Talk:Mammary intercourse/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Merge proposal

There seems to be significant overlap between this article and Breast love-making. As such, I propose that they be merged.  Skomorokh  18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please do! Breast love-making is in desperate need of a copy-edit anyway. The Wednesday Island (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Breast love-making seems to be "reliable sources free" in its content. I really don't see any reason to merge a non-sourced article with a sourced one. -SeedFeeder (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Being unsourced does not make content worthless – I don't see why the content in question could not be sourced. The other article is certainly more comprehensive than this one.  Skomorokh  19:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess my understanding of wikipedia is slightly different. I wasn't aware that you could toss up any old thing and then find sources for it later. If that were the case, there are great many articles I could quadruple in length. I completely agree that the other article is more comprehensive. 1. Because it tries to encompass all sexual activities involving the breasts, while this article pertains to the single topic of mammary intercourse and 2. An unsourced article can be as comprehensive as the editor's wish, since no fact has to be verified.
I am all in favor of merging various articles such as this article and Oral stimulation of nipples under one larger article. But IMO an unsourced article entitled with the euphemism "breast love-making" is not that article.-SeedFeeder (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Since that article is wholly unsourced, I would just redirect it here and not merge anything. (Some small parts could be salvaged, for example, the relationship to the breast fetishism paraphillia might be sourced from some sexuality book and given one sentence or two).
Also, lol, it looks like a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO "[an article should not read like a "how-to" manual] This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals (...)". If there is some serious source describing the multiple manners of the art of tittyfucking then we should list it in external links on in "Further reading", or use it as source of a short summary in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
I like the principle of putting the breast sex articles together. There is a limit to how much you can say about eg. nipple sucking and the articles are doomed to stay as stubs. But this new article is simply a personal essay, it needs to be redirected to Breast#Sexual role. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So, boss-guys, you wasted my article ... You did it despite the support for it I see here. I have it stored on my PC but it's a pity you removed it and now the Wikipedians can't see it. You did it even after I sourced it. You did it ... I want it back. I want it back today. I want it back revived or I want to be able to repost it. It's true that rather the other partial breast-sex activities to be merged into it than merging it into partial article. Do without delay. Do it now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Sage (talk • contribs) 07:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not bosses, we're just editors like you. We've been working on finding a consensus about what to do, as that's how the encyclopedia works. If you want to see what the problems are try Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm sorry your work had to be deleted, you could place the page as a subpage of your userpage or in a personal sandbox for development - see Wikipedia:About the Sandbox. In particular I'm sorry that some editors may not have believed you were acting in good faith: I think the article was clearly an attempt at something good, useful and encyclopedic. I intend (if other editors do not object) to remove the warning messages placed on your talkpage, as sexuality articles are not inappropriate though they need to meet the same standards as other articles. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Very weird - the majority that has writen here supports 'Breast love-making' and yet it is removed, isn't it? What can be done so the article to be present in Wikipeda again? How and when? Smart Sage (talk) 21:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid it looks like twice as many people opposed as supporting. I think you should set yourself up a sandbox and work on the article. You need to incorporate all the sourced material available from Mammary intercourse, Oral stimulation of nipples and the section Breast#Sexual role. You also need to source any new stuff and try and keep personal opinions and experiences out of the article. Try and get consensus on a title: Breast love-making seems to be a neologism; a term from a decent medical or sex education source would probably find more support. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If I post the article in a sub page of my user page, will you work to make it legal for posting? Smart Sage (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll lend a hand. I believe that your intentions were sincere, but it appears that you are fairly new to navigating the editorial landscape of Wikipedia. Though the overall scope of your article had merit, the title, format, and tone it was presented in did not meet with current Wikipedia standards. -SeedFeeder (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smart_Sage Smart Sage (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

"Advice"

I have reverted the removal of referenced material about the use of mammary intercourse by prostitutes. Supposedly the article is giving "advice" to prostitutes!!!!! This editor is making a point of removing well sourced material from a variety of articles. Should any other editors wish to remove the material, could they discuss it first. If anyone wants to reword the section, that's fine by me. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The removed text was giving advice, not the whole article. It said "It is one of the activities that prostitutes can use as safe sex alternatives for clients who refuse to wear a condom". It was removed by WP:NOTMANUAL. I didn't rewrite because more reliable sources raise concerns about STD "infections that are transmitted primarily by skin-to-skin contact".--Nutriveg (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice is of the form "If you are a prostitute, you should x because y". Not, "prostitutes often x because y." The text in question neither advises nor instructs, and is informative and relevant to the topic.  Skomorokh  19:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Well the source clearly present the information that way. "If a client could not be persuaded to wear a condom, there are safe alternatives that could be practised."(orthographic error from the book) If it's presented in another form it's original research then.
The source (the citation of a prostitute talking) also don't mention "mammary intercourse", she only implies that.
"A lot of people are starting to like pearl necklace because you don't use a condom for it. It feels like sex but no condom...if you've got big ones"--Nutriveg (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
You may be right, but that's a separate issue from the text in our article being advice. Regards,  Skomorokh  20:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't know the article had an owner. The subject of "original research" and "reliable source" are equally important.
It would be interesting, for example, to compare self published source (a prostitute talking about her practice, without saying it's safe) with the CDCs HIV risk of semen.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The citation you used "prostitutes often x because y." also don't reflect the removed text, "It is one of the activities that prostitutes can use as safe sex alternatives for clients who refuse to wear a condom". So the argument of Advice is also valid.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the word "can" to prevent the appearance of advice. I have looked at Nutriveg's source and do not believe it justifies their criticism. I have come to seriously doubt this user's good faith. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, you may have solved that Advice problem, but the problem of Original research ( using information in a way not represented by source) and Reliability of the source (a prostitute talking about her practice, without saying it's safe) still remains.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
If anyone objects that the content is Original research and the source used is unreliable please express yourself, otherwise I'll proceed to remove that text.--Nutriveg (talk) 02:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Since no one objected I'm removing that text.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I most certainly object. Nutriveg has a very personal view of just about everything, including what counts as reliable and unreliable sources. See my comments on Talk:Safe sex. I shall simply revert. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bring that issue to the Reliable sources noticeboard.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I would welcome 3rd party input. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I created that request.--Nutriveg (talk) 00:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I added to the article the caveats raised by Nutriveg. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

What kind of penetrative sex your edit refers to and where you got that? Concerns about HIV and semen isn't well expressed in that edit.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't understand your comment until I saw this other comment in RS/N [1], and I will reply there. As far as I know, semen placed on non-mucose skin doesn't transmit any disease. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't see how it could be safe to rub a penis in the same place someone else just ejaculated.--Nutriveg (talk) 18:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Who's talking about rubbing a penis where someone else has already ejaculated? --SeedFeeder (talk) 18:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume prostitutes attend different clients in a short period of time, specially when they work in specialized places where clients make lines waiting for service.--Nutriveg (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I assume that they wash those parts of the skin before attending the next client. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
So you are talking a about a particular kind of prostitute. That one that is aware of the involved risks, know and take the appropriate preventive measures and work in places that easily provide those sanitizers. I think you're assuming too much to support that article text.--Nutriveg (talk) 20:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think that the book mentions nothing about the possiblity of infection in that way, and that you need to provide a source that says that this is an actual concern to anyone. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I need to say that your last edit made that first phrase much better, I would only change "it felt to clients like penetrative sex with no condom." to ""it felt to clients like sex", because it implies something that it's not clearly stated by the source (unprotected penetrative sex). That text now lacks due balance, I'll provide sources in that sense when possible. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Check the source again, it says that it feels like sex with no condom. I have removed "penetrative" because I can live without that word, but, given the context and the activity, I fail to see how they could possibly be talking about non-penetrative sex. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that all kinds of penetrative sex feel the same, it sounded awkward for me, so I think we should cite the source as it is.--Nutriveg (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

STI's with skin-to-skin activities

I am of the opinion that the disclaimer at the bottom stating that there is a risk of an STI is not needed. I would hate to see anyone contract an STI, but how far should we go with warning people about living life? In this case, the risk of contracting an STI such as HPV exists. But that exists in *any* skin to skin activity. The prevalence of HPV in the population is high. Even arm wrestling, karate, hand holding and spanking hold risk of skin to skin STI. Should we put STI disclaimers in those articles too? To my knowledge there has been no research that has shown a single case of an STI transmission with Mammary Intercourse. Do we seriously want to go through Wikipedia and put an STI warning disclaimer on anything that describes an activity between people where skin to skin contact occurs? Atom (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This is covered somewhat in the article, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, more commonly cited as Wikipedia is not. . .. Wikipedia is not a science journal, health guide or guidelines from a group like the American Medical Association. Wikipedia is written from the neutral point of view representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. While significant health care issues should be examined, not every issue or warning can be dealt. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Morenooso (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
What would you like? MORE detail? I looked at articles describing other sexual practices, and they do go into detail about STDs/STIs that are possible with various activities. I don't think there is any reason to leave off a minor mention that STI transmission is possible during this activity. To do so purposefully would make the article incomplete, considering the topic being covered. To compare sexual activities where there is the potential exposure to high-risk areas as well as bodily fluids to things like hand holding and arm wrestling is an absurd point to make. Centerone (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Your references point to discussions regarding skin-to-skin transmission. This is primarily a skin-to-skin activity. There is a risk of STI's with any sexual activity, and a risk of HPV with nearly any human contact. If we as editors were to leave it off of the article, it would be because it is an insignificant factor to the topic. Do you think that you can give a cite for a documented transmission of an STI via Mammary Intercourse? The petting, physical intimacy. hugging, holding hands, massaging and kissing articles don't have a disclaimer warning about the possibility of HPV transmission, even though some of those activities have a higher probability. Did the editors leave that out because they were unaware? Or did they see that as a fairly insignificant factor to the article topic? Atom (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
First, it's not _my_ references. I was only reverting an edit you made earlier, out of all the edits you made and reversed yourself. Secondly, you should re-read the references. The OBGYN text specifically mentions "genital to breast contact." We should also probably look at this referenced comment in the context in which it was made; maybe this needs to be made more clear. It is mentioned in context of a discussion of how it is an act used by sex workers as an alternative to sex, for people who refused to use condoms, stating it is in essence a 'safe' activity. In addition, it is in close approximation to the mention of ejaculation during this activity. Also, I hope it doesn't really need to be stated, but obviously skin and ducts of the nipples, and of course the penis is not the same as that of the hands or elsewhere on the body, not to mention the high probability of bodily fluids landing on or near facial openings and mucous membranes, not to mention on the ducts of the nipples, as the end-result of this activity. As far as your examples, once again, "To compare sexual activities where there is the potential exposure to high-risk areas as well as bodily fluids to things like hand holding and arm wrestling is an absurd point to make." Centerone (talk) 10:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
You have said twice that you think my comparison is absurd. Since HPV is a skin virus, and spreads through any type of skin contact, and is much higher in incidence compared to all of the other STI's, and since the activities I mentioned (hugging, holding hands) occur much more frequently between two people than Mammary Intercourse does, I don't see it as absurd at all. If, hypothetically, the chance of getting HPV by holding hands is extremely low, low enough to not put it in the Wikipedia article, and yet 100 time more likely for someone to get than Mammary Intercourse, should it be in this article? Of course, for someone that regularly performs Mammary Intercourse, it may be a similar/same level of risk as holding hands. That still suggests that either all articles where regular skin to skin contact ought to have that kind of disclaimer, or if the risk is really low, and probably it is not necessary. We can't, after all, enumerate all potential risks for every human activity in Wikipedia. More specifically, if the risk of an STI exists with any sexual contact with another individual, should we put disclaimers about the risk of STI's in all sexually related articles? I note that it is mentioned in the frot article, but in the context of Frot being "safer sex". Perhaps that is the context it could be given here, based on your comment about the OBYGYN reference? Atom (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Unencyclopedic

That image is quite unencyclopedic, am I taking crazy pills or something? does nobody else see this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.22.178 (talk) 22:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

How is it unencyclopaedic? It illustrates the subject matter. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It follows pornographic conventions of physical appearance (the breasts are especially large) and ejaculation amount. An encyclopaedia shouldn't put large perfectly shaped breasts and nipples as a neutral example of a woman's breasts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickca1 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course this subject is unencyclopedic, I completely agree. Apart from the obscenity and "public-lavatory-graffity- style" of this article it is anatomic nonsense, breast and penis are completely incompatible and a chink is no hole nor a tube. A penis as a cylinder needs a tube, coated wtih mucous membrane, not a dry chink. A breast is surely a MOTIVE for propagation, but no tool or organ for that. You have to enter the INNER body, not the silhouette, come on and recollect! Do they lead the sperm to the target, wich is nothing but the ovum? It is simply a misuse of the breast and a misinterpretation, a would-be-agility from stiffy europeans or from some women with a flat butt. You find this nowhere in ancient times, which had a better taste. Where are ancient sources? The question is: Can a phantastic construct, an illusion, a MISUSE, actually a self-betray, even a collective self-betray from some more or less arranged promotors be a subject of an encyclopedy? You cannot simply install something into nature, what nature not contains before. Can an ERROR be a subject of an encyclopedy? I believe the promoters get themselves off trying to establish this and to give this "matter" and objective lookout. 

Updrafttower (talk) 06:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mammary intercourse may not be reproductive sex, but it is a type of masturbation, and based on the sources provided, is practiced often enough to be notable. That it may offend one individual--or thousands--is immaterial. If Wikipedians removed or even considered unencyclopedic any topic that might offend, then there would be a blank placeholder page at wikipedia.org. This is not about what one individual considers "natural," but rather about a documented type of masturbatory behavior that some who study sex may consider of interest and relevant to their discipline. If there is a limited amount of research outside Wikipedia, it's likely because there is little money in studying it. Barring the occasional episode of vandalism, however, it is most certainly encyclopedic both in style and in scope, regardless of what one individual may think. If it offends, navigate away. Boomshadow talk contribs 00:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

At least you cannot intrude into the boobs besides you believe your penis is a syringe injecting the sperm into the woman - this "method" is western superstition, a stupid fashion. It was nowhere in the Eastern bloc usual(where I am from and some VERY healthy girls) apart from the fact that sexuality is NO PUBLIC MATTER at all. The effect of the boobs is more visual or spacial and for the tactile sense (we estimate the extension in space, the texture), but they are not coated with a mucous membrane. The bend of the surface of the boobs is not made to hold anything, and ON or AT the boobs is not IN the boobs. If an error is practiced often enough an error becomes not true - the mainstream has to bow its (not very eminent) head to the truth. Protagonists simply misuse the public as a pervert scenery, but this is no game, they will expierience that.Updrafttower (talk) 00:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Protagonists are wanking while doing scientificly affectedly.Because of them wikipedia is a PROLE-encyclopedy now. You cannot install into nature, what nature has not foreseen. That is madness.Updrafttower (talk) 02:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

While I can forgive some communication difficulties, because English is clearly not your native tongue, I believe that several people here have viewed your ranting comments as vandalism. Whether they are or not is not important at this time. One thing you need to realize is that your OPINION as to whether or not mammary intercourse is natural or not is irrelevant. The article is encyclopedic and this discussion was originally about the previous illustration (which has since been replaced). The article takes a neutral stance to explaining a sexual practice that many people participate in. What you think of that practice is not important. You might as well go argue about whether or not people should wear clothes or not; the argument you put forth is about as valid for that discussion as it is for this one. Centerone (talk) 05:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Article title

(I feel like most people reading my comment here will believe I'm a vandal or troll, but I assure you, I am serious. I get to post here very rarely, so I'll try to make this paragraph count.) This article should be titled Tit fucking. The term mammary intercourse is a form of neologism to try to dignify the term tit fucking — mammary intercourse is an obvious bowdlerization of tit fucking. The Google search "mammary intercourse" -wikipedia yields under 7,000 Google hits, whereas the Google search "tit fucking" -wikipedia yields 778,000, and "tit wank" -wikipedia yields 111,000. Mammary intercourse is not some sort of doctor's term or scientific term; it is somebody not having wanted to have a Wikipedia article with the name Tit wank (which appears to have been the original title of this article). But WP:NOTCENSORED, and the best process on Wikipedia is to always use the most popular and familiar name for the subject of the article. Currently, the article title is an awkward fake term that nobody uses. Hence my proposal to move this article to Tit fucking. Glassbottle9 (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

My favourite term has always been "Titty fuck" (which incidentally has 683,000 hits [2]). But 99% of those hits are porn pages repeating slang terms. Honestly, relying in the number of google hits is unwise, when there are literally thousands of porn companies trying to trick google with repeated variations of the same words. We are just measuring what porn companies think that people will search when they look for porn in the internet. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I would also suggest "Breast sex", a term that people seem to actually use [3]. Urban Dictionary can be used as a very rough indicator of popularity, assuming that it hasn't been manipulated mammary intercourse breast sex titty fuck tittyfuck. The last two words have a lot of votes and entries compared to the rest (myself I expected "breast sex" to be more popular, damn) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
P.D.: I have searched in google scholar several times, now and also a few months ago, and I couldn't find a scholar expression for this action. That's why I am proposing only slang words: I couldn't find any non-slang name. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
My honest suggestion is to go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and read the instructions carfully. Gather evidence for your statements above. Afterwards propose a 'move' towards a better title. Flamarande (talk) 23:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Enric Naval's suggestion seems to be the most scientific approach: until no scholar names this sexual act, the most common slang term should be used. Other than using google hits, we should check how it is called in novels and other literature.--Sum (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
While I understand the logic and the sentiment, 'fucking' is listed under "sexual intercourse" How often does one go around saying "man, I really wanna have sexual intercourse with her!" "Man, she sexual intercoursed me really good last night." "Oh, man, my wife hasn't sexual intercoursed me in a long time, boy am I frustrated!!" ? Centerone (talk) 08:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Sexual intercourse is how it's called in medical literature. In Philip Roth or Henry Miller novels there is probably some naming of boobjobs.--Sum (talk) 12:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
All of those slang terms redirect to this article (except for boobjob, which sends you to Breast implant). Since readers can easily find the article no matter which of the terms are searched, I don't see any need to change the article title to one of the obscene ones, even if it might be used more often in casual discourse. Centerone has an excellent point: We are, after all, supposed to be a serious encyclopedia. — Satori Son 14:31, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I removed the slang section. The article has a title and subject. It seems to be long standing de facto policy to omit a listing of slang terms in articles. I'm not sure how a listing of slang terms benefits the article. The words used in the slang, whether they are viewed as offensive or not is not a factor. Atom (talk) 16:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
And I reverted your edit, as it was nonsensical. Your response here also makes no sense. If you have no idea how something benefits an article, perhaps you should contemplate it extensively before making such drastic cuts. The terms are not generally viewed as offensive (they are just explicit and non-technical), and whether or not they were, it shouldn't matter. This information is important in reference to this subject.Centerone (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith here, which you do not seem to be doing. The offensiveness, or lack thereof has nothing to do with whether we need to have a long list of slang in the article. I hear that you say that you feel that the slang information is important to this subject. The topic of the article is "Mammary Intercouse" as you know. The description of this and other related information about this reads fairly well. Having a list of slang terms that also may refer to the topic directly, or indirectly is not as critical or important as the actual encylopedic entry helping people to understand the topic. I have seen a number of articles where long lists of slang are either removed entirely, or shortened to a few more common entries. For instance, the breast article does not have a list of slang terms for breast, such as titties, boobs, boobies, bazoombas, blinkers, baby feeders, honkers, jugs, tits, puppies or torpedoes. It doesn't even have one of them. Somehow the article is encyclopedic without them. The search for fucking goes to the sexual intercourse article, which does not have a list of slang terms for that. It does not list bang, boff, plow, poke, ride, hump or screw. Yet the entry seems to be encyclopedic without that. Now, this article, which combines breasts with fucking must somehow need the slang definitions that the other two do not? I don't think so. No Wikipedia article is intended to be a collection of slang terms, this one included. When I said earlier that I did not see how adding them would benefit the article, what I should have said is that having a section on slang terms does not benefit the article. Atom (talk) 23:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

So, the slang moved from a separate section into the body of the article? As I said earlier, neither the sexual intercourse nor the breast article have slang words there to describe the article. There is no need for them here either. Atom (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

You may be making Glassbottle & Enric's case for them. These terms are important, and are pretty much the only way the act is known by most people. I seriously doubt that many/anybody used the term mammary intercourse before it was utilized on here. (So far all the references I have found are from dates after this article was initially created, obviously more research is needed.) This is also not what I would consider a "list of slang" but rather just a few common and widespread terms. Earlier versions of this article contain a number of slang entries which are no longer included in the article. These are simple key reference terms. Sexual intercourse and other similar articles do include such alternative and common references. Centerone (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I found a number of references to mammary intercourse before the creation of this article, but they are all in technical references and none seem to be in common usage. Centerone (talk) 00:50, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
So, you are proposing changing the name of the article? Also, "boobjob" is slang for breast enlargement surgery, and not for "titty fucking". Atom (talk) 01:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, no, I am not proposing the name change. But others did. I don't think the article should need it's name changed, however, the logic that comes from following your argument about the terms sort of makes Glassbottle & Enric's case for them. In effect -- this is important data for this subject, and so much that they are almost exclusively used for the act in common reference. Since that is the case, then perhaps they have a valid point. As far as boobjob goes - I could go either way; it was already in the reference -- and it logically follows -- we all know what handjobs are... and footjobs are similar, well, boobjob logically follows, however, I'm not sure how widespread it's use is. (One CAN find references to it, but I have no sense for or information it's actual usage.) I wouldn't have a problem with removing boobjob if nobody could come up with a suitable reference for it. Centerone (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Atom and think the sentences with the alternate names don't serve any purpose.
For those who favor its inclusion: The sentence with the slang terms is sourced to Suzi Godson, The Sex Book, p. 96. Godson only defines a french fuck, not the other three names. Without reliable sources, they're going to have to be removed. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:02, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
books.google.com lists 71 references for "titty fuck" (in quotes, it lists plenty more without). 102 references for titfuck 92 for titfucking. (oh, and if anybody is keeping score, it only lists 41 references for "mammary intercourse". in scholar.google.com 49 references for titfuck, etc. etc. Please feel free to choose one you deem suitable. Centerone (talk) 10:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
That's great. Now find one that's a reliable source and add it to the article. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
And the paizuri term? One of the sources was written by translator Peter Constantine. I hope that counts as a RS. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:42, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thank fuck you finally got rid of that horrible, horrible image. Now if only this could be moved to a term people actually use.

I figure whatever comes out on top from ghits or Google Books—titfuck, titty fucking, etc. I do like the name titwank, but that seems a bit Britcentric.

I want to point out sexual intercourse, while uncommon in daily speech, is part of most English speakers’ passive vocabulary, I’d assume, and is also quite used in formal contexts. Otherwise you have to decide on myriad competing terms that span various registers—screw, fuck, having sex, etc. Mammary intercourse is a made-up term no one ever heard of before this article.

I started trying to wade through Google hits by including the term safe sex to maybe get some Scarlet Teen type sites, but still get a lot of porn. Realize, though: The porn hits are by no means useless. Their prevalence is, in fact, testament to a given term’s currency because they want to attract surfers and that’s what people are most likely to type. Given that criterion tit fucking seems to win by a larger margin. —Wiki Wikardo 08:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

boob job

Amazingly enough, there are acceptable RS for "boob job" being a term for getting breast implants:

So I won't oppose to its removal. --11:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

"Female who has flat breasts cannot do mammary intercourse with male because she has no cleavage to do so."

The sentence is both grammatically flawed and not necessarily true. Could somebody who is able to please fix it? 99.29.192.247 (talk) 06:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think this sentence is unconstructive and appear to constitute vandalism.--Player23 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it was intended to be unhelpful, but it's very poorly worded, unsourced and (I believe) untrue. Between the breasts may be what people immediately think about, but the man can masturbate against one breast and the woman can get nipple stimulation from this. It all depends what the people's bodies are like and what they find comfortable and enjoyable. I once saw a Japanese video where a woman was demonstrating this with a dildo, but haven't been able to find it again: sex educational material seems to be the one thing that actually gets deleted from the web. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but commonly this sex act involves the man placing his penis in the woman's cleavage and thrusting between her breasts. I change some word, OK?--Player23 (talk) 18:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Please note the word "commonly". Your repeated insertion of the sentence, despite its removal by several editors, is becoming a problem. Please stop. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Malik Shabazz. The thing that gets me, this article is called "mammary intercourse." When you slap your shillelagh against a boob, that is not no kind of intercourse. This article gets a redirect from "Tittyfucking." The operable words here are "inter" and "fucking." Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 05:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This is all a moot point. The sentence is no longer in the article in any way. However, women with A cups and small B cups can still do this somewhat... you just have to push harder, and I'm not just talking about rubbing of the penis against the nipples or anything, as is stated, that would not _really_ be 'mammary intercourse'.Centerone (talk) 19:39, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
So we are agreed that the scope of this article is acts involving A) 1 penis B) 2 boobs C) movement along a lateral plane. I don't think size of the boobies or the penis matters, but there does need to be a pantomime of traditional love-making. Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 03:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

What about lesbians?

This article doesn't mention at all that women perform this act with each other, mainly by rubbing the breast against the vulva (or vice versa). It should be included. 173.2.164.121 (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If there are suitable references this info could be incorporated into a subsection of the article.--Smcg8374 (talk) 12:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
It's because that is not what is referred to as Mammary intercourse or titfucking. While, I can certainly see how language can be confusing this way, what you are talking about is known as "dove fucking", and usually refers to the rubbing of just one breast (at a time) against another woman's crotch. In such a case, the woman is using her breast and nipple more like a sensation or penetrative toy. That is also why there is not really any mention of rubbing the nipple against the penis in regards to this. Titfuckin, mammary intercourse, or what-have-you generally is the action as described in the article, and if that action is not the primary effort of the activity, that is now how it is referred to. Centerone (talk) 05:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Slang Term

A slang term for mammary intercourse is "Russian." See http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID15/2.html. I'm not sure of the etymology of the slang term, though. The term should be included for completeness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SKIPper76M (talk • contribs) 06:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it really shouldn't. Infact it has been removed from earlier revisions of the article. Articles shouldn't be huge lists of slang terms for a subject. Also, there is really little to no evidence apart from a few anecdotal stories that this term is in use by more than a handful of people. Also, personally, it simply makes no sense to me as to why or what would make the act of tit fucking called a 'russian', nor is the term intuitive or obvious. Centerone (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

In french, we call it a "branlette espagnole", traduction equivalent to spanish wank. Also, while i enjoy fine hentai and i really don't care about nudity "obsenity" and I'm an amateur of good porn, I'm not sure the ejaculate is necessary in the picture, all boobwanks don't end in pearl necklaces. The article on ejaculation should show sperm. should the article on voyeurism show a man with ejaculate all over him, smile on his face, while looking at his neighboor's wife suntanning?

In Germany, this sex practice is called "spanish" as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.151.220.26 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Request real life picture

I think we need an actual real picture for this article. PizzaOven (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

If you want to take and release a public domain pornographic picture, or fund the creation of one, following full 2257 regulations and distributing the necessary and needed info for anybody who uses such a picture, that is as good as or better than the picture as far as an encyclopedia-worthy illustration of the subject matter, go for it. Until then, I think the current one is suitable. Centerone (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually, Wikimedia is apparently not beholden to 2257 regulations. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the creator and distributor of the item would be, and subsequently, depending upon how the law is interpreted, secondary distributors MIGHT be. So, better safe than sorry. This is not just some vintage nude or basic historical erotica that is already in the public domain and grandfathered pre-2257 image, but most likely something that would need to be created anew. Centerone (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
You may want to read: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikilegal/Age_Record_Requirement Centerone (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Why do we need a real-life picture? The current picture -- File:Wiki-mam-intcs.png -- though animated, is real-life enough. I know that Wikipedia is not censored -- WP:NOTCENSORED -- but we also shouldn't go out of our way to offend people. While I don't find the animated image offensive at all, there are people who do, as witnessed at Talk:Non-penetrative sex. Having a real-life image would needlessly upset a lot more people. That is, a real-life image would be more offensive than the animated one. When we can reduce such a reaction, we should. There is no extra educational value in a real-life image being up there instead of the animated one. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
And a real-life image would certainly be considered more unencyclopedic. It's not like this topic is about the Human penis, where real-life images seem appropriate. 217.147.94.149 (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Freudian critique

Does anybody have the full text of the quote referenced in this section: "Mammary intercourse has sometimes been considered a perversion.[1] Freud, however, considered such extensions of sexual interest to fall within the range of the normal, unless marked out by exclusivity (i.e. the repudiation of all other forms of sexual contact).[2] One argument is that such exclusive concentration on the breasts might be the product of a partial regression to infantile sexuality, or of a flight from the female genitals due to castration anxiety.[3]" ? I somewhat doubt that the quote is specifically talking about mammary intercourse and is rather just talking about obsession with the breasts. These are two different things. Centerone (talk) 12:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Clifford Allen, A Textbook of Psychosexual Disorders (1969) p. 200
  2. ^ Sigmund Freud, On Sexuality (PFL 7) p. 65 and p. 75
  3. ^ Gershon Legman, Rationale of the Dirty Joke Vol I (1973) p. 386

Removal of Freudian opinion from Gershon Legman

I removed the sentence below from the article.

One argument is that such exclusive concentration on the breasts might be the product of a partial regression to infantile sexuality, or of a flight from the female genitals due to castration anxiety.

"Regression to infantile sexuality" and "castration anxiety" are both Freudian concepts and Sigmund Freud's theories may be the most thoroughly debunked theories in human history. For two of many examples, see the LA TImes article Psychoanalysis Is Dead ... So How Does That Make You Feel? and the New Scientist article Why psychoanalysis never existed. -- Kjkolb (talk) 03:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Kjkolb, you removed that back in January; why have you decided to note it on the talk page a month later? Did you forget to do so earlier? And/or did you simply want to note it here in case someone checking the edit history wonders about your reason for removal and/or adds it back? Flyer22 (talk) 03:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Notability

I seriously question the notability of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.154.230 (talk) 20:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And I seriously question the notability of an unsigned comment and an unregistered or anonymous user. Your point being? How is this sexual practice any less notable than any other sexual practice? Centerone (talk) 04:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
"And I seriously question the notability of an unsigned comment and an unregistered or anonymous user." Congratulations! You just used the logical fallacy known as ad Hominem. When you learn to discuss like a logical individual, I'll be happy to treat you as one. --173.3.154.230 (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
And, once again, you choose to make no meaningful point. What you think of me is irrelevant; the only thing that matters is the article. You question it's notability and yet you make no statement as to why, or put forward any fact to support your argument. Had you done so, I would not have poked fun at your empty statement of opinion. Anyways, the topic has already been covered. As Boomshadow states above: "Mammary intercourse may not be reproductive sex, but it is a type of masturbation, and based on the sources provided, is practiced often enough to be notable." Centerone (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I made no meaningful point? You made no meaningful argument to reply to. Like I said, your only argument was a logical fallacy (ad Hominem) and you're now ignoring this fact to save face. Don't worry, I'm laughing at you for using that fallacy and not even realizing you have used it far more than you are at me for "hurr durr anonimus user lolol XDDD." This article has a grand total of five citations and shouldn't even be here. I've never seen it referenced in culture, and the article isn't proving that wrong. That's why I just wanted to start a friendly conversation about its notability prior to you showcasing your ignorance through acting like an elitist and uncouth fool. Good day. --173.3.154.230 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Where did you see an "argument" in my initial comment to act like an idiot in response to? I think it's clear to anyone who isn't a fool and uses logical fallacies for the sake of stroking their own ego that I was only trying to inspire a conversation about the article, not goad someone who loves their internet persona far too much into flaming me. --173.3.154.230 (talk) 15:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting, you were only trying to start a discussion? Okay, let's look at your statements on the subject so far... First, you put out a statement which was a pure opinion: 'I question the notability of this article.' Then, I made a simple joke and asked you to actually expand on and back up your opinion with some sort of information: "Your point being? How is this sexual practice any less notable than any other sexual practice?" Then you attacked me and refused to expand on your statement. Then I pointed this out, as well as pointing out that the basic discussion of "is this notable?" has already been covered. Now, you've finally come back, and while you continue to attack me personally in a few ways, you've at least put forth some additional information as to why you think that the article is not notable. Those statements appear to be that you think it's not notable because 'hurr durr teh article only has five citations lolol XDDD' and that YOU haven't seen it referenced in culture. Needless to say, plenty of articles have little to no citations, and plenty of articles have far less than five citations. How many citations would satisfy you? Do they need to come from any particular source for you to view them as legitimate? As far as you not seeing the topic of the article 'referenced in culture', I'm sorry that your experience in life has not been great and vast enough to have experienced or noted a reference to this thing. Perhaps you could consider that in life we are not going to be able to see everything, or even hear references to everything that could possibly exist and be included in an encyclopedia or other reference guide. As a start, perhaps, I might suggest that you should try reading this discussion page. In particular, I recommend the Article Title section above, as it happens to mention in many different ways, up to hundreds of thousands of easily findable mentions of this article's subject. Now, onto the logical concept, "ad Hominem" which you seem to have been so proud of learning.. while I am glad you are getting some enjoyment out of this, I wonder if you've stopped to consider the irony and error in your use of the term. While I think it's really obvious to see where your statements on this fail, simply by reading the article about it on wikipedia, I would highly recommend that you reference the following webpage: http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html Centerone (talk) 23:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
You need to throw your thesaurus away and see a psychiatrist about your inferiority complex. This aggressive "I am so smart. Look how eloquently I've defeated you in conversation" attitude makes you seem dumb and unlikable. Everything you've written here looks like you did a second pass to cram in as many ten dollar words as possible. I would call the writing style "faux-18th century fop". Also, your insults are lazy and generic. If you want to insult someone, but in a way that's guaranteed not to actually hurt their feelings or make them lose the upper hand in the argument you started, you could do a lot worse than calling them an "uncouth fool", issuing grand proclamations about their enormous ego, or quoting them in an annoying voice. I guess you could explain to everyone that they're just jealous and intimidated by your intellect. Or you could go outside, talk to people and starve this embarrassing aspect of your personality to death. If you develop empathy in this way, you'll find that most people don't deserve to be attacked or insulted, and you'll find it easy to explain why to those that do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.187.246 (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Do you have a point to make about the notability of this article, or some other aspect of it? Or are you just here to insult one of us in regards to comments made during a four year old discussion? Centerone (talk) 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

"but it is a type of masturbation" Centerone (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Mammary intercourse is colloquially and commonly not masturbation. Colloquial masturbation is to stimulate yourself without a person. Although formally, it is masturbation {erotic stimulation especially of one's own genital organs commonly resulting in orgasm and achieved by manual or other bodily contact}.
The formal is rarely used, so use the colloquial word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.167.205 (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
No flaming or negating intended... :] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.65.167.205 (talk) 07:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Uhm, did someone delete or edit some comments here? I don't remember typing a simple quote "but it is a type of masturbation" -- and that's not the sort of comment I would have written without explanation, so was something deleted that this was in response to? I don't remember, and I don't have time right now to go back through the history and investigate. Centerone (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I see, someone is quoting me OUT OF CONTEXT from the discussion above; and because of poor formatting and the fact they used my entire signature tag (with time and date stamp) made it look like I made the comment. I did not. Boomshadow did, and I was quoting him. In context, my comment made sense. Either way, masturbation is irrelevant to it's notability. Boomshadow wrote: "Mammary intercourse may not be reproductive sex, but it is a type of masturbation, and based on the sources provided, is practiced often enough to be notable." You can easily take out the masturbation reference and still have a factual statement as follows: "Mammary intercourse may not be reproductive sex [but] based on the sources provided, is practiced often enough to be notable." Centerone (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Male-on-male

If I recall correctly, at one point, this article mentioned a thing or two about the possibilities of titfucking between two men... Why was that part removed? 75.219.218.89 (talk) 03:06, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked into the WP:Edit history to confirm what you have stated on this matter, but it was likely removed because there were no WP:Reliable sources used in the article to support it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
And if material on that is included in the article, with one or more WP:Reliable sources supporting it, it should be with WP:Due weight, since the vast majority of sources define mammary intercourse as a penis being wedged between (usually cushioned by) female breasts for sexual stimulation. Flyer22 (talk) 03:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I really don't see why this isn't included in the article. It seems a little silly that we need scholarly sources to prove male-on-male titfucking exists when I can search for it on PornHub and instantly find hundreds of videos proving that, yeah, it's a thing… just my 2¢ 2601:240:CC08:7780:A102:716B:A2B2:3F0 (talk) 06:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
Pornhub isn't a reliable source. That being said, I'm curious what search terms you used, because I don't really find any. Centerone (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Propose to remove an extraneous sentence

Under the section "Practice", there's a sentence that reads: "This act can be combined with fellatio."

I'd like to remove it if there aren't any major objections. It seems extraneous considering any sex act can really be combined with any other(s) – not like there are sexual practices it can't be combined with.

Thoughts? — TARDIS builder💬 • 21:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

I would disagree with this, because it's not just like do sex act Y, then switch to sex act Z. In this case, mammary intercourse is frequently combined with fellatio, sometimes performed at the same time, sometimes quickly alternating between the two activities. I think that should remain. Centerone (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that the two sex acts may be more closely linked than another pair, it would be helpful to cite a reliable source and actually say that in the article. Not that they can be combined, but that they often are combined. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Totally makes sense, yes. I see I was reading the sentence more literally than its intended meaning. Thanks, both! — TARDIS builder💬 • 11:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: someone above has cited references that show up at the bottom of this page, looking like it's connected to the most recent section. If someone knows how to fix it, that'd be nice! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TARDIS Builder (talk • contribs) 21:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, you can use {{reflist-talk}} directly after a comment that includes footnotes or at the bottom of that section of the talk page. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 17:50, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you — TARDIS builder💬 • 11:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mammary intercourse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Slang terms: Russian

"Russian" is a reasonably common slang term for mammary intercourse, similar to "Greek" for anal sex. Is http://www.sex-lexis.com/-dictionary/Russian sufficient documentation for this, or should I seek a more reputable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuthehistoryguy (talk • contribs) 17:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2021

Under 'Slang Terms', replace "sperm" with "semen". 168.5.174.182 (talk) 07:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Title

This is not intercourse. I never in my life herd the term "mammary intercourse", I very much doubt its the WP:COMMONNAME.★Trekker (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

★Trekker, it's called "mammary intercourse": 1, 2, and 3. It's also called "mammary intercourse sex" and is referred to by a few other terms, but "mammary intercourse" is the most typical in reliable sources. We just have to not get caught up on intercourse most commonly meaning "sexual intercourse" and therefore usually meaning penetrative sex. Enlightenedstranger0 (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Slang

It is also called Russian massage, or russian. 97.112.3.107 (talk) 01:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2022

Please extend the information on the mentioned book: “Les paradis charnels”: it was written under pseudonym by Alphonse Galais. It is not mentioned in the foot note. 2A02:A467:9E7C:1:8D0F:93C6:A38E:9782 (talk) 01:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mammary_intercourse/Archive_2&oldid=1172270103"