Jump to content

Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Removal of information

{{editsemiprotected}}
For some reason in cultural references a name, "Ben Giffin" was used incorrectly for a name of a character who fellates himself. I request the name be removed by a registered user as I am not of status yet. Please change "Ben Giffin" to blank. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Killrhedake (talk • contribs) 04:56, 27 November 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for improving this article. Celestra (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


Picture unnecessary

There is no value what so ever in illustrating this topic.

A picture of Nixon on Richard Nixon helps visually indentify the sucker.

The sucker on this page, however, doesn't really help indentify or clarify anything.

I may be wrong, but my hunch is that it is here primarily so some senior Wikipedians can cite the WP:NoCensorshipEverNoMatterWhat policy.

I am a liberal, young, atheistic, rebellious, pro-gay-rights, free-speech bastard if there ever was one, so when I ask that the picture in question be removed, I trust you will believe me that I do so only because I believe this page would get linked to and respected more without the offending image.

Thank you for taking me seriously even though I am logged out.

--70.190.69.81 (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A follow-up, if you don't mind; I recognize that many Wikipedians feel (probably rightly so) that illustrating taboo items like brests, penises, and sexual positions shows people that the topics are nothing to be ashamed of; however, acting on such a belief is hardly NPOV. --70.190.69.81 (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
This has been discussed to death, why would we use a drawing when we have a good photo? --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Every topic should be illustrated where possible. A picture is worth 1000 words. Powers T 15:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Also please see the FAQ at the top of this page. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
Even Decomposition has pictures, one of them being an animated gif (under "plant decomposition") and other being a dead decomposing bird. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I think the picture is very helpful. It might be difficult for readers who've never seen a picture of it to visualize how autofellatio is possible. I know it was for me. The image clearly and instantly illustrates something that might be rather hairy to describe with words alone. Ketsuekigata (talk) 00:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth I totally agree that the picture is utterly inappropriate and not in keeping with Wikipedia's status as an encyclopedia. However, this has been rehashed many times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.171.173.116 (talk • contribs)

For what it's worth the picture showed me it much better then the text description did. It's not always easy to visualize this sort of thing. It helps that this is an actual photo since I doubt a drawn example could properly convey the difficulty and level of flexibility involved. 75.121.176.112 (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

the spanish wiki of this article, http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autofelación uses a drawing instead of a photograph for describe it, maybe it can be used? is still descriptive, and less ofensive at the same time. 190.51.23.71 (talk) 02:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm OK with the picture, it describes it well enough, and removes the shock value from the one currently used. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 05:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
That drawing is not very good.... In particular, the penis looks like out of place. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Traumatizing Picture

I think I'm freaking traumatized after coming to this article. Why does the photo have to be there? Why? Dumaka (talk) 20:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Why would you come here in the first place? To find out about the activity? Well now you know it can be done, how it's done and what it looks like. Seems to me the picture did its job. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
A picture's worth a thousand words.Dosbears (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone pointed out the bedsore article to me today. After seeing the pictures there, I don't think anyone should complain about the picture here! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Oh God, I just saw the bedsore picture. I'm going to chew my own eye's out now. Dumaka (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Pass the bleach. We now have the perfect example to show anyone who complains about pictures on Feces or Autofellatio. Powers T 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it's not necessary to SEE the action. Imagination is enough. Also, an illustration would serve the same purpose with less traumatizing realism. Yes, the bedsore article is pretty graphic, but that's a medically-related image. They broadcast medical surgeries on public television. This brings up qualms with minors perusing Wikipedia. They are legally allowed to view images of a non-sexual graphic nature, as there is no law against images depicting medical procedures or graphic violence, but it is illegal for a minor to view pornographic images. If you ask me, this image is pretty pornographic; it's not just an image of nudity, it's an image graphically depicting a sexual act. Nidht (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I've tried explaining that to these people but I failed to convince them. I guess the picture stays. Good rule of thumb is to close one eye before coming to this article. That picture is pretty pornographic. Dumaka (talk) 19:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Pornography is not a legal definition, it's merely a subjective description and the last time I looked it wasn't usual for an encyclopaedia to rely on a reader's imagination. In fact an encyclopaedia exists so that one doesn't have to rely on imagination. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 20:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Pornagraphic Image

Children will see that pornagraphic so I had to remove it.--Trulexicon (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your concern for children who search for articles on autofellatio is truly remarkable, but this article is not censored to cater to such children. Please stop altering the article. Rōnin (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
As it says at the top of this talk page, Wikipedia is not censored. Such images are relevant to the article and should not be removed. Reach Out to the Truth 16:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
Correct, wikipedia is NOT TO BE CENSORED. 70.157.169.171 (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Someone should go post pornographic images of Kim Possible on the article so that Wikipedia stays the most comprehensive medium available to the Internet. Vael Victus 00:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
That would be disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point which is specifically forbidden by policy here.
You don't have to like that WP:NOTCENSORED is policy here. But that's the status quo. If you want to try to get consensus to change that policy, go to the policy's talk board and the Wikipedia policy talk areas. Disrupting articles as a form of protest against the policy is not ok. If you do it you'll be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Not to mention the fact that Kim Possible doesn't appear to have a penis, therefore making it entirely off-topic! --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe Vael Victus meant on the article concerning Kim Possible herself. It's perfectly relevant, after all, as it represents the cultural impact of the character on artists who create fanart. Also, a child can come across this page through a "Random article" link, while hearing the term on TV or at school, or while researching a sex topic in high school (a minor can be as old as 20 in the US, in terms of viewing pornographic images). Not everyone wants to see this image, and they won't know that until it's too late and all they needed was a simple description. I propose the image is replaced with an illustrative depiction as opposed to this photograph. It's not about censorship, it's about sensibility, and not limiting those of an age who cannot view these images from using Wikipedia. Even other encyclopedias resolve to use illustrations as opposed to graphic and realistic photographs. Nidht (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Just to respond to what's written above, that a drawing cannot answer the question of whether something is physically possible: I agree, but that doesn't stop anyone from just linking to that image as a reference for "proof" to an external website with a simple warning that the image is graphic - which it is: regardless of your beliefs, any photograph which depicts an uncensored sexual act is "graphic" in that it displays the act without restriction or dilution. A simple warning would be nice. Nidht (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
The warning is in the article title. In a similar vein (no off-colour pun intended) to the possibility that there will be a picture in the penis article. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I don't follow. Where exactly is this warning? You mean the article title ITSELF? If someone was seeking this article out in order to understand what it was, they wouldn't know until they clicked through. I'm suggesting a simple solution: host the image file externally, link to it in a reference. Is this so terrible? Nidht (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
Autofellatio is not a word one tends to come across (no pun intended) accidentally. In any case WP is not censored, from an encyclopaedic point of view this picture is no different to the pictures in any other article. Just because some people find it offensive is not a reason for not having it in the article. Each of us finds different things offensive and inoffensive, if the project tries to pander to everyone then it wouldn't be long before it was decimated of lots of useful information. This picture is on-topic, isn't overly gratuitous and is a perfect visual description of the topic being discussed. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 12:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
It is quite possible to come across the word accidentally: overhearing it in a classroom, in a joke on TV, reading it in a novel or textbook, etc. It's not even the fact that it's offensive; it's more the shock value of not knowing what to expect. Personally, I don't find it offensive. I understand what you're saying. I just wanted to offer up a solution that would allow the image to remain and not censor it completely. I'm not here to campaign/rant against it; I just wanted a conversation to better understand this specific example of a policy in action. Also, you said that it "isn't overly gratuitous", but that's also up for interpretation, no? =) Nidht (talk) 19:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
I would agree with having a drawing instead of the image. Arguably, carrying an image as "proof" that autofelatio is possible, technically violates WP:OR, and the picture provided does not come from a reliable source... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 06:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
By that standard, a drawing would also violate WP:OR.... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You arguments makes no sense, pictures are not required to 'come from a reliable source', they are required to accurate representations of the subject discussed in the article - a picture of a guy sucking his own cock is an accurate reflection of the subject matter so it's 'accurate' on that account. The only reasons to remove a photo would be to be replace it with a better quality photo or because there was a problem with the licensing - neither of those apply to this article at present. The replacement of the photo with a drawing would also be problematical because it would degree the quality of the article and makes no sense. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

A reminder about discussion standards

To the IP who posted a rather rude diatribe, and those who restored it -

WP:NOTCENSORED is Wikipedia policy, but it's Wikipedia article content policy.

Our policies on civil and adult discussion and community participation ( WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:DISRUPT ) emphatically do not encourage or allow you to insult or abuse other contributors or article readers. Please keep discussions on a responsible and respectful level here.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Geb

Geb's autofellatio appears in an Egyptian religious papyrus. This splendid sensuously erotic image should at least be referred to, if not depicted, in the article. The star-bedecked character arched over Geb represents the sky goddess Nut, but note that she sports a formidably erect penis and a male beard. Can anybody identify the papyrus showing Nut and Geb in this way? --TS 23:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This page describes the same image as "a vignette from the funerary papyrus of the Chantress of Amun Henuttawy during the Third Intermediate Period (1070 BCE to 945 BCE). It shows the earth-god Geb performing auto fellatio beneath an ithyphallic figure of Osiris representing the night sky. In the original both figures are painted yellow." Osiris is the eldest son of Nut and Geb, and this image shows him adopting the role characteristic of his mother. --TS 01:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Comparative Photos

I feel that adding a comparison of (non)circumcision might be beneficial because statistics may vary and cause belief that it's impossible if you are circumcised. If the gallery is insufficient, as in that the photos are too small, then they can be changed to larger thumbnails. (Jazzz47 (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

Don't be ridiculous. The glans penis is in the mouth of each guy and the foreskin, or lack thereof, cannot be seen. It's totally ludicrous to insist that any comparison can be made. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Not to mention that he's the author of the pic. Exhibitionism at its best folks. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Who is? Atom (talk) 21:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry. Jazzz47 is. Hence his insistence that the image be used. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Additionally, I am circumcised. So even if that was a useful comparison, which it isn't, you'll have to find somebody else who isn't or reverse your circumcision, Jazzz47. --Jiffman (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


I removed the image submitted by an editor/user. I consider it to be wp:OR, and not appropriate. I replaced the image with a different one that coincidentally is a better image also. Atom (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Before you start bringing up OR, make sure you've read the WP:OI section on images. There was previously a discussion here regarding copyrights of images that were being used, so I volunteered to produce an image that could be used without having to worry about any copyright issues. However, if you and everyone else agrees that the images you have chosen is truly a better example, that is a different story. Just don't make a fuss over somebody uploading a picture when "Editors are encouraged to upload their own images." --Jiffman (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes this has been discussed before. There has been much discussion in the past about the topic as it relates to sexuality articles. It is very common for people to try and upload their own image, or the image of their girlfriend in sexuality articles. Generally speaking self images in any sexuality articles are nearly always frowned upon. At best someone trying to contribute and help is called an exhibitionist unfairly. At worst is a barrage of penis pictures from men. I think that you can see the difference between an image of Autofellatio the person takes of themselves, and a picture that an editor takes of a local historic landmark for the article on that topic. Or if you took a picture of your dog for the dog article. Or, even if you as an editor were the creator of an image of Autofellatio of someone else, that would be better received. We just as a general rule, automatically decline self images in sexuality articles. Even self-images in other articles are rare.
Take for example a recent contribution of a self image in the dildo article File:Anal_masturbation_with_dildo.jpg. The same editor (with 25 edits) also contributed File:Anal fingering.jpg to the Fingering (sexual act) article, and this image File:Masturbation art.jpg to the masturbation article. There are a number of editors who would love to have their cocks "immortalized"" on Wikipedia. Atom (talk) 09:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Who cares if someone wants to immortalise their penis. So long as it is accurate, copyright free and reasonable quality then it's fine. If it fulfils those criteria (which the existing image does) then there's no reason to change it. In fact that change, or indeed any change of an acceptable image demonstrates to wannabe exhibitionists that it's fine to change the image to their <insert anatomical bit here>. Your change is nonsensical and not a little bit disruptive after a consensus was agreed upon. Perhaps next time you'd like to discuss before making changes like this. As for the WP:OR opinion, well what you consider is wrong in this instance. It's either autofellatio or it isn't, a third party image will not change that one iota. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, first I did not (do not) see any existing consensus on that image. Second, the image I put in is of higher quality, more descriptive of the topic and apparently does not have any copyright dispute, and has the added benefit of not being a self contributed image. Other than the issue that we do not desire self portraits on sexuality articles (which apparently is not a concern for you, but is for other sexology and sexuality editors). I explained my rationale on the OR issue, I don't need to explain why I was accurate all over again. I get that you don't agree. You are entitled to your opinion too.

I apologize if it seemed disruptive, that was not my intention. Self portraits on sexuality articles are not desirable. Other than the desire to not encourage a flood of self-portrait contributions to the many sexuality articles, their is the issue that when someone has their own image on an article they tend towards wp:own and can lose objectivity over what is the best image for the article.

You are correct that the Autofellatio article should have an image of Autofellatio. The image that an editor submitted is not as desirable as alternatives for any number of reasons. My point was not based on whether the image was on topic, but on whether it was the best image for the article. That the image is on-topic is only one of many factors relating to what image, or how many images are best for an article. I don't think that I, or any editor is required to ask for permission to fix a problem on an article. Just because you don't feel it is a problem does not mean that other editors feel that way. Atom (talk) 09:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the very act of changing an acceptable, and long-standing image, is demonstrating to others, with, let's describe as 'exhibitionist qualities', that it's okay to change the image to their version. Keeping a long-standing image long-standing goes some way to demonstrating that changing to their variant is not okay. As for the other bumf, perhaps if you peruse Archive 8 (which also covers the copyright discussion) you may gain more insight into what went before. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 10:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
I heard what you said about changing an image. But the current image has been on the page for like three or four weeks? I would not call that "long standing" or consensus. Also the need to discourage self-portrait vanity sex images by removing quickly overrides the need to keep a three or four week image in place to demonstrate stability (especially when that image is itself a vanity image).
As for the copyright issue, I did see that archive, and there is a general discussion of concerns about copyright issues on some commons images during that time period (June 2009?) However the image I proposed is not explicitly listed in that discussion, and a check of the image on the commons site shows proper licensing and no controversy or discussion at all regarding its copyright status. You may not prefer that image, or Commons images in general, but wp:idontlikeit doesn't make it a copyright violation. The image that I thought was a better image (more detailed, not self produced) File:Fellatio-auto.jpg The only discussion at all about it on commons was Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fellatio-auto.jpg Where is was nominated for deletion (but failed) for the reason "Its gross and people shoudnt be trying to reach there". It has a license status of "Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0" So suggesting that there is any dispute about this specific image is a red herring. The image may not be your preferred image, but it is perfectly fine for use, and is listed as being used on two other language versions of the Autofellatio article (Dutch and Norwegian I believe), which is what brought it to my attention for possible use here. Atom (talk) 10:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The image that is currently there is from the same editor who supplied the discussed image (the June archived discussion), then by request supplied an alternate from a slight side angle to better demonstrate the act. So for all intents and purposes it's the same thing as discussed last year. As for the copyright issues, if I recall correctly the one you chose is actually the image that set off the copyright discussion in the first place as it was suspected to be a commercial porn shot of indeterminate provenance. The whole point being that an image was offered that did not have a suspect provenance, amply demonstrated the act and was done specifically for the article. There is no need to change it simply (and fallaciously, if you pardon the pun) because it contains an editor's genitalia regardless of what the sexuality project's editors want. The consensus, at the time, for this particular image was that it did the job. Now if you wish to start the whole furore up again and commence a new RFC then go ahead. I'm sure there are much better things to do with your (and ours) time. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The commons people are always very concerned about copyright issues, more so even than Wikipedia. There is no discernible issue with the provenance of that image. In any event, there are probably other commons candidates that could be alternatives. I think that if it is not obvious to other editors currently reading the talk pages that a self-portrait by an editor is a problem, even though that has been discussed as a problem many times elsewhere before, that your suggestion of an RfC has merit. As I have said several times before, the focus should be on what the best image for the article. I'm sure that when the few of you discussed your concerns and created a vanity image that you had the best of intentions. I'm sorry to be the one to derail that concept. The results are an image that is not as good as several other existing images in illustrating the topic and introduces the new issue of conflict of interest/vanity that does not exist with Commons images. We can disagree on subjective issues such as the angler of the photo, or other visibility or focus issues, but the fact that it is a self-portrait by one of the editors of the article can only be removed by choosing one of the many other images available. The question really is, which one of those is best for illustrating the topic? Atom (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
The one (and its derivative) that has been there for 10 months is perfectly fine. It does the dual jobs of proving it's possible and showing what it is. The alternative you propose is not technically superior, it isn't a superior pose, it's just different from the existing one. What your argument boils down to is that the only difference is that the existing one contains the genitalia of an editor. Which is an absolutely ridiculous objection. This is not against any WP policy or guideline. Project consensus does not trump an article consensus, in fact the opposite is true. As I've said repeatedly this was hashed over in depth in June last year. I'm well aware that consensus can change but at the moment you are a consensus of one. This does not cut it. You simply want to get your own way in this matter for absolutely trivial reasons. Why don't you go do something more worthwhile like writing an article, or how about expanding this one, or better yet given that you are so into imagery how about sorting out obtaining some rather superb ancient Egyptian images of autofellatio that are known to exist. All of these pursuits make far more sense and will improve Wikipedia far more than your facetious desire to change a perfectly good image. Now either open an RFC or leave things alone please. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 21:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Hey Fred, I respect your opinion. No need for me to restate mine again. You don't agree with me. That's fine. I don't claim to be a consensus of one -- that's silly. I am one editor offering an opinion. Since there clearly is no consensus on the issue though, your idea of an RfC is a fine one. Let's get more opinions. Then maybe we really can get a consensus. That would be where many editors largely agree. I haven't pushed nay one image, on the contrary, I have suggested that I am open to a variety of images. I think the fact that the vanity image should not be used and vanity images not encouraged to be a show stopper for that one image. Technically it is a pretty good photo. The one photo that I proposed (because it is used on other language Wikipedia sites on their Autofellatio article) seems to have more clarity, IMO. But, I am not forcing that. So, I see know sign of "wanting my own way" unless getting a strong consensus for a quality image for the article (that is, following Wikipedia standards and policies) somehow fits into that category.
You say their is one basic issue, whether an image that is a self-portrait of a person sucking a penis (and therefore a vanity image) should be acceptable or not. (You have said that concept/policy/guideline/common sense is "absolutely ridiculous". My opinion is that the vanity image is one reasonable objection, and that another is which of many available images on this topic is the best for the article taking many factors into account. (Vanity issue, quality of the image, clarity, appropriateness to the topic, etc.) Whether the subject is circumcised, or uncircumcised is a non issue for me, but apparently it has been important to other editors.
You point out that there was a similar discussion last June, and perhaps this image would have established a consensus then. Re-reading the discussion, there are a number of things that are not the same now. There is no hurry on this article, lets take the time to do it right this time.
I appreciate your useful, positive and constructive ideas on how I could spend my time on Wikipedia. I think all of us would like to make more new articles and spend more time improving articles. Although I do some of those things as often as I can, participation in the Sexology and Sexuality Wikiproject and, reverting vandalism and fending off people who want to remove any image were skin is exposed takes most of my time. Maybe a few of us editors could analyze your contributions and help you in the same manner? Atom (talk) 22:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Rather than wasting any more time on this may I just suggest that you go with the RFC. As for my contributions, here ya go. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC Discussion -- best image for the article

What is the best image for the article? Seeking long term consensus for an image. Atom (talk) 01:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


The history of the article shows that:

  • There has been dispute over what image is best for the article. The article was create in June 0f 2003, with no image.[1].
  • The first image entered the article in September of 2004[2]. The image[:Autofellatio.jpg] is a hand drawing, and lasted to around February of 2005, when another image File:Autofellatio drawing.jpg (which has since been deleted entered the article).
  • In March of 2005 [3] this image (another line drawing) entered the article [:File:Autofellation drawing 2.jpg] and remained the consensus image through January of 2009.
  • The previous long standing image was replaced in January of 2009 by File:Autofellatio B-W.jpg this image, the first photograph Which lasted until late May of 2009.
  • The next image starting in late May of 2009, File:Fellatio-auto.jpg (also a photograph) was put in place, lasting until early June of 2009.
  • In June of 2009[:http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&oldid=294641984], this photograph came to be used File:Autofellatio3.jpg, and gained consensus, lasting until late February of 2010.
  • Since February there has been no consensus on an image, with the following images entering and leaving the article in Late February and March. No one image has been agreed upon since then. Images placed have been, File:Autofellatio5.jpg[4], File:Autofellation drawing 2.svg[5], File:Fellatio-auto.jpg[6]

The image with the longest consensus, of nearly four years, was File:Autofellation drawing 2.jpg.


In June of 2009 a discussion about the images occurred, which among other things discussed concerns about the copyright status of some of the commons images. An examination of each of these commons images shows them all as properly licenses for use on Wikipedia.[7] An editor offered to take a self portrait for use in the article, which a few other editors suggested was acceptable. That image is the current lede image File:Autofel.svg recently placed, but disputed.

Images available for use in the article on the Wikipedia Commons site include:

In choosing an appropriate image for the photo, a number of factors should be considered, primary among them is which image represents the topic best. The quality and visibility of the topic is important. Photographs that follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines is also important. Also important is that the participating editors come to a consensus. This RfC is not a vote. If no consensus can be reached, we should go back to the last known consensus image, which I believe is File:Autofellatio3.jpg.


  • I don't think we should choose the line drawings, or the black and white images. I think that the image File:Fellatio-auto.jpg is the best image from the perspective of showing the topic with the most clarity. The images File:Autofellatio-Kiki51.jpg, File:Autofellatio3.jpg and File:Autofel.svg are okay images but each has issues making them less clear or desirable that the one I recommended, mostly that they do not display the topic as well. Additionally the self-portrait images submitted by an editor of the article, including File:Autofel.svg are not desirable for me because they are vanity images, and eschewed by the Sexology and Sexuality Wikiproject in sexuality articles as it promotes other editors to try and force images their genitals in a variety of articles. We have discussed this in the past at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#No_vanity_images. The basic problem is that editors try to use pictures of themselves or their girlfriend or partner in articles. This can cause Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issues and wp:own debates that effect the quality of the article. As there are other images that can be used, and several of them display the topic of the article with more clarity, there is no reason to use an image that has built in conflict of interest issues. Atom (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer File:Autofellatio3.jpg, since it conveys a sense of the effort involved, and the genitals aren't shaved. The fact that the copyright is unambiguous is a plus, not a minus.Dosbears (talk) 01:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment: The copyright is not ambiguous on any of the listed images. Atom (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Some of the other images has suspected ambiguity. The existing image does not. Additionally, your favoured image is somewhat more than averagely endowed adding to the myth that average is about 7" these days. The existing image shows a somewhat more averagely endowed individual. Similarly your preferred image isn't actually fellating himself, it's more a sort of 'lover's kiss' on the end. The existing image is a more accurate depiction of the act of fellatio. Also, your preferred image has a much more commercial feel about it compared to the existing image. Tanned, shaven, gratuitous pose etc. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Autofellatio6 looks the best to me. I like the clean black background. It is superior to the drawings. It illustrates the topic without any added issues or distractions from what I can see. Cptnono (talk) 13:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Fred. I also apologize for my previous misconduct with editing. (Jazzz47 (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC).

"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." I don't think this article needs any image at all. - Schrandit (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Surely the article would be made less informative by the omission of all images! Powers T 19:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
RFC on the image, my god, this has gone too far. Anyway, a drawing is fine. Wikipedia does not need to prove a point with an actual picture. WP exists to collect information, not to prove anything. That is the spirit of WP:OR:
Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources.
And don't come and tell me that WP:OR does not apply to images because that is lawyering. But, the FA criteria requests an image. So, in the interest of the article, I support a drawing. And don't come here telling me "oh noes, WP:CENSOR says that you should not censor these images!!1" I agree WP should not be censored, but there is a difference between "not censoring what is necessary to display" and "actively displaying questionable material." > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:OR does not apply to images (except in very specific circumstances), if you don't believe that is not the case - start at A and get deleting every image it you come across, let see how far you get before a block. This has been done to death and there is not and has never been a consensus to have no image - indeed, any attempt to remove the image goes against the community wide consensus on such matter. you boys can get whip yourselves up but you'll get nowhere. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Images exist to illustrate, and in this context, it is being used to prove. And thus far, this is the only case I have found in which an image attemps to prove something. Ar at least that was what I was told a while back in this same talk page... > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 20:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Prove what? Autofellatio is a fact, a photo showing someone doing it simply illustrated that. Your argument has no legs. You are flogging a dead horse. If there is a free image of a guy sucking his own cock, that is going to be used instead of a drawing, that's the start and end of it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that an image is usually better than a drawing. It would take a really poor image and a really great drawing for that not to be the case. And even then, I think reality is better than artwork for an encyclopedia. As for WP:OR, it does indeed apply to images, but an editor provided images can be used "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments," For an image, more important, or primarily, is "Does the image represent the topic?" . Editor provided images of on topic subjects are welcome in Wikipedia, however self produced images of ones own body is not desirable for Wikipedia. However, of the images above, only one of the images was provided by an editor of this article, for this article. The others were taken by someone else for Wikipedia. The key thing is that the best image to illusutrate the section, or in this case, lede should represent the article as best as possible. An image is more desirable than a drawing for the lede in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Atomaton (talk • contribs)

You guys do realize that every aspect of this article and its image has been discussed to death for the past 5 years. This all has been rehashed over and over, has anyone checked the archives yet? Of course there's nothing wrong with a new group of editors discussing it for themselves and putting in their 2 cents, but my point is that this is never going to achieve anything. You can debate it for another couple years and we'll still be left with the same status quo that we started off with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OlEnglish (talk • contribs)

I've been around off and on; I think the picture situation has actually steadily improved as more images come to light and are discussed. I'm not sure what status quo you mean. Powers T 11:13, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone was triying to add a link to Spinal_disc_herniation in the "see also" section, but he was reverted. Is there some relationship to this article? Any source on people getting this herniation because of trying to perform autofellatio? --Enric Naval (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reply from someone: Probably I should have added it after the word riff because this is what they are supposed to be joking about if I understand it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.209.127 (talk) 11:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
If only we had a source about someone who hurt his back doing this, then we could use it in the article. Some medical report would be nice.... --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The strain put on the spine and neck would be enough to substantiate this kind of damage is possible by performing this act, and as a riff I would consider actually breaking the neck extreme, although possible if carelessly done. Perhaps google can help. 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.225.181 (talk) Maybe it can be included as a General Reference, if the reviewers agree? I wouldn't expect that an arbitration would be required like the homeopathy articles (<-jokingly).11:53, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.219.245 (talk) Added in "See also", a change which was previously reverted, writing it here just in case someone doesn't notice it in the "See also" section, if it has not been removed until then.

Re: recent edits

[8] Sorry but that doesn't look like any kind of spam to me. It was a decent and good-faithed attempt at improving the article, and perhaps it shouldn't stay but it shouldn't have been labeled as spam. -- Ϫ 06:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If you look at Flatlutz' edits, you'll see that they're all attempts to increase traffic to www.yogafellatio.com, a site which promotes a book which purports to teach the ability to perform autofellatio. Dosbears (talk) 06:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
And http://www.sooperarticles.com is clearly not a reliable source. Dosbears (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting about the need of picture.

Why don't we simply vote about is it required for such an article to have a picture? Nobody ever said that autofellation isn't possible. If the article(in the biggest encyclopedia) says it is possible isn't it enough? The problem is Wikipedia gives enough information about sexuality and there isn't need to put a nasty picture in every possible article. The pictures in genital organs articles are enough. I don't even understand the need for such an article. Fellatio is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonardo Da Vinci (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

  • Support inclusion - Fellatio is generally distinct from autofellatio, in the aspect of requiring someone else. If you don't like the picture, you can disable viewing it quite easily, or just not view an article about sex. As for people not believing it's possible... well, tell me, how many people do you know who can bend themselves over to the point where their face touches their genitalia? It's hardly common. And an article's existence does not in itself support the act's possibility - we have plenty of articles on things which are impossible or fictional. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
  • All articles try to include at least one picture. If an article has no pictures is usually because a) there are no images available b) there are images available but they are all under non-free copyrights and we don't have an adequate "fair use" rationale to cram them into the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

But the picture of the article Fellatio isn't so graphical. Why this cannot be? Or if it is supposed to be realistic put a graphical image in the article Fellatio. --Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 15:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone proposed a drawing to replace the photo, but it wasn't of good enough quality. (several images were discussed at Talk:Autofellatio#RFC_Discussion_--_best_image_for_the_article). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
You are right, we need a better picture for the Fellatio article. But, we will have to live with what we have until we have a good image for that article. Not haveing good images for other articles is not really a good rationalization for removing good images from articles that have them. Atom (talk) 23:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Voting on that question should not take place for two reasons:
  • The inclusion of an image already has been debated several times, and the consensus each time has been to keep it. Trying to raise an issue again a short time after it's been settled is the same as not allowing it to be settled at all.
  • Whether something is "required", "enough" or "nasty", whether "there isn't need", or "whether Leonardo Da Vinci understands the need for" something aren't relevant criteria for inclusion on or exclusion from Wikipedia. When we vote on something, it should be on something relevant, not on one user's personal tastes. Rōnin (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for us to have a vote. First is because there is already consensus for the image. If the editor does not like it, he can be bold and remove it, but that would probably be reverted quickly. If an editor does not like this image, they could provide one that better illustrates the topic, and we could discuss replacing the image with a different one. Atom (talk) 01:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I've followed this article for a long time...

...and I'm quite pleased to see that it has achieved what the Please Think Of The Children crowd has always secretly feared it would: it's kind of boring. It presents a fairly esoteric topic, calmly considered, with an appropriate graphic an a wealth of citations. Not that prurient at all, really. Certainly not masturbation material, because god forbid The Children should masturbate. It's just another article. Well done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.49.253 (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Where's the "like this comment" button? Naptastic (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ior_Bock's book

In the "popular culture" section, we have a paragraph for a Yoga posture practiced by women. The paragraph says that the posture does not actually exist, and the only reference is the autobiography of Ior_Bock, who apparently made up everything that he wrote. I say that this is a very tiny minority view that should only appear in Ior Bock's article. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Should just be a 'see also', not a popular culture.Dosbears (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
I moved it there. If there are secondary sources showing that he is a notable authority on fellatio. then we could restore him. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The image

The continual debate on whether this article should have an image is simply down to the desires of the prurient who seem to get a kick out of having an image and those, like myself, who believe that the article's copy quite clearly explains it's all about sticking a cock in one's own mouth.

Let's be frank, it says more about the sad, sad nature of Wikipedia in general that the act of Autofellatio cannot be surmised in one line: the act of sucking oneself. The end!

If for whatever reason, and I am referring to males, if there is need to explore all facets of this weird and bizarre practise, should it be not left to other pornographic web sites (one's that need your credit card) to help you explore this disturbing subject?

As another editor has noted, I think it's risible that after five years the perverts hold out that an image is needed as if words are not enough!!?? On the other side of the coin, why are there no images representing what child pornography really is? Because it's illegal. The debate that rages here shows what happens when policy is not clear and that is WP's fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.86.187 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the primary reason for using an image in this article: To illustrate that autofellatio is, in fact, physically possible. It's not a priori clear than a body is flexible enough to do that. It is a priori clear that it's possible to create child pornography, so that's not a very relevant comparison. -GTBacchus(talk) 19:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Ridiculous. He is correct, the picture is only here to satisfy prurient desires. No "real" encyclopedia would have this.
Regardless of GTBacchus' point, please note that we do not include images only when it is impossible to explain something via text! Take the article on squares, for instance; describing a square is even simpler than describing autofellatio, yet we still have a wide variety of images of squares on that page. Why? Because illustrations make for a good encyclopedia, and visual aids make for quicker learning and more solid understanding. Powers T 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
No "real" encyclopedia would have this picture; it is pornographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.212.25 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Pornographic? That depends on how one views the photograph.  Davtra  (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
And yet Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia and it has the image. Funny, that. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Anyone with morals can see it is pornographic. And, Wikipedia is NOT a real encyclopedia, partially because of stuff like that, but mostly because it allows people with an agenda to write articles like this. Any college student will tell you that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for a paper, while Britannica, Americana, even Funk and Wagnalls are accepted as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.212.25 (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
First, if you want to participate in this conversation, please start using proper talk page formatting and signing your posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end. Second, morals have nothing to do with encyclopaedias and I wouldn't call that image pornographic. And finally, no general encyclopaedia, print or otherwise, is a good source for an academic paper. General encyclopaedias are a starting point for research, not the final word on any subject. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Whence my wacko comment. Morals have something to do with everything in this world, including fake encyclopedia wannabes. Morality is not relative. Let me put it another way, it is unethical to make this picture available in this manner, maybe even illegal. Wikipedia could be a fine source, but because it allows pictures like the ones on this page; pictures that if someone showed to a child they would be charged with a crime, it is considered a joke by most people. And yes, as a college student, I am allowed to use any mainstream encyclopedia as a source, except wikipedia. That is a shame, as this could be something could. It has been hijacked by people that think it is funny to shock people. That is the only reason this picture is here, to shock people. The idea that it is there to prove that this action is possible is nonsense. It is not an encyclopedias job to prove something is possible. There are plenty of other sites where someone could go to look at this filth. Dontberidiculous (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@98.199.212.25: "... while Britannica, Americana, even Funk and Wagnalls are accepted as sources." That depends on the academic level. Encyclopedias are not used in the higher levels of academia. You won't find an encyclopedic reference in any national or international peer-reviewed scientific journal. Wikipedia and Britannica are different in terms of the editorial processes. If one wishes to reference Wikipedia, one must do so by referencing a fact's corresponding inline citation. In other words, reference the original sources, not Wikipedia itself. Aside from that, there's a comment left by a user on that image's discussion page and it reads, "I always thought it was just an urban legend that some people could give themselves blowjobs!". That comment appears the user learnt something.  Davtra  (talk) 06:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Re: "the user learnt something": Not if the user can read. The article text includes references to videos of people, including Ron Jeremy, performing autofellatio. It is not a valid reason for inclusion of an obscene image that a user might disbelieve in the possibility of an obscene act, despite being provided links or references to pre-existing samples. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
There are plenty of other sites someone can go to look at this offensive filth if they need to prove this action exists. It is not an encyclopedias job to prove this sort of thing, only define what it is. The article should be two or three sentences at best. Dontberidiculous (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
While filth is in the eye of the beholder, won't somebody please think of the children? is not a reason to remove potentially offensive images from Wikipedia. You've not managed to convince anyone that the image should be removed, you've not given any new or more compelling arguments than anyone who's previously attempted to gain consensus (see the many archives), and there is therefore really no point in continuing this discussion. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
That answer you just gave is why I, and many, many others regard wikipedia as nothing more than a site to read about a celebrity or get a quick answer on something unimportant. Wikipedia had great potential but has been hijacked by people who think that "filth" or pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Here's clue, filth or pornography is filth or pornography regardless of whom is looking at it. It's not relative. I have no interest in seeking to change anything here, it is a lost cause. Instead, I ban my child from this site, warn other parents and when the mood strikes, I will illuminate those here that have an agenda of putting pornography in the hands of children. I truly pity them. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontberidiculous (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
There's an FAQ here if you haven't read it. It answers your questions.  Davtra  (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
The FAQ was written by those with the agenda described above. It is not censorship to remove images like the one on this article. Those responsible for this have no interest in intellectual value, but instead think it is funny to put pictures like this for shock value. In the past people like this just wrote on bathroom walls, now they have a worldwide medium to portray their sickness. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontberidiculous (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
You have not succeeded in trying to gain consensus on this page to remove the image you object to since (a) nobody agrees with you, and (b) we have policies in place that prevent us from doing what you want. If you don't like the policies then you can try to gain consensus to change them, which you would do at the various policy talk pages. You have been directed to read the FAQ and the many archives dealing with this issue. Further discussion here is simply a waste of everyone's time. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, I've already responded to this complaint as well as the FAQ. Wikipedia is a lost cause because of the sick individuals that have hijacked it. My only purpose on this page is to expose that truth. I am actually betting I can get some media attention to the fact that indecent and pornographic pictures like the one here are made available to children without so much as a warning page. Dontberidiculous (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox news did that a few months ago. You're late. Also see WP:DISCLAIMER -mattbuck (Talk) 18:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Good, they,and other sources expose this again, and often. Light illuminates darkness. The people who post this type of stuff think they are in the mainstream, but they are on the fringe. Most people are decent and would be shocked this smut is here. This is not a censorship issue, this is a decency issue. Anyone who does not get that fact, should be exposed to public ridicule. Dontberidiculous (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
First, please remain civil. Second, as has been explained to you several times, you have not succeeded in creating consensus to remove the image. Continuing to argue about it is tendentious. If you don't like the policies then you can try to gain consensus to change them at the various policy talk pages, not here. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
"My only purpose on this page is to expose that truth .." Then clearly you don't belong on this page, as "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autofellatio article." Which is the purpose of all talk pages in general and is clearly stated so at the top of the page. Please take your irrelevant soapboaxing elsewhere. -- Ϫ 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think other photographs and even the video of ejaculation are helpful, and even beautiful, but if that picture isn't pornographic, then nothing is. (I'm speaking as someone who has no problems, moral or otherwise, with pornography.)Brmerrick (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think pornography is something that is described as having "no artistic or educational merit", or something similar, while this image is for the purposes of edification. Also, commentators should look up the No True Scotsman article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman . Sorry, I forgot the formatting for links. Anyone can edit my comment to fix it. Gamerunknown (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Also, I'm reminded of the quite possibly apocryphal comment the old woman had to the Samuel Johnson on the publication of "The Dictionary of the English Language", about how she was glad there were no rude words within. To which he was purported to respond "I'm grateful you took the time to look". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerunknown (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Any of the Wikipedia purists who wish to criticize me for not signing this comment may do so. However, I request in so criticizing they provide a link for a 'how to' article on the subject which I will bookmark on my browser. Because I cannot find one.

Anyway; the main argument from people saying this image should stay boils down to two points: 1) 'Wikipedia should not be censored.' and 2) 'The image displays a clear representation that the act is possible.' The first point is correct - except this argument does not apply here. The argument to remove the image is that it deters the article itself in that it is unprofessional, disturbing, and/or pornographic and the act can be adequately described without an image not that the image must be removed out of a predefined sense of righteousness. To better illustrate my point; if the image in question were that of a dog preforming autofellatio the argument for removing it would be that the article addresses Autofellatio in humans and therefore an animal representation is not applicable. Regulating content is not always censorship and should the image here be removed, which I believe it should be, would not be censorship.

The second point is silly. So long as the article sites qualified sources (some of which contain pictures of the act) why should people require an image? Those who remain skeptical can always check the sources. Or do a google image search.

My stance on this matter is that pornographic imagery (yes, this IS a subjective phrase but, speaking objectively, a photo picturing direct simulation of primary sexual organs is pornography) should not be portrayed unless necessary. Since the reasons for keeping the image are absurd (a misplaced sense of defeating censorship and 'some people only believe what they can see' attitude) the current text of the article suffices.

It has been a month and I have not received a response. I am taking down the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.136.181 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, speaking objectively, pornography is anything made with the express purpose of causing sexual arousal. Appears to be intended for the purpose it is used for, i.e education as far as I can tell. Also, four tildes (~) is how you sign. 208.110.184.74 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your stance on the matter may be that pornographic imagery shouldn't be portrayed unless necessary. That's not Wikipedia's. Wikipedia's policy on the issue is that in the absence of alternative images, obscene images should be used if they make the article more informative, relevant, or accurate. This one does. LWizard @ 04:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
What the policy actually says is this:
Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.
The lesson to take away is that you, LizardWizard, should not be editing Wikipedia or arguing over content based on such rules until you achieve the basic reading proficiency to understand them. In no way does this policy state, as you claim, that "obscene images should be used if they make the article more informative, relevant, or accurate". It only allows that they may be used under those circumstances. (And, as has been pointed out many times now, this offensive image does none of those. Informative? Accurate? Hardly. A picture of child rape could also be used to "prove" to a hypothetical benighted reader that such an act was also possible, despite the presence of links to authoritative sources establishing it beyond doubt; but such arguments are ridiculously off-topic and stupid to anyone with a bare minimum of common sense.) 70.109.144.96 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
"Down with this sort of thing!" "careful now" 157.157.68.205 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, hey, I didn't see this until now. Sorry, let me do some reading comprehension for you. The policy states "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Now ignore the "and only if" part, because it's independent from the rest, and the sentence says "Material that would be considered vulgar [...] should be used if [...] its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Hope this clears things up. LWizard @ 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Protection?

You might want to protect the page for a while, 4chan has the guy's name. --77.222.173.83 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful source

Considering the rarity of popular coverage of this topic, this article from Slate could be useful in improving this article. Powers T 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

2257 record-keeping requirements

Deleted the image as it is patently offensive and does not add any helpful information. Keep in mind, Wikipedia editors that may yammer about censorship, that an offensive image must actually usefully add to an article, and this does not. In addition the image triggers 2257 record-keeping requirements and thus must be deleted. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the 2257 record-keeping requirements, for the curious. The photograph at issue unquestionably triggers them: record keeping requirements for sexually explicit images KirthMersenne (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
You're just vandalising and pulling up some vague sense you have of what is illegal to justify it. Wikipedia has no legal problem with nudity in articles - if there were a problem, it would have been raised a long time ago. The image is useful, primarily because many people may not believe autofellatio is actually possible. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Specifically, 2257 is discussed by WMF's lawyer (at the time) here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
*Yawn* KirthMersenne is now blocked for legal threats encase anyone wondered. "Deleted the image as it is patently offensive and does not add any helpful information" is complete rubbish, how is a picture of the exact thing the article is describing not useful? " The image is useful, primarily because many people may not believe autofellatio is actually possible." - totally agree. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Not only is the image illegal under U.S. federal law as noted above, your argument is specious; otherwise any offensive/illegal content, including kiddie porn, would be includable on the basis that it merely showed the subject matter. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
We might want to look at blocking the above range as it seems to be the same user and the removal against consensus continues. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
You might instead want to look at following Wikipedia policy on offensive material, specifically WP:NOTCENSORED. I quote in pertinent part: "Content... that violates... the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will... be removed." Guys/gals, enjoy your porn on Wikipedia, fapping to your heart's content-- just don't shoot the messenger on clear Wikipedia policy. 24.61.244.32 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
It doesn't violate the laws of Florida though. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Indeed. If it violated the laws of Florida, then, since such material is always removed, there would have been an office action to remove it. There hasn't been any such office action, therefore it doesn't violate those laws. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
That's just stupid, and farcical to boot. Under that rationale no illegal content could ever be deleted until there was an office action to remove it. You really shouldn't talk about legal matters on which you know nothing, and your post is simply insulting in its intentional lack of logic. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
mattbuck, it certainly does. The image is correctly noted (and not by me, mind you) as triggering Sec. 2257 record-keeping and notification requirements. Since those have not been satisfied, the image is illegal under the laws applicable in the state of Florida. Note that Sec. 2257 requires not only that certain records be kept, but also that a notification of where those records are stored be furnished with the image. You simply don't have a leg to stand on, though it may gall you when your favored porn images are at stake. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, no, you're wrong. Wikimedia is a "safe harbour" - content reusers may have to comply with 2257, but it's not applicable here. That there is a 2257 template on the image is simply to warn potential reusers, but it may not actually be a requirement for those reusers. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Nope. The image posters themselves have to post the required 2257 notifications, or they're illegal under U.S. law. This is once more proof that liking your porn is not just the same thing as a law degree, eh? If you want to approach at least a correct layperson's view, you should begin by reading the law itself. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
No, the people uploading the image are not required to have 2257 if the content is primarily for noncommercial use. Wikipedia is a noncommercial use. Also, please get an actual account rather than posting anonymously. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A better replacement image...

Since the majority of the objections seem to center on the perceived prurient nature of the photograph, I would ask would anyone object if I tried to find a picture of Ior Bock performing the act? Since for him autofellatio was a religious sacrament, the pornography argument would be kicked into the long grass. On an existential level there should be a way to get at least a screencap, since a Finnish television channel broadcast him in the act live (and hopefully will have kept the recording, though them releasing it might be another thing). It could be hard work to find a person who has kept a personal video of it (though I do have some weird friends, so I could ask aroundc :), but if one could be found, a screencap might be a better option. The newspaper Helsingin Sanomat also ran a photograph of him limbering up prior to the act by doing yoga. Perhaps that would be even more acceptable, because that picture does illustrate that the flexibility is possible, but it wouldn't actually show the act itself. What do you think, would that fly? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that we could get a free image. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Further, I think you misunderstand the motivations behind the people wanting to remove the image. If I've learnt something from all the endless wars over nude images on Commons, it's that people who want to remove nude or sexual images rarely admit the reason they're doing it is because they simply don't want the image there in the first place. They'll come up with a lot of arguments about why it should be removed (too small image on a 12MP photo, out of scope on an image which is in use, no consent on a self-portrait, etc etc) and all of them are just to try and lawyer their way to their goal which is the removal of the image, because they know "I don't like it" would get a speedy kick up the ass. It's the same here I think, people will give reasons why they object to this image, and so we can try and placate them by finding a new one that seems less objectionable on this particular criteria, and then the new one will have a different problem. We could replace it with a drawing and they'd still object. It all boils down to this: if someone doesn't like the image (or more likely doesn't like the subject or wants to WP:THINKOFTHECHILDREN) they will construct a web of claims about why the image is bad to try and get it taken down, no matter what image is used. Call me cynical, I don't care, I look at it this way - the definition of futility is performing the same action over and over and expecting a different result next time. You can assume good faith, but after a while, you have to accept bad faith. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Hehe, as the originator of the article, and having followed it through nearly a decade, I think there isn't much new about how the discussions about it swirl around. I do apologize if you thought I was speaking in earnest. Text media. (lol, self-edit-conflicted twice. That brings back memories. Thought that wasn't possible anymore.) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it doesn't seem to be rare for people to state clearly that they don't think Wikipedia should be turned into Porn Central. Indiscriminate stuffing of explicit images into articles disobeys Wikipedia policies including WP:NOTCENSORED itself. Porn-happy zealots believe that NOTCENSORED stands for the proposition that any offensive image which refers to the article's subject is includable, when that's a perversion of the language of the rule. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I never said I did support "indiscriminate stuffing" of explicit images into articles. However, I think there is a place for them in an encyclopaedia that attempts to give a comprehensive coverage of human sexuality, and this is one place where such an image is warranted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Sadly, any reader can look at the image, and read Wikipedia policy, and see that you're in the wrong. Simply sticking your head in the sand doesn't suffice for correctly applying Wikipedia policy, which states: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." The article would not be less informative, relevant or accurate if there were no image of a man sticking his cock in his mouth; text alone makes it clear what autofellatio is.
Your main fallacy lies in not thinking about obscene images in a different way from regular ones. Regular, non-obscene images can be a valid part of an article merely by showing the main subject. The standard is higher for obscene images. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't want the image just "because it shows the subject", I want the image because it "photographically shows that the subject is in fact possible". Speaking as someone who is not that flexible, it is hardly obvious that anyone could manage this act. In that manner, having an actual photo, rather than a drawing, is exceedingly useful and causes the article to be more informative. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


Here is a possible good replacement since the person in the current picture has been banned from WP and this picture has been around the net a lot. It shows the act clearly in a non pornographic manor. If accepted i will upload to commons to the public domain. http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/9495/ss02v.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canter2626 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As a commons admin, I can tell you that that image will be deleted on sight as a copyright violation unless you provide evidence of the licence. Just because something has been "around the net a lot" does not mean you have a right to distribute it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
I am not 100% sure how to provide that evidence, but you can see that I am the one that has submitted and "pulled" the image in the past, just because I was not sure as to if it would be used. or the correct rights that i should release. In all, i want to make sure that if I sacifice, that it is used for a good cause.````
You need to show that the copyright holder of the image releases it under a free licence, and imageshack generally doesn't provide for that. That "you found it on the internet" does not imply a free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh sorry for the misunderstanding, I hosted it on imageshack since it is of ME. It is a picture of me that was taken years ago and has been around a ton. I figured I would host it on imagshack to see if it would be an image worth displaying the content. I figured I didn't want to submit it if it was felt it did not display the content better than the current one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canter2626 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh, I see. No worries then. I would say however that the current image is better - that the guy was banned is really irrelevant as long as his image isn't a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
Since mine showed from the side, it showed a bit better understanding of the "bending" aspect since his is more straight on. I would submit it to the public domain. You really don't think the one in mine demonstrates and presents a better visualization? I want things to be as educational as possible. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canter2626 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 September 2012

Please remove the image Autofellatio6.jpg as it is pornographic. Surely the written decription is enough! Dujomc (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Usage of the picture

Just trying to give my opinion on the picture here. Personally, I do not see how this could be in any way offensive. There is hardly any way that "one of the participants in the picture is forcing the other participant" since there is only one man; there is no showing off "homosexual tendencies" (or "heterosexual tendencies" for that matter) since this is all solo; and it clearly shows the best way such an action is carried out as well as the existent possibility of it. This should easily satisfy any religious people yelling that it is unacceptable on those grounds.

Also, I'm not really certain what other than a picture of autofellatio people would expect when searching for autofellatio. Certainly, if you don't want to see a man sucking his own cock, you'd just not search for an article which is bound to show it? Don't complain about graphic images on an encyclopaedia when those images are used in the same way they're used on articles on about everything else. The argument that "the picture does not add any additional value" could easily be applied to i.e. the Flag of the United States. Why would we need a picture of the flag? The text describes the colours, the shapes, the dimensions and everything correctly and in detail. That is the exact argument being used, and I call that better arguments be used before one claims the picture should be removed. AnnaOurLittleAlice (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Unclear shape image of gargoyle on an autofellatio article.

The image https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Igreja_Nossa_Senhora_da_Oliveira-Gargula.JPG is not clear about what it represents.

It might exist a description of the image, relating it to the content of the article.


Pheli3,14 21:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheli3,14 (talk • contribs)

I was about to remove this image, but it's already been removed. I agree with what you said. Melonkelon (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

FAQ: Why this image

It would be great if the FAQ explained why the image displayed was chosen over other options. Hyacinth (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But then we'd have to answer the question. My guess is along the lines of best-composed image - non-distracting background, not showing unnecessary genitals. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Why a Photo, and not a drawing? People don't come to Wikipedia to see that. 82.33.90.225 (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
They also don't come to Wikipedia because it is known for prudery, luckily. 91.114.193.167 (talk) 23:42, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
However, following a discussion on Wikimedia Commons about what was the lead image when the above comments were made, a new black & white SVG diagram was created for this article and has so far become the standard illustration of this act on 18 different language Wikipedias. It is a drawing, not a photograph, but it depicts the act with more than enough clarity and hopefully reduces the porn-factor to near-zero. KDS4444 (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Autofellatio. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Other Pop Culture References

This act was also a topic in an episode of the TV series "Workaholics", where Bill a character on the show performs autofellatio and the main characters find out about his hobby. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reude123 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.denofgeek.com/us/tv/workaholics-season-3-episode-11-booger-nights-review/50569/workaholics-season-3-episode-11-booger-nights-review
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Autofellatio/Archive_9&oldid=1222185931"