Talk:Twink (gay slang): Difference between revisions

Archives
2005 - present

photo

Note:photo has been replaced

I'm a gay man, but far from a twink. However, the photo shown to illustrate a "typical twink" is anything but. A true twink would have shaved his arms, underarms, and pubes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.208.172 (talk) 04:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all twinks shave arms, underarms and pubes. Twink is a look based on age and related "young" look, not on amount/lack of hair. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 04:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Allstarecho on this, we should be a bit more universal. The text can certainly indicate that some twinks do shave all their hair or have very little hair but we can't say all twinks are ____ without a reference. If we have a good source stating this we would still have to contrast it with other sources stating that it's not an absolute. Benjiboi 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

While not all twinks will fit the description precisely, I have to say this current photo does not adequately represent what a twink is or how twink is described in this article. The gentleman depicted in this image does not appear to be conventionally attractive. He does appear slender but not fit. Despite his ribs showing, the fat around his hips and nipples is fairly obvious. His face is obscured, which is a major part of showing youth or youthful appearance. Other than that, the odd santa hat with the stars on it is distracting and inconsistent with the apparel of others in the background. It is a weird looking picture, with a guy that may or may not be a twink, but certainly does not illustrate the term well. This image should be kept until a more suitable one is found.--Biggayallison (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Describing this guy as fat around the hips and nipples is hilarious! --Nmcmurdo (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

A twink is basically someone t looks "illegal" but is legal. A guy of legal age who looks like a kid - to be frank. And the current picture is suitable for this. Further, it's a non-copyrighted image. A copyrighted image must have a fair use rationale for use in this article and it must be the subject of the article. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "twink" has grown to mean more than waht you see on the front of Destroyer Magazine. forestPIG 22:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear god. The image has been removed - do you think someone would like to find out an image of them is being used without their permission to illustrate a gay slang term? WP:BLP applies; do not restore it. Neıl 龱 10:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

An IP reverted to reinclude the image, and has been hardblocked for a month. Don't push me on this. Neıl 龱 10:17, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Yikes. Here's a good case where a short explanation of why WP:BLP policy was cited would have benefited all involved. God forbid anyone be mistaken for a gay person! Seriously, I can see the stretch of how BLP can cover this but there isn't a scrap of information at WP:BLP that seems to connect that this image was in some way violating policy. If I'm missing the obvious please let me know. Perhaps the policy should be spelled out a bit better for those who are trying to understand the nuance. Also simply stating in the edit summary "article requires self-identified or RS identified "twink" rather than someone who fits the description" would have at least helped explain the deletion. Banjeboi 13:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone else reverted to include the image, despite it being very obvious from glancing at either the history or this talk page, or from having an ounce of common sense, that adding an image of a living person to any article on a potentially pejorative term, gay or otherwise, is wholly unacceptable. So they have been blocked for a month, too. Neıl 龱 18:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I must say that seems way overboard not all users either look at the history or the talk page of articles. Simply reverting and explaining why an image violates WP:BLP - which isn't very clear - would seem to do the trick perhaps coupled with a warning. I would hope that blocks would be saved for those who then redid such an action as obviously causing disruption. Also there is some interpretation here as to who would consider the term pejorative as in some circles, including the gay male ones that subject seems to be a part of may consider it a compliment. I know people who are insulted to be mistaken for heterosexuals but I'm not sure that it would rise to the level of a BLP violation. Banjeboi 23:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Benjiboi. The blocking actions seem arbitrary and overly harsh. And I think the two users should have been given a more generous helping of AGF. These actions are not in line with blocking for vandalism, for example. We normally require four levels of warning before blocking for vandalism, which is perhaps the most seriously damaging and destructive problem to WP and it's integrity. This particular photograph is a CC-BY-SA licensed photo (and so confirmed) from a guy who photographs young adult male models and posts to Flickr. And when is being labeled gay or twink pejorative? Is there a OTRS complaint? Has anyone else made a BLP issue? I believe Neil means well, but it looks like an overreaction to me. — Becksguy (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've started a thread Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP needs clear images statements to get the ball rolling. Banjeboi 19:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, after a blocking that was notice by several people as a clear admin abuse of power (the power of Christ compels you, bitch!), now I can freely express why the image should be kept. I´m too lazy to write all the stuff, but according to the Encyclopedia of Homosexuality by W.R. Dynes and the Aaron´s Dictionary of Gay Terms, a twink is simply a young looking man in its early 20´s, barely in legal age, Caucasian white with little or non body hair. This is the same description on the article, however in non of the professional sources I have checked does not say that the term is restricted to a gay person. The fact that is a gay slang does not mean that it is applied only to gay people, merely that it´s primary users are from LGBT community. The fact that the person in the picture may be gay or not it is irrelevant, given the fact that he match the description for the article. A valid argument against this is the posibility of a objection by the guy in the pic, and therefore a legal action. However the image (which is in flickr) in under a GPL-license which means any use for it. I assume that during the migration from flickr a review has been made and since there is no more articles linked to the image, this article was the only use for it and someone has got to aprove it. The owner of a photo in flickr is a self identified gay person from Seattle, and all his account is loaded with images of males in, which are cleary, gay situations. So it is also fair to assume that the guy in this pic, is also, gay. I don´t think anyone object that fact, not even my sister do it :o :o :o --ometzit<col> (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see both sides of this. under avoiding harm which aligns with BLP policy we should be at least sensitive that this is the world's encyclopedia. And the person pictured may not want to be known as the poster-child for all twinks. I've made similar points on using a photo of someone at homosexual transsexual, it's a term open to negative connotations so having someone reliably identified is better. I feel the same towards pretty much all articles. If the picture in question was from twink party then I could see it, if he was somehow readily identified as a twink, preferably by his choosing, I could also see it. But he may be some closeted kid or the straight boyfriend of someone there who may not want to represent all twinks whether or not he thought the term was negative in some way. I added the photo myself so obviously i thought it was a good match at first. Banjeboi 05:59, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Twink a pejorative term?

Continuing the discussion from ANI, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Gratuitously long block by User:Neil, I was going to include the claimed BLP issues of Image:SantaRave.jpg but since the removal of that image and the blocking was based on the claim that Twink is pejorative, or could be perceived as pejorative, we might as well start with that. My feeling is that the word is not pejorative, and the article should be changed to reflect that, as well as the term taken out of CATEGORY:Pejorative terms for people. The included references available on-line don't seem to support the pejorative characterization, with the possible exception that twinks are not supposed to be deep. This will need additional research since twink per se is defined, but the views about the concept by various cultures and subcultures doesn't seem to be. If Bears view twink pejoratively, that would not surprise me, but they don't represent either mainstream or even gay mainstream cultural views. — Becksguy (talk) 18:26, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree that better referencing would help. I thought I had added a ref a while ago that covered this but essentially, like most descriptors, can be perceived or intended as an insult - language is an art. What I call you, what you perceive and what others overhearing the exchange all interpret can be wildly different. Some folks like to be called freak, nelly or any number of potential insults but they may easily interpret those intended insults as affirmations. I think a ref showing the nature of insults may be helpful here. Banjeboi 18:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I don´t believe the term is pejorative, what I have found in academic sources is that merely meant that the person is good looking, early 20´s barely in legal age. Since when is that an offense? Nigger and the one for jews are indeed pejorative and considered offensive in mainstream media, and are used in that sense. What I´m trying to say is, you can say a black person nigger and he would get upset but I don´t see how someone can get upset by being mentioned as a twink person, that is of course assuming it is a gay person, but what I already mentioned, the owner of the photo is gay and the images of their profile are of clearly gay males so it is fair to assume the person in question is, also, gay. Anyone with a flickr account could ask the owner for some confirmation, I guess. In any case Image:SantaRave.jpg is a picture that describe the purpose of the article and it should be kept. the current photo serves it´s purpose but the article describes some characteristics not visible in the photo, i.e. body hair and skinny. --ometzit<col> (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you're up for it ask the photographer to see if he would provide a caption confirming the subject is fine with being identified as a twink. We could certainly use both photos. Banjeboi 19:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, recently there was a conservative editor on wikipedia who called liberal people "liberal twinks". Anyway i got him banned. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 19:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, many gay men I've known are offended by the term "twink." They are insulted when described in such a fashion, and have been known to correct people who called other men twinks in front of them. To these men, it's an insulting term that degrades them into nothing more than a "pretty boy" that others want to sleep with; or, alternately, that being branded a twink means others won't take them seriously. Some men embrace the term, and find it a useful self-identifier. I think this is one of those situations where the term tends to be pejorative, unless "reclaimed" by certain individuals (the way some gay men have embraced the term "fag" or "queer").

Of course, the plural of anecdote is not data. But, in my experience, it tends to be an offensive word more often than not. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I've seen just the opposite where being or dating a twink is seen as a positive, and sex-positive connotation. We should represent all views appropriately so whatever is verifiable, pejorative or otherwise should be considered. If you see any sources please add them or link them here. Banjeboi 19:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, asking some ppl on msn and nobody thinks that being called twink means merely "a pretty face", it is just a term to describe a good looking physical appearance and therefore a ego boost which helps self-esteem I assume. However finding sources for this must be quite difficult, in gaylife.com it is used to describe gay people but in the Aaron´s Dictionary of Gay Terms it is not used this way.--ometzit<col> (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The sources are out there, see fruit (slang), for instance. Anything is possible. Banjeboi 20:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Objectification of good looking males is just as shallow as objectification of good looking females, or should be. Although our culture supports it through advertising and the media. Think dumb blonde or bimbo, eg - Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde. Is a twink the male version of bimbo? (Which is pretty funny, considering that bimbo is a masculine gender noun; bimba is the feminine.) Most of us would like to be loved, admired, and desired based on who we are, rather than some attribute, especially one as relatively transient as being young, dumb and full of .... Although apparently some love it, at least while they have it. But does shallowness rise to the level of pejorative? Check out this reference to the put down from the bear community [1] which is already included in the article. But as I said above, bears are not representative of the gay community, never mind the mainstream community. — Becksguy (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I might be shooting myself in the foot, so feel free to slap me :-), however I imagine some gay people would think of it as describing someone as a sexual object only, thus not very nice. That said even if some people dont like the word what you must ask yourselves is "How prevalent or widespread is this dislike?". If it is so minute that it amounts to a fringe theory/belief/thought/concept then such mention is best avoided so stop it gaining undue weight. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 21:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Only if you like it, Realist. ☺ — The only reliably sourced ref we can find so far is from the bears, a small LGBT subcommunity. I don't think that is enough to say that twink is pejorative in either the general community or the gay community, so yes, at this point it would seem to be a fringe view. I'm not doubting that some peoples experience is that the word may be pejorative to some, but we need WP:RS to say that. But lets see what else shakes out.
• I found a new ref for twink, and it's from a peer reviewed psychology journal from Australia:

Filiault, Shaun M. & Drummond, Murray J.N. (2007). "The Hegemonic Aesthetic" (PDF). Gay and Lesbian Issues and Psychology Review. 3 (3): 175–184. ISSN 1833-4512.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) It's not useful for documenting the pejorative usage, but it could be used to add meat to the article, as it discusses the change from the hyper-masculine post-Stonewall clone look to the much softer twink look in the early 1990s and later, apparently as a reaction to AIDS and the clone look that was identified with it. It may also have content useful for other LGBT articles, and it has many other references. Take a gander at it (page 32 using Adobe Acrobat reader).

— Becksguy (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Brent Corrigan photo caption

Lets not get into what might be the beginning of an edit war over the contents of the caption. Discuss here first please. This is not a major issue, it it? I have no preference as long as it's clear he represents the twink look (as best we are allowed). — Becksguy (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• The caption will read: "Twink porn actor Brent Corrigan." That says it all; that says all that needs to be said. This article is about twink (gay slang), not Corrigan's career achievements.--72.68.125.217 (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion means actually engaging in a two way discussion with other editors before unilaterally announcing a change and then immediately making it. You may, or may not, have a point, but please discuss this first. I'm requesting page protection to prevent a continued edit war which is disruptive. — Becksguy (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

You might not need to, their latest sets of IP addresses have been blocked for abuse. I would say WP:RBI for now, if the vandalism starts up again then we can go through it all again. I, obviously, think the caption is fine and shows why his image is used as opposed to others in similar films. I feel it leaves little doubt for those that may have BLP concerns that we have an appropriate image. Banjeboi 02:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I removed the WP:RFPP request since the AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removed stalkish attack post now includes information on this article. Thanks, Benji. — Becksguy (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

There's no drama like gay pornstar drama! Banjeboi 03:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• The inappropriate caption to the photo was added unilaterally and without any discussion. I herewith revert the changes, with the ff rationale: THIS ARTICLE IS ABOUT TWINK (GAY SLANG), AND NOT CORRIGAN'S CAREER ACHIEVEMENTS.--72.68.115.204 (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)