Talk:brachioproctic insertion

brachioproctic insertion
Sum of parts. Considerably inappropriate/unusefulRubykuby (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Equinox ◑ 12:34, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Just found a similar entry, brachiovaginal insertion. I didn't want to make a separate request for deletion, considering it's practically the same.Rubykuby (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, SOP, we have brachioproctic and brachiovaginal already (though these are surprisingly well attested in medical literature). (Also, as a warning, the entries contain very NSFW pictures). Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete both of those, as well as the Spanish forms: inserción braquioproctal and inserción braquiovaginal. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep we have fellatio, irrumation, irrumatio, cunnilingus, coitus, masturbation, and sodomy which are all the proper sexological terms for blowjob, throat fucking, pussy easting, fucking, whacking off, and butt fucking, not to mention we have all the slang terms as well including fisting, I fail to see how its appropriate to disinclude the medical terminology but keep the vulgar forms? Furthermore the pictures could be removed but they shouldn't. Wikipedia is not censored and anyone that clicks on fisting or brachiovaginal insertion at work should either be working at a hospital/porno studio or simply know better since the term itself is not safe for work in many situations.Lucifer (talk) 00:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not because they're sex terms that they're up for deletion, it's because "brachioproctic insertion" is just "brachioproctic + insertion". Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's not, that just means any insertion into the ass and not specifically fisting sex.Lucifer (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Also, the pictures - I feel - are inappropriate and unnecessary. First, when stumbling upon the term brachioproctic, one might google for its definition and stumble upon Wiktionary's page. Because the term isn't obvious, it shouldn't contain any vulgar pictures. Also noting; we shouldn't include pictures for the sake of including pictures. I agree that things like scissors may need pictures for further clarification, as they are easier to explain in pictures than in words. Vulgar things don't really need pictures to further clarify things. If a description clearly tells me that a brachioproctic act involves sticking a hand up a rectum, I don't at all need pictures to emphasise that. Regardless, the RFD is still a sum of parts.Rubykuby (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * For fetish and paraphilia I find that people do have a hard time understanding it without a picture. The common positionings, the shape of the hand, the nitrile gloves, the lubricant, it's all essential to illustrate, nevertheless if someone is looking for brachioproctic and not also insertion they won't stumble across it and even if they do its as harmless as stumbling into a picture of scissors. We all have a butt we all have a hand, the picture is not uncessesarily provacative and not vulgar but rather scientific in its application, pictures with educational, scientific, and artistic merit and application simply can't be vulgar.Lucifer (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A picture doesn't have to be vulgar to be unnecessary. There is nothing in that picture that isn't adequately captured by the definition (I'm not convinced "a hand in an arse" is a concept that's really so tricky to describe or understand that it needs illustrating). Wiktionary is also, I should point out, not an encyclopedia or a sex manual, and it shouldn't be explaining the details of brachioproctic insertion any more than it should explain the evolution of dogs or how to replace a burst tyre - wearing nitrile gloves is not part of the dictionary definition of fisting any more than wearing a condom is part of the dictionary definition of sex. What I'm saying is, a dictionary is not the place to look for common fisting positions (and a single picture tells you little about common positions and nothing about lubricant or "the shape of the hand" which isn't really visible ). As a final note, you say that "even if they do [stumble across it] its as harmless as stumbling into a picture of scissors", but people don't get fired for looking at scissors. Wiktionary isn't censored, but that doesn't mean we should include a photo (any photo) just for the hell of it. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not any insertion into the ass because brachio- means arm. Equinox ◑ 20:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete both. DAVilla 06:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. On top of being SOP, it seems to be a dictionary-only term. Try to get it cited, and you'll see. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)