Talk:Dirty Sanchez (sexual act)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page was placed on Votes for Deletion in July 2004. Consensus was to keep; view discussion at /Delete.

urban legend? ummm...[edit]

Basically, this is funniest shit I've ever read...dirty sanchez? Who's heard of hot plating? It's where you stretch some saran wrap over your lovers face and shit on it. Or the hot carl? It's fairly straightforward: Pull down your pants, and shit on your lover's chest. Or do it when you're spooning, that way you can share in the sexiness.

There's a lot of freaks out there. If it was an urban legend before it became a popular toilet-humor reference, I'm sure some poo-loving weirdos have made it a reality.

Yes, what's the basis for saying it's an urban legend? Face-sitting, front and back, is common enough.Dr Zen 06:45, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Dirty Sanchez is not face-sitting. Actually I'm inclined to remove the reference to face-sitting as it's a bit of a wild conjecture and in no way related to the act, which is performed with the finger. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:17, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

On the urban legend question, well if there are documented examples of this practise let's have them. Until then it could be regarded as an urban legend because of its viral circulation and the absence, or elusive nature, of concrete cases. I'm not wedded to this idea, though. It's a judgement call. One could just as well refer to it as an apocryphal sexual practise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes there are web sites that feature the Dirty Scanchez... It is quite alarming to see it happen and you wonder what drugs the person is on.... usually after anal penetration the member is thrust into the mouth of the other partner(s)... More shocking than sexual... RW

If you're talking about ass to mouth, it's well-documented in gonzo porn and at least has the barest minimum of sexual arousal value (humiliation and/or actual penetration) and I know for a fact that the practice is not limited to just porn. A dirty sanchez is just plain absurd, most likely even for scat-lovers. I dare anyone to actually present links to a sites that even advertise to stock actual pornographic footage of it.
Peter Isotalo 10:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And according to the definition of Urban Legend, this isn't one! Removed from the Sexual UL category. Oddity- (talk) 05:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

swingers film[edit]

i know the movie swingers pretty well. no recollection of a "dirty sanchez" bar. 63.28.37.157 18:45, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bar "Dirty Sanchez" shows up in the movie "Dodgeball". There is no reference to it on the wiki page, if anyone would care to elaborate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodgeball:_A_True_Underdog_Story

Should be Dirty Sanchez, not Dirty Mexican[edit]

I'm not sure why this article was moved. Does anyone have sources that refer to a "Dirty Mexican"? ApolloCreed 04:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]


AJ Matthews T-shirt?[edit]

What is that line doing in the external links anyhow? Does it belong as a popculture reference? I'm going to move it, and hopefully someone will be able to figure that out for me. Also, while the intro could be improved, I definitely think it's short enough as an appropriate intro to have that tag removed. --Waterspyder 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South Park: "hitler," not "shitler"[edit]

I'm 99.9% sure that in the episode of South Park mentioned where Cartman gives Butters a poop "moustache," it's called a hitler, not a "shitler." Some googling seems that it should be "hitler" instead of "shitler" as well (Google query of "cartman gives butters a hitler" with quotes gives 160 results.. changing hitler to shitler and still keeping the quotes returns 0 results). I've changed it on the page. --Josh1billion 21:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move[edit]

This page should be moved to Dirty Sanchez and the page currently there in the article space should be moved to Dirty Sanchez (disambiguation). At which point the current disambiguation notice should be changed to {{otheruses}}. With the exception of Mescaline—in which article the words "dirty sanchez" do not appear—all of the other things on that disambiguation page are derivative. If Mescaline is actually called "dirty sanchez" in any context, it is likely either less notable or derivative as well. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. That's where it was until a couple months ago when it was moved by someone with a history of using poor judgement when it comes to page moves. 24.18.215.132 03:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Nightstallion (?) 11:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Layton tie-in[edit]

Because of the nature of the comment, I removed it from the article. This can be construed to be libel and should not be asserted without a solid reference. BigNate37(T) 03:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seven-card stud poker variant "Dirty Sanchez"[edit]

This article is about the fecal moustache. I've moved the description of the card game to Dirty Sanchez (disambiguation). BigNate37(T) 20:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Low Point[edit]

Listing this sick sexual practice has to be a serious low point for this website. Jtpaladin 01:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Maybe giving information on suicide is instead. Or abortions. Or satanism. I'm not trying to incite anything, but a lot of people disagree with a lot of parts of society which we have documented here at Wikipedia. If it's out there and it's verifiable, it's probably in here. BigNate37(T) 20:15, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So what, would you rather have someone walking around all day thinking "what the hell is a dirty sanchez?", and then the get to a comp and google it and be scarred, or come to wiki and read a nice sanitized description?--208.186.134.103 01:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I love going to articles like these and reading the discussion sections. It's hilarious. There's always a vocal group of people trying to "sanitize" WP even though it was never meant to be "clean". Objectivity sometimes necessitates separating your own personal values and judgments from subject matter in order to describe reality as it is rather than in terms of one's own cultural perceptions. Why even debate it? The fact there is this much discussion about the Dirty Sanchez is proof enough that it warrants description. The point of WP is to document, not to approve or disapprove. Things like this exist; the world is a dirty place. All manner of what many would term "depravity" pervades the Earth, whether or not one likes it. It is not the place of a Wikipedian to condone the subject matter of an article, it is merely our place to play the role of messenger--a messenger devoid of our own personal inclinations and opinions, no matter how "common sense" they may be and no matter how "indecent" the thing in question may be.
Personally, I have always found it a bit odd how the most vehement objections to WP articles always involve sexuality or deviant practices. I agree with Big Nate that it's strange that no one has a problem with an article on something like murder, or even disembowelment, but even the most subtle sexual topics or topics regarding behavior outside the cultural norms of mainstream Western society are harshly criticized. The article on "Tongue" contained a fierce debate over the inclusion of a description of the practice of tongue-piercing in the article and a photo of a pierced tongue. The complaint was that this was "offensive". Well, everything is bound to offend someone. It's ironic the same people are usually those who are very adamantly AGAINST political correctness for that very same reason, but fail to extend the concept when it involves their own moral sensibilities and cultural viewpoints. I digress.
My point is that WP is not limited to describing things that we agree with or like about our world. I have trouble understanding how one person could end the life of another person for sport, yet I have no problem with an article on serial killers because they exist. I find insects to be fairly disgusting as well, and the thought of someone eating worms or grasshoppers makes me want to vomit. But you know what? I have no problem with an article on such practices because it does happen, and academically it is informative and interesting no matter how unnatural and alien the concept is to me and no matter how much I may hate the very thought that people could eat such things. Or what about :Cannibalism?! Talk about a practice that is both rare and widely considered "disgusting" and "immoral"! Yet, those feelings don't stop us from documenting the fact that it exists and describing WHAT IT IS, now do they? And while I find the very idea of such a thing repugnant, I also recognize that there are those in the world who would consider NOT eating your dead relatives to be a great dishonor because of their own socially and culturally based beliefs. I guess I'm just amazed at virility of the "decency" debate and the inability of people to just get over themselves. Big deal, it's an article, and I think that it's a pretty benign description at that. If you really want to be upset about something, there are plenty of REAL low points in the world and tragedies which simply should not be happening. Genocide, Infanticide, Ethnic Cleansing, Torture, or how about something like Female Circumcision. Yet it's only the Dirty Sanchez’s of the world that people seem to object to even being mentioned on WP as if their very existence were so unacceptable as to go completely unacknowledged. I simply cannot understand or empathize that logic, and I guess I never will. I see no reason why this, or anything else, should be "off limits" to being defined in a mature and purely academic fashion by a site such as this. That does not equal an endorsement.
So can't we just move on? Why were you looking up Dirty Sanchez in the first place??? Do you think it's sick and nasty? Fine, then click the x at the top of the screen and never come back to WP. Go to a censored site. Block WP on your computer. Or better yet, have a laugh and stop taking silly things so seriously. But you can’t expect this site to conform to your, or anyone else’s (including mine!), ideas of what is and is not offensive. Cultural values and moral perceptions are fluid things, after all. At one time it was considered completely unacceptable to acknowledge the existence of the female orgasm, and once you start drawing lines of what is and is not decent, you open the doors of subjectivity and capriciousness. Why is it so exercise your individual free will and close the window and remember not to come back to a site, which you obviously find so offensive to your purity? Or should we, rather, just put up a message saying “we’re sorry, but Jtpaladin has decided that this subject is offensive, gross, and inappropriate for your viewing”. Perhaps we should just leave the person wondering? Is that in the spirit of WP? Or should we phase the article “a disgusting practice that we, who know better, have decided not to inform you about”.
Nope. The article should stay, and be expanded as much as it needs to be to properly communicate the relevant information that would give the reader an understanding of what it is. Sick or not, enough people out there have heard of it to come to this article looking for answers. That’s the spirit of impartiality with which this site has been created. And to those who object but want to disguise their objections as unbiased by questioning the veracity of such a thing, just say what you really mean: that you don’t like these sorts of articles and that they offend you. Don’t be lame and try to attack the article by questioning whether or not the DS is an “urban legend”--that’s just a red herring. Even if it started that way, I’m sure people have tried it. The term and idea in and of itself is widespread enough to be a cultural commentary at the very least. Even if people didn’t actually do it, if a significant number of people have heard of it makes it legit (although it might mean the form and content of the article would change). World War 3 hasn’t happened yet, and may never happen, but the concept and term is prevalent enough to warrant an article. A dirty sanchez can thus exist even if no one, or very few people, actually perform it. That argument is just a means of trying to get this article off WP by those who don’t believe anyone would be disgusting enough to actually do this. That’s not the point, folks. That’s my 10 cents, and I hope that my opinion is shared, or at least appreciated. Thelastemperor 20:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you are right. But "most subtle topics"? "slightly outside the normal practices"? I am not saying it must be censored. I am asking why this amount of effort must be wasted on this. Because, its either not going to be seen, or not going to make a difference.
Put it this way. I wouldn't want Wikipedia to be compared with mainstream media in its coverage. Articles like this come off as being sensationalist and carrying shock-value. Is anyone crying for an article on this? Is this the one article people desire so much? Is it so bad to prioritize articles, especially something as useless as this? (not dirty, not perverted, useless)
If you're going to point again and again about lack of objectivity, you might consider that this great term (which I respect a lot) has never been the decisive point in any natural society across the world. It's always majority wins. Its just a corollary of freedom. Get off your high horse.

milindsmart (talk) 10:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Happy fece?[edit]

Sorry for the bad pun. I'm talking about Image:Dirtysanchez.jpg, and specifically about whether it is encyclopedic. It's definately illustrative of the subject of the article without being too vulgar or offensive, and we have illustrations at other articles like mammary intercourse, albiet more elaborate ones. What does everyone think? BigNate37(T) 20:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Screeched[edit]

Any particular reason this article should not include the sentence (or a close variant)? BigNate37(T) 04:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"This act can be seen in the 2006 sex tape Screeched as performed by Dustin Diamond of Saved by the Bell fame."
The Problem I have with the Screeched reference is that he claims to do a dirty Sanchez but there isen't any fecal matter involved. Is it really a dirty sanchez if you have no fecal matter mustasch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.252.38.173 (talk • contribs) 01:41, 8 December 2006
Hmm, I don't think so, but is there a source to verify that it was not actually a Dirty Sanchez or that there was no fecal matter? Remember, verifiability, not truth. So far the sources I've seen are leaning towards the fact that he did the act. I'm inclined to believe you, but we need at least one good source if its going to go against two other sources. If you take another look at them and change the article to something like "sources say he performed a Dirty Sanchez..." that would be fine, but removing or refuting a sourced statement requires backup. BigNate37(T) 01:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can fix a couple of screenshots of the girl's face during and after the act. To be honest it's quite hard to see to be totally sure cause of fingers are in the way. But there doesn't seem to be any fecal matter on his finger and the fact that the girl had a long dildo up her ass earlier in the movie with barely no fecal matter on the dildo tells me that she had an enema before the scene therefor the lack of fecal matter on both the dildo and screechs finger.

Not that I want to even accidentally see that, but we can't use a primary source anyway. The information would have to come from an article about the video. BigNate37(T) 14:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed this sentence per WP:UNDUE. Why is this particular sextape being singled out? Because it's Screech's? Switzpaw (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures[edit]

anybody else think we should include pictures? Preferably HD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.178.251.253 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 28 November 2006

  • Nope. Otherwise why not have pictures on the child pornography article. Complex stuff, obviously............Wikitionary has a great article on encyclopedia if it helps.Pedro1999a |  Talk  22:44, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ewwwww. Please no pictures. Remember the guideline "Wikipedia is not an emetic" - Shaundakulbara 01:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

this enty has been plagerized from yahoo. Google dirty sanchaz (sic)

New source[edit]

For those reading German, there is an article in German GC on-line which discusses the origin of this urban myth:

Pjacobi 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really necessary?[edit]

I googled "Dirty Sanchez" after hearing of a music group by that name. Yuck. I am disappointed in Wikipedia. Jive Dadson 05:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, wholly necessary. Now you are more informed about whether you want to listen to the music of a band called "Dirty Sanchez." You're disappointed in Wikipedia for educating you on the topic? Hmmm...seems that's what it is here for. --David Shankbone 14:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

subtype[edit]

i have a friend who gives himself dirty sanchezes. is there a specific term for that? D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 06:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, self-sanchezification is generally known as the "Dirtier Sanchez" especially when followed by a passionate kiss. Mdudiak (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Szam Moodiak[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be at Dirty Sanchez (sexual act), and Dirty Sanchez (disambiguation) should be moved to Dirty Sanchez. There's a notable TV series, band, and film - why not have Dirty Sanchez a disambiguation page? We aren't all coming here for this pseudo-sexual act...-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom. Other articles are at least as much if not more notable--victor falk 17:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --David Shankbone 17:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Shankbone (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Support per nom. - LA @ 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "When a reader enters a given term in the Wikipedia search box and pushes "Go", what article would they most likely be expecting to view as a result?" Ewlyahoocom 03:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per HSR. Makes a convincing case that this is a reasonable move. Dean Wormer 03:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sourcing[edit]

The links provided in the article do not attest to the nature of this act. I note that our article has presented several different versions of the "Dirty Sanchez"; see for example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and [7]. There are many others. Is there no way to verify the basic definition of this article's subject? What does the Gentleman's Quarterly article say? -GTBacchus(talk) 23:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

I recently made two edits:

and thought I should clarify here. From what I understand, this act does not require application of faeces by the penis. I've only ever heard tales of this with the finger. Due to this, I've deleted the reference to the penile application but not (re)included the finger statement. I've checked in Roger's Profanisaurus (not the most authoritative of sources I'll grant you) and that suggests that it's a finger-only act. I've also changed the article to read "...of a mustache, during (or following) various types of anal sex" to reflect the above, as the anal sex article states that anal sex is not limited to penile penitration. Comments welcome! Booglamay (talk) - 11:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any Chance of a Revitalization for this article?[edit]

If you look at older entries, you could find more content and a list of popular culture references. Is there any chance that people who are knowledgeable about this (from my perspective as an outsider) entertaining practice might revitalize the article and expand it or will it always be under attack by prudish religious freaks? WhipperSnapper (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popular culture references detract from the substance of the article. The subject should be treated from a factual perspective. McWomble (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errol Flynn[edit]

The article needs a reliable source to add "Errol Flynn" being an equivalent term. I'm reluctant to quote Urban Dictionary. McWomble (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy[edit]

from this hulu clip censored-jokes - they had to call it a 'Muddy Ramirez' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.104.134 (talk) 22:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point[edit]

Perhaps certain pages should have some kind of pre-page disclaimer.

Something along the lines of "the subject matter of this page could be distressing to some people".

I know there are certain sexual practices which were described to me (in a situation where it was difficult not to listen) which I wish I'd never heard of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.22.57 (talk) 12:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTCENSORED. BigNate37(T) 01:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed unsourced material[edit]

I have removed a bunch of unsourced material, including several obvious hoaxes. Please do not add information without sources, or it will be removed. I also removed the spoken version, because it also contained hoaxes. Jokestress (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe claim moved here for discussion[edit]

I moved this out of the article space per WP:FRINGE. There is no other source that corroborates this fanciful explanation:

Author Jordan Tate claims that the term was coined during the Mexican-American War when American soldiers would often wipe fecal matter under the nose of captured Mexican soldiers as a dehumanizing tactic.[1]

Unless there is a corroborating source, this should not be in the article, as it seems to be a folk etymology. Jokestress (talk) 04:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tate, Jordan (2007). The Contemporary Dictionary of Sexual Euphemisms. St. Martin's Press. p. 114. ISBN 0-312-36298-6.

Naploeon vs. Napoleon Epic Rap Battle[edit]

This is mentioned, if not in this particular video, in another one (it's actually Hitler vs Darth Vader now that i'm remembering it). by Epic Rap Battles of History. Will add later. RoyalMate1 09:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Entymology Section Dubious Tag[edit]

The source claims "Columnist Gustavo Arellano of ¡Ask a Mexican! contends the term evokes the stereotypical mustache of a Mexican" However the author cited is not an expert authority on etymology and the material used as a citation does not point to any academic sources that agree. Therefore, in my opinion, the source used is suspect in terms of academic/encyclopedic quality. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dirty_Sanchez_(sexual_act)&oldid=1201551872"