Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frot first nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep. Maxberners 04:45, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Frot
Its a neologism, there are few if any reliable secondary sources using this term to describe this subject, most use of this term is in blogs or self published online editorials which reference to a website on which this term supposedly originated Onhm 01:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I suggest we move it, rather than merging or deletingOnhm 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Frottage. (sidenote: lol at the image) --- RockMFR 02:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also note the female counterpart Tribadism. Both articles seem to be of similar quality and content. If we're going to merge one, we should probably merge both. --Brad Beattie (talk) 02:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Tribadism seems to be notable, both as a sex position and historically, but tryin to figure out the difference between "frot" and "frottage" is making my brain hurt. There's also a surprising amount of anti-anal-sex POV propagandism in the 'frot' page that should go out if both pages are merged. -- Charlene 03:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Men can do both frot and anal. Nevertheless the cultural importance of frot (as equivalent to tribadism) emerged as part of a polemic against anal sex. Especially in relationship to the threat of AIDS to gay men. This is simply a historical fact. Describing the polemic neutrally doesnt necessarily reflect the opinion of the Wikipedia article. --Haldrik 19:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/Against deleteTerm is a neologism, but Wikipedia does not have a policy against neologism, just a bias, since most of them require original research to support. In this case, there are supportable references (even though few), and so being a new term is not a problem.  Content is distinct from other articles, including frottage.  As for the "POV propagandism", well the term is primarily about non-anal-sex, so what would anyone expect?  Should we delete it because it is a type of sexuality we ourselves don't practice?  That wouldn't seem right.  Atom 03:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Frottage, (sidenote: also lol at the image) Elomis 08:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge Agree with RockMFR and Elomis. Both the merge comment and the LOL (really, no offense). Imo  eng  12:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as a form of frottage, distinct from tribadism. And I don't see anyone nominating that for deletion. &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 13:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep/Against merge - Frot refers to male-male genital-genital sex, frottage does not. The term frottage can't be used because it refers to MANY methods of sex, whether heterosexual or homosexual, clothed or naked, genital or non-genital. Frottage doesn't connote male-male genital-genital sex. Only frot specifies it. Frot exactly parallels tribadism, which is female-female genital-genital sex, and to keep tribadism while deleting frot would be severe discrimination. Frot refers to an extremely notable, primordial method of sex (it even exists among bonobo), despite the fact that Greek/Latin and thus traditional English lacks a word for it. It is customary in Wikipedia to use whatever term is prevalent for a specific sex position, regardless of whether its origin is slang or the porn industry, because medical jargon is often useless for describing specific positions. In this case, frot is the prevailing term. Genital sex doesn't automatically require penetration, and to imply that frot isn't real genital-genital sex because real sex must include penetration is a male heterosexual bias, and discrimination against other forms of genital sex, including tribadism. --Haldrik 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I dont think people are questioning the act, nor denying the convenience of it mirroring tribadism. The deletion revolves around whether the term is notable, not the act. No one is arguing whether their should be an article about men rubbing penises, people are arguing whether their should be one called Frot. - UnlimitedAccess 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There is no problem with the term "frot". It's the term that is used, and it has multiple sources. --Haldrik 05:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Haldrik's got a point. &spades; P  M  C  &spades; 19:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Trampik e y (talk to me)(contribs) 20:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment firstly what you described with the naming conventions isnt the case, compare with Oral sex, I'm sure "blow job" is a lot more common in the vernacular but thats not what we title that article, we use the technical term, also sexual intercourse is not listed at "fuck", masturbation is not listed at "jacking off".
 * But just to humor this train of thought lets look at what its called in pornography, go check out http://www.cocktocockstories.com, only one instance that I could see of it being called frot, apparently as a present tense verb form of frottage, everywhere else its just called "frottage" (kind of analagous to how straight people call penile-vaginal sex "intercourse") in fact "frot" isn't even in the warning list of things the site contains explicit images of. Go look at "My Waking Dream" (its under construction right now but here's an internet archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050204072328/www.keepstill.com/wakingdream/main.html?v=20040822) there's a section for "Dick2Dick" but nothing whatsoever for "frot". I'm pretty sure these sites weren't created with a heterosexual male bias.
 * Furthermore "frot" (http://www.salon.com/people/col/cintra/1999/05/19/povparty/print.html, http://www.upsideclown.com/2002_09_02.shtml ) and "frotting" (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Frotting) can apparently be used as synonyms for frottage, including heterosexual frottage. Onhm 03:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge Onhm makes a good point. Slang terms typically redirect to articles with technical titles. It also seems like the inventor of the term is the main contributor to the article, which might be somewhat inappropriate.Jermor 05:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Frot cant be merged with frottage because then Tribadism would have to be merged too. --Haldrik 12:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - No one has to do anything. People are arguing 'Frot' isn't a notable term, whereas people here accept Tribadism is. Haldrik, I suggest you should argue why an article called 'Frot' should exist rather than argue that for political correctness we need an article analogous to tribadism. - UnlimitedAccess 04:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ATTENTION: Onhm is trying to delete the Frot article for petty personal reasons. Onhm/128.192.81.XX has been trying to blank and vandalize this article for months. Frot is an important article. I ask you all to not indulge Onhm's attempt to harm Wikipedia. Vote KEEP --Haldrik 19:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep As per Haldrik. It seems the technical title would be "male-male genital-genital sex", which is too long and which itself seems would be neologism anyway since it seems the cited sources that refer to male-male genital-genital sex use the term "frot". If "frot" were merged to "male-male genital-genital sex", wouldn't tribadism also have to be merged to "female-female genital-genital sex" too? --Yarel 09:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL Should the technical title be "Dick2Dick"? The serious sources use "frot". --Yarel 09:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There are no serious sources, there's just that ridiculous website and porn, actually I would say porn is a good deal more serious because it actually caters to peoples desires without all that silly preaching, mentioning the source of this neologism would be one thing, but naming the article based on their term is blatant POV, if "Male-male genital-genital sex" is too long why not just call it "penis-to-penis sex" or "penis-penis sex" (which is already what its been called for some time now on the informal redirect found on Frot and Frottage), thats essentially what the pornographic sites call it except we would be using penis instead of "dick" or "cock". --Onhm 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * PS if you're concerned about the charges of vandalism just go and look on the pages history and talk pages, Haldrik considers anything that doesn't reflect his own POV "vandalism" --Onhm 17:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment In fact, Onhm childishly - but systematically - vandalizes any criticism of anal sex, whatsoever. Even historical discussions about the risks of anal sex with regard to AIDS. In fact, the only reason Onhm tries to vandalize the Frot article now, is because the word "frot" was coined to specify male-male genital-genital sex as a notable way for the gay community to have an alternative to avoid the health risks of anal sex. There is nothing wrong with defending the legitimacy of anal sex. But, it is vandalism to delete notable points of view that critique anal sex. Onhm likes anal sex and is just being childish. --Haldrik 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to call the technical title, "penis-to-penis sex", because it is a neologism that Onhm just invented now! "Frot" is ONLY technical term that SPECIFIES male-male genital-genital sex. --Haldrik 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * CommentI didn't mean it as a "term" I ment it as a description, some wikipedia articles use descriptions of things, rather than names of things as titles, but if thats a problem we could always merge to frottage, which is what its usually called anyway. Frot is not a technical term, its a neologism used pretty much exlusively by a highly POV webiste and people making reference to that website, the technical term is frottage, even gay porn sites one of which speicalizes in penis to penis sex call it frottage, theres not a more specific technical term, it doesn't exist, and its not prejeduced or discriminatory to refuse to pretend otherwise.
 * quote: "childishly - but systematically - vandalizes any criticism of anal sex, whatsoever."
 * go over to the anal sex article and see if I've made ANY recent edits to it AT ALL, go over to the frot articles history or talk pages, I didn't touch the "Advantages of Frot" section until a third party said it was POV, even then I kept the safer sex comparisons to anal and oral sex


 * quote: "But, it is vandalism to delete notable points of view that critique anal sex."
 * that just happened to be in the WRONG ARTICLE and totally given undue weight (we're talking multiple paragraphs with paragraph long quotes) I could care less if you wrote about that sort of thing in the anal sex article, it would at least be on topic there


 * quote:"Onhm likes anal sex"
 * No as a matter of fact I don't, and I don't think anal sex is perfectly safe or natural or any of that, not that its any of your goddamn business.

Onhm 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC) Onhm 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Atom and others. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 20:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is, quite simply, that "frot" is not the term in general use for this type of sexual activity. It's a valid article, because the practice certainly exists, but "frot" is not the correct title for it, because nobody calls it that except for one agenda-driven website. Wikipedia does not exist to promote new terms that people would like to apply to their favourite things; it exists to document the terms that are in general use. This term has no actual currency in normal discussions of sexuality; the article needs to be titled with a term that people actually use. Move to any appropriate alternate title. Bearcat 01:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Haldrik. Opposed to merge with frottage, the term is too broad. 142.163.78.108 01:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Frottage isn't the technical term. Frottage is an archaic term which has an entirely different meaning.  It would be like merging the entry for "sexual intercourse" into one marked "plow", since fuck is the old english word for plow.  Similarly, frottage is about rubbing strangers on trains, but frot is personal and purposeful.  It would be a mistake to merge or delete this entry.Xsaithx 04:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)xsaithx
 * "Frot" isn't the technical term, either. The term "frot" does not exist outside of the "g0y" website's readership. You cannot enforce your own invented words onto Wikipedia just because you dislike the terms that actually exist. Bearcat 05:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Frot and g0y have two completely seperate communities. Although similar, the people who coined the term "frot" are in no way involved with the people who came up with "g0y". 142.163.78.108 10:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever. It's still a specific community's own term for something that simply isn't referred to with this name by anybody outside of that community. Bearcat 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment in any event "frot" is not a word that is used outside this narrow little community, its not some widely recognized real-life term used by all men who like frottage (which is not an archaic term, I just showed everyone an online porn site that still calls it frottage not "frot") NPOV is about more than opinions, group-specific language is just as much a part of someones POV as their values, if most conventionally reliable sources as well as pornography call men rubbing their penises together "frottage" then thats what wikipedia should call it. Docking, mutual masturbation and intercrural intercourse can involve penis to penis contact as well (the penile bulb or "root" goes back between a the legs along the perineum) so the whole deal with keeping it to preserve "equal time" for different types of genital-genital sex shouldn't be an issue because frottage isn't the only sexual act that may or may not involve genito-genital contact depending on the sex and position of the participantsOnhm 17:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment So by your logic we should delete the word klingon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon, because no one uses the word outside of a narrow little community. Maybe you're taking yourself too seriously here.  Your proof that frot should be deleted is a porn site, while there is more than one community action group that is serious about promoting it (and not exploiting it for money) that uses the term "frot".  Maybe we should change all words in wikipedia that don't meet the criteria of some pornographic website's lexicon?  You complain about group-specific language and then discredit your argument by basing it on the group-specific language of the porn industry.  Meanwhile you're ignoring the reality that outside of wikipedia, even if you succeed in your petty little quest to destroy this entry, the term "frot" will still be used as separate and distinct from the term "frottage."  The end result of a merge for this term won't be increased accuracy of wikipedia, it will be the increased marginalization of wikipedia as innaccurate, out of date, and ultimately unreliable.  Isn't increased reliability of wikipedia something that the community here should be fighting for ABOVE AND BEYOND any other personal problems with a group?Xsaithx 01:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)xsaithx
 * The reliability of Wikipedia is not increased by calling articles with titles that don't exist in the real world. And, for the record, "Klingon" is not a word whose use is restricted to a narrow little community; awareness of the term and what it denotes transcends the community it derives from. Millions of people who have no connection to Star Trek fandom know what a "Klingon" is, and there isn't any other word for it. "Frot", on the other hand, is a word that nobody outside of a couple of websites has ever even heard, denoting something which already has other names in actual use. Bearcat 18:31, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep FFS, this is ricockulous.  The term originated before g0ys.org and man2manalliance.org and ALL those ricockulous little sites created by otherwise grown men who are afraid that every gay man who engages in anal sex exists for the sole purpose of taking their masculinity away.  What's even more ricockulous is that this whole thing went this far.  It's moments like this that make me think being a "normal" het is just so much easier.  RJ 20:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Atom. Let's move on. --66.32.90.7 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Since "Keep" and "Merge" both count as "Keep" in an AfD, I'd have to say this looks like a perfect example of WP:SNOW. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 21:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'd like to suggest creating two seperate articles, one for the frot / g0y / anti-anal groups and one for the physical act of rubbing genitals. Duncan282 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - frot is the physical act, I think g0y is the anti-anal "group", and that article has been deleted. &mdash; AnemoneProj e ctors (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But this article combines the physical act, which has existed for thouusand of years, with the group, which has only recently formed. Upon thinking it over, I have decided that these two topics are probably better suited together. Duncan282 00:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Despite the fact that frot has always existed, English didnt have a word for it. Now "frot" is the word that has come to be used for it, and its etymology is notable. Similarly, the Tribadism article talks about the etymology of term "tribadism". Originally, the Greek word had nothing to do with female-female genital-genital sex, but came to mean this only in relatively recent times. Originally the Greek word referred to a woman who used a dildo, which is irrelevant to its meaning today. The etymology of "tribadism" is notable, and must be described. There is a paragraph or so explaining (quite well) the origin and evolution of the term. It is the same with the Frot article. The etymology is notable. The term didnt emerge in the context of Greek women who wanted to sexually penetrate others, but in the context of American gay men who wanted to avoid anal sex. It's just a description of the origin and evolution of the term. Today, the term "frot" simply means male-male genital-genital sex. --Haldrik 00:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Frot" is a neologism coined by a specific group; it is not the word in general use for this type of sexual activity. Wikipedia does not exist to document every new word that people invent for things that already have other names in general use. Our role on Wikipedia is to document the actual terms in actual general use. Bearcat 16:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep hmmm, now why does it seem as if there're certain people here who have issues with gay terms? people coin words everyday and we have new words entering the dictionary everyday. wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA and frot is used generally, although maybe not too generally for homophobes.
 * There's nothing homophobic about it; I'm an openly gay man and have never encountered the word "frot" in my life until this Wikipedia article showed up. I have encountered the act, but the word "frot" is not what the participants called it. The word is not used generally. Bearcat 22:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment quote: "So by your logic we should delete the word klingon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klingon, because no one uses the word outside of a narrow little community. Maybe you're taking yourself too seriously here. Your proof that frot should be deleted is a porn site, while there is more than one community action group that is serious about promoting it (and not exploiting it for money) that uses the term "frot""
 * Neither of which actually exists in any offline capacity or has any real world accomplishments or actual membership or anything of that sort, not that it would matter their "selflessness" would be no excuse to adopt their language over actual English terms. The technical English (borrowed from French) term for rubbing bodies together is frottage (even amoung gay men in gay contexts) [], regarless of the fact that for some of us its also genito-genital sex. "Frot" is an neologism specific to a pair of websites (which is also used elsewhere as a direct synonym for frottage as I have already shown), we should not be listing certain types of sex at website specific neologisms when all other forms of sex have the dignity of being listed at their proper names. The difference between "frot" and "Klingon" is that entries like "Klingon" have no pretense of applying to the real world. If you're so concerned with how "noteworthy" these websites are then go then make articles for them instead of translating wikipedia into their cutesy little neologisms. Onhm 18:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Keep, frot is a notable safer sex act. Nomination clearly lacks WP:POINT. - GilliamJF 18:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Which gay men have been calling frottage for years and still call frottage, not "frot" that word only exists in a very specific little online contextOnhm 22:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a notable safer sex act, certainly. "Frot", however, is not its generally-accepted and generally-used name. Bearcat 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Frot is the only term for male-male genital-genital sex. It has multiple sources. Besides people DO use the term frot. People I know use it. The term frot is not a problem. --Yarel 17:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you kindly show some of those sources? Because I can't find a single example on Google of the word existing in general use; the only people using it out there on the web are those with a vested interest in promoting the term. Anyway, just on the off chance that my lack of experience with the term was somehow not representative of actual usage, I asked five different friends today what they would call this act. Every single one of them came up with "frottage". I then asked if they would ever abbreviate that to "frot", and every one of them looked at me like I was speaking Klingon. So is frot the term in general use? Is it the only term for this particular sexual act? Clearly not, on either count. Bearcat 23:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not independent reliable sources, in all the few cases I've seen of anyone writing the word "frot" anywhere outside that website they are either self consciously adopting the terminology of that webstie because they are commenting on it, or using it as a slang shortening of frottage like in those examples ealier where straight people were saying they liked to frot; when people talk about frottage in the same sort of contexts where people would say sexual intercourse rather than fucking. oral sex rather than blow job, and masturbation rather than jerking off, they call it "frottage", even on the other end of the spectrum in gay porn its called frottage (I think I've already cited both of these). Just like mutual masturbation is still mutual masturbation when the men's penises are touching, intercurural intercourse is still intercrural intercourse when the genitals are touching, just like heterosexual frottage is still frottage when the penis and clitoris are touching. Yes they are all genito-genital sex, thats wonderful, but the term doesn't change. If it had some prior (verifiable) existence as a regional slang term than it might still be notable only as a slang term (like fuck), not the proper place to list information on the sex act. Even things like rimming and tit-jobs are listed at anal-oral contact and mammary intercourse respectively, not the slang term and certainly not at internet neologisms.Onhm 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I am not part of the so-called "frot" group. I and the people I know use the word "frot". I sometimes hear the expression, "Frot is hot!" And even "frotilicious". It is a word. "Frot" is the only word to specify male-male genital-genital sex. --Yarel 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Delete both articles. Does Wikipedia become richer with such grotesque words? Disgusting! --AVM 21:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikipedia is not bowdlerized or censored. It contains articles on subjects such as racial slurs, controversial political and religious groups and movements, and sexual acts.

StuThomas 00:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this page should be deleted


 * Nobody's suggesting that it be deleted; the issue is around moving it to another title. Bearcat 02:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The nomination by Onhm/128.192.81.XX to delete the Frot article has failed. As this is NOT the place to discuss merging articles, and as most users reject the deletion, I propose we close this discussion now and archive it. --Yarel 03:43, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Discussing merges most certainly is permitted on AFD. Bearcat 17:40, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Since "Keep and Merge" or "keep and redirect" are both "proper" closes to an AfD, the discussion is certainly appropriate. --Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.