Talk:Taint (slang)

Worksafe?

todo: is it customary on WP to note if a link is non-worksafe? The Perineum link certainly is. -- Jmason 2005-05-26

What to do?

This is pretty funny considering there is a huge discussion about the taint.

Sorry Cenestrad I was probably a bit quick there in reverting your edit (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Taint&oldid=33386221) - I'm far too used to the kiddie edits this page constantly gets! I'm still unsure though what to do - that entry is still a dictionary definition and ignores the other — normal — meanings of taint which would require adding even more dict defs. I note too that the entry on wiktionary has recent had the sexual meaning removed too. Thanks/wangi 16:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(moved from my talk page - wangi 18:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Now as to my article that you redirected to wikitonary; I wrote that article because I felt that it had cultural relevance. I tried to note this in the article and felt that this would be expanded on if the article was allowed to stand. However the article was redirected within an hour, or less, of it's posting and so had no chance to expanded on by others.

The problem with redirecting this article to wikitonary site is that the term there is completly diffrent in meaning. This means redirecting the refernce deletes my article without giving it a chance for discussion.

I know several people have written an article with the same title as either a joke or a simple defintion. I tried to write an article that had some culutral refrences as well as a diffention of the term without unnessessarry vulgarity. I hope that you will reconsider letting that article be brought back (I notice it has been redirected several times) or telling me why it is not an article worth having (a very similar term, choad, has it's own article). At the very least I would like to see it as an article considered for deletion so that the subject could be discussed.

Thank you very much for your time and the links that you sent me.--Cenestrad 20:02, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I still think the real problem here is that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which is an official policy on Wikipedia (and just because some other word has slipped through I don't see that as a good reason to let another). It's also worth looking at an earlier version of the article: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Taint&oldid=14349743 Thanks/wangi 18:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, have AfD'd this article as you suggested: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taint. Thanks/wangi 13:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I would like to thank you for redirecting the Taint article to the Articles for deletion page. I don't care so much if my article is deleted as long as it's given a chance. Now a simple question; Is the term "ain't" used at all in Europe as far as you can tell? I have gathered that Taint is not but I am unsure to as the term ain't.
Again thank you for your time --Cenestrad 04:57, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, ain't is widely understood, Thanks/L

I'm not agreeing that the quotation from the Daily Show cited of the use of taint really applies in this case. In context, it sounds like the congressman was using a form of "tainted", meaning spoiled. Thoughts?Qualheim 03:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 00:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other terms

Other slang terms for the perinieum include; SPOSBAG, Grundel, Choad, The Space Between & Fleshy Fun Bridge.

Or not: they googled (for me) between nothing at all and a couple of hundred. Unfortunately there is something about any article related to the areas normally covered by underwear which brings out the adolescent in everybody - especially adolescents. No, this is not getting at Cenestrad, who was just tidying the cruft into one place. The sniggering community will always edit articles like this for the same reason they always look up rude words first in every dictionary. Luckily the ones here all have Internet access, so as soon as they learn to evade AOLs parental controls they can look at some real smut and leave the 'edia alone... - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 20:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order: 'Choad' refers to the penis, particularly when erect. See, 'quivering turgid choad', long a favorite of Alt.tasteless. Also, I have added 'banus', 'notcher', and 'seam' in a new synonyms section - and yes, I've seen these in the wild. --Sleet01 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Those still have a whiff of eau d'neologism. Can you provide any citations? youngamerican (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've heard chode used for perineum, or for 'a small fat penis'. They seem to be interchangable there?

Slangs That Should Be Added To the Article

The reason you didnbt get anything when you googled grundel, is because it is spelled grundle and the grundle was used to describe that part of your body before taint was, no ones wrong, it all depends on where you live to what it is called, some people dont know what a taint or a grundle is, but they know what the Gooch, sometimes spelled Guiche or Guch and Durf. Taint, Grundle, Gooch, and Durf are all the same thing describing the same part of your body depending on where you are from. Personally, I have lived all over on 5 different continents, so I think (personally once again) the other three words used for it, should be added to the article. The devils trail can also be known, but you might get a whif of a smelly turtle tank.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary of cool words and neologisms. Thanks/wangi 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

I am relatively certain that the 'taint the balls but taint the asshole' reference first appears in a Tom Robbins novel. I'm somewhat less certain that that novel is Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. 24.62.27.66 20:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Much

There is more written here about the "taint" than there is about the perineum to which it refers. Also, The "Sexual Fetish" section really doesn't belong in this article.71.244.163.156 23:40, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David Cross

While I agree that he uses the word regularly... surely the statement: "David Cross... ...has become somewhat synonymous with the term" is a little too much? Surely no one ever says "Look at my David Cross", "Baby lick my David Cross" or "oh my goodness there is an extra hole in my David Cross" (Ok lame examples). But I would say that the word "synonymous" is out of place in this context... unless you people literally do call their perineum their "David Cross".

Choad?

A choad is not a taint.

This is an incorrect redirect.

A choad is a penis where the girth is greater than the length. Think like a hockey puck.

Change please.

lol. Out of curiosity, do you watch Stand Up Australia?

The image

I have removed the image per general consensus at other similar pages. With that particular photo, it seemed like something of a shock site. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

put it back 152.117.79.110 (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture

I believe the http://savethetaint.org site should certainly be linked in here since it is the only site which is on Wikipedia that deals directly with the Taint. It is a comedy site first and foremost which, instead of selling advertisements, sells 6 products to keep up with costs. I have added the mention of the site back to the article but removed the link for now, since I certainly believe the site deserves a mention at least. -- Bigmatt19 16:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, as it seems to be a rather nn site, but I digress and defer to the judgement of my peers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 16:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh

The whole article is not very professional. From the folk etymology ("It Ain't...") at the top to the "Popular Culture" section at the bottom that is larger than the rest of the article, it doesn't look that great to me. I'd like to just blank the page and replace it with only a very small definition page (Though really I don't even think this is notable enough to deserve even that). But I won't, because it appears people are invested in the current content. Howdoesthiswo 17:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Removed vandalism at the bottom of the page. Fourpenguins 01:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup as of 15 JAN 08: Merge Suggested

~~I've added this to the top instead of the bottom so hopefully we can come up with a newer consensus on this issue as soon as possible~~ I stand corrected. Apparently youngamerican wasn't fond of that arrangement.

This page survived an AfD over a year ago by the very skin of it's teeth (just enough opposition to avoid a solid consensus to delete). At the time, it possessed zero references, an exceptionally-tenuous claim to notability, and a tone that smacked of a poopy jokes forum for 11-year-olds.

A full year later and nothing has changed. It's still entirely without reliable references or any real assertion of notability beyond "a bunch of stand-up comics use it". I've purged most of the truly non-notable nonsense from the article and cleaned up the sentence structure and tone as best I could, but this is really an embarrassment. By all rights, this article doesn't deserve to exist in it's present form. This isn't me being a prude; WP:RS isn't optional, folks. Articles on neologisms are held to a higher standard because of the very real risk of turning the encyclopedia into Urban Dictionary. I don't think anyone wants that.

I'm recommending a merge with perineum where it can have an appropriate-length section illustrating the rich and clever history of the term "taint" with perhaps the top two or three most notable examples being kept. I would also not object to a redirect to the Wiktionary entry or another AfD. Thoughts? Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I would point out that much of the article's raison d'être, that is, the "history and etymology" part, was completely unsourced and smells just like any one of the 425 false-etymologies for the word "fuck" or "shit" floating around school lunchrooms all across the fruited plain. Thus, I removed it all. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it ts worth, not only is it the standard format for all new sections to go to the bottom, it is much easier to find them so that more fols can help form the new consensus. youngamerican (wtf?) 05:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How would the merge be handled? Would it still refences the phrase? y'american (wtf?) 05:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Otherwise it would be a straight redirect. I'm not averse to that either, mind you, but I'm hoping for a compromise we can reach consensus on. There's no reason for an article to be left like this. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 07:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

neologism

see WP:NEO --Sonjaaa (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15 days with no additional input. Opposition to the merge seems as strong as support of it. I am removing the tag--The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chodes

a chode is when your penis's width is longer than its length^{[jakies group 1]}

or more classically known as another term for the perineum, taint or gooch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.115.193.199 (talk) 04:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the preceding comment is totally wrong. wow. really, really?
Cite error: There are <ref group=jakies group> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=jakies group}} template (see the help page).

[jakies group 1]