Talk:Mammary intercourse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Mammary intercourse is part of WikiProject Sexuality, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of human sexuality. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives 2005 - 2006

Discussion on Guidelines for images in Sexology and Sexuality articles
Click here

Contents 1 Image removal 2 I'm Back again!! 3 Images 4 Gentle reminder - this is a talkpage for improvement - not a chat forum and that Wikipedia is not censored 5 What "not censored" does NOT mean

[edit] 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?

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)