Talk:Cunnilingus/Archive 2

Need to add to the slang terms paragraph
"Several common slang terms used are giving lip, lip service, or tipping the velvet"

Add: eating a box lunch at the 'Y'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.211.216.210 (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2014: Images
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cunnilingus

Depictions compared to the male version:

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

Indicate this article's pictures are biased in such a way that is unwelcoming to male practitioners of the event. Why isn't there any gay pictures of male on male in the Fellatio in comparison to the female on female in Cunnilingus?

This article feels overly suggestive toward lesbianism in such a way that discourages males from performing on their female partner, while the Fellatio glorifies the male receiving oral sex from the female, but visa versa isn't recommended?

I find this highly offensive and frankly discouraging.

My suggestion would be to either:

1 - Allow more male on female pictures in the Cunnilingus section and or change the primary picture to male on female 2 - Allow gay male on male pictures in the Fellatio section for balance

Os920 (talk) 03:46, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Os920--FeralOink (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I already took care of Os920's concerns, as noted below, FeralOink. But "nice" to see you back because of the calling of a certain editor. And, yes, your rationales for parts of the article are as faulty today as they were back then. Flyer22 (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you stalking me, Flyer22? It is a pleasure to see you as well.--FeralOink (talk) 03:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, FeralOink, not stalking you (no interest in that), just noting your silliness after following a different editor to see who he had contacted to aid him. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * , before you thanked me via WP:Echo for this edit from last year, I was going to point to it in my reply to you to show that, given that cunnilingus is so associated with lesbian sexual activity, to the point that many people think it's an act mainly performed by lesbians, I agree that a male-female image should be the first image or that we are at least better off without three female-female images in the article compared to one male-female image. How is it that you knew to check in the edit history and find that edit by me so very soon after you posted this discussion? Whatever the case, as you can see, we currently have two female-female images in the article compared to one male-female image. As you know, the current lead image was added by LtPowers, who also made this image change after I made that first aforementioned edit about lesbianism and cunnilingus. Despite what I stated in that WP:Edit summary, there are WP:Reliable sources that indicate that cunnilingus is performed among female couples significantly more than it is performed among male-female couples, and there are sources, such as this one used in the article, that suggest that cunnilingus is more important to lesbian couples than to heterosexual couples. But regarding the image matter you have brought up, let's see if other editors watching this article/talk page have anything to state about it. I'm obviously fine with replacing the lead image with an image of a male-female couple; this is the image that was previously used for the lead, but it was changed here by Kencf0618.


 * As for the Fellatio article, see Talk:Fellatio/Archive 2 for why there are currently a lack of male-male images at that article. Not that what this article does should be based on what that one does, or vice versa. Not necessarily anyway.


 * On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with ": Images" so that it is clear as to what this section is about; it will also help identifying the section once it is archived. Flyer22 (talk) 04:28, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Note: I added what was the previous lead image -- an image of a man performing oral sex on a woman -- back to to the article, but lower, right above a female-female oral sex image, to give the article more visual balance (a followup addition to that edit is here; I named the artist). I also added an image of male-male fellatio to the Fellatio article, as noted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fellatio&diff=630619447&oldid=630619427#.27Either_gender.27_really_should_be_changed_to_.27any_gender.27. here.] Flyer22 (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Used panty sales demonstrate that female genital hygiene is not important to all men
The following is a discussion that I (deisenbe) had with Melonkelon when he (?) undid a sentence that I added. We would both be interested in anyone else's opinion about whether the sentence that I added, or in its revised form posted below, helps or does not help the article.deisenbe (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Melonkelon reverted an emendation that I made under "General Practices" because "I'm not sure this information is relevant to the article". I'd like to explain why I believe it is relevant and ask for your approval to restore it. The preceding sentence says that "personal hygiene" in that area is important, because if not followed, the giving partner may find the results (odors, sweat, micro-residue) unpleasant. My addition - and I went to quite some trouble in adding documentation from legitimate sources - is intended to show that the preceding sentence is not completely correct. The existence of the used panties trade shows that those things that personal hygiene would remove are in fact of considerable value to some (economic value, even). The many men who purchase used panties (and in most cases, the dirtier the better, which I could have documented but didn't) demonstrate through their behavior that the hygiene, to them, is not only unimportant but undesirable. There are no statistics that I know of that would establish how many men this is true of, but the size and vigor of the panty-selling industry indicates that this is not a fringe belief or behavior. (I almost put that if you put "buy dirty panties" into Google, there are 1,000,000 results. I stopped looking at the results after the first 10 pages.) So I think I was making a legitimate point which is relevant to the preceding sentence and takes issue with it. Therefore I would like your permission to restore the deletion. deisenbe (talk) 10:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything you have said is true, but I'm not sure I see the relevance in the context of cunnilingus. Why is it relevant? Melonkelon (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * First, the starting point is the assumption that the opening sentence of the paragraph is relevant in this context, that women may consider personal hygiene important, because if not, various items may be unpleasant for the giving party.


 * If this statement is relevant, then it is relevant to take issue with the statement. Is your point that I'm not taking issue with it, but talking about another matter altogether? My intent was to illustrate that the items in question may NOT be unpleasant for the giving party, using as supporting evidence that some men pay for the presence (transmitted to panties) of the very same items that the feminine hygiene was going to eliminate.


 * Rereading it, it might be more clearly worded by saying:

However, the vigorous trade in soiled panties -- in Japan, they were sold for years in vending machines - shows that some men do not find poor hygiene in this area objectionable.


 * Does this make the relevance clear? deisenbe (talk) 16:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but I'm still not sure if it should be included. Melonkelon (talk) 21:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * No, this material should not be included. It's off-topic, and Melonkelon was right to revert. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Chinese Empress Wu Zetian
if this is correct, we should insert it…: "the progressive monarch, Wu Hu [=Wu Zetian], who reigned from 690 to 705 A.D as the only female Chinese emperor. The T'ang Dynasty empress used her position to decree all visiting dignitaries to pay their respects by performing cunnilingus on her." (Wendell T. Harrison: Archaic practice evolving even after restrictive laws. Oral sex escapes modern taboos. --176.0.132.238 (talk) 12:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cunnilingus. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1685.aspx?CategoryID=118&SubCategoryID=119
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130510210937/http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/Factsheets/pdf/oralsex.pdf to http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/Factsheets/pdf/oralsex.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140227175640/http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/hpv/index.htm to http://www.oralcancerfoundation.org/hpv/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

STD section has incorrect refs
The supposed refs 7 and 29 do not even mention this practice... so please at least add (=  ) after those refs in that section. Also the references really should be for each STD separately since they likely do not behave in exactly same manner. Thank you. 2001:14BA:8300:0:0:0:1:247D (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Sparkling Pessimist   Scream at me!  21:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Regarding this and this, oral sex covers cunnilingus. So I'm wondering about the IP's complaints. The first sentence in question states, "However, the transmission risk for oral sex, especially HIV transmission, is significantly lower than for vaginal or anal sex." Note that it states "oral sex," meaning oral sex in general; it does not state "cunnilingus." So the word cunnilingus does not need to be in the source. That stated, as the second diff-link shows, I went ahead and removed the reference from that part; this is because, while scanning the source with my eyes, I didn't find a statement to support that. But the source is long, and I might have overlooked it. The second sentence in question states, "Because of the aforementioned factors, medical sources advise the use of effective barrier methods when performing or receiving cunnilingus with a partner whose STI status is unknown." If the source advises effective barrier methods for oral sex, that includes cunnilingus, unless we are to assume that the source is only speaking of fellatio. But we can safely move that source from that spot as well since it is supported by other sources. When text is supported by other sources, it's best to simply remove the disputed source than add "failed verification."


 * As for placing references for each STI, my concern is WP:Citation overkill. If the sources cover multiple STIs, or all of the STIs mentioned, it's an issue to then place the reference for each STI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)