"This tree, I tell you, has a slutty little back arch".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck_Tree

Incredible

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-...

"slender trunk which facilitates gay sex"

You don't see the euphemism?

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?

How does this work, practically, since it’s so notorious? Is there a queue of dudes waiting to get access to this “private” tree?

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.

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.

No it's definitely a real tree and not a joke article...

https://www.vice.com/en/article/cruising-spots-uk-london-201...

Wikipedia is not censored.

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.

What’s the euphemism? I think people were literally having sex on it, as described in the article.

It's a pretty notorious tree in London, don't see a reason why it wouldn't be included.