Talk:Anilingus/Archive 4

Google hits
I do not believe that Google hits should be used as a metric for popularity of a phrase.

Let me give you some examples.


 * Look at Spreading and choking. It says that this is often referred to as "trapping".  Let's look up "ink trapping" on google: .  3920 hits.
 * Amazon.com gives me 19 books, including some well-respected books on printing.


 * Byron the Bulb (a fictional immortal light bulb from Gravity's Rainbow) : 2500 Google hits.
 * Centennial light (a real 100-year-old light bulb) : 5170 Google hits.


 * United States that Matter : 19 Google hits. It's currently a meme that's quite popular on Fark  and moving elsewhere.  Notable?  Not at this point.  But it's certainly more popular than 19 hits would suggest.
 * It's Raining McCain : 35,800 hits.

I'd be willing to bet good money that a random telephone survey would show that more people are familiar with trapping than the McCain Girls. But Google suggests the opposite. superlusertc 2008 May 02, 04:54 (UTC)

Change the name back to analingus
I think that it would be better if the name of this article was Analingus. This would be more consistent with the articles about cunnilingus and fellatio. Does anybody agree with me? Maybe I'm off my rocker, but I think Analingus is a more common way to refer to this act than Anal-oral sex

--WordsOnLitmusPaper (talk) 19:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well no one has complained since 15 November 2004, when that title was last used (according to the page history). Since the target name is in use (as a redirect, but with several lines of history), you would have to propose it with the requested move procedure as only admins can do the move.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it should be changed. However, the spelling is actually anilingus, not analingus. JGabbard (talk) 05:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also agree, both with the name change, and your spelling, which is preferred. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, as two editors want it - I'll start the ball rolling for you. Please make your !vote and reasons case below the move template at the bottom of the page.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Jaw stimulation?
From the article: "For the receiver pleasure comes from both (psychologically) from the fact that they are getting their ass licked, and physically from the sensitive nerve endings surrounding the anal opening, which are not typically stimulated by the tongue and lips but the jaw."


 * The sensitive nerve endings surrounding the anus ('anal opening' is clumsy, btw) are "typically stimulated by the jaw"? What??


 * Complete nonsense and should be removed/edited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.51.33 (talk) 05:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Plus... has anyone read the rest of that paragraph? "For the receiver pleasure comes from both (psychologically) from the fact that they are getting their ass licked..."


 * Are we real here? Someone edit this tripe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.51.33 (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * sofixit -mattbuck (Talk) 12:57, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Joefromrandb (talk) 02:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.35.163.149, 15 February 2011
edit semi-protected This image is totally unneccesary. Please remove it. I can't block everything from my computer and enjoy using wikipedia however I don't think that this type of image should be allowed. Especially as it is not useful.68.35.163.149 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Wikipedia is not censored. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * 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 move per request.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Anal–oral sex → Anilingus — Two editors have requested the page be moved back to its old name.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Support - I feel that anilingus is the proper clinical term for this article. "Anal-oral sex" is not the term, but is merely the definition of the term.  I took the same position for the same reason when "seminophagia" was considered to be "not a real word" so was changed to "semen ingestion" (after briefly also being known as "spermophagia)," before it was finally (and improperly) deemed to be not worthy of an article at all so was merged into the already ponderous "semen" article (rather than the separate "sperm" article, curiously).  By now I have grown quite accustomed to my counsel not being heeded, but do not hesitate to give it when it is requested!  FAVOR rename.JGabbard (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support -mattbuck (Talk) 00:53, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - it does appear to be the norm for the common latin name to be used for these types of articles - eg Fellatio instead of Penis-oral sex - and uniform treatment is preferable in an encyclopedia.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - JGabbard is correct. "Anal-oral" sex is the definition of the term "anilingus". Similar to the above point, our "cunnilingus" article isn't called "vaginal-oral sex". And for heaven's sake, let's change this before the hyphen/dash war finds its way to this article. Joefromrandb (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - I agree with the editors' points above. Rename this article, please. Nightmareishere (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * 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.

Do we really need the cartoon drawing of anilingus?
Give me a break, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.140.232 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

YES, of course! It is CRUCIAL to our understanding of the topic,as the text alone can't "tell the whole story". CLEARLY it is here for the reader's GENERAL INFORMATION, and NOTHING ELSE! This is, after all, a professional reference tool. Oh, by the way, "wikipedia isn't censored." 128.210.27.106 (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The topic of "Asslicking" doesn't need pictures. It's selfexplanatory and pictures add nothing. This is the guideline on offending pictures: Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is     not censored. However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Without this picture this article doesn't get less informative, relevant or accurate. Based on the guidelines it doesn't belong here. I deleted it. --85.179.193.142 (talk) 00:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reverted per WP:BRD and WP:GRATUITOUS; the illustration is of the article's subject and is thus not gratuitous. AV3000 (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Concur with and support AV3000. The image belongs here. JGabbard (talk) 15:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the current image of two women does not need to be there, especially when one's vulva is hanging out. It's obviously gratuitous and in no way "treated in an encyclopedic manner" as stated in the guidelines. While anyone can engage in analingus, it's much more commonly a homosexual male act. Either the image should be replaced with one that's more accurate or it should be removed entirely. It's CLEARLY gratuitous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Honeycat995 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you can find or create a better image, then go for it. Otherwise, the long running consensus on this and similar pages is to use a drawn illustration.-- Kubigula (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

How is this sex?
It does not involve genitalia. If Analingus is sex, then anything can be sex. 75.73.193.118 (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Paradoxically, you're both correct and incorrect. See Fetish.  Analingus does not involve genitalia, but is sex nonetheless.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.71.51.33 (talk) 04:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Barracking the Obama
With respect to anilingus, is there anyway we can please edit/remove/delete all past references to the phrase "Barracking the Obama". It's beneath what this project is trying to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.151.147.7 (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No need for this whatsoever. If something enters pop culture after just so happening to have been birthed on Wikipedia, then to remove it is to whitewash history. And if it were not birthed here, then not only is it relevant but it may also be notable.JGabbard (talk) 00:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Stunning that tripe like this is allowed. Racist BS.  Clean up your shop, Wikipedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.108.228 (talk) 06:28, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Barracking the Obama is garbage. Stop with this!  Please!!!!!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.245.83 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-analoral.png vs Wiki-anilingus.png
(This discussion was in reply to User:Flyer22. I am placing it here for reference.)

I think that a short summary of my reasoning may be of use here. Yesterday, I noticed that the Anilingus page, which previously featured the picture, now featured the  picture, both of which are made by the user Seedfeeder. Both pictures depict the act of anilingus, but the former is more explicit, while the latter is more removed. I decided that featuring only the Wiki-analoral.png picture would be a bit like having a picture of a mushroom cloud as the primary picture of the Nuclear fission page. Yes, a mushroom cloud is a visible manifestation of nuclear fission chain reaction, but it doesn't depict the essence of the phenomenon. Instead, the primary picture of the nuclear fission page is rightfully a diagram depicting a nucleus splitting in two due to the absorption of a neutron. Similarly, the Wiki-analoral.png picture does indeed show two women engaged in anilingus, but it doesn't really explain the act itself. In essence, anilingus is defined by the stimulation of the anus by the lips and tongue. The primary picture of an encyclopedic article explaining anilingus should attempt to visually explain this concept. The Wiki-anilingus.png picture does this well; it clearly shows a person's tongue on another person's anus. Similar reasoning has probably gone into the decision to feature Wiki-anilingus.png as the primary picture of the anilingus page on many other languages of Wikipedia.

However, it is still useful to include a picture of a mushroom cloud on the Nuclear fission page, because it shows an external, physical manifestation of the phenomenon. Similarly, I reasoned, the Anilingus page should probably include a more external view of the act. This allows for the reader to see a possible physical position of two people involved in the act. Therefore, instead of simply deleting the Wiki-analoral.png picture, I moved it to the Technique section of the page and changed its caption such that, together, the picture and caption visually explain that anilingus may be performed in the doggy style position. I then replaced the primary picture with Wiki-anilingus.png.

In my edit summary, I wrote that the Wiki-analoral.png picture is ambiguous. I used the word for brevity's sake: I meant to refer to the above concept that an encyclopedic article's primary picture should clearly depict the essence of the action, rather than a removed manifestation of the action. Additionally, it is ambiguous in that one cannot clearly see what the woman on the right is doing, because it does not show any part of the receiving partner's anus or even her perineum. The essence of the anilingus act, which is anal-contact of the mouth, is obscured by the receiving partner's buttocks.

In your notification, you wrote that you do not find Wiki-analoral.png to ambiguously show that anilingus is being performed. I disagree. Because the action is obscured by the receiving woman's buttocks, the giving woman's tongue could be on the receiving woman's perineum or somewhere inside or on her vulva. Maybe the giving woman's mouth is closed, and she is simply resting her head there. Maybe she wanted to get a really close look at the small of the receiving woman's back. As the primary picture of the anilingus article, it is indeed ambiguous. If it comes after the Wiki-anilingus.png picture, one can only assume that the giving woman's has her tongue on the receiving woman's anus. If it comes alone, though, one cannot assume anything.

In summary, I think that Wiki-analoral.png is ambiguous if left alone. Wiki-anilingus.png can be left alone in the primary position, because it clearly depicts the essence of anilingus. However, the two pictures complement each other in that Wiki-anilingus.png depicts the essence of anilingus, while Wiki-analoral.png depicts an external manifestation (physical human positions) of the act. Together, the two pictures concisely explain anilingus in a visual format.

I hope that this helps you understand my reasoning. BirdValiant (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining, BirdValiant. And thanks for moving this section here to the article's talk page, which is what I was going to do. As my questions show, I did consider that you meant that File:Wiki-analoral.png is ambiguous because it does not explicitly show the act. Though I still don't consider File:Wiki-analoral.png ambiguous, since it is a drawing and the act of anilingus is what the artist describes for the image (not to mention that, to me, the mouth is a little too high up for the placement of the vulva), your rationale for re-adding the File:Wiki-anilingus.png is valid and strong and I agree with that rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Rimming?
Is there any reason why the term rimming is not mentioned anywhere in the article? While I don't doubt the veracity of the scientific term for this act being anilingus, I've never heard of anyone referring to it as anything other than rimming. It seems bizarre that this is not mentioned anywhere in the article when, as far as I know, this is how most people refer to the act. Vorpal22 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you have added mention of rimming. The rimming information has been removed from the lead two times that I know of, by two IPs (obviously the same person): See here and here. While it is true that Wikipedia, per what the essay WP:SLANG says (while pointing readers to guidelines and policies), generally avoids slang, I disagree with removing the rimming mentions as alternative terms because, as you noted, this act is almost exclusively referred to in those ways by the general public. So I view this matter as more of a Article titles matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's appopriate to add the word "rimming". Unfortunately, this page does have a history of trolling and/or editors trying to add increasing obscure or non-existent slang terms - see e.g., the topic immediately above.-- Kubigula (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: The person removed "rimming" again and was reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * No slang, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.119.18.29 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your objection?-- Kubigula (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Rimming" removed again and reverted. I have to side with Kubigula and ask you to explain your objection in more detail, preferably addressing the points made above in this discussion. Vorpal22 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, I think you are misapplying WP:SLANG, which states that the article should not be written IN slang, which, with my addition, it currently is not; I see no direct objection to pointing out that the most commonly used expression for the behaviour - by which it is pretty much universally known - is inadmissible. Vorpal22 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * See this thread from Requests for page protection for an update on what this person's IPs have been doing to the article. He or she is still removing "rimming," and has very recently been repeatedly disruptive in other ways. Oh, and despite my having wondered (in the section the IP started on Kubigula's talk page) if there is a language barrier between us and the IP, this edit makes me doubt that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This page has long been a favorite target for some odd trolling behavior. Reference to "Baracking the Obama" or "biting the brown" are signs that this stuff has reared up again.-- Kubigula (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that the administrator, Lectonar, who recently added page protection to this article, replied to me about the topic of semi-protection. Considering that semi-protection has been added to Wikipedia articles for the aforementioned type/level of vandalism, even if for only a few hours, several hours, or a whole day, I disagree with Lectonar that the vandalism in this case was not enough to require semi-protection. But I appreciate that he or she did something about the matter. And after all, pending changes protection will last longer than brief temporary semi-protection...which is all I would have most likely gotten otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit was very likely made by the IP-hopping "No slang" editor as well, and, in that case, at least he or she replaced "rimming" with "rim-job" this time (instead of removing the slang aspect altogether). Thus, I reverted myself. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Once again, the acceptance of rim-job as a replacement for rimming shows the lack of seriousness on behalf of the 'editors' of this wiki. It was agreed to among this community many years ago that there should be no slang. Why did this one stick? Should he/she/they/we be accepting of more slang now? There are doubtless more terms, and many are willing to add them now. (Barracking the Obama made it in at one point, for instance.) Please advise on how we/he/she/they should proceed. No edit wars, please. Thank you. 213.128.81.67 (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Stop your nonsense. And you are the one who replaced rimming with rim-job, even though you'd rather not have either mentioned. Testing to see how serious we are by exchanging one name for the other, because you view use of rimming as so much better than use of rim-job? And now, because either has been accepted, you are determined to add a bunch of slang or crude material to the article to attempt to illustrate your point? More nonsense, nonsense which shows that you are the one who is not serious about editing this site. Time to ignore you and/or revert your "I'm proving my point" edits. I've wasted enough time at this talk page and its article with regard to you. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 is very late to this discussion and is using his/her/their power as an 'editor' to stymie discussion. Many of us choose to not to be formal editors, but add much.  Might does not make right.


 * My suggestion is that Flyer22 go back into the archives (both 1 and 2) and read, and learn. We've been over this, and Flyer22 is not helping.  This site was vandalized many, many times by people who decided what they thought was acceptable as slang (which seem now to be cleverly disguised as colloquialisms).  It was decided by the community, both editors and non, that there would no longer be slang allowed on the Anilingus wiki, as the list is far too long, and no consensus could be reached on keep how to keep it pared down.  My only question is this: where was Flyer22 in 2008 when it was discussed and ultimately decided; with the community in full agreement?


 * Welcome to Wikipedia, and cut it with the brash attitude, Flyer22! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.153.229 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sigh, and revert as usual. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I've been a registered Wikipedia editor since 2007. But that is beside the point. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sigh... and I'm Jimmy Wales. Congratulations on your 'tenure', however you were not here then, and we know that.  Go read the archives before you brashly shut this page down again.  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.245.83 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already had a look at the archives (and a read of them) with regard to what you have stated. And your "No slang, please." rationales/actions are ridiculous for the reasons gone over above. Nothing more to state on the matter, really. I will now be ignoring you, except for when reverting you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


 * More arrogance from the 'editor' set.


 * You 'had a look' at the archives Flyer22? Look a bit more closely and stop emotionally shooting from the lip.  You're simply wrong, and I can go find back up if you want it.  Slang was done away with by the community to avoid this type of edit war; something that you yourself are now perpetuating again via petulant comments like "I will now be ignoring you."  You seem to like to fight.  It's unproductive (yet as I've seen you operate, not all that surprising). 111.90.150.13 (talk)  20:49, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Again, sigh. More nonsense from you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 you said you'd ignore me/us, and we'd appreciate it if you would. Again, you're all over the place.  Also, please retract your threat of reverting at will.  It's not very productive and unbecoming of an editor of your obvious stature.  Thank you. 111.90.150.13 (talk)  22:01, 29 July 2013‎  (UTC)
 * LOL, "us"? And I'm the one who's all over the place? LOL!!!! Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a handful of us non-editors who monitor this page, and have done so for years. Why does that surprise you?  What's really humorous (but maybe, unsurprising), Flyer22, is how simple disagreement/argument has reduced you to a giggling fool so quickly.  Please at least follow through with your own aforementioned threat to ignore/revert at will.  Dealing with these situations is de rigueur for non-editors on Wikipedia, and we can deal with it.  Time is on our side.  You doubtlessly -- rather, hopefully -- will move on, but we won't.  Had you not just arrived on the Anilingus discussion, you'd know this.  As my fellow non-editor(s) have implored you to do, go look at the archives, and learn something.  Ridicule, if you will, however simplistic edits such as your "LOL!!!!" are unbecoming of someone who has been editing "since 2007", and are, frankly, what's truly laughable.  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.108.228 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * The "handful of us non-editors who monitor this page" are you with your many IPs. As for me moving on... LOL, that doesn't happen often with me with regard to a sexual topic on Wikipedia that I've decided to watch and/or edit and watch. Oh, and continuously linking my username is pointless. It's not like I get a notification via WP:Echo when you do it; it must be that it doesn't work with regard to IPs doing it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Rimming should be used in this article. It is no more a slang term than "doggy style" which is used in image captions, and is widely used and understood. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   03:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Kubigula (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally some reason. If the policy on slang has shifted again, I agree as well. Kubigula, would you kindly add it in along with "Rim-job"? 111.90.150.13 (talk)  20:49, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)
 * You are beyond silly. You are the one who kept removing "rimming" from the lead. You are the one who replaced it with "rim-job." You are the one who is obviously trolling. You now agree? LOL. Either sarcasm, trolling, or both. And learn to sign your posts. Others, including the bot, shouldn't have to sign it for you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 * If you take exception to re-adding "Rimming", kindly take it up with Flat Out, and Kubigula too, please and stop focusing on us. It's silly.
 * Back to the point, I agree with two other editors that "Rimming" should be re-added to the wiki. I would kindly ask that an editor make this change to avoid the petulant wrath of Flyer22.  Where did this person come from? 111.90.150.13 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)
 * LOL!!!! Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe there is consensus for "rim-job." ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   10:27, 30 July 2013‎ (UTC)
 * Kubigula, you've been here forever and have respect as a quality steward of this page. Can you please address this? What is Flyer22 trying to accomplish here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.74.67 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's of no consequence since editing must be achieved by consensus. There is currently consensus for the the widely used colloquialism "rimming" but I do not see consensus for "rim-job." Let's keep discussion on point. ''' Flat Out   let's discuss it   05:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Why? The images.
why only female/female pictures and no male/male pictures? those pictures were obviously chosen by a heterosexual male...uggh

(And I'm a woman.) 86.70.90.144 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Despite agreeing with BirdValiant's rationale above, I also agree that both pictures aren't needed. Both pictures include one of the women in the doggy style position, but I'd prefer to keep the first picture because, as discussed above in the section BirdValiant started, it more clearly demonstrates the act of anilingus. In addition to both images not being needed, I support removing the other image because only having two pictures of women engaging in anilingus can suggest bias to some readers, as it seems to have suggested to the IP in this section. A lot of people know that same-sex sexual contact between women is more tolerated among the general public than same-sex sexual contact between men, and the pictures can project that same sentiment to some readers. However, why suggest male/male pictures and not male/female pictures as well, IP? Or is it that that's simply the first example that popped into your head? My reason for asking is, of course, it's not as though anilingus is only or mostly engaged in by same-sex couples. In fact, the article points out that it's rarely practiced between women, which makes it even more odd to only have pictures of women engaged in the act. That stated, from what I've read on the subject, engaging in anilingus is rare among the general public as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Pointless to try an make logic out of the illogical. He/she/they like images of women performing the act around here.  I agree that it's completely misogynistic, and I'm a 'they'! Not for nothing, but 'editors of this wiki also prefer their own acceptable slang terms.  Only advice I can give is to keep at it.  Good luck!  Thank you.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.128.81.67 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, do you have a poorly-formed, overly-broad definition of misogynistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.184.189 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that having two illustrations of women performing the act is unbalanced, particularly since the behavior is chiefly associated with male-male sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.15.175 (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to agree that ideally the article would have pictures of more than one gender coupling for completeness and neutrality GrassHopHer (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: I went ahead and removed the second image. I also changed the heading of this section from "why?" to "Why? The images.", so that it is clearer as to what this section is about. Flyer22 (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Keep up the good fight. Wikinazis are "persnickety" control freaks.  The only image that has and will ever be allowed on the Anilingus page will be of one woman Biting the Brown of another woman.  Period.  (Maybe the editors need to get over their misogyny, head over to male masturbation and get on with it.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.122.4 (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * IP, I had enough of you two years ago...as seen in the section above. How many times are you going to show up using various IPs to add stuff like this and comment like you have in this section? I initially ignored your WP:Disruption this time because I knew that someone else would revert and I didn't feel like editing the Anilingus article just to revert you. In fact, I never feel like editing the Anilingus article. The fact that it's on my WP:Watchlist is due to habit of watching over sexual articles. Anyway, you need to drop this occasional hobby you have of showing up here to WP:Troll. And I think I've mentioned to you before that WP:Pinging me doesn't work when you WP:Ping me. Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)


 * For many of us, Flyer22, our focus and passions are directed at specific pages only. We're not generalists.  For me, it's this, the Anilingus wiki.  Unlike you, I don’t make a “habit” of watching over many other sexual articles.  That’s not my thing, and I'm frankly not sure what your "habit" says about you... but that's another thing entirely.


 * Whether or not I’m put down by you as a second-class “IP” or not means little to me, Flyer22. I was here well before you, understand the fights and struggles that this wiki has undergone more than you, and will edit when and as I see fit.  I take particular (and, yes, ironic) self-satisfaction in knowing that a good part of the currently accepted article is all mine, and that many these edits of mine have been here for years (can you spot them?).  This is a marathon, not a sprint, afterall.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.170.122.4 (talk) 03:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Overall, I believe the analoral.png (second picture) was not justified in deleting. It depicts the act of anilingus from another angle, and belongs in techniques. Although some may argue that since there aren't any male/male anilingus pictures, that it is biased. It appears someone tried to add a male/male picture, but it was generally decided it was too blurry. The second picture continues to be used within multiple language versions of this same article. True, there aren't any male/male pictures, only female/female. However, it appears that the first and second pictures complement each other. The second image arguably looks like the woman in the picture are the same couple from the first image, only performing the act from another angle. Due to the fact that there really aren't any good male/male pictures to add, I feel until we can get similar pictures (only of different sexes) performing the act, the second image is here to stay (though this is not the overall consensus right now). Various other important pages feature only women/only men (such as the military wikipedia page), though this does not mean that we need to delete all the other pictures except for one or two. In other words, the second image is not sexist or misogynistic, but rather an important visual representation of anilingus being performed. And yes, I understand the military is a different subject, but please keep this viewpoint in mind if the good people of Wikipedia decide to make another change to this article. Thank you. EDIT: I have decided to submit a revised version of this article with the image included. However, the image was placed in a very fitting and relevant manner, with a simple but effective description which describes which technique is being used. EDIT 2: Looks like the revision was rejected. I need to discuss the article, so if anyone else has any opinions on the subject, feel free to post here. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heyimsomeonenice (talk • contribs) 08:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with, the second image doesn't add anything, not needed.  12:59, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It more clearly demonstrates the doggy position and therefore belongs in the technique section. Heyimsomeonenice (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHOWTO applies, and probably to the entire technique section, too. People seriously need a picture to show them how to lick an anus? If this were a finger we would not consider supplying a picture and nor would we tell them how to do it. Fiddle   Faddle  22:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The picture is not a how-to guide, it is simply showing what anilingus looks like from a different angle and showing more of what the body generally looks like in the doggy position. Who said anything about a guide? A guide generally starts with "Step one" or a command of some sort. This most certainly does not. I suppose you could apply that to pretty much anything. For example: "People seriously need a picture to show them what a yo-yo/vagina/anus/any sex position/etc.looks like?" Yes, most people know what a yo-yo looks like, but the Wikipedia page still includes images of people using them and what the object itself looks like. Heyimsomeonenice (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I realize now that things probably aren't going to change. I stand by my opinions, but I can't really do anything unless the majority of users who read this page discuss and come to an agreement with what I am saying (not working out too well). So, I'll leave it at that. I hope users will see my point of view and request a change, but I see now it's pointless to argue in a battle I cannot win. Heyimsomeonenice (talk) 03:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Tossed salad
I just made one easy change, removing a reference to an news article about a man using his genitals to mix an actual salad. But the term salad-tossing is not specific to prison usage; see here for an example. The fact of anilingus in prison is relevant to the section on punishment and should be left there (and prefereably referenced with sources that are not pay-to-read journals or IMDB), but I would like to create a new section, perhaps called "Slang synonyms", which would include at least rimming and perhaps salad-tossing. I have read the rimming discussion, supra, and am surprised that this is a controversial idea. Peter Chastain  [habla, por favor]  00:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * A section on slang terms for analingus (as any logical person would spell it) would soon be overwhelmed by the creative pranks of juveniles. Are you volunteering to oversee it, and revert idiocies like "Baracking the Obama" or "Trumping the Donald" every day for the rest of your life? References you don't even understand, because they're in-jokes among a few friends in, say, Baileyton, Alabama?
 * Every item would have to have a reliable source, and someone would have to actually check that source. Not that I'm admitting to anything, but oftentimes a claim goes unchecked, as long as there's a reference tacked on, regardless of the content of that reference.
 * It's one of those things, not unlike "Trivia", or "References in Popular Culture", in which every Wikipedia article becomes cluttered with references to South Park, Family Guy, The Simpsons, etc. Wikipedia managed to change policy and cut that random garbage out, a few years back, which at least doubled the value of Wikipedia as a useful thing. A section on slang terms for analingus would reverse course, and undoubtedly become the majority of the article.
 * --Ben Culture (talk) 03:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

analingus "incorrect" spelling
No argument that "anilingus" is the standard spelling of the term, but is "analingus" actually incorrect as is claimed by the article?

A quick web search finds the following articles either using the variant spelling or identifying it as a variant spelling:

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/thesaurus/words+meaning+analingus.html http://www.topicway.com/dictionary/anilingus http://www.yourdictionary.com/analingus http://www.kinkly.com/definition/76/analingus http://std.about.com/od/glossary/g/Anilingus-Oral-Anal-Sex.htm http://health.ccm.net/faq/1124-anilingus-definition http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/ANALINGUS

While not necessarily first tier Reliable Sources, they seem to indicate to me that using the term "incorrect" is over-reach. Anybody have a source to back up the "incorrect" designation? If not, we should drop the prescritivism and simply represent what the source material says. i.e. present analingus as a variant spelling, not as "incorrect".

Other thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've found a lot of sources that use "analingus".       There are 3,740 results for "analingus" on Google Books, and some sources use both analingus and anilingus. Melonkelon (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Can someone please explain why the obvious spelling (analingus) is not the preferred one? Just because someone a long time ago spelled it anilingus so we are now stuck with it?  Are there other situations where the term becomes anil as a word part?  I do not find myself using the word very often but when I do I am more apt to spell it analingus simply because that's how people would expect it to be spelled.  At the very least they should both be considered correct.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.145.174 (talk) 02:27, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not spelled that way because it doesn't derives from "anal" but from "anus", combined with "lingus" (derived from Latin lingere meaning "lick"). No consideration whatsoever should be given to incorrect spellings by people too lazy to learn out to spell the word correctly, or at least how to use a spell checker. "Anilingus" is how the word was spelled by the person who invented it in 1886, Richard von Krafft-Ebing in his book Psychopathia sexualis. BMK (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 'Anal' is pronounced with a long 'a' and a stressed first syllable, whereas 'anilingus' has a short 'a' sound and an unstressed first syllable. The altered spelling is the result of the words' differentiated pronunciation. That is the technical linguistic answer. JGabbard (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have no strong feelings on this matter, but I will note that Beyond My Ken (BMK) changed the lead so that "analingus" is referred to as incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, it would be more correct to say that I restored "incorrectly", swince it has been in the arrticle since at least June 2014. BMK (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I have reverted this edit. English is not a prescriptive language.  Spellings change over time.  Calling the alternate spelling "incorrect" is at odds with the reliable sources and is WP:OR. Please discuss further if you disagree, and in particular cite a source that calls the alternate spelling "incorrect".Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Languages are not "prescriptive" or "descriptive", dictionaries (and their editors) are. When a dictionary shows "analingus" as an accepted spelling, then and only then can "incorrectly" be removed.  The fact that the word is incorrectly spelled in some books is not relevant, they are not the controlling reliable sources for spelling - dictionaries are. BMK (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you are putting Original research into the article. You have not provided a cite supporting your assertion that the spelling is incorrect. Moreover, by your own definition of "reliable sources for spelling" it is a variant, e.g. http://www.healthdictionary.info/Analingus.htm to cite just one example.  I'm going to revert.  Please refrain from edit warring. We've reached consensus here on the talk page and until we reach a new consensus based on citations in reliable sources the word "incorrect" should be left out.  There are numerous avenues on Wikipedia for dispute resolution - I would suggest pursuing one of those if you feel that strongly about it. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"Time immemorial"
The section "As punishment" reads: "Forced and mostly public anilingus was used from time immemorial as a form of humiliation and punishment, usually of prisoners."

Seems odd to use the phrase "from time immemorial" here. It's not like it's gonna void the source requirement. So would this something that ought to be rewritten (and/or sourced)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.249.185.2 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI
http://www.thepoke.co.uk/2016/10/09/for-the-airline-see-aer-lingus/ --$oliton (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Anilingus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050528075940/http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu:80/2087.html to http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2087.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

United States prison system
I feel, that this paragraph needs reworking, because now it seems, that annilingus in an official way of paying dues between prisoners, regulated by the United States prison system. :) Pibwl &larr;&laquo; 08:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Any support for this edit?
Does anyone think we should include this edit ? It's unsourced, but then so are the other terms. Meters (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Long since removed, and user blocked. Meters (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Contested etymology
The claimed etymology of the term "anilingus" has been contested and is being discussed at Talk:Richard von Krafft-Ebing. Meters (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * updated per the discussion. New ref added. Meters (talk) 02:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(3.1) Health Risk Edit / Add-in
One of the parasites that humans can contract is Entamoeba Histolytica. I think that it should be specified along-side the more generalized term "parasites". E. Histolytica is more often contracted in homosexual males who partake in Anilingus, especially in Japan and Taiwan. It can be either asymptomatic or can lead to amebic liver abscesses, and chronic diarrhea. I think that's enough information to put in this article, with a link to the E. Histolytica page. Honestly, I've never gone about editing a "protected page" and I figured it would just be less headache for me if I posted here on the talk. If everyone feels that this info is viable for the article, the information can all be verified via the UpToDate link I'll cite. Also, here is the external link. Paul K. &#124; MechE &#124; MSY-2 &#124; Chemist &#124; Let's talk 02:22, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

In a large meta-analysis conducted, it was observed that there is no association between oral sex and oral cancer, but it might still be a risk marker for oral cancer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imusingthisname (talk • contribs)

Airlingus
Is this related to air lingus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.58.35 (talk) 11:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Oral condom
A oral (or tongue) condom can also reduce health risks. Not mentioned in article --Genetics4good (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

There is a paragraph that isn’t really about anilingus
The one about throat cancer is just about oral sex, not anilingus specifically. I would remove it but I can’t. 20soccerstarkid10 (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Mögsex" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mögsex and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 22:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

"Moegsex" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Moegsex and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Regards, SONIC 678 04:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)