Talk:Glory hole

UK
I have no interest in glory holes for my own use, so have no idea if they're used for this purpose... but here in the UK, it's not particularly uncommon to find holes in the walls of public toilet cubicles that were clearly deliberately bored. Mind you, the diameter of the things has generally been only an inch or less, which may mean they were made more to look through than to poke through. Usually someone has stuffed them with toilet paper as a temporary repair until the maintenance staff fix the wall properly. I couldn't say with confidence whether they're becoming less common, but as new cubicles often have plastic dividers rather than wood or plaster ones, this may be the case. Loganberry (Talk) 01:11, 1 May 2007 (UTC) I don't blam you and yes it is ture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaceer (talk • contribs) 21:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Desperate Living sight gag of glory holes
Although the article doesn't include a "References in Popular Culture" section, it might be worth mentioning that the John Waters movie Desperate Living features an absurdist sight gag about a glory hole in the stall partition of a women's toilet. (The movie's "lesbian glory hole" actually consists of THREE holes -- a triangular opening down below, and two circular holes at breast-level.) The joke is that in real life, the practice is most likely non-existent among lesbians. Throbert McGee 05:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done, good suggestion. Banje boi  01:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This is really well sourced
Could almost be eligible for GA, believe it or not...--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 18:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's almost entirely thanks to Benjiboi. The article looked like this just a week ago. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Congrats everyone who worked on this. I would nominate for GA once the pop culture section is fully sourced and the fact tag removed.--SidiLemine 15:05, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Strait porn depiction?
Seems worth of a mention, even if only a sentence in the lede that although almost universally a convenience used by gay and bisexual men glory holes have appeal in pornography directed at all orientations including erotica and films. I think we can find a few sources to support this as well. Benjiboi 08:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed Benjiboi is right, gloryholes are useful for heterosexual action too and there's little to doubt that probably this idea is as old as glory holes themselves Undead Herle King (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Photos
The photo attached to this article is not illustrative in any way, shape or form. It does an injustice to the article and Wikipedia as a whole. If there's consensus, I'll happily take a few glory hole pics to illustrate the article. Lord, the lengths I go to to assist this project! Jeffpw (talk) 06:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * We all have to make sacrifices for the good of the project. God speed Jeff and take some Listerine with you.  APK  like a lollipop  06:17, 26 July 2008
 * How you people work me so! Very well, expect some illustrative gloryhole pics within the next 48 hours. And I promise not to floss within 12 hours of embarking on this altruistic expedition. Jeffpw (talk) 06:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I must say this article and fart lighting are almost neck-and-neck my favorites. Jeffpw, we need photos on that one too so if things don't go well at the glory hole troll you may still be able to get a photo in! Banj e  b oi   08:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, dear. Rabid Wikipedian though I am, I draw the line at documenting flatulence explosions. You'll get several nice pics of glory holes, both in use and vacant (though your post gives me reason to suspect you think I'll only be able to get a vacant pic...hmmmmph), but you will not see me either igniting my bum or anybody other's during the passing of wind. Sorry to disappoint, but a girl's gotta have some standards! Jeffpw (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * lol! Indeed, perhaps if you run into a pack of college-boys, you know, with your camera all handy and such the occasion might present itself. just saying. Banj e  b oi   00:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The photo needs removing. No man in his right mind would stick his member in a fiery furnace! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.202.94 (talk) 01:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hopefully you're just joking but that photo illustrates one of the many possible origins of gloryhole terminology - in this case a "hot hole", easy to see how that might have sexual connotations. Banj e  b oi   04:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Anonymity
Sorry, but how does it let users "observe" each other while "maintain[ing] anonymity"‽ ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 18:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The holes are generally too small for the person being observed to see who is watching them. This probably could be made more clear. Banj e  b oi   00:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sourced content"
So what do we have here?
 * A bunch of other definitions for the term, cited to sources that attest to those definitions, but do not mention any connection to the slang term
 * Idle speculation cited to an online glossary that contains none of that speculation, and is not a reliable source anyway
 * Several editor-chosen "pop culture" references, without any citations to literary or cultural scholarship

That is not "sourced content" for Wikipedia purposes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.75.45 (talk) 00:12, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It has sources - how much scholarly research should a reasonable person expect on blowjobs in bathrooms? And most pop culture references also don't need scholarly grounding when we're talking about a hole in a bathroom wall being used in these ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.38.126 (talk) 01:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If reliable secondary sources can't be found for the specific claims in the article, then they don't need to be here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.75.45 (talk) 04:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, we follow what others have reported and published. If we had as reliable source that stated X is the origin then we can probably use that. Instead we have multiple sources stating multiple possibilities so we report that the origin is uncertain per our NPOV policies.

Where is the verb?
"Body parts including fingers, tongue, and penis for anonymous oral, vaginal and/or anal intercourse."

Is it my English skills, or is this sentence shy of a verb?
 * Done. Good catch. -- Banj e  b oi   03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sexual orientation
The article seems to sort of assume glory holes are exclusively for homosexual/bisexual men and that the reader already knows this. This could be much more clearly addressed in the article. 68.126.6.149 (talk) 22:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, how/why would a book entitled "Unprintable Ozark Folksongs and Folklore" have factual information about glory holes once being "extremely common"? Even if something to this effect appeared in a folksong or whatever, it's folklore, not factual information. I am removing the line from the page as it seems facetious. 68.126.6.149 (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have removed additional sources that were unnacceptable as sources on Wikipedia. Someone's personal website is not acceptable as a source. 68.126.6.149 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The sexual orientation part should be addressed but the sourcing is fine. Just because something has the word folklore in the title doesn't mean all the content is mythological. In this case it was quite well researched and was showing how folklore had been influenced by Shakespeare. -- Banj e  b oi   00:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you'd actually paid any attention you would have noticed one of the sources is a book about libraries, one of the sources is a video file on a pornography website which is not even related to the sentence it is "sourcing", and several of the sources are personal websites which are not acceptable is sources on Wikipedia. The "popular culture" section is entirely unsourced.


 * Even if the information sourced from the Ozark book is actually in the book, which I doubt, it is folklore from a hundred years ago and CANNOT be presented as straightforward fact in this article. In fact, it should be in the "popular culture" section, something along the lines of "according to folklore in (book), late-19th-century society had a glory hole in pretty much every surface that could possibly have a hole in it" or whatever you want to derive from that.


 * I have removed "auotpornographic" book sources and the associated information. Please see WP:SOURCES. Sources must be reliable, such as having reliable fact checking. An autobiography written and marketed primarily as a pornographic documentary of one's sexual encounters is not a valid source. Interestingly, both of the autopornographic books were cited numerous times, but instead of reusing the same citations, a new citation was created for each instance, badly garbling the edit page with reference markup.


 * A NOVEL is not a valid source; you will find that novels are fictional, even if they contain facts, they are not sources. 68.123.224.214 (talk) 05:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The ref formatting is malformed because of editors such as yourdelf repeatedly targeting sourced content they apparently don't approve. I beleieve all the sources are used and are reliable for the content for which they cover. If you have a specific one it may make sense to ensure it hasn't been garbled in these processes and ensure what that source states as you seem less willing to actually look at them. Likely more sources have also come online since so it may simply be a case of adding better sourcing. All the popular culture items are referenced to the original source. Ona path to a GA artcile we would want to add those as well but there is no reason to beleive the information is false or misrepresented.  -- Banj e  b oi   12:01, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume you did not read WP:SOURCES which indicates that the sources removed were invalid. I spent several hours checking each of the sources individually (as best I could) to determine their acceptability and removed the sources which were unacceptable. Please do not continue to blanket revert my hard work in improving the quality of this article by removing unacceptable sources. If you even carefully examined the sources you would find one of them is a trailer for a pornography website which is absolutely unacceptable as a source. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have examined some of the sources removed, and I cannot see why book citations where the relevance can be seen by following the url to the result on a preview on google books which illustrates that anonymity or featuring in gay bars (for example) warrants removal - even if some may be contestable. The removal of all related sources, then tagging a section as not having sources is abysmal practice.  If sources are disputed for accuracy, synthesis or reliability, then they should be discussed here - not removed wholesale in the context of tagging the section for reliability at the same time.  This practice is obviously an aspect of male sexuality, and within that appears to be an aspect of gay sexual practice.  It needs to be covered as such, but not exclusively so.  Feminists have for years commented about men's propensity to stick their penises into just about anything, including a hole in the wall, I don't see why we should be censoring that gay men are prone to this just as much as other men.  You are right about the Ozark song - it should be in the section relevant to media, culture and fiction.  I would also suggest that references to pornography, film, fiction, etc. needs to be in that section as well, and I agree that personal websites are not reliable sources.  However, the best way to deal with that is on a source-by-source basis, not blanket editing which incorporates material that appears unproblematic in the way that has happened.  I'd suggest reverting the edit, to facilitate more judicious editing and rearranging of material that needs to be in other sections, and disucssing which sources are unacceptable and why, then review whether the section should still be tagged once that process is complete. Mish (talk) 13:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You have to familiarize yourself with sourcing rules. Self-published material is not acceptable because there is no reliable fact-checking. Autopornographic books are not acceptable because again there is no reliable fact-checking; auto-biographies are only usable as sources for the subject/author, since they may make mistakes or use artistic license which would not be screened. A pornography trailer is clearly not an acceptable source; there is no disputing this. Information from folk-lore cannot be incorporated into an article as fact; at best it can be used with a statement "according to this collection of folklore, [blah blah]". I am not attempting to remove sources just to place unsourced tags in those sections. I am not trying to censor anything, but we must have reliable sources for everything. If I was trying to "censor" the article, most of the text would be gone. We cannot use personal experience and "men put their penis in everything" as sources or justification for weakly sourced or unsourced material. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

New Sources
Here are some relevant sources that could be used:

Male dominance and the gay world, by Gregg Blachford. Sexualities: Difference and the diversity of sexualities Ed. Kenneth Plummer, Taylor & Francis, 2002, p.301 http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PXABwTllLggC&pg=PA301&vq=glory+hole&dq=glory+hole+gay&lr=&source=gbs_search_s&cad=0

"The ultimate sexual objectification on gay male sexual encounters is the glory hole in public toilets. As a wall separates the two participants, they have no contact except for a mouth, a penis, and perhaps a hand.  Almost total anonymity is maintained as no other attributes are taken into consideration."

Glory Holes and the Men who use Them, by Don Bapst. Journal of Homosexuality, Vol. 41, No. 1, June 2001, pp. 89 - 102

Abstract "This paper gives a brief description of the “glory hole” and its popularity in certain arenas of public homosexual activity along with an overview of academic and underground resources that have acknowledged its existence. Testimonies, drawn from interviews with ten openly homosexual men in San Francisco who have used glory holes for sexual encounters with varying frequency, form the bulk of the paper, testifying to the diverse motivations, experiences and perceptions that make the glory hole appealing to its users."

and cited here:

The Intellectual Legacy of Laud Humphreys: His Impact on Research and Thinking about Men’s Public Sexual Encounters, by Richard Tewksbury (Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville, Kentucky) International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, Volume 24 Number 3/4/5, 2004, p. 47

"One additional study (Bapst, 2001), published after most of the above discussed research looks both across the spectrum of erotic oases, while also focusing on one aspect of many/most erotic oases: glory holes. The glory hole – typically a waist high hole drilled, punched or filed in a wall (often between stalls in public restrooms or adult bookstore peepshows, but also in a wide range of other locations) through which one man will insert his penis for (typically) oral sex – is a long-standing icon of gay subcultures throughout the world. Bapst (2001) presents data from interviews with men who have participated in glory hole sex that shows that there are diverse motivations, experiences and attributions of value associated with glory holes and glory hole sex among gay men. Research with the glory hole centralized is an interesting twist on the traditional approach to studying erotic oases and hosted activities. Typically the location is centralized, not the structural feature of some/any setting that facilitates impersonal, anonymous sex." Mish (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

FYI, 'Glory hole' is also a term used in the navy in different ways, and I have created a page to reflect this, and added a link via the disambiguation page, here: Glory hole (naval). I note there is little exploration of the etymology of this, yet there is a reference to Zeeland's book on sailors and sexuality (without any obvious connection to the article itself). It might be worth looking to see if anybody has traced a link to the naval use of 'glory hole' in the context of sailors' practices. The origins of 'polari' can be traced back to the 'sea queens' who worked in merchant shipping, particularly cruise liners, so it could be fruitful line of enquiry if this term could be shown to originate as part of gay slang from that era. I'll peg this for future work. Mish (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected the origins of the term to reflect the sourced material on the naval usage I have added (i.e., that as I suspected, the term originated in Polari). I'll let whoever is interested enough to make the edits to utilise the above references - I see you already have Laud's Tearoom Trade in there, which is a rich source of references by the look of it. Seems pretty clear to me that this term was originally part of covert gay discourse, and its original location in public toilets suggests its extension into heterosexuality was derived through booths utilising this gay practice for heterosexual men. Mish (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I've inserted the relevant text and citations for these sources. Mish (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Improper Sources
Oh God, you've reverted the sources again. I cannot explain to you how difficult it was to dig through the article and hunt down and expunge all the invalid sources. It literally took me forty minutes. I can't handle doing this repeatedly. Please provide some assistance, I may attempt to do it again from scratch right now but I'll probably break something and I just don't have the energy to tediously fix every single gigantic reference block. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 11:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it was much easier this time since I remembered most of what I did last time. I broke the Ozark one again but I'm tired and need to sleep. Please do not reinsert the deleted content as it violates WP:Source. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 12:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

God I'm so tired.
 * Online sexual dictionaries that are self-published are not acceptable because they are self-published and have no reputation for factual accuracy. Plus we don't really need multiple sources to define basic terms here. I should not have to explain which sources are self-published online dictionaries.
 * Essays are generally opinion; at best they are tertiary sources which should be avoided. I expect Scott O'Hara is describing his personal experiences; information from these essays would only be suitable on the article about him.
 * A pornography trailer used to "reference" a scene from a non-pornographic film is incredibly unacceptable; how come nobody else is noticing this?
 * Regarding "Dear First Love: A Novel", a novel is a fictional work; though it may contain things that are factual it cannot be treated as a source of information.
 * "My Black Book" is self-published personal experience and not acceptable as a source
 * Regarding the autopornographies, these are not reliable fact-based sources; they are also not acceptable as sources

I hope you notice that many sources that sound reliable have been left in the article. I am not trying to censor anything but we must have reliable sources. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The Ikea Image
I reverted this because I've seen no definitive discussion, only a revert war over whether it should be in or out. This is so you can discuss this instead of disruption.

OK, the image originates here = - and comes from the Kitchen department, where there should have been a faucet. It is meant to be humerous, but is an artistic/photographic representation of a glory hole. I see no reason why an illustrative joke should not be included. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted it again, as I nicely asked you to discuss this, and this was ignored - and threats don't work well with me - reason does. Mish (just an editor) (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah, glad that guy replied to me on Flickr. As to whether the image belongs... I'm still pretty shaky on including it simply as an "artist's depiction". If we do, I'm very much against saying it's "from Ikea", and even more against "an Ikea restroom". I don't intend to swing around an argument in violation of WP:NLT, but I do see this as a problem per WP:DOLT; I'm reasonably sure you can defame a corporation. And while images themselves are exempt from WP:NOR (per WP:OI, their captions in articles certainly are not. If the image is to be kept... then I'd definitely like a new caption per WP:CAPTION. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's out - leave it out. You may be interested in this discussion at ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank God it's gone. Please update that link to an edit def or link to the archived discussion. 69.105.109.37 (talk) 03:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

One can defame a corporation as well as a real person... in fact both are considered the same to the law BUT WORSE it is much easier to show a financial loss (a requirement for monetary judgment) it a corporation since as a corporation they must keep records and a drop in sales at the same time as the defamation is being circulated is sure to be taken as a loss directly responsible.

the only thing here is WOULD SUCH A PICTURE ACTUALLY RESULT IN A LOSS OF SALES? there is a saying in the advertisement business "No publicity is bad publicity" so the industry itself thinks that anything that keeps the name on peoples mind is good for the company so there is a possibility that their PR people could have encouraged if not even designed the photo. Most people don't care where the publicity starts as long as it doesn't start from the star benefactor of the publicity so ad agencies do their best to make it look like publicity stunts came from John Q Public —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qazwiz (talk • contribs) 02:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

etiquette
There is a link to the etiquette artical, but no specific etiquette for a glory hole other than wait for an invitation. Is there anything else? Like.... not blowing your load into a guys mouth without warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herogamer (talk • contribs) 17:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Popular Culture section
This section was deleted by a user to has made it clear that he deletes sections like this across wikipedia because he does not approve of them Assuming good faith, he appears to have a genuine belief that Wikipedia is better without such sections. He has a right to his opinion, but we work by consensus.

I've reinstated it, but the section as a whole seems to give popular culture undue weight. I think that the section needs discussion and a true consensus needs to be formed about it. Probably it should have a number of items removed and remain as a section. I think one should view total removal again as vandalism, the more so since this talk page attempt to build consensus is here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm removing "The first glory hole in major cinema was in the 1982 movie "Porky's". The glory hole(s) were actually a modification made to the shower drain vent pipes that allowed the 'peepers' to swing the vent pipes up and look into the girls's shower room.

Also in 1982 the movie, "The Last American Virgin" also featured a glory hole. This was a standard peephole through the wall that separated the boys and girls locker rooms. The hole was hidden behind a bulletin board that could easily be shifted down." because a Glory Hole is for tactile consensual sex and not for unconsenual voyeurism and violation of privacy. 92.40.254.230 (talk) 12:47, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Whitest Kids U' Know
WKUK did a comedy sketch where a husband was yelled at by the wife for going to a glory hole. Is WKUK notable enough to add? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.146.33.239 (talk) 06:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * What does skin color have to do with this? 139.138.6.121 (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Whitest Kids U' Know is a sketch comedy group that had their own TV show, similar to Kids in the Hall and Monty Python's Flying Circus. 2601:5C1:300:DF50:4055:8B64:8834:A65B (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Another use of "glory hole"
A "glory hole" is one of three specialty furnaces used by glassblowers. I found a reference to that usage in "Reversal", a crime fiction novel by Michael Connelly. Such usage is also referenced in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glassblowing Dlhutchins (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you doing apology of sexual perverts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.37.141.62 (talk) 16:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Glory hole (sexual slang). 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 https://web.archive.org/20070621192321/http://www.lambdalegal.org:80/take-action/tool-kits/little-black-book/little-black-book.html to http://www.lambdalegal.org/take-action/tool-kits/little-black-book/little-black-book.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

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 17:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Etymology
Are there any sources that state the origin of the TERM Glory Hole to refer to this sort of sexual act? I know that glory hole has a meaning in both mining and glassblowing, and possibly other places too, but what came first? Or did the term spontaneously arise amongst the gay community for reasons unrelated to the industrial terminology? Fieari (talk) 13:31, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Illustrating with Real Photos (aka porn)
If you go to Wikimedia Commons and look up Gloryhole, there are several photos of penises coming through gloryholes and at least one photo of actual gloryhole fellatio taking place. In theory such a photo or two would truly illustrate the topic beyond any doubt. However, I am not going to take it upon myself to incorporate such media into the this article for the simple reason that I don't know what the Wikipedia policy is. There are lots of images of other sex acts over on Wikimedia but the related articles over here are illustrated primarily with Seedfeeder's excellent art work, not real live photographs so kinda taking that as a clue that maybe putting photos into sex-related articles might be going too far. Is there a policy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.36.193.247 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Glory hole (sexual slang). 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/20070926225951/http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/262.pdf to http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/262.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926225951/http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/262.pdf to http://data.lambdalegal.org/pdf/262.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) 22:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Term and history
Seconding sentiment from two years ago that such an interesting term could use an etymology section on its page. History is required, too. I'm sure we could find references for a history section in early queer literature and maybe satires from antiquity: one possible source for the latter may be (I'm hoping) Miles Gloriosus. I've asked a question about that on the ref desk, which might inspire people to come to this page to edit. Temerarius (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad Taste
Articles like This are why WP is banned in most schools. 139.138.6.121 (talk) 07:52, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Don't lick the glory hole, then Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 08:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not true. 71.10.244.110 (talk) 07:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 29 July 2021
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Glory hole. Consensus is clear that this usage of the term is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Glory hole (sexual slang) → ? – The current title fails WP:UMD, because the article is about, uh, a thing rather than a phrase. A previous title is Glory hole (sexual), and while I can see why an adjective alone is a bad qualifier, it at least wasn't wrong. I'm open to other ideas. Glory hole (sexual practice)? Glory hole (sexuality)? Neither of those are perfect, but I think they'd be improvements too. --BDD (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2021 (UTC) <div style="padding-left: 1.6em; font-style: italic; border-top: 1px solid #a2a9b1; margin: 0.5em 0; padding-top: 0.5em">The discussion above is closed. <b style="color: #FF0000;">Please do not modify it.</b> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * comment Why not just Glory holecurently a dabseems to be a pretty clear wp:primarytopic?—blindlynx (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support move to Glory hole, seems to be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Move it to the base name. This is the primary topic by any reasonable standard. -- Calidum  21:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I also support a move to the base name. See pageviews. Most of the other top entries are MOS:DABMENTIONs of just one or two sentences within a larger article. Colin M (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

"Glory Hole" as a Universal Concept for Sexual Anonymity in Popular Culture and Eroticism
It has come to this user's attention that there are many different variations of Sexual Anonymity using a Glory Hole approach from Stage Magic/Illusion, Natural Body Magic, Furry Fandom, Robot Fetishism, Partialism, Bondage, Masking, and so forth. While it has not been studied in specifics, the universal concept is clear that a "Glory Hole" is not just a historical physical object, or act, but one even used by those on the internet to be sexually anonymous in their activities. They should be attributed to in the Popular Culture section in their own right as part of the entire "Glory Hole" experience. If not then it should be expanded upon through a section dedicated to "Multi-Media." 2600:6C4E:C00:6382:1818:9865:ADCC:7C8F (talk) 01:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)