Talk:Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unofficial Explanation[edit]

The article is correct in that it did not originate on Something Awful. The original site for the distribution of this image, regretably, does not wish publicity or for its name to be linked to this image. The user who put together this image is still more than welcome to claim ownership. Unfortunately, while true, nothing in this paragraph is particularly verifyable, so it is not appropriate to place inside of the article itself. --68.229.247.45 04:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know exactly where the original image (without any photoshopping) came from. There used to be a large list of kitten pictures on a website, which included this one. Unfortunately, the page was removed within the last two years, so I can't cite it (it was very cute).
Did you mean kittens.sytes.org ? Or The picture --71.252.235.112 01:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't the same site, but it has a lot of the same pictures, including the one with "cliche kitty" without the domo-kuns or banner. Tzepish 18:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requests[edit]

Unfortunately, this entry is a complete travesty. Regardless of the nay-sayers objections, this image and its history deserve much more than what has been given here; it is a remarkable piece of internet history that should not be forgotten.

That said, I'd like to request that someone knowledgeable in the etymology of the image review and clean up this article. As it is today, there are 3 different time periods listed for when the image was created and just as many named creators. If the true origination of the image cannot be determined precisely, it would be best to simply say so, rather than sporadically naming all the possibilities.

Also, this Talk page needs to be cleaned up as well; half of it is completely irrelevant. BurntSky 08:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up much of the article with regard to etymology.
--Tzepish 12:35, 09 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Cleaned up the talk page for you.
--Tzepish 12:42, 09 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning[edit]

Well, what did they want to say? Was it religious like don't masturbate, protect the cats or something like that? Why was it sent? Who sent it ? (a religous group or animal protection group?) --Jondel 00:14, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Judging solely from the source pictures (cliche kitty and domokuns), it seems likely a Fark member created the picture. As Fark often shows "boobies" and other delightful titilations, I don't believe the creator would be against masturbation. More likely it's an ironic take on religious anti-masturbation literature, along the lines of [1] or [2]. --Kyz 20:49, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
AS a long-time Farker, I can indeed back up the Fark origins. Lots o' Farkers think about Farking, so it makes sense really; as far as the humor goes, it's more of a take off of the standard right-wing religious defense "Won't anyone think of the children?" --maru 17:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The slogan was created to parody the idea that masturbation causes blindness. The domo-kun image was chosen to slap the banner on simply because it ends up implying that God's method of choice (when it comes to killing kittens) is sending domo-kuns after them.
--Tzepish 12:41, 09 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this page really appropriate?[edit]

I find it hard to believe that this is appropriate for an encylopedia. Can anyone show me why it should be here? --Josiah 03:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a part of internet culture? --BrandonR 04:41, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Granted, I'm sure it's one of the pages Wikipedia's detractors point to when criticizing the project, but Wikipedia isn't made to just be an online Britannica. And yes, it is a rather existent, if irrelevant and irreverent, part of Internet culture. So long as Goatse has an article (a necessary evil which I would not like to see removed), so will this. --BDD 16:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It features interesting encyclopedic content that most people are not readily familiar with (i.e. the picture's history, authors, origins). This is quite an achievement, considering the nature of the topic. Kudos to everyone involved. --Tronno 23:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
I don't know how this is any more well known internet culture than Brian Peppers which wikipedia seems to be afraid to have a page of —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agonotheta (talk • contribs) 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is the source of the name “ Killing Kittens”, the orgy club run by the mucky Emma Sayles. Someone might want the reference. 109.159.119.34 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most internet users?[edit]

Is the assertion that the phrase was "familiar to most internet users" at all accurate and verifiable? Unless the definition of "internet user" somehow goes beyond someone who at some point casually uses the internet, I think this statement is quite an overstatement. Can someone rephrase it? There are more "internet users" than teenagers who haunt slashdot and similar sites. --R. fiend 06:57, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How about most geeks? It has certainly been accurate enough a generalization in my experience. --maru 17:08, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It has been clarified.
--Tzepish 12:43, 09 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image date[edit]

I have a strong suspicion I saw it before March 2002, the time of origin currently quoted in the article. I think that I first saw it in 2001, or perhaps even 2000. --jamesgibbon 29 June 2005 13:04 (UTC)

I agree. I used to have it on my wall in an office I didn't have after January 2002. I think I originally put it up around August 2001, and by then it was getting stale. --Howardjp 18:17, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I first saw it at a job that I quit in late 2000. I just asked a former coworker who was also at that job and he confirmed seeing it in 2000 as well. Maybe the version created in 2002 was based on an earlier image? --Saucepan 20:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The original version with the domo-kun chasing the kittens has existed since 2000. As far as I remember, the banner with the caption was added in 2002. I have clarified this in the article.
--Tzepish 12:38, 09 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I could've swore the base image of the domokuns chasing the cat originated on dreamless.org in the 08 - Meaningless section of the forum during a routine photoshopping contest. It wasn't until later that the second cat along with the catchphrase was layered over the top. --Sean

XXXchurch[edit]

I just deleted the link to XXXchurch, since when I clicked on it, it killed my Galeon process and thinking it was a spam link. I now see that it might be relevant. If you put it back, please add some warning. --Dylan Thurston 05:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll be surprized how badly peole do not want warnings in Wikipedia. (It wasn't even allowd to be added for a video that causes seizures) 66.183.59.211 (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1) You're replying to a 4 year old message.
2) I think you'll find most editors are receptive to commonsense, eg. we checked that the flashing image at strobe light wasn't going to trigger any seizures. I'd guess you're talking about the video at Dennō Senshi Porygon, which given that it's halfway down the page, and is only the size of a thumbnail, is not going to trigger any seizures. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "References in popular culture"[edit]

I removed this: "In Yoshiyuki Sadamoto's manga adaptation of Neon Genesis Evangelion, the angel Kaworu Nagisa is seen strangling a stray kitten out of pity."

It seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the subject. --Tony Sidaway 01:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Space after three periods[edit]

Is there really a space after the three periods? --HappyCamper 23:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a space after three periods. SpectrumDT 18:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but there should be a space before the ellipsis as well. --66.16.168.205 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Always after, but not necessarily before - if it is a trailing sentence... well, then you would connect it to the end of said sentence. ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.54.79 (talk) 20:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling cat[edit]

  • Theres a new one going around thats kind of like this: http://www.ceilingcat.com/, maybe add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.145.181 (talk • contribs)
  • Thanks, I did just that. Another editor has recommended removing it, however. Would anyone else care to comment on whether the two are sufficiently related to be in the same article?--M@rēino 22:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's just one of many various image + text combos that people find funny. The fact that the cat is watching someone masturbate has nothing to do with the original Domo-kun and kitten image. If anyone would think of uploading the "Everytime you send that picture, God kills a Domo-Kun" and if it had the correct copyright information, then that would fit into this article. Just because Ceiling cat features a cat and the act of masturbation has nothing to do with this other image (that and the ceiling cat image is listed for deletion because of the recent mass of vandalism of its insertion into random pages). Ryulong 23:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, the ceiling cat isn't dying anyway. This was just part of the push of some clueless users trying to uyse wikipedia as a webhost and couldn't understand that the consensus is for the ceiling cat image to go away. Kudos for keeping things as should be. -- Drini 02:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link is dead. --User:Cuervo, not logged in 76.221.178.57 20:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Up again! 220.101.28.25 (talk) 02:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced info[edit]

I removed the following statement from the article: "...such as one that says "Every time you masturbate, Mack Brown loses another big game. Please, think of the Longhorns." The kitten being chased by the Domo-Kun is replaced by a Texas Longhorns running back, and the close-up of the kitten's face is replaced by a frustrated looking Texas coach Mack Brown. The parody referred to a long losing streak Brown had against top-10 teams prior to the 2005 Rose Bowl."
Google turns up 1 hit on "Every time you masturbate, Mack Brown loses another big game." and that hit is this article.
Even limiting the quotes to just the first phrase ("Every time you masturbate" Mack Brown loses another big game) generate no non-Wikipedia-mirror hits.
If anyone can find a citable source, then please cite it and restore the information to the article. Thanks, Johntex\talk 22:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

caption should be incorporated into the story[edit]

The caption under the picture says "This is not the original image, as the original says 'Lie', not 'Masturbate' "

This information isn't in the article itself. Either the caption is wrong, or that additional information should be incorporated into the article itself. 69.120.160.97 15:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Time's person of the year?[edit]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=time+you+wikipedia (via). -- Jeandré, 2006-12-19t19:39z

odd link? links section[edit]

in links section of page there's link to http://www.cincinato.org/cajon/informatico_dios_gatito.jpg

something like domokun: kitten joke. the link seems to open one broken image with ad text. since the image is broken it only shows ad "please visit my websites to support balbal" and long list of websites. i find this clearly advertising and i dont understand why is the link there in the first place.

i suggest it to be removed. --80.221.2.1 21:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is what is wrong with wikipedia[edit]

I'm amazed that this one wasn't deleted. The phrase has been around far longer than the mid-nineties as speculated and although I can not provide a source, this is not an original saying. This article is about a photoshopped picture, not an internet meme. I don't think this even qualifies as a meme since the saying was a bit of humor from before the internet was popular. The fact that so many people want to keep this page should not stand in the way of its deletion, since those people obv. don't read wikipedia's rules. Flying Hamster 00:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just add a "history" section with an {{expand}} tag; that should keep everyone happy. Ivansanchez 21:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's more to it than that. Only borderline assertion of note, no real, reliable sources. Renommed for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every time you masturbate... God kills a kitten (2nd nomination). Half the arguments used in 2005 wouldn't even come close to holding up today, and the article hasn't really matured as one might have hoped 2 years ago. MrZaiustalk 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the lack of independent reliable refs, I voted to delete or merge, but now that the result is keep, I checked GBS and sure enough there are some reliable refs to be cited; so some of you guys who voted to keep should do the work and add them now, OK? Dicklyon 05:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

24.184.200.190 (talk) 00:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC) I fail to see how this image merits its own article. A mention in "Lolcats" would suffice.[reply]

This article incorrectly attributes the photo origin to B3TA[edit]

This article says the "image created by a member of the humorous British website B3ta in 2002." but this is incorrect. The image was created by a fark member at fark.com.

Even B3TA own site supports this:

http://www.b3ta.com/features/awards2003/

"3. Every Time You Masturbate, God Kills a Kitten (fark forums) This picture, which first appeared on Fark, was so popular that the kitten is now named "Cliché Kitty". And they now refer to porn with "protect your kittens."

Moebiusstrip 05:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you found a source with better info than what's in the article, could you please fix it? Dicklyon 05:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it in the lead, but didn't cite the B3TA source yet; can it be considered a WP:RS? Dicklyon 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this info. relevant for the article or just another reason not to delete?[edit]

I ran across an article from a July 22, 2007 issue of the New York Times ("Hello, Kitschy" by Rob Walker). It was discussing the history of a new Nicktoons program that features the Domo character. The argument is that it was possible for Nicktoons to find a market for this show because for years this character has been subject of photoshop manipulations on the web. The article makes an explicit reference to this image of the kitten (I'll include the whole paragraph here):

"In fact, any major exhibition on the history of clowning around on the Internet would have to include a particularly infamous image: a stock-photography kitten appears, via digital manipulation, to be fleeing two angry monsters -- Domo dolls, of course. Resembling a public-service ad, with text that is sophomoric, funny and not worth printing here, it has been referenced and forwarded so many times that a Wired column suggesting a fanciful course on Photoshop for the Web included this homework assignment: Convince someone that you made that one picture with the kitten running from Domo-kun."

As New York Times and Wired articles seem to help make things notable, this seems like relevant information. The interesting thing is that I remembered the photo but forgot the "sophomoric" phrase. The number one search result on google for my search for "kitten domo" was the wikipedia article. I'm glad the article hadn't been deleted.

That being said, I don't know if it's really info. for the article as the author is creating a narrative that places this image into a much bigger, and perhaps more socially significant, story. DPerkel 03:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly relevant. The only reason the last AfD came up was because this article was in the dark-grey area of having no sources that directly discussed this phenomenon that weren't just making cursory mention of it and those sources were fairly weak and few in number, and that the most detailed comments from the previous AfDs had been comments like "notable on fark". Adding the above would help a fair bit. That said, no AfD is likely to ever happen again given that it's been through a modern VfD process with people who are actually basing their arguments in policy. MrZaiustalk 06:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional references[edit]

Photoshopped[edit]

Is "photoshopped" a word? I saw it in the article and was quite surprised but then looked at the comments here and it seems people use it a lot in here. So maybe it is a proper word, like "googled" - there's lots of argument around "googling" but I can agree that not to be an error. "Photoshopping", however, makes an obvious reference to a closed-source program (taking away your freedoms, and all that stuff), and I don't hear it often in my environment. Balrog-kun (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "photoshopped" is a common tech word to indicate a picture that has been modified. Example Raul654 (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See Photoshopped, and extensive arguments about it at Talk:Photo manipulation/Archive 2. Hopefully someone else can summarize what was actually said there, as I'm repressing it all ;) -- Quiddity (talk) 22:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see. I guess it still makes sense to not use it in articles not related to the program because people that read it don't always know the tech words, and also because apparently Adobe advices against it. I'll change it and let someone correct after me if the change is not in the right direction. Balrog-kun (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime[edit]

Googling "everytime" do find the grammatical difference between "everytime" and "every time," I found this as the third search result. Maybe my fault for thinking "everytime" was a word, but still, this is absurd.--Ellissound (talk) 09:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am grateful that reality is frequently absurd! Disliking Google's results doesn't make something non-notable. Previous AfDs and added references have established notability. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is this a wikipedia page?[edit]

There is a new meme every other week on the Internet. I don't see a wikipedia page for Bad Luck Brian or Scumbag Steve. Gtwy (talk) 18:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Gtwy: You can take a look at the previous deletion discussions at the top of the talk page, but the short answer is twofold: 1: it's really old in internet terms (2002 is ancient for memes) and 2: it's got some coverage in reliable sources. The first one isn't really a policy or requirement, but it's still something that separates it from reddit memes. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Internet and cats[edit]

Please swing by and help improve this new article! :D--Coin945 (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Every_time_you_masturbate..._God_kills_a_kitten&oldid=1201863417"