Talk:Oral sex/Archive 4

Legality
Is it true that oral sexy isn't illegal in the State in Maryland? (Probably not thoroughly enforced, though.) Is it illegal anywhere else -- in certain countries or towns? Should this be added as part of a trivia section? What do him think? 24.49.35.99 (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey - some external link ideas
I've read this article and I've seen the external links which you have put up at the end of the article.

Some of these external links are broken/not working anymore. Maybe they can be replaced with some more relevant links to a website on the subject, or to some other relevant articles.

I suggest you ad http://www.howtogivehead.biz instead of the link which is now for the text "How to Go Down on a Man".

Just a suggestion. Everything else seems cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackHutson (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

potential original research and typos?
Under the heading "STD Risk", the quote "While the exact risk of transmitting HIV through oral sex is unknown, it is generally tough to be lower than other sex practices" seems to have original or unverified research, and a typo ("tough" instead of "thought"). I'm not an editor, but wanted to point this out to those who are.

Hardcore photos
I'm aware that Wikipedia do not censor, but are stills from pornography really the best images for this article? Can an editor come up with something more appropriate?


 * Well, they are the best examples of these kinds of sex acts. That and they're freaking awesome. I'm a guy, what do you expect?--KrossTransmit? 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dreadstar removed the hardcore pics after I put them there recently. I just reverted his revert so the pics are once again part of the article. Frankly I see nothing wrong with the pics. I found them on Wikipedia Commons and both are accurated depictions of oral sex. I sincerely believe they should stay put. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now two admins have reverted your edits. I suggest you attempt to achieve a consensus here for their inclusion first. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Frankly, lack of consensus seems like a weak argument here given the reasons I provided above. Had this been an article about something non-sexual I doubt I'd be running into this type of resistance. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the images because I think they are poor depictions of the article subject. Neither of the two disputed images is superior to the current images in the article. I also suggest you find consensus for your additions. Dreadstar ☥  17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How can they be poor depictions of the article's subject if both are close-up photographs of people engaging in oral sex (see the pics below)? I believe the images I posted are superior because two of the images presently part of the article are illustrations done from a perspective many feet away and therefore provide no detail. This is not helpful to those people who are ignorant about oral sex but want to learn more. As for a consensus, it's obvious that user:Kross agrees with me. So, I'm not alone in my opnion. It would be great if other people could comment on this matter. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the support Benjiboi. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, now gentleman....No dissing other editors. Illustrative these pics maybe but they are only partially and marginally illustrative as encyclopedic content since they are close up views and not whole body pictures, so one wonders are they optimally educational. From that standpoint whether they are better than what's in place now is a matter for debate. As well Wikipedia has guidelines concerning pornography WP:CENSOR, and WP:Pornography an essay, has some points on past discussions where potentially pornographic photos or pics were being considered. For some these pics would be offensive for others not, again a matter for discussion. The size of the photos is important as well . At what point do they overwhelm the text of the article in terms of size or placement. The pics we add to article should support the text not overwhelm or dominate.
 * My point is that there is no definitive position on these photos and discussion and consensus are necessary. Because what is being determined is whether this kind of photo is going to be acceptable for the majority of our readers probably wider community input should be asked for.(olive (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
 * I've asked for comments here
 * I'd encourage us not to appeal to the acceptability but the encyclopedic value. Indeed many topics are objectionable but we cover them, with photos, encyclopedicly. As for the "whole body" issue I don't think there is broad confusion how one gets one's head into such a position as much as what one's mouth is doing once down there. I could be wrong. There was also some other more graphic illustrations I think could be good candidates to replace some that we are currently using as well. FWIW. -- Banj e  b oi   00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We can't ignore acceptability, we need to consider it, per WP:NOTCENSORED, "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.", so ”acceptability” actually puts a higher threshold on the encyclopedic value that’s brought by any graphic image that’s considered “offensive, profane or obscene”. Acceptability is a key element that we cannot put aside, and we need to appeal to both the value as well as the acceptability of any graphic image. Dreadstar  ☥  01:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I think we should use the same standard we use on all other images on all other articles. What the majority view as acceptable may be in conflict with good article writing. The majority may find pedophilia unacceptable but we still write about it. We don't use acceptability as the standard for what to include or not include - it's simply a guide. As is WP:Common sense. We're not doing our readers or ourselves any favor by censoring images that are readily available to all elsewhere 24/7. Instead we use them encyclopedicly to illustrate a subject to benefit our readers' understanding. People's preferences to have twelve images or none are just their preferences and we need to look at the bigger picture here. -- Banj e  b oi   01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may be misunderstanding me, I'm not saying we can't have hardcore pictures because they aren't considered acceptable by the majority, I'm saying when we do use hardcore photos to visually describe a graphic sex act, they need to be of the utmost encyclopedic value per WP:NOTCENSORED. and where its omission would "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." There are other images in the article that are equally suitable, if not superior alternatives, to the images that have been proposed thus far.   I'm not trying to censor images, I'm just saying these aren't good enough.  Dreadstar  ☥  02:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The composition of these photos (the second set) is OK, but the image quality of the fellatio one is poor and the other is not great either (bad flash). FWIW I'm sure the photo v illustration thing has been discussed several times previously - those interested may like to check the discussion archives... In cases like these illustrations have generally been used due to the absence of high quality photos that are not copyright violations. Photos - even video - have been used on other "sex" articles (see Ejaculation and Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) for example.) PollyWaffler (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The impression the page gives is important. I'd much prefer a viewer to see a sex education article than a porno one. Explicit photographs of sex acts are now inextricably linked in the public mind with web porn. Porn is actually linked (not just in the public mind) with sexual misinformation, credit card scams and various other nastiness. Any page should try to appear encyclopedic. Also pages need to be informative: highly experienced adults can see what is going on in these "explicit" photos, but many of our drawings are the best possible visual explanations of their subject matter. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * This was my concern as well. Full body descriptions are more informative for the inexperienced, (the experienced already know what they are seeing in close up shots but for the inexperienced its only partial information). An encyclopedia is an educational tool as I see it at least. As with any teaching, if it teaches to the experienced it leaves out the inexperienced, but if it teaches to the inexperienced it also includes the experienced. (mind you the experienced might be bored to death).


 * I think I was the one who brought up "majority" and I should explain what I was considering. Although an encyclopedia such as this one has as a goal the inclusion of the "sum of all human knowledge" so anything notable with reliable sources can be included,(no censorship for the most part), the inclusion of content within the articles themselves must address those who define the encyclopedia audience on any particular article. So who comes to an article like this and what can we offer that will be the most educational, remembering that Wikipedia is not a "how to". This goes back to my last point. We have to offer something that teaches those who know nothing about the subject matter, don't we?


 * As well we have to realize that some if not many of the inexperienced will find hardcore photos. -porn-something they have no experience with. Is there a line between educating and turning readers away because the photos are too explicit... Just points that may be worth considering.(olive (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC))


 * none of the above arguments against displaying explicit pics strike me as ridiculous and disingenuous. We can always include both close-up and full-body pics if the sexually inexperienced find close-up pics confusing. Also, how are we to know whether readers associate explicit pics with pornography? Quite frankly, why should we care? I always thought the goal of Wikipedia was impartiality and accuracy, not worrying about whether we're upsetting our readers. To be honest, I believe the editors who are opposed to the explicit pics have a moral objection to them and the reasons presented above for not displaying them are excuses for that. Keep in mind, if the pics in question depicted insects having sex, nobody here would be raising these issues. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * They aren't insects... and we don't treat or deal with human beings as if they were anywhere, and not here either. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has been created for readers and to give them knowledge, not for editors.  Without readers Wikipedia would not exist, so we can't dismiss the needs of the reader. Everything we do is designed to create knowledge that is accesable and accurate for those same readers. To assume that because some editors are discussing this topic because they have moral concerns if those editors have not said so, is a standard form of dismissal of discussion on such topics. Rather, lets assume that the editors here here have given their honest opinions on this topic so that we can continue on with the discussion arriving at some consensus- driven, form of resolution.


 * I agree that its would be possible to include both close ups and distance shots of these positions. However I don't consideer these particular photos to be good examples per WP:UNCENSORED. Others may have different opinions, which I respect. How do we know what's going to be the best for the reader. We don't. That's why this is a collaborative project with consensus as a way and means for deciding such issues. No one owns these article so all opinions and discussion should be considered and respected. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Good points, Olive, all editors need to Assume Good Faith and abide by No Personal Attacks. Dreadstar  ☥  23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As I noted on Dreadstar's talk page, I don't view my comments as a form of bad faith nor were they intended as a personal attack. They represent my sincere opinions and I stand by them. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC) (See the full conversation here.)


 * Comment. IMHO, the current illustrations/drawings are generally inferior but could round out a set of images including photos. I'm hearing that the quality of the 2nd set of images set forth should likely improve before they are more seriously considered and that generally all seem to agree that it's more about finding the best images possible. What if we ask the graphic image lab to improve the quality of the photos proposed to see if they can indeed be improved and set out on a quest to determine (i) what images would be ideal for this article (regardless if they are currently available) and then (ii) look at the currently available images - my hunch is we should stay with commons images that are freely licensed for any use - to see if we have any good matches for what we see are the articles/our readers' needs. Does this sound like a productive way forward? -- Banj e  b oi   11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * My position such as it is, is for this article to be educational and as technical as possible given the subject matter, but not a kind of how to. To that end, my feeling is that the drawings are more comprehensive in scope, and should dominate the article. There may be better versions, though. If the close ups are needed and I'm not disputing they aren't or are, they should be later in the article; as descriptions become more specific so can the illustrations. The lede is a more general area and so should the illustrations be.


 * If I have an objection to the close up photos we have here it may be that they are neither technical in scope, nor are they particularly human feeling. One thing that is lost in these close ups is a sense of the humanity of the people involved because they are more about the organs than the act. As Benjiboi and Dreadstar say above there may be and probably should be better examples.(olive (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Sexual Life of South Sea Natives: Recent edit
This entry is not particularly encyclopedic in my opinion, since its from a relatively old source (1935), makes a sweeping statement ("all primitive peoples") and is quoted without context. As well the book as far as I can tell is not available for review on google books. I wonder if the editor who added the content would consider giving some direct text from the source, and posting it here so context can be checked. I would be happy to re add the content with a summary rather than quote style and some context.(olive (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

"Cunnilingus is very wide-spread among all primitive peoples and from Kubary's reports on the Sonsolans, it can be seen that even the children are already prepared for this".

Oral Sex within the Animal Kingdom
The section on this in the main page is, indeed, lacking in references. The following is a referenced, refereed journal article on the phenomenon in bats.

PLoS One. 2009 Oct 28;4(10):e7595.

Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time. Tan M, Jones G, Zhu G, Ye J, Hong T, Zhou S, Zhang S, Zhang L.

Guangdong Entomological Institute, Guangzhou, China,. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.133.245 (talk • contribs) 3:27, 29 January 2010

Picture caption: I see no 69
Essentially, 69 position involves 2 partners "simultaneously performing oral sex". The top picture simply shows fellatio, therefore I think its caption should be changed to simply "fellatio", or perhaps "Woman performing fellatio on a man". --Desiderius82 (talk) 17:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This would certainly be better image: Wiki-sixtynine.png  Kssysiek (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Fact and citation check
(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)

Lead section
This section could benefit from some citations, to clarify terminology. See: Sexuality: The Essential Glossary (Essential Glossary Series) Jo Eadie, editor. 2004 Bloomsbury, USA.
 * WP:LEADCITE. Are any of the lines actually likely to be challenged? Also, the lead is not a proper summary of the article and needs to be rewritten.Cptnono (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Utility
This seems an odd way to begin this topic. I think more on terminology should be moved here (later section) as a follow up from the lead section.

The use of jargon under the section variants (i.e., An act of group sex restricted to one woman giving oral sex to several men is referred to as a gangsuck, blowbang or lineup, all derivatives of the slang expression gang bang for group sex. Bukkake and gokkun may also involve oral sex, though not necessarily.) is unlikely to translate very well. I suggest that this be replaced by a citation, such as http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415371803/.

Cultural attitudes
Additional references are needed here to support claims and statements made.

STD risk
It would be helpful to provide some public health statistics here.

The statement “Plastic wrap may also be used as a barrier during oral sex, but many find that the thickness of the plastic dulls sensation. Certain kinds of plastic wrap are manufactured with tiny holes to allow venting during microwaving, which may allow transmission of pathogens.” Does not belong in this article. First, the commentary about sensation is mere opinion, and second, it is too far off the topic.

Pregnancy
Could benefit from a general medical reference.

Additionally, this section could be expanded to include citations about the safety of oral sex during pregnancy, see: http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/sex-during-pregnancy/HO00140, http://pregnancy.emedtv.com/pregnancy-and-sex/oral-sex-during-pregnancy.html.

Terminology and slang
This section would be best moved to the beginning, but I’m uncertain as to how it will translate into other languages.

There is much on this page regarding images and photos. I think drawings that convey the information are fine (as tasteful images found in books like The Joy of Sex or Kama Sutra). Actual photos are not necessary.BSW BV (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Flavioinsane, 24 May 2010
Please, change this: ;Behavioral aspects
 * Blow Job Tips & Attitude

Because the link itself is broken, and because it shows not relevant information. If you want to put a correct website that is directly related to the topic and is of high quality based on numerous reviews then I would recommend the link to go to http://www.howtogivehead.biz or http://www.howtogivehead.biz/page2.html if you want to direct towards the Attitude part. That is my suggestion.

flavioinsane
 * None of the links mentioned above would meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I support the removal of the links per WP:NOTHOW.  Chzz  ►  22:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

✅

Do we really need a Pregnancy section?
I'm often dumbfounded by people who believe that a person can become pregnant from oral sex, as if the mouth was designed as a sexual organ, but my main point is that we don't have a section on this in the Anal sex article (though we do tackle it in the Heterosexual section)...and I would think a person is more likely to get pregnant through anal before oral. Either way, people cannot get pregnant by these means. Yes, they can get pregnant during them, by accidents (such as sperm leaking from the anus into the vagina during anal sex), but those typically don't happen. Having a Pregnancy section in this article is WP:UNDUE in my opinion, because just seeing that section in the table of contents at first makes it seem as though pregnancy through oral is very likely or that most people believe it is possible. I'm not saying the sourced information on this should be removed. But an individual section on it...really? Flyer22 (talk) 16:50, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I finally went ahead and tweaked that section title to this. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Tweaked that title again, to add information on "technical virginity" (which is already summarized in the Utility section). Flyer22 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

america != the world
"among teenagers "should really be "among american teenagers" if the sources are talking about america. -- .~. 79.198.122.53 (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * If you find that the sources are doing so, please do make that edit accordingly. We do want to avoid geographical bias.-- Ty rS  02:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Fellatio 2011.jpg
I'm removing this newly added photo. I don't believe it's even clear what's going on and that the image adds nothing to the article. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. All I see is a picture of a vulva/vagina, and our readers don't need to see that if it doesn't significantly enhance their understanding of this topic. While genitals are a part of sex, they can see that by just clicking on the Vulva and Vagina articles. We have enough pictures in this article demonstrating what oral sex is. And while Wikipedia is not censored, I don't see the point of putting up pictures that will clearly upset some of our readers when it is all for nothing (and by "clearly upset," I mean they always respond more passionately to real-life sex images). Flyer22 (talk) 08:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is currently up for deletion anyway, for not demonstrating what it describes. Flyer22 (talk) 08:35, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Bad taste
In the article, under "Cultural attitudes" It says that "There is some anthropological evidence for cunnilingus as a widespread activity amongst Australian aboriginals.[41]" The problem I have with this is that it is placed in the final paragraph of that section which starts with the sentence: "Oral sex has been observed in the animal kingdom among many species." Would not this information be better placed up in the first paragraph where examples from Chinese culture, Ancient Rome and contemporary society are made? (july 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.235.167 (talk) 10:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I noticed your complaint some hours ago, and took care of your concern just moments ago. Thanks for pointing out that issue. Flyer22 (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request; Language under Practice headline
Hi! I don't think we need to restrict the definition of group oral/'gangsuck' to a woman/several men; after all, any person can perform oral sex on several persons, and I've certainly seen a variety of these terms used to describe exclusively male situations. The line currently reads "one woman giving oral sex to several men"; for the sake of accuracy and breadth I'd suggest "one person giving (performing on?) oral sex to several partners". 76.105.251.232 (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)malliedroit

Illustrations - why old pictures, no anal, and no photographs?
Looking at the article, there are 4 illustrations, of which 3 are C19 paintings (2 french, and one Chinese) and one created specially for the article. All four illustrations show oral-genital contact, not one shows oral-anal. It would be good to add pictures of oral- anal, and photographs.86.56.71.208 (talk) 18:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Regarding anilingus, I see nothing wrong with including a picture of that in this article. As for photographs, I take it that you mean real-life photographs? If so, 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. Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:GRATUITOUS says "Controversial images should follow the principle of 'least astonishment': we should choose images that respect the conventional expectations of readers for a given topic as much as is possible without sacrificing the quality of the article. For example, editors selecting images for articles like Human body have thousands of images of naked bodies and body parts available to them, but they normally choose images that portray the human body in an unemotional, non-sexual standard anatomical position over more sexual images due to greater relevance to the subject―the more sexual one is not given special favor simply because it is more offensive."

I do not see how this supports your argument. I am astonished to find an article on a contemporary sexual practise illustrated with C19 illustrations rather than photographs, & I think conventional expectations of readers of an article about oral sex would be to see photographic illustrations. Sexual images would seem of preeminent interest to this subject. I see no reason why readers who take offence to "images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts" in an article about real life sex acts should be pandered to. I would also ask how you have gathered this knowledge, as it does not seem to reflect the consensus on this talk page.L&#39;Origine du monde (talk) 12:46, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You do not see how WP:GRATUITOUS supports my argument because, as I've noticed from your editing as IPs (such as your posts about urination and/or the penis at the Urination article, the Human penis article, the Vulva article, and other articles), seen here, here, and likely with other IPs you've used (similar to this post you made at the Cunt article yesterday), you do not have a good grasp on how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And when it's pointed out to you how it works, the policies and guidelines, you disregard or still don't understand them. Just like now. If you are going to cite WP:GRATUITOUS, then cite the most relevant part of it -- the first paragraph: "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. 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."


 * WP:GRATUITOUS is exactly about "[pandering to] readers who take offence to images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts." It makes explicitly clear that "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 a sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in this article; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, such as File:Wiki-cunnilingus.png, and even without images. And I've heard enough complaining from our readers about images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts across various articles, such as the Vulva article, as seen in this and this discussion, that I know what I am talking about on this matter. And there is a valid point that using real-life images to illustrate a sex act distracts from the text and makes the article feel pornographic and less encyclopedic. No need for that when an equally suitable alternative is available. Some of our readers have complained about such drawings (especially of sexual acts) as well, but we should have something to illustrate a sex act...and they take less offense to drawings. Flyer22 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that you are now indefinitely blocked and that your user page was deleted as inappropriate (actions carried out by Reaper Eternal). I did wonder why the 93.96.148.42 IP (linked above in this section) you were using was WP:CheckUser-blocked by Elockid. I don't know if your original block has anything to do with your tempestuous IP interactions with AndyTheGrump, but at least now I know why you were blocked as IP 93.96.148.42 (a bit more of the story anyway; I was definitely going to look into that matter if you hadn't been blocked today). Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Flyer22 - I asked you to remove the statement above, as it has been agreed that I was blocked by mistake.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 02:14, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't care what you've asked. I'm not removing it, especially since you clarified the matter in this section and in the RfC section below it. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
Change Oral sex is sexual activity involving the stimulation of the genitalia of a sex partner by the use of the mouth, tongue, teeth or throat. to Oral sex is sexual activity involving the stimulation of the genitalia or anus of a sex partner by the use of the mouth, tongue, teeth or throat. genitalia is mostly about flowers, and anal sex should not be excluded from the first line.86.56.71.208 (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * There is WP:Undue weight to consider with your request. The overwhelming majority of WP:Reliable sources do not include anilingus in the definition of oral sex. Furthermore, anilingus is noted in the third sentence. Therefore, it is given appropriate weight in the WP:Lead.


 * And the Genitalia (Sex organ) article is not mostly about flowers; the lead is (which should be expanded). Flyer22 (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * That stated, I'm not too opposed to including "anus" in the first sentence. Flyer22 (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Undue weight? The third sentence currently contradicts the first. Sex_organ is definately the correct link.L&#39;Origine du monde (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello, L'Origine du monde. Are you questioning my assertion that it is WP:Undue weight to include "anus" in the first sentence? If so, Google searches, including Google Books and Google Scholar, or a local visit to a library, to research the topic, do show that the overwhelming majority of WP:Reliable sources do not include anilingus in the definition of oral sex. I've also studied sexual topics enough to know that I am correct on that matter. As for contradictions... The third sentence, which is about anilingus, does not contradict the first sentence. For one, the first sentence is about genitals. The anus is rarely ever defined as being a part of the genitals, which is why the IP wants the anus specifically mentioned in the first sentence. And more importantly, beginning a definition stating "is" does not mean that the other definitions are not also the topic. Otherwise, dictionary definitions and encyclopedia definitions would not begin a topic with one definition and then branch into the other definitions. They would stack all the definitions into one very long run-on sentence. Either way, I stated "I'm not too opposed to including 'anus' in the first sentence." Flyer22 (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Judging by your edit summaries, and the fact that you are a newly-registered account that is registered some minutes after the IP's post above, I see that you are that IP. Flyer22 (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wish people would read more than the first sentence, and, if they did, further than the lede. I think the lede here hangs together well: This is what oral sex is, this is what anilingus is, licking other parts is not usually considered oral sex. Fine as it is. --Nigelj (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)÷
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: We go by what the preponderance of reliable sources say. Rivertorch (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course i was that IP. L&#39;Origine du monde (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two different definitions of oral sex in the lede do not help anyone. Either Anilingus is oral sex, or it isn't. When the first line restricts oral sex to the genitals, it excludes Analingus. "Oral stimulation of other parts of the body (as in kissing and licking) is usually not considered oral sex" coming after Anilingus includes it in the definition.  If there is a dispute about it, this could be mentioned. At the moment, it contradicts itself.L&#39;Origine du monde (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Two different definitions do not help anyone? Tell that to dictionaries and encyclopedias. Tell that to the various Wikipedia articles that deal with a topic that has more than one definition, including WP:Good and WP:Featured articles, such as the Atheism article. Most things have more than one definition. And per WP:Verifiability, "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." We usually present the most common definition first, just like dictionaries and other encyclopedias do, and then present the other definitions. That is giving the definitions their due weight. They are not contradictions. Of course, also per WP:Undue weight and per WP:NOTADICTIONARY, not all definitions will get space. Flyer22 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

RFC Is Analingus Oral Sex?
Is Anilingus oral sex? Should it be included in the first sentence of the article, or should that be explicitly restricted to genitals?L&#39;Origine du monde (talk) 12:37, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Note for others: Read the Edit request section immediately above this section. The true question is not about whether or not anilingus is oral sex. Flyer22 (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the RfC, per Blocked. L'Origine du monde is indefinitely blocked for evading a previous block. Flyer22 (talk) 15:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The block was a mistake. Details on my talk page :) ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 06:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, analingus is oral sex. In other words, it's a sex act that one does with one's mouth and/or tongue. Guy1890 (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And that is exactly why L'Origine du monde having started this RfC with that question is ridiculous. It's not like anilingus is not mentioned in this article (it's mentioned in the lead, in fact). This matter is not about whether or not anilingus is oral sex; it's about the most common definition of oral sex and WP:Due weight. I've already replied sufficiently above about this, where two other editors have also weighed in thus far. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't understand the two questions. The first question isn't a matter for discussion or consensus unless there is significant disagreement between various reliable sources, and the user L'Origine du monde has provided no evidence of that. The second question—assuming it means "first sentence", this being prose with line breaks dependent upon screen size and browser settings—depends entirely upon the answer to the first. I guess I don't see any need for this RfC because the issue appears to have been resolved satisfactorily in the preceding thread. Rivertorch (talk) 04:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment The problem is not finding reliable sources, but overcoming editorial prejudice (see above). The first line says "Oral sex or oral intercourse is sexual activity involving the stimulation of the genitalia of one person by another person using the mouth (including the tongue, teeth or throat). " It is quite clear that this excludes stimulation of the anus, as that is not part of the genitalia. However the 3rd line says" Anilingus, another form of oral sex, is oral stimulation of a person's anus.[1] " It is clear that the first line contradicts the 3rd. I don't see how undue weight is relevant here. There seemed to be a logical problem above, so I called this RFC. Reading that opening sentence now, there are other obvious problems with it - like why only two people, and the throat being part of the mouth....  Here is my proposed first line- "Oral sex or oral intercourse is human sexual activity involving the stimulation of genitalia (sometimes the anus) by mouth or mouths (including the lips, tongue, & teeth) and sometimes the throat." ♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 01:56, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You still barely have the slightest idea what you are talking about. Once again, "beginning a definition stating 'is' does not mean that the other definitions are not also the topic. Otherwise, dictionary definitions and encyclopedia definitions would not begin a topic with one definition and then branch into the other definitions. They would stack all the definitions into one very long run-on sentence." If you notice, the first source of the lead also lists cunnilingus and fellatio first. And then further down, it talks about anilingus. The second source only names cunnilingus and fellatio as oral sex. The significant majority of reliable sources, and non-reliable sources, regarding oral sex either list cunnilingus and fellatio first or don't mention anilingus at all (and as has already been made clear, the significant majority of them don't mention anilingus at all). That is where WP:DUE WEIGHT, a policy you obviously do not understand, comes in. As for two people, the wording does not state "only between two people"; there you go again conflating "is" with "is only." Obviously, the acts can be performed between more than two people, but the significant majority of sources regarding oral sex mention nothing of a threesome, and mentioning a threesome is not relevant to the lead...per WP:Lead. As for the throat, the throat is a part of the mouth, though they are often listed separately, and I prefer them to be listed separately, because of the throat's extension/separate aspects; the text currently states "mouth (including the tongue, teeth or throat)." The throat can be involved in fellatio, obviously. And now I'm done discussing this with you, as, knowing how you are, I really don't have the patience to repeatedly go over the same things with you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL please. I am afraid you do not understand English perfectly. "Oral sex or oral intercourse is sexual activity involving the stimulation of the genitalia of one person by another person." Is inelegant, and clearly means (intentionally or not) that only two people are involved. My suggested edit neither mentions nor excludes group sex (or auto-Oral sex which has been heard of). The throat is not part of the mouth, and I don't know where you got that idea from- that link does not support it. While you are correct that different meanings get different entries, I can't understand why you want to exclude the anus from the first line. There are three latinate words for the three kinds of oral sex. Might as well include all of them in the first line, and elaborate afterwards.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 04:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Nope, as others have agreed, and as dictionaries, encyclopedias and an abundance of reliable sources show, it is you who does not understand English perfectly. And don't try to speak of WP:CIVIL while also not being civil yourself. Oh, and the throat? I got that the throat is a part of the mouth from my extensive study of anatomy, such as the various anatomy books I've read; seems that you take "throat" to always mean "all of the throat," just like you take "is" to mean "is only." Bye now. And do try to study more. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * A few more things before I disengage communication with you on this (meaning this is very likely my last to reply to you on these matters), though I don't know why I'm trying when I know that you still will most likely not understand or will refuse to acknowledge that you understand: Regarding your proposed text directly describing oral sex as a human sexual activity, keep in mind that oral sex is also performed among non-human animals...which this article mentions. But your wording serves my point that "is" does not mean "is only." Even before your text appeared as "human sexual activity," that text was already there as a WP:Pipelink, and use of the word person, which usually describes humans, was there (both still are, obviously). Mentioning the human aspect of oral sex first is giving proper weight to the topic of oral sex because oral sex is not performed by the vast majority of non-human animals; it is mostly a human aspect, with only a small number of non-human animals performing it, and the term oral sex and its alternative terms are usually only applied to humans. Similarly, mentioning the genitals aspect of oral sex first is giving proper weight to the topic of oral sex because the vast majority of sources only define oral sex as oral stimulation of the genitals. See the "giving equal validity" part of WP:Neutrality, which is an aspect of WP:Due weight. Being neutral does not mean giving "equal validity" to things that are not on equal footing; once again, the vast majority of sources are not equal on the genital aspect of oral sex vs. the anal aspect of oral sex. Same applies to autofellatio (hardly ever mentioned when defining oral sex, and is more accurately/most commonly described as a form of masturbation). This article's sources are a testament to all of that. It's not like the sources were cherry-picked; it's simply the case that the significant majority of sources speaking of oral sex only speak of the genital kind. On Wikipedia, except for cases where the most common definition is inaccurate (for example, a layman definition vs. a medical definition), I will always give the most common definition of a term prominence over the less common definition(s) (per WP:Due weight). Providing the most common definition first is usually not a matter of inaccuracy or a contradiction; it's a matter of providing that definition first, and then the other definition(s) after that.


 * That stated, once again, like I noted in the Edit request section immediately above this section, "I'm not too opposed to including 'anus' in the first sentence." But I prefer that we don't, for the reasons that I've already stated. And two editors thus far have agreed to leave it out of the first sentence. However, your "(sometimes the anus)" text is an okay compromise that I don't mind, and we should wait and see what, if anything, others have to state about that. I went ahead and changed "one person" to "a person" (yes, there is a significant difference in that change, as "a" is not outright stating "one" and can clearly better allow for the implication of "more than one"). I didn't remove mention of "person" because it should be clear that it is a matter between people, not people and non-human animals or people and a sex toy (or a corpse, for that matter), that is usually defined as oral sex (yes, there are sex toys that replicate the mouth and are designed for masturbatory oral sex). I separated "mouth" from "throat," per my statement above about them usually being listed as separate. My contention that they are a part of each other comes from clear anatomical points, often gone over in anatomy books. But it is clearer/more accurate to describe them separately. And regarding your having WP:Pipelinked deep-throating in your text proposal, the link (if we are to use one, though it is WP:Overlinking) should go to where people expect -- the Throat article -- per WP:Egg. As a side note, I don't feel that mention of "lips" is needed to describe what the use of the mouth entails for oral sex, considering that it's obvious that the lips are (usually) involved when performing it, but "tongue" is obviously involved as well (unless kissing the genitals is the only thing going on), and so I also went ahead and mentioned "lips." The vulva may be licked without the lips touching it, for example. I don't see why just listing "mouth" (it's already linked) is not sufficient enough for covering what we mean about the mouth. If oral sex excluded a part of the mouth, then I'd see the point of describing parts of its anatomy that are involved when performing it. Flyer22 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Look, the lede should summarise the article. It is not meant to give different definitions. If you have articles saying oral anal is not oral sex, that is different from texts that ignore it. As it is the first line is contradicted by the third. Human_pharynx says it's "posterior to the mouth [[file:Illu01_head_neck.jpg]]♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ( ♥ Talk ♥ ) 01:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

how
How do you perform oral sex Mclelland (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has the WP:NOTHOWTO policy; this article clearly tells/shows you how to perform oral sex without violating that policy. Flyer22 (talk) 07:39, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Masud.pce (talk) 07:42, 22 December 2013 (UTC) some real pictures, images must be included in this article. this article about reality.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2013
this article need some real pictures, images, videos etc as it is a real matter not a fiction. the real images will help a person about how the takes place really. real images are a good way of knowing things.

Masud.pce (talk) 07:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Oral sex/Archive 4, the WP:GRATUITOUS guideline expressed there and the Manual of Style/Images guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2015
Please change as it provides further relevant information.


 * Giving head – A common slang term for giving oral sex to either a man or woman is giving head, from the term head job (in contrast to hand job, manual stimulation). A play on the slang term head resulted in the slang term brains, or brain salad surgery, domes or getting domes.
 * Plate – A once common British rhyming slang for fellate that arose in the gay slang language of Polari that spread in the 1960s. The term is less common today.

To


 * Giving head – A common slang term for giving oral sex to either a man or woman is giving head, from the term head job (in contrast to hand job, manual stimulation). A play on the slang term head resulted in the slang term brains, or brain salad surgery, domes or getting domes.
 * Gam - The French term Gamahuche or Gamaruche was used in England in Victorian times. This became shortened to Gam or Gamming, it was popular in the British Armed Forces. . This was changed through rhyming slang to a plate of ham and then shortened to plate..
 * Plate – A once common British rhyming slang for fellate that arose in the gay slang language of Polari that spread in the 1960s. The term is less common today.

Rkirk999 (talk) 08:58, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Provide fully cited references, and resolve the difference in the two etymologies for "plate". Bazj (talk) 14:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Oral sex. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080422181306/http://voodooverse.wordpress.com:80/polari-baskets-abound/ to http://voodooverse.wordpress.com/polari-baskets-abound/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 14:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed addition about "rainbow parties"
Cruiz949 (talk) 15:40, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Rebb  ing  22:44, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Oral sex. 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

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) 02:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Dead link
Hello, in the "Cultural views" section, I located a dead link. The Presentation Ministries brochure is now located at this link. However, the statement accompanying the citation is problematic. "Some say" is a WP:WEASEL phrase. Also, the article does not actually mention reproduction or procreation, so it is not really suitable to support the assertion anyway. The procreative aspect of sex is, after all, the reason that natural law excludes the practice of fellatio to orgasm. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Spintendo   01:49, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Please delete the following unsourced phrase, and its associated dead link citation. They violate numerous policies. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have corrected the dead link. Please cite the specific policies you're referring to that would support removal of this statement from the article. I agree that the whole paragraph comes across rather WP:Weasely, but that means it could be reworded, not that it needs to be removed. Do you have a suggestion for rewording? &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 17:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Since the cited source makes no mention of "reproduction", the statement violates WP:V, and must be removed per that policy. Alternatively, I am sure that you could find many sources which do link the non-reproductive nature of oral sex to its being unnatural, and you could further attribute those statements to a specific person or organization rather than the WP:WEASEL "Some people" that currently stands. Good luck. 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &mdash;  LeoFrank   Talk 12:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Should this article be merged into "Fellatio" article
Should this article be merged into "Fellatio" since that article is similar to the current article -- Randomchooser (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Eh? No. Since oral sex does not simply concern fellatio. Not sure what you mean by "similar" since the same can be stated about the Cunnilingus article. Of course there will be article overlap, as noted at WP:Content forking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:47, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

pics
these seem graphic
 * WP:CENSOR and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Curved Space (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Assertion that only bats engage in oral stimulation is either poorly worded or outdated
While the website I include here is hardly encyclopedic, it can be used to start looking into the issue whether only bats engage in oral stimulation: https://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/male-spiders-perform-oral-sex-females/ Aethalides (talk) 16:24, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Sorry, where exactly in the article is this assertion? --Equivamp - talk 17:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Female bats perform fellatio to increase copulation time. This species is the only non-primate to exhibit this behaviour[46]"
 * which behaviour are we talking about? The fellatio in particular? In that case, the article I provided clearly provides a basis for further resource that this is not true. Or about fellatio being used to increase copulation time? That sounds like a hard thing to prove in non-sentient species? Either way I think the wording could be improved.
 * I must add a disclaimer that my native tongue is not English but that I am very proficient in English. Nevertheless, some nuances can still elude me Aethalides (talk) 19:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I didn't see the media file before, so I missed the caption, thank you. Reading the cited source, it looks like whoever added that statement was indeed trying to say that C. sphinx is the only non-primate species to perform fellatio. That's probably due to a misinterpretation of the source stating itself to be "the first large scale observational study of oral sex in non-humans". Of course, as you've pointed out, and as the section the media file was in already states, many species do so. So I removed the erroneous caption. Good catch. --Equivamp - talk 02:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Religious views on oral sex
I propose adding Fellatio in Halacha and Cunnilingus in Halacha to the see also section of this article. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:F81D:4C1A:755A:7B9F (talk) 07:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Lead, paragraph 1
Flyer22 Reborn and I have different views on the how to display sentence 2, as follows: I prefer "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the female genitalia - the vulva and vagina - while fellatio is oral sex performed on the male genitalia - the penis and scrotum."

Reborn prefers "Cunnilingus is oral sex performed on the vulva or vagina, while fellatio is oral sex performed on the penis."

Anyone care to weigh in?

Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer the sentence as it was (Flyer22 Reborn's version). We don't need to say "scrotum" just to achieve some sort of parallelism. Fellatio usually does not involve the scrotum. It also reads less smoothly to say "female genitalia" and "male genitalia". -Crossroads- (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Auparashtika" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Auparashtika. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 17:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

"Road Head" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Road Head. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 2 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 02:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022
Could you add that 69 means oral sex? 2601:1C0:5901:7120:ACF5:F80D:FB30:8696 (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Already mentioned under Forms. Pupsterlove02  talk • contribs 19:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 June 2023
The article pointed Umamaheshwari Temple is in kritipur ,but it should be "Kirtipur" which is in Kirtipur of Kathmandu district,Nepal Nischalneupane17 (talk) 06:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have done that. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)