Talk:Fellatio/Archive 2

Gay Lobby using Wikipedia as a platform
Why does it seem that every single article dealing with sexuality ends up generating comments from people calling foul with regard to the treatment of homosexuality? If Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral in matters of morality and bias, then it should not be used as platform for people with political agendas. On the other hand, contributors adding matters pertaining to homosexuality directly to articles may be order, again without applying any bias or moral judgment on the matter.

Furthermore, assuming that Wikipedia will survive for many generations to come, or at least will be available for future scholars to peruse, the incessant knee-jerk reactions of the gay lobby could give future readers of the discussion sections an impression of homosexuals, or at least the proportion of people in our time approving/being interested in homosexuality, of being disproportionally great during our era.

Given that only two decades ago, most sane people felt an aversion to that behaviour, there is no reason to believe that future generations will necessarily share the current trendy notions promulgated by mainstream media of today that homosexuality belongs in the same category as sexuality in general.

That is not to say that homosexuality should not be discussed in these articles, on the contrary. I just the mean the straight content should not be challenged for being too exclusive. Add material - don't subtract.79.138.194.169 (talk) 23:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that a modern encyclopedia should discuss issues from a modern perspective, while giving appropriate weight to historical perspectives; that's not to either validate or criticise, but merely to report what is available from reliable sources in a dispassionate and neutral manner. As Wikipedia continues, it should continue to report attitudes as they change, without either approval or censure. I feel confident that if any article were seen to being hi-jacked in pursuit of some agenda, that would quite quickly be quashed, per WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:35, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Fellatio sex act.jpg
I don't think this photograph adds anything to the article It doesn't illustrate the act more clearly than the very good existing artwork, it doesn't have any historical interest and it doesn't have much in the way of artistic merit. I think an image should add something to an article. But since it isn't quite as awful as some photos that pop up, I'll not remove it without asking other editor's opinions. If nobody's said anything in its support in a couple of days I'm deleting it. All i want is To preform a horatio. )<c==8 --Simon Speed (talk) 11:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the image adds nothing to the article, and have removed it. — Manti  core  12:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
I don't think being on your knees and having a dick in your mouth means you're in a stronger position.... As the introduction suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.187.42 (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * If you mean that the paragraph is uncited and starts with weasel words (some people), you are correct. It should be removed or fixed. - Xcal68 (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's now been a week and it still contains the weasel words (some people regard/considered by some) and is completely uncited. So, I'm removing it.  I'll leave a copy here to show what's been removed for easy reference:


 * Some people regard the receiving partner as being in a position of psychological if not physical vulnerability, and thus is potentially weaker. Bringing a person to climax is considered by some to be a form of exerting control over that person's physiology and emotions.


 * - Xcal68 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Preserving virginity
I think the information here about oral sex "preserving virginity" is untrue because it is a sexual practice. The only 'virginity' that is preserved is the integrity of the hymen, wich is also not really endangered during anal intercourse. 178.196.201.150 (talk) 05:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Many people, usually heterosexuals, believe that oral sex preserves virginity. Not only because it's not a threat to penetrating the hymen with regard to women...but also because, with regard to men or women, it is a non-procreative act. The same goes for anal sex. This is sourced by WP:Reliable sources in the article. See technical virginity for more details. Flyer22 (talk) 08:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, so maybe we should write “preserving technical virginity” instead. Only a suggestion. Everything Is Numbers 01:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

POV opinion removed
The following previously appeared at the beginning of the last intro section paragraph: "Some people have negative feelings or sexual inhibitions about giving or receiving oral sex, and may refuse to do so. "

There are SO many issues with this:

1) Some people = weasel words

2) "negative feelings" is a vague, New Age, nothing-meaning expression; the closest thing to an actual meaning it has is "undesirable feelings" which raises the question "undesirable to who"?

3) There is an apologistic tone to this sentence, an assumption that (a) people are going to be expected or demanded to perform fellatio and (b) that is reasonable and not to be questioned and (c) if the person isn't interested in obliging they are "inhibited" - which is incredibly POV.

It's really important to remember not to take a pro-[article subject matter] position. This obviously means not pejoratively labelling people who might not be interested in engaging in whatever practice it is that's in question (even if a writer of a book has ostensibly expressed such an opinion). This is regardless of subject matter/practice in question.

-- Ty rS  03:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Addendum: (I actually ran out of time to complete my list of points above before, and nothing that I wrote above has changed, so I am adding this here.)
 * Looking at the oral sex and cunnilingus articles, the only mention of "sexual inhibitions" (a term to be avoided anyway due to the simple fact that there are a variety of reasons why people might not be interested in performing various acts, and that it contributes to the subtly apologistic POV that many of these articles express. An encyclopedia-quality article really doesn't need even mention - much less try to psychoanalyze - people who aren't interested in engaging in (or even who find physically painful - see anal sex article regarding pain during anal sex being psychosomatic, something which has been specifically identified by an objective, uninvoled editor, as being clearly POV) whatever activity is being documented. Otherwise we'd 'need' to explain why "some people" are also "sexually inhibited" about being the 'receiving' partner in ass to mouth, face-sitting, fisting, bukake, etc, as well.
 * The only parallel mention of this "inhibitedness" regarding oral sex is in regards to lesbians in a subsection of Oral sex (regarding how some "seek therapy to overcome an oral sex inhibition"), where, by the way, the wording is also unnecessarily pejorative (and therefore POV) and would be better replaced by "overcome issues around oral sex". (A minor tweak I intend to make next.)-- Ty rS  02:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Reply after initial "I'm not about to thoroughly debate this" response: Sigh. Do you read scholarly sources at all? "Sexual inhibition" is not "a term to be avoided" by scholars or the general public. And I've already gone over why not performing oral sex sometimes being due to psychological factors is relevant to the topic of oral sex, and why pain from anal sex sometimes being due to psychological factors is relevant to the Anal sex article, below. And as for why "psychological factors" are not in other articles, perhaps because those topics haven't been studied with regard to psychological reasons for not engaging in them, or editors haven't thought to add the information. There are a lot of things lacking in or missing from sexual articles on Wikipedia. Ass to mouth and facesitting are covered by anal and oral inhibitions, by the way. The bottomline is that scholars have studied oral sex and anal sex inhibitions, as well as pain from sex being due to psychological factors. Also see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS before again making an argument along the lines of "other articles don't do this." The lesbian information, which I added, is relevant to the Oral sex article because it counters the misconception that all lesbians engage in oral sex, a misconception two of the four sources mention, and it's therefore relevant to mention why some don't engage in it (ranging from simply not liking it to the psychological/social factors the sources mention). If you want to challenge the inclusion of this information as well, then go ahead and tackle that at the Oral sex talk page and see just how many editors will agree with you to remove it. All I see is you injecting your own POV, never anything supported by sources, and you trying to engage me in yet more of your drama. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and if you're going to try to get this very relevant information removed from the Oral sex article, the same will have to go for removing the entire Cultural attitudes section from the Oral sex article, seeing as all of those negative feelings about oral sex -- disgust, taboo, being "frowned upon" -- are psychological factors. Those are the same things the sources for why some lesbians do not engage in oral sex are speaking of. Your assertion that simply mentioning why some people do not like oral sex is some sort of POV violation or apologistic violation (which isn't even a policy or guideline) is another one of your mind-boggling takes to editing Wikipedia. We mention likes and dislikes here at Wikipedia and why those likes and dislikes occur. Flyer22 (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not about to thoroughly debate this, given our previous unpleasant interactions, but I will state that there are an abundance of reliable sources, including high-quality sources, discussing oral sex inhibitions. These inhibitions are often (note I stated "often," not "always" or "mostly") due to being taught that genitals are dirty and/or ugly and also due to religious reasons in a lot of cases. Not that long ago, I got through researching this further. For example, see the following sources which discuss oral sex inhibitions among lesbians/bisexual-identified women, making it quite clear that the belief that "all lesbians engage in oral sex" is a myth: Of course some people just don't like oral sex. But some also have inhibitions about it for the reasons I mentioned.


 * And though "some people" is WP:Weasel wording, it's okay to state "some people" when referring to society and not people who can be individually named, and as long as it's clearly attributed. This was discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Words to watch and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style last year. "Clearly attributed" in this case means reliably sourced. As Template:Attribution needed states, "If the material is supported by a citation to a reliable source, then look at the source to find out who holds the view, rather than adding this tag to the sentence." Flyer22 (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Flyer22, this is very much like the inclusion of 'if someone feels pain during anal sex it may just be in their mind' detail in the anal sex article. I.e. the part about which Johnuniq wrote "OMG it's dripping with POV (pain might be because you have a psychological problem!)" [here] earlier today. My reasons for the above edit remain as stated above, and I stand by them.


 * Imagine for example if the smoking article said "some people don't like smoking and refuse to do it due to hang-ups about their health" or the baseball article said "some people don't want to play baseball due to fear of injury"(and no doubt books could be found that say those things, to provide a citation). It's totally unnecessary to have this sentence. I will not go back & forth on this however. If you still object, please bring someone else in on it.-- Ty rS  08:42, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Call it what you want. You are wrong again here as well. I am not arguing for the line to be returned. I am letting you know that it is a fact that oral sex inhibitions are sometimes due to what I mentioned above. This is a well-known fact documented in an abundance of reliable sources. It is not the same thing as your smoking or baseball example at all. But nice try, even though I'm sure that some people don't want to do the things you mentioned due to psychological factors. Not liking something due to psychological factors is not limited to sexual activity. Phobias are real, and so are sex phobias. But we are talking about studies in this case -- the case of sexual inhibitions. Study after study has shown that some people have psychological hangups about sex or certain sex acts for whatever reason. We are talking about peer-reviewed sources on this, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders even. The sources in the Dyspareunia article show that pain from sex being due to psychological factors is a real thing. The sources about it in the Anal sex article show that it is a real thing. The sources I included above show that psychological factors preventing enjoyment of sex is a real thing. Why you cannot grasp that some people do not enjoy sex or certain sexual acts due to psychological factors is beyond me. But scholars state that it is a real thing. They don't say "if someone feels pain during anal sex, it may just be in their mind." They state that some people feel pain during anal sex partly, primarily or completely due to psychological factors, and they have concluded this after extensively evaluating these people. They didn't trick these people into thinking that they have psychological hangups. Your main problem is that you clearly don't know how to defer to facts and reliable sources. And like I told Johnuniq, who hasn't yet replied to my response about his "OMG" comment, no doubt because I proved my point with a reliable source, "the pain part is not a POV issue, and I can't see any POV issue in the article, seeing as, in my opinion, it notes aspects of anal sex neutrally, such as mentioning why people may or may not like anal sex. Pain from anal sex sometimes being due to psychological factors is discussed in the references citing such pain. As I told TyrS, pain from anal sex is sometimes partly due to psychological factors or completely due to it, similar to dyspareunia in men or women (though dyspareunia is more common in women), and dyspareunia is mentioned in at least two of the sources about anal sex pain included in the article; this source being one of them. See the Male to male section (Anal sex); at least two of the sources don't only speak of this anal sex pain in men, and there are more on either Google Books or Google Scholar."


 * So, yes, if I wanted to add information about some people not engaging in oral sex due to psychological factors, which is largely due to social factors, to this article, I could do so with valid sources and there's no policy-based or guideline-based page argument you could use to block that. Apologism does not apply here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Like I said before, Flyer22, other editors are needed regarding this POV issue (or these POV issues). (And quite honestly, I just don't have time to read another lengthy post where I'm told how "wrong" my opinion is.) There is simply a perspective problem that is obviously not going to be resolved by anything I might say at this point. (And again, I stand by my edit and until other perspectives are obtained on this that won't change.)-- Ty rS  19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Other perspectives are not needed for me to include information about this in this article if I wanted, per what I stated above. It's as simple as that, really. You've been told that you are wrong each time we have disputed something because you have been wrong, as shown by a policy or guideline or WP:Consensus being against you in two cases where we opened our disputes to the wider Wikipedia community. Consensus being against a person obviously does not always mean that the opposing person is wrong, but the consensus in those cases are based on the way Wikipedia works/is allowed to work. Do I object to your removal of the above debated line/source? No, because, besides being backed to one source (though backing such a statement to one source is fine, depending on the quality of the source), the source is a poor choice. Flyer22 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, there goes the benefit of LeadSongDog's advice about commenting on edits rather than on editors. How unfortunate.


 * Flyer22, trust me, you've made it more than clear that you think every major or minor change I propose is automatically wrong, and that other editors who make similar if not identical comments to mine, or who otherwise don't agree with you, are also wrong (per your lengthy, argumentative replies to Jack Sebastian and Johnuniq - which you repeat to me yet again above - when they didn't agree with you on NOTHOW and POV recently. Please see WP:BLUD). I understand that that is what you think. Your repetitions & re-postings of your own words are simply a waste of your time (and mine, if I choose to log in and read them, and as I've said, my time for volunteer editing is limited. It may help if you try to think about how deeply you might be personally invested in being - or trying to appear - "right". If you attempt to focus on edits rather than on other editors them you might find you create less drama.)-- Ty rS  01:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Please also note WP:SOAP. As stated at the top of this page, "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject". You'll find that editors who are detached and objective (1) want to discuss what material is chosen and how it is presented, rather than the subject itself, and (2) simply don't have the time or interest in reading through tangential, emotionally-charged lectures on the article's subject.-- Ty rS  02:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is commenting on your edits to state that your edits have generally been wrong. I haven't considered all of your edits that I know of to be wrong, since we have compromised a few times. But you generally bring your own policies and guidelines with your editing. For some reason, you can't see that. When editors echo your sentiments that are wrong, then, yes, those editors are also wrong. Refer back to what I stated about WP:Consensus and why WP:Consensus was against you in both of our biggest disputes. Johnuniq agreed with me that there was not a how-to violation. From what I can see, he made the POV comment without understanding that some people do not like sex or certain sexual acts partly, primarily or completely due to psychological factors. I made my argument, showing why this is a fact and not some personal POV by a single author by pointing to the Dyspareunia article and reliable sources. That is the difference between you and I. When it comes to Wikipedia articles, I back my arguments by using the policies and guidelines correctly and by referring to sources. You, by contrast, rely on opinion. Jack Sebastian, in my view, did not state that the original wording at the Anal sex article was a how-to violation. My original RfC question, to which Jack responded, was "Is it a how-to violation/unencyclopedic to explicitly state sex precautions?" In my opinion, Jack took "explicitly" to mean "a how-to manual on the subject." That is why I changed "explicitly" to "clearly," and, as you can see, no one else even came close to agreeing with you after that. If Jack does feel that the original wording was a how-to violation, something I asked him to clarify himself on by considering whether or not it is truly a how-to violation to mention the lubrication factor, then he is wrong. He is wrong for the reasons that all of the other editors, not just myself, stated. My replies to Johnuniq and Jack were not lengthy, nor too argumentative, and I don't have a problem admitting when I'm wrong, but it's obviously a difficult thing for you to admit. There are a lot of editors at this site who know that I can see when I am in error. In both of our biggest disputes, I and others could/can clearly see that I was not/am not in error. And it's funny that you mention "[my] various repetitions," when the same can be stated of you (and has been stated of you by another editor at the Anal sex talk page). I vaguely mentioned our disputes when initially commenting on your removal above. You are the one who brought the Anal sex debate to yet another talk page. You speak of a waste of time and yet you keep responding, keep repeating yourself, keep refusing to even try to see that you are wrong. You are the one who needs to step back and think deeply about why I and other editors have stated that you are wrong, really try to understand it. That would create less drama for you. From what I have seen of your editing, you are personally invested just about any time you edit on this site, asserting your beliefs about what we may be conveying to readers...with those beliefs never being supported by Wikipedia policies or guidelines. You repeatedly misinterpret and misuse those policies and guidelines and let your personal feelings about subjects get in the way of your editing. So to try to turn that around on me is, well... It's not me. I don't need any of your advice, and can certainly do without your condescending, patronizing remarks. If you are done here, then stop replying to me. Unless, of course, you want the last word. Flyer22 (talk) 02:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Coming here from 3O. I see a few issues here with the material. For one, it is included in the lede despite there being no detailed mention of this information anywhere in the article body. Another issue I have with it is that the wording is not very informative and actually kind of redundant. People abstain from all sorts of sex acts for all sorts of reasons, some even abstaining from all sex acts, so this material does not appear to add anything to the article. What I would want to see is some explanation of the psychological and social perceptions of fellatio in the modern era. Once there is some more detailed material in the article body then a more informative summary of that material can be provided in the lede. Until then, I would say it should be left out.--The Devil&#39;s Advocate (talk) 17:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, things being in the lead but not being covered elsewhere in the article is why I moved the virginity information to the lower body and stated what I stated while moving it. As for the line that was removed, I stated that I wasn't arguing for it to be returned. I was only arguing that people not engaging in fellatio due to social/psychological factors is relevant to this topic. As can be seen, I've gone over why above. If I'd added the material, it would have been lower in the article and would have touched on the things you mentioned, which is what I did with the "not all lesbians have oral sex" information that I added to the Oral sex article. With regard to the Fellatio article, Scheinwerfermann restored the debated line, so it would be good to know what Scheinwerfermann thinks about the best way to include it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Concur with The Devil&#39;s Advocate-- Ty rS  11:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The Devil's Advocate is arguing for inclusion if included with "some explanation of the psychological and social perceptions of fellatio in the modern era." That is different than what you've been arguing for, but is in line with my argument. But I'm not interested in this text being in this article anyway, seeing as it's covered in the main Oral sex article. I may add it to this article one day, but I'm not concerned with it at this time. Flyer22 (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should've been more specific. I concur with The Devil's Advocate when s/he writes: "the wording is not very informative and actually kind of redundant. People abstain from all sorts of sex acts for all sorts of reasons, some even abstaining from all sex acts, so this material does not appear to add anything to the article."-- Ty rS  05:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Either way, The Devil's Advocate was clear about how this information would be very informative and less redundant. I don't consider mentioning why people may or may not participate in certain sexual acts to be redundant anyway. Such things are often discussed in relation to sexual activity. Cultural views on sexuality/sexual activity are supposed to be in our articles about sexuality/sexual activity, and why people may or may not engage in certain sexual acts is of course intricately intertwined with that. If we didn't include information because it's obvious that not everyone partakes in/likes the same things, we wouldn't really be an encyclopedia. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There seem to be more than one way to read TDA's post.
 * As I read it, TDA's post does not particularly support including the sentence in question. Asking for "some explanation of the psychological and social perceptions of fellatio in the modern era" doesn't sound (to me) like support for a sentence stating that non-performance of fellatio is about inhibitions.
 * It seems to me (and TDA argued the same thing above) that speculations as to why people may or may not engage in whatever activity is a not particularly relevant tangent.-- Ty rS  07:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Devil's Advocate stated that the line you removed does not appear to add anything to the article. He then went on to state, "What I would want to see is some explanation of the psychological and social perceptions of fellatio in the modern era. Once there is some more detailed material in the article body then a more informative summary of that material can be provided in the lede. Until then, I would say it should be left out.," which very clearly implies that what he outlined would add something to the article/be relevant. In fact, "What I would want to see" and "Until then, I would say it should be left out." is more than just implying; it's him stating that he otherwise does not object to the material being included. You can always ask The Devil's Advocate to weigh in again. But whether he feels that such information should be in this article or not does not determine what should or shouldn't go in this article, seeing as such information is allowable per our policies and guidelines, as made clear by The Devil's Advocate's comment. I highly doubt that most of our editors would agree that "explanation of the psychological and social perceptions of fellatio" should not go in the Fellatio article, but if you want to continue to try to ensure that this material is never added to this article, you can always ask the Wikipedia community (as in more than one editor) to weigh in. And it shouldn't be about whether or not the line you removed should be included. That's been settled, and there are editors who would no doubt state something similar to what The Devil's Advocate's stated about its vagueness. It should be specifically about whether or not cultural views on fellatio -- in this case, explanation of the psychological and social perceptions of fellatio -- should be included in this article. But I repeat: "Cultural views on sexuality/sexual activity are supposed to be in our articles about sexuality/sexual activity." And why people do or don't partake in oral sex, whether it's fellatio, cunnilingus, or anilingus, is a cultural view. You disagree with this information being in this article. Yes, I know. But The Devil's Advocate was clear about how inclusion of this information would be acceptable. Flyer22 (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, including this material is no different than including the virginity material, which, yes, should be in this article because so many people use oral sex as a means of safe sex or to preserve their virginity. Scholars are always talking about this topic, and how damaging such beliefs can be, especially on girls. So scholars most definitely do not consider why people partake in certain sexual acts to be "not particularly relevant." Whenever I read scholarly texts about sexual activity, which is often, why people do or don't engage in sexual intercourse or certain sexual acts is almost always discussed. That's how relevant such material is. Flyer22 (talk) 08:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Ingestion of semen section is yet another example of why people may or may not engage in fellatio. One cannot talk about cultural views on oral sex (whatever kind it may be) without talking about why people do or don't engage in it. Flyer22 (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have never disagreed that an "explanation of psychological and social perceptions of" [article topic] should be in an article.
 * The issue here is around whether or not The Devil's Advocate has supported the inclusion of a claim that "people who don't perform fellatio are inhibited". We have agreed that the previous reference for this claim was far from being scholarly or reliable, and I continue to concur with TDA (the only other editor who has so far weighed in here) that the wording was uninformative and redundant.
 * I'm curious - where in TDA's post do you see a statement that the sentence is vague? I don't see it saying that at all. Perhaps if one equates "some explanation of the psychological and social perceptions of fellatio in the modern era" and/or "more detailed material" with "people who don't perform fellatio are inhibited" (though TDA recommended against that wording anyway) and the choice to equate those things seems a rather peculiar one.
 * A statement that opines "people who don't perform fellatio are inhibited" is very unlikely to occur in a reliable, scholarly source (and I couldn't - as described below - even find anything supporting that statement in the unreliable reference previously attached to the sentence) since scholarly articles generally avoid redundant, uninformative, pejorative and otherwise subjective-sounding language, as should we.
 * -- Ty rS  08:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You stated that you "have never disagreed that an 'explanation of psychological and social perceptions of' [article topic] should be in an article," but you did. Because including information about why people may or may not engage in oral sex is about "explanation of psychological and social perceptions," which is why The Devil's Advocate mentioned it. And I see a statement in The Devil's Advocate's comment that the sentence is vague when he says it's "not very informative." And, let's be clear: The debated sentence did not state that "people who don't perform fellatio are inhibited." It stated/states "Some people have negative feelings or sexual inhibitions about giving or receiving oral sex, and may refuse to do so." Yes, scholarly sources do state that, as I showed above with the scholarly information about why some lesbians don't engage in oral sex, as well as similar topics such as dyspareunia and anal sex pain. "Sexual inhibition" is not a "redundant, uninformative, pejorative" term to scholars in the least, as shown on Google Books and on Google Scholar. But I wasn't arguing for including that term. As has been stated more than once, I was/am arguing that including why people do or don't engage in oral sex, in this case fellatio, is relevant to this article. There's no getting around that it is. If engaging or not engaging in fellatio due to the reasons mentioned in the Cultural significance section and its subsections gets to be included, then so does "some people hav[ing] negative feelings or sexual inhibitions about giving or receiving oral sex," whether we use the term "sexual inhibitions" or not. Flyer22 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we've seen before that our interpretations of other editor's posts differ.
 * Actually, I did not disagree that explanations should be included: "negative feelings" and "inhibited" do not, in a comprehensive, encyclopedic, informative way, in my opinion (and also that of The Devil's Advocate, judging from his post) explain the many, many reasons (and this is partly based on common sense) why someone might not engage in a certain activity.
 * We are probably not getting anywhere or going to get anywhere with this discussion, so I'll leave it to you to continue if you feel so moved. We are probably best off agreeing to disagree because this is kind of wasting a fair bit of time, don't you think? -- Ty rS  10:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My point has been that explanations about why people may or may not engage in oral sex of any kind cannot be mentioned without mentioning negative feelings regarding the subject, as shown in the Oral sex article. It's not as though only positive feelings exist about oral sex. People not engaging in oral sex due to negative feelings about it -- being taught that the genitals are dirty/cultural taboo, etc. -- is comprehensive, encyclopedic and informative if included in a comprehensive, encyclopedic and informative way. It seems that you are stating that simply using the words "negative feelings" and "sexual inhibitions" is not sufficient, and I agree with that. But I was never arguing for simply using those terms and leaving it at that, although the lead would need to summarize the topic in such a way (though, I agree, not exactly like that)...since it's only supposed to be a summary. I was basically stating that I cannot agree to not including any information on why people may or may not engage in fellatio. And if you look back at your comments on this topic, you should see that you were indeed stating that this material is not too relevant and/or shouldn't be included because there are a lot of things people don't like to do or refuse to do. I countered by stating how such factors are always very relevant to the topic of sexuality/sexual activity. But, yes, I agree to disagree. The debated line matter is already settled. Flyer22 (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps part of the problem is that "this material" that I've said is redundant, etc, specifically refers to the sentence as written and quoted. I haven't wanted to (indeed, haven't had time to) get involved in lengthy discussions of the subject in general rather than the article itself. I don't think I objected to (well-sourced, encyclopedically worded, comprehensive, balanced-sounding) information that explains social/psychological attitudes being included. I'll admit that I had to skim through some of your posts that went into more general discussion of the subject, possibly miscommunication occurred as a result of that.-- Ty rS  10:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Then we've agreed on something at least. Flyer22 (talk) 10:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a few more queries (and I am simply seeking information here), for anyone who can answer them, about this sentence.
 * 1) Is 'The Book of the Penis' by Maggie Paley really a reliable source? (The author is a playwright and contributor of articles to fashion magazines.)
 * 2) Assuming the book/M. Paley/Grove Publishing is/are considered relable source/s on the subject of fellatio (if not, the following doesn't matter) just concerning the wording of the sentence, some searches through the book here didn't come up with any results for several variations each of "refuse", "refusal", "inhibit" or "negative feeling". I suppose this could possibly be for technical reasons to do with the search engine, but if not I'm just wondering if it the sentence is a paraphrasing of certain pages and if so, which ones?
 * Thanks. -- Ty rS  04:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I stated above that the source is a poor choice. I don't have anything more to state about it than that. If anyone else does, I am of course as open as TyrS to you weighing in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 06:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

“of a male's penis”?! What about a female's penis then?
Take the headline satirically, Colleagues. When you're saying “oral stimulation of a penis,” there's no need to specify that the said penis belongs to a male: the penis is the male genitalia. You know, I won't even go into gender disorders and how some people are born with genitals that mismatch their gender or mismatch their sex. Also, the “by a sexual partner” part is quit incompetent in the context of autofellatio, nicht wahr?—both phrases are out of place—but meh, I'll drop the charges this time. Finally, you might want to consider that in scientific terminology the one who's performing the fellatio is classified as the receptive party, contrary to informal usage. EIN (talk) 08:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The male penis aspect was also brought up at Talk:Human penis. Read that discussion for why we refer to the penis as male anatomy. Basically, it's what all sources call the penis. And even in the case of people who are transgender, the gender identity disorder you speak of, or those who are intersex, it's still considered a male sex organ by those individuals. For example, this is why someone who is physically male (was assigned male at birth) but identifies as female usually feels very uncomfortable in the body she was born in -- because it is indeed a male body. Sex reassignment surgery of course exists for this reason -- to bring the body in harmony with the gender identity. Other transwomen never get sex reassignment surgery, but they never consider the penis to be "not a penis." However, since "male's penis" is redundant, in addition to the fact that a person with a penis may not identify as male (saying "male's penis" is different than saying "male sex organ"), and since autofellatio is also possible, I tweaked the lead to your desired changes. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * All very true. Thank you for your consideration of my suggestion. The discussion you cited is another examples of the weknesses of Wikipedia policy, apart from the one I mentioned a few minutes ago. You know, this is not about political correctness; this is about factual correctness. EIN (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Very nice

 * [[File:Blowjob.jpg]] --Uwe Uhse (talk) 04:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 March 2013
The current picture in the top-right of this page could be considered pornographic ( photograph of a real woman performing fellatio... a drawing may be fine). You may want to display and age warning, or at least modify the picture.

68.37.23.4 (talk) 14:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See WP:NOTCENSORED RudolfRed (talk) 03:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Can't help but notice that despite the above, someone has replaced the image with a colour line drawing. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Balance of images heterocentric
There are a number of images in this article of fellatio, all but one of them showing women fellating men, and the one exception being an ancient illustration where the gender of the "giver" is rather vague. Of course, this sexual act is commonly performed by men who have sex with men as well, and at least one illustration here should clearly show that. Unfortunately, looking at Commons, I see that there's a strong lack of m/m sexual act illustrations, and mostly of low quality. However, I think the content of illustrations should be made more balanced in this article as suitable images become available. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The article also does not address the difference in attitudes between heterosexuals and homosexuals to oral sex. Whilst it may be considered a particularly intimate act in a heterosexual relationship, it is quite common in causal homosexual relationships. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Citation Needed
We need citation for "In some cultures, such as the Manchu, Telugu, and in rural areas of Cambodia and Thailand, kissing or briefly taking the penis of a male infant or toddler into one's mouth is considered a nonsexual form of affection or even a form of greeting." จิตร (talk) 20:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's sourced with three sources at the end of the "Such practices generally decline with urbanization or Westernization." line.


 * And remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: . I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

It is not quite true that fellatio never results in pregnancy.
Ectopic pregnancies can be induced by oral sex. As shown in this article. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/teen-girl-vagina-pregnant-sperm-survival-oral-sex/story?id=9732562#.UZ6YxrWsiSo 128.232.249.94 (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you get that from the Oral sex article, where it's currently used as a note? Either way, the Fellatio article currently says, "Fellatio alone cannot result in pregnancy, as there is no way for ingested sperm from the penis to enter the uterus and fallopian tubes to fertilize an egg. In humans, there is no connection between the gastrointestinal system and the reproductive tract." With the exception of the unusual circumstance mentioned in the source you cited above, that's true. Fellatio led to pregnancy in that case (what the source above mentions), but fellatio did not cause the pregnancy; by that, I obviously mean that the sperm didn't reach the uterus through fellatio by a natural or normal circumstance. Flyer22 (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

good source needed!
" People may also have negative feelings or sexual inhibitions about giving or receiving oral sex, or may refuse to engage in it."

Is this really true? This is an outrageous statement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.114.223 (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course it's true. And it's not outrageous at all, except to some people who love oral sex and/or don't think negatively of it. How is it that you are unaware that many people have negative feelings/sexual inhibitions about giving or receiving oral sex, especially given that sex organs, female genitalia in particular, are commonly thought of as dirty? That statement is clearly sourced, and to a definite good source. Flyer22 (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference #39 is false.
Hello, i'm new to editing wikipedia articles, can anyone please edit the text with the reference #39? as the text is misleading and incorrect and the reference is an article that does not support the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.33.120.138 (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)


 * How is it wrong and what would you suggest it say? The article says that many teens do not consider oral sex to be sex thus allowing them to consider themselves abstinent and/or virgins despite engaging in oral sex.  That is what the reference cited says.  So what are you disagreeing with?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filmteknik (talk • contribs) 01:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


 * , as shown above, the IP made that comment on September 2, 2013; the Wikipedia Fellatio article has changed since then. What that IP meant by reference 39 at that time, before my edits on September 3, 2013, is shown here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Why not a photo?
Why don't we include a photo in the article? I'd suggest including this photo or another similar. It's educational as it shows the actual act. A drawing isn't the actual act, it's a depiction of the act so it's not the reality. Many other articles have photos but this one doesn't. Cogiati (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, Cogiati. I told you why when I reverted you. Like I stated elsewhere on Wikipedia: I don't see how your image, simply because it's of the real-life act, illustrates the subject better. The image that is currently up there as the lead image is pretty life-like and illustrates the topic very well. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a valid reason to change a perfectly adequate image. There is WP:GRATUITOUS to consider. Many of our readers take more offense to images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts than of images of these types that have been drawn. And if we can minimize such offense with an alternative image that adequately conveys the same message, we should. Like WP:GRATUITOUS states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in this article; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images. Our readers more readily state or shout "That's porn!" or something about the article not being encyclopedic or detracting from its encyclopedic value more so when it's a real-life sex image being shown instead of a drawn one, though they make a fuss over some of the drawn ones as well (especially the ones by Seedfeeder, such as the lead image we are currently debating). And there is a valid point that using a real-life image to illustrate a sex act distracts from the text and makes the article feel pornographic and less encyclopedic; there is no need for that when an equally suitable alternative is available. As for your assertion that "Many other articles have photos but this one doesn't.", Seedfeeder's images have helped clean up matters concerning the many complaints and much WP:Edit warring that have gone on at Wikipedia over images of sex acts, and it's now standard practice to use a drawing of a sex act instead of an image of a real-life sex act. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The Pearl necklace (sexuality) uses both a photo and a drawing. The fellatio article has photographic pictures of bats, but apparently humans are taboo in fellatio photos. I feel that using drawings instead of photos originates in cultural factors regarding fellatio as inappropriate, but our encyclopedia is for the whole world so we shouldn't let cultural factors prevent the inclusion of fellatio photos, even if drawings are available too. As I said, the drawing doesn't show the actual act, it shows the artist's interpretation of the concept of the act. Only a photograph can show the reality and readers must get informed about the reality rather than what's inside artists' minds. Cogiati (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Cogiati, I understand what you mean (generally). But I am also thinking about our readers. Therefore, your WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS Pearl necklace (sexuality) argument is not a convincing argument for me to believe that including a redundant, yet more offensive image is a reason for us to forgo WP:GRATUITOUS in the aforementioned case regarding the Fellatio article. There is nothing that your image conveys that the drawing does not convey, except for a bit of the head of the penis (if that is a bit of the head that is shown and not simply the circumcision scar) and different non-sexual scenery. Like I noted above, it's not just this Fellatio article that WP:GRATUITOUS is applied to. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Besides, there is some suspicion that Seedfeeder's images are of real people; some people consider his images so life-like that they have suggested that he traces lines over porn to create the images, as seen in this accusation. But whatever the case on that, his images on Wikipedia are commonly substituted for images of real-life sex acts, and, like I noted, that factor has substantially improved matters on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:GRATUITOUS cover the argument. If an illustration clearly conveys the information needed and supports the article content, as the current lead image does, a photograph is simply not necessary.    04:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Another issue concerns the encyclopedic value of a picture. An image may have value if it is described in a reliable secondary source, but photos staged by unknown people ("Elmo H. Love"—yeah, right) do not necessarily illustrate anything more than fantasy. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Is Queen Victoria still on the throne ? "We always do it this way because it causes less fuss" is no answer to the argument that prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * If we call it "puritan nonsense," it happens to be vast "puritan nonsense." From what I have studied with regard to sexual topics (and it happens to be a lot), the reaction to sexual imagery as offensive and/or distracting, except in situations deemed appropriate by whatever means, is the prevailing reaction (meaning it prevails over "Oh, I'm fine with that."). Since I've been at this site (which is since 2007), I've witnessed "That's porn!" and "That detracts/distracts from the article." type of arguments from various walks of life, including on Jimbo Wales's Wikipedia user talk page; those arguments exist whether it's a drawing, painting, some form of digital art or a photograph, but they are far more prevalent when it is a photograph (as in a real-life image). Our readers have consistently stated that they cannot enjoy the article as much, or take the article as seriously, with such images. To them, it is simply porn. So we might as well make it less pornographic to them; this approach has been working well, as editors such as Herostratus can attest to, and I see no valid reason to disrupt that. The aforementioned picture of semen on a woman's neck in the Pearl necklace (sexuality) article is not the same as sexual imagery of two connected bodies. Furthermore, I don't see how that semen image is necessary (the semen hardly looks any different than it does in the drawing), much like I don't see how this real-life photograph of fellatio is necessary. Manual of Style/Images and WP:GRATUITOUS tell us what to do in the case of an image that is likely to be offensive, whether we should use that one or an "equally suitable alternative." WP:GRATUITOUS is the answer to "prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense," and it is quite valid; it exists partly for that reason. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The actual answer to this is rather more surprising. It turns out that Elliot Rodger, who recently went on a stabbing and shooting spree in Isla Vista lately that left six dead, started a successful drive with his account (User:ElliotR1, who began by editing his father's article, and is the precise account name used by Rodger on OKcupid) to remove the image on February 20 2013 with this edit. After threats and then the reality of a block to his account for trying to do the same sort of removal five times at footjob, ElliotR1 disappeared from the scene, but an IP filed an edit request on March 2 2013 for the same action. This was rejected by two other editors in that talk section; nonetheless, User:Iamcuriousblue (who is definitely not Elliot) removed the image and replaced it with the diagram in an edit that alleged that File:Fellatio.jpg is a copyright violation on February 16. However, that file remains on the server with a valid Flickrbot confirmation of a free license. I think it is time for a renewed thrust toward freedom of speech here; besides, who can resist a chance to edit war with a famous psychopath? Wnt (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The involvement of the killer in this matter is irrelevant and should be disregarded. I think that Flyer22 has accurately summarized past consensus, and I have no interest in going to battle about this issue. But I do want to go on record here as supporting inclusion of tasteful neutral photographs of human sexual acts. Any concerns about consent can be addressed. If Dorling Kindersley can publish scrupulously neutral photos of human beings engaging in sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio and other sex acts, then Wikipedia should be able to do so as well. And if one of our young readers comes to our articles with a desire to learn more about these topics, we should illustrate that photographically. We include photos of Abraham Lincoln, not just drawings and paintings. The same should apply here.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  06:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the killer aspect is irrelevant, whether removed by Elliot Rodger or not. And while I don't see depicting sex acts as anywhere close to the same as depicting historical figures, especially per everything I stated above about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS, I appreciate Cullen328 weighing in on this matter. I hardly have anything more to state on the topic, except that I strongly support the aforementioned guidelines and don't think that WP:NOTCENSORED is the only or main thing that should factor into image additions. Flyer22 (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Since the image that Wnt added is providing an aspect of fellatio that the drawings in the article don't (clearly showing the head of the penis/up-close and light fellatio of the head) and is placed lower in the article (seemingly in an appropriate section for the image) instead of in the lead, I don't much object to its inclusion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

herbs and fruits sweetening semen
I put a citation needed tag on this section because I don't readily have access to April 2006 Playgirl, from which Yahoo Answers said it originated. It would be good for someone to look over the article and make sure our section accurately represents it, including proper attribution. I don't know if it reviews any "ethnobotanical data" from a wider community or if it is just a single person's report with no background, and our section should be sure to represent that accurately.

I know that to some this may seem too silly to think about, but nothing in biology is ever too silly to look at! I can't put this in the article, but note that somehow this woman came up with herbs - cinnamon, parsley - which were traditionally used as treatments for diabetes, and is using them to increase the loss of sugar from the body. I don't know if they cause sugar to be lost in other places in more significant amounts. I suspect this might actually be a useful lead for those who care to look into it. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion re "blowjob" redirect
There is a discussion that may be of interest to watchers of this page at Talk:Blowjob. Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

'Either gender' really should be changed to 'any gender'.
Let's move the language with the times: genderqueer people are a thing.

(See the page on the gender binary.) 128.232.249.94 (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Agree Cogiati (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree 602p (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also ok this page totally focuses on male receivers of oral sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilykind (talk • contribs) 05:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? You think there is not enough focus on the givers? If so, I don't see that when I look at/read the article. You have an issue with the images? If it's the images and a claim of heterosexism, see Talk:Fellatio/Archive 2. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * With this edit, I changed "male and females" to "participants" in the lead and added an image of male-male fellatio; I did this because of the genderqueer concerns above, because "participants" is used in the General subsection of the Practice section lower in the article, and because of the previous point that we should have somewhat of a decent image of two men engaging in fellatio in the article. But regarding gender wording, like I also noted with this followup WP:Dummy edit, we should be going by what the sources state in the vast majority of cases. The vast majority of sources on fellatio do not give the genderqueer aspect any space, and the vast majority of people do not identify as genderqueer; so WP:Due weight comes into play here. We won't be banning the use of gender-specific terms from the Fellatio article. A lot of sources on fellatio are gender-specific when speaking of the act, especially since fellatio is about performing oral sex on a male (or on a penis, in the case of a person who does not identify as a male), and teenage boys and men and teenage girls and women have different reactions to/views on fellatio. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * , I'm pinging you now via WP:Echo so that you know that I've replied above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Remove obscenities
The man sucking the other guy off needs to be removed. Its obscene and vulgar.Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.98.169.236 (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Out of all of the images currently in the article, you focus on the same-sex one, which doesn't even clearly show the act of fellatio because of the shadows? Out of all the human fellatio images in the article, that one is the less offensive one...except for in the cases of those who find homosexuality offensive no matter what. It also abides by Manual of Style/Images and WP:GRATUITOUS, when compared to other real-life male-male fellatio images on WP:Commons. If we had a painting or computer-generated image of male-male fellatio, like we have of male-female fellatio, we would likely use that image per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS, since it would likely be the less offensive "equally suitable alternative." Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * As seen with this edit (followup note here), I reverted Vranak's removal of the male-male fellatio image. Vranak called the image "a bit much altogether." Vranak, given what I stated to the IP above in this section, how is the image, which is not as explicit as the other images of human fellatio in the article, "a bit much altogether"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * And for why I included a male-male image, see the section above, which notes the Talk:Fellatio/Archive 2 discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You've gotta rememeber that this is an encyclopedia, not a risque book to put on your coffee table, and it's certainly not a porn site. It's a little explicit. Hand-drawn illustrations tone it down enough to keep things palatable. Moreover, let's remember that heteronormative is a thing because, all issues of politics aside, heterosexuality is the norm. Vranak (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Vranak (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), if I didn't remember that "this is an encyclopedia, not a risque book to put on [my] coffee table, and it's certainly not a porn site.", then I would not have mentioned Manual of Style/Images and WP:GRATUITOUS. I also would not have made the comments I made in the section above. Or the comments I made in the Gawker interview noted on Seedfeeder's talk page; he now has a Wikipedia article, by the way. To preach to me about readers interpreting images as pornographic and that "[h]and-drawn illustrations tone it down enough to keep things palatable" is preaching to the wrong person. That stated, your objection to the male-male image at hand is an objection I disagree with; the image doesn't look doesn't pornographic to me, and it barely even shows the fellatio, which is exactly why I chose it. Preaching to me about heteronormativity is also wasted on me, as is clear from my user page. As noted there on my user page, engaging in WP:Advocacy is not my thing; using WP:Due weight appropriately is.


 * Since Iamcuriousblue is the one who started the "Balance of images heterocentric" section, I am WP:Pinging him to this discussion. Also, if WP:Consensus is to remove the male-male image, I will follow that WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I totally agree with the original comment by Flyer22. The image is extremely gross.  Why must Wikipedia become a porn site?  174.1.101.144 (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * By my "original comment," you mean what I stated in the "Why not a photo?" section above? Or are you confusing me with a different editor? Also, how is the real-life image more gross than the drawn lead (introductory) image that clearly shows the act? Furthermore, you have a history of opposing same-sex sexual imagery; see this link. And as that link shows, you are opposing a painting in that case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my mistake. I totally agree with the original comment by 101.98.169.236 who said that the extremely obscene picture of this sex act should be removed. 174.1.101.144 (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:See also, and "cocksucker" in the lead
, because I've reverted you twice now on the WP:See also matter, as seen here and here, I started this section. I would have started it on your talk page, but, if you are going to WP:Edit war over this, the discussion is better served here. That link does not need to be in the See also section; this is because it is already in the Practice section of the article. Read what WP:See also states about including links that are already in the article. And as for "cocksucker" being in the lead, it does not belong there; this is per these two edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Not least because Fellatio is the act: cocksucker is the person who performs the act: related but not the same thing. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I thought that I didn't make changes (assuming that I did only "edit", "preview" but not pressing "save changes"). Sorry, should've look at the "edit history". I tend to forget my very past edits.Joeleoj123 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove the Taste and odor section
The first sentence is based on opinion not facts, and the wording is very heteronormative. The rest of the section is unsourced and I am not sure it has encyclopedic value. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 02:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Fellatio can lead to pregnancy!
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Wellness/teen-girl-vagina-pregnant-sperm-survival-oral-sex/story?id=9732562 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.135.210.40 (talk • contribs)


 * You are linking to the bizarre story that is currently linked at the Oral sex article. Fellatio was not the cause of the pregnancy. If a couple starts kissing and the kissing escalates to sexual activity (yes, I know kissing can be sexual too) that results in the conception of a baby, then one could argue that the kissing led to pregnancy. The point is that fellatio does not cause pregnancy because the throat, and where the sperm may go after that point, is not a reproductive tract. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Weasel-ish words
So, under "pregnancy and seen exposure", there is a sentence starting with "It is suggested that fellatio may, through "immune modulation"..." There is a source cited for this; however, the wording ("It is suggested") reduces the credibility of the statement. I'd suggest replacing this with " found that..." or "according to " Shamalamadingdomg (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If we look at WP:Weasel words, "Research has found" type of wording might be weasel wording. On the other hand, "It is suggested" can lead people to add Template:By whom. I went ahead and added "Some research suggests." I don't see what wording, other than using "some" or "It is suggested," would be better without making it seem like this research is fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I fixed it more. However, by the fourth paragraph I think this section really goes out the window. The third paragraph is pushing the weasel-boundaries already, but the fourth one is just totally beyond salvation. It makes declarative vague statements, it isn't written clearly... At best it is stuff that belongs on pre-eclampsia at worst it is nonsense. I'm going to chop that paragraph out entirely; this is an article on blowjobs not immunological response disorders. Jasphetamine (talk) 14:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * This edit you made has issues in that, if the sources do not specify what the "several agents" are, there is nothing we can do but state "several agents." And "may" is not a weasel word. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:21, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You are correct Flyer22 Reborn, "may" is not a weasel word and I have no issues with the changes you made, thanks. I was still bothered to hell by the "several agents" thing so I found that it is referring to TGF beta 1 and hastily threw that in there. I'm not sure if more should be written in this article about why that is significant, or leave that to the specific articles and just worry about the basic relationship between pre-eclampsia, TGF-β1, and blowjobs? Advice appreciated. Jasphetamine (talk) 03:43, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Fellatio. 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
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110907050114/http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/Joepages/The%20Sambia.htm to http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/Joepages/The%20Sambia.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100313043325/http://www.kamashastra.com/kama209.htm to http://www.kamashastra.com/kama209.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) 21:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Can we remove the first image?
It's a nice illustration, but it isn't needed due to the other image on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rainythunderstorm (talk • contribs) 11:59, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No, there is no reason to remove it. 78.94.53.130 (talk) 12:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Change of the term "receptive" in "receptive partner."
"...may lead to orgasm for the receptive partner."

IMO this could be made more clear. With intercourse, the one being penetrated is the receptive partner. Yet here, we're referring to the one penetrating his partner's mouth as the receptive partner (the one receiving oral sex).

...may lead to orgasm for the one being fellated? I'm not attached to whatever is chosen as long as it's more clear than what's currently there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7466:DA00:6C06:CC9D:5404:A3E1 (talk) 08:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * In this case, "receptive partner" was supposed to be referring to the one who is being fellated. I've changed it to "receiving partner" (which is what it may have stated before; I'd have to check the edit history to see). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * If "receiving partner" is considered an issue because of an interpretation that it means the one receiving the penis in the mouth, we can change it again. But I trust that readers will know that we mean the one receiving fellatio. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fellatio. 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/20100324080602/http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=Islamonline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503543892 to http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaE&cid=1119503543892
 * Added tag to http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=%2F2009%2F3%2F1%2Ffocus%2F3375398&sec=focus

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) 15:28, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why do the women not seem to be really really enjoying it?
It doesn't seem realistic to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk • contribs)


 * Because that's NOT enjoyable! That simple it is. This practise is degrading for the female and the picture depicting the same should be removed from the lede.A Radical Feminist (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Enjoyment is a very subjective thing. You are not the arbiter of either what is considered degrading or enjoyable to others. There is nothing that a man likes sexually that if his woman won't do it for him another man (if not another woman) gladly will. So, I must ask:  Is cunnilingus degrading for the male as well? - JGabbard (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Sigh... Try reading Intercourse (book). All penetrative sex is coercive and degrading. Cunnlingus is not penetrative. A Radical Feminist (talk) 16:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Sigh..." IdreamofJeanie (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * No one who has ever experienced it properly done would say that. You also need to learn to spell it. And your coercion assertion is patently absurd because it ignores both fetishism and reality itself. Also, Dworkin's assertion that heterosexual intercourse is degrading to women while receptive homosexual intercourse is not is inconsistent. - JGabbard (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "No one who has ever experienced it properly done would say that" speak for yourself! I was forced to perform fellatio on a much older boy as a teenager after a party while intoxicated. Not enjoyable at all.A Radical Feminist (talk) 18:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * By my ambiguous "it," I referred not to fellatio, but to cunnilingus.-JGabbard (talk) 18:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's utterly disgusting that someone forced you into doing this - but the key word is 'forced'. Your justifiable anger at a forced act does not mean it cannot be enjoyable as a consensual one. Smurfmeister (talk) 15:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

taste and odor
Should this section exist? It doesn't have medical citations to back its claims and refers specifically to swallowing semen which isn't a necessary component of fellatio. Also, the quote "It may be that 'few women praise the taste' of semen" adds nothing and doesn't take into account males who perform fellatio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.171.81 (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Potentially useful source
Motherboard: Not entirely serious report on a commissioned research study analyzing blowjobs for the purpose of training a sex toy using AI techniques. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)