Talk:Pearl necklace (sexual act)

FYI - pearl necklace image deletion nomination

A brave soul chose to anonymously (rather than logging in for odd reason) to nominate everyone's favorite image for deletion on Commons, as I had suggested above to get this settled conclusively, and once for all. Please see Image:Sexuality pearl necklace small.png 3rd nomination. Note--the deletion request is on Commons, so the deletion rules differ slightly there from en. Since this is a perennial problem it will be good to get it sorted with hard facts rather than opinion once and for all. rootology (T) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks like strong consensus for keep on the commons site. Atom (talk) 01:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Here's a vote for it being deleted. Wikipedia isn't a porn site and that smut is absolutely disgusting. Find this on a porn site. It will be easy to find. No need for it to be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.40.209 (talk) 09:24, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is porn now?

This "article" will be useful in the campaign to have wikipedia blocked from school use, not only because it's unreliable and often written by idiots, but is also a hard-core porn site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.135.3 (talk) 14:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia covers an extremely wide variety of subjects, including sex-related topics. See WP:NOTCENSORED. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You may also be interested to know that paper encyclopaedias also cover sex, as do biology textbooks. I will grant you that Wikipedia goes into a lot more depth on sex than say Britannica, but it also goes into a lot more depth on railway stations, politicians and places. As we're not limited by paper we can have articles on pretty much anything, and that makes us a good educational resource. I'm not sure I'd advise learning about sex from Wikipedia, but it would certainly give you a much more comprehensive view of the subject, rather than just the mechanics of it. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:Hidden text application and Bukkake and Gokkun links in the See also section

Rebbing, while the hidden note that was there can be argued to have been worded somewhat poorly, Help:Hidden text#Inappropriate uses for hidden text does state, "When it is a mere consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would violate an existing consensus."

So some form of a note is appropriate in this case. I didn't find the previous note a bad one except for the notion that removing the image would be vandalism. It obviously would not be.

As for this edit you made, I disagree because Bukkake is about ejaculating on a person as part of a sexual activity. It is relevant to the Pearl necklace topic because a person who is interested in reading about a man ejaculating on person's neck, etc. is likely to be interested in reading about several men ejaculating on a person. In addition to commenting on a see also link needing to be relevant, WP:SEE ALSO also states, "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I'm not sure about Gokkun, but the Gokkun article does mention bukkake. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the hidden text, and, if it correctly discourages unnecessary drive-bys, so much the better.

I also restored the link to Bukkake, but I'm not sure that's correct. A pearl necklace is ejaculation on a part of a partner's body that takes place in any of a number of contexts, whereas bukkake is a (fringe?) practice—largely limited to pornography—exclusively focused on the act of being drenched in many men's semen. Also, I don't think the ejaculations in bukkake would ordinarily be called "pearl necklaces," even if some semen does end up on a subject's décolletage. I'm skeptical that a reader coming here would be particularly interested in that article—or even know what it was! That said, if you think it's likely to be useful, it probably is, and it's not like the "see also" section is overflowing. Do you think it would be appropriate to add a short explanatory note, perhaps something like:

• Bukkake, a sex act portrayed in pornographic films in which several men ejaculate on a recipient

I'm much more skeptical about the relevance, even tangential relevance, of gokkun for similar reasons as bukkake but with the additional concern that gokkun isn't even about being ejaculated on. Rebbing 04:11, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing, thanks. And thanks for this. I can't help thinking that bukkake should be there. I would be fine with you adding an explanatory note for it. As for the topic being more so tied to porn, well, there are scholars who argue that facials, pearl necklaces and bukkake occur more so in porn than in real life. As for gokkun, yeah, let's leave that out. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Welcome. Thanks for explaining yourself so well and being so pleasant to work with. Rebbing 03:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we please delete the image?

We don't really need a porn diagram in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainythunderstorm (talk • contribs) 07:49, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The image appears to be neither pornographic nor a diagram. I recommend that you read WP:CENSORED. If the use of the image in this article represents a policy violation, please let us know. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 12:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

This subject is not particularly notable or useful to anyone and the picture is offensive and unnecessary, lots of people would feel that way — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:2787:3800:6C9F:879F:84A8:F72B (talk) 18:25, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length, to the point twhere we have an entire archive jsut for this issue. I suggest that you read it. Meters (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Sexuality pearl necklace small.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:25, 30 July 2025 (UTC)