Talk:BBC (sexual slang)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 April 2023

It says penis size is not "impacted by" race, but I think it should be not "correlated with" race instead. It's not like you can compare someone's penis size with what it "would be" if they were a different race. 135.180.244.18 (talk) 00:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Philroc (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

This page reads like a chapter out of a Critical Race Theory book

I did NOT expect the most glaringly biased page on wikipedia to be something other than politics. And yet here we are. Not one positive thing is said about BBC fetishes/porn. This page doesn't need some work, this page needs a complete rewrite. It's not even 20 words in that this page starts going off on how it's just bad racism and it doesn't stop there. Has anyone here ever heard of BWC porn? i'd be curious how you'd incorporate it in this page considering the entire article is a rant about racism. It's q fetish for crying out loud, it's not people being lynched for being black, and yet the page on lynching is more neutral in tone. How the hell is this possible 95.232.144.59 (talk) 01:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

The sources say what the sources say. You are welcome to suggest reliable sources speaking positively of the genre. BD2412 T 02:19, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

June 20, 2023 comment

I was looking at the re-edited article,nd it doesn't seem to me that the BBC myth was recurrent in the past, strangely the same "sources" used here by Roman historians I only found in two articles by J.Phillipe Rushton and Richard Lynn,since the attribution to the doctor Galen (which until today I have not found sources) that blacks had bigger penises and I really don't know how nobody realizes that Pompeii's representations are of Greek men(represented as tans with wavy hair) but finally the myth of the "BBC" is something totally modern,and a little addendum the big penis in Pompeii was already described in the god Priapus so there are not sub-saharan or north african black men and again i wanted to know why when i look for these sources I only find articles by Richard Lynn (who already know his racist history) from the attribution to Galen to saying that blacks were represented in this racist way by the first Christians.

Only constructive criticism 177.184.180.233 (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

And also leaving one more information, the other edition here left the fonts of Rushton and Lynn so whoever reedited it, removed only the name of Rushton but the fonts used and distorted are the same.

I really hope this is edited correctly, where the hell "black penises were in Rome" you even quote the Nigerian Thompson saying this was in the early early Christians where the hell Do phallic representations occur in the early Church? 186.225.181.38 (talk) 18:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Article suffers from partiality

This article voices unattributed ideas/analyses, contains original research, and is often written poorly and unclearly. The first sentence in the Description section is:

“Most commonly, black men are expected to be hyper-masculine and hyper-sexual, and their fetishization is seen predominately throughout porn and the "BBC" (big black cock) category, which reinforces the idea that they should have a large penis.”

You can’t just say “Most commonly, black men are expected to be hyper-masculine and hyper-sexual” (expected by whom? According to whom? What does ‘most commonly’ mean here?). You can’t just say “their fetishization is seen predominantly throughout porn” (according to whom? We know it’s “predominantly seen” in porn? Seen by whom?). You can’t just say “which reninforces the idea that they should have a large penis” (it’s ungrammatical, misspelled, and it is a subjective analysis that needs to be attributed if it’s in the article). Zanahary (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and the whole Fanon paragraph has nothing to do with the term, fetish, or porn category of BBC. It’s just here as OR/SYNTH. Zanahary (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

User:BD2412 let's talk about it Zanahary (talk) 19:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

On further review, I agree with that point and have removed the Fanon paragraph. With respect to who has or attributes expectations, this is what is reflected in the sources cited. BD2412 T 19:58, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

I’m going to go in and attribute affective analyses of the term and fetish. We cannot just say “X reinforces Y” or “A evokes B”. Zanahary (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

If you want to say who specifically is saying what, that's fine. BD2412 T 21:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 3 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:00, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

---

BBC (sexual slang) → Big black cock – *deep sigh* WP:NATURAL. Queen of Hearts (🏳️‍⚧️ • 🏳️‍🌈) 16:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose, as article creator. The WP:COMMONNAME factor here is vastly overwhelming. BD2412 T 17:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose also per WP:COMMONNAME. This article is about the sexual/pornographic slang/genre. Big black cock is not sexual slang, it's a description. BBC is the slang in reference and content of the article. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per COMMONNAME.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.