Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:17, 5 April 2006

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 Feb 2005. The result of the discussion was keep.

I saw the previous incarnation of this page created by an anonymous wikier speedily deleted within 10 minutes of its creation. The speedy deletion was somewhat valid, as it was a horribly written page. I've attempted to rewrite it, giving not only a definition but some cultural background. I guarantee that this is not a candidate for speedy deletion any longer.

If anyone thinks that a page about the collection of these "Urban legend" sex moves/sex jokes/whatever would be better, I'd agree, but I just created this one now, because of how quickly it was speedy deleted.

Lastly, check out this google search of "Donkey Punch" sex, to see how common this phrase is, and why it actually is encyclopedic.

—siroχo 10:07, Jul 5, 2004 (UTC)

Though I fail to see the point of punching your partner in the head when you're shagging them from behind; I'm sure there are other ways of making them clench their valuables... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 18:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Neutral treatment & language

As an encyclopedia article, the job of this article is to deal with this cultural phenomenon in a responsible way, however, I think going so far as to explicitly condemn it or argue with vulgar and chauvanistic pop culture moves beyond our goal of neutral point of view. Note that even the article on nazism is a normal NPOV article.

I'm concerned about the following 4 additions:

• "Note: Misplaced Pages is not a how-to guide"

I think pointing out that the act, were to be actually practiced, would be sexual abuse and could be prosecutable, is adequate, and we don't need to include this kind of warning label (I've never seen any; does Misplaced Pages have warning labels for any other articles?).

• "The assailant could also potentially be a female using a sex toy."

The alleged reason the actor would iniate the act would be the contracting of muscles around his penis, which would allegedly increase the actor's pleasure enough to motivate him toward this act (this logic is so weak it seems to me almost certain this act has never actually been done outside of porn). Someone using a sex toy would not experience pleasure from the contracting of muscles around the sex toy. IMHO this reference is too speculative for inclusion.

• "Donkey punch is a slang term for a violent sexual assault, euphamistically called a "sex move""
• "The attack abuses a person during consensual sex and involves the male punching the female..."

IMHO these (bolded) additions may go beyond neutrality in the terms used. The supposed act is non-consensual abuse occurring within consensual sex. Because of this, and because the motivation is sexual, it seems it may linguistically be primarily sexual abuse, and secondarily battery. If the strike were executed with enough force to cause bodily harm, battery or assault would be more applicable. Additionally, the article doesn't need to emphasize that the act is abusive every time the act is mentioned. --Nectarflowed 22:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree with all of this. The Donkey punch is mostly a misogynist joke, and a cultural reference. While it would be awful, and a crime, for anyone to actually do this to someone, I find the tone of the previous edits to be not NPOV.

— Linnwood 17:44, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Agree with Nectarflowed

Some clarification: your first two points are references to additions I made.

1. The "note" was added because I'm fairly sure I saw a similar note on another article. I know it's redundant but I just wanted to cover my bases because it seemed like a lot of people were getting really upset, like User:Silverback (see my talk page and VfD page).
2. I added the second point because, hey, it's POSSIBLE. I know it would defeat the purpose to use a strap-on, but I've seen videos where women simulate oral sex on a strap-on, and that doesn't make sense either, but they do it...

--Smooth Henry 22:23, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

from Vfd

On 17 Feb 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was keep. See Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion/Donkey punch for a record of the discussion.

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's recent edits

The principal change is to move the article from one category to another. There is no documented evidence that this hypothetical activity has been carried out. There is not even (yet) any documented reference to this activity in published fiction, whether plays, films or books. Thus I've moved it to the class of sexual urban legends.

The term "sex move" when used to describe this activity is not very useful--it's like describing a blow to the head as a "conversational gambit". If this activity ever took place, it would be extremely unlikely to be consensual, so the argument that it's a sex move because "it takes place in consensual sex" doesn't wash. This is distinct from BDSM activities for which there generally does exist a consensual subculture of dominants and submissives. Let's not misclassify this misogynist fantasy as a "sex move" because of the pretensions of those who promote it. It's a hypothetical physical assault with a putatively sexual motive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think fundamentally we're in agreement, Tony. As a concern about terms, though, it is a supposed sexual maneuver employed for sexual reasons. It is merely 'supposed' because, as you point out, elements of it 'don't wash.' We can't change what it is 'supposed' to be, but we can include that the supposed maneuver would be abusive and potentially qualifies legally as assault, as well as that the description itself is misogynistic. To change the description, excising the supposed sexual reasons goes beyond the purview of an encyclopedia article, and IMO is redundant when we already point out that the sexual reasons are only supposed.

And finally, compare this to an abusive marriage, where the terms used to describe it don't shift so drastically that it is no longer termed a marriage --Nectarflowed 22:12, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Abusive marriages exist. If the Donkey Punch can be established to have been part of some consensual sexual intercourse, we then have a data point establishing it as a sex move. Until then, I think my "conversational gambit" comparison holds.

Suppose there were a word "XYZZY" which I said, and numerous people agreed with this, described the act of stuffing a primed hand grenade down your partner's pants while you were both eating a meal in a restaurant. I might even go on Howard Stern and talk about my word. I contend that, unless this act is something that has actually been done, or widely published in fiction, in the context of dining etiquette, then it is inappropriate to describe XYZZY as an element of dining etiquette. It would of course be appropriate to describe XYZZY as a bit of slang for the aforesaid hypothetical act.

Equally, the fact that nobody can come up with a credible reference, even fictional, describing Donkey Punch as anything other than some fantasy of misogynistic guys, makes it inappropriate to describe it as a sex move. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re:Without evidence that it's actually practiced, it is "inappropriate to describe it as a sex move."

We're discussing whether ot not it can be described as a supposed sex move, i.e. a rumoured sex move. Is it supposed as a sex move or as a sex "activity?" It's clear when browsing through the 13,000 google hits for "donkey punch" and 'sex' that people regard it as a supposed sex move. It doesn't matter if it seems too violent to be a real sex move. The sentence in question is only describing how it is supposed, and the answer to that is clear.--Nectarflowed 02:05, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cat listings

should it be listed as Donkey Punch or as Punch, Donkey? --Smooth Henry 06:11, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

"which would be an inclination of homosexual activity."

I removed this, as if a man was having anal sex with another man, that in-itself would be an indication of homosexual activity, not the donkey punch Linnwood 05:20, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

accounts

http://www.livejournal.com/community/bad_sex/1481185.html --Smooth Henry 22:21, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

This part:

"It seems most unlikely, but I have no idea if it's true. . . . I can see it going something like this: Guy punches girl in the back of the head during butt-sex. Girl pulls away, turns and punches guy in the face, gets dressed, and leaves. "

is superfluous pandering, and it is not NPOV. The act is dangerous and illegal, and I think the article has a responsibility to point that out, however this retaliatory anecdote is just stupid.

Tony Danza

The Tony Danza section suggested that The Tony Danza was not related to the donkey punch, though it generally is considered to be. I also cleaned up the poor gender-specific wording, cleared up the explanation of the Danza Slap, and added that the term comes from the title of the television show. --Stevemcl 16:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

After googling it it appears to me that the "Tony Danza" is most often not considered to be related to the donkey punch. In some definitions the passive partner is hit in front of the face, and the term "donkey punch" is only occasionally mentioned. If nobody objects, I will remove that section and create a new article on the Tony Danza. Sammy1339 03:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

John Romero

Well, I suppose that's got to go, but that should really wind up somewhere, because, god damn, that was funny as hell. Harsh, yes, but funny.

-Deleted, mostly out of respect for the person. Tony Danza's bad enough.

no name, no city

Image my joy and delight upon finding this article in the encyclopedia. Oh, brave new world that holds such wonders! Herostratus 06:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

This has to be the most ridiculous article I've ever read in Misplaced Pages, because it sounds like a how-to on a form of sexual violence, and because I've only heard ONCE of anybody actually doing it. I had a friend who was addicted to opiates, and he described doing it one time when he was having rear-entry sex with his girlfriend. He said he was so high on heroin that he couldn't reach orgasm, so in his frustration he decided to repeatedly punch his girlfriend in the back. He admitted to me that he'd done far more objectionable things than this, and most important of all, he didn't call it a "donkey punch," so I actually believe him.BrianGCrawfordMA 23:37, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It is complete bollocks from beginning to end, a hypothetical "sex move" never known to have been used. It's not even sexcruft, it is sophomoric idiocy. But attempts to remove it have thus far failed.

a joke

I am Assuming that the person or persons involved in adding "Donkey Punch" to[REDACTED] listings meant it as a joke and didn't or don't expect any one reading the article to actually perform this act esspecially with the infamous "victorious battle cry of 'DONKEY PUNCH'". Lighten up, it is probably for people to find out what the word refers to when used is conversations of stupid sex stories that never happened.

67.170.126.243 00:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)ADFri

'performed...by a female with a strap on dildo'

I removed the phrase "and also by a female with a strap on dildo" from the first paragraph. If the "alleged purpose is to cause the muscles around the vagina or anus to contract around the penis or dildo, creating a supposedly enhanced orgasm" then it is not possible for dilo to feel contraction and hence enhance orgasm. The purpose would simply be the enjoyment of violence on your sexual partner, some thing other than the Donky Punch. — Linnwood 00:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Brian G. Crawford

User Brian G. Crawford has already blanked this article once and has a history of simply removing pages that he is offened persoanlly by. He brags about pages he has nominated for deletion on his user page, saying that his quest to impose his own morals on Misplaced Pages are "an ongoing battle against fandom, cruft, vanity, and crap article." (see his talk page for more) Any attempts by this user to remove this article, in whole or in part, will be considered vandalism. — Linnwood 20:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been following Misplaced Pages policy, and will continue to do so. You, on the other hand, left a message on my talk page after I explicitly told you not to. I didn't blank the page, I performed a merge and redirect. Anyone can do this. If you don't want your writing mercilessly edited by others, don't submit it. I don't know why you're so concerned with my morals, but I haven't made my morals public on Misplaced Pages. You misrepresent me. My reasons for thinking this article should be deleted have nothing to do with morals. Brian G. Crawford 22:42, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

If he (in good faith) believes that this warrants a warning, he's perfectly within his rights to put it on your talk page. You absolutely do not have the right to tell people that they cannot do this.

Note that he did *not* include more than the bare minimum necessary in his warning.

If you genuinely believe that he is misusing this privilege or acting in bad faith, I suggest you take the matter up through the appropriate channels. Fourohfour 22:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Brian G. Crawford is now leaving threats in his edit summaries. Yet more evidence that he has some secondary motive in his continued vandalism of this article. — Linnwood 09:17, 5 April 2006 (UTC)