Talk:Soggy biscuit

Expert?

How can you actually expect to have an expert on this matter? Seriously... —Preceding unsigned comment added by DawnB865 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Wondering

How can you "reference this"? I mean, apart from asking someone to publish it how is it possible to verify these claims? I mean, I've heard of the term a lot but there are some that haven't. It's kinda silly to even have this article then I suppose.. BTW, I've seen the Burning Bush on [Consumption Junction] and it was hilarious. I'd find the link but I'm at work, and they don't like that kinda stuff. ;) Fr0 03:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The article "The Burning Bush" is not IMO a reference for the claim that this is "a widely known concept, at least in the Anglophone world." It merely uses it without explanation. From this we might infer that the author thought that some of her readers would understand the reference, but how many we don't know. Additionally, the word "Anglophone" permits multiple meanings, and since the article is in the UK paper The Guardian the word should be one that clearly refers to that paper's main audience and not one that could mean the English-speaking world in general. Шизомби 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

You are holding this article to a very high standard of verifiability, and one which I suspect many statements on Wikipedia- if not the majority - would fail. One need not expect every term to be defined every time it is used in a piece of writing- were that to be the case, the English language would become (euphemistically speaking) somewhat unwieldy. Here, the context (being caught engaging in an embarassing activity) is the key; if one sees a reference to 'flying in a balloon' one would usually assume that the author refers to a hot-air balloon, rather than an enlarged party balloon. The exact point that is being made with the inclusion of that particular reference is that the author intended for her audience to understand her work- notability is established (at least in part) precisely because the term is NOT defined explicitly. An alternative would to link to a google search which returns thousands of hits from across the world pertaining to this term. It is commonplace and widely-known. Writers for a mass audience do not compose pieces that their readers do not understand- if they do, they tend to get the sack. Other newspaper sources to establish the notability of the term are available, however I am unable to link directly to them as I am not a subscriber. As to your second point- the dictionary definition establishes that the term originated in Australia, and the Guardian (a UK newspaper, albeit one with a limited international readership) reference establishes that the term is also known in the United Kingdom. That is in itself a large part of the Anglophone world. Nevertheless, I will change the wording to be more specific. I invite yourself and other editors to provide links to to UK or non-UK newspapers, magazines or other printed sources referencing the term. All the best, Badgerpatrol 14:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What can I say, I do think WP articles as a whole should meet standards of WP:V to a far greater extent than at present. On the one hand, WP can try to compete for respect with the long-established encyclopedias, or on the other it can be an "anything goes" subject of derision. In sex-related articles perhaps enforcement becomes more of an issue because so many inventions creep in. In any case, these things absolutely do get more attention when there is an AFD and I think that's as it should be.

A reference must support the purpose for which it is cited. I'd never heard of this term or practice until recently (and neither apparently had the band Limp Bizcuit). Certainly there are US references that can be found that have it (I gave some in the AFD), although my suspicion is that it would be less likely to appear undefined in a US publication.

To nitpick again, "variations on the theme are referred to commonly in popular culture"... yet only two examples are given—which doesn't demonstrate that it is very common, and both are UK. Шизомби 15:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that many (probably nearly all) articles could do more to meet the standards of WP:V. I disagree that this one doesn't, as currently modified. I'm not an expert on the sex-related articles; I suspect that WP:OR is a problem, but perhaps in the sense that many sexual terms may exist in the vernacular, but are by their nature somewhat taboo and ephemeral; printed sources may therefore be at a premium. I would imagine (not least because the word 'biscuit' is rarely used in the US) that the terminology may differ over there- but the concept exists in some form in America, and probably throughout much of the world (note that 'Cookie game' and 'limp biscuit' redirect to here). As for the pop culture section (and the article generally)- like everything on wikipedia, this is not a definitive version. From a glimpse at the Limp Bizkit article, I would be surprised if their name did not (indirectly) stem from this practice. I can't think of another likely origin for the phrase 'limp biscuit' as an adjective. Note that the concept is also identified there, with a north American spin- 'frat parties' or similar; sadly they don't explicitly identify their sources, or I could include them here (maybe we should nominate Limp Bizkit for deletion and see what happens?). Anyway, other editors will presumably add to this article over time- you may not have heard of it, but many others have. Once the alternative names for the practice outside of the UK and Commonwealth (e.g. 'cookie game' or whatever) have been identified and sourced, the article will be sustainable and should hopefully be safe from future AfD debates (I will of course add to it, but I don't intend to make it my life's work!). For the time being, I will alter the wording appropriately. Badgerpatrol 16:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to provide contructive criticism (I did change my recommendation in the AFD after all), I hope you're not taking it personally. By saying above I'd never heard of the term or the practice, I meant I had never heard of the practice of masturbating onto food or the practice of masturbation as a game at all in any form. I went to public school, summer camp etc., I wasn't homeschooled in a cave. AFDing the Limp Bizcuit article would be silly, but it would be reasonable to tag the thing about frat parties for sources. I'm not disputing that people have heard of SB, but it does no good for people to add things they have heard of unless they can find sources as well — which I think you agree with? Mentioning something on a talk page "I have heard of X, can we find sources for it?" would probably be OK. Шизомби 16:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

CIRCLE JERK

Man, it's a figure of speech. How would you anticipate researching this? Can you verify the origin of English language, or slag for that matter. Is a penis really a dick, cock, or schlong? Get over it, you don't need to verify that people call it circle jerking. How do you even know this exists? Jesus Christ, this is retarded.

Fr0 00:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the process of writing an encyclopedia! Researching and verifying is what it's about. Шизомби 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I see. That's a little lame, but alright. So, I can interview people and it's verified them right? Fr0 00:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Fr0, a good place to start would be a dictionary of slang or similar. One such book is already included in the article; I did mean to directly reference the other terms but have not gotten it done yet. The relevant policy here is WP:Verifiability; you will find that (whilst not perfect) Soggy biscuit is unusual in being far better referenced than the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia articles. Essentially, these other articles are WRONG and this one is correct; almost all statements, even those which the vast majority of us know to be true, must be sourced. Don't forget, this is an international encyclopaedia; what is common knowledge to you and I may not be so to everyone. Sourcing facts helps to identify vandalism and allows other users to directly check the veracity of statements for themselves. Don't be discouraged that your edits were removed; I'm sure the reverting editor involved was acting in good faith and I assure you that any well-meant contributions (such as yours was) will be very welcome on Wikipedia. All the best, Badgerpatrol 00:43, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Badgerpatrol, that was the best explaination I've ever recieved on this site. I now truly feel enlightened, and any harsh feelings have been alleviated. :) I will try to find some sort of proof! Jsut seems silly to me to pass it off as random slang that needs to be verified. I can see the goal of this site is to one day be an actual encyclopedia. Fr0 00:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm

So it is real. --AnYoNe! 23:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a real term; not necessarily a real game (in the sense than anyone actually plays it). --Slashme (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge suggestion

• Strongly object. This article has survived two votes for deletion, so I see no reason to merge now. DWaterson 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

2007-03-28 Automated pywikipediabot message

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 15:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

also known as:

i've heard it called "ookie cookie". i always doubted that the "game" was ever really played Vinney 16:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. Growing up, I heard it called "Dirty Dorito" (with the item to be ejaculated upon being a Doritos brand tortilla chip, obviously). Agreed it is probably more myth, but I'm sure there is some truth to it in that some crew of males, somewhere, "play" this "game".Kailey elise (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Urban Myth

I think this whole idea is urban myth. Noone has ever met anyone who has played this game. How do you enforce the result for the loser? The article should be kept because it is a common phrase, but it should be noted it is urban myth.

Agreed that it sounds like an urban myth, but we would need a source to assert so in the article. — Matt Crypto 15:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. What kind of faggoty-arse kids DO this? They would either be retarded or unashamedly homosexual. Fucking ridiculous, that's what this is. Unless you get off on other people watching you jerk off??

It's real. I've witnessed it first-hand at Winchester College. And we certainly weren't the first. The necessary context? Boarding school, single-sex. DrPizza (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake, of course it's real. I've played it. And lost, sometimes! RomanSpa (talk) 01:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of evidence that the term exists, but no WP:reliable sources that seriously assert that the game is actually played. Urban legend until proved otherwise, despite the exciting experiences of Dr Pizza and Roman Spa. --Slashme (talk) 13:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I see that the "urban legend" statement got removed, with a request added in an HTML comment to replace it further down the page when sources become available. The burden of proof, as I see it, is on the people who assert that the game is real. I've tried to create a neutral statement to convey this position. --Slashme (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Soggy biscuit video

Soggy biscuit video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fetrJ2huV4 dunno if its real, but if it is we'd have proof that this game is real (could be used as a reference in the article). craziest thing ever :O 86.52.106.117 (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

This particular video has been removed from YouTube. See below. — Becksguy (talk) 14:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Reference sources:

I haven't read the book, but the sociologist Michael Kimmel has written a book titled "Guyland, the Perilous World Where Boys Become Men." According to the New York Times reviewer of the book, Wesley Yang, the term Ookie Cookie is brought up in professor Kimmel's book. Someone might want to check this source. Author Kimmel's theory is that males these days seem to be stuck in adolescence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bucherewurm (talk • contribs) 17:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm providing a compiled list of all references to Soggy Biscuit, Ookie Cookie, and other synonyms, all in one place, from the AfD page, to be used in improving the article. Please expand if you find anything. — Becksguy (talk) 07:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Green, Jonathon (1998). The Cassell Dictionary of Slang (1st Ed). Cassell. p. 1110. Definition: Soggy Biscuit, n. 1960's, origin. Aus.: 'A masturbation game, popular among schoolboys, whereby the participants masturbate and then ejeculate upon a biscuit; the last to reach orgasm must eat the semen-covered bicuit'
2. Partridge, Eric (2006). The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. p. 2189. ISBN 041525938X, 9780415259385. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Quote: The term "soggy biscuit" is thought to have originated in Australia sometime in the 1960s
3. Yang, Wesley (2008). "Nasty Boys - Review of 'Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men,' by Michael Kimmel". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-01-11. Published: September 7, 2008 Quote: "He describes here the fraternity hazing practice known as the “Ookie Cookie"
4. Kimmel, Michael (2008). Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. Harper. ISBN 978-0060831349. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
5. Green, Joshua (1998). "Seven Deadly Sins: Bear, babes, and beatings". Salon.com. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Published: October 28, 1998 Quote: "As at most schools, there was a rumor that trumped all others -- of a pledging endgame called "Ookie Cookie" in which fraternity hopefuls masturbated onto a cookie. The last one to finish faced a grueling ultimatum: eat the cookie or face instant excommunication."
6. Devenish, Colin (2000). Limp Bizkit. Macmillan. p. 26. ISBN 978-0312263492. Quote: Stateside, the Limp Bizkit name just looks misspelled with a possible impaired phallic reference but overseas Limp Bizkit takes on a completely new, and sometimes obscene connotation. "We've heard that in Australia there is a game called soggy biscuit, but they call it limp biscuit, too. It's played by teenage boys, and they have a circle jerk on a biscuit or piece of bread, and whoever comes last has to eat the bread"
7. Ferguson, Drew (2008). Screwed Up Life of Charlie the Second. Kensington Publishing. ISBN 978-0758227089. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help) Quote: So that leaves the library stacks and daydreaming about the hockey team's "soggy biscuit" initiation where all the guys jack off onto a slice of Wonder Bread and the last guy to shoot eats it
8. Geoghegan, G. P (2007). Bush - the Dark Night of America. Lulu.com. ISBN 978-1430324409. Retrieved 2009-01-11. Quote: Later as an upperclassman, I graduated to the role of master, righteously ushering new pledges through untold character-building sexual humiliations and countless camaraderie-building soggy biscuit tournaments.
9. Burke, Carol (2004). Camp All-American, Hanoi Jane, and the High-and-tight: Gender, Folklore, and Changing Military Culture. Beacon Press. ISBN 9780807046609. {{cite book}}: Text "page 66" ignored (help) This book delves into the motivations of this, and other, modern male initiations.
10. Fair use clip from Crazy (2000), hosted on YouTube, that contains the soggy biscuit scene here, 1:52 in duration. Not a RS, per se, but shows usage in popular culture.
11. Kimmel, Michael (February 2006). "Ritualized Homosexuality in a Nacirema Subculture". 9 (1). Sexualities: 95–105. ISSN 1363-4607. Retrieved 2009-01-19. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) Quote: Rituals include the bagging tea ritual, walk of the elephants, anal egg transport, block party, ookie cookie, and gnag ghab. Note: Nacirema = American, as in a sociological culture.

Moving forward

Now that the AfD has closed as Keep, I think we can add context to the article by bringing in the initiation information and also adding more references. Any thoughts? — Becksguy (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe that whatever we reference should be of reasonable quality and should actually address the topic in some substantial way, rather than be an incidental reference. For example, I don't think the self-published book and novel "references" recently added to the article are at all worth keeping. Let's add as much as we can from reliable sources, but without turning the article an indiscriminate collection of "soggy biscuit" mentions. — Matt Crypto 19:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Those weren't references, they were further reading. Yet this game and initiation ritual is also popular culture, so mentions in books, movies, and songs, such as The Liar, Crazy, and the Bush biography are appropriate. Professor of Sociology Michael Kimmel has two references, including one in an academic journal. Anyway, the purpose of this thread was to work out an expansion of the article using reliable sources. I don't want to see this as just a collection of mentions either, as it's more than that. — Becksguy (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If we're going to include "in popular culture" mentions, I feel the works referenced should at least be sufficiently notable in and of themselves to warrant their own Wikipedia article, e.g. The Liar and Crazy would be fine, but not IMO the (self-published) Bush biography. Facts sourced from an academic journal would be ideal to include; do you have access? — Matt Crypto 21:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This garbage should be deleted

not much more to say about it. --Ezzex (talk) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (4th nomination). Feel free to open a fifth nomination if you want (follow the instructions at WP:AFD) but it's been kept four times so far, so you'll need to come up with good reasons why it should be deleted. – iridescent 21:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

The British Army

Soggy biscuit has always been a rite of passage for any group of bored squaddies.Take one standard field ration oatmeal biscut, eight to 10 privates and a barracks in Germany. Ironically the winners are those who ejaculated first in this homo-erotic environment, the loser is the one that cannot shoot their load (in this homo-erotic environment,). House rules (depending on regiment): wank mags allowed/banned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.239.29 (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

---

"is a purported male masturbation game which originated from the United Kingdom ..." - nuff said :3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.56.217.206 (talk) 23:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Removing the article image

I propose the article image, File:Cum eating order.jpg, which was recently inserted by an IP editor be removed as I don't believe it accurately represents the articles content, the article implies that multiple people are necessary for it. At a minimum I think this should be brought up for some sort of discussion here.

(Also I have moved it to the right side of the page, as it was on the left it drew the gaze of a reader in a way I felt was inappropriate.) OSborn ^arf_contribs. 22:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm being bold and removing it. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 05:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

basketball requires many participants, but i don't see every player in the game featured on the article. the image is useful as it reflects what the losing player would do, which is essentially the "climax" of the game, no pun intended. Fans and critics alike (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It's still there and I'm immensely confused about what it adds.

68.10.91.104 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

According to WP:Profanity "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate ..." I do not see how removing this image in any way makes the article less informative, relevant, or accurate. The article describes what happens in enough detail to make the image redundant. SQGibbon (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This and many other arguments have been tried many times for Autofellatio. It still boils down to censorship. The image should stay. There's no amount of text that can better describe something than an image can. -- œ^™ 19:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

In the case of autofellatio the image shows something that is fairly rare (in that few men can do it) so might have some value. In the case of this article performing the actions described is not at all difficult so no value is gained from seeing an example of it which thus means it falls under WP:Profanity. Also, there are plenty of examples throughout Wikipedia where certain images have been kept off those articles after extensive discussion and consensus building (Goatse.cx, for example). SQGibbon (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Well there's a bukkake image illustrating bukkake (sex act). I don't see what people are complaining about. Croslandist (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

+1 Absolutely. We will need to remove content from most sexually explicit themed articles if this image can't stay. SarahStierch (talk) 16:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, from WP:Profanity "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate ...". So how does removing the image make the article less informative, relevant, or accurate? In fact the text of the article makes very clear what a "soggy biscuit" is and I see nothing that is added to that description by adding the image nor is any information lost by deleting the image. Also, Croslandist, just because other articles contain these kinds of images does not mean this one has to, read WP:Other stuff exists. And by the same reason deleting this image, SarahStierch, (assuming my interpretation of WP:Profanity is correct) in no way means that all sexually explicit images must be deleted. That's not how Wikipedia works. We can judge this one article and this one image strictly on its own merits. SQGibbon (talk) 02:32, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Article

The article doesn't explain what actually happens. Bit stupid to be honest. 94.4.17.225 (talk) 21:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Major revert

I have reverted the article to largely follow this version from 3 February 2007, as it was expressly edited to reflect the statements actually found in the sources. Ever since, the sourced statements in the article had constantly been tampered with, so that they eventually completely contradicted the original statements. It would be very helpful to include literal quotations from the sources in order to prevent further tampering. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have also refrained from restoring almost all additions since then, given that they were either completely unsourced or that the sources were wikis, which are not accepted as reliable on Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is gross

This should be deleted because it is gross. 4.238.5.174 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. See WP:CENSORED. We are not going to remove something just because is it considered "gross". Freikorp (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Shit the fuck up soggy bisucit is a lifestyle 2A02:C7C:400D:7E00:B1F5:2789:E112:FD0D (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Danish name

The name for this in Danish is "kiks" (meaning biscuit). So one can say things like "ska' vi spille kiks?" (shall we play biscuit?). Also mentioned on Danish Wiki. A Danish-language flash game was made and is still functional for the game LINK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deleet (talk • contribs) 21:41, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Children and adolescents

Michipedian, regarding this, if the sources mainly attribute the act to children and adolescents, or just adolescents, which seems to be the case, we should make that clear in the initial sentence. If it is mainly or solely a British matter, that should also be clear in the initial sentence, or at least the second sentence.

On a side note: No need to ping me to this talk page for a reply since it's on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It's fine to mention it, but soggy biscuit is not by definition played by schoolchildren, let alone British schoolchildren. Add a separate sentence clarifying it's mainly practiced by youths, but don't have that information in the definitive lead sentence. Also, can you point to where this is said to be a British phenomenon? I've heard of this happening in the United States primarily. I'm sure it happens all over the place, not just Britain.

Also, when reverting edits, please take care to not revert productive edits along with the edits you see as unhelpful. Your restoration of the double citation was inappropriate. Michipedian (talk) 07:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

To my knowledge it was British long before, and much more, than it was or is American. deisenbe (talk) 14:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

"Soggy biscuit" does definitely sound British, but do you have a citation for that? Michipedian (talk) 15:26, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

The term school children includes adolescents. It may be that the person who added "school children" was only referring to adolescents. What sources are there stating that adults play this game? All I see in the article are references to this being a reported game that some boys play (no matter if some of the boys are in high school and are legal adults). It is common for Wikipedia to add the primary meaning first in the lead (meaning in the initial sentence); this is per WP:Due weight and WP:Lead. But I am fine with the adolescent mention currently being second. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Adolescents is a more accurate term, as it specifically refers to pubescent humans, whereas children and schoolchildren may refer to either pre-pubescent humans or humans under the legal age of majority. Considering semen production is a key feature of male puberty, it is by definition impossible for pre-pubescent humans to play soggy biscuit, so adolescents is less ambiguous. Also, boys cannot refer to legal adults in encyclopedic language—it either refers to male pre-pubescent humans or male humans under the legal age of majority. Considering this, which discusses the game being done among college-aged men (i.e. adults), it is not a purely schoolchild phenomenon. Perhaps I should add that reference to the article to clarify this point. Michipedian (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not objecting to the use of adolescents in this case. I am commonly for precision when it comes to age matters like these. I was simply stating that it may be that the person who added "school children" was only referring to adolescents. I was asking the following: "What sources are there stating that adults play this game?"... As for "boys," there are numerous cases and sources referring to 18 and 19-year-old males, who are usually considered legal adults, as "teenage boys." Furthermore, college-aged people who are still in their early 20s may be referred to adolescents by some definitions of adolescence; this is because emerging adulthood and early adulthood are not easily distinguished from later adolescence. But that is not the point anyway. I questioned removing that this so-called game is played by boys (including teenage boys who may be legal adults) from the first sentence. I then stated that I am fine with the adolescent aspect being mentioned in the second sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Cool, then if I understand you correctly, we both find the current first two sentences satisfactory. Correct? Michipedian (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Tolo

Puki 180.249.164.255 (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)