Talk:man-on-man

man-on-man
Feels like just some of the possible sense of man + on + man with the spaces replaced by hyphen. Surely man-on-woman and woman-on-man are also attestable. Delete, obvious to the reader from the sum of its parts, also doesn't function as a single unit. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep sports sense. Clearly widespread use, distinguishes from the alternative "zone" play (wherein each player protects a particular area of the court, irrespective of where opposing players go), and is also used in womens' athletics. See, e.g. "U.S., China, Russia dominate medal race", ESPN (August 23, 2004): "Coach April Heinrichs said she simply played her best man-on-man defenders, and that took precedence over Chastain's strengths as a possession player and on-field leader" (referring to the U.S. women's soccer team). bd2412 T 18:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I don't think a non-native speaker with a basic level of competence could understand these terms and their extended meanings even if he/she knew the individual parts. "on" has 25 senses after all! ---&gt; Tooironic 00:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep sports sense per bd2412. Delete the other, I think. (In which case, replace it with .) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's hardly literal. If someone says to you, "Do you like man-on-man?" they don't mean "Do you like man plus man?" or "man on top of man?" ---&gt; Tooironic 23:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think a non-native speaker with a basic level of competence would understand my horse is very green, but I don't propose to create it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * keep it has two widely used forms, two straight dudes screwing with each other, or two gay dudes screwing one another.Gtroy 09:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

kept all -- Liliana • 21:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

girl-on-girl
Same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC) keep this is commonly used in print and porn and gay slang to refer to two men.
 * Keep. It is probably instructive for people to know that of all the possible meanings this phrase could conceivably had, the implication that most people would understand it to have is of sexual activity (and between adults, not "girls" in the adolescent sense). Consider the non-native speaker who might erroneously use the phrase in reference to an entirely non-sexual interaction. bd2412 T 18:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I always dislike hypothetical objections. You're not saying that anyone ever has made this mistake, or that it's likely, just that it's possible. Having said that, there does seems to be non-sexual use, such as "girl-on-girl crime". In this sense, it doesn't seem to mean "lesbian". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "girl-on-girl crime" gets ten Google Books hits. "girl-on-girl action" gets 611, and a quick glance through them suggests none is about crime (unless you live in a country where lesbian sex is illegal). Moreover, those discussions of "girl-on-girl" crime or violence are largely directed towards behavior of "girls" - that is, adolescent females; the sexual conduct that constitutes the vast majority of "girl-on-girl" mentions is between adult females. bd2412 T 18:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well "girl" does mean adult female, so that's hardly surprising. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case, what is the source of the distinct dichotomy between the girls involved in "girl-on-girl" action and those references to "girl-on-girl violence" as occurring on the playground or in the classroom? bd2412 T 19:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

woman-on-woman
Same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. bd2412 T 18:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * keep widely used term, especially when referencing porno. It is idiomatic because girl on girl means one atop the other, but girl-on-girl means lesbian affection and sex.Gtroy 09:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

boy-on-boy
Same reasons. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC) keep used in porn and is in the lexicon, you may not like it, but it is used so we can't just not include it.Gtroy 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * keepditto my girl/girl rationale.Gtroy 09:56, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

gal-on-gal
Wonderfoolisms. He also made orangutan-on-orangutan, which sums up perfectly how transparent these are. (I believe the 15th sense of the preposition on covers this; "Denoting performance or action by contact with the surface, upper part, or outside of anything; hence, by means of; with." Do we need an extra sense covering sexual acts?) PseudoSkull (talk) 04:06, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Some were done by User:Pointon, but not girl-on-girl or gal-on-gal. DonnanZ (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Move to RFV and keep if they pass. Ƿidsiþ 13:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a question about whether or not they're attested; they most certainly are. This is a question about how transparent these are; i.e. I forgot to mention guy-on-guy but there's no entry for it yet. You could essentially say X-on-X for just about anything. It's SOP! PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You could say it, but could you find three durably archived cites for it? Ƿidsiþ 08:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The anything-on-anything point is well-made. Perhaps--though I hesitate to offer this again for fear of becoming the neighbourhood snowclone vendor--this is best as a snowclone?  I'm not sold in any direction yet. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * My first impulse was delete as transparent, but thinking about it, I realize that the sexual implication is only for certain values of X - for example "white-on-white" has a definite, but very different meaning. Kiwima (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC)


 * These have generally previously been discussed and kept pursuant to that discussion. See Talk:man-on-man (discussing all of the above except gal-on-gal, which is a variation of a discussed term). bd2412 T 14:53, 2 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Add relevant sense(s) to and delete these entries.  Could be something like "Denotes sexual engagement between parties" and "Denotes engagement between parties, often of a physical or violent nature" and some of these could be cited as usexes.  Furthermore, because it's not a snowclone, it allows for instances where the two parties mentioned may not be the same (e.g. boy-on-girl) --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 13:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per SanctMinimalicen. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  13:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Failed - TheDaveRoss  23:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)