live with the drawing.... Hayford Peirce 20:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

probably.... Mathmo ^Talk 05:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion? alternate image

Well, that's certainly *different*! Is it any better? I dunno. In any case, what is the exact copyright status of it? That's the key element here, and the reason there is no photograph. Hayford Peirce 18:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Promotional 68.110.17.92 00:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

What's this mean?! Hayford Peirce 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

slang terms are essential,is the most common way this will be found by searching

after looking back through the history i see slang terms are no longer here, this seems a crazy move to have not included them. after all a person is a zillion million more times to use a slang term to search for than "mammary intercourse"! lol "mammary intercourse" sounds like something you would hear in a biology lesson. anyway, as such i'll be adding back in a suitably recent version of them Mathmo 14:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

• You aren't clear on the concept here. First of all, there is no reason at all to include dozens of foreign-language versions of this activity. If you look up "baseball", for instance, is there a long list of names for baseball in other languages? This is the Eng. lang. encycl. NOT the Wikipedia World Dictionary and Translation Service. Furthermore, even if all the slang words were in English, it is not necessary to list them all here. If, let's say, in New Zealand, the most common phrase for "mammary intercourse" is "Gloria's Delight", then it might be appropriate for you to create an article called Gloria's Delight -- where you would then, as its only text, put in a "redirect" to "mammary intercourse". And if you felt that there were 7 or 8 other English slang terms that a browser might type in, then you could make separate articles and redirects for each of them. That way, if someone typed in the Search area: Barbara's bosom, which might be a common term in Tonga, then he would come to "Mammary Intercourse" Hayford Peirce 20:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

heh, you make a couple of good points which I'll coincide. originally planned to merely include slang, and as such i simply copied the last version of it not thinking too carefully about how it was an international version. and the other point of using redirecting i'll do, iff i loose a few tonnes worth of inertia... Anyway, as I made the point above for the need for common usage terms so i've greatly improved the addition this time to the article Mathmo 11:20, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

audio transcript

I made a transcript of this article, but someone removed it for no apparent reason. I can make a better one if it isn't acceptable. :/ File:Mammary Intercourse.ogg sea sponges 07:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

The image was fine -- it's the audio thingee that is questionable. What is it? When I clicked on it it didn't work. Hayford Peirce 16:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

It's an audio transcript, not an audio thingee. It's an ogg file, which may not work on your system, but is the standard way to handle audio in Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes 16:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Different positions?

Much as there are a number of positions from which vaginal intercourse can take place (which is well documented in the wiki article on it), there are many positions from which tit-fucking can be performed. The female can be standing, sitting, laying down, etc., while the male may do much more than the typical thrusting motions, including rubbing the head against the nipples. None of this is documented in this particular entry, and I feel if you're going to offer any relevant information on this particular sex act, then a description of different positions should be added.

True, so please help out and add this material. Remember to include references. --Strait 01:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

References? Are there really references for this kind of thing, other than porn sites? You won't find very much written about the subject.

Image Caption

Judging by the semen, wouldn't that image be more accurately captioned "A couple just after engaging in mammary intercourse."? :-p —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.27.54 (talk) 02:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Edited Image

I edited the image to make it less pornographic in nature. I made it black and white and edited out the semen. Thoughts? Whiskyrye (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so, since I first changed the image its been changed back to the original and then removed completely without any explanation. What gives? Whiskyrye (talk) 12:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

While I wasn't bothered by the old picture, this version is more tasteful. Perhaps toning down the image will reduce the constant vandalism. Kingadrock (talk) 09:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was my original thought when I changed it. So far nobody's made any complaints about the new image but it still keeps getting reverted. If any of you have a problem with the black and white one please at least post about it here instead of just auto-reverting. Whiskyrye (talk) 09:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

See discussion below, at #Vote to remove pornographic image. Among users favoring inclusion of an image, the color version seems strongly preferred. I believe users are objecting to the B&W image for the same reason you seem to prefer it: it's not as clear a depiction. I'd personally prefer a better image, altogether, but for the time being the color version seems to convey more information to the reader. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My Thoughts

I love the entire article/entry. I think there should be some more photographs, maybe some black&white photographs of real people practicing this sex act.  ;) More real photos! ;)

Wikipedia prides itself on being something the whole community can access for free. Anyone who is comfortable with grade school kids or younger having access to this image with a few clicks is either incredibly selfish or does not think there should be any boundries with children. It is not Censorship to set up self imposed boundries of displaying images. It is not the same as the state saying you can watch or not watch this. If people want to see pornographic images there are outlets for this all over the internet as we all know but to demand we need this kind of image on wikipiedia while small kids on there computers looking up information can be exposed to it is just amazingly selfish and people could not be more confused to think on a private volunteer site that it is some kind of first amendment issue. Do whats right and remove it if you want to see that kind of image and your adult its not that difficult to find elsewhere. 76.221.200.173 (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Kids need to be able to read able to read about tit-fucking without being exposed to satanic prono images!

I think WP:NOTCENSORED might be worth looking at. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 11:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not make such a photo urself —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.94.59 (talk) 11:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Interracial?

Why does 'interracial' always mean black man and a white woman? Why not the other way around? Why not other ethnicities? Seems just like the 'racial equality' aspect of the picture is for porn-related/based purposes then actual racial equality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.128.80.75 (talk) 03:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• It doesn't always mean that.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 13:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image removal

A note on the unnecessary image here: multiple editors have removed it now, including Jimmy Wales, where he called it a "useless image". Wikipedia is built on consensus and reverting this repeatedly just makes it more likely it will never be accepted. So, if you have a dire need to have that image in the article, then explain here exactly why you think so (before putting it back). --Kickstart70-T-C 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The image illustrates the subject of the article, in effect explaining the idea more quickly than any combination of words is likely to. The style is not to my personal taste but I don't see anything particularly wrong with it. Why do you want it removed? Haukur 21:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the first to remove it in any case, but really it's an unnecessary image. The topic itself is not a complex thing, and is easily explained in very few words. No need to add it, just for the sake of adding it. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:05, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, it isn't absolutely necessary to understand the topic but it's certainly helpful to that end. There must be something more here since very few of the images in Wikipedia meet the requirement of being necessary. Do you object to all unnecessary images? Or all unnecessary images depicting sexual acts? Or all unnecessary images depicting nudity? Could you give an example of a necessary image on these topics? Haukur 14:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I concur. I see no reason to remove the image. —Nightstallion (?) 12:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody I know calls a breast a mammary. The image helps convey the subject of the article. -- Longhair 12:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you know anyone who doesn't know what a mammary is? --Kickstart70-T-C 00:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup, many non-native english speakers for example.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As for the original question, i would like to see a nice illustrative image, but I personally do not think this is a nice one. The primary message I get from is is a sexual one, lust is maybe even a better word to say it with, not an illustrative one, how do you do it.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

As it seems that more people are in favour of including the image than against, I've put it in again until we arrive at some kind of consensus. —Nightstallion (?) 15:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Are those pictures really necessary? The diagram might be justifiable...but the photo?

I agree - one illustration is enough. Wikipedia may not be censored but it's also not a porn site. Picture temporarily removed, but maybe it should be used in place? Even though it's a photo instead of a drawing, it might be more appropriate, or at least look better. I've included both side by side here to see if a consensus can be reached on which one to use -- Mike Straw 11:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:mamint.png Image:Tfing.jpg

I really doubt that that photo is actually freely licenced and taken as described in the image description page. Haukur 11:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. This is the only contribution this user has made to Wikipedia. Not exactly a situation where we can just accept his word that this is his girlfriend. For what it's worth, a drawing or a photo is somewhat acceptable, in my opinion. However, that's just my opinion and I'm much more willing to trust the choice of the founder of the whole project on what is and is not acceptable here. I'd rather not get this to a point where we need dispute resolution, but this should have more editor's input before we can call this concensus. --Kickstart70-T-C 16:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we use the photo. The drawing seems less no nonsense in reality. I am willing to accept that the user who added the photo took it himself -- it is very amateurish. Quepasahombre 00:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The use of illustrations is to explain the page, not to add unnecessary complication. We don't need the woman's face, or any background parts currently included in that photo. I'm not completely against a photo, but that one serves no good purpose. --Kickstart70-T-C 00:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, if you don;t understand the text, first you likely wouldnb't understand the pic; if your language is not english, there are plenty of interwiki links here to help. If a pic must be used (I can think of no reason beyond shock value), I agree with Kim that the drawing is not particularly appropriate; the photo very much cropped would be better (cropped enough that it doesn't look as if the male is choking the woman, which the phgoto certainly implies)Bridesmill 03:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there are only six inter-wiki links; not too many, relatively speaking.Dave Runger^(t)⁄_(c) 10:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that we have a better illustration, can the original one either be deleted or overwritten with the new version? That would prevent people from having to revert everytime someone decides to switch it back. --Mike Straw 00:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I have added the image Image:titty.jpg. It is silly to have an article depicting a sexual position only to give and post a PC image. It is what it is.

-Wolverine-101

The current image Image:titty.jpg actually depicts the act correctly, but a) the point of view of the image and b) the general impression given by the image make me feel it would be better REMOVED and replaced by an illustration / drawing that is not pornographic at the start. -- BGL

Remove both. The text is enough. Meeeeep 08:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just restored the drawing. The article needs an illustration and this is a very good one, (especially as someone has restored the woman's face making, her human rather than just a body part). No doubt some people will find the illustration offensive, but then some people seem to find human sexuality offensive. In a world where AIDS and ignorance work as a team, good clear information about sex and sexual health is really needed. --Simon Speed 11:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual health and well-being through an understanding of mammary intercourse? I fear that my laughing exposes me as misguided. I am obviously missing the point here that an understanding of mammary intercourse is essential to a healthy, functioning society, and that an illustration thereof is key to this. Meeeeep 12:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sexual health is made up of 2 things, a fulfilling sex life and an avoidance of disease. To get these 2 things you need safe sex. Safe sex isn't just using condoms (or saying you usually use condoms, but..): there's a range of non-penetrative fun things to do with your partner. Don't die of ignorance! --Simon Speed 13:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I wonder if this picture is really used to show what "Mammary intercourse" is... or to serve as an interracial agenda? If the later, I see why it's been replaced so much. Since this site is becoming so dirty... Maybe someone can make the picture so the man is white and the woman is black, then the cum will show more... --Saintrotter 1 March 2007

The image has to be a prank. I can't imagine anyone seriously thinking this adds to the article.
by Wild Mountain Thyme 05:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have made it racialy neatral and removed some of the 'dirty, tarty and whore-like' stuff from it to. See-article page.--Bobie Alice Flinker 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

So what about the black picture?

Problems with the drawing

1. Cum. All over her chest and face. This is in no way related to the topic, and makes it vastly more pornographic than needed.
2. Eyes. She is looking into the camera. This is another hallmark of porn.
3. Masculine traits on the girl. Yes, I'm thinking she-male when I see that picture.

Really, that drawing looks like a bad joke to me. I think it should be removed until there is a more classy one availiable. Black & white would be preferable, adds to neutrality.

Eyes have been cropped, the article talks about cumming and get over the Masculine traits its all in your head. Seth slackware 16:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

The only reason this picture keeps persisiting is because someone put some effort into creating it and doesn't want that effort to go to waste. Other people support him/her because they're too emotionally attached to the image and can't view it from the perspective of someone who has never seen this page and is not heavily involved in the "wiki" scene. Gregiscool14 04:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that the picture could do with being replaced by something better as it is "cartoonish". There is no consensus as to what "better" would be and no obvious alternative. The picture is there because it clearly illustrates the article. I doubt if many people have an emotional attachment to the picture though some of us do feel very strongly that access to safe sex information is a right and that an encyclopedia should not be censored. --Simon Speed 11:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It keeps persisting because in part because some of us don't think that pictures of sexual acts should be deleted off hand, and it seems like most of the people deleting it throw around words like "pornographic" and "obscene". --Prosfilaes 01:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

the pic does not help the reader learn about mammar inter course at all. the picture is clearly a cartoon porno and deserves to be removed Mother Niggle (talk) 16:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous image and should be removed. First, there is nothing about titty-fucking that requires an image. Second, this image is purely pornographic. I personally think porn is a great thing, but not on Wikipedia. The images should be placed for the purposes of knowledge, and this just doesn't meet that standard. 19:55 10 November 2008

I'm Back again!!

Whoever wrote about the different position for Mamary Intercourse, they are right; however, as for finding out where to look for the addition information, just look under porn sites like Pink World Porn or type it in under Google.

Anyways, more to my point, I will do some research on this subject to find out if a woman could have a orgasm about it, but if someone else has done it then I will keep my mouth shut about it. Other than that, I do believe that a woman can have a orgasm from this or become stimulated by this from constant performance. --Zhang Liao 22:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Dare to dream. Nina Odell 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you on drugs, or do you just need an excuse to look at porn sites? I wonder, if Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp offered to do this act, how many admiring female fans would enjoy it? I'll leave this question unanswered. Meeeeep 08:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually... while rare, orgasm from breast stimulation alone was documented in the Kinsey Reports. Kingadrock 00:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

About time we admit that most of his "research" wasn't. Masters & Johnson, maybe, but Kinsey was a pervert who desired to conform others to his way of thinking. Renaissongsman (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

That is nothing I will "admit" to. Whether or not Kinsey was a "pervert" is purely subjective opinion, and is completely irrelevant in regard to the validity of of his research. It takes more than a mere ad hominem attack to claim his research was false. Kingadrock (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And since I've done more reading; Masters and Johnson recorded it as well. Kingadrock 20:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Zhang here. I just now reread over my wording and want to say, "I'm sorry. I fucked up!" I will try to be more careful about what I say in the near future. Adios--Zhang Liao 05:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Images

This article needs more. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk • contribs).

Actually, I think one image is enough for this type of article. However, someone added two more images to the article, but they were deemed unencyclopedic, so they were reverted. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 07:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete it, it's evil and she's been turned in to a African yet again! The pictur's tripe!--Nikki Fagin 07:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So what, why fuss about a black image? --Sontosaintrotterm 11:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below and follow the wikilinks. Please also read Wikipedia:Content disclaimer.Ronbo76 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So what about the black image?--Sontosaintrotterm 12:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I thought I had been apparent. But, it stays. Ronbo76 12:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, unless a better image can be found, my opinion is based upon my experience as a Recent Changes Patrol editor. However, if you like, I can request a third opinion which should come from a neutral editor. Ronbo76 12:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

look I thought we where keeping the image, it keeps going away Seth slackware 17:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Gentle reminder - this is a talkpage for improvement - not a chat forum and that Wikipedia is not censored

Please keep your comments directed towards improving this article. Do not edit any one's comments but your own. Be WP:CIVIL and keep the conversation on track. Please remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Ronbo76 11:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

So, what about the black picture?--Sontosaintrotterm 11:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please follow the link in the above paragraph. Articles like this one, porno, sex, etc. can/will/might have material/pictures/content etc. that other users may find objectionable. Here is another direct link to Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Obvious shock value or inappropriate will be dealt with. If you find the image disturbing or content disturbing, then please do not visit this or other articles with similar content. Ronbo76 12:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please this discussion. The picture is used for illustrative reasons. Ronbo76 20:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia may not be censored but I sure hope it has good taste. For example, I don't want to go to the pornography page and see pictures of explicit material that I really don't wish to see. Medical diagrams are okay but hardcore pornography is not. The picture in question is pornography and is not in good taste. Some people are just too attached to this image. Gregiscool14 04:50, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What "not censored" does NOT mean

The oft-cited Wikipedia is not censored page does not compel us to include anything that might be illegal in the United States or Florida. It does not compel us to include anything at all if we don't want to include it. It is simply a notice to readers that there is no central authority at Wikipedia that checks every edit before it goes live. Johntex\^talk 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The statement that Wikipedia is user created tells readers that there is no central authority at Wikipedia that checks every edit before it goes live. The statement that Wikipedia is not censored tells us that users cannot justify edits based on the fact that the subject offends them or that they don't want to include it because they don't want to. In fact, the fact that we are not censored means you need a reason not to include anything someone has added and that "I don't like this" is not a good reason. - 24.23.37.62 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck?

Are these pictures with the salmon colored clown penis and the creepy old woman standard issue for wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.184.187.76 (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Common usage terms

I don't object tot the existence of this section. People seem to have a lot of fun adding to it. Unfortunately soem people seem to have fun making up entries to add to the list. I've removed one obvious fake but personally I recognise only a couple more of the others. Any chance of some references? (Or deletions!) I'll stick a dispute tag on the section. --Simon Speed 18:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree on this. A teenaged editor promptly reverted my attempt to delete it and slapped me with a vandalism warning. Nice, huh? Joie de Vivre 20:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed "references"

These aren't actually referenced in the article:

• Masters, William H. and Johnson, Virginia E. (1966). Human Sexual Response. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. ISBN 0-316-54987-8.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Viz (2005). Roger's Profanisaurus Rex: the Ultimate Swearing Dictionary. Viz. ISBN 0-7522-2812-9.

-- Joie de Vivre 21:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Whoever built this article probably meant them as sources. Sources and references can co-exist in the cited manner. Please stop trying to dismantle this article. Ronbo76 21:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The first ref here seems to be a set of lecture notes from a biology class, fails wp:v as far as I can see. The bit about the male nervous system is pretty obvious, we don't have information explaining the biology behind sexual arousal and orgasm in any article about a sex position, so why here? Joie de Vivre 19:19, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The female breasts are sensitive to stimulation. In this case, while form of sex is being performed, the male parasympathetic nervous system receives stimulation causing "erection, orgasm, and ejaculation.

They come from a Doctor who teaches at that college. They meet WP:ATT as she is an expert in that field. Please replace. Ronbo76 19:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

But they shouldn't even be there. Look at any of the other articles on sex positions. None of them have the biology of arousal and orgasm explained on those pages. What differentiates mammary intercourse as requiring this? Joie de Vivre 19:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Simple. The article was getting beaten up because it had no sources. Mammary intercourse occurs on two levels - the male and female. Both have different perspectives from arousal to completion of the act. The citations help clarify this and give editors a basis for reverting unsourced edit(s).Ronbo76 19:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made a case for including information on the biology of arousal and orgasm in this article only, and not in every other article describing a sex act. Joie de Vivre 19:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that semen can create a "pearl necklace" in any sex act involving fellatio to orgasm. It's not specific to mammary intercourse. I've put pearl necklace under "See also". Joie de Vivre 19:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

And, that involves original research on your part. Ronbo76 19:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So are the sentences about the semen landing zones. Joie de Vivre 19:48, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not original research to delete unsourced info. Joie de Vivre 23:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree with all the deletions. This is the reason for reverts --Morenooso 23:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You are being a bully. "I disagree" is not a reason. I clearly stated my case for removing some of the info, you reverted without comment. Joie de Vivre 23:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

As I explained on your talkpage, I did review the comments here. I did use assume good faith. Your usage of a term to describe me goes contra WP:NPA. --Morenooso 23:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You gave no explanation for reverting. I think it is very bully-like to sweep in, revert, and walk away without saying anything. If someone did that to an edit of yours, I think you would not like it. Joie de Vivre 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Though some of the deletions can be debated, surely the physiology of the male orgasm is quite irrelevant on this particluar page. And how come this page rouses such passions ( in the editors :-) ).--Simon Speed 23:35, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This page gets a lot of vandal hits as most topics on this subject. As for the act itself, it can be debated that both partners enjoy what is referenced here. --Morenooso 23:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Vasocongestion which is linked to Sexual arousal. The Masters and Johnson source probably best sources this entire article. --Morenooso 23:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Outercourse redirects to Non-penetrative sex. --Morenooso 23:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

So? Joie de Vivre 23:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Unverifiable reference

This was used as a reference for the sentence "The female breasts are sensitive to stimulation.". One problem is that this is a set of lecture notes, with no name on it (as I already said). The other problem is that the reference says nothing about the breasts being sensitive to stimulation. All it says about breasts is: "breast (sic) enlarge and nipples erect as result of vasocongestion", in the context of female sexual arousal. It says nothing about mammary intercourse, breast stimulation or anything of that nature. Joie de Vivre 23:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

I think at least 50 percent of the worlds population could tell you if breasts are sensitive or not. Anyone who is a girl would have a good chance of knowing and anyone who has a girlfriend, chances are they would know too. I'm not sure if this needs to be verified or not, just think about the girls you have been with or if you are a girl yourself, then well, you know. Just touch them, see if they are sensitive or not. I don't think a dispute over this fact is necessary at all JayKeaton 08:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

That would be original research. If the knowledge is as common and accepted as you say, there surely must be plenty of reliable sources. Neitherday 19:18, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a real reference on this, but I don't remember where. Specifically, as part of the onset of menarche, nipple sensitivity is increased. It was probably from a personal testimony, but so is most of the Kinsey Insitute's research. 69.104.89.179 03:21, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Title, Picture and "tit wank"

Is mammary intercourse limited to those with mammary glands? Can a transexual have mammary intercourse? Or a woman who has had a mastectomy on both breasts? Do bags of silicon/saline count as mammaries? I think the title is questionable, especially as the picture seems to depict a transexual. Also, I really doubt that anyone says "darling, would you like to partake in a brief session of mammary intercourse". Surely "Can I get a titty wank?" would be more commonly used, which leads me onto my last point, I reckon "titty wank" is more common than "tit wank". -- unsigned on 14:22, 19 April 2007 by Howboutpete (talk · contribs)

Good point, not everyone has all natural mammeries. Although it is a funny word all the same JayKeaton 04:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First, the term "mammary intercourse" is not derived from the term "mammary gland". "Mammary" in both terms means "of or relating to the breasts", therefore "mammary glands" are glands of the breast and "mammary intercourse" is intercourse relating to the breasts.

Second, male to female transsexuals have mammary glands, just as all male and female humans do unless they are removed (male mammary glands are simply not fully developed). Also note that mammary glands are not typically removed in breast enlargement surgery. Neitherday 20:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The picture for this article sucks royal balls. The person being titty-fucked looks like a tranny, and the semen is totally unnecessary. Bueller 007 12:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

That's true. I didn't even notice the semen. Ejaculation isn't part of the definition of titty-fucking. So what definition is it? What word means "ejaculation during titty-fucking". We already have the picture to illustrate that page, and now I'm just curious. How have I gone my whole life without knowing what the word for it is? 69.104.89.179 03:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Censorship

The illustration has been listed for deletion in spite of being on 2 pages. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#Image:Mamintb.PNG. We need to preserve safe sex information on the Wikipedia. --Simon Speed 12:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia not Pornopedia

This is Wikipedia not Pornopedia. I propose that the image be deleted as the article is sufficient.

There is no need for an image.

This is not a question of censorship but of good taste.--87.243.196.167 09:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Illustrations are good to have.--Prosfilaes 13:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

And WP is not supposed to make judgements as to taste, just impartially document the world. Aaron Lawrence 10:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The Hawaiian Muscle Fuck

That term needs to be added back, most people on the street know it and use the term! --Seth slackware 02:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

If you want to add it back, give a reference. Kingadrock 19:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Blows My Mind

Only in the USA would a topic so insignificant and unimportant be given so much attention. Seems your efforts would be better put to use elsewhere, like trying to fix our government, environment or truly racist issues. This is a silly discussion. --Sangandongo 09:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Only in the USA? There's no way for anyone to tell where a logged-in reader is posting from, and at least one of the IPs that posted here posted from Britain.--Prosfilaes 13:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

lets keep talk to stuff about the page Sangandongo --Seth slackware 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

How much Slang?

So butterfly is left to stay? I mean what are we doing with slang? Maybe limited it to a few? Seth slackware 02:13, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I removed "butterfly". "Titty fuck" gets used so much it's non-controversial, but of the other terms, some are probably made-up as a bit of fun or used maybe among a small group. We need references. --Simon Speed 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay sounds good --Seth slackware 21:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bring the image back

Why is it gone?! Seth slackware 14:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Because some random visitor to Wikipedia got offended. It was removed by an anonymous IP, I just rolled it back. If you see it missing, just do a revert. --Jaysweet 16:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I added it back Seth slackware 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

See the discussion at the top of this page. Andrew_pmk | Talk 22:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Semi protect

I semi protected it for awhile, to many IPs taking out the image Seth slackware 15:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Can we get a protection back on this page? It's getting a little old to be having all these random IPs (which I assume are the same person, considering their close proximity) removing it every five minutes. OkamiItto 02:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

crap image

terrible, awful, pornographic image which should be removed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.17.222 (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to provide your own free image for inclusion in the article? ^anemone|_projectors 21:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The combination of the clinical language of the title "mammary intercourse" (rather than "titty fuck") and the pornographic-style of the graphic art seems semantically contradictory to me. Seriously, I came to this page two clicks out of a serious article about religion and homosexuality. I landed at this page and started getting aroused. Mostly because of the art. If you want to match the title, then you should use something more in the style of medical illustration, or kama-sutra type illustration (good examples would be the oral sex wiki entry). Why does this matter? Well, the image is not (IMHO) necessary, many people seem to feel it's at least slightly pornographic (and it is... it's a money shot), and it's not work/library safe. Presumably we *do* want kids and others learning about this topic without their having to feel that it's so tied to a porn mentality?

On an unrelated note, I've heard the act called "Russian" in the US (mostly in a sex-work context I think: french=oral; russian=breasts; etc). It also seems to go along with the Mexican and Puerto Rican synonyms (listed on the talk page) as well which refer to "Rusa", so perhaps you could add "Russian" to the synonyms?--Ajasen (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The subject is not work-safe, and Wikipedia is explicitly not censored to be work-safe. It'd be lovely to have a new illustration, but so far no one with the ability to create one has offered. (And I got to say, I find that picture the opposite of arousing.)

As for Russian, everything we do should in theory be cited, and getting cites on the slang names could help cut down on the list, especially the ones that are most ephemeral.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Removed common usage section

Here it is:

There is no one commonly accepted name for this act. Slang terms include:

• Australia: "Titty-fuck"
• Brazil: "Espanhola"
• United Kingdom: "tit wank", "French wank", "diddy ride" or "bunny rub"
• United States: "breastjob", "titjob", "jug/tit/titty-fucking", "titty-banging," "boob sex"
• Japan: "paizuri"
• México: "La Chaqueta Rusa"
• Persian: "Pestan gaeedan"
• Puerto Rico: "La Paja Rusa"
• Romanian: "i-o trage la ṭâṭe"
• French: "Crosse-Teton", "Branlette Espagnole", "Crosse Mexicaine"
• Italian: "Spagnola"
• Polish: "Masaż Hiszpański"
• Ελληνικά: "Βυζομαλακία" , "ισπανικό"
• Germany: "Tittenfick", "Mamalverkehr"
• Spain: "Cubana"

I remember a cartoon in Playboy: a customer at a garage says "Thanks, miss, but I asked for a lube job." —Tamfang (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Image removle

Hello I know this image has been disscused about. But that image is clear pornogrphy. And I do not want this image here it is useless. Are we trying demonstrat sex? So please if you do vote below Please vote delete.--Hardcore Hak (talk) 13:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A vote has already taken place. Kingadrock (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Holy shit, what a terrible image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.189.207.206 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you know of a better, free image that can be used, please feel free to let us know! -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vote to remove pornographic image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Can we have a vote on this? It seems that hundreds of users have removed the picture, yet their edits are reverted time and time again. I believe if asked a simple, "Keep or Remove," the removes would win overwhemingly. --Tocino 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hundreds of IPs have removed the image, and these are usually the same people with fluctuating IP addresses. If it came to vote, then there would be a large majority who voted for Keep, as other sexually based articles (oral sex, anal sex, to name a couple) have similarly pornographic imagery. I am sure most users would be willing to replace it with another image, perhaps in a more illustrative style (such as the ones on doggy style and missionary position) - but until such an image is created, there is no reason to remove the current image, except to cater to the conservative sensibilities of some of the more prudish members of the Wikipedia. And, needless to say, Wikipedia is not censored. - OkamiItto (talk) 09:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the result would favor the keeps, because I believe common sense will prevail. Also you say that it's the same people who remove, well it looks like it's the same few people who revert too. This page is about to be archived, so I'll start a vote after New Year's. --Tocino 18:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Common sense? Sense has nothing to do with it; whether or not we keep that image is primarily an aesthetic decision. Mammary intercourse has frequently been semi-protected, so obviously there are admins who agree that the actions of the anonymous editors was vandalism. I don't know why you think this page will be archived soon; there's no regular archiving on most talk pages, including I believe this one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

It all depends on whose vote is counted. I'm sure there will be plenty of votes for censorship from anonymous one-off IPs, the sort that are used to censor/vandalise the Wikipedia sexuality articles all the time. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Remove - I have no problem with there being images here, even very demonstrative ones, if only they're in somewhat good taste. I think the current illustration is flat out stupid looking and really questionable as to whether it adds anything worthwhile to the article. by Wild Mountain Thyme (talk) 10:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Remove While I agree that there should be an image, and many other articles have similar images, this one should be removed. I think the main difference between this image and say the one on Oral sex is that oral sex is detected in an artistic manner (and yes I am referring to Image:Fellatio 22.JPG), where as this article's image looks pornographic. There is a big difference in the style and design. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the color image. Wikipedia isn't censored, and there's nothing wrong with the image. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Y Keep x2 . Color Image. The Rypcord. 13:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep; I'd like to see a better image, but this will do until then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the color image for now (& I have reverted this). I would like to see it replaced by a better image if one becomes available. The monochrome version is just harder to follow, you could get an even stronger effect by darkening or lightening or adding noise of some sort. Any good image will clearly show the subject of the article. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the colour image for now - I would prefer for it to be replaced with a better image, but this image is better than none at the moment. OkamiItto (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the monochrome image. I personally am not offended by the color image and I agree that Wikipedia is not censored. But the constant vandalism to the color image has been going on for some time and is unlikely to stop. Vandalism will likely reduce with a less explicit picture.Kingadrock (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any evidence that the monochrome image will stop the vandalism.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

YEAH FOR REAL THE IMAGE LOOKS LIKE SHIT!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.254.11.140 (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep the color image; this isn't a kiddie corner, sexuality textbooks have long ago realized images can be useful for understanding and discussion. There's a strong possibility we could get a better image in the future, but until one comes along, this seems to be it. Vandalism can be dealt with via semi-protection as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So, does this settle the matter now? Or do we have to keep this open longer? OkamiItto (talk) 06:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well 3 removes (including my own vote) and 7 keeps. I'd say its settled, keep the image. Until there there is a better image - we keep what we got. And that means color'd version. I'll add an HTML note on the page, not that it will discourage IP vandalism when the semi-prot wears out. --ShakataGaNai (talk) 08:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove the color image, keep the black and white one. And I don't buy the arguments that the black and white image is harder to follow. Its a fucking penis wedged between two breasts. There's nothing to 'follow'. Its not exactly a detailed anatomy diagram. Rumcoke (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Vote is over, Comrade. We're sticking with the colour one until someone makes a better one, preferably in line with the other articles in this field. OkamiItto (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the vote was mainly for removing or keeping an image, not color vs b&w. That being said, I am NOT calling for a revote; despite my previous support for the b&w image. The color stays for now.Kingadrock (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Keep, we are not censored. And the use of "pornographic" in the title of this vote is leading. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Well come on, mammary intercourse is a pretty awkward title, no? I mean, who calls it that, am I right? So here's my proposal. We should merge the following:

• Mammary intercourse
• Facial (sex act)
• Pearl necklace (sexuality)
• Bukkake

under the article title of "External Ejaculation" (with proper redirecting from all relevant slang terms, of course.)

What do you think, both about the proposed merges and the name of the unifying article? Thanks for your input. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 23:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It may be a bit awkward, but it would be the proper clinical name, and I'm sure there are plenty of articles (tit wank, etc) which link here. I feel there's enough information to make content forking reasonable, so don't see any real need to merge. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Proper, clinical name? Well, I've never seen the term mammary intercourse anywhere but here, and from sites who have derived their information from Wikipedia. Is it really a clinical term? Besides, mammary intercourse is merely a type of Non-penetrative_sex and, I would argue, is not worthy of an article unto itself. The slang terms that link here are irrelevant. DeeKenn (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It is two paragraphs long. This will never become GA on its own. The goal of merging is to have enough information that we can make something out of it. By merging all these together, we give the stub & start class articles a chance to actually develop into a Good Article, which they wouldn't have alone. Don't worry; ALL information will be retained in the merge and that includes edit history. clicketyclick_yaketyyak 01:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What about merging facial, bukkake, and pearl necklace together? Merging the ejaculation-targeting sex acts would make the most sense. It could be argued that the so-called "mammary intercourse" could culminate with ejaculation onto any part of the female's body. Also, is it "mammary intercourse" if ejaculation doesn't follow?

On an aside, as I see no mention of it in the article, if this act is pleasurable to the supine partner, do lesbians perform this act with the use of a strap-on? If so, shouldn't this be mentioned? Why is it only represented as a male-female act? DeeKenn (talk) 15:21, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Because there are no women on the internet to tell us. Apparently. -mattbuck (Talk) 17:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this article should be merged with a bunch defined around an external male orgasm. It need not even lead to orgasm and may be a form of foreplay prior to intercourse. As it's going to stay quite short in the foreseeable future, how about a merge with Oral stimulation of nipples and some new material into a new Breast play article dealing with the various forms of breast focused sex play. --Simon Speed (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

That certainly sounds reasonable to me. DeeKenn (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge them ALL together. Merge Cum shot, Mammary intercourse, Pearl necklace (sexuality), and Bukkake together. But keep Facial (sex act) as its own separate article. The others are specific/pornorgraphic/group sex acts that should be merged together. Facial (sex act) is its own separate thing. Rustdiamonds (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't merge -- opposed to merege. If anything would be merged, it would be pearl necklace and cum shot or facial. Bukkake is not related, not is mammary sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 00:01, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the preceding two comments. -88.82.44.253 (talk) 14:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Merging this article with the other articles listed does not make sense. Cum shot, Pearl necklace (sexuality), Bukkake, Facial (sex act) are all ejaculation oriented. Mammary intercourse does not necessarily involve ejaculation. While I see an argument for merging the rest, I say do NOT merge Mammary intercourse. Kingadrock (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

crap image

Come on, you can find something a lot better. Or no image at all rather than that junk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.116.10.169 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Then provide us with a better image. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The woman in the current illustration looks like a guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.80.164 (talk) 03:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed?

Citation needed for the claim that sometimes mammary intercourse is combined with fellatio? I'm not internationally known, but I can vouch for one couple that combines the practices. =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.251.93 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Addition of Australian slang term

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add the following to the existing text:

Several slang terms refer to mammary intercourse, such as titfuck or titty fuck in the United States, as well as tit wank or French fuck in the United Kingdom. In Australia the act of mammary intercourse is often referred to as "hotdogging", that is to "hotdog" a woman.

Not done:. Source please. —Ms2ger (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate

Is this article Appropriate for wikipedia?Spudinator 13:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, very. AIDS deaths in South Africa alone are now well over 800 a day. The disease continues to spread in all societies. Safe sex information is probably the most important that a popular encyclopedia can provide. Especially for groups of people who are being "protected" from getting the information from other sources. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored, Spudinator. This is a relevant topic, and so it is therefore appropriate. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:04, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, my narrow-minded brain didn't think of those reasons. You guys are right.Spudinator 19:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spudinator (talk • contribs)

Drop semi-protect?

I believe it is about time to try dropping semi-protection. The old image which was the main target of vandalism is now gone, replaced with a new (and far better IMO) drawing. Kingadrock (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the improved quality of the image. However the vast majority of constructive edits on the sexuality articles revert vandalism of one sort or another. These include deletions and silliness, but extend to libelous comments about (presumably) fellow school students: these may be playful in intention, but may be deeply hurtful to the victim. Any protection these pages can get is useful. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I know that sexuality articles are prone to vandalism. But not all sexuality articles are protected. This article was locked due to constant daily vandalism, the vast majority of which dealt with the previous image. But with this new (better) image, the vandalism might not start up again. Pearl necklace doesn't have much vandalism, despite not having protection and having this very same drawing! Why not try opening the article? The worst that can happen it be re-protected again. Kingadrock (talk) 08:08, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I say drop the protection, though this goes against my own personal feelings. I disagree with whole anonymous editing process. And in my short experience on Wikipedia, the bulk of IP edits are vandalism. And the ones that aren't vandalism are reverts of vandalism. But actual addition of meaningful content by an IP? I'm sure it exists, I just haven't seen it. But... this isn't my project. So, in the spirit of the project, I say ditch the semi-protect (even though I would leave it be).--SeedFeeder (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Paizuri links to this page

It's the Japanese term for this. But my only references to such are the fact that it links to page, and that it is described as thus in those same porn sites. Reference help please! Bulmabriefs144 (talk) 12:27, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The Japanese term keeps being added within the scope of the Suzi Godson reference which doesn't discuss it. Editors seem keen to add translations into various languages and doubtful bits of slang (for this article like no other), but simple translations just aren't notable. If a reliable reference could be found saying something about this practice in Japan we'd all welcome the addition to the article. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:20, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The information required to legitimately list paizuri as a Japanese slang term is already present on the page, but it seems that every pathetic, ignorant, self-important idiot that comes on here can't take a minute or two to take a look and realize this, and keep resorting to vandalism by removing accurate information because such painfully simple concepts are so far above their level of comprehension that they couldn't understand that they're wrong even when presented with blatantly obvious facts. Blutteufel (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What is your source? Please answer without hyperbole or insults. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the insults. Source please? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a search in google books and added two sources to the article. I advice all the people in this discussion that, when one of their edits contested, that they make a search in books.google.com or scholar.google.com, because many times you easily find a couple of good sources and solve the problem. (It even has an entry in How to Curse in Twenty Languages Travel Edition, lol). I previously couldn't find it because I was searching the "paizuru" spelling. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It has been noted in the past that editors (in good faith} keep adding slang terms for this and a few other sex acts. These can be useful, but if added without references do include a lot of non-notable local slang from small groups (school, regiment etc.). To this gets added a bunch of fanciful terms which editors have a lot of fun making up. In addition we have simple translations of the words into different languages which are simply not relevant to the article: ethnographic stuff about the act in various cultures very much is though. I think the paizuri term is relevant, as that page redirects here and I've been able to add a little more sociocultural info from your source (thanks!). But the fact(?) that some countries say "Russsian fuck" doesn't add anything encyclopedic. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Decisions

I don't know what's worse.. the cartoon image depicting mammary intercourse, or the fact that I can actually listen to this article. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 11:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to come onto the discussions page to see if any one else mentioned the audio. You can tell that the person who recorded the page did so just becuse it is funny.

i came on the discussion page for the exact same reasons! the audio is absurd! it just makes this whole entry seem like a joke. if it really is an important article because it teaches safe sex then that jokey audio should be removed. Also I think it is bad enough that teenagers get unrealistic expectations about breast size and ejaculation amount from all the porn on the internet without an encyclopaedia presenting massive tits and a huge white load of sperm as a neutral example of what to expect from sex! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickca1 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is unencyclopedic to have someone reading a sex article and snickering at some of the words. This recording, at least, should be removed. Edison (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced the old audio file with one I recorded myself. Feedback would be most welcome, as would feedback for the other article I have recorded, Elizabeth Needham. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)