Talk:Snowballing (sexual practice)

new aspects

I changed some contents and brought up somes sources. Thank you for your reading. My opinion is further to give somes advices about sexual transmitted diseases through this specific doing.zusasa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zusasa (talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Image

I have added an image to this article. It is an image of my own creation and released to the public domain. If you would like to make suggestions for an alternate image, or request an image for another article, please see my user page. Thanks. --SeedFeeder (talk) 08:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

My apologies, but I and many other people are inclined to find such an image disgusting and in poor taste, so I removed it. I am glad that I was not eating when I hovered my mouse pointer over a hyperlink to this page and this picture was displayed. I'm pretty sure that almost every single person that read one sentence describing this sex act (which is frequently performed mouth-to-mouth rather than at a distance, with Michelle Williams drooling baby batter into the gaping maw of Jesus of Nazareth) can easily visualize exactly what it entails, and therefor an illustration is gratuitous; if nothing else just link to it or put it further down the page to avoid shocking a lot of people who come to this page looking for a quick definition of the term. 2600:1700:5DD0:60A0:7031:5BB2:877A:436E (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Dominant roles?

There are a couple of references to dominant roles in this article which, I think, should either have citations or be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.102.176 (talk) 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean why does felatio specifically "not entail" the male being passive? I can't see why it should be seen as a practice where the male is always dominant, that seems quite a subjective statement to me. Jim — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim Jay (talk • contribs)

OK, as there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and taken out the worst bit. Jim Jay (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. The article states: "Here, men generally adopt the dominant role"; this statement is certainly not objective. The sexual practice discussed in this article does not necessarily have to do with domination/submission games (except in some cases of pornography, but this article is not only about pornography). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.10.84.3 (talk) 03:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition?

Ok, I've closed the AfD on this article b/c it now satisfies WP:NOTE, because of the references kindly added by Malik Shabazz. However, reading those references seems to indicate that the term specifically refers to swapping semen between its donor and recipient. I'm cleaning up the article to remove original research, and asking Seedfeeder if he can supply a new image, as the current one (of two women swapping semen) is clearly misleading as to what the term means. I've also added a porn-stub template per this article's classification, which should insulate it from any WP:DICDEF complaints until it's out of stub stage. I'm also clearing the ICU tag, as the article isn't in danger of deletion anymore. MrNerdHair (talk) 01:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the cleanup. I had to cut the paragraph on the modified form used in porn (swapping between two women's mouths) as there isn't a reference for it. If someone can find a ref and put it in, that paragraph and its accompanying image can be salvaged. So, anyone who has a reference, please speak up. MrNerdHair (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I found a reference to a girl-girl snowball in a review of a film:

"They do an insipid three way including an anal of both girls ending with a facial/in-mouth cum shot which they snowball between each other."

• Riley, Patrick (1999). The X-Rated Videotape Guide VIII. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. p. 324. ISBN 1-57392-757-0.

Unfortunately the page isn't available for preview at Amazon, so all I have is that one sentence. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 05:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've talked with Seedfeeder, and he's retired from making images, so no go on that front. If anyone wants to make one, it'd be appreciated. I'm glad that you've found a girl-girl reference, but it's not enough to justify reintroduction of the previous paragraph, which contained specifics about the reason certain angles on the camera were popular and specifics on the distance between mouths. According to WP:NOTE, sources should discuss the topic in depth to count as references, and I'm hoping that if a reference like that can be found, it would include much the same info as what was in the paragraph to begin with, as it seems obvious to me, despite appearing to be original research.

Also note that we shouldn't put the original girl-girl image back in until we have a girl-man one, or we discover that girl-girl is the primary usage of the term. It's a good image, and I hate to not use it, but it's also misleading as to the meaning of the term if it's the only image there. MrNerdHair (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion here, I've removed the image. Nandesuka (talk) 17:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Pornography?

I notice that at the end of the page this entry is described as "pornography related" - surely that isn't right is it? It describes an actually existing sexual practice (which can be portrayed in pornography) but the article hardly dwells on porn. Personally I think that reference should be removed as it is misleading about the article. Jim Jay (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.181.6.163 (talk) 08:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Problems with this article

References

The references for this article are, mostly, pretty poor. I contend that much of this article is contentious, and requires rigorous sourcing. WP:RS and WP:V are pretty strict about sources for contentious material. We are looking for peer-reviewed academic works on sexology or sociology or whatever, or at least major reputable popular publications, that sort of thing. Let's see what we get.

There are six references.

One is to [devilsfilm.com devilsfilm.com. To enter this site, one has to "agree to be bound" to a number of fairly broad conditions. I think it's fair to say that this is not a verifiable source, and people, please don't use sources like this. Removed.

Two are to Dan Savage's advice column in The Stranger, a Seattle free giveaway tabloid. Some points about this:

• It's a free giveaway paper.
• It's an advice column. I expect that advice columns sometimes make up their questions.
• Dan Savage is probably a fine fellow, but he is, mainly, a political/social activist and an advice columnist. He is not a psychologist, sexologist, lexicographer, or any other type of scholar, and he is not a neutral researcher. His Wikipedia column says that he's a "journalist", but it also says that he joined a congressional campaign in order to infect the candidate and his staff with the flu. Or maybe he was kidding when he said he did this. Either way, this doesn't seem up to journalistic standards, to say the least. In addition, he's made up at least two words already that I know of, "santorum" and "saddlebacking". Bottom line, he's an activist, and I can have zero confidence that he doesn't make up his advice column questions and/or his definitions or that the editors of the giveaway tabloid check to see that he doesn't. Removed.

The next reference is to an article in XBIZ. XBIZ has a Wikipedia article so they're presumably notable. (Reliable, I'm not sure about. It's not a peer-reviewed academic publication or respected popular publication. But we'll let that go for now.) Their article deals strictly with pornography, which is OK. What's not OK is that the term "snowballing" doesn't appear in the article. The only passage in the article that might possibly bear on the subject is this: "...new cum-swapping title, 'Sperm Swappers.'" However, it doesn't explain what "Sperm Swappers" is about. It could be about a lot of things - maybe two guys taking turns at anal or oral intercourse, for instance, or any number of things. WP:RS says "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article" (emphasis in original). Insufficient detail, removed.

That leaves two references, both of which we can see into here online.

The The Slangman Guide to Dirty English is published by Slangman Publishing. They sell language-learning materials, I guess, of the breezy type (judging my the covers) and some of those are slang courses aimed at English-as-a-second-language folks who want more than just the approved-dictionary texts. Makes sense. How rigorous they are I don't know. This is not an academic publisher. Wikipedia has articles on eleven David Burkes, and one of them is the David Burke who wrote this book. Unfortunately, the article doesn't help much, and I don't find anything else about him right off. If he's an academic lexicographer I don't see evidence of that. The small bit that Google Books allows us to see quotes the dialogue from the movie "Clerks" (see below), which is not a reliable source, although there is a hint that there is more material. It's a dictionary, so it's a tertiary source (see WP:IRS, which is not recommended except for overviews or summaries.

However, the ref is used only to support the contention that the term did, indeed, appear in the dialogue of the movie Clerks. But the Partridge ref (see below) also supports that, and is considerably more reliable. So all things considered, I removed this ref and used the Partridge ref instead.

The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. The namesake author, Eric Partridge, is a respected slang lexicographer. The ref gives Routledge as the publisher, but I think this is wrong, and the editor may be confusing this with The Routledge Dictionary of Modern American Slang and Unconventional English, and it is Taylor & Francis that publishes the Partridge (the two books are similar but not identical). But nevermind, both are established academic publishers. It's just a short dicdef, and it's a dictionary, so it's a tertiary source, which is not recommended except for overviews or summaries, but it gives some citations. Three citations are given, so we can drill down into those. Since it's a Partridge / Taylor & Francis book, I think we can assume the citations are accurate. What are the three citations?

• The first is a bit of dialogue from the movie "Clerks". I don't think snatches of movie dialogue are reliable sources. And the bit that is shown includes the line "Sylvan [a character in the movie, one presumes] made it [the term 'snowballing'] up." So the extent that this is a reliable source - which it isn't - it indicates, if anything, that the term was made up by the movie character, and thus presumably by the scriptwriters. However, this is reliable source for the contention that the term did indeed appear in the movie, but nothing more.
• The second is from the magazine FHM. FHM is a "men's magazine", but that's alright; so is Playboy, and they're reasonably reliable (not that this proves that FHM is also). Apparently FHM is published in many countries, with completely different editions and editorial boards. The Partridge Dictionary lists just "FHM" and a page number; probably it's the UK edition, and a complete cite is given at the end of the book. Anyway, the entry starts "Dear Jenna, my girlfriend...". It's an advice column. Advice columns are problematic. Dear Abby might be OK (maybe) since it's carried by reputable papers and they probably insist on veracity (I suppose). But I don't think that FHM can be relied on to exercise sufficient editorial control to ensure that the questions aren't made up.
• The third is to a book called "The Queen's Lexicon". It was published in 1972 (or 1973?), which is a while back, although it was republished in 1979 under a new title "Gay Talk: A (Sometimes Outrageous) Dictionary of Gay Slang". Bruce Rodgers was a respected scholar, according to the San Francisco Chronicle, according to Wayne R. Dynes (Dynes, who is an even more respected scholar, says that some of Rodgers' terms were "made up", but we don't know if "snowballing" is included in that category or not). So this citation is OK.

So this is an acceptable reference. But only for these two contentions: 1) weakly, that it is (or was) a term used by gay men (and this may reflect historical rather than current usage), and 2) it was used in the movie "Clerks". That's all we have.

Content

I figured when I went through here that I would find that the references mainly supported that this was a pornography term rather than a notably prevelant real-life sex practice. But there isn't a reference that supports that, at all. In fact, there's basically nothing.

I tagged the article for refs and notability. Unless it can get some good references, it would have to be severely redacted. But that would leave almost nothing, so I'm going to send it to WP:AFD instead. Unless there are actual good references added. Herostratus (talk) 06:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, right, I missed What's Your Sexual IQ? which is not given as an inline ref. Its in Google Books so we can read it. But a search for "snowball" returns a not found, so... Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

What's your sexual IQ? doesn't mention "snowball" but does mention "snowballing". It says that the guy ejaculates into the women's mouth.

The Partridge ref looks correct: Partridge's dictionary was first published in 1933 by Routledge[1] and is currently still published by Routledge[2], You might be thinking of the publisher of the US edition or something.

About being an homosexual practice. The sexual IQ book says that it happens between a men and a women, Dan Savage also says it, I don't know what Partridge exactly says but I am going to guess that it says the same. Have you got any source saying that it's limited to male homosexuals? Wait, I found the concise version of Partridge, it says "Originally an exclusively homosexual use".

About this being a pornography term and not being prevalent in real life, the sexual IQ book doesn't say that, and Savage says that he knows many real life couples where it's done and doesn't say anything about this being a pornography term. I don't know what Partridge says. Do you have any source saying that this is a pornography term or that it's not used by lay people? (also, please distinguish between "term that only happens in pornography" and "term that originated in pornography and have now become a slang term used by lay people"). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:41, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Dan Savage is not a reliable source generally for a number of reasons, as I pointed out at the top of this section. I would have to say that he's less reliable as a source for facts than, say, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, and much less reliable than Glenn Beck. Also, the Savage info you mention is anecdotal. Even if you assume that he isn't just making it up (a generous assumption, given that it's Savage), it's not a proper study or survey. And, we don't need a source saying that it's not used by lay people, we would need a reliable source saying that it is used by lay people. Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, somebody put the image back in - I removed it, since it shows two women, and no one has claimed that this would be a typical scenario (in real life; in pornography, it might be different, but we don't have any sources showing it in pornography at this time). Herostratus (talk) 05:31, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I have asked you before. Stop having the same arguments on individual articles. Take it to a centralized discussion. And stop trying to change things from "sex act" to "porn" (especially with your essay) when RS points to sex act. How many times are you going to be disruptive in this topic area?Cptnono (talk) 06:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And if you are going to continuously say that Savage is not RS then go to the RS noticeboard. The guys has published books and his column is mirrored by independent sites. The Stranger (as much as I disagree with its politics) is also pretty reputable. Let me know if you go to RS noticeboard and I will provide you all the links needed.Cptnono (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, a lot of people have published books and are mirrored. This alone does not confer reliability for statements of fact, we look at other factors too. I reverted your restoration of the image, since you didn't address the point that it shows two women and we don't have a reliable source for that. Herostratus (talk) 07:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Reverting everytime you make a comment is not achieving consensus. You have been warned by two or three admins and I have told you already "last straw" but am trying to not be a jerk about it. If you do not like the content you need to either 1)change policy or 2)go to RS noticeboard for Dan Savage.Cptnono (talk) 07:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Calm down. How about a Wikipedia:Third opinion? Herostratus (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2010 (

No. If you are looking to make sweeping changes to the topic area you are going to need to go through a more formal process. We also already have a channel available for sources so feel free to take it there.Cptnono (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. I did post a query, specifically only about Savage and the Savage sources, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Advice columns in general, Dan Savage in particular. Herostratus (talk) 06:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The whole sentence "Some heterosexual men are uncomfortable with the practice." seems not only redundant, but especially misleading, as it’s implying all non-heterosexual men and/or women are comfortable with this act. Removing this sentence would keep as much information in the article but without the clutter. The sentence is ‘backed’ by two sources, both of which are from Dan Savage (who doesn’t seem to have much credibility in the first place — see earlier comments on this page). Neither of the referenced pages explicitly mention the remark and the terms ‘heterosexual’ and ‘uncomfortable’ are nowhere to be found. The only backing would be the very free interpretation of the content of that site, which in no way counts as citing a reference. Jasperiscool (talk) 22:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Image (redux)

Look, the image doesn't belong in the article, as it doesn't illustrate any content of the article - it shows two females (and the participation of at least one third party (a male) may be inferred), and there's nothing in the article or sources about this. Removing the image on that grounds seems like a no-brainer, and Cptnono is just being obstreperous. Does anyone want to back me up on this, or are we really going to have to go to an RfC over this basically incontrovertible point? Herostratus (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say it matches the article well enough. The image when combined with the title and the prose (which undoubtedly needs improvement/expansion) makes it perfectly clear what is being illustrated. One person is passing the semen into another person's mouth from her mouth. Would you prefer it if a guy was present? We have had this argument multiple times but I can copy and paste in my reasoning if you want.Cptnono (talk) 05:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems a reasonable image to have to me. Do we NEED sources to say that it is possible for two women to snowball? I think that can be inferred from solely requiring two people with mouths. -mattbuck (Talk) 05:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okey-doke. I hear you. Herostratus (talk) 06:51, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC on image

Should this image be included in the article?

• No. The image shows two women, and there is nothing in the article or in any sources about this as a lesbian activity or about three or more persons being involved (which is implied by the picture). We wouldn't illustrate an article on Nimitz-class carriers with an image of a Midway-class carrier, and the image here is more like showing a seaplane carrier for chrissakes. Absolutely misleading, and a totally gratuitous attempt to insert false information into the Wikipedia. Herostratus (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The image can't possibly indicate it's a lesbian activity, because lesbians traditionally have trouble procuring semen. The image could indicates something entirely else (see below) --Arkelweis (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• Yes "I'd say it matches the article well enough. The image when combined with the title and the prose (which undoubtedly needs improvement/expansion) makes it perfectly clear what is being illustrated. One person is passing the semen into another person's mouth from her mouth. Would you prefer it if a guy was present? We have had this argument multiple times but I can copy and paste in my reasoning if you want."Cptnono (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes - it's a useful depiction of the activity, and while I accept the image does not on its own show the extent of the activity, I think we may assume that there was a penis present, and that when combined with text people will know what the substance is. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
  • But "[W]e may assume that there was a penis present" is exactly my point. If there was a penis present, we must assume at least three participants. But the article doesn't say anything about this activity being notably prevalent in groups. It doesn't say that, because there are no sources for that. There is a big difference between couples-sex and group sex, and it's pretty sloppy article writing to confute the two. Herostratus (talk) 05:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
    • But nothing. You know what is illustrated and to assume the reader doesn't belittles them and us. It is a perfectly fine representation when combined with the article (everyone does it different) and I can only assume it would look even worse if a dick was involved. This is relatively tactful when considering how in-depth the illustration could go. Cptnono (talk) 09:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Agreed, but nothing. Yes, there's a difference between group and couple sex, but apart from things like spit-roasting, the acts are pretty much the same. We do not need a citation that snowballing is prevalent in groupsex, we merely need to know it's possible. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:24, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes. Does it matter where the semen came from? Powers ^T 18:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, that's not the point, that point is that it shows two females, which is not the right image for the article, and so is misleading at best. Herostratus (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Why is it misleading? It's still snowballing regardless of the genders of the people transferring the semen, isn't it? Powers ^T 13:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No. Since females can't generate semen, the image implies the participation of at least three people. Thus the image is as misleading as if we used images of couples to illustrate the article thressome, for instance. Herostratus (talk) 18:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
        • That's a false analogy. The number of participants is inherent to the definition of "threesome"; on the other hand, it has no bearing on snowballing. Powers ^T 19:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Of course it has bearing on snowballing, which is not a group activity. It's not a group activity, and to say otherwise is false. Herostratus (talk) 03:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Clearly you have more experience with it than I do. Perhaps you could direct me to a reliable source that states it's not snowballing if the semen didn't come from either of the participants. Powers ^T 14:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
              • I don't have any experience with snowballing, but I do have experience with only including information backed by reliable sources. An image imparts information just as text does (otherwise we would not need any images in articles). The information being imparted here is "Snowballing is practiced (at least sometimes) by female duos". But there is no reliable source indicating that this is true at any notable level in any population. It's not up to me to prove that this is not so (that would be proving a negative, which is not possible) but up you and others arguing for use of the image to prove that it is so, using reliable sources. Herostratus (talk) 14:43, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
                • Well why didn't you just say so. For heaven's sake, it's right there in reference number 2: "In a bisexual group-sex context, common in 'cumswap' pornography, two or more female partners will share a man or several men's semen between themselves. Snowballing in this manner is often featured in pornography..." So tell me again there's no reliable source indicating that this is true. Powers ^T 15:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Where did you get the impression that snowballing can't be a group activity? It is probably usually a group activity. (although that is not a requirement.) The act in real life, or as pornography is frequently (if not often/usually) a group activity. Atom (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
              • I think that since the argument is meandering in different (and as I see: irrelevant) directions now we can be assured that the dispute has ran its course. 01:57, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
                • It's not irrelevant at all; Herostratus' entire premise is that the image does not accurate represent the practice. Powers ^T 02:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
                  • Well, Marx is talking about pornography. But the article doesn't say anything about pornography. It says it's a "human sexual practice", which is an entirely different assertion. If someone wants to rewrite the article to be about pornography, then of course that'd be different. Marx is a reliable source for facts relating to pornography, but not facts relating to real-life human sexual practice. Herostratus (talk) 04:35, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
                    • She is not speaking strictly about pornography, and that's abundantly clear from the wording. Powers ^T 15:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
                      • To the extent that she's not talking just about pornography, she's not a reliable source, not by a long shot. Her only expertise in sexual matters, such as it is, is limited to her work in the pornography industry. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
• Yes The image depicts snowballing perfectly. Now, if someone were to propose an alternative image that showed two men, or a man and a woman correctly engaged in the topic, that might be a better image. In the interim, this image suffices, IMO. Atom (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Perfectly? Really? Isn't there quite a difference between two people engaged in given practice, and three or more? Isn't that rather important? Herostratus (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I completely agree, Atom. There could almost always be a better image and that is possible here. Overall, the author has done some fantastic work and this one is better than good enough in my opinion. One unfortunate part of these images that there is always criticism for something (race , sex, emotions, and so on being portrayed). I assume that is why the author does not comment on these anymore but am not sure.Cptnono (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Perfectly in that the act is defined and involves the semen going from one person to another, which is illustrated. As pointed out, there is always room for improvement. For instance, it could show the actual act, rather than a line drawing. In this case, whether two, three or more persons are involved the act is the same. As opposed to say, bukkake, where with two people it is called a facial and with three it is called bukkake. BTW, this act also occurs in real life, not just as topic within pornographic film. Atom (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Oh, come off it, you two. [redacted assumption of bad faith/misrepresentation of edit histories (ad hominem attack basically)]You're entitled to advocate for your vision of what a general-purpose encyclopedia should be, but in this case you have stepped too far beyond the requirement for basic veracity. The images shown below would be, according to your criteria, as good for illustrating their articles as the image in question here would be for illustrating this article. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• 
  A view of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
• 
  The USS John F. Kennedy underway.
• 
  Baloons are used for atmospheric research.
• 
  A domestic housecat.

• Whoops! Someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed. I didn't mean to offend you by giving my honest opinion in the RfC. I'm not sure, but I think that your are trying to insult other peoples personal lifestyle choices. (See wp:civil) I apologize for having professional interest in sexology and sexuality. I guess that makes me "extreme" in your book. I am not sure how a suggestion that the person who "donated" the semen *not* being in the picture is "stepping far beyond the requirement for basic veracity". Maybe veracity does not mean what you think it means? Atom (talk) 18:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Please refactor your comment or remove it, HS. That is not how I feel and you shouldn't be commenting on your assumption like that anyways.Cptnono (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, and please don't edit my remarks anymore, thanks, this is not good form. I am talking about your editing history (mainly Cptnono, Atom I am not so familiar with), which is public record, and... wait a minute. Atom, professional interest? You are somehow professionally employed as a sexologist? But over here, you are citing Jeff Hudson (!) as a reliable source! I flatly refuse to believe that any reputable organization would employ someone who did this as a professional in the field, and I don't think that you should claim professional credentials that you don't have, this is definitely frowned upon. Herostratus (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made no such claim. Let's stay on the topic please. (The RfC on the Snowballing Image....) Atom (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No. You are not allowed to make such accusations on article's talk pages. Especially when they are wrong. Cptnono (talk) 11:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have asked Atom about his "background in sexology" which he also made a point of mentioning in my arbcom request, specifically to clarify what he is referring to, as any such statement is ambiguous. He refused to answer which I find very strange. Of course it is not a requirement on wikipedia to be qualified in an area one is editing, but to refer to having a "background", and a "professional interest" infers some kind of experience outside of wikipedia. I need to say that I find Atom's claims dubious. DMSBel (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You may, of course, make any judgment that you like based on your experience with me, or my edit history. As I recall on the failed arbcom request you speak of, I stated that my standing was as nothing more than another editor with another opinion, or something of that nature (not choosing to qualifying further in any regard.) I offered no expert opinion in that case, only my personal opinion. I'd rather stay on topic (if for no other reason than Wikipedia policies require that the Talk page is on topic too.) Rest assured that as a professional (of some type) I do indeed have a background and experience outside of Wikipedia. Although generally I am fairly open, I'd rather not have people like yourself knocking at my door. Atom (talk) 23:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• No - no image is needed. One article is all that is needed for all these terms - Porn Slang or something like that.DMSBel (talk) 22:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
• Yes The image suffices well enough, unless someone wishes to make a "better" one.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:42, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes As above, the image cannot represent lesbianity, as letting men cum in one's mouth is not exactly what lesbians are well known for doing. What it can imply is that snowballing is most commonly an act involving at least 1 man and 2 women, in which the women swap semen; IF it's the case that it's most commonly 1 man and 1 woman, and the woman snowballs the man, then the image should reflect the most common occurrence of the act -- anyone got a citation? NOTE that issues such as these would move towards being non-issues if we were to move away from our childish insistence that, fine, i suppose if we must, there can be an illustration for sexual articles, but only one and only a drawing. If we had multiple real-life photos, then we could almost automatically achieve a representative illustration of the subject matter. --Arkelweis (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
• An image of men engaged in this would be better, as the practice seems to happen more in the gay community, but in lieu of that the image is better than none. p.s. Everyone please look for sources, which will be far more productive than debating this image! I added one. Fences&Windows 02:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Yes : The image correctly depicts the act as defined in the article. There can always be a case for a better image but this one is absolutely proper. --Cyclopia^talk 01:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Break

• No, does not add encyclopedic value. --JN466 06:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Define encyclopedia value.--Crossmr (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  There is nothing there one couldn't guess from the text. Beyond that, it doesn't fit the text, which links it mainly to gay pornography, nor does it fit the cited Savage sources, which describe it as a return of the sperm from the woman to the man after oral sex. And to me it looks like an exchange of spit. It's a pointless image. --JN466 11:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  You're making assumptions about what the reader can guess. The text does not describe it as returning it to the man and it isn't exclusive to gay pornography or pornography at all. Your bias is starting to show.--Crossmr (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes, keep it unless an equally free image showing a man/man or man/woman combo can be procured. As pointed out, this is a perfectly normal way to carry this out in a group, however the other scenarios might be more common.--Crossmr (talk) 08:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
• Replace with graphic of males doing it (Later or male female) - that's the obvious solution since males mentioned so predominantly doing it. I've asked the artist to alter his image. Does the license allow others to do it? Otherwise I'm sure other graphics can be found or produced. I can be quite handy with the pen myself when necessary. Black and white line drawings are fine. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I just checked WP:RS and - guess what - they only define it as male male or male female NOT as female female." Therefore there is no WP:RS to support this and it should be removed immediately until replace with an appropriate photo. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's just a temporary draft to show what it would look like redone. If the original artist won't do it, maybe the license allows one of us to do it and add to wikicommons? CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the image was taken down. Would you have an alternative location? --JN466 01:07, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

They took that down quick. Hmmm, maybe why a lot of this stuff ends up on wikipedia? Don't want to put on my personal sites. Just imagine the woman at the bottom with a mustache and a beard and that's it. Anyway. Absent any ref confirming women do it together, this has go to go. I did notice in books google search another definition of "snowballing" regarding lesbians, when they encourage each other to answer various surveys. But obviously not relevant here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

If you can match the original artwork style, so the alteration is not too conspicuous, that might work. It's okay to create a derivative work based on an existing Commons file and upload it; there is a special Commons upload option for derivative works. --JN466 04:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Remove or replace per Herostratus and CarolMooreDC. If the image doesn't reflect the text of the article, it isn't an appropriate illustration. Kaldari (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

  Where does the article say that the act is never done by two women and exclusively done by another pairing? -- Crossmr (talk) 22:34, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see my new entry. It doesnt' matter what the article says but what the WP:RS says. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Second reference clearly says "two or more female partners will share a man or several men's..." Seems consistent with the image. Atom (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I said "vandalism" the incorrect edit I was referring to. Ref says girls. More refs are available. Don't censor images based on false reasoning. Cptnono (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

But Barbara Marx is not a reliable source for terms relating to real-life human sexuality. She is probably a reliable source for terms related to the pornography industry, and note that the source says "...common in cumswap pornography..." and "...is often featured in pornography...". But the article says "human sexual practice", and Cptnono is one editor who was very insistent that it say this and not say "term used in pornography" as I had suggested (some time back). So OK, but the sources then have to relate to human sexual practices and not just pornography. Herostratus (talk) 03:48, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think that finding additional reliable sources to accurarely document the topic would be beneficial. But, is your point that you think this act occurs in pornographic films, but does not occur in real life? You would have a hard time convincing some editors of that, such as myself, having seen it in real life. I agree that we need reliable sources though, not editors anecdotal references. If we are "pretty sure" that this happens in real life between two women, I don't see it as an issue leaving it in the article as we look for better and additional sources that support documenting the real life sexuality. Atom (talk) 04:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Your having seen it in real life is, with respect, original research. If sources treat the sexual practice (as opposed to the pornographic practice) as something that happens mainly between gay men, or heterosexual couples, then our illustration should match that. Personally, if we could tweak the image to make it show a woman and a man, I'd consider that most satisfactory. --JN466 04:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Didn't we already go to the RS noticeboard to prove that the sources were appropriate for the text or was that other ones? I have provided you with multiple sources on multiple articles, HS. And what about "Clerks"? I'm not saying it is RS but if you can honestly say you have looked into the subject and believe it is only between two men than you are not being honest. If you are just having a hard time verifying, please say so so we can handle it but if it is all a game then I am not going to waste my time countering your wasted time.Cptnono (talk) 04:12, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

OR is putting your own experiences in an article, which I haven't done. As an editor, we all see a change in an article and judge from our own experience whether it seems reasonable or not. I would have no problem with a man and a woman in an image. In my experience, two women doing this is much more rare. But, I don't think it is reasonable to remove an image purely because it is not the ideal image for the article. Thinking about it from the perspective that you have stated, an image of the most common case (especially if other cases are pretty rare) is much more desirable and we should seek one out. Atom (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

That was worded perfectly. And to expand on it, we are not idiots. Some consider the images untasteful. We do not censor here. So then they attack RS. And then they attack the accuracy. It is all trivial attacks since common sense is backed by RS. What is next? Too many pixels? We know you do not like the image but that is a broader problem not to be addressed here. Using any other possible reason to move the goal posts to grant inclusion is wikilawyering.Cptnono (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't find the image per se offensive. What I do find offensive is that our article illustration appears to cater gratuitously to male heterosexual pornographic tastes, while being out of step with the actual content and sources of the article, which refer to the practice either as one between gay males, or as one in which the woman transfers the semen back into the man's mouth – which, in the cited sources addressing this variety, the males seem to find unpalatable. --JN466 05:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, personally, I don't like the image. (But this image is better than no image.) As I don't watch pornography, I couldn't really say whether the image would cater to men or not. As I know a number of bisexual women, I can see that image appealing to them more than an image of two men, for instance. If an image of two wmen appeals to male interests, then what image would appeal to a women's interests? It seems to me that both women and men would prefer this image. But, our purpose is not to striveto determine which image appeals to which audience. Our purpose is about illustrating some topic accurately. I'd rather have a photo than an illustration, and one that depicts the most commpon case of the topic as accurately as possible (based on the description in citations, not any editors opinion.) We are an Encyclopedia, and documenting a topic accurately, not trying to appeal to on target groups interests (or trying to not appeal to a target groups interests) is our concern. Herostratus has a point in that the lede image should strive to document the most common case, and not a rare situation. We should find a better image and replace this image with it once we have it. (Or place it in the lede and this image elsewhere -- an editorial decision for later.)Atom (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out, outside of my personal experience, the second citation, "What's your Sexual IQ -- By Eve Marx", says "In a bisexual group-sex ...two or more female partners will share a man or several men's semen...". As the explanation in this RS fits loosley with my personal experience, I would be inclined to believe it. I would like to find further references rather than just one. My opinion is that the act that this topic describes happens in real life, but happens only rarely. Cases where women engage in the act (Group sex and Snowballing) are a rare case of this rare act. It is our job to document reality as accurately as possible though, not try to remove things that are true in real life, but rare. Atom (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I goofed and read ref too fast. But in real life I'm sure gay and hetro is most frequent and let's cater to readers. I'd rather see the guys doing it myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Wow Jayen, you're really showing that bias now. You and herostratus are both making the same bad faith assumptions without a shred of evidence. If you can't seem to make your point without doing so then I suggest you as well perhaps take a step back and examine what it is you're doing. I've got zero respect for any editor who wants to run around and try and paint other editors like that. I clearly stated above that until another image was found, this one was sufficient, but I didn't discourage using another image. I discouraged the removal of this one until a better one was actually provided.--Crossmr (talk) 08:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

• Yes What the image depicts falls within the definition(s) of the term this article is about, according to some of the reliable sources cited. A visual materially adds to the article. Wikipedia is not censored. I concur that given some of the demographic figures brought up, a non-female-female image would probably be superior; but until such an image is made, this one is the best we have, acceptable though clearly not optimal. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Carol, were you actually able to verify the wording "In a bisexual group-sex ...two or more female partners will share a man or several men's semen..." in What's your sexual IQ? The book has a Search Inside function in amazon, and none of these words come up when searched for. Snowballing occurs on two pages only, where it is described as "Having the guy's semen spit back into his mouth" (p. 84) and "the act of spitting a guy's semen back into his mouth after fellatio" (p.90). That is all I find. --JN466 06:50, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you click on the link in the footnote, which takes you to a Google Books view. It's clearly there. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Malik we have clicked on the link in the footnote. And it says is:

"In a bisexual group-sex context, common in "cumswap" pornography, two or more female partners will share a man or several man's semen between themselves. Snowballing in this manner is often featured in pornography, as part of a practice called bukkake".

And that's all it has to say. And that is the only source. So it is seen in pornography. But this article is not about pornography. The title and lade make it clear that this is about a real-life sexual practice. And this is not some quibble or oversight: it was discussed and some editors were very adamant that it be clear that the article is about real life, not pornography. So the ref you cited can't be used. Herostratus (talk) 11:49, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't say "seen in pornography" only, as you seem to be reading it; it says "in a bisexual-group sex context", a situation that is common pornography but found elsewhere. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

You mean this link? When I click on that, I just get an "About this book" page, with "No preview available". Must be a regional difference. And when I look for "cumswap" or any other of the quotes given above using Search Inside on the book's amazon page, I get nothing. Likewise googling in Google book for "two or more female partners" "or several men's semen", nothing.[ Misspelt as above, nothing. Herostratus, do you see something different? --JN466 13:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

• Keep the image unless somebody produces a better alternative. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously the source is not clear it's real life; but considering all the things women are forced and/or paid to do it would be surprising if it doesn't happen in real life. The bottom line is find a new graphic with males. Of course, looking at the file page, I see the graphic IS in the public domain. So quick, omeone better than me at painting on mustaches, and painting out eyelashes, go for it. My version a bit too amateurish. (Maybe I'll try another program. Will upload my best version in any case.) There must be a Wikipedia Artist project or something. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll have a go at it. --JN466 15:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Since I had another graphics project searched around and found this for requests if need to do that Wikipedia:Graphic_Lab/Image_workshops. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I've uploaded a derivative image and put it in. Please review. --JN466 16:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Perfecto!! CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! --JN466 16:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, JN466. I think that image is fine. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:07, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. --JN466 20:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I giggled at the new image, but it works fine for me. Was the beard the only change? If so it matched the hair well and the guy just looks like a hippie or some sort of pretentious dude.Cptnono (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Glad you like. :) Eyebrows, nose, lids and lashes, too. --JN466 21:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I felt a little bad for my comment after looking at the previous version a couple weeks ago since there were some subtle changes. I fully support this new version of the image. It is nice to agree for once. Nice work.Cptnono (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Good change. Adding the beard was a neat trick. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Stepmom, WP:OR

Cptnono, it's blatant OR. The source cited is the film itself, so the commentary is completely unsourced. It also looks like the analysis is simply made up and quite likely wrong; Urban Dictionary has several entries for snowblowing as an alternative word for snowballing, and janeguide has snowblowing as a related, but different practice: kissing after a blow job without exchanging the fluid. Neither has it as Julia Roberts' character getting the word wrong. So please let's just take it out until we get some reliable sources. --JN466 10:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source

This falls under WP:USERG; it's a self-published source, and no use to Wikipedia. JN466 13:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Heterosexual pornography

From the page -- "A somewhat similar practice in heterosexual pornography is cum swapping, in which a woman passes semen from her mouth into that of another woman." -- I really want to point out the irony of two women kissing being described as heterosexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:7152:AA00:90C0:7094:72D7:A555 (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)