Talk:Twink/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Brent Corrigan photo caption

Lets not get into what might be the beginning of an edit war over the contents of the caption. Discuss here first please. This is not a major issue, it it? I have no preference as long as it's clear he represents the twink look (as best we are allowed). — Becksguy (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• The caption will read: "Twink porn actor Brent Corrigan." That says it all; that says all that needs to be said. This article is about twink (gay slang), not Corrigan's career achievements.--72.68.125.217 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion means actually engaging in a two way discussion with other editors before unilaterally announcing a change and then immediately making it. You may, or may not, have a point, but please discuss this first. I'm requesting page protection to prevent a continued edit war which is disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You might not need to, their latest sets of IP addresses have been blocked for abuse. I would say WP:RBI for now, if the vandalism starts up again then we can go through it all again. I, obviously, think the caption is fine and shows why his image is used as opposed to others in similar films. I feel it leaves little doubt for those that may have BLP concerns that we have an appropriate image. Banjeboi 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the WP:RFPP request since the AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removed stalkish attack post now includes information on this article. Thanks, Benji. — Becksguy (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no drama like gay pornstar drama! Banjeboi 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Very true! That being said, we really don't need such a long figure caption do we? I mean, it is somewhat unseamly. Mark t young (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And by unseamly, one means it goes on for six lines (three I believe is more than enough), not the content (which is of course fine). Mark t young (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

It's an appropriate length but I'll look to making it more concise, WP:caption suggests no more than three sentences by the way. Banjeboi 22:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Will certain editors please stop unilaterally & continually reverting back the caption and other editors' edits (and deleting comments from the talk page). Thank you. User0529 (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the comments I've deleted off this page are from a banned user per policy. Banjeboi 22:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

There seems to be some misunderstanding at work here. I haven't seen anyone state as a reason for reverting the caption to a smaller form that their motives are prudishness or censorship. While Corrigan may be an accomplished porn actor and show off his "Golden Dickie" award to his grandchildren someday, I'm not sure that in this particular article the caption should be almost as big as the picture itself. Perhaps you could rephrase it to something like Adult film actor Brent Corrigan starred in twink-genre gay porn films?? or something. this knee jerk reaction that a couple of editors have had branding it as censorship isn't very productive. User0529 (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I see the problem is that the article is quite small as of yet. The caption is fine per policy and were the article a bit more full I doubt the caption would seem so large. The situation is further compounded by a banned user so some reverts were only to restore a former version. Then an other anon came along with a fact tag so there you go. It's now referenced as well. A lot of this also stems from previous issues with images of living people which is noted in the discussion above. Banjeboi 23:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I would support adding a section about twink porn then much of the caption could be vectored into the body of the article. Banjeboi 23:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

User0529 is correct, this is not a censorship issue, or a vandalism issue either. I can see both issues, but there is a reason, as Benjiboi expressed, that we are being careful to point out that using a photo of Brent is not a WP:BLP issue and is relevant to the subject, ie - twink. I was here when Benjiboi added that photo and caption on June 22 after a claimed BLP violation on the previous image resulted in two blocks. I agreed with the image and caption and it sat in the article for almost two weeks uncontested. Both Benjiboi and User0529 have a point about relative sizes, and the suggestion to expand the article and vector much of the caption content there makes sense and would address both concerns, I think. The reverts and comments by the banned user do not apply. I would have no problem shortening the caption some more, perhaps removing the specific movie mention, until the article is expanded. As long as it makes clear that Brent is a twink and in the public eye. I don't see any reason we can't come to consensus on this, as there isn't a major disagreement. Note that the article was just semi-protected for edit warring by banned IP hopping user. — Becksguy (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just expand the article then to put this behind us all. I will, however, point out the irony that the "origin" section also was a caption before becoming its own section as well. Maybe this is a hot trend for this article and I should be on the hunt for more images? Banjeboi 00:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Update. I'm currently drafting a whole section just on twink porn so will soon migrate much of the caption to article text. Banjeboi 23:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Castro clone to twink

You are doing a wonderful job Benji. I posted a citation in the discussion about pejorative use last month that you might find useful for the expansion of the article. It discusses the change from the hyper-masculine post-Stonewall clone look to the much softer twink look in the early 1990s and later, apparently as a reaction to AIDS and the clone look that was identified with it. Here it is again, from a peer reviewed psychology journal published in Australia, which makes it an unimpeachable source. It's a very interesting read on that cultural shift.

• Filiault, Shaun M. & Drummond, Murray J.N. (2007). "The Hegemonic Aesthetic" (PDF). Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review. 3 (3): 175–184. ISSN 1833-4512.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (starts on page 32 using the Acrobat reader).

— Becksguy (talk) 02:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I do remember that but am generally allergic to PDF. However, I should be able to tweak google scholar so will keep my eyes open for it. Sadly some of my favorite slang books have blocked pages so it's all going slower than I would hope but I have a few workarounds to try. Slang is fun! Banjeboi 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

French?

In doing some .. research, I inadvertently ran across the term "minet" as a French slang term. It seems to be strongly related to "twink", though I don't know if it's exact. The French Wiktionary says that a minet is (loosely translated) "Name given to a young boy whose alluring behaviour is similar to that of a cat". Maybe we can expand this article a bit? Is there a French WP:LGBT? -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 13:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe troll through Wikipedia:WikiProject_LGBT_studies/Translation#Languages and see if one of those folks could offer some input. Banjeboi 00:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Other reason for the name.

The reason for 'twink' I'd always heard was the 'cream filled' part, implying a bottom, usually used in a derogatory manner meaning a slut... --72.185.205.172 (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

We need a reliable source to add it though so post one here if you find one. Banjeboi 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)`

ethnicity

The article claims that the word twink originally referred to blond Caucasians but no evidence is shown for this. The part about the backronym is simply ridiculous and it's something made up by someone to seek some kind of meaning in it. The word twink comes from a twinkie, because it's filled with cream. End of story. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.249.252 (talk) 08:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

There is actually a bit more to it than that. From your experience this all may be true but sources do seem to indicate there was a tendency to think of a twink as only a young white hairless sex-partner and the definition has modified and the LGBT community has grown and become diverse. -- Banjeboi 01:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The LGBT community did not "become" diverse, it always was. The word twink does not have the origins you speak of. Twink has more to do with youthful, slim appearance than it does hair or skin color. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.231.15.244 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

plus example names from porn dvds seem to show up plenty of things for "black twinks" etc so perhaps more should be noted on that87.112.50.229 (talk) 22:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Twinkies

Please stop adding in the lengthy section discussing Twinkies. It doesn't matter if there's a source to prove that they've revived banana cream filling. It needs a source to prove that it's relevant to the article (which is on twinks, not Twinkies).

Yes, it's an amusing double-entendre that some Twinkies get filled with banana cream. But if there's no source to show that banana cream filling and lunchboxes and millions of Twinkies aren't directly related to the etymology, they only belong in the Twinkies article. arimareiji (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree completely, these are all euphemistic terms and Twinkie is the origin of this usage so a discussion of its impact and widespread branding would help explain the broad understanding of the slang usage. I've added some more to help connect the dots in these understandings. I haven't yet written the section on twink porn but there are dozens of sources to support this as well. -- Banjeboi 20:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

"Connecting the dots," in this case, is WP:SYNTHESIS. You're using your own reasoning to come up with a conclusion that isn't even hinted at in your sources. arimareiji (talk) 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Namesake

I think the word namesake is used incorrectly in this article - isn't a namesake a thing that is named for something else? So the relationship is inverted here? 121.79.39.223 (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Smooth face.

Twinks have smooth faces to look younger.

Some of them don't have beard growth at all and it is important to state that description in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Rushton83 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain why it should be in the lede, and/or provide a good source for the assertion? At present I concur with Benjiboi's move - but if you have a good reason, I'll happily unrevert. arimareiji (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

(1) While it's certainly true that twinks almost always have smooth faces, it isn't necessary to expand on the concept of "little or no body hair" that already is in the lede. That kind of expansion belongs in later sections per normal article development style. Ledes are not supposed to contains all content, just summarize the main article points per WP:LEDE so that readers get a sense of what the article is about.

(2) One possible compromise is to change the lede to read, in pertinent part, with the suggested addition in brackets: "... with a slender build and little or no body [or facial] hair." Or something like that.

(3) But it's seems silly to enter into what looks the beginnings of a potential edit war over just the position of content. That placement has been swapped four times now within the last few days.

— Becksguy (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I like your idea a lot. But to pick nits, maybe ""... with a slender build, and little or no body or facial hair." instead? arimareiji (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Twink vs. Chicken

As far as I know, or have seen online, the terms "twink" and "chicken" are not equated, with "chicken" usually referring to under-age, where "twink" refers to late-teens to early-twenties. I tried to add that information to the article, but it's been reverted. I won't pretend to consider my source a reliable source in the usual definition, but I'm not quite sure what constitutes a reliable source when you're talking about slang terms that tend to vary somewhat by region in any event. And since I was copying the citation directly from the chicken article, I figured it was considered a reasonable source to be quoting. But debates about source aside, I think it should be noted that historically, "twink" and "chicken" have not normally been equated by most. I've checked a few online gay-slang sites, and all the ones I've found fairly clearly indicate the difference. --Rob (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There is some possible overlap between the terms (eg - in that a twink may look underage), but chicken usually refers to underaged males, and twink usually refers to legal age males. And there may be differences by cultures. For one reference, see Cassell's dictionary of slang (Jonathon Green, (2005), Sterling Publishing, ISBN 9780304366361, page 273) which lists the following as one definition out of many: "Chicken n.⁴ 4. [late 19C+] (gay) an underage boy, or such boys considered collectively". However some more reliable refs would be helpful, if you can provide them. I think the sentence needs to be rewritten for clarity. — Becksguy (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the cited source that was reverted, here's another one for twink and chicken. Most of the definitions there agree that "chicken" refers to someone younger, on average, than "twink". Some of the definitions overlap, however, like both of them stating that they refer to someone under 21. Perhaps it would be more constructive to change the intro paragraph to say something to the effect of "compare with chicken (gay slang)", which would allow readers to draw their own conclusions about equality or lack thereof. --Rob (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

ODPS likely won't fly as a reliable source. What would be most helpful is a solide reliable source that compares/contrasts the two. I have little doubt they mean different things to different folks while simlutaneously meaning the same thing to others. Both meanings have changed over time so we can generalize to get any points accross and quote a good source. -- Banjeboi 23:39, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

SYNTH, BLP

The picture makes a comparison between a twink and a bear, using 2 living people. Unless 1 of the 2 sources cited specifically make this comparison, using these 2 people, this is WP:SYNTH. We do not make any kind of analysis, determinations or comparisons independent of verification WP:V. Labeling living people as "twink" or "bear" without sourcing could be a BLP violation. I have waited a reasonable amount of time for quotes from the sources, and feel compelled to remove the pic and caption per WP:BLP. I will do so now unless there is a valid objection. Lionel (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Twink History

As we all know, twink is a porn genre... So, the history of ectomorph bodies in gay porn goes back to the 50's. The famous Physique Pictorial by Bob Mizer ocasionally featured ectomorph young men aged 18-20, but the most celebrated bodies of that magazine were wide bodies (Ed Fury, Steve Reeves and other heavy hunks). Other beefcake magazines appeared in the 1960's ocasionally featuring ectomorph bodies, but were not specialized in thin young men (Vim, Manorama, MANual and Modern Adonis), some others were indeed specialized in the so-called "boy" genre or "young men" genre (Jr., Champ, Fizeek and 101 Boys), featuring mostly ectomorph blonde guys in athletic poses or "innocent" poses that were suposed to be inmature in the long road to physical fitness (Most captions on the photos said something like: "Little Bobby wants to be an athlete, so he lifts and plays football").

MANual Enterprises v. Day controversy (1962) allowed the display of male genitals in an "artistic manner", allowing the distribution of gay pornography through print magazines. "Young men" and "boy" porn became popular in the late 1960's, appearing in specialized magazines such as Scene '69, Tiger and Premiere. Back in those days, there was a fascination with youthful bodies, even in straigh porn; in the late 1960's "educational" sex books and magazines were published, featuring guides of "How to Make Love" illustrated with young barely legal couples (How to Magazine, Primer for Sexual Education and Love Games & How to Play).

Early Twink porn dies in the 1970's with the arrival of "Castro Clone" culture. Porno chic made porn famous and gay porn studios apppeared, widely based on the early Jim French (Rip Colt) formula: "hairy groomed hunks" ("The Rise of the Spornosexual", ha-ha-ha). Most of those models were bodybuiders, bearded, tattooed, leather-macho and hairy-chested men, but trimmed their pubic hair and, frequently, depilated and bleached their anuses. The word twink is widely recognized to have its origins in the 1970's, probably influenced by the remains of Polari slang, to tag young gay men that were not sexy Al Parkers.

With the advent of body shaving (encouraged by Gillette's disposable razors and canned shaving foam) and metrosexuality (encouraged by homosexual men like Hardy Amies and Charles Hix), twinks reappeared. According to a documentary film called The Butch Factor (2009, dir. Christopher Hines) clean-shaved bodies became popular during the AIDS Crisis because they were considered "pure". Photographers like Will McBride and Bruce Weber became popular because they photographed young slender men, opposed to other photographers of the time, like Herb Ritts and Ken Haak, that photographed muscular men for homoprovocative male magazines like Gentlemen's Quaterly.

Twink porn was born inside studios like Nova and First Class Male in the 1980's, studios that introduced the twink porn clichés we have today (The teacher that "punishes" the young brat, the big brother "teaches" something important to his younger brother, "That's not the pizza I ordered", "We are ayoung, let's experiment" and "My not so straight best friend"). Some twinkinh actors of the era include: Kevin Gladstone, Jeff Folger, Paul Camrose, Mark Hunter, Rick Compendium, Kevin Williams and Joe Savage. Other studios, like Falcon Studios, also featured twinkish actors, but they were 90% of the times bottoms for bigger tops. Along with the rise of twinks, loliporn (young looking, clean-shaved vagina, barely legal girls) and young man/MILF porn also became popular in straight porn.

In the 1990's, twink porn studios, specially First Class Male, exploited the looks of youth subsultures (grunge, surf and other weid teen groups) Cyber sex in the 90's offered the opportunity for people to interact with these young men through private sites. Finally, in the early 2000's studios like Helix Studios appeared, using formally the word "twink" for their videos and exploiting the looks of youth subcultres and classes like college students, scene kids, emos and young surfers. Videos often featured cheesy names like "Candy Twinks", "College Boys" or some similar weird names. Twinks became thinner (sometimes underweight) and smoother in the 2000's, compared with twinks of other decades, mostly because of the philosophy on weight in emo subculture. In the 2010's, porn studios like BelAmi, Gay Life Network, Staxus, Helix and CockyBoys became popular, they currently feature slightly muscular thin men with shaved pubes and anuses.

Twink porn is particularly popular in Japan (genre known as 青年, qīngnián; translated: "youth"). Other studios from 1980's to 2010's used non-white models like Janssen (Black), OTB Video (Latin), RENTBOY (Latin), Japan Boyz (Asian), and some others (Staxus), currently hold a mostly white but multi-race catalog.

And that's how twinks are made... Mamj16 (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Significantly younger

Since I'm not a fan of conversing via statuses, I thought I'd bring this here. My concern with saying "significantly" younger is that it could easily be misread as an 18-year-old looking like he's 15, which is certainly not the case for most so-called twinks. That indirectly implies that those who are attracted to them are attracted to underage guys, which is definitely not the norm in my experience. I'm honestly not sure I'd include "younger-looking" as part of the definition at all, really. They are young, yes, as the age-range in the lead notes, but a thin, good-looking 18-year-old without facial hair, whom most people would call a twink, still looks like an 18-year-old, not someone in their mid-teens. At least in my experience, those that do look significantly younger (and/or actually are), are called "chicken", which is very distinct from "twink". – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 13:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Robin Hood is referring to this edit and the edit summaries seen with this link. I don't care much about this topic, which is why I didn't bring the matter to the talk page. But as for 18-year-olds vs. 15-year-olds, mid teenagers are commonly physically indistinguishable, age-wise, from older teenagers, especially in the case of girls, which is why fake IDs so often work in the case of a mid teenager posing as an older teenager. I recently finished discussing a similar matter at the Ephebophilia talk page with an account that I could have gotten indefinitely blocked if wanted to. That stated, I get your point, RobinHood70, that the term twink refers to adult men who have youthful characteristics. Youth is defined differently by different people, however, and the term twink is usually referring to a man who looks younger than his age; it usually means a late teenager or early 20-something who looks younger than his age. After all, late teenagers and early 20-somethings usually look youthful anyway. So what makes twinks different? What makes them different is how young they look. So after you made this edit that removed the age ranges and added vagueness, I made this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Blargh! The more I look into this, the more confusing it gets. The Oxford Dictionary definition cited later in the article suggests that the definition only applies to "homosexual or effeminate man, or a young man regarded as an object of homosexual desire". I'm not sure where "homosexual or effeminate man" comes from, as neither is a common part of the slang definition as far as I know. Certainly no other definition I've come across suggests that either are part of the definition we're talking about here, and the way they've written it suggests it might be a separate usage. Similarly, the Online Etymology definition I added the other day also lists only "young, sexually attractive person", and doesn't even include the gender. Neither of them talk about "younger looking". That said, though, unofficial sources like Urban Dictionary often include apparent age as part of the definition, one even going so far as to suggest "almost pre-pubescent", which I personally have never heard the term used for in my life (as I said above, at least in my experience, those are called "chicken").

But I think that confusion itself suggests that we approach this differently. Rather than stating an unambiguous definition, we go for a more permissive definition that covers all the main variants. Something like, "Twink is a gay slang term used to describe young men in their late teens to early twenties. Usage of the term varies, but traits attributed to twinks can include attractiveness, having little or no facial or body hair, a slim to average build, or appearing to be younger than their physical age." That's a bit wordy and might need some tweaking, but I think it more accurately reflects the fact that the definition is relatively loose. (I get the impression it may vary either regionally or based on the speaker's own age/preferences, but that's just my own personal experience, so has no bearing on WP.) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 13:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd be okay with you making that proposed change to the lead. Flyer22 (talk) 07:59, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Okay, done. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 15:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: I changed "physical age" to "chronological age." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Works for me. – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 20:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE!

Hi y'all, I just wanted to put on the talk page what I edited! I changed the origin sub-heading to Etymology, and moved one of the paragraphs down to the history section I added, because I felt that it made more sense that way, was more coherent, etc. I added the first two paragraphs and a few sources to the history section, going into the background of the word to examine its racial ties, and how today this is seen perpetuated.

I added the code under the sub-heading 'usage,' as condensed some of the previous information as it was not all about history but mentioned pop culture as well. Thus, I made a pop culture heading and put this information here, and also referenced a source which defines the term as a subculture within today's setting, so readers may understand it through this lense as well. Lastly, I briefly added a sentence or two about its usage on grindr, and linked some other wiki pages throughout the article. Currently waiting for my peers to review. Thanks a bunch! Roger.chat (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

also I just wanted to add that twink is racially coded, and while porn may offer 'Black twinks,' this would more so fall under fetishization! Roger.chat (talk) 00:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Roger.chat: I've taken a look at the additions, which were mainly the Etymology bit and the creation of the History section. Although they are well sourced, your writing reads like an essay and has aspects of original research, and a bit of rewriting could be done to conform to general content guidelines. I will look at copyediting/rewriting it later, when I have time to do so. Thanks, and happy editing :) Vermont (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Vermont: Thank you very much for your feedback, I appreciate it immensely! I am currently an undergraduate student and understand your concerns in regards to original research and the way it reads, and I am taking a second look and will try my best to rewrite/reconstruct in an unbiased manner. Sorry for any inconveniences, and once again thank you. Roger.chat (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Roger.chat: It's my first glance at this page in a while, and I noticed those additions - to be quite frank, here, it's a bit like reading the Redstocking's critiques of homosexuality. It comes across as speculative analysis with little consideration for context. Susan Driver seems a lot more confident in the whiteness of the label than most actual gay people would be - which is very strange to me. I'm not going to dig through sources today to find something to knock your paragraphs off the page, but I do think that they depict a fairly fringe analysis with way more weight than it deserves. The viewpoint may exist (the Redstockings wrote views at length, too), but I don't think that necessarily makes it authoritative. Sorry to ridicule without offering to fix it, though. (Albert Mond (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC))

Photo

Sexual identity/membership in a particular sexual subculture is a sensitive WP:BLP area. We don't have any indication that the two people in the lead photograph self-identify as twinks. (The photo was added a few months ago by a sockpuppetteer who made various other questionable image choices.) Cheers, gnu57 02:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Genericusername57: How about restoring File:Capital Gay Pride parade in Albany New York 2009.jpg to the article in its place, then? See LGBT_stereotypes#Appearance_and_mannerisms, which also uses the image and describes the subject as "generally considered twink-ish". I'd also say it's a better image for the purpose of illustrating the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@C.Fred: Sure, feel free. It's probably better that the person shown is a celebrity/media figure rather than just some private individual. Cheers, gnu57 03:25, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Roger.chat.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Photos of people

No photos of people should be used here without some context to the photo that implies the subject's consent to be identified as a twink. Zanahary (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

While I get the idea behind this, it's also going to fly in the face of years of Wikipedia's using public photos to identify subcultures and styles. I think you'd be better off going to WP:VPP and bringing up the topic there, to get our guidelines clarified. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

The term is sexual and considered by some to be pejorative. Particular care is needed. We don't have photos of random people judged by contributors to fall under the term's definition in the articles for, for example, shiksa, nor for Big Beautiful Woman. Zanahary (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Also, "bearing the hallmarks of twinks"?! Hahaha. It's awful verbiage, but a copyedit would still end up with something that basically means "who look like twinks", which is obviously both unencyclopedic and inappropriate. Without a direct relationship to the label, a photo of a real human being here is just not due for inclusion. Zanahary (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Many terms are considered by "some" to be pejorative. That doesn't justify removing photos like that. Saying "who look like X" is unencyclopedic would involve nuking a ton of existing photographs across the wiki, so that's going to cause some friction. The entire point is to have pictures of real human beings who depict a subculture or style, in order to demonstrate to the reader what that looks like. Which is definitely encyclopedic.

However, your new image definitely seems more appropriate, so I won't contest the change here. But I do suggest you try getting consensus for your view on WP:VPP. If you keep removing/changing images based on the above arguments, it's likely not going to go well. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:45, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

There are subcultures and styles like scene and soft grunge, the former of which features a photo of random people, and the latter of which features a celebrity who has been labelled by reliable sources as belonging to the aesthetic phenomenon in question. But 'twink' is not a subculture, it's a sexual descriptor applied to homosexual men of a certain body type, and a picture of some skinny gay dudes is just a picture of some skinny gay dudes. This is why we don't have a photo of some random blonde woman on shiksa, nor a random fat woman on big beautiful woman, nor a random broad, big-dicked black man on Mandingo. Because these are labels, not subcultures, and they're also quite sensitive in nature, both for being possibly offensive, and for being sexual—and WP has a responsibility not to make unwitting private people the public, encyclopedic face for sensitive stereotypes. Zanahary (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Again, that's an argument to make before the broader Wikipedia community. I don't know how else to say it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not really, considering none of the comparable articles I raised use photos of random people. Zanahary (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

It could be temporary for now, but long term I don’t know if we should use a pornographic actor’s image (perhaps in the “pornographic usage” maybe as it is a common category). Bringing it up, it is interesting the thought of a file on Wikipedia being uploaded explicitly to represent what a twink would be, instead of an ambiguous photo of what could be described as a “twink”. The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 11:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

And yes, that's a concern that was in the back of my mind. Using a porno actor as the example of "twink" is, in some ways, worse than the picture of a few random men who fit the look (and were identified as such by the photographer). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

How is it worse? What is wrong with using a photo of a porn actor? Zanahary (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn’t say using a pornographic actor image in itself bad, but it would be in a better place in the article when “twink” is used to describe a category in pornography, or a when it is used in sexual things (it is in fact a very common “category” on pornographic websites, including ones that do not centre around gay sexual activity)

though the thing is having a gay pornographic actor represent a twink in the lead might unintentionally insinuate that a twink is a concept that is chiefly or exclusively sexual in nature The Great Mule of Eupatoria (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a chiefly sexual term, even moreso than other gay labels like “bear”, because there is no such identity as twink (whereas “bears” have, like, a flag and themed cruises)—it’s only an archetype. Compare to BBW. Zanahary (talk) 03:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a flag actually.

In this picture the flag for bears is on the left, and that for twinks is on the right:

Yuyutsu Ho (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

We are entering booboo territory Zanahary (talk) 20:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The issue is that it implies "twink" is entirely a sexual term, by associating it with a porn actor. It inadvertently makes the term more pejorative. Twink is not a sexual term, it's a description of a style + body type among some gay men. Implying it's chiefly a sexual term is pushing your biases into the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t imply that it’s chiefly a sexual term; sexual ≠ pejorative; sources present it as sexual slang. Zanahary (talk) 15:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

It is a chiefly sexual term

It doesn’t imply that it’s chiefly a sexual term

Make up your damn mind. You're talking out both sides of your mouth here, and I'm starting to doubt your sincerity on this topic. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The use of a pornstar doesn’t imply that it is a chiefly sexual term. It’s still a sexual term anyways. What possible insincere intent could I have here?? Zanahary (talk) 23:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That's a contradictory statement, and I'm starting to think you're just here to push your specific view on the use of images in pages.

Twink is not inherently a sexual term. Flat-out. Take your personal preferences and put them somewhere else, that bias does not have a place here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:18, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I am here to assert that it’s inappropriate to use photos of nonconsenting private individuals, particularly those photographed in public, to illustrate articles on descriptive terms about body types. And I maintain that twink is a sexual term, like BBW. Zanahary (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

And of all topics to start accusing people of bad faith… hahaha Zanahary (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is a laughing matter. Again, take your argument about use of people in photos to WP:VPP. If you try to force your preference into articles, you're likely going to wind up facing sanctions.

And I don't care what you personally maintain, you'll need reliable sources if you want to assert that this is a sexual term in Wikivoice. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I never argued for asserting anything in Wikivoice. Zanahary (talk) 19:16, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyways, here are sources identifying it as sometimes pejorative and describing a debate as to whether it’s offensive or even a slur:

https://www.montclair.edu/lgbtq-center/lgbtq-resources/terminology/

https://www.them.us/story/what-is-a-twink

https://www.vice.com/en/article/7b7gzb/its-hard-out-here-for-a-twink-456

https://www.queerty.com/twink-slur-hard-truth-20220429

https://www.thepinknews.com/2016/05/05/olly-alexander-the-word-twink-is-pejorative/

https://www.queerty.com/the-is-twink-a-slur-debate-is-back-with-a-venegeance-and-this-time-adeles-involved-20230829

Clearly too sensitive a term to attach random unwitting people to based on physiology. And this is a real, sincere view! Not a tricky lie! Zanahary (talk) 19:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

"sometimes" is not enough for a blanket ban on pictures. End of story. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn’t say that either lol I said we shouldn’t put random people up on the twink article running Grindr physiognomy checks as our only consideration. Looks like the article’s been updated with a photo of someone who’s assented to being called a twink. Yayyyyy ❤️ Zanahary (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

sigh You're like talking to a brick wall, utterly dense.

But yes, the photo issue is resolved, so fuck it, we're done here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:05, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

References