Looking for cunnilingus? Fellatio? Or how about urolagnia? Despite marketing hype to the contrary, Wikipedia may still be your best bet for researching those - and a host of other slightly more exotic sexual practices as well. Online moralists were tutting this week at the announcement that a new online project, Carnalpedia, was …
If this cums to fruition
... How long before it gets gobbled up and swallowed (pun intended) by the likes of Google...
/ the one with the Karma Sutra in the pocket please, ta.
...it looks like carnalpedia has taken a lie down. Whether or not that's to indulge in some autogynephilia or not isn't clear.
And dacryphilia just sounds plain odd. Do these people have to avoid funerals/weddings etc just in case?
I hope they have an entry on Microsoft - their software (and licensing arrangements for same) have screwed more people than any porn star could ever hope for.
It needs thumbs down
if it gets thumbs up then it'll be classed as fisting by the US gov't and be banned.
Chicken / Egg scenario
What came first, the word, or the paraphilia.
Surely no-one thought about getting turned on by tears until someone invented the word dacryphilia...
More like RSI surely...
The dirty mac please.
Parents should not be worried, you can find whatever you like on the internet and having it all in one place is just helpful!
My challenge to you all is... How many new phrases can you fit into your next company presentation undetected?
I still have to explain what the BOFH stands for on my t-shirt on 'dress down' Friday... *pft*
Paris, as the only 'Pedia' she know how to spell is PDA
In all seriousness...
This could become a useful resource on the net if it doesn't become a smutty collection of porn stars or photos of readers' wives.
A collection of sex-related articles, more akin to those Lovers' Guides films in the 90's than the Sunday Sport's agony aunt articles, could become a valuable resource. Wikipedia would edit the hell out of such articles.
Unfortunately, I work in IT so would be of little use in contributing anything of any real value.
A link too far?
In the interests of understanding the cornucopia that is carnalpedia, I gave it a few additional queries. Purely in the interests of research, of course.
Immensely useful were entries such as that for vaginal sex, which explained helpfully that "Vaginal sex involves sex with the vagina". A model of direct and brief elicidation was provided by that for "Sex Positions".
Carnalpedia explains: "Sex positions are positions sex partners may adopt during or for the purpose of sex".
Sadly, despite intensive searching, I was unable to locate the clitoris article - and was quite unable to reach any page on orgasm.
Perhaps there is a hidden message in there somewhere.
Page Load Error
Looks like something has gone down on Carnalpedia.
/Paris because - Jeez, need you ask?
what, no pictures
Don't believe a word of it without....
Re A link too far?
Hmmm maybe the inability to find the one might be linked to the absence of the other?
Anyway its idiotic to hype new services, especially when they are going to take time before they grow into anything vaguely useful.
You see a bunch of stories ... check something out ... find it lacking ... never give it a second chance.
Instead they should cut the hype ... have a modest launch let it quietly grow into something useful then maybe hype its one year anniversary or something.
Excellent, another Wiki I can vandalise^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H contribute to
first up: copy and expand upon Encylopedia Dramatica's List Of Sex Moves (seriously, so NSFW that probably event mentioning it is NSFW)
Page... is.... populating...
The problem with documenting fetishism is simple, and amongst subculture BDSM a practical, applicable law : if you can imagine it, theres someone out there with that fetish. Probably with a newsgroup, a quiet little yahoo circle, or back in the day a BB forum hosted on geocities.
The problem with taking a serious view of documenting fetishism is that most people dont want to. We want to mock Dacryphilia* (nice one, AC); somehow its becoming declasse to mock transvestites, but if you want a woman covered in peanut butter you're ripe for a humiliating put down; please see http://xkcd.com/471/ for a further example. So, you have to vet your site, which means restricting the flow of people who can create articles. Which means the two guys out there into porn about a woman putting her bare foot down on an accelerator pedal probably arent in your "approved" stack; and besides, are they serious? is there really a penguin-suit fetish out there?
So how do you populate your pages? How to do you weed out the Joke submissions and the Mocking edits from the serious, and probably deeply marginalised and persecuted Dalek-fetishists?
Frankly, I applaud the aim, if its sincere : a giant, factual, non-biased approach to sexuality would be a great boon to society as a whole, especially the much-beleaguered Sex-ed programs of the US and UK; discovering that not only are you _not_ a freak, but that there are others with the same inclinations, and you all meet in vegas once a year to dress as Ike Turner and have Butch Transvestite Tina Turners kick you in the balls is likely to be a pretty Good Thing™
*and no, Generally Dacryphiles probably dont need to avoid funerals. Fetishism is a highly conditional thing; a cute redheaded with a low-cut top having a quiet sniffle is probably likely to make better grumble-fodder than your overweight aunt maude with snot all down her face.
I really wanted to like this site
I've done a number of similar projects, such as the Map of Human Sexuality (humansexmap.com), so I thought "a Wiki about sex! Cool!"
Rather disappointing in reality, though. I can think of about five or ten categories, and at least a hundred and fifty entries that are sadly lacking (not even including autogynephilia, which is a new one on me).
I'm actually tempted, for the first time ever, to become a Wikifiddler meself...
(And AC, people who like dacryphilia--which is a fetish one of my girlfriends has, just for the record--don't have to avoid weddings. Like all fetishes, context is everything. Even a masochist doesn't like stubbing his toe...)
...on Regmoderatixphilia, is curiously missing.
put downs as a fetish
"a cute redheaded with a low-cut top having a quiet sniffle is probably likely to make better grumble-fodder than your overweight aunt maude with snot all down her face."
What, because getting off on aunt maude with snot all down her face would be wierd or something? You mean, marginalizing persecutor you. Sorry, but mocking things is normal and good unless it's done specifically in a mean way (to be mean.)
"Chaos is boring when it's not competing with order."
"is there really a penguin-suit fetish out there?"
Well if you mean smartly dressed me in a tux... count me in...
I have a serious thing for 1930 gangster suits... *melt*
Whereas fluffy costumes is just wrong! Anyone into this should be banned from Disney shops and theme parks all over the world... (potentially) That velcro has just gotta hurt!
Although I did pee my pants when I first met Mickey Mouse for the first time in Disney Land... (at the age of 3!)
Paris, because she must have a few fluffy outfits in her wardrobe!
Ejaculate - Ejaculate - Ejaculate!
"(And AC, people who like dacryphilia--which is a fetish one of my girlfriends has, just for the record--don't have to avoid weddings. Like all fetishes, context is everything. Even a masochist doesn't like stubbing his toe...)"
I bet somewhere out there there's a man or woman repeatedly stubbing their toe against the door frame bringing themselves ever closer to shudder-time.
I didn't know
what a "Pearl Necklace" was. I came across it in my, um, readings the other day.
Wikipedia has quite a nice description - with pictures.
Probably NSFW these days
Gotta love the Internet
(Can't remember where I heard this, so, in Wiki-speak: [attributes needed])
The best thing about the Internet is that there's just so much of everything out there. Like the other day, I typed into the Internet "show me pictures of people having sex with goats that are on fire" and the Internet said: "Error: too many results, please specify type of goat".