Talk:space docking

untitled

The term refers to a man defecating in a woman's vagina, as mentioned in the movie "The Aristocrats," a 2005 documentary directed by Paul Provenza. [User: Drugs, and women.]

I would personally be interested in some documentation of this term, I have yet to come up with anything via Google (although I am afraid to try certain queries). TheDaveRoss 00:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Heard it in a comedy act, and a couple of people in the audience seemed to know what it is. Also has several entries on www.urbandictionary.com. Ncik 20 Apr 2005

I would trust the comedy act definition _long_ before I would trust anything urbandictionary.com claimed as fact. ;) I have asked around IRC and several independent sources at least knew of it without any prompting other than the name... You learn something new everyday, but some of those things you wish you hadn't. TheDaveRoss 01:06, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1. (idiom, course, slang) A sexual practice in which one person excretes directly into the vagina of another.
2. (idiom, course, slang) A sexual practice in which frozen excrement is used as a dildo.

Moved to Citations:SPACEDOCK DAVilla 02:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I deleted them from the main article. The citations are not adequate. Andrew massyn 17:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RFD

The following information has failed Wiktionary's deletion process.

It should not be re-entered without careful consideration.

---

Silly (improbable) sexual meaning. Three print citations spanning a year, not nonce uses, not urbandictionary copyvios or secondary sources. --Connel MacKenzie 05:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The meaning given is not silly, it is way past that, it is (words fail) crude. It is a real term; though more often just "docking". (and has nought to do with feces). No, I'm not getting involved. Robert Ullmann 20:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not words-fail crude, it's beyond even that. DAVilla 20:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

On Usenet, found a non-independent reference to Ambassadors of Sex. The only other reference I've found gives another form of coprophilia explaining the etymology of the term. "As with the literal namesake, very accurate control and near-perfect alignment of the two orifices is required for successful penetrative space docking.... While it is often assumed that space docking and other outrageous sexual maneuvers, such as the donkey punch, existed only in fiction, graphic video footage of space docking is available on the Internet." No thanks.

One cite short. RFV failed. EDIT: Appears I spoke too soon. DAVilla 20:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

All three "citations" fail use-mention. --Connel MacKenzie 14:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The Aristocrats, perhaps, and certainly the first sentence of the 2006 alt.politics post, but the other instances are uses. That makes possibly one failure, not a certain three. DAVilla 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think it meets criteria for inclusion. To RFD Andrew massyn 12:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. UD-type garbage. bd2412 T 00:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Grasping the nettle. Its gone. Andrew massyn 17:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Connel MacKenzie 03:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This page is LOCKED

You locked it because you are afraid of someone posting the truth. This phrase means two nasty things but it means them nevertheless. Remember, Wikipedia is not censored for minors. You should put the real meanings in the article so people dont have to come to the discussion section to see the real meaning. PRINT THE TRUTH!! --Jon in California — This comment was unsigned.

No, because it isn't a real word, let alone a real practice. --Connel MacKenzie 01:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We were unable to find enough citations for it that actually use the term rather than just mention it in a definition. If you want to look you're more than welcome. DAVilla 01:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Very well, we shall make websites justifying the use of the word space docking

References that you create yourself to prove the existance of an entry that you’ve made up are not valid references. It’s a recursive loop and is called the paradox of self-reference. Your websites will not be considered evidence of anything here. —Stephen (Talk) 17:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll make the websites then. And you'll never be able to prove it. Suck it, earthlings! --108.161.114.12 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

YIAITMAIWTSTYN. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)