Talk:Frot/Archive 3

The alleged safety of sex in this manner
I have read and re-read this section and have some serious concerns regarding the infective agents that pass through mucosa. The penis, whether circumcised or intact, retains a reasonably substantial mucous membrane, the glans itself (though an argument is made that the circumcised glans is somewhat keratinised and less permeable). The urethra is also mucous membrane, and the inner foreskin, even the remnant left by the US style circumcision, is or tends towards mucosa.

Mucosa, dabbled in a pool of pre-ejaculate or semen will absorb infective agents through itself, if they are present in the fluids,thus infection will most assuredly occur. It is true that this is not the same as delivering a payload of infected semen into a rectum (or vagina if we were speaking of heterosexual sex), but there is a finite probability of infection transferring from one person to the other.

I have not researched into source material for these statements, and adding this to the article as it stands would most definitely be WP:OR. So I present it here for discussion and research for sources.

The only safe form of sex is to use barrier methods. To frot does reduce the overall probability of infection transfer, but one does not eliminate it. Far better to look at this as a pleasant way of enjoying one's self than as a way of protecting one's self. Fiddle  Faddle  16:12, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * For anyone who reads and/or participates in this discussion, what brought Timtrent's attention to the safe sex matter is this, this and this edit where I expressed doubts about certain aspects. The sources involved are this AIDS.gov source, this Cengage Learning source, this Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prevention source, and this Family Relationship (National Council on Family Relations) source. The CDC source is not used in the article, but AIDS.gov points to it, including in its Safer-Sex Activities section. Sources to consider for medical information on Wikipedia are the ones that are compliant with Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS).


 * Timtrent, as you know, the Frot article doesn't state that frot is completely safe from sexually transmitted infections (STIs/STDs); it presents frot as a form of safer sex; indeed, many researchers (as addressed by the Safe sex article) state that it is more accurate to refer to "safe sex" as "safer sex" because no form of sexual activity, except generally for dry humping where there is no skin-to-skin contact, is completely safe from sexually transmitted infections. There are, however, sexual acts that are significantly low with regard to STI/STD transmission, and some that are considered to have no risk of HIV transmission. Frot, penis-to-penis contact, is unlikely to pose a risk of HIV transmission. The best, possibly only, chance I can see of it transmitting that infection is if the opening of one glans penis (head) is in direct contact with the opening of another another glans penis. Flyer22 (talk) 16:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You are correct in your supposition that my attention was drawn in this manner. Because Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia we can only refer to what is referenced and we cannot give advice in articles. That is why I felt it useful to mention my concerns on the talk page such that, if appropriate, the article might be modified in some small manner to reflect it. The risk may be small, but it exists where mucosa comes into contact with infective agents that are able, generally, to pass through mucosa. Fiddle   Faddle  16:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

"Dicks Everywhere"
Oh hey, a picture of two penises in plain sight. I wonder what they have to say about this on the talk page.

Nothing. Except for the most convenient "Wikipedia is not censored" article, which seems like a poor excuse for showing two dicks up close. I'm not offended, but this seems like a poor excuse for showing dicks off regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.80.74 (talk • contribs)

Why there are tow penises presented in this page? Please change it into something more suitable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.117.84.207 (talk • contribs)


 * Both comments are interesting, but neither offers any suggestions. The picture doesn't really illustrate the topic, but geometry means that it is difficult to illustrate it.
 * In terms of each comment, there is nothing wrong with a penis. It is a simple body part. There is nothing wrong with a pair of them, either. Statements such as "I am not offended, but..." are amusing but unhelpful. The request for a more suitable illustration would be better with a suggestion for a picture, if a picture is required at all, of something more suitable. What would be more suitable, please? Fiddle   Faddle  11:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at this with an editor's eye, it seemed to me that the picture concerned was in a rather less useful position than it might have been. I've migrated it lower in the article, to what aI hope is a more useful location. Fiddle   Faddle  11:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The image illustrates the topic as best it can, since images cannot display motion unless they are GIFs. What applies in the caes of offensive imagery is indeed WP:Not censored, like the IP mentioned above, but Manual of Style/Images and WP:Offensive material also apply. I would prefer that the frot image be a drawing or painting of the act, since drawings and paintings (if illustrated well) tend to be the "equally suitable alternative" that WP:Offensive material requires and therefore offends our readers less (drawings and paintings of sexual acts tend to offend our readers significantly less than real-life images of the sex acts), but we had a drawn image of frot; it was deleted because it was a remake of an image by an editor whose images were being deleted from WP:Commons. Seedfeeder created the remake, a polished version of the original; when it was deleted, I contacted him about creating another frot image, but, well, you can see what he stated in that discussion. He told me before he left Wikipedia that I could contact him via email about creating any image that I needed for Wikipedia (I assume one related to a sex topic because he focused on creating sexual images and I'm involved in editing sex topics, including sex anatomy), but I lost his email when I changed one of my email accounts and the option to email him is no longer enabled on his Wikipedia account.


 * Timtrent, I'm not sure what to think about you moving the image lower. On the one hand, an image of a topic is usually better included in the lead than lower in the article. On the other hand, this particular image being lower is likely to reduce the initial shock/offense to our readers...and, contrary to popular belief (made popular by brandishing the WP:Not censored policy), Wikipedia does care about what offends our readers (as extensively documented by the two guidelines I noted above). By the way, I've never seen you at this article/talk page before. How did you find it? Flyer22 (talk) 12:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect I was patrolling for vandalism at some point and added it to my watch list after following an editor's trail. I see my first edit was to correct grammar. Not really sure how I ended up here really.
 * I agree that pictures, generally, are better higher up. It was the quality of the picture vs the article that made me consider migrating it lower, and I agree with you that a drawing might make matters both clearer, and less able to deliver offence. I have no concerns about the penis nor other genitalia being on display. Those who are shocked are often those who need the information the most, but I am concerned with giving the article a less tasteful appearance. If consensus is to migrate it back to the top I have no issue at all. I've said my piece, and am content with a different outcome if that is what is wanted. Fiddle   Faddle  13:19, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I see. Yes, I know you sometimes WP:Patrol (patrol Wikipedia articles; I'm not sure if you use bots), so I figured that's how you likely found this article. It's not a high-traffic article, does not have a lot of editors, and the term frot is not used too much, so I wondered how you found it. Thanks for giving your take on this matter and for explaining. Flyer22 (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm much more familiar with the term frottage than frot. Indeed the shorter term slipped form my vocabulary until I felt it was necessary to answer the two IP questions. I meant to answer the first when it appeared, but real life intervened. The route here was, I have found, by following the editor whose sole edit I reverted. Fiddle   Faddle  13:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Note: This editor found one of Seedfeeder's images of frot; I'll move that up as the lead image. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * If we are to be pedantic, which I think we must, while this is a far lees 'in your face' image and one which therefore doesn't frighten the horses, it is strictly not frot. One gentleman is grasping both penises in one hand and is, presumably, masturbating them actively and simultaneously. My understanding of the term frot is that there is no manual involvement, thus that this is an image of a variant of mutual masturbation. I may be being more pedantic than is necessary, though. Are there degrees of pedantry? Fiddle   Faddle  03:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Basically, frot is simply rubbing the penises together. The sources don't state that it excludes manual stimulation. When performing frot, it's often that one of the men holds his penis and his partner's penis together, or lightly ties them together with some sort of object, so that the penises stay in contact. It's not too easy to keep erect penises in direct rubbing contact without doing such, and especially when it comes to keeping them lined up against each other, which is one sensation many men who engage in frot enjoy. And mutual masturbation usually refers to people manually stimulating each other's genitals at the same time, rather than one person manually stimulating their partner's genitals.


 * Also, that frot image is the remake image I mentioned above; it did not exist on WP:Commons when I made that comment. It's one of the newly uploaded penis images there; see here; it was restored by Fiossa (the same editor I noted above as having added it to the Frot article). Flyer22 (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What can I say? Your technical point on keeping them together I appreciate. Mind you, I wonder if that is not half the fun. I still have a pedantic issue with it, but I am a pedant . I don't feel strongly about it. It looks fun whatever it's called Fiddle   Faddle  04:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sexual assault usage?
I've only ever heard the term "frot" used in the context of a man non-consensually dry humping a woman in a crowded public place, which is a form of sexual assault. Is this an uncommon usage of the term which shouldn't be included, is it a regional usage which could be included or not depending on how widespread the region, or is it a common usage of the term which was overlooked and should be added? --zandperl (talk) 05:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Zandperl, what you are referring to is frotteurism; frotteurism, while involving frottage, is not the same thing as frottage. And as for the term frot; as the Frot article makes clear, it's a shorthand version of the term frottage to specifically indicate a type of frottage between males -- usually penis-to-penis contact. Flyer22 (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Hm, thanks for that clarification Flyer22. It seems like those all could be easily confused, so I'm adding a Distinguish at the top of the page, especially since the current link here to Non-penetrative_sex isn't even the same as the disambig page, frottage.  --zandperl (talk) 06:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Zandperl, I tweaked your WP:Hatnote, as seen here and here. I removed the link to the Frottage disambiguation page, since, like I stated in my initial tweak of your WP:Hatnote, people don't confuse the disambiguation; it's the words they confuse, and what we mean by frot is already mentioned in the lead -- that it is an aspect of frottage (with the WP:Pipelink pointing readers to the correct page). And the non-sexual activity listings on the Frottage disambiguation page are unrelated to this topic. So, yes, the Frottage disambiguation page is not needed for the WP:Hatnote in this article. I know that you were copying the Frotteurism page, which looked like this before I've tweaked it to this minutes ago. Flyer22 (talk) 06:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 That works for me. :)  --zandperl (talk) 13:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

In re the penises: Would a cropped (or pixelated) thumbnail be out of the question?
I know that on blogs, it's trivially easy to make an inline thumbnail graphic link to a different image file. So from an HTML standpoint, there should be no problem with using a thumbnail that was either cropped from the waist up, or blurred from the waist down -- with a caption saying "Click here to view a non-blurred, higher-resolution version of the image."

However, I dunno whether the Wiki engine makes it cumbersome to do this, or if the thumbnail and the full-size graphic are required to be the same image file.

I should add that in the past, I poured a lot of my own sweat into editing this article (I'd say that roughly 25% of the current text was written by me) and spent hours arguing on the talk page in defense of the article, against users who preferred to complain about Bill Weintraub and the terribly offensive and self-loathingly homophobic websites he runs, rather than discussing the wiki "Frot" article on its own merits.

So, while the cartoon erections don't bother me in the least (I strongly approve of men rubbing their cocks together), it personally irks me that the public library near me blocks this particular wiki article because of the "pornographic" image, and there's not much the librarians can do about it. (I live in a thoroughly "blue" county within a semi-reddish state, but the county librarians don't make the filtering policies.) What can be done? Throbert McGee (talk) 01:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removal of lead image
, do stop your repeated removal of the lead image. You have no valid justification for removing it. First, you repeatedly removed the image as an IP-hopper. Jim1138 and Melonkelon reverted you. I reverted you. And this account reverted you too. I listed the article at WP:Requests for page protection. NeilN protected the page. After two days, you showed under your registered account and reverted him, and I reverted you. Not a smart move on your part to have revealed your registered account. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Frot. 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/20120127051545/http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf to http://www.biozentrum.uni-wuerzburg.de/uploads/media/Bonobo_sex_01.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.li/20100428073805/http://dailyuw.com/2009/2/6/anal-sex-lets-get-bottom/ to http://dailyuw.com/2009/2/6/anal-sex-lets-get-bottom/

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) 22:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Image and Terminology
I no longer edit Wikipedia articles because of the editing wars in which individuals or groups fight with each other for control of the world view of the encyclopedia, but I feel compelled to make some comments. First, the figures in the image are certainly very well endowed. It seems to me that we should keep our sexual fantasies out of the encyclopedia. Furthermore, why does it show the figures standing? As a gay man, most of the frotting I did (during my sexual years) was done in a bed.

Secondly, the difference in meaning between "frot" and "frottage" is really non-existent. "Frot" is just a shortened version of "frottage", and a slang word shouldn't be the focus of an article. If gay men have assigned a separate meaning to "frot", then the article should be about frottage in general with a paragraph on "frot". I'm a gay man, and I never made that distinction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.185.65 (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The artistic image is just an illustration of the act. It's fine for this topic.


 * Your argument that "the difference in meaning between 'frot' and 'frottage' is really non-existent" is false, given that "frottage" is the broader term and does not only refer to sexual activity between males. "Frot", however? Exactly what WP:Reliable sources use "frot" to refer to frottage in general...rather than to penis-to-penis rubbing between males? I'm not debating any of this without WP:Reliable sources provided on this talk page for the arguments. That gay males may use the term "frottage" more often than "frot" doesn't change the fact that "frot" is specifically about penis-to-penis rubbing between males.


 * Per WP:No page, we already have a home for "frottage" at the Non-penetrative sex article. As has been made clear on this talk page times before, we aren't going to have this article titled "Frottage" when it is only about a specific sexual activity between males. We have the Frottage disambiguation page and the aforementioned section at the Non-penetrative sex article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2020 (UTC)


 * this dude really complaining cuz they dicks too big 😂