Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small penis humiliation

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - no consensus - SimonP 14:06, May 17, 2005 (UTC)

Small penis humiliation

Penises come in different sizes (though not as differently as some people appear to enjoy thinking). Sometimes they're "small". It might be a bit "humiliating" (or embarrassing or discomforting or whatever) to be a postpubertal male and have one that's small (or bent over, or bifurcated, or green, or decorated with the "Louis Vuitton" monogram, or whatever). Thereupon you'd have "small penis humiliation". It's a string of words that appears to be used by sellers of snake-oil, or perhaps I should say trouser-snake-oil, to the gullible and nervous; and also perhaps by easily amused teenagers, etc. It's too trivial, a mere arbitrary string of words to be giggled at.

But perhaps I'm wrong. Could somebody with medical or psychotherapeutic knowledge set us straight? Then I might change my vote from delete. -- Hoary 08:05, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

PS OK, OK, the phrase isn't arbitrary. But I still see no reason to think that it involves more than a tiny number of people. -- Hoary 09:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)

  • Why delete?? This term, SPH, is increasingly popular. Some people might come to Wikipedia to find out what it means. ... anonymously posted at 07:58, 2005 May 8 by 213.7.215.29
    • Few people would otherwise guess that it meant, say, "humiliation for having a large right ear". -- Hoary 08:05, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
  • Delete. Crap. Postdlf 08:06, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, and just plain useless. The quicker it's gone, the better for everyone. Harro5 08:18, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's crap, but it's slightly different crap than Hoary's description; it's not about run-of-the-mill embarrassment at having a small penis, but about a form of sex play that involves actually being subjected to a partner's verbal humiliation regarding one's penis size, and could conceivably be engaged in even if one were hung like John Holmes. People really will get off on just about anything. (And it might actually help explain why there was such mixed "he's big" vs. "he's tiny" reaction to the Fred Durst sex tape, come to think of it...) Vote changed; m/r to erotic humiliation as per suggestion below sounds like a good idea. Bearcat 18:04, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete It is a paraphilia, analagous to exhibitionism or cuckoldry or some other oddity of human sexuality. Don't shoot the messenger. The paraphilia is a fact, exists , especially in porn and on the internet. It seems like people are opposed simply because they don't like the practice. I think it is becoming a bigger factor now as the media draws more attention to the size issue. See the BBC's new autobiographical documentary called "My penis and I" about a man with a small penis. No joke. ...posted anonymously at 09:03, 2005 May 8 by 213.7.214.181
  • Keep The people opposed to this seem to just not like it, so they call it unecyclopedic. But much of what's in Wikipedia is not in the Britannica, and that's it's charm. It's more open, less censored, less stuffy. The delete people are just being prudes. Probably all Americans no doubt. ...posted anonymously at 13:12, 2005 May 8 by 213.7.216.40
    • Am I probably American, or am I American no doubt? If you're going to make ad hominem attacks, then do at least try to make them internally consistent. -- Hoary 15:02, 2005 May 8 (UTC)
  • Keep I haven't heard any actual arguments for deleting other than some people don't like it. Also merging to erotic humiliation won't work because Erotic humiliation itself redirects now. There is a page for CFNM, for instance, so there is a precendent. Google search shows 4,790 hits for "small penis humiliation" in quotes, so clearly it is not an arbitrary word phrase as someone suggested. Unless people have a legitimate and convincing argument for deleting, there's no reason to. ...anonymously added at 06:27, 2005 May 9 by Soda80
    • Well, Soda80, your list of contributions suggests that you may be a specialist so I hesitate before arguing with you, but Google gives 410 hits for "small penis embarrassment"; it may well provide hundreds of other hits for phrases involving worries about the size of mankind's most amusing appendage, but since I'm now at work I don't care to look. Any guesses about the size of the population interested in such matters? (Henry Cow is a band that "enjoyed" low sales for a few years till it broke up in in 1978; it manages to get over 70,000 hits.) -- Hoary 07:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • 410 hits? My Faggoth article was rejected because it only had 409 hits... Is this a fucking joke, I couldn't imagine an intelligent person ever using the term 'small penis humiliation'. The entry on penis size, discusses size stereotypes and misconceptions and surveys determining the average penis size. Until next time...grow the hell up. - Rift14
    • Er, is that a vote; and if so, which way? I suggest you make it a clear vote. You'll have to sign it ("~~~~"). -- Hoary 08:04, 2005 May 9 (UTC)
  • Merge with Verbal humiliation. I am sure there are plenty of things to say that would humiliate someone. SPH may well be a documented form of paraphilia, but (as Zzyzx11 pointed out) it doesn't seem to warrant an article of its own yet. (BTW, Megan1967, that was seriously funny.) –DeweyQ 05:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hoary, first you claim the phrase was entirely arbitrary. I pointed out that the phrase has 4000+ hits using quotes (not 400--why don't you correct your misinformation for Rift?)--and even has it's own forums and communities. Hell, the BBC has a documentary on the phenomenon! How many BBC doumentaries did that band get? Furthermore, the merging right away doesn't make much sense. Is it better to have smaller articles specialized for a topic and linked to related ones, or really long articles which contain everything -- a single page for all human paraphilias? All of the merge pages suggested were empty, redirects or lack content, ie. there is no big list of paraphilias. I suggest that since there is no hurry to delete this (again no real reason why has come forward, only that it is 'trivial' or 'not my thing' which is purely subjective) why not just leave it as a stub, see how it goes, and then keep it or merge it based upon the results. By the way, just reading the Wikipedia guide for deletion policy, it mentions this: "All Wikipedians, however, should try not to appear terse, gruff, and abrupt in their VFD postings. All Wikipedians should do their best to treat contributors with respect and good will." So does "grow the hell up" and "not encyclopedick" qualify? Thanks. ...added anonymously at 07:03 (and about 20 minutes later) 2005 May 10 by 62.180.212.222
    • Comment: User:62.180.212.222, I didn't give a number of hits for this phrase, I merely pointed out that (i) a similar one had 400 or so hits, and (ii) the (unrelated) band Henry Cow had very more hits. Sorry, I don't know about BBC documentaries about Henry Cow. Incidentally, I do know that Channel 4 once had a (rather amusing) "documentary" titled "The Sex Shogun of Shinjuku": it was about a porn actor/producer called Muranishi who wasn't at all like a shōgun and had nothing to do with Shinjuku (merely chosen for alliterative effect). But all right, the phrase isn't arbitrary. And I think I've treated people with good will. (Incidentally, I'm opposed to any warning against terseness. Terseness is a Good Thing: it saves time.) -- Hoary 09:50, 2005 May 10 (UTC)
      • Okay, so now you admit it is not arbitrary or random, but claim it is only a tiny number of people. Well how do you know? You don't have to answer that if you don't want to. :-) I checked Google Groups, and it gave 2000 plus pages in discussions. The phrase Wikipedia gets 60,000 there. That's only 30 times more. I'm not sure what that says about the people who frequent Google Groups (LOL) but it shows that it is a topic being discussed. Also, the terseness was not objectionable, but the rudeness (not by you but by people like Rift, who also kindly vandalized the main page before slinking off). ...added at 18:42 (and three minutes later), 2005 May 10 by Soda80
        • I don't know that it's a tiny number of people; I was wondering if there was evidence that it was more than a tiny number of people. Google (the search engine, not the groups bit) suggests to me that this phrase is used by spammers (among others); if this is indeed so, I'm not surprised that it pops up in talk forums. -- Hoary 04:35, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
          • But Spammers appeal to what sells, whether you like it or not. If ads for SPH chat lines are common, it must be because people are secretly calling them, somewhat similar to dubious penis enlargement. By the way, without quotes SPH gets 355,000 hits. Overall this shows a preoccupation with penis size, yet a taboo on talking about it. SPH certainly does exist, on the internet, in adult videos, and phone sex lines, and amateur communities. I wonder why it is so bad to actually talk about it here? ... added at 08:45, 2005 May 11 by Soda80
            • I haven't encountered ads for "SPH chat lines". I have encountered spam in which companies claim to increase dick size in order to avoid possible humiliation. That looks like the attempted inculcation of dangers that the potential customer hadn't even imagined -- a very old sales technique. Spammers also make great use of the phrase "horny 18-year-old sluts", but of itself this doesn't show (to me, at least) that WP need have an article on Horny 18-year-old sluts. 355,000 hits does sound quite a lot, but since it's not for the phrase but merely the cooccurrence of the three words this proves nothing. And I'm left wondering whether you're talking about the prevalence of this humiliation or the prevalence of talking about it. Lastly, please sign your entries with four twiddles: ~~~~. Thank you. -- Hoary 09:28, 2005 May 11 (UTC)
  • Delete. Contains links to patent pornography rather than educational material. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson 01:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Possibly merge, but it's undoubtedly a real issue for some people. Whig 07:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Conti|✉ 02:00, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a valid article about an existing phenomenon (porn, not psychology). The name's not that cute, but if that's what it's called... Zocky 09:54, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Small_penis_humiliation&oldid=1080262121"