| ▲ | esperent 10 hours ago |
| > A tree located in an established gay cruising area, noted for its slender trunk which facilitates gay sex. The mind boggles haha I can't believe this got past the Wikipedia editors. |
|
| ▲ | isoprophlex 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| "This tree, I tell you, has a slutty little back arch".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck_TreeIncredible |
|
| ▲ | 317070 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why would it have been stopped? I don't see anything non-factual, and I regularly pass by that tree. It is well known and referenced [1]. [1] https://www.theartnewspaper.com/2023/12/07/hampstead-heaths-... |
| |
| ▲ | esperent 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | "slender trunk which facilitates gay sex" You don't see the euphemism? | | |
| ▲ | wongarsu 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't see it. It's a tree that people have sex on. Gay sex, though from the looks of it the tree would be equally well suited for lesbian or straight sex. Presumably one person lies on their stomach on the trunk while one or more people perform penetrative acts. Where is the euphemism? And what is weird about listing this on wikipedia? |
| |
| ▲ | y-curious 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | How does this work, practically, since it’s so notorious? Is there a queue of dudes waiting to get access to this “private” tree? | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider an hour ago | parent [-] | | I wonder if it has been ruined by becoming well known. It is sort of funny—based on the Wikipedia they put up notices to stop people from having sex there, which didn’t work. They should have advertised it instead, maybe, the surest way of ruining something niche is to let everybody know about it. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | riffraff 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I read that and assumed this must be some joke article and/or art stunt. After reading the article and linked sources, I'm still not sure that ain't true. |
| |
|
| ▲ | anotherblue 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Wikipedia is not censored. |
| |
| ▲ | esperent 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, but editors there are quite notorious for lacking a sense of humor. I'm not surprised it's listed, I'm surprised that particular euphemistic description remains. | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider an hour ago | parent [-] | | What’s the euphemism? I think people were literally having sex on it, as described in the article. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | NicuCalcea 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It's a pretty notorious tree in London, don't see a reason why it wouldn't be included. |
