Talk:bukkake

RFV discussion 1

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

Not in any other dictionary (gee, I guess they've never heard of it?) and all the handful of b.g.c. hits seem to refer to "the Japanese word for..." So, all you interpid researchers, let's see some durably archived print citations, shall we? --Connel MacKenzie 06:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to end up wikipedia's resident expert on porn, but this term is commonly used. See [1] for Amazon.com listing, lower down the page there are 5 or 6 print cites quoted. --Dmol 10:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Those look like ones found on the b.g.c. search. At any rate, they seem to fail the use/mention distinction, or qualify it as a Japanese term, or provide the definition in parenthesis immediately afterwards. So, is it some elusive, mystical qualifier in other dictionaries that filters nonsense like this out, or what? Why should no 'real' dictionaries have this term? --Connel MacKenzie 10:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Now that, is really squicky. Moglex 11:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps then, we should have more severe CFI requirements for "squicky" terms (such as squicky itself?) A ten-year span (seemingly, the dictionary publishing de-facto standard) would be an improvement. --Connel MacKenzie 07:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd happily sacrifice 'squicky' for a more rigorous inclusion standard even though it is a vaguely useful word. (For anything potentially squelchy that makes you feel sickly. I think, though, that there are other, more common, words that gain extremely widespread usage in a much shorter time span than ten years, particularly those that are technology related. I suppose in the end words such as those (e.g. microwave, CD, ipod) could go to a vote if anyone even bothered to rfv them. Moglex 09:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

People used dictionaries to find out the meaning of words, not to wait 10 years for the inclusion. The absense of a word in a print dictionary should not imply that it does not exist. (Try playing Scrabble with a fanatic and you'll see what I mean). Wikipedia has 300,000 words, about ten times the number in your average print dictionarly. But we are getting away from the topic at hand, and maybe all this should be moved to the Tea Room.--Dmol 12:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Still zero valid citations. And it would be the beer parlour to discuss the dictionary-publishing standard of ten years, not the tea room. --Connel MacKenzie 06:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean zero valid citations?.

• Everything You Know About Sex Is Wrong: The Disinformation Guide to the Extremes of Human Sexuality (and everything in between) by Russ Kick (Paperback - Oct 1, 2005)

Excerpt - page 98: "... of "cum shot" compilations and bukkake porn, in which many men ..."

• Incredible Orgasms (52 Brilliant Ideas S.) by Marcelle Perks (Paperback - Mar 31, 2006)

Excerpt - page 225: "... go to extremes and practise bukkake ( ..."

There are 3 other examples on the same page, and that is from a standard bookseller, not a pornographer. Over six million hits on Google, and 53,000 Google images. --Dmol 11:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I mean simply what I wrote; there are no valid citations (in the entry!) The citations you provided above seem to fail the use/mention distinction, by the way. --Connel MacKenzie 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Therefore, RFV failed, right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

RE: the use/mention, just because there's mention in the cite, doesn't mean that they are not also evidence of use. Our WT:CFI#Conveying meaning specifically lists an example that has both use and mention as valid. The two cites above would seem to be valid by the same reasoning (although they should be expanded to include more of the use; the cites as quoted focus on the mention. ) --Jeffqyzt 21:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, these do not fail use/mention. In fact they are excellent in that they are use but also clearly define the term. DAVilla 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I added cites at the article. --Jeffqyzt 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Unable to view two of the cites, but I'll take your word for it. RFV passed. DAVilla 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It appears to have been in widespread use on the internet for more than six years (Jan2007) for a practice for which no other single word exists. I have one question apparently not covered yet: How is this word pronounced in English?

Citations

Pre-deletion

• 2004,, Luke Ford, XXX-Communicated: A Rebel Without a Shul, page 121

  “Bukkake was great. I loved taking cum showers. It was displacement...

Was anyone able to locate a copy of this book? For some reason, my library doesn't carry it. --Connel MacKenzie 00:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• 2005, Carly Milne, Naked Ambition: Women Who Are Changing Pornography Page 7

  When a friend tells me she's going to get a facial, I immediately think bukkake.

• 2005, Pamela Paul, Pornified: How Pornography Is Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships, And Our Families Page 61

  “I guess there's a slippery slope from naked women to something like bukkake."

  Note that this fails use/mention (is a "direct" quote, and the same word is in italics two sentences before it.) --Connel MacKenzie 00:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Post-deletion

1. 2005 --- Lance Olsen 10: 01 (page 74)

   Tuesdays she drives to a warehouse across town to star in bukkake videos. Seventy-five men cum on her face and in her hair during a shoot. [2]

2. 2005 Tangerinephant By Kevin Dole 2. [3]

   This was a role she was well acquainted with, but it had changed and she longed for the simple days not long ago, terse formalized meetings she watched in a cage suspended from the ceilling, ending with ritual bukkake.

Is this a bad cut-n-paste? These previous two links go to the same page of the same book. --Connel MacKenzie 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Aaarg, I've lost the URL for the first one. Kappa 00:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OK found it again. Should work now. Kappa 00:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 2006 Michael Soltys The Grass Is Green [4]

   "Cure by proxy. That brings to mind a story told in Japan about and adulterous young lady named Tanoshimu, married to a powerful elder named Pat, who because he loved her so much, could not bear to stone her as the law decried. Instead, he tied her to a stake and had each man (700 of them) in the village (except for her lover, staked beside her) release semen over her face. While her chubby on the side was stoned, men doused her face with hot semen [...] Incidentally, this is where Bukkake comes from, its origins."

Fails use/mention. --Connel MacKenzie 00:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 2004 Baghdad Billion: A Benton Run Adventure by Clifford J. Farides [5]

   When the phone on his desk buzzed with a rude chirp, Brian Babylon picked up the receiver in one smooth movement as he continued browsing the Internet for fresh Bukkake web sites.

I removed the neologism term since this has been in common use for years. Signed, Language Lover. — This comment was unsigned.

RFV discussion 2

The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.

Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.

---

Is bukkake, used for noodles, really an English noun? I'm looking at Google Books, and find but one source that uses it clearly as a noun--DISCOVER SHITAMACHI says "Try ... the savory bukkake ("boocawkay")". Asian Aphrodisiacs says "Indeed, bukkake is more commonly used in Japan to describe a type of dish, where the toppings are poured onto noodles.", but that's using it as Japanese.--Prosfilaes 22:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell from b.g.c., it seems to be sort of on the fringe of English; a few Japanese restaurant guides use the term in names of dishes (which is not exactly free text — freer than a book title, but not as free as a sentence), and none of them seem to italicize it. —Ruakh_TALK 23:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect definition

ぶっ is a prefix in Japanese. It means "a lot" or "lots" or "super" along those lines. It effectively works the similar to using "super" as a prefix.　ぶっ厚い for example is "bu" (super) + "atsui" (thick).　掛ける means to "apply" so ぶっ掛け means "super apply".

Here's the Japanese wikipedia article listing common word prefixes including ぶっ http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E6%8E%A5%E9%A0%AD%E8%BE%9E

Here's a Japanese dictionary showing the use of ぶっ as a prefix including how to use it. It says "prefix used on verbs to suggest a strong version of the action of the verb" http://dictionary.goo.ne.jp/srch/jn/%E3%81%B6%E3%81%A3/m0u/

かけ is the nounish form for かける which means "to apply" so ぶっ掛け means "super apply" which you can use for many things. ぶっ掛けご飯, ぶっ掛けうどん etc...

When the word is a foreign word maybe the verification process should include people fluent in the language? I'm assuming this one did not but instead referred to English speaking references. That doesn't make them correct.