Talk:Fellatio/Archive 3

Adding the comment of Brian Pronger about receving fellatio as a "demasculinizing" experience
I think it would be interesting to the "cultural views" part the comment that Brian Pronger (Associate Professor in the Faculty of Physical Education and Health, at the University of Toronto, author of "The arena of masculinity") makes about men giving fellatio in his text “On your knees: carnal knowledge, masculine dissolution, doing feminism.", from the collection of texts "Men Doing Feminism" (1998):

''I have argued that masculine desire is the desire to conquer and protect space; it is desire shaped in the pouvoir of the expanding phallus and closed anus. Being a homosexual bottom inverts this desire. Space is given away. [...] Giving oral sex works similarly, perhaps even more effectively. [...] with fellatio one caresses the insinuating presence of another man, voluptuously welcoming him into one's space, by cushioning one's teeth with one's lips. Rather than repelling the entrance of another man one does everything one can to make him feel welcome. Giving space to another man, particularly the most intimate spaces of anus and mouth is the opposite of masculine desire. When men eroticize the entrance of other men into their space, anally or orally, they are giving puissance to the deterritorialization of their masculine desire. The erotic event of being willingly, indeed joyfully, penetrated orally or anally, deterritorializes the bodies of bundles-of desire-with-penises and literally opens the gates to the freedom of demasculinized desire.''

It can by found page 75-76 of the Google Books version of the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lboukoko (talk • contribs)

Why are the images of only under-endowed men?
That seems prejudiced against some of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.55.165 (talk • contribs)

Merger proposal
I propose that Deep-throating be merged into Fellatio. Deep-throating is a variety of fellatio and could be discussed in a separate section here. With recent terminology changes to Deep-throating, the difficulty of maintaining both branches of a content fork has become apparent. Peter Chastain  [¡hablá!]  01:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. DT is just one aspect of this subject and should just be covered in a section in this article. Meters (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - the DT article is small enough that it could be practically cut and pasted into its own section in the Fellatio article. There's only one image to show the act, and that's acceptable use. Curved Space (talk) 08:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support unneeded content fork, small enough not to warrant its own article --DannyS712 (talk) 00:43, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Support if it has it's own section and SeedFeeder's graphic work is included. From the merge type, I am assuming that is how the content is to be handled. (Parenthetically, whichever is decided upon, I will look into reworking and properly sourcing the positions section.  It has been tagged since 2016.)  -- Surv1v4l1st ▌Talk 06:20, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It is almost similar that you can copy and paste it into the Fellatio article --Randomchooser (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Result: Merged by this editor. Followup edits by me here, here, here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Pornography complaint
I find that the images, which clearly fit the legal definition of pornography, are sexually inappropriate material for an encyclopedia, especially since it is illegal to expose minors to such materials. As such I have already reported this article to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children(NCMEC) requesting appropriate action to remove the offending materials. 24.155.244.245 (talk) 18:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * If you find it offensive I suggest that you read WP:NOTCENSORED rather than articles such as Fellatio. As for whether there is a legal issue with respect to minors and this material being on Wikipedia, I would be astonished if the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department has not long since established that Wikipedia is meeting US laws in this regard. There are many other articles with similar content on Wikipedia. Knock yourself out if you want to report them all, but I don't see how the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children would be interested. None of this content involves children. Meters (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Other aspects under deepthroating is incorrect
In this article, it refers to "the man" receiving fellatio and this is dehumanizing to trans folk. Sex organs are not related to gender and the pronouns in this article should be amended to reflect this. It appears this article is locked; how does one go about changing this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianloved (talk • contribs) 06:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

“Western” views re: virginity
All the sources cited are western and speak towards a western POV. We should represent that in the text of the article. Jasphetamine (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding this? Per WP:Synthesis, we shouldn't put "People in western cultures" unless the source explicitly states so. And, again, it's not just people in western cultures who don't view fellatio as "real sex" when compared to penile-vaginal sex. All of that is why I reverted. And from what I remember, the "Janell L. Carroll (2009). Sexuality Now: Embracing Diversity. Cengage Learning. pp. 265–267" source doesn't only focus on western cultures when commenting on fellatio. That stated, I'll look to see about including another source. And I do mean one that looks at how non-western cultures may view fellatio with regard to virginity. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

.

Image seems redundant?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:We,_two_boys_together_clinging_-_05_-_Picture_by_Giovanni_Dall%27Orto,_July_30_2014.jpg The image seems redundant or wrongly situated in article - is there a more objective same sex fellatio image that could be inserted into homosexual section? Text mdnp (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The photo "Two men engaging in fellatio" is an art image & depicts psycho-sexual staging of subjects to arouse a context of stimulation - needs to be placed in 'art depictions of fellatio' section? Text mdnp (talk) 21:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by "redundant." It's the only same-sex image in the article. I'm also not sure what you mean by "more objective." But I will state now that we do not need an explicit real-life image in this article. And by "explicit", I mean a real-life image that clearly shows the penis or scrotum in or against one's mouth...an image that is a lot clearer showing that than the current same-sex image. We do not need that per WP:GRATUITOUS. If there was a drawing of same-sex fellatio or some other kind of non-real life image of the act, and it was a quality image, we would use that instead per WP:GRATUITOUS. But, right now, all we have is the current one. Since there is no less offensive, equally suitable alternative, it aligns with WP:GRATUITOUS. And it's there per past complaints that the article only showed male-female fellatio.


 * We don't have an "Art depictions of fellatio" section. And per WP:GALLERY, we are better off without one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:34, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Flyer22 Frozen that the ideal would be a drawing, however I don't think that a suggestive but obscured photograph is suitable as a placeholder. The image in question could be a photo of one man looking very closely at another's belly button -- it isn't adding information. I'll do a re-read of this article and make sure it is gender neutral and/or does not indicate that fellatio cannot be between same sex partners. I think the sex of those depicted in any images is immaterial to the goal of explaining what fellatio is. Most humans have mouths, and they work interchangeably between the sexes as far as this article is concerned. As long as the article (the important part of this page) is neutral, the imbalance in photos is okay in the short term. Per WP:GALLERY I strongly oppose any kind of art or imagery section. In lieu of a suitable informative depiction, If you want to pull the image as being redundant you have my support. Jasphetamine (talk) 06:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Jasphetamine, hi. No need to ping me since this article is on my watchlist.


 * As for what you stated, see Talk:Fellatio/Archive 2. That is why the same-sex image is in the article. After years of editing sexual topic articles at Wikipedia, I can assure you that people care about such things and generally don't see a heterosexual or same-sex image as redundant for a topic like this. Besides not opting for explicit real-life images, the images in the article are mostly heterosexual because the literature is mostly heterosexual. And so there are more options to choose from heterosexual-wise. While we can use gender-neutral language for some things in the article and we do, we can't use it for everything and that includes the topic of "Pregnancy and semen exposure" and "Preserving virginity." Also see the consensus that was formed on using gender-neutral language for articles like this one just last year: Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161. Many sources make a point to stress the popularity of "technical virginity" among heterosexuals (especially teenagers and college-aged people). And fellatio is a big part of "technical virginity." And regarding adults? There is a lot more to add about how women feel about fellating men than there is about how men feel about fellating men. And, of course, information about non-binary people and sexual activity is scarce. We can only go by the literature and with WP:Due weight. We have to keep WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS in mind. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * And I don't think anyone is going to look at that same-sex image and think that it's a man looking very closely at another man's belly button, especially in this article where it has context. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

You’re taking everything I typed absurdly literally. Important part: That image does no harm to the page. It is not morally or stylistically objectionable. You can make an extremely convoluted case for why we should keep it by citing years of wiki policy and precedent. I posit that it conveys no data or information not otherwise available in the article. It has no historical relevance, nor is it a notable contemporary piece of art. Therefore I do not object if the editor I was replying to would like to remove it. If your argument in favor of slavish singleminded adherence to editing precedent is more convincing than mine favoring useful and uncluttered articles for people who read them, okay great. That’s the consensus keep the picture. Jasphetamine (talk) 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do wish we had a Seedfeeder style image for it, but without that, it is true that without a same-sex image, people will complain. And I'm also agreed that it is better than one that is even more "explicit". Crossroads -talk- 00:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Jasphetamine, no, I'm not taking "everything [you] typed absurdly literally." I'm not taking anything you typed absurdly literally. I certainly didn't mean to make you feel like I'm taking your comment out of context. Regardless, besides whether or not to use a real-life image, or to include a gallery, I'm not sure how you want me to take what you argued in your "06:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)" post. You brought up gender-neutral language. So I touched on that. Of course, I know that you know that we can validly use gendered language for stuff like the "Pregnancy and semen exposure" and "Preserving virginity" sections. But does everyone know that? No. That is why that WP:Village pump (proposals) discussion was had. We aren't going to state "pregnant people" over "pregnant women" unless the literature overwhelmingly uses that language or unless the sources are specific that they are considering trans men and/or non-binary people. And even in the case of the sources being specific about that, we'd likely just name the groups instead of state something like "pregnant people" or "people with uteruses." And passerby reading this talk page should know that. When I make comments on Wikipedia talk pages, I'm thinking of passerby (and that the material will go in the archives) in addition to the person (or people) I'm replying to.


 * The same-sex image is no more redundant than File:Édouard-Henri Avril (20).jpg. And I maintain that it being a same-sex image is an argument for it not being redundant. If one is going to argue that an oral sex image is redundant because it includes a penis and a mouth just like all of the other images, then that person should also argue for the article only including one image -- the lead image. But that is not how Wikipedia works. We don't include the lead image and that's it. If more images are available, we include multiple images of a topic. And the same goes for sexual topics. We include same-sex images in sexual topic articles, but, per WP:Due, we don't overdo it. If the topic is specifically about same-sex sexual practices, then it's obvious that same-sex images will be in that article. In the Fellatio article, though? One suffices. Two at the most. You won't see anyone arguing that we should remove the same-sex images from the Anal sex article because they convey "no data or information not otherwise available in the article." To many people, those images convey the fact that anal sex is practiced by different gender combinations (as is clear from the article text). A woman pegging a man, for example, offers much insight. That article only including heterosexual images would not fly (especially with same-sex images available), and we know that in part per previous discussions. I'm sure you understand how something like a woman pegging a man conveys data/information not otherwise available in that article, but I'm just making a point.


 * And as for artistry? One can easily argue that the same-sex image in the Fellatio isn't any less artistic than any of the other images if it's meant to be artistic, which seems to be the case. This is despite it not being done by a notable artist. And it's not cluttering the article whatsoever. Over the years, the only reason a few people have tried to remove that image is that it's a same-sex image. While you express your reasoning to remove it beyond that, I still don't feel that you've given a solid reason for removal. So, yes, we disagree on that. No big deal that we disagree. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to go ahead and just not be involved with this page for a while. Jasphetamine (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"I'll give you a nickel if you tickle my pickle" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect I&. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed,Rosguill talk 20:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

“Giving head” as an alternate name?
That’s not specific to fellatio, that’s a general term for either fellatio or cunnilingus. Why is it here, if it’s not also in the cunnilingus article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.173.166.143 (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Article is cisnormative / Used outdated views on gender
This article is written in a way that suggest fellatio can only be suggested on men, when in fact it can be performed only on those men who have penises, and indeed also on women and other non-men who have penises. If a full rewrite with more inclusive language is too much to ask, then I would like to request at least a paragraph be added that clarifies that being a man is not a prerequisite for receiving fellatio.
 * We can only make a change if there is due weight from reliable sources. Prcc27 (talk) 21:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

What Evidence of Mutual Arousal?
What is the objective evidence fellatio can be arousing for both partners? Which is to say, enjoyable. As I understand it there is none.

That's the paradox of oral sex; it has no meaningful basis in reality because, though most everyone enjoys receiving, most everyone strongly dislikes performing it. It's in the same category as, say, eating each other's faeces. So it's off the table in any mutually respectful relationship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.210.84 (talk) 09:21, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2020
The pictures shown are too graphic and offensive to young children to view. Suggest to remove all the pictures and maintain only worded content. June Summer 1984 (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: See WP:NOTCENSORED Meters (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do what June Summer 1984. I am an adult and the pictures are even offensive to me. People dont need to see such pornographic photos, they already know what blowjobs are. please remove the photos asap Lalaland3213 (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2022
PLEASE please remove the pornographic photos. Children use this website. No photos are needed and its pornographic. Lalaland3213 (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia is not censored. There are arguments to be made on whether or not images are beneficial but concerns about pornography is not one of them. You may want to see the header on this talk page or Help:Options to hide an image Cannolis (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
I reiterate the request to remove the image, but for a different reason, and I would note that removal seems to have the beginnings of a consensus over the single rejecting voice that now appears. Submit to this and three preceding edit requests, or open the matter for general discussion. A singe individual should not, per WP policy, sit in judgment over matters where multiple voices object.

The reason to remove it is one of apparent blatant bias and sexism (to say the least). Unless an images can be presented, showing in representative fashion, all gender on gender permutations which might define this act, no single image should headline the article.

2601:246:C700:FD:D0E6:BC8D:A19C:4B83 (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I would note that this is the THIRD request for removal of the image, apart from a fourth that is unsigned, and the repeat request of one individual. Three voices should be sufficient to elevate this matter to general discussion, above the curation by those feeling ownership over this article's content. If the matter is not opened for general discussion, I will raise the matter as necessary to move it beyond apparent minority control here. 2601:246:C700:FD:D0E6:BC8D:A19C:4B83 (talk) 04:12, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Declined requests without further discussion do not a consensus make. Try simply posting on this page without the edit requests template and discussing with other editors. If you want community-wide discussion use a Request for Comment.   Madeline  ( part of me ) 20:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Awkward placement of the males 69ing image
The image of two men performing fellatio on eachother is indeed relevant to the section 'other health aspects'. However, at least when viewed on my desktop, it appears right next to the section about 'sexually transmitted infections'.

Two gay men having sex appearing right next to the section that talks about AIDS looks bad considering the harmful conflation between gay sexual activity and AIDS. Would recommend reformatting so that it's more clearly in the previous section. Cadenrock1 (talk) Cadenrock1 (talk) 02:19, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2022
1. Place a article warning at the head of the article, for its repeated violations of WP:VERIFY. 2. Place, selectively, at key positions throughout the article — at the discretion of the controlling editors of this article— further template messages, to guide editors to areas needing attention, and to further warn readers regarding suspect material. These further corresponding section and inline template messages should be in accord with the template message at the article head.

Justification:

The following elements within the article are non-sky-is-blue content, and per Wikipedia, needs support through attribution to source, per WP:VERIFY.
 * The entire Etymology section.
 * Practice section, General subsection, closing sentence ("During the act, semen...") lacks a source.
 * Practice section, General subsection, closing sentence of Paragraph 2 ("During the act, semen...") lacks a source.
 * Practice section, General subsection, Entirety of Paragraph 3 lacks sources.
 * Practice section, Deposition of semen subsection, closing phrase of closing sentence of Paragraph 1 ("...though it is now known...") lacks a source.
 * Etc.

[NOTE: This pattern of lackadaisical attention to WP:VERIFY continues throughout the article, and the presentation of templates/warnings should not end with just these examples, but should proceed through the end of the article, as needed. Excluded editors cannot be expected, under the duress of having to propose every change, to have to do all such work in an article that is so patently in need of scholarly attention.]

NOTE: The entire second paragraph of Practice section, Deposition of semen subsection, beginning with "The male whose..." and ending with "...chest or breast." appears to be misrepresented by its attribution to reference [20], which is a dictionary of slang — which is not a suitable source for scholarly presentation on the subject of "sexual arousal" (opening sentence), and which, on close examination, does not even support the appearance of the term "facial" in the closing sentence. This is rubbish use of a citation, and its placement at end of sentence is dissembling, at very least.

2601:246:C700:FD:1C7E:6A1F:59F9:5CF8 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Place a article warning at the head of the article
 * Based on glancing at other articles with the same assessment class and giving a read through of the page I do not believe there are sufficient verification issues to warrant a page-wide warning.
 * Place, selectively, at key positions throughout the article — at the discretion of the controlling editors of this article — further template messages
 * This request does not meet WP:EDITXY. Also, there are no editors that control this article.
 * Practice section, General subsection, closing sentence ("During the act, semen...") lacks a source.
 * The closing sentence of the relevant paragraph does not, at time of review, begin with "During the act". The entire relevant paragraph is sourced. I make no claim to their quality.
 * Practice section, General subsection, closing sentence of Paragraph 2 ("During the act, semen...") lacks a source.
 * I have removed the relevant sentence as it is unnecessary with the existence of the "Deposition of semen" section.
 * Practice section, General subsection, Entirety of Paragraph 3 lacks sources.
 * I have trimmed the paragraph down. I'm torn as to whether to place a citation needed template on what is left and have ultimately opted not to. I believe it is more likely that a link to a verifiable reliable source is unnecessary to qualify the statement. Other editors are free to disagree and do so.
 * Practice section, Deposition of semen subsection, closing phrase of closing sentence of Paragraph 1 ("...though it is now known...") lacks a source.
 * I have input an inline citation needed template.
 * Excluded editors cannot be expected, under the duress of having to propose every change, to have to do all such work in an article that is so patently in need of scholarly attention.
 * When requesting anything with the edit request template you are, in fact, required to propose every change with specificity and with citations to reliable sources if necessary. You are not under any duress by having to follow this policy, as you are not required to propose changes to this article and you possess the means to bypass this policy via account creation. While you are not obligated to register an account volunteers are similarly not obligated to alter this page. They are further empowered to remove your requested edit(s) from the queue without addressing it if you do not follow consensus dictated guidance for the process you are attempting to make use of. While it is unfortunate that this page has to be protected, I don't think either of us are under any illusion as to why the protection is ultimately necessary for this particular topic.
 * The entire second paragraph of Practice section, Deposition of semen subsection, beginning with...
 * I have removed citation 20 from the relevant paragraph and placed an inline citation needed template.
 * Closing out edit request as having been addressed. — Sirdog (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sirdog 185.80.47.18 (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Need something, IP? — Sirdog (talk) 13:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Not only men are able to receive fellatio.
I think the part in the first sentence where it says "...the penis of a man..." should be converted to "...the penis..." or "...a penis...". There is also another part in the text, under the heading "Other Aspects" - Where, in the first sentence, it says "The man receiving fellatio..." should be edited to say "The receiver of fellatio..." or "The person receiving fellatio".

I also want to mention that in any place it uses "his" to talk about the person with the penis should be changed as well. Side-note: Also under the heading "Other Aspects" - the article talks about reasons a person may not want to have vaginal intercourse, this seems unrelated to fellatio. Lexiette (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I have edited this multiple times to be trans-inclusive, and other editors have changed it back to "man" and he/him/his pronouns. The citation for the one I just changed was "Every Single Person With A Penis Is A Man" from Spiked magazine/spiked-online.com. The author of this article has published a collection of essays titled "Anti-Woke". It is imperative that this article is monitored better and this type of vandalism (because that's what it is) is not permitted. Especially given the political climate, it is irresponsible to spread biased, ignorant information and "sources".
 * Thank you for adding this to the talk page. I was just about to do it myself if no one had yet. Riverraleigh (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Transphobic vandalism
Multiple editors have repeatedly corrected this article to have inclusive language, which is a correction of biased, unscientific information (that "every person with a penis is a man). In recent editing history, user StarryNightSky11  has done this individually a number of times.  Riverraleigh (talk) 00:21, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Only men have a penis, it's simple biology and basic science. -- StarryNightSky11   ☎  00:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not. A simple search of non-biased sources will show that there is no real gender (nor sex) binary. Accredited academics, journals, publications, and news sources have said this numerous times. Your incessant edits to this page is fueled by ignorance. Riverraleigh (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not ignorance at all, only a man with XY Chromosomes has a penis, same with animals, male animals only have a penis. -- StarryNightSky11   ☎  00:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * this community discussion explains more. -- StarryNightSky11   ☎  00:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the opposing views in that discussion. Riverraleigh (talk) 00:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1
 * Social construction of gender Riverraleigh (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I have preserved the use of "male" in the article, as I accept that that is currently a scientific term used to refer to people with penises. I have changed the use of "man" and gendered pronouns, as these refer to gender and is thus inaccurate to the topic. Riverraleigh (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
 * -- StarryNightSky11   ☎  00:54, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have changed both 'man' in this article to 'of another' same with Cunnilingus with 'woman' to 'of another' -- StarryNightSky11   ☎  00:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)


 * That works very well, thank you. Riverraleigh (talk) 01:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)