Talk:Fisting

Delete?
Isn't it time we removed filth like this from the internet? Also a fictional act such as the one described herein is hardly "encyclopedic". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.63.147 (talk) 11:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No it isn't time we removed material like this from the internet, neither is it fictional.--feline1 (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides. oh IP user, Wikipedia is WP:NOT Censored for anyone. Even kids; don't like it? Don't look at it :)  Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to point out the Obvious. This person did a search to wind up on this page in the first place and apparently is interested in learning more about this "filth". I do have an issue with the page though, there is no section on the safeness of the act. Is there any risk of anal muscle injury to the fistee? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.116.149.212 (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fictional act...? I beg to differ. I have personal experience with fisting being a completely possible act... o.o Jcmcc450 (talk) 02:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Fisting (sometimes called handballing -- why isn't that term listed in the article?) is potentially lethal. The inserter must have closely and smoothly trimmed nails that are thoroughly pared, and his or her hands must be extremely clean. A tear or puncture of the rectal wall could be fatal. There is probably little danger to the anal ring, though, as it can stretch a ridiculous amount when the insertee is thoroughly relaxed. If you don't believe this, rent some videos. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated to include reference from the book Trust, the Hand Book: A Guide to the Sensual and Spiritual Art of Handballing K8 fan (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I am glad people can come to wiki to learn about these things. until today i didn't even know fisting existed. i would never do it though 65.183.212.114 (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

The real-life images on this page are too obscene for Wikipedia. They should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.10.61.128 (talk) 13:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Risks
The request above for a section on the risks of this act is very reasonable. I shall initiate such a section. Warren Zhang (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Point under risks referenced by 8 is only valid if injury occurs. Air in itself is never a problem.. or tampons or normal sexual intercourse would already pose risks. The statement as made based on the reference is incorrect and unverifiable. Please adjust. Anon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.46.202.80 (talk) 13:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Michaelangelo's "Last Judgement"
I deleted the first picture of Michaelangelo's Last Judgement because it is a wrong interpratation of the fresco in the church. As you can see in the original image (at the bottom on the right) that hand is not inside the uppper body.

Picture removed from article: (do not repost please) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Michelangelo_-_Punishment_of_sodomy.png

Original photo of the fresco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lastjudgement.jpg (Hi-Res) Please see original image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.64.82.208 (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, if it's not inside, where is the hand going? It looks to me as if it is fisting. 64.27.9.197 (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like it to me, too. However, It is inappropriate to post the image in this article, because it would be a corruption of the work: The author intends to show punishment for sin, not to depict sin. It was not intended by the author to be an illustration of what is described by this article. -- Newagelink (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC).


 * otoh, michaelangelo's dead, so who cares what he'd want? re-added as it quite clearly illustrates anal-fisting, and is probably the only non-(c) image we'll find.
 * also: lol at the idea that the punishment for sodomy is anal fisting :D --Dak (talk) 06:44, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As Newagelink noted, the image repeatedly reported here (most recently by Dak) is not from the work by Michelangelo -- in the original image (referenced by 88.64.82.208 above), the hand is not inserted; the wrist and curled knuckles are clearly visible. Also, this article is about sexual activity, implicitly between consenting adults.  The (altered) image is about punishment and is therefore inappropriate for this article. HalJor (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * well, one man's pleasure is another man's pain... does it really matter what michaelangelo originally meant? are we worried about disrespecting mich' by misusing his work, or about the implication that anal fisting is teh evilz? either way, it's an image that depicts anal fisting, the image inandof itself depicts anal fisting in a relatively neutral way, and it's probably the only open-source image depicting anal fisting that we'll find.


 * gonna talk about it here rather than edit warring, but please explain exactly why we can't use this free (as in source) image to illustrate the article? --Dak (talk) 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * well, if you don't want to talk about it: image re-inserted, as it's a free, public-domain illustration of the subject of the article. (c) expires for a reason, and that's so that we can make use of peoples' work however we want (eventually): what Michaelangelo may or may not have wanted, and wether or not it's been modified, are both irrelivent. --Dak (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dak, HalJor's points were that A) this is not by Michelangelo -- I don't know, so I won't comment -- and B) it is unprofessional and not befitting an encyclopedia because the context of the image contradicts the context of the article. My point in discussing "what the author intended" was about context: You can't take, for example, the murder of a war prisoner who happens to be black and insert it in an article about racism. "Well it's a picture of a black guy getting killed so we can stick it in about racism" is basically your argument. The image we're discussing does not depict fisting for sexual pleasure, which this article discusses. I am frustrated by your stubbornness; you seem to want the image included simply from its vulgarity, ignoring (or hopefully not understanding) the points that have been made. If you persist, I'll be forced to assume you're trolling. Furthermore, read very carefully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_wp_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored -- I quote: "images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." The image does not make the article more informative, and actually makes it less relevant (contradicting context) and accurate (not anatomically correct). You have absolutely no ground to stand on for including this image. Please stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newagelink (talk • contribs) 04:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that the image is illustrative, then it's ommision DOES make the article less informative, unless you can find a suitable replacement. And if you check the article The_Last_Judgment_(Michelangelo) you'll find that, OBVIOUSLY ENOUGH, sodomy is not, in actual fact, being portrayed as the punishment for sodomy -- rather, sins and virtues are both being portrayed. Weather Michaleangelo thought that anal fisting was a sin is irrelevent -- the image portrays anal fisting for sexual pleasure.
 * (as an aside, in the abscence of any actual imagry of racism, i'd consider a black guy being lynched in a non-racist way to be better than nothing, although obviously some actual racism would be better. I have actually looked for CC pictures of fisting, but can find none).
 * i'm going to put the picture back in. If you disagree, I suggest one of those 'request for commentry' thingumyjoggers to get some other peoples' opinions --Dak (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Know what, the original provided here does not illustrate what the article is illustrating. If a corruption is needed to illustrate it then obviously it cannot be attributed to the original source. But why does there need to be any illustartion at all? The article is illustrative enough and it doesn't require much imagination to see a hand inserted into an anus or vagina. Using no censorship to include a vulgar image isn't reason enough if it doesn't add to the article's usefulness. Even if these conditions are satisfied there is still an issue with copyright. Public domain only applies to the original work so if someone makes substantial changes to a derivitive it may be regarded as their own ip without affecting the status of the original. Biofase flame | stalk 22:35, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

--Dak (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) How can you claim that an illustration of fisting does not illustrate the article on fisting?
 * 2) why do you persist in calling it a corruption, when Michaelangelo was representing the sexual act of fisting in that part of the murial?
 * 3) if you think that an image of fisting is so vulgar, then why your interest in the (presumably also vulgar) article on the same subject?
 * and, as for not 'needing' an illustration, the WP:MOS suggests starting articles with a lead-image or infobox (presumably as it makes the article look better, and is more... umm... 'illustrative' of the subject matter).


 * Re 1: This is not an illustration of fisting any more than a photo of rape is an illustration of sexual intercourse. Fisting, in the context of this article, is a mutually consensual sexual act.  In the disputed illustration, it is an act of punishment (as you have noted yourself) and as such, the recipient is not consenting.
 * Re 2: It is a corruption, because Michelangelo did not depict the hand actually being inserted into the anus. As I stated above, the wrist is clearly visible in Michelangelo's work; in the disputed illustration, it is not.  (Don't believe me?  Download the original here, zoom in near center-right, and play with the brightness/contrast if you have to.)  Any reference to what Michelangelo intended in this disputed illustration is completely moot.
 * Re 3: It is not that the image is vulgar. It is merely inappropriate for this article because for the reasons stated in Re 1 above.
 * Re 4: We are not debating whether this article needs an illustration. It just needs to be an appropriate selection.  The claim that the disputed illustration is "probably the only non-(c) image we'll find" is completely false.  There is nothing preventing you, or anyone, from producing your own illustration and releasing it to the community. HalJor (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

re 1: as i said, if you check the wp article on the picture, you'll find that it depicts the act of sodomy, not the punishment for sodomy (seriously, the punishment for sodomy isn't going to be more sodomy, is it?). it's fair to assume, then, that the act depicts consensual sodomy, tho, according to you (and i'd agree), "any reference to what Michelangelo intended is completely moot". It appears to be fisting. ergo, it is. claims as to consent or otherwize IN REGUARDS TO A PAINTING are somewhat irrelevent, barring it clearly being one or the other (which it isn't). it just depicts sodomy (neither clearly rape, nor clearly consensual); Michaelangelo probably intended it to be consensual, as he's depicting kinky perversions in that part of the painting (not punishments).

re2: It is not modified (other than the colour drained), tho i do agree on closer inspection that the fist is not in the anus (in either the original or the image in the article... looking closely, you can see the curled fingers in both images). however, it does look like it is attempted, mid, or pre-fisting (or possibly anal fingering), and at a glance the fingers aren't notisable so it just looks like fisting).

re4: ok, then here's my suggestion:
 * we leave the image in, on the grounds that it's better than nothing and it's the only picture that is (copyright-wize) acceptable for inclusion that has been presented, but acknowledge that it's no where near 100% satisfactory
 * if a better, usable image turns up, we replace the image with that one.
 * No, I am not going to make said image... if it bugs you so much, why don't you? (tho, for the record, i searched flickr for creative-commons fisting pics, but alas, there were none...).

An alternative, as the image is in the public domain, is that one of us could modify it to appear more like fisting, release our modifications into the public domain, declair that our derived work depicts consensual sodomy, upload it as 'sodomy (modified from public-domain work by Michaelangelo)', and use that for the article?

--Dak (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * 1\ You noted that the image depicts punishment, which is inherently non-consensual, and therefore not appropriate for an article on consensual sex. There is no context for the picture.
 * 2\ The fact that color is drained means it has been modified. And since the fist is not inserted, it cannot be assumed that it ever would be.
 * Finally, the image is not "better than nothing" because it does not depict the act being described in the article.


 * Re-inserting the image to solicit comments isn't going to work either, because it leaves the article in an inferior state while discussion happens. Incidentally, you are the only person in this entire discussion who has suggested leaving the picture in -- while two other editors (besides myself) have asked you to not re-insert it. HalJor (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are a couple of things that are bothering me about this.


 * Where is this depicted in the original painting? I have been reviewing it for over half an hour and i cannot find it. Surely since noöne else contests this matter it must be visible somewhere.


 * UPDATE - i finally found it in the original image. Due to the flesh tones it is clear there that it is a curled hand. In the derivative the lack of colour as well as the low resolution result in the curled hand appearing to be the scrotum of the other man. Genital areas were covered in the painting save for those depicted as entirely in the realm of sin at the bottom. As such the derivative is misleading. jh0367 (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Given that is has the colour removed and has been isolated from the rest of the original image i would argue that it is a derivative and as such you should be citing the artist who made the derivative as well as /or/ instead of the original painter in both the source and the licensing rights . As such it may not be in the public domain and thus NOT available for use in Wikipedida.


 * Use of a derivative of a religious painting modified so as to extol the virtues of anal fisting distorts the context of the image and of the article. I don't have personal objections to anal fisting but i was quite surprised to see a Renaissance-era-looking image appear in the article. To even imply that the Sistine Chapel has a depiction of such a sex act when it is not true does not belong in an encyclopædia.


 * The argument has been stated numerous times that there is no better image available. I would like to advise of two options to resolve that. The first is to have a drawing made, much like most other articles of this genre have in their infoboxes. The other alternative is to create an image/photograph and release it with a CC license, upload it and replace the contested image that is presently being used.  I would recommend the former as it would fall in line with the style of similar articles. jh0367 (talk) 06:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is the image is attributed to Michaelangelo which just is not true. It's no more true than if you took someone off the street (which is what this is), had them draw a copy of the Mona Lisa with a beard, and then post under it, "The bearded lady, as depicted by da Vinci." It's fine to say it's a depiction of "fisting"; but it's not fine to say it's Michaelangelo's depiction of fisting. Which it is clearly not. The original picture shows the hand outside the person's body, the write and fist clearly visible. The sketch obviously does not show that; but the sketch is NOT by Michaelangelo. Mefanch (talk) 21:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit war reported. HalJor (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If the Sixtine Chapel has an image of a guy putting a fist up some other's guy ass, then I would expect that some source would comment on this fact. Either a sexuality book explaining the sexual ideas at that time or the history of fisting, or a religious book explaining what sort of punishment it was and why it was depicted like that, or even a popular culture book listing curiosities in art. The pictures on the chapel have been very studied, so there should be some source talking about that one. Then, we can use their assesment of the significance of the picture. Without any source, and with so many doubts about the actual action, I wouldn't use that picture at all. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We will never know if the apparent act is intended. Mich was a practicing gay and is well know for leaving various symbolic messages in his works. 1. The original position of David has his finger pointing in an accusative way at Rome. 2. Creation of Adam shows an outline of the human brain dissected. The message is that God is entirely in mans' mind. 3. Fisting. Perhaps a private joke. One thing completely absent from Mich's work are Cherubs. We can be sure that he wasn't a child molester.220.244.84.234 (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for photographs???
I'm curious as to why a couple of entries - fisting and creampie(sex act) - have a request for photographs associated to the article in the discussion tab.

Yet from what I saw in the creampie - there is an ongoing battle/argument over having photographs. When photos are uploaded they're deleted.

Why have this "request for photographs" on entries about explicit sexual acts?

Rayngrant (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)Ray Grant
 * Ever heard of trolls? 193.157.242.51 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

In Italian culture, the current third picture is the "fig" sign, and considered incredibly obscene. It is referenced in Dante's Inferno. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.202 (talk) 02:07, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And? Biofase flame | stalk 04:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The drama that ensues with depictions of extreme sex acts is usually well over the top, but most come from the batshit insane OMGCENSOREVERYTHING angle. I, whilst not being pro-censorship in any way, am against depictions of hardcore acts that would generally recieve an above R18+ rating purely because I know for a fact that thousands of schools across the world will be spoiled sports, and god knows when the nazi.. uh, I mean government in Australia brings in the filter we can kiss Wikipedia goodbye. If the photo even ADDS to understanding beyond what the text does, even just BARELY, I'd totally err on the side of inclusion. But in this instance, the article is very well written and descriptive and the photograph in question adds absolutely nothing beyond controversy and dramu generation by trolls. Ironically it seems to be trolls trolling trolls, as trolls want the porn, and trolls baww about wanting it down. 124.179.19.254 (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "If the photo even ADDS to understanding beyond what the text does, even just BARELY, I'd totally err on the side of inclusion." Except for paedophilia and bestiality, I presume?

Why point specifically to GLBT?
What exactly does this have to do with WikiProject LGBT studies? Associating fisting specifically with that is kind of offensive. Anal sex I can see, but fisting? That seems to cross a line. Unless there are studies to back up the idea that gays and/or lesbians are the predominant practitioners, it's a blind and somewhat prejudiced assumption. --Mattbrown04 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Most gay men dont fist..but most "fisters" are gay men.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.255.46.89 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm...this reliable source says that "The practice of fisting is a form of sexual activity confined primarily to the homosexual community."


 * That ref is dated 1983, and I know several straight couples who would debate that statement. HalJor (talk) 02:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with HalJor. While the source may have been reliable almost 30 years ago when it was published, the sexual practices of heterosexuals have changed dramatically in the ensuing three decades. One only has to look at the dramatic growth in the hetero porn industry as prima facie evidence of the sexual liberation/awakening of the straight side of Kinsey’s (in)famous scale. — Spike Toronto  05:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, I didn't realize the date of the publication. In any case, I would bet that most fisting is done by the porn community.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think a study would find that there are more heterosexual couples who engage in anal sex, or who engage in fisting than there are gay people who do so. Homosexuality is not about a particular sex act, but about people of the same sex who love one another and want to share their lives together. Atom (talk) 22:01, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Why the hell
are editors using a still-animated pic for illustrations of this sexual act? Is it that bad of a taboo that it cannot be shown graphically? I thought Wikipedia was uncensored. LaRouxEMP (talk) 12:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The photograph that was removed did not show anything that was immediately and obviously connected to fisting. It merely showed the two orifices of a female photographic subject that may or may not have been connected to the subject of this article. Also, the drawing currently used conveys the topic well and should only be replaced if the replacement improves the encyclopedia reader’s understanding of the topic. Greater “graphicness” is not necessarily an improvement. — Spike Toronto  18:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Techniques"
Needs work.  TyrS  chatties  02:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * So, do the work! Drive-by application of templates, rather than rolling up your sleeves, dusting off your keyboard, and getting down to writing doesn’t really help. — Spike Toronto  06:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * On re-reading the above, I realize that it sounds rather peevish. I did not intend that. Let me put it another way: When you say, “Needs work,” what would you like to see done to the section? Would you feel confident about improving the section yourself? Perhaps drafting a new version in your userspace for review and eventual incorporation? Thanks! — Spike Toronto  06:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Very, very lopsided presentation
Currently the focus is almost exclusively on women doing vaginal fisting, with an extensive list of porn actresses and no mention or illustration of men self-fisting or getting fisted. Please do not remove the Unbalanced box without discussion here.  TyrS  chatties  02:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The Unbalanced template has been incorrectly applied. That template and its application are subsumed by one of Wikipedia’s core policies: Neutral point of view (shortcut → WP:NPOV). Thus, is used in those instances where one suspects an intention motivated by mala fides. I do not believe that there was ever such an animus with this wikiarticle. Rather, I think that no one has yet contributed the male-as-fistee viewpoint/perspective. Nor has anyone added such gay porn fisting luminaries as the glorious Ashley Ryder. But, that doesn’t mean that their absence from the article is a result of undue weight having been intentionally given to the female-as-fistee viewpoint/perspective at the expense of the male-as-fistee viewpoint/perspective. Rather, it is just that the article currently lacks sufficient breadth. Some form of section expansion template might have been more appropriate. I do agree, TyrS, that you have hit upon something that this article lacks and that is the male-as-fistee perspective. If you have a yen to see it added, why not write up such a section? It would certainly lend greater breadth to the article. (But, can you imagine the edit war that would ensue if there were any such images added to article?! Sheesh!) — Spike Toronto  06:36, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Errrrrr, why do we even have a list of porn actors/actresses that have done fisting at some point in their carreer. That's not encyclopedic. We should include only people that have secondary sources mentioning that the person is notable in the field of fisting due to some specific reason. Currently, there is no such a source in the article, so we should remove the whole section. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

actresses / models
Please add Aria Giovanni to section "People noted to have engaged in fisting". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.112.249.25 (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. I've seen a scene, probably the one you have, but we'll need a source for it. When I created the section back in 2009 I sourced every performer in one way or another, but now we have all these who haven't been. And it's a shame O-Pearl's article was deleted. I argued for keeping it but there were too many votes against. Maybe it could be created again but she is no longer active after having her baby, in 2008 I think. I loved that enormous pierced cunt, a work of art. DinDraithou (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I didn't create her original article, btw. DinDraithou (talk) 23:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I question whether this section is even worth keeping, as it seems to violate several principles of WP:LISTCRUFT. In particular:
 * • Many of the entries are not cited or themselves notable (they don't have their own articles). Non-notable people cannot really be "people noted to have engaged in fisting", especially if their mention is unsourced.
 * • The list may be essentially unlimited, if non-notable people can be included.
 * • So far, the list looks entirely female. If men are included, the list would appear to be endless.  There are studios devoted to (or at least significant producers of) fisting films, and their list of relevant works would be longer than this article itself.  List the individual performers, and, well, you see my point.
 * If we really want to go this route, I might suggest focusing on the notable studios or notable films, with proper citations. HalJor (talk) 00:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The ones I added all have/had articles. Remove those who don't if you would like. I almost did but haven't investigated them. Giovanni I'm sure we can source easily enough, but my computer is messed up and I'm using someone else's. DinDraithou (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My original title for the section was "In pornography" I think. DinDraithou (talk) 00:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I've removed the right ones. O-Pearl we should keep, since she is sourced, had an article, and might again when I have a chance to do the research. DinDraithou (talk) 01:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Plus I'm not interested in men so I'm not going to add any. If any male performers have articles here then go ahead if that's your thing. DinDraithou (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

RFC: Image of male anal fisting
I'm doing a (non-admin) closure of this because the outcome is very clear from Wikipedia policy, despite emotions running high for some parties on both sides of the debate (and because I had time to kill, not wanting to be out and about on a night full of drunk drivers). I'm closing it a couple of days early, because the discussion entirely died out over a week ago, and even if it had not, the only way the outcome would be different is if policy radically changed suddenly and radically. Furthermore, an alternative image was proposed, making the debate borderline moot, and pointlessly delaying likely replacement of the image that no one really likes.

While the arguments for just removing the image are not generally unreasoned, and claims that removal=homophobia are unreasonable, the arguments in favor of inclusion are stronger and clearly reflect Wikipedia norms much better. I will go over every identifiable argument and explain how it factored. That the arguments to remove the image are all over the map, sometimes contradictory, and over the course of the debate sometimes abandoned is all highly significant. I've detailed all the clearly articulated debate points, even the trivial ones, and their applicability because I think this RFC may have good value as something to look back on for this article's progress and that of others when image flamewars pop up. PS: This closure is modeled on that of Talk:Gokkun, by. Reading it, BTW, is actually of strong relevance to further discussion about using artistic interpretations instead of photographs especially in articles about sexuality topics.


 * Consensus of involved editors is against adding the image, and only one editor wants to keep adding it. (False and moot: Self-evidently not the case when broader attention is brought to bear, or the debate would have been very one-sided. Also not the only time debates of this sort have appeared here.  Furthermore, the point of an RfC is to get involved editor opinion.  This RfC is a classic example of why WP:SNOWBALL is not policy and should not be cited early in a discussion.)
 * It is illogical that the article needs to be illustrated with a of someone being fisted. (No consensus: Others strongly disagree, with multiple rationales based in policy, guidelines, precedent in similar articles, etc.  Some would prefer a non-photographic replacement.)
 * A photographic fisting image will be too offensive to too many people. A.k.a. "It's disgusting! Deviant! Immoral!" (Policy against: WP:NOTCENSORED exists specifically to counter this very rationale. See also WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The problem is that many people are simply offended by the concept of fisting, depicted or not, and/or by visual depictions of sexuality at all even when not offended by text, and we cannot cater to either of these subsets of readers without harming the encyclopedic value of Wikipedia for everyone.)
 * Schools may block Wikipedia from classrooms because of this image. (Policy and common sense against: WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't make an exception for this eventuality, and even if it were an actionable concern, all images and other content that could ever offend some teacher or school administrator somewhere would be removable. In point of real-world fact, what actually happens is that school censorware already blocks this and other sex articles, so common sense is against this rationale, too.)
 * I actually showed images like this to teachers and it turned them away from Wikipedia. (Irrelevant and pointless: That's on you. It's like breaking a kid's nose on purpose in front of his parents on sign-up day to warn them that taking up your karate class has its risks.)
 * The government of Australia, or whatever other country, might block Wikipedia entirely for this image (Policy and common sense against: WP:NOTCENSORED applies again and does not recognize this as a valid exception. Side note: If that really happened, the political fallout would be massive in a democracy like Australia; meanwhile, in a totalitarian state, we expect WP to be blocked anyway, for its political, human rights, etc., articles.)
 * The image does not help convey any information or understanding not conveyed by the article text, and thus serves no purpose. (Consensus and guidelines against: Others strongly disagree, and provide multiple reasons why the image is helpful, even if not perfect; the controlling guidelines, per WP:NOTCENSORED, are WP:PERTINENCE and WP:PROFANE, and both appear to be satisfied.)
 * "I agree!" and other context-free "me too" posts. (Irrelevant: Per WP:AADD, WP:NOT, m:WM:PAE, etc., one-liner !votes are generally not useful for gauging consensus.
 * The image is poor quality. (Consensus to replace but not remove: I don't see anyone at all claiming it's a great photo. But many disagree that it is bad that it must be removed.  WP:PERTINENCE suggests rejecting images that are essentially useless, not just unappealing or technically shoddy. Many, on both sides, felt it can be replaced with a better photographic image, and others felt that a cut-away diagram would actually be more useful.)
 * The image clearly depicts someone with a disease or rash, and may confuse readers. (No consensus: I don't see any strong support for this notion, though it could probably have been the best argument for removal, per WP:PERTINENCE, if this were certain. The problem is, it's not clearly a rash or disease, but easily could be razor burn from shaving the area, a very common practice. So, perhaps another argument for replacement, but not for bare removal.)
 * The fisting in the photo isn't clear enough. (No consensus: Some others disagreed, but most, who did not oppose all depiction of fisting, agreed that a better image should be sought, when they commented on the matter. Curiously, some seemed to feel it essentially wasn't graphic enough, effectively contradicting several others.)
 * The focus appears to be on an erect penis, not the article subject. And has distracting elements, like leatherwear. (No consensus: Others disagreed, feeling that the penis was simply being pulled up an away, and no one supported the "distracting leather" argument. Given that fisting of [one sort] seems to be a popular activity in the gay "leather men" scene, the presence of leatherwear in the photo being "distracting" rather than simply accurate is an iffy proposition.)
 * The non-photographic female illustration is simply sufficient. (Consensus against: Numerous objections to this claim were raised, on multiple grounds, and few seemed to hold this view, including some opponents of this image.)
 * The male image does not accurately portray fisting. (Common sense against: It's an actual photograph of anal fisting, whether it is enough of a close-up or not.)
 * Someone in favor of the picture has a personal connection to it. (Evidence against, and irrelevant: The photo came from Flickr, and nothing suggests that is is a photo of anyone in the debate or anyone known to anyone in the debate. That wouldn't preclude its use, anyway, it could just discount the !vote of the editor who had the hypothetical conflict of interest.)
 * Being in favor of the picture means someone is a big fan of fisting. (False and irrelevant. This is just self-evidently ad hominem nonsense, like being in favor of a picture of a zucchini at the Zucchini article means you must be obsessed with that vegetable.)
 * "It's an emergency, remove it now!" stuff, like multiple requests immediately after the RfC was opened. (Policy, guidelines and common sense against: See WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RFC, WP:DONTPANIC, WP:TEA, etc., etc.)
 * Adding the image is vandalism. (Policy disagrees: Does not qualify under WP:VANDAL. Accusations of vandalism when one simply disagrees about content or appropriateness assumes bad faith and is not civil.)
 * The image is too prurient – it is pervy masturbation fodder. (Policy and common sense against: WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't have an exception for images that someone may find erotic. We have no control as editors over this, and given the number of paraphilias out there, the same can be said of thousands of images in thousands of articles. An image depicting a sexual activity is by definition going to be sexy to some subset of people.)
 * The image should be replaced with something comparably informative but better, meanwhile this one should be removed until then. (No consensus: No solid policy rationale has been provided for this suggestion, which even the most vocal opponent of this image has verbally supported. The guiding policy here is simply WP:CONSENSUS on editorial agreement on encyclopedic value, since this suggestion does not propose censorship of any such image, just removal of this particular one, and there is clearly no consensus to remove the image.)
 * Children might see it, so it has to go. (Policy and common sense against: This is the other major reason that WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, because a large number of people want to censor everything about sex, death, other religions, etc., etc.  As someone else pointed out, any child curious about this topic can simply Google it for endless pictures, so censoring it here wouldn't prevent minors from seeing such images.)
 * Some other pages that have graphic illustrations don't, like Suicide and Abortion, so this shouldn't either. (Guidelines and precedent disagree: That is an obvious example of the WP:OTHERSTUFF fallacy, and thus generally irrelevant since WP:PERTINENCE applies to the article at hand and its specific content and context. To the extent it is a precedential issue, most articles on sexual topics are clearly illustrated, with images that various readers will be unhappy with.)
 * Remove, because entire article is poor quality. (Irrelevant: That simply does not compute, like "destroy my windshield because my car is crappy.")
 * This is symptomatic of a gay activism program to corrupt young minds and ruin WP's reputation. (Consensus against: Even the editor accused of homophobia doesn't go this far; see also WP:NOT).
 * Images (generally, not just this one) do not add meaning to the article. (Policy, consensus and common sense against, for reasons already given.)
 * The image is causing disruption. (Policy and guidelines against: WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:RFC, WP:DE, etc., do not support such an interpretation. An editwar between two reverters is not disruptive, it's a WP:EDITWAR. An RFC is not disruption, it's WP:DISPUTE-resolution. Images don't cause disruption, editorial behavior does.)
 * There is nothing "ambiguous or mysterious" about fisting as described in the article, so get rid of the images. (Policy, guidelines, consensus, precedent and common sense all against: These are not image inclusion criteria, formally or informally, and if they were, most images would be removed from the encyclopedia.)
 * It's just a homemade image. (Ditto.)


 * WP:NOTCENSORED is longstanding policy, and means what it says. (Policy agrees, obviously: It and the WP:PERTINENCE guideline it cites appear to be satisfied – in spirit, per WP:COMMONSENSE, as well as in letter – despite the fact that this image and any image on this topic are of course guaranteed to offend some readers.)
 * A male image is not more objectionable than a/the female one. (Common sense agrees: This is obvious.)
 * A male image is needed for balance (Guidelines and precedent agree: WP:PERTINENCE supports this as useful if not required, and practice in other human sexuality articles, e.g. Masturbation, strongly supports equal treatment, even separate sections, when particulars differ. And several strong arguments could be made against using only female images on a sexually explicit topic as form of obvious bias.)
 * Opposing the image is homophobic. (Common sense and guidelines disagree: No evidence of this; the active party in the photo is not visible and so not necessarily male to begin with, meanwhile repeated accusations of homophobia are ad hominem and incivil, as well as assumptive of bad faith, even when some WP:DICKish behavior has transpired.)
 * Opposing the image is just a personal preferences thing. (Common sense against: Strong evidence to the contrary on the part of specific individuals, such as the Australian anon's pro-sex comments while nonetheless opposing the image. While some opposition  clearly motivated by individual morality or aesthetics, but some other objections were based on image quality, public relations concerns and other things not relating to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.)
 * The image illustrates partner vs. masturbatory fisting, so is not redundant with the female image. (Consensus, common sense and precedent agree: This is obvious, and supports WP:PERTINENCE applying. This argument will be seen as moot by those would oppose any illustration of fisting at all, but policy and guidelines clearly contradict them.)
 * The image is more anatomically correct than the female drawing, which is a fantasy piece, so the photo should be kept even if the female one is not. (No consensus, and irrelevant: There's been little discussion of what is allegedly wrong with the female drawing, though no one has contradicted the assertions that it is anatomically flawed. This is one of at least four arguments for replacing the female image as well, because although WP:PERTINENCE does not require photographs, it does requires that an artistic interpretation be accurate. But that's another discussion, and keeping, removing or replacing the one image has nothing to do with that decision about the other.)
 * Distracting elements can be cropped out. (True: The license permits derivative works. Several objections to the image can be resolved simply by zooming in a bit.)
 * It's not our task to prevent people from masturbating. (Policy and consensus support: WP:NOT, generally. Even some of the most vocal opposition to the image agreed that sexual explicitness isn't the issue at all.)
 * The imperfect quality of the image makes it less not more erotic, anyway. (Common sense supports, but irrelevant.)
 * It demonstrates that the subject is actually anatomically possible, which not all readers would necessarily believe and which is not clear from artistic drawings. (Common sense supports: Obviously true, though mitigated by concerns that the image isn't clear enough and should be replaced.)
 * Anyone reading an article on this topic should expect to see clear, graphic images on this topic. (Policy, consensus and common sense support: Wikipedia is illustrated throughout and has a clear policy that it is not censored. Even the two most vocal proponents of this image being removed agreed that really it should be replaced, which essentially guts the already weak arguments to remove it. WP:PROFANE is clearly satisfied, and not a single party to the debate even suggested that it was being violated.)
 * Keep both images until replaced, as they are better than nothing despite their flaws. (Policy and guidelines support: This is the real question, with vocal opinions on both sides, but the controlling policies and guidelines strongly favor retaining the images, since there is no consensus that they are completely useless and not pertinent, only unsupported and well-contradicted assertions that either or both are. No guideline amounts to "remove controversial material" unless controversy is that the material violates a policy or major guideline, like WP:Verifiability or WP:Notability. If any thing, the drawing is less likely to survive than the photo because multiple parties, three I think, have questioned its accuracy.)
 * Articles on Kneeling, Standing, etc. are illustrated, so this one should be, too. (Borderline irrelevant, but precedent supports: This is largely another case of WP:OTHERSTUFF, yet clearly the rationale being responded to - a "remove the image because the text makes it obvious what is happening" proposition from several opposers - cannot be applied rationally to other articles. If it wouldn't make sense at Kneeling it doesn't here. The fact that the topic has something to do with sex doesn't bypass normal Wikipedian logic.)

Happy new year! — SMcCandish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 08:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

A user keeps adding this picture on despite the fact that most editors in this discussion are requesting to remove it. I request editors to give their input on the issue. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does it seem totally illogical that a photograph depicting some dude getting fisted is neccessary to illustrate this article when we have far better material available that won't give schools across the world an excuse to ban wiki from classrooms? Being a horndog I have ALWAYS supported the uncensored wiki, but even by Australian ACMA ratings systems if / when the filter comes in here, that image is that excessive that it'd definitely get Wiki b& for all of us.

Does it help convey more information than the article already does? No. Is it neccessary or essential to provide an informative element in and of itself? No. Does it in any way enhance the understanding of the act beyond what the words of the article does? No.

So, I submit that this image serves absolutely no purpose and would ask that it be removed. 124.179.19.254 (talk) 11:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree 100 % ! Sperner (talk) 20:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

The male image is no more objectionable than the female one, which compounds the depiction with onanism and isn't even anatomically correct. -- 17:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been trying to remove an image of a man getting fisted. I have a few objections regarding the image:
 * 1. The image is horrendous, it's a guy with some rash all over his body, it seems like a person with some kind of disease. This might be POV but in my opinion, nothing pleasant about that picture from the aesthetic view.
 * 2.The image is not a clear depiction of fisting, the bottom of the image shows the part of an arm with gloves, and the focus of the image is on his erected penis and scrotum.
 * My main objection with this picture is that is not suitable for the article on the fact that it doesn't portray it accurately and to a degree is not aesthetically pleasant. Furthermore, there is already a very nice illustration by user Seedfeeder which illustrates the article perfectly. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You want to provide a new picture then? How does it not accurately describe fisting? C T J F 8 3  21:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That is my point, there is no need for anymore pictures suitable for an encyclopedia. The woman fisting herself does the job perfectly. Is that you in the picture? Or do you have any relation to that picture? If so, then your opinion might be biased. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:12, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Shit no! I found it on Flickr. It is suitable as an illustration of anal fisting, the woman is vaginal fisting. C T J F 8 3  22:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I am going to keep removing that image. Any more additions will be acknowledge as a form of vandalism. The consensus of the few involved editors is to remove the picture. Please respect that. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Go for reporting it as vandalism, while you're at it, why don't you actually read WP:VAND and specifically the 3rd one down here. Seems to me one other established user reverted you, and you're raising your point on an IP and rare user. You'll get a WP:3RR for reverting again. So, leave the pic alone, until you have an actual consensus to remove it. So, you're reason for removing is basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The only reason you are giving for its removal all 100% your opinion. What policy reason do you have to remove it? And that so called rash looks like razor burn to me. C T J F 8 3  12:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You can read me all the WPs you want. We will see what the other editors think. In the meantime why don't you ask someone to do some fisting on yourself and take a much better picture and post it so we get rid of this horrendous one? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The opinion that the image is "horrendous" and "nothing pleasant...from the aesthetic point of view" shouldn't necessarily disqualify the image. If anything, it diminishes the erotic effect -- people aren't going to view the image as masturbation material as much as they would most images from professional fisting porn.  That "the image is not a clear depiction of fisting" and "the focus of the image is on his erected penis and scrotum" is both true and false.  It is not clear in the sense that the bottom of the image is cropped to the point where it is not provable that the inserted object is someone's gloved hand.  I would dispute, however, that the focus is the erect penis (it could be that the subject's hand is merely holding his penis in such a way as to lift the scrotum, making the insertion more visible).  The image of the female at the top of the article is "very nice" but is not complete because it does not depict anal fisting.  This image is presented for completeness and balance.  Is there a better image out there?  Probably (others have been added and removed over the years for various reasons).  Could one be created, as the female one was?  Certainly.  Should this one be removed?  Not for the reasons cited so far. HalJor (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the two of you are homosexuals as shown in your userpages I believe your opinion on fisting might be biased to begin with. There is nothing wrong with wanting to get rid of a low quality and unpleasant picture for a much better one. Regarding your comment on "masturbation material" what exactly do you mean? There is nothing wrong with a person masturbating to an image in Wikipedia, that is the least of my concerns. My belief is that there is already an excellent picture that illustrates fisting and that is enough, should an editor want to add an anal fisting picture, then go ahead. All I think is that it should be at least a picture that has some good focus and at least is the image of an individual without some kind of disease (as the one in the current image). I mean, don't you think Wikipedia readers deserve better than that? --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's not a great picture, a Seedfeeder image to match the other would be better, if indeed an image is needed at all. (The article is also in terrible shape.) Of course the existing image could be cropped. Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC).


 * How fucking dare you, Camilo, bring out the homophobia. First of all I see nothing on HalJor's page that says he is gay, you can support gay marriage and be straight. You're accusation that because I'm gay, I'm biased towards fisting is offensive. Second, anal fisting can be done by anyone, not just gays. And your comment "In the meantime why don't you ask someone to do some fisting on yourself and take a much better picture and post it so we get rid of this horrendous one?" is not only totally out of line but offensive. So grow the fuck up and act like an adult. You don't see me throwing out racial accusations, do you. C T J F 8 3  22:33, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Rich, if you can provide a seedfeeder image, that would be great. C T J F 8 3  22:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why would you be offended? There would be nothing wrong if you like getting fisted, this is the fisting article after all. I was actually suggesting that you would provide a picture which at least would be less repugnant than the current one that's all. Don't be a drama queen. It was in good faith --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's ignorant to assume because I'm Gay I like fisting and I'm biased towards a Pic. I assume you have an asshole, you take a Pic. Would you be offended IF I said your Colombian your opinion doesn't count, and you should get back to the coffee bean fields? C T J F 8 3  01:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * First off don't attack me personally because I won't be the one blocking you. Second, I can careless if you want to make any racial comments towards me I will focus my argument on the basics. The picture is a bad and unpleasant one. The article already has one, and as it is evident some people agree with me. Also, if you don't practice fisting then why are you trying to push that picture on the article if is not something that you even seem to have a personal interest on?. Fisting is only good when it's someone else? That's hypocritical you know. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * again your only reason is wp:idontlikeit C T J F 8 3  02:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No...you don't like it, you just like to watch it lol. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Camilo, your comments are way out of line and, in my view, risk a block for personal attacks.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about the image in contention, but the other image should be removed because it is worse. It doesn't tell me anything about fisting, it just tells me what happens if you put indesign and a straight male virgin in the same room. And how long is that woman's left thigh? --FormerIP (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please remove this disgusting and offensive image? How could anyone possibly think this is appropriate. Children use this site for gods sake!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.154.17.166 (talk) 01::42, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * read wp:notcensored C T J F 8 3  02:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

There is also a page on suicide, but you don't see a photo of someone with their head blown off with a shotgun, or a baby after it was aborted on the abortion page. Fisting is also just as repulsive and really is not significant to warrant this. What kind of sick deviant would let someone do this? Disturbing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.154.17.166 (talk) 03:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I love the child excuse what child will look up fisting and if they did and didn't find a picture here they would google it C T J F 8 3  05:01, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd rather do without the image, which looks rather homemade, and leave it accessible to readers via a Commons link. We are not censored, but the prime policy here is representing viewpoints in reliable sources in proportion to their published prominence. I might reconsider if someone can point me to reputable sources showing images of similar content and quality. -- J N  466  04:57, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * of course it's homemade you don't fist at the mall...are you also proposing the top picture be deleted or just this 1 because it's a guy. I have no idea what your 2nd part means.  C T J F 8 3  05:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As per stated above. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove image. This is not one of those cases where an image is very helpful, and it has some distracting elements (the leather, for instance). Also, the dude has a skin issue, which is not pleasing to the eye, and for all I know he has just a finger or nothing at all up his ass. BTW, Camilo Sanchez, it seems you have refrained making offensive comments and easy assumptions about gays and about editors; keep it up please. Drmies (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this then? No rash, you can see the fist inserted. C T J F 8 3  20:25, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't see that image. And even if it were beautiful, I don't see what it might add. There already is an image, so bland that it could never be accused of being pornographic, and I don't see why we need an image for the other orifice. Drmies (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Who is to say vaginal fisting is more prevalent or notable than anal fisting? C T J F 8 3  20:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I have to sign in, apparently. And I didn't say anything about more notable. I gave you my rationale; be happy or unhappy with it, I don't care. BTW, my kid is sitting next to me on the couch and she caught a glimpse already; I guess I need to rotate the screen and then hit save. ;) Seriously, do we need the pic on this talk page? Drmies (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove image, as above. bobrayner (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove image. I don't see how it's necessary or useful. Nor does it matter whether we illustrate vaginal or anal fisting. This isn't an equal rights page. Frankly, I don't think we need any images, but if we have to have one, I'd prefer it be more mannequin-like than real. I also favor removing the image from this page - a link would suffice.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy/Snow remove image - I don't think that consensus gets much clearer than this. The image clearly has no point and no reason whatsoever to be included. The person edit warring to keep this unwarranted image in should be ashamed of themselves! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:28, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * delete I do not absolutely object to a real picture, but If we are going to have one, I believe we can possibly find one more appropriate. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Retain the image. Since there are so many delete votes without any proper rationale, I thought I should come off the fence. I don't think the picture is brilliant and I would be perfectly content with an article without any illustration. However, I am sick to death of photographs being deleted from sexual practice articles in favour of juvenile, sexist, idealised computer-aided drawings of the practice in question. If I am going to see some fisting on the page, I would much prefer confidence that I am seeing it as it really is, rather than having to experience the dull ache of cartoon porn. --FormerIP (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * You are an example of how my request has been misunderstood to begin with. The problem is not what is in the image, the problem is that the image is a bad one. If you provide a less disgusting fisting picture I would be happy with it. Is it too much to ask for a picture of a healthy individual? Why do we have to give readers an image of an unhealthy and disgusting male with a bad focused and unclear picture when there is so much material out there that is much better and pleasant to the eye. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I already suggested http://www.flickr.com/photos/12485646@N03/5043254493/ C T J F 8 3  02:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Remove – Entire article is of questionable notability. There also appears to be an agenda here, being pushed, often through tag-team and uncivil retorts, on this talk page. Wiki seems to turn more into 4chan and less from an encyclopedia through the manipulation of "not censored" rhetoric, each day. I'm waiting for a photo of a "sheep shagger" to appear on Welsh or Scottish article, under the guise of "notability". Some editors here have serious pro-gay COI/POV issues and need to step back, especially given that this is supposedly a heterosexual activity also and straight people are being accused of "homophobia" out of turn. Why is the solo female fister a cartoon, and the male fister a photo, for a start? Not very neutral. Why does there even need to be a photo, when all the article needs is a description – I mean, it's hardly rocket science, and that guy hardly has a "rocket" worth shouting about? You don't need a photo on how to boil eggs, so why one here? Again, it's anti-Wiki content that brings the entire project into disrepute with regards to making it less accessible to kids, more agenda/politically motivated, more pornographic, less educational, detrimental to every other article/contributor who wants to see Wiki develop. Sadly, it is forced issues like this that lead to conflicts regarding discrimination. Gays complaining about homophobia if the photo is removed are hypocrites, when they themselves use "not censored" as an excuse to discriminate against younger readers. Age discrimination is no less prevalent than sexuality discrimination. Photos such as this are what lead to the Foundation considering an "image filter" recently. I'm pro-LGB (-T) but I also believe in "behind closed doors". And I disagree with anyone who says kids won't look it up. When I was young kids looked "dirty words" up in the dictionary. Now the internet is here, and images like this only serve to corrupt young minds. Let's put it this way: because of "no legal threats", no LGBT members stand a chance of forcing a legal discrimination matter out of this. COPPA stands a better chance, as child protection is of far greater importance than censorship, where there is limited parental control. WikiKamaSutra anyone? Ma<font color="#CC0000">&reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat • RFF]''' 02:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak remove I much prefer artwork to photographs for illustrations of sexual acts (as opposed to body parts) - drawings make the page feel more like sex education than porn (which can help in its acceptance and functioning as an educational page).  The current main illustration does an excellent job of giving the reader an instant understanding of what's being discussed and I don't see what the photo adds.  That said, the photo is a lot clearer than some photographic "illustrations" I've seen added to pages. --Simon Speed (talk) 02:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose rationale provided to remove because the image is "disturbing"/"there are children"/the absurd statement that "Entire article is of questionable notability."
 * 2) Replace image with this one: 300px Switching position to Keep/retain per comments below. Although I have found this image as well neither of these show a male or anal fisting. I have tried looking in related/broader categories to see if another fisting image was uploaded but not specifically categorized as well as checked Flickr, but neither yielded additional results. In the meantime this picture will have to suffice.AerobicFox (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Support users exercising more caution in how they form their arguments and respond to others so as to not needlessly offend/distract discussion.AerobicFox (talk) 05:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that image is much better. Also, the issue of the image being offensive is in my opinion not the problem here. To me it comes down to if we can provide a reasonable better image then the article improves too. I would apply that principle to any article. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That's another vaginal fisting, why do we need two of those? C T J F 8 3  14:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That image could make a good replacement for the vaginal fisting drawing (although as it's much closer up there is less context, which is probably less desirable for a lead image). It doesn't show anal fisting though, so doesn't illustrate the same thing the current picture does. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep, pending we have one female recipient, and one male recipient. One masturbatory and vaginal, and one as part of intercourse and anal.  Diagrams showing better context are more desirable, as is diversity of participants approaching the real human diversity.  Until a better male fisting intercourse image comes along; or a female intercourse and male masturbation image comes along; use this one.  Fifelfoo (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove Images do not add meaning to the article. Gerardw (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep until we find a better image. This one isn't perfect but it is good enough and adds significantly to the article, by simple virtue of being a photograph it adds more to the article that the drawing can do. Particularly it illustrates what the subject is precisely far more than text can and it shows that it does actually exist and is anatomically possible. Thryduulf (talk) 07:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove, as graphics does its job perfectly. Actually I can't get how this (or any other possible) photo can be informative or adding to article - the textual description does its job. At the same time, the image should be kept in Wikimedia, so that everybody, who couldn't understand the textual description can go there and have their step-by-step guide if that is so much desired. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, graphics do not do the job perfectly - they do not show it is anatomically possible (cf File:Autocunnilingus.jpg), not that people actually do it. That the textual description does the job is false for the same reason, and this image is not a step-by-step guide nor is it part of one. Indeed by saying it should be kept on commons so that people can see it shows you feel it does have value that the text doesn't. Would you care to advance a reason that is actually based on fact rather than not liking it? Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What he says is not false; I argued the same thing above. If you were performing heart surgery, you'd need a diagram of a heart to succeed. But sticking your hand up someone's ass is not "complicated" – one hole, one chute, "in, out, shake it all about", the rectum doesn't divert, lead off elsewhere, it's past the sphincter and turn left at the kidneys then straight up the colon until you reach the chocolate factory. The photos and diagrams do not show anything anatomical either, really, an external diagram is not "reliable" in itself, a cross-sectional digram detailing internal "fit" would be more appropriate, such as File:Digital rectal exam nci-vol-7136-300.jpg gives. <font color="#003399">Ma<font color="#CC0000">&reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat • RFF]''' 22:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's not like the image is on an article about bunnies or something. If the image makes you uncomfortable, then just don't browse this particular article. Simple as that. Majora4 (talk) 01:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why people don't follow that, no one forces anyone to look at this page. C T J F 8 3  01:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove. The first comment by the Australian IP editor is right on the money. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC) The one that starts out "Is it just me" - Dank (push to talk)
 * Remove - It's not about whether I the image is appropriate or not. It's about what it does to the article - and if this article is getting multiple editors - ips etc objecting to it - then maybe its time we let the image go, and find a new image that won't cause disruption. That is what this image has been causing, and frankly enough is enough. Images like this are ones that usually put people off the project ~ had experience with showing articles to teachers didn't go too well...   Thank you, --  MST <font color="#964B00">☆  R   (Merry Christmas!) 13:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It's called homophobia, and that's hardly a reason to remove an illustrative image. C T J F 8 3  19:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me tell you something, CTJF83, I have not one thing against the LGBT community - they are Wonderful people and I support equality. So don't you even think about accusing me of something totally repugnant and dead-wrong. Continue it, you'll see your own section at WP:ANI. -- MST <font color="#964B00">☆  R   (Merry Christmas!) 01:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't accusing you of it...I was saying in general, and if you look at the article history, you'll see plenty of it from User:Brucejenner C T J F 8 3  01:51, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh right - It's just a coincidence that it is under my removal ~ and it implies that I have those type of views when, sorry to rain on anyone's parade, I actually don't. I think you could have taken a more constructive less insulting approach to my simple comment, that was asking for this image to be removed because it has caused disruption. I have no idea, and still don't if the person in the image identifies to straight or gay - if this was a female we were talking about, yes we still would be having a discussion, and yes I'd still vote for its removal- if it has caused disruption to this length. -- MST <font color="#964B00">☆  R   (Merry Christmas!) 01:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to "multiple editors - ips etc objecting to it", and I was referring to the editors removing it off the page, and ignoring the ongoing discussion, specifically the user I linked to above. My apologies if you thought I was calling you a homophobe. C T J F 8 3  02:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I was a little heated too. -- MST <font color="#964B00">☆  R   (Merry Christmas!) 02:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * :) C T J F 8 3  02:22, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the image as it is more informative, more accurate and more representative than the drawing of the woman (which may as well be kept too, as it's better than nothing). Angr (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Remove (and File:Wiki-fisting.png) as distracting, not useful (seriously, there is nothing ambiguous or mysterious in "activity that involves inserting a hand into the vagina or rectum.", keep File:Silentduck.jpg) Bulwersator (talk) 07:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing "ambiguous or mysterious" in "a human position in which the weight is distributed on the knees and feet on a surface close to horizontal." so by your logic the kneeling article should not be illustrated. Indeed that activity is significantly less likely to have people who believe it is anatomically possible and/or that people actually do it. Ditto the articles about standing, jumping, running, etc Thryduulf (talk) 11:12, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * A valid point, although the picture in the standing article made me laugh out loud, which is probably not a good thing. --FormerIP (talk) 12:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't laugh at the standing image, but I agree it's not very good so I've boldly replaced it with a better one. It's still not perfect, so I started a discussion about it at Talk:Standing. Please comment there. Thryduulf (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Another horrible rationale from the opposers. By your logic we should get rid of bus, chair, and cup, along with tens or hundreds of thousands of other pics. Note to closing admin, look at the reasoning of the opposers, most are very poor, like the above or WP:IDONTLIKEIT C T J F 8 3  12:40, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Deliberate break
I started the discussion regarding this image and I would like to clarify a few things so we can speedily reach consensus. Thanks --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) . My original request was to remove the image because it is a bad picture ( a man with an unpleasant rash plus the pic is not well focused, our readers deserve better).
 * 2) . I am not objecting the contents of the current picture, I will be happy with a more pleasant picture of at least a healthy individual, a few ones have been proposed and I am fine with them.
 * 3) . The objection to the contents of the current image should not be the reason why the image should be removed. This is the fisting article and a reader should expect an image on the topic.
 * 4) . The discussion is turning into a gay vs straight kind of thing. This is an open project so everyone is welcome to put their own fisting pics if you like, all I am saying is that at least it should be a pic that you look at and don't feel so grossed out like the current one. In my opinion it makes no difference if it is in the ass or a vagina, fisting is more about the fist than the orifice. You could get fisted in your mouth for all i care, but the bottom line should be just to have one or two pics, of good quality, nice focus and at least a healthy skin.

Edit request from barts1a
Could someone please remove the image currently in discussion above at least while the discussion is going on please? Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 23:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC) ❌. When you ignore the "I don't like it", the accusations of homophobia, ad hominems ("should be ashamed of themselves") and the "per aboves" and look at the actual comments, there is no clear consensus that the image should be removed. There is discussion about whether it is a good illustration for the topic or not (which is what the discussion should be about), but there is no consensus either way yet. As Wikipedia is not censored, there is no more reason to remove this image pending consensus than any other image. Thryduulf (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I would, but that might not be totally right--I've asked on WP:AN if an independent admin can have a look at your request. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Reactivating request. It seems to me that consensus of the RfC is to remove the image. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 04:32, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please wait until the RFC is actually closed by an uninvolved party. Anomie⚔ 12:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Gloves image
Separate from the above discussion, does the image of the gloves in the gallery really add to the article? The caption is overly long, and should probably be moved to the body of the article - if you need that much text to show relevance to the article either it's not relevant or the article is missing something. If a picture is necessary, it's a low quality image and doesn't explain why a fisting glove is any different to a normal PVC glove (is it?) - if it isn't different, would something like File:PVC-Handschuh.jpg be better? Thryduulf (talk) 00:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the entire gallery should go. A plethora of images for such a short article serves no purpose, and the link to Commons covers it. Drmies (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I was going to say almost exactly the same thing but didn't have the chutzpah to do so in such a contentious discussion (not this sub-discussion, but generally).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not a source in sight. -- J N  466  03:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

OR

The so-called "Gallery of Fisting Hand Positions" is pure original research. No, seriously — it shouldn't be there. Carrite (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Concurr, reliable expert secondary sources should be used for this kind of analysis and weighting. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Per these two (now combined sections), I've removed the gallery as it didn't add to the article (galleries are discouraged anyway, see WP:GALLERIES) and wasn't sourced. I have though moved the first image (the "duck beak" hand position) to an inline image as it does illustrate the first part of the "Techniques" section and so can't be classed as OR. That isn't to say that we should (or equally that we should not have it), but it needs to be discussed separately.Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Article or section split
Given that masturbation has been divided with two sub-headings under "male" and "female" techniques, I propose one of the following splits might appease some of the "social discomforts" people may have with regards this article being all squashed into a few poorly organised paragraphs:


 * a) Split into two distinct articles: Fisting and Anal fisting (currently redir. here).
 * b) Rewrite so that Vaginal fisting and Anal fisting and set apart under different sub-headings, due to the physical differences, then sub-heading under them for various things such as techniques, risks, LGBT practices, etc.

Given that vaginal is "purely" sexual, being a sexual organ, and anal is "speculatively" sexual, being part of the digestive tract, and probably not advised by many doctors due to the greater risk of rectal damage, it would be more responsible to divide the "forms" of fisting, and under those sub-headings further discuss pleasures/risks, and also allows for homosexual male practices to be better placed, rather than mixed in with female techniques that are "the norm" to most people, even those without homophobic sentiments, anal contact is "taboo", "unsafe" or just "yuck". Bear in mind homosexuality is a "minority group" and it is unreasonable to place a stronger gay-POV over heterosexual practices, when a more neutral method can be and should be applied to remove any and all form of discrimination, to gay and straight people. Though wiki does not censor, and does not make attempts to separate hetero/homosexual ideas too distinctly, we should bear in mind that anal intercourse, carries a stigma in many cultures and religions (sometimes leading to noose), so splitting means those people are not forced to read "all or nothing", and give them means to complain, or edit war – which is always a good aim of any "controversial" topic, keep the issues separate to minimise damage when trouble stirs. Also the higher degree of infection from anal "exploration" should be separately identified.

As an encyclopedia the article should not only be discussing the practices in terms of what it looks like, as seems to be the clear agenda from certain groups forcing the picture issue and arguing the toss. If people want to know what it feels like to have a hand shoved up their arse, they need only try it, no photo on Earth is going to provide that answer! The article needs to be more objective, and less porn-like. What is important is that someone develop a more neutral article, or two if necessary, from what exists, and make three or four sets of "fisting" context rather than one:
 * 1 Vaginal
 * 1.1 Lesbian practice (?)
 * 2 Anal
 * 2.1 Gay practice

And for those who disagree: If there's going to be a major LGBT WikiProject to focus on LGBT issues, then where's the focus if vaginal/anal are all crammed into one paragraph, causing more disagreements than are absolutely necessary?

If you still disagree.. you know where you can stick it!

<font color="#003399">Ma<font color="#CC0000">&reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat • RFF]''' 11:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think we should focus on the image that I am asking the community to remove first and then they can focus on the article. As it is this article is moving away from my original request of removing the picture. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 17:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we shouldn't discuss improvements to the article while that discussion is still ongoing - especially as the two are not incompatible. The picture question is one of image content, this is one primarily of structure. This proposed structure would work with either 1 or 2 images. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The !vote above is still open, the article is protected. Doesn't matter what else is discussed. The article is only accessible to admins at the moment, and although I don't trust their judgement in handling of the comments above either, that's just the way it is. <font color="#003399">Ma<font color="#CC0000">&reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat &bull; RFF]''' 21:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think as a first step we should have one article with a lead giving a brief overview, and then two major sections - one for vaginal and one for anal (the order probably doesn't matter). We can split them into separate articles later if the amount of content justifies it.
 * I'm unsure on the gay and lesbian sections though. If there is content in reliable sources that treats e.g. lesbian vaginal fisting differently to lesbian anal fisting and straight fisting of either orifice, then yes if we can sectionalise them if the content volume makes it worthwhile. My gut feeling (sorry) is though that there is no more difference between homosexual and heterosexual fisting of the same hole than most other sex acts where it is physically possible for both orientations practise. I might be wrong (I've not looked) but I'd want to see some evidence of separate notability first. Thryduulf (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Order matters; Anything anal is a simile of vaginal activity. Lesbian fisting may not necessarily be any different to hetero fisting physically, however, if someone can provide RS regarding its prevalence between gay women, possibly as a more intimate/practised activity than sex toys, it would give such a section credence. The physical act of fisting alone isn't what gives fisting notability, imo, rather the prevalence between f-m, m-m, f-m, and even the thought that gender reassigned male to female persons may practice either form. Again, it's not something we can really debate here, because everyone has their own views, often clouded by whether they accept either/both methods and further clouded by their sentiments towards sexuality. Only studies will be of any use, in giving this article unequivocal subject matter. I recommend avoiding debates from editors POV, or sexuality COI matters, and address the article with the subject in mind first, and leave all personal interests/concerns aside. I don't consider the practice worthy of Wiki myself, but even I can play Devil's advocate when I need to. <font color="#003399">Ma<font color="#CC0000">&reg;&copy; usBr iti sh  &#91;Chat &bull; RFF]''' 21:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete?
Why don't we just remove filth like this from the internet?! It's disgusting! ---68.103.24.102 (talk) 04:11, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored. Sorry. -- MST <font color="#800080">☆  R   (Chat Me!) 04:14, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Image RfC 2.0
Which version of the article image set is better The current version as of 03:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC+8) or the version as of 18:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC+8)? Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How is a 2nd vaginal Pic a substitute for an anal Pic? They are completely different. what good is two vaginal pics? C T J F 8 3  07:02, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The version as of 1800 has only ONE vaginal pic. The drawing is removed in that version. Please click before you judge thanks! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 07:20, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Version without drawings - As nom Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: The outcome of the recent RFC was to keep the image until an acceptable one, and that means an image that is acceptable by consensus, is found. Playing around and against that RFC outcome by removing/replacing images just so the image in question is no longer present is disruptive just like starting a new RFC as if the previous one doesn't exist or is outdated. Those who want the image replaced should spend more time outside WP searching for a feasible replacement instead of trying to force a change by editwarring or this bogus RFC that ignores the previous one.TMCk (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * photos: graphics is more abstract and solves no problems. Hope I'll never receive the third request on this topic. &mdas; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Current Revision - less graphic, more educational/illustrative (as it has both anal and vaginal). The CGI "wiki-fisting" is also more inline with pornographic images on the rest of Wikipedia (which are all in a similar style, or line-drawn with a pen occasionally), and adds a level of professionalism/polish that is absent when using only live photographs: isn't there something in the MOS about it? St John Chrysostom view / my bias 12:50, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Can I pick none of the above? I actually don't mind the series of SVGs and line drawings for wiki sexual articles, if only because the photographs are generally of such low quality. The one under contention here is a particularly bad example. Bad composition, bad focus, crap lighting, model has ingrown hairs galore from his shaving - it is not a credit to this encyclopedia. Yes yes wiki is not censored and neither should it be, but that doesn't mean we should go out of our way to bait the god botherers and homophobes, fun though it is (vaguely related side note: the only other wiki presently using the anal fisting photo is the Persian language Wikipedia - lol) -Yeti Hunter (talk) 13:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The current version is better than the 14 February version as per TMCk above, but what is really needed is better photos for both anal and vaginal fisting. What we have now isn't good, but it's the best we can do for now. Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If they're that bad (and they are), then they shouldn't be used at all. You wouldn't put an overexposed, blurry picture of a diseased, mangy, three-legged dog with his tail cropped out of the frame as the picture for some article on an obscure breed of dog, even if none other were available. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:32, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually we would if there was consensus that having the picture added encylopaedically to the article. In this case, the first RfC explicitly concluded that having the current pictures does add value to the article and that they should be used until something better is available. Thryduulf (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Image double standard
Why is it that the image of a woman engaging in fisting is an illustration, and the male image is a photo? Could this be a double standard? Should we introduce an illustration to replace the photo for the male, if only for the sake of consistency, and to eliminate any double standards? Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 09:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is not double standard they are simply the best pictures of each act currently available and having one as a photo is greatly illustrative of the topic. There are more pictures at the commons and you may seek further graphics depicting fisting to meet your educational needs there.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Why did you indent so much? And I don't have any issue with the current images other than one is a drawing and the other is a photo, which in my view, at first glance at least appears to be a double standard. I really don't want to scour the commons to find images of fisting though.... Eww. I just was wondering when I found this page to beginning. Cr@$h3d@t@t@1k t0 m3 22:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I was wondering why there are only photos of women. Seems like men are squeamish. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 01:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What about this?
Someone should mention shoulder-deep anal fisting and all the info about it.72.82.180.111 (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

History of anal and vaginal fisting?
There should be a section in the article about the history of anal and vaginal fisting.

File:Sissy in schoolgirl uniform gets anally fisted.jpg up for deletion
Noting that File:Sissy in schoolgirl uniform gets anally fisted.jpg, which was removed by (seen here, where the removal was reverted) and by Paulinho28 (seen here, where the removal was reverted) is up for deletion  by one of the editors who watches the Fisting article. So that's three editors clearly objecting to the image, and two clearly wanting it to remain. I'm indifferent on the matter; well, mostly indifferent. By that, I mean that, as was noted on Largefoot's user talk page, it's not a good image for the subject by displaying the man in a schoolgirl uniform, but it's the only image of anal fisting freely available to Wikipedia. It should be cropped to only show the anal fisting, and the title of the image should then be changed to better reflect the imagery; I'm sure that the title of the image (the inclusion of the term sissy) is one of the things that has bugged some editors about the image, though I am not offended by the title. Like the aforementioned linked deletion discussion shows, the image was also up for deletion earlier this year. Flyer22 (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This debate has been stagnant for some time, so I have cropped the image as you suggested. I also renamed it. I can't see a better solution than this unless an entirely new image is put forward.
 * --Sub12 (talk) 17:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like an improvement to me. I support it as completely in line with the RfC consensus. Alsee (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, much improved. Thank you. And for documentation on this talk page, here is the new version of the image that we are referring to. Flyer22 (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Request for photos to be removed
Hello, I came across this article via Gawker.com. I found the photos in the article to be totally unsuitable for younger audiences, X-Rated images, and they are basically pornography! Therefore the photos should be removed without questioning and are absolutely not appropriate to be on Wikipedia which is a public website!Polloloco51 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and removed the two images. Wikipedia is a public educational website accessed by all ages, and isn't a pornographic website.Polloloco51 (talk) 03:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not censored, and the images are encyclopedic. We also elaborate on this on Wikipedia's content warning, and you can have your browser mask images on Wikipedia, but the article will not be censored just because you don't like the article. Tutelary (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is accessed by people of all ages. Removing the clearly pornographic images is not censorship but rather keeping Wikipedia a healthy educational encyclopedic website. People from 8 years old to 100 can access this article. Unless a warning can be placed prior to someone accessing the article and the pornographic images, the images should be pulled until then.Polloloco51 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It is not the matter of liking the images or not, that is irrelevant! The images are pornographic, X-rated and are not appropriate for an encyclopedic website that is accessed by all ages!Polloloco51 (talk) 04:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Uh, excuse me. 'Removing the clearly pornographic images' is clearly censorship by the definition of censorship redacting things just because you dislike it. You clearly don't like the images in the article and as such, based on your own personal disgust of these images, and not for any encyclopedic reason, you removed them. That's acting based on personal views rather than anything else. Again, if you'd actually look at the context that the images are used, they are used in a manner to visually demonstrate fisting. Also, no warnings in articles are allowed per WP:SPOILER. The content disclaimer can be found at WP:CODI. Tutelary (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The images add nothing to learning about "fisting". Again, it is not the matter of liking the images or not, that's totally irrelevant period. The images are what they are. They are pornographic, X-Rated, and extremely inappropriate for younger audiences who may especially accidentally come across the article accidentally. The best way to visually demonstrate "fisting", is perhaps illustrated pictures rather than photos taken by god knows who, during sexual intercourse.Polloloco51 (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello, Polloloco51. WP:Not censored, Manual of Style/Images and WP:GRATUITOUS factor into this matter. I am aware of the Gawker article you are referring to; and like I stated in that interview, comments such as yours are common on these matters -- that readers and editors typically have less of a problem with drawings, paintings or computer-generated imagery of a sex act than they have with real-life images of a sex act. That's clearly why you left in the Seedfeeder image, but removed the other images, which was reverted. If, per WP:GRATUITOUS, there were an "equally suitable alternative," less offensive depiction of each of the images you removed (meaning a drawing, painting or computer-generated imagery), we could remove the images (that you object to) based on Wikipedia reasoning. However, there currently are no "equally suitable alternative," less offensive depictions of the images you removed. And, as you know, Seedfeeder, as far as we know, no longer edits Wikipedia (he also no longer has his Wikipedia email access up); so no Wikipedia editor can put in a request to him to draw images for Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Polloloco51. I realise you have strong feelings about this but these images simply demonstrate the activity which is the subject of this article and as such they have encyclopaedic value. If we removed these images "for the children", we'd very soon have people asking for the entire article to be deleted (actually that's already happened - scroll up), and then where would it end? --holizz (talk) 13:51, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * In addition to what the others have said above, this is not really the best place for this debate. Removing images from a single article on the grounds of being pornographic is pretty much pointless, since policy is well established on this issue and your edits will simply be reverted. If you feel that this debate needs to be had (and you should be aware that that debate and its many variations have been had several times already), then somewhere like the Village pump would be a more appropriate place to bring it up. – RobinHood70 <sup style="line-height:0">talk 15:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi Polloloco51. You didn't think these images belonged here, you made a Good Faith edit trying to improve the article. Okay. But now five editors in a row are all politely but firmly telling you that our policy Not censored applies here. As an editor you're part of the community, you're invited to show up and get an equal voice whenever we create or change the rules, but arguing against Policy on article talk pages doesn't work. The editing community has discussed this sort of image issue deeply. We have established rules for how we handle this. The community has decided we are not going to try to sort out what is or isn't pornography. The community has decided that it is not an improvement to remove an image simply because someone says it is pornography, even if they are 100% correct. The community has considered that children sometimes use Wikipedia, but I remind you that children also use Google. As much as it may worry you that a child might find this article, this article is far better and far more informative than what that child will find by typing fisting into Google. The community has decided that articles about cars will be illustrated with images of cars, and articles about fisting will be illustrated with images of fisting. The discussion on this page is not should we have images of fisting, the discussion is which of the available images best illustrate fisting. The only rule that is kinda-sorta helpful for what you want is: if we have two equally good fisting images then we go with the less offensive one. If you'd like to propose alternative images then I'd be happy to consider whether they are more informative and better illustrate this topic.


 * A final note to make it clear just how strongly we apply WP:Not Censored. We have sexual-related articles illustrated with videos. I am not going to name any, because telling you not to delete them would violate WP:Beans. Chuckle. Alsee (talk) 18:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject―the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive." I don't see how this article needs the two photographs. I can't see them as anything other than their submitters getting their jollies by exhibitionism rather than genuine contribution to the subject matter. The illustration is the "least astonishing"; the two photos do nothing to enhance understanding of the subject matter but only perhaps gratify whoever submitted them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.156.163 (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If this were an article about the anus or the fist, then those images would be inappropriate and astonishing. This image is about fisting, however, so I don't find it terribly astonishing that we have images of the act. The fact that they're real images rather than illustrations serves to reinforce that this isn't some hypothetical sexual practice that nobody actually does. As to why the submitters chose to upload them, we can only speculate, but I don't see it as any different than any of the other images of real-life genitalia used in other articles. – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  02:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Accessible by Minors
Firstly, I appeal to the human behind posting the articles and images not the author hiding behind the technical policies and codes on this matter, I'm sure this has been debated and discussed and could be done elsewhere but im doing what i can here and now where i can. This is important. It is not to anyone's significant disadvantage to resolve this issue, but to a majorities advantage, and I ask that you take a closer look at your moral compasses and regardless of what is allowed on Wikipedia by their standards or not, I ask that you would "just do what is right" and don't be a rock in everyone's shoe. Just because you technically can do something it does not mean its right or that you should do it. Again, this is important, perhaps more than you can entirely realize. With far reaching negative effects and consequences.

Secondly, Images for sexuality information on Wikipedia is not necessary. A description is enough. Cartoon pictures do not make it any less inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a How-to manual it is an Encyclopedia. The indecent pictures to these pages could not possibly have been put up by a serious responsible minded researcher and author. Along side information content, Wikipedia should stand for equal access opportunity and consideration for the whole community of users.

Minors could access this and or be exposed to it by other minors and it would constitute carnal knowledge. Whether its allowed or not, you are the one responsible for allowing that to be possible to happen. Think of the children. Everyone should be considered, the Wikipedia encyclopedia should be created for our children, everyone's children and all the future generations of children for educational purposes first and foremost for the education of our young learning minds, who do not need to be exposed to this material in graphical form.

I cant believe I have to be even trying to fight against this. Whoever put these sexuality pages up is inconsiderate for starters but to put up the images and to defend themselves for it is really inconsiderate, irresponsible and inappropriate. I first cam across these sexuality articles with sexually explicit images a few months ago, here today I cannot believe they are still here, I would have thought moderators in the Wikipedia community would have more decency and better discernment than to have it still displayed as it is.

I'm sure most people, most of the intelligent, honest, self respecting, considerate and responsible people out there, would all agree that the user that has put these pictures along the articles, has not done so in a purely innocent manner or an entirely scientific purpose either, surely they have had a laugh about it, it a big joke to them and everyone else is just a winger, just too straight, just selfish and want it removed because they have silly personal problems about it, I think the person that has the selfish personal interests problem is the author themselves. This information is useful but should be in a better location, not on Wikipedia, you could make a great website with all your content, but for the love of children and all humanity, even straight and conservative people, please not on Wikipedia the Free Encyclopedia, we could value your information contribution but your persistence in showing images approved only by a minority is selfish and not appreciated.

I think the person behind all these sexuality articles should use a more suitable outlet for their content, Wikipedia is not the place for explicit sexual content, I think they should go and make a website elsewhere on the internet where adult users can go and access this kind of information for themselves if they need it, it simply shouldn't be provided in a place where youth should also be respected users and have safe access to Wikipedia content, these articles could lead to Wikipedia not being allowed to be used in classrooms and schools and other places by youth otherwise it could.

Children should be able to learn about sexuality, but within reasonable limits and certain moderation and discretion should and could be exercised. It is not a majority of humans that engage in such activities, and it shouldn't be depicted and given as an impression that these kinds of sexual things are so normal and widely accepted that they can be completely publicly viewed, publicly shown and displayed. Furthermore, showing these images unnecessarily may give false impression that these kinds of things are just purely objective, that sexual acts are less than private, and desensitizes or demoralizes the personal and sacred side to human sexuality. This content is not universal and is not the norm and is not commonly accepted.

Children should have access to Wikipedia's wealth of information, I don't want my children seeing these images on Wikipedia that were put up by some irresponsible adult or pervert or both. Such content is damaging to young minds! and can do unrepairable damage their young developing phsyces and development. If people want to learn about this sort of thing they should find it elsewhere, Wikipedia should give innocent non explicit brief descriptions on these subjects if anything at all, but leave the excessively detailed descriptions and the pornographic adult only content out of it!

To the user that has put images to these sexuality articles; "Please remove all the images" To the Wikipedia community; "Please do what you can to help remove this adult only content" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.47.195 (talk) 09:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * When I was growing up the government said that it was wrong to "promote the teaching [...] of the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship" which sounds uncannily like "it shouldn't be depicted and given as an impression that these kinds of sexual things are so normal and widely accepted". So for me personally I just can't accept an argument like "Such content is damaging to young minds!" without seeing some evidence. --holizz (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Heres some evidence of the harmful effects of such content on young minds: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/real-healing/201208/overexposed-and-under-prepared-the-effects-early-exposure-sexual-content, and, http://www.news.com.au/world/lancashire-boy-13-raped-sister-8-after-watching-porn-on-xbox/story-fndir2ev-1226819517939 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.174.47.195 (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
 * See that link near the top of the page, where it says "Wikipedia is not censored."? Read that.  It would have saved you a lot of typing.  If you still feel like typing more, you could try debating the actual policy over there (instead of this one page out of many you would find similarly disturbing) before you make more revisions that would likely be reverted accordingly. HalJor (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Legal section too UK focused; Needs U.S. legal info
The legal section lacks any info on U.S. obscenity law as regarding fisting depictions in porn films. For many decades, since the Supreme Court handed down the Miller decision, California and other states routinely prosecuted or threatened prosecution for depictions of fisting (anal or vaginal). As a result, most producers of porn avoided depictions of fisting during that time. In 1999, Seymore Butts (real name: Adam Glasser), the famous porn producer/director/star, made a porn video known as "Tampa Tushy Fest part 1", which featured vaginal fisting. Then Deputy L.A. city attorney Deborah Sanchezdecided to file charges of obscenity against him over the video due to inclusion of fisting in it. She argued that the video was filled with scenes that depict sexuality in "a patently offensive way." Mr. Glasser decided fight the charge in court, as he felt he could successfully demonstrate to the jury that fisting could not in this day and age be viewed patently offensive. Part of his argument rested on that fact that in 1999 fisting was common enough in gay and lesbian sex and was also growing in popularity among heterosexual couples. He was going to show several books legally sold in bookstore at the time that explained how to practice vaginal and anal fisting to demonstrate that it was no longer just some rare deviant practice anymore. Shortly before the trial was set to begin, he agreed to a settlement with the Los Angeles city attorney's office. In the teerms of the settlement he plead guilty to a public nuisance charge and paid a $1000 fine to a victims restitution fund. He also agreed to offer an edited version of "Tampa Tushy Fest, Part 1" for California buyers but was also free to sell the unedited version in California without fear of future obscenity charges." (source: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/prosecuting/casetowatch.html ) Since his victory, a number of other porn films with fisting in them have been produced by various porn studios and fisting porn has also become easy to access on the internet. The above link provides a good starting point for adding info about fisting related obscenity prosecutions in the U.S. but the article should include info on fisting in porn's legal status prior to 1999 and afterwards in the U.S. If I come across any further info then maybe I will write up a short paragraph or two on the legal situation of fisting in porn in the U.S. but I'm putting this out there for other to tackle too if they wish. --Cab88 (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

History
There doesn't appear to be anything in the referenced sources indicating that fisting was invented by gay men, with gay women following their example. The source talks mainly about the genesis of the 'fisting scene' at the Catacombs, and how it was initially only open to gay men. It does not state or imply that fisting was invented at that time, only that it was 'popularized' and a subculture formed around it.

I can find at least one source that states "...fisting has been practiced in China and India for thousands of years." (The Ultimate Guide to Anal Sex for Women, Taormino, T. ISBN 9781573440288 https://books.google.com/books?id=wE4gAQAAIAAJ )

Regardless of the claim that fisting is "...perhaps the only sexual practice invented this century." (emphasis mine) it seems absurd to make claims about the "invention" of any sexual practice that isn't dependent on modern technology. It would be more accurate to describe the history of the fisting subculture, and any earliest-known depictions or references to it. --Fievel Fisticuffs (talk) 06:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanx for the info Fievel Fisticuffs. Note that you are invited to be Bold and directly edit articles if you see anything else to improve in the future. That's how we all started. Alsee (talk) 01:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * [ WP:Edit conflict ]: As you can see with this edit, Alsee addressed your concerns. But I'm not comfortable with removing the "It was 'invented' by gay men, then adopted by women following the gay men's example" aspect since the existence of fisting is usually credited to gay male culture, and the History section's sources are largely about gay male culture. I'm not stating that we should keep that exact line, but I think we should be clear that fisting is considered to have originated in gay male culture. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Alsee (talk) 01:40, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I didn't see this edit by you until after I tried to make this edit and got a WP:Edit conflict note. The way I have it worded is with respect to WP:Due weight. A number of sources believe that fisting is a relatively new sexual practice, and usually attribute (or imply that) its initial existence is due to gay male culture. I'm not seeing other sources that state that "the practice dates back thousands of years." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Changed again here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Fisting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20040411112852/http://www.winternet.com:80/~redright/aimgth.htm to http://www.winternet.com/~redright/aimgth.htm#anchorTOP

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 18:57, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Checked, reverted, and removed dead link template because the link appears to be active now, with the expected material. – <span style="color:royalblue; font-size:140%; font-family:Vladimir Script,serif">Robin Hood  <sup style="font-size:70%">(talk)  21:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment by User:81.107.174.60
The article says the photo of fisting on a man is illegal in the UK. So why do I have access to that?--81.107.174.60 (talk) 19:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * 1) Lets start with the obvious. If you didn't want to see want to see images of fisting, perhaps you shouldn't have typed fisting into your search box.
 * 2) The article doesn't say the image is illegal. It says a prosecutor argued that such images are illegal. If you read it more carefully, you'll see that the prosecutor lost that case.
 * 3) Most of us don't live in the UK. UK law is irrelevant for 99.1% of the world's population. Wikipedia servers are in the US. Content on Wikipedia is subject to the laws of the United States and the laws of the state of Florida. Some countries say images criticizing their king are illegal. Other countries say images of women without Burkas are illegal. You can't seriously expect us to follow random, dumb, or contradictory laws from two hundred countries. That includes the UK law.
 * 4) If you're asking why your government isn't intercepting your internet communications, asking why your government isn't blocking the image from arriving (an image which you requested, when you requested the webpage)... well the UK government did try doing something like that before. They claimed an image on another Wikipedia page was illegal. They put up an internet censorship block against it. They quit that dumb idea after two days. UK citizens got pissed off at the UK government screwing up their Wikipedia access. If you want your government censoring your internet access, you'll have to take the subject up with your elected representative. However you should be aware that Wikipedia has made changes since the last time the UK government tried to censor access to Wikipedia. Wikipedia now uses HTTPS secure encrypted connections. It is crytographically impossible for the UK government, or Saudi Arabia, or any other country to block individual images or particular pages. The only way a country (other than the US) can censor anything on Wikipedia is by cutting off ALL access to Wikipedia. Note that I'm not arguing that the US should have some special privilege here. It is merely a fact that the servers must be somewhere, and they happen to be in the US. If it were up to me, the US government have the same (zero) power to censor Wikipedia as the UK government or Saudi government. Alsee (talk) 09:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Your assumption is wrong. When someone visit an encyclopaedia is generally expecting to find information, not pornography. There are other web sites more suitable for viewing this material. And I'm not talking about a drawing but homosexual pornography at the end of the page. If you wish to see these images then go to a porn web site. It's you who are in the wrong place, not the rest of us.--81.107.174.60 (talk) 14:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not argue whether images of breasts in the breast cancer article are or are-not "pornography". That is a pointless and endless argument. We debate whether the image is relevant to the article. Articles on cars contain images of cars. Articles on breast cancer contain images of breasts. Articles on ducks contain images of ducks. It may shock you or offend you, but the simple and obvious Wikipedia Policy is that articles on fisting are going to contain images of fisting. If you search for fisting, you are going to find fisting. And you are going to find the most accurate and impartial coverage we can achieve. That means, to the best of our ability, articles shall not promote nor suppress one political party relative to another, they shall not promote nor suppress one religion relative to another, they shall not promote nor suppress one nation over another, and they shall not promote nor suppress homosexuality relative to heterosexuality. My personal opinion is irrelevant, your personal opinion is irrelevant. To the best of our ability, the article is going to neutrally summarize what exists.
 * You may not like that fisting exists, you may not like that homosexuality exists, but we are not going to censor that information from people who do search for it. Alsee (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see porn photos or videos in the article about Pornography. According to you, why are they not relevant there? What is relevant or not depends on the purpose you seek. If your intent is to explain what fisting is, a drawing would be enough. An image of a gay male being sodomized in a session of sadomasochism is clearly not relevant. You don't need this image for explaining what fisting is.--Charrua85 (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * We don't remove images from article A because article B doesn't have any images. Also, it sounds like you dislike looking at photographs of gay men doing butt stuff. There are over 5 million articles on Wikipedia that don't have any photographs of gay men doing butt stuff. Go look at those instead. (And how do you know that he's gay in the first place?) --ChiveFungi (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * If you think Pornography would benefit from more or better illustrations, we are certainly open to discussing any images you think should be added. Alsee (talk) 09:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fisting. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006082917/http://occupytampa.org/files/tristan/introfem/final/introfem%20final%20final/Gayle_S._Rubin_Deviations_A_Gayle_Rubin_Reader_a_John_Hope_Franklin_Center_Book__2011.pdf to http://occupytampa.org/files/tristan/introfem/final/introfem%20final%20final/Gayle_S._Rubin_Deviations_A_Gayle_Rubin_Reader_a_John_Hope_Franklin_Center_Book__2011.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fisting. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141031170033/http://www.ericrofes.com/pdf/70s_Walking_Tour.pdf to http://www.ericrofes.com/pdf/70s_Walking_Tour.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:53, 1 October 2017 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Anal fisting being performed on a male.jpg

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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:41, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Anal fisting being performed on a male.jpg

Changing image of male fisting
I there is a better quality image than File:Anal fisting being performed on a male.jpg to illustrate male anal fisting, and that is File:Self Fisting.jpg. It can also tie into including the possibility for self-fisting which is not currently covered in Techniques. Considering the current image is being partially obscured by large buttocks and is a poorer quality image, what are your thoughts on replacing it? Pabsoluterince (talk) 03:16, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Seems better. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Done, added a blurred version on commons Zenomonoz (talk) 05:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Pabsoluterince (talk) 07:41, 5 October 2023 (UTC)