Talk:squick

Is that really the definition? I'm more familiar with a definition from the mind control community. It looks like nonsense to me, but it’s a rather old page. —Stephen 01:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Skull-fucking refs are b.s. Only contributions of User:Andy christ if that helps... most Google books hits are either onomatopoeia or typo's involving "quick" (i.e. "the poet'squick-eyed glance". Three interesting book refs, tho, suggest that the unease def may be legit:

• Jo Leigh, Scent of a Woman (2002 - not the Pacino film) p. 82: "One man's turn-on is another's squick. But, if she chickened out now, the whole plan would fall apart."
• Ken MacLeod, Newton's Wake: A Space Opera (2004) p.88: "We maintain, as you did in your time, the cultural squick about internal interfaces with networked machinery, and about data capture, for obvious reasons."
• Maxim Jakubowski The Mammoth Book of Sex Diaries: Online Confessions and Call-Girl Adventures (2005) p.27: "He likes intense sensation (pain, for those of you not up on this lingo) and we did play with sounds. I'll now explain what "sounds" are, but if you squick easily, you should skip this next paragraph [which describes a BDSM technique of sliding a metal rod up the urethra]."
• Also appears in the index of Rites of Pleasure: Sexuality in Wicca and Neo-Paganism by Jennifer Hunter (2004) under "Squick factor, BDSM and" - couldn't see any more of that book.

Apparently means unease. bd2412 T 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Google groups (almost dead as it is) has a news.answers FAQ for alt.tasteless from 1994 (posted July 15th) giving the skull-fucking sense of squick, citing onomatopoeia for the act. All of the citations above are years later. Do you have any pre-1994 uses that are not skull-fucking onomatopoeia? --Eli the Bearded (talk) 05:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've seen this in use around a few fannish circles online. It generally is used to denote an act or practice the thought of which causes enough discomfort, unease, or disgust in someone to discourage him from (in the form of "X squicks one"). Google on "squick factor" to see more examples of the term (730 hits; not sure if this merits an entry in and of itself); also Usenet archives: 427 hits. Also in above references, note noun usage (something that squicks someone) and intransitive verb (to be squicked by something). Other searches of potential interest are "squick the mundanes" in Google and Usenet (to do something as part of a cultural subgroup to cause people not in that subgroup psychological distress). --Dajagr 17:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've removed the skull-fuck senses - they are not attested in print. I believe the remaining definition is legit. bd2412 T 17:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Remaining sense is verified. Struck. bd2412 T 07:52, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion to talk page. Andrew massyn 21:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

On my reading of criteria for inclusion, this entry meets the requirements for a wiktionary article and I'm going to remove the requests for verification tag as the dispute on the RFV page has been resolved. CheshireKatz 23:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

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

---

squick

--Connel MacKenzie 23:24, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This has already been subjected to rfv and passed. See Talk:squick. —Stephen 06:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I see. It was passed improperly then, as the citations are supposed to be in the entry. It came up again yesterday; a cursory inspection of the entry showed no attestation! (Still none, besides the talk page.) --Connel MacKenzie 11:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Citations added easily enough. It's used as both a verb and a noun. bd2412 T 03:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, much better. --Connel MacKenzie 20:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Rfvpassed, again. --Connel MacKenzie 07:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Feedback

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Feedback.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

squick

I think this definition has the wrong connotation. Specifically, words like "disgust" tend to imply a value judgment, while "squick" is meant to indicate a gut reaction without the value judgment.

I agree.

Contradictory

The definition says it was popularized on alt.tasteless, but it was only ever used there in the skull-fucking sense (see the alt.tasteless phrasebook, different versions archived here and here). But this has now been deleted as supposedly "unverified". The definition used here was never used on AT, so something needs to get fixed. KarlM (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Now it seems to be a TV Tropes & Idioms term, as far as I could attest. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

KarlM, in that case the article as it stands is wrong.

RFV discussion: May–August 2017

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

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

---

squick

Rfv-sense: "(slang, transitive) to sexually penetrate an eye-socket, more generally, to copulate using an orifice in the skull (archaic)" Now that the initial shock has settled – I didn't even know that we needed a word to describe this – I'm starting to doubt this sense. After a quick search, I only found mentions on Urban dictionary, but not much more than that and the quotation is more an example and not a real quote. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the eye-socket, but there is definitely a sexual meaning. I have cited it. Kiwima (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

• @Kiwima: The first three cites are for a noun, though, and not one of them is unambiguously about eye-socket sex. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, it has taken me a while to get around to re-citing this, because it involves fossicking around in newsgroup threads I don't enjoy. Anyway, I now think it is cited Kiwima (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

To quote Bullwinkle: "This time for sure". RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

Does someone have a citation or timeline with regards to alt.sex.bondage or alt.tasteless? Because AFAIK, the term was invented by me in spring of 1993 on TinyTimMush. Pawsplay (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pawsplay: Exciting to hear this! Can you share a link to your post or point to a way to find it? Thanks and take care. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 04:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the thing is the MUSH format was kind of an IRC/chat thing, with a virtual text-based environment. The chances of those utterances being preserved is really small. However, I have reached out to some of the old community to see if anyone has data or recollections related to this. Pawsplay (talk) 07:03, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Earliest source I can find is alt.tasteless. The primary definition given was skull-fucking, but mention is also made of it being a synonym for being pushed beyond one's limits. https://groups.google.com/g/alt.answers/c/qB944RTTOOY/m/2hZBNwtx7XAJ?fbclid=IwAR0t1F8y7iRgbcTwDePV7xvP_7ypkKDrLxABoNxZog2DNuKQF7bA8q1PqZQ&pli=1 Alt.sex.bondage describes the word with its meaning of revulsion as far back as 1995. http://web.newsguy.com/Frites/wel.htm The onomatopoetic sense of squirm plus "ick" must have come into use between 1993 and 1995. I may have been the originator, or I may have adapted from another sense, or several people may have devised that sense independently. The usage in this sense would be "I squick" (I am revulsed and squirm) or "that squicks me" (that revulses me) or just an expletive "squick" (like "yuck"). Pawsplay (talk) 07:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

It definitely seems that similar meanings where in use on alt.sex.bondage and alt.tasteless around the same time. I found a similar post as the one you shared from one day earlier: [1]. I think each of the explanations you mentioned are possible. Like a lot of neologisms coined on the internet, the precise histories seem lost. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 17:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)