Talk:Bukkake

Change to lead

@Flyer22 Reborn: - I am not yet auto-confirmed so cannot edit this article, but would you make a change on my behalf, or at least I invite discussion on the proposed change:

The lead currently reads:

Bukkake (Japanese: ぶっかけ; [bɯkkake] ^ⓘ; English: /bʊˈkækeɪ/ buu-KAK-ay) is a sex act portrayed in pornographic films, in which several men ejaculate on a woman, or on another man.

I propose a change to read the inserted bold text, or at least a variant of it. The current lead makes an explicit claim, whereas Bukkake exists outside the porn film world as well - ie in real life. Or indeed the simple removal of "portrayed in pornographic films," which would then leave the remainder of the sentence to be inclusive of all situations.

Bukkake (Japanese: ぶっかけ; [bɯkkake] ^ⓘ; English: /bʊˈkækeɪ/ buu-KAK-ay) is a sex act sometimes/often/which may be portrayed in pornographic films, where several men ejaculate on a woman, or on another man.

Comments and thoughts from others? Curved Space (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Curved Space, other than the Etymology section, the sources only seem to be discussing this act within a pornography context. I understand that it can happen outside of pornography, as is the case for any sex act that is possible in real life, but do you have access to any solid sources discussing this outside of a pornography context? For sex acts that are mainly, or seemingly solely, portrayed in pornography, we should be clear about that as early as possible instead of making the act appear common in the general population. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:23, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

i have heard this discussed outside of pornographic SEO tags on porn ~2026-33227-2 (talk) 04:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

____

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

It is my suggestion to encourage healthy debate regarding lesbian bukkake. I feel as if, though it is not necessary to wade into the 'urine or no debate', we should approach the matter of fair descriptive reference and give those who do activate their skene's gland their dues and put to the rest the issue of 'but it's interchangeably mixed!' to bed. We know it comes out of the vagina not the urethra. Refinement of liquid via tissue filtration may cause a problem for some who smell with their brains sometimes but it's a mind over matter kind of deal.

Belief that women are pissing on each other misses out on the fundamental form of life and the pre-existing properties from when it was ejaculated. 86.29.220.66 (talk) 18:02, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2019

Bukkake does not mean several men ejaculating on a person, it means when a mans semen is bright white and foamy 74.138.225.172 (talk) 07:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Needless to say, a request to change established claims is not actionable without references.  Spintendo  14:51, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

no it does not. Bukkake does not mean chlamydia. Chlamydia is a STD and cloudy foamy semen can be a symptom of having the STD. But the same physical characteristics can indicate dehydration and other medical factors. Nothing to do with the word bukkake ~2026-33227-2 (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Male viewers' motivation

The section can be merged with Reception because it is rather short (one para), repeats some claims made in Reception, specifically about the practice being a form of humiliation, and generally is similar in scope to Reception Leoseliv (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

is usually referenced to in casual conversation or groups insinuating a form of humiliation or embarrassment being part of the aspect of the subject. Is also sometimes used to insult lesbians or to discredit the significance of a lesbian relationship by chanting bukkake and hyper sexualizing the conversation that is not a invited in a way that poses a nonconsensual vibe or idea. ~2026-33227-2 (talk) 04:02, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

This comment is gibberish ~2026-31868-42 (talk) 15:05, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2025

In section “dangers”

Please change “the woman” to “the receiving partner” or “the person being ejaculated on”

Please change “the man” to “the person or people ejaculating”

Reason: the article states that the practice is not exclusively heterosexual

References 1, 6, 7 ~2025-31529-25 (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

 Done I am not sure what you wanted me to do with the references Slomo666 (talk) 00:54, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Deletion of image

File:Wikibukkake.png

A group of men taking turns ejaculating on a single woman's face.

Bruce1ee, I would like to challenge your removal of the image. I think the image removed adds value to the article. When only three people are participating, there is full participation among the participants. What the deleted image shows is that as the number of people in the group grows, the ability for all of them to simultaneously participate in the activity goes down, and they have to take turns, something that doesn't apply to a group of 3. Hula Hula Hula (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

There doesn't need to be two images that are basically the same. As for the added image it's hard to make out what's going on. It looks more like ghosts to me. Drew McNish (talk) 18:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

One image hs three people, and the other image has six people. There is obviously a big difference between three and six.

While the colors in the deleted image are lighter, the people are not depicted as silhouettes, so I don't think they look like ghosts. Hula Hula Hula (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

It is unclear how many people there are. I realise the image might be trying to portray movement but this isn't at first apparent and Bukkake doesn't need to involve movement. I don't have a problem with an image of multiple people but I don't think this is a good one and don't think two are necessary unless both add something different. Drew McNish (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, there is "no need for two similar pictures", and I agree with Drew McNish that of the two images, the original is the better one. —Bruce1ee^talk 22:54, 11 March 2026 (UTC)