Talk:Sexual slang/Archive 1

message: Is the term sex worker really a slang term?  I hear newsreaders often refer to prostitutes as sex workers.  SimonMayer 14:15 18 Feb 2004 (GMT/UTC)
: Indeed, my impression is that "sex worker" is the exact opposite of slang. It's usually used as the polite term for prostitute, not the crude one. [ Jerzy notes that the above contrib is from User:ShaneKing.]
Sex worker is not a polite term (the polite term is prostitute and the euphemism is or was call girl or street walker accordingly; "sex worker" is too tied to de-facto slavery to be polite), but rather
* in origin, a technical term of sociologists and social workers and perhaps clinicians, whose definition none of us probably precisely understand.  (Does it cover strippers?  Lap dancers? Sexual massage practitioners who merely masturbate their customers?  I think it includes pornographic actors of both sexes, who psychologically and (at least in some jurisdictions) legally are not engaged in prostitution; it may include pelvic models at medical schools, and the off-duty prostitutes that Masters and Johnson hired for (IIRC) their dildo-cam research; it may include the sex therapists who are usually described as "legitimate" as opposed to those who are usually described as "so-called" or with quotes around the term. Is this stuff in a sex worker article?)
* when used ironically, e.g. the way Letterman might in his monologues, pretending to be polite, it is slang, just as non-technical use of "waste management" or (repetition of the old Ed Norton gag) "subterranean sanitation" is slang.  
--Jerzy 20:53, 2004 Feb 18 (UTC)
Actually, "sex worker" is often used by "prostitutes" themselves as a preferred term, for example:
*http://www.walnet.org/csis/ Commercial Sex Worker Information Service]
*http://www.iswface.org/about.html International Sex Worker Foundation for Art, Culture and Education]
----
What does this mean?
lunchbox (UK, especially of Linford Christie),
Gbleem 08:30, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Lunchbox is the general shape of male athletes' private area, which can be observed when they are in their running kit. I am embarrassed to know that. I suppose you could apply the term to any man wearing boxers or tight clothing. I have no idea why it's called a lunchbox.SimonMayer 10:26, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Remarks on specific terms

message: The overall topical classification scheme is a logical one, but might I suggest the lists of terms themselves should be further divided into categories such as:
*Historical - for terms used mainly before, say, the 20th century (or 19th)
*Modern - terms in common use today
*Obscure/Comedic - less common terms and/or those that appear to be invented mainly for (modern) comedic effect
This could be one step along the way to further "encyclopediation" of the article -- e.g., "explaining the joke" for the comedic terms, and giving sources ("Shakespeare") or geographical info ("chiefly British") for the others.
- dcljr 07:57, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification schemes

message: I'd like to formally propose that we make all the terms on this page lowercase (i.e., not capitalized) -- except things that would usually be capitalized, of course, like "Big Ben". I find the fact that almost every word on the page is capitalized to be quite disconcerting. - dcljr 22:10, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I proposed this here so people could argue for the capitalized version if they wanted. But Cclarke just changed everything to lowercase, so... nevermind, I guess. Thanks, Cclarke. - dcljr 22:37, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of capitalization

message: (Yeah, I know that's not a word...) I've started to try to make this article more encyclopedic by adding brief preambles to each section. These preambles should be where links to potentially unfamiliar terms are given, not in the headers themselves, following Wikipedia style guidelines. - dcljr 22:48, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopedization

message: :"merged 'Sexual intercourse' and 'Vaginal intercourse': no difference!"
Actually, sexual and vaginal intercourse are much like the square and the rectangle. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. All vaginal intercourse is sexual intercourse, but not all sexual intercourse is vaginal. See: Anal intercourse and Intercrural intercourse. Hyacinth 04:37, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this was a mistake. It's been changed. Thanks. - dcljr 07:04, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intercourse

message: I think we should avoid the use of the abbreviation -in' for -ing:
*example: avoid "bumpin' uglies" in favor of "bumping uglies"
We're already dealing with slang terms here; we don't have to make them sound more "colloquial".
Also, we should avoid initial articles like the, unless absolutely necessary:
*example: use "Aztec two-step", not "the Aztec two-step"
*but: use "the deed" or "(the) deed", not just "deed" (still alphabetize under the letter d).
Right?
- dcljr 08:20, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid the use of "-in'" for "ing", and initial "the"s

message: I just made an edit in which I "standardized" some of the parenthetical remarks by putting them in italics (well, double-apostrophes, anyway).  Looking at the page now, I can't tell if that's standard anymore. Is someone removing the double-apostrophes? - dcljr 05:19, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting of parenthetical remarks

message: This article was proposed for deletion on 12 July 2004.  The consensus decision at that time was to keep this article.  See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sexual slang for the details of the discussion.
:Woo-hoo! - dcljr 06:04, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes for Deletion

message: I made a lot of edits today to this section simply to clean it up.  Don't be alarmed.  :) -- Stevietheman 16:07, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oral Sex

message: There seems to be almost a complete duplicate of this article at Sexual Slang (case-sensitive). I don't see anything instantly obvious in the history as to an explanation. This article seems the more active/polished; should the latter be deleted? Rossumcapek 03:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The respective page histories reveal that it was a complete duplication of this page, back on July 6th — maybe an editing mistake. I just deleted all of the content from Sexual Slang and REDIRECTed it to this page (Sexual slang). Only 2 new terms were added to Sexual Slang after the divergence, so I added them here. - dcljr 09:10, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Duplication?

message: Do we need the disclaimer?  It is the first wiki page I have ever seen that has it.  Especially in all caps, bold, italics.  Just about ANY page could be offencive to SOME readers... I can see the need for a 'plot details' disclaimer, but this self-censorship seems to be contrary to the free-information nature of wikipedia.
AgentSteel 08:53 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
:Yes, we do (IMO). How many other articles have you seen with content as extreme as this one? (Well, except for the List of sexual slurs.) It packs the double-whammy of being about "profanity" and "sex". The page just went through a vote for deletion last week. I added the warning (and put a lot of work into the page) to try to prevent such things in the future. (At the very least, it makes it less likely people will find themselves reading offensive material without meaning to — after all, who knows what other articles and websites will link here, and in what manner?) And a warning is in no way censorship, no matter how one's browser renders it. The warning is there to help prevent censorship. - dcljr 09:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. Heh... I forgot, I didn't add the warning, I just made it bold instead of italicized (and, strangely, in 'single-quotes'). Sorry fer lyin'... So, well, anyway, I still think the warning serves a noble purpose. - dcljr 09:41, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the warning was removed at one point, so I restored it and also took out the single quotes.  You're welcome.  :)  -- Stevietheman 15:22, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disclaimer?

message: Dry humping (found this from everything2), some "___" week related to menstruation (forgot what fills the blanks). And "Wham, bam, thank you, ma'am" -- Anonymous Coward
:I just added "dry humping" and "Wham, bam..." -- Stevietheman 15:02, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Omissions

message: My understanding is that slang means that a term is actually in use, at least somewhat commonly.  I severely doubt that any number of people have actually referred to nipples as "Janet Jackson's super bowl jewelry holder" - shouldn't jokes like this be removed from the slang list, as they aren't "real slang"? -- (Booyabazooka 03:03, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In short, Yes. -- Stevietheman 14:51, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Define "slang"?

message: As this article was getting extremely long, I took it upon myself to separate out the body parts slang.  Now, the size and length should be a lot more reasonable. -- Stevietheman 18:24, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Spun off body parts

message: OK, I don't think an absurdly long list (and yet an incomplete one!) is doing anybody any good, and besides, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I think a far better idea would have a short list of examples accompanying a description of the manner in which sexual slang terms are coined. It's easy to invent sexual slang on the spot, after all, and I would suggest this is done to an even greater degree than with most other slang. I'm willing to do some of the effort if nobody else is. - Furrykef 06:12, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I started a revision: User:Furrykef/Sexual slang. It doesn't have much yet. Feel free to add contributions there, but please don't turn it into a dictionary list like this page already is. - Furrykef 23:19, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave up on this revision due to lack of interest, both on my part and on the part of, um, whoever else is uninterested. Yeah. - furrykef (Talk at me) 14:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Refactor this page

message: from http://www.answers.com/topic/hanky-panky
*Actually its the other way round - Answers.com is using wikipedia content. Djbrianuk 13:12, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  a lot of this seems to be taken from 

message: Somehow the article up to the end of oral sex repeated twice at the beginning. I removed the duplication. Djbrianuk 13:39, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication