Talk:Glory hole/Archive 1

message: Is there any evidence that these actually exist in real life, or is it just a lewd urban legend? I know that if I was using such facilities, and encountered a hole large enough to look through (let alone stick a dick through) I would scream blue bloody murder! (Note that I'm talking about toilets in public places, not gay venues.) 217.155.20.163 01:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'd scream if you just saw a hole 1 cm wide (enough to look through)?  I think you exaggerate a bit.  I doubt you'd even scream for the larger one, which is still only a few inches in diameter.  I've certainly been in shoddy public bathrooms with the smaller sort of holes between stalls, but none that struck me as being there on purpose (more like because the toilet paper dispenser fell out leaving screw holes) or being useful for the purposes described here...  In summary, I don't know. --Strait 02:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Glory holes" in public conveniences 

message: GLORYHOLES are alive & breathing.
Not (too) difficult to find mainly in suburb adult book stores.
A demographically wide-ranging (sub)culture exists.
#### is KING.  
we all know it.
some minds are too tight around rules that will be broken in time -
when humanity realizes we are just passing through.
Enjoy what you like & breathe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.171.92.125 (talk) 16:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  definitely still in existence... 

message: The origins section needs to be rewritten and the images edited. You only need perhaps TWO pictures of holes in walls to get what the article is talking about.
Took down the additional images, assuming the depictions of glory holes in restrooms are adequate to illustrate concept (and the additional pictures seemed a little crude)--69.203.127.243 04:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI. pictures no longer on wikipedia. Benjiboi 08:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: It was up for detection and it stayed, so I think it needs to stay on the page Seth slackware 01:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this image is inappropriate is not the reasons that were given in the IFD. This image is inappropriate because it depicts a woman. Glory holes are part of gay male culture; heterosexual glory hole sex exists solely in the realm of pornographic fantasy. If there is to be an image of a glory hole in use, it should be of men only. —Angr 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course it's impossible to prove a negative, but I'm willing to bet that for every woman who has ever sat in a toilet stall waiting to suck an anonymous dick through a hole in the wall (especially without getting paid for it!) there have been 10,000 gay men doing exactly that. This is a gay phenomenon, however much str8 boys would love to imagine it happening to them with a woman. —Angr 20:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: In this edit, I removed several links directly to images.  This seems to be "skirting" Wikipedia's image licensing guidelines and I have a feeling it's probably not allowed.  If I'm mistaken, however, feel free to reinsert them. -Elmer Clark 02:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The images aren't hosted here and we often link to images on other sites for visual identification. There is also no ads or spam links on those pages which is usually the bigger concern. Benjiboi 15:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to images 

message: You know not all gays are into gloryholes, right? That's just ignorant to assume that every gay person likes them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.205.47 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where do you see this claim made? -Elmer Clark 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not. Perhaps user has developed an alternative reality that implies something the article certainly doesn't. Benjiboi 15:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: .

message: I have removed the following statements as they have been tagged "citation needed" for several months:
*From the mid-to-late 20th century glory holes could be found in many public men's room in the United States including adults-only businesses, bus and train stations, office buildings, and several other public buildings like departments stores and park rest stops. Whereas women's bathrooms would be targeted for "peep" holes for spying, glory holes were much larger and therefore more obvious. When an institution (school, governmental or business) would replace bathroom stalls they often would upgrade to stainless steel to discourage creating holes as well as other forms of vandalism.
*[Glory holes were] once extremely common in public men's toilets
If anyone can find sources to back up the claims, please feel free to re-add them. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the content and will add to my list to find a source for it although this hardly seems to be controversial or untrue. Is there any part of that paragraph you think is false so maybe I could start with that? Benjiboi 21:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Also I support the edit to the second statement although that's true as well. Benjiboi 21:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not the one who added the tag. But the tag has been there since September, and in general it's bad to keep unsourced statements around for a long time after anyone has requested a source for them. It's hard to tell what specifically the tagger was questioning, but I do think the whole first paragraph sounds much more like an anecdote from personal experience than something based on researching reliable sources. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 21:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well frankly it's all true and verifiable, my hunch is that it was tagged needlessly. I also don't think that there's a time limit on these things like an ax waiting to fall, to me that gives an unbalanced tool to someone who simply is "complaining" rather than fixing. I will keep this on my todo list but won't give it rush status unless this really is a controversy of some sort. Benjiboi 22:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  There isn't an officially set time limit, no, but I hate seeing articles with "citation needed" tags on them that are more than three or four months old. I'd rather just remove the offending text without prejudice toward its being returned once a source has found. And if it's verifiable, it should be easy for you to add a source verifying it. (I would if I knew where to look, but I don't.) —Angr If you've written a quality article... 22:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statements removed 

message: I've seen some Glory Hole websites and I think they are all set up. I would wager that the person giving the pleasure, already knows the person receiving the pleasure. I doubt very seriously that any very attractive girl would go into any adult book/video store and hope that she would find some willing participant to insert themselves into a glory hole and the set ups manufactured by the porn industry in these films and pictorials seem so fake, they border on being comical. More likely the real life scenario would be some overweight, welfare mom conned into doing it for $20 a pop. No real life, Barbie doll is going to do that because she doesn't have to. Attractive women in today's soceity only need smile a few times to get the best jobs, the best wages or the best opportunities. Look at Julia Bond, a porn actress who has actually filmed a few glory hole movies. You'd never see her in a real bookstore giving glory hole favors. All this 18 year old had to do was smile and shake her bottom and she got a porn career because she didn't feel like finishing school or working a real job. Looks get women anything. They don't have to resort to glory hole gobbling if they have looks. Therefore, the glory films are unbelievable at best because the liklihood of that actually happening is nil. (Unsigned and undated comment)
:You're right, it's nil. Many places don't let women into the viewing booths area, either because it's a local regulation, or a business decision. It's true that more straight porn films are showing it, but in real life it's unlikely a woman would be participating - it would be all men. NickBurns 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yup, you are right. PORN FILMS ARE FAKE!! omg, the world is going to end! really, it is not surprise. Acting and plot in porno films have been flimsy to say the least since before time began. Why should it change for glory hole porno films?! however glory holes really do exist, except mainly for gay males if in public places. Or alternatively if privately in sex clubs. Mathmo 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of us wouldn't be able to get the mental images out of our brains no matter what. Same as fucking an ug in real life, even though the pussy can feel the same as a hot as chick the sex wouldn't be the same...  because of the bad mental images you would be getting no matter what. And as you should know a person's biggest sex organ is their brain. Mathmo Talk 18:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion