Talk:Cake and Cunnilingus Day

Sincere apology for disruptive soapboxing

To the "Reception" section on this article and on Steak and Blowjob Day, I recently I added what I felt, in my limited perspective, was a poetic essay documenting my own. While I intended to contribute, I can see how my actions were perceived as Vandalism. In general, WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, as I did. I ought to have discussed it here on talk first, or published it on my blog. Having concluded, after researching the sources referenced in Cake and Cunnilingus Day, that women's pleasure matters, I decided to declare Give your woman some good love-making day for March 14th. In retrospect, I can see how my declaration may have offended some differently-abled male individuals who require women to play the role of active partner instead, along with talk radio hosts who have declared March 14th as their own, as well as people who read lifestyle mags and document internet memes. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX for feminist propaganda, and I violated this principle. While the same could be argued about the articles themselves (as it has been), my WP:BOLD edit was made without the consulting the community first, as I'm doing now. Also, I may have contributed to the anti-male chauvinist WP:Systemic Bias that already exists in the feminist literature. As a result, I suffered a 31 hour block from wikipedia, my first ever. After half a year of constructively editing in good faith, it was frightening to think that I could lose my priveleges over this, and I hope it never happens again. I've also been accused of promoting a Lunisolar calendar and Asian civilization, to the exclusion of a white north american and western european perspective, which uses the Gregorian solar calendar. It is alleged on my talk page that I am WP:NOTHERE, that is, editing in apparent bad faith. It appears that I face the threat of total cancellation if I make another misstep. I will try my hardest not to do it again. I should have brought it here to the talk page first. I remain committed to the ENCYCLOPEDIC MISSION and to providing a well-sourced, WP:NPOV, and a WP:CIVIL environment for editors of ALL backgrounds, including white American and western european men, whose voices needed to be heard as well. If I am banned over this, I want you all to know that I love Wikipedia, and I hope that other editors can learn from my mistakes. If I have offended anyone, I'm terribly sorry.Jaredscribe (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

To "honour" women?

The introduction states that the purpose of this day is to "honour" women, but nowhere in any information on this is that really made clear as the main purpose for this day. It seems much more to the point to say the day celebrates female sexual desire (even though it's essentially only a joke day anyway) than to broadly (no pun intended) declare that it's a day with simply the generic purpose of "honouring women". This is why I changed the intro. Alialiac (talk) 21:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WP articles have to be neutral in language and balanced in content. The celebration intended for women, which is described in this article, is intended to balance the Steak and Blowjob Day which is intended for men. The word, "honor" indicates balance and common decency. The word is used in the same context as one might use it for family birthdays, e.g. if we honour the birthday of one child with a day out, then we should honour the other childrens' birthdays in the same way. Storye book (talk) 08:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Some reviews are pure cringe, do they need to be here?

Such as the one from some Danish site that stated, women are simply great, and therefore cannot be honored and pampered enough." 🤮 The absurd pandering to women oozes out like a slime in this statement, does it really need to be here? Just because something is referenced doesn't mean it's a good one, and even if it's a reputable source that's not the only criterion to go on, it should preferably be intelligent and have an actual point as well. Pathological kowtowing to women is not an intelligent point to make, about this topic or anything else. I recommend removing the citation. Alialiac (talk) 22:00, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

WP articles need to be balanced and neutral. It is not appropriate to exclude the reviews that we don't like, and it is certainly not appropriate to exclude reviews in response to the opinion of one reader. WP articles are not supposed to reflect opinion. Storye book (talk) 08:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@Alialiac: If you think like the article is unbalanced, feel free to suggest some additional sources that restore balance. It might be hard to find critical reviews since, as you acknowledge, this is mostly a joke thing; but if you manage to find some we could add them. Unless the source used in a reference is unreliable, it is better and easier to restore balance by providing additional, different sources than removing exisiting ones.

You are not completely wrong about the Danish one, although it is German. I happen to be able to read that, and the source actually says something a little different: "Women are simply great – and therefore can't be honored and pampered enough. At least that's what they thought when they invented cake and cunnilingus day." This makes for a more balanced view, although I'm not sure how to adjust that in the article. Feel free to make adjustments to this sentence, and kudos for using the talkpage instead of just starting an edit war or something. This is the way. --LordPeterII (talk) 13:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)