This is an archive of past discussions about Oral sex. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In the article it states that "The New England Journal of Medicine study concluded that people who had one to five oral-sex partners in their lifetime had approximately a doubled risk of throat cancer compared with those who never engaged in this activity and those with more than five oral-sex partners had a 250% increased risk.[12][13]"
This is useless without information about the risk of throat cancer to those who never engaged in oral sex. A change in cancer prevalence from .001% of the population to .002% would fit this description, as would a change from 30% to 60%, yet these are very different situations.
I know that the main stream media often reports statistics in this useless way. However, we can do better.
I must agree with this, however that specific study didn't determine how many people had that type of cancer, but rather the frequency in which it occurred in a small group. (in the NEJM 100 w/ cancer and 200 w/o.) That study was hardly conclusive. The 1% vs 36% figure was given from a Malmo University study with a similarly small case study group. The Johns Hopkins study also stated that many people with the HPV16 and mouth tumors didn't even engage in oral sex. The studies seem too inconclusive to be included in this article. Anton.hung (talk) 19:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Citation Needed?
"Not only are the sexual organs sensitive and well supplied with nerve endings, the same is true of the mouth, tongue and lips, so enjoyment of oral sex is not always limited to the person on the receiving end.[citation needed]"
I think it does need a citation; otherwise, it's original research. Even the statement about nerve endings would be OR by itself, and to say that the abundance of nerves causes the enjoyment of the person "giving" oral sex is definitely OR without a citation. (Those nerve endings could just as easily make oral sex unenjoyable for the "giver", anyway.) --Allen22:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm all for citing sources. However, it is not true that every unsourced statement is someone original research. Click the "Random article" link a few times and you will see that most articles have zero in-line references, or no more than one or two at the most. If you want to leave the tag up, I'm fine with that, but I think it is more accurate to call it an "unsourced statement" vs "original research". Johntex\talk23:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I can see where the logic from this comes from. The tongue does have a lot of brain dedication to its nervous input, and it can be considered to be an errogenous zone. Principles of Human Physiology by Germann and Stanfield discusses how the brain pays more attention to certain regions of the body's nervous input. People often get confussed thinking the number of nerve endings is the be all and end all of sensitivity, but its more how much of the brain is focused on processing that information. That text I've given doesn't directly support that statement but it does discuss the surrounding topic and one can make the logical conclusion that the person giving oral sex also has some stimuli from it. Is that sufficient?--WikipedianProlific(Talk)23:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
The fact that there is a lot of brain dedication does not mean that it makes oral sex pleasurable. As Allen argued above, that means jumping to a conclusion, and the jump constitutes OR. --Anonymous4417:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
It is not a commonly known fact that oral sex is physically pleasurable to the mouth/lips, I've never heard anything of the sort. Now, the point about erogenous zones is more relevant, and I must say that the classification of the lips and the mouth (not the tongue) as erogenous by R.K. Winkelmann (see relevant article) puzzles me a bit. Still, the fact that they are erogenous in an anatomical sense does not necessarily mean that that produces a pleasant sensation during oral sex - the eyes are also described as an erogenous zone anatomically, but I wouldn't venture any practical conclusions from it. Also, that particular source article, serious and scholarly as it is, was written in 1959 and seems to be connected with Freud's theory about the oral, anal and genital stages of human development, which in turn is not very popular in the scientific community today. So - I'm still requesting a reliable source for the claim in question. --Anonymous4417:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I would have to disagree that the subject is commonly-known. It can be argued that 1 million people in the world (children included) have not experienced giving or receiving oral sex. Even if the page author were an expert on oral sex sensation and it's mutual enjoyment a citation would be required. If I were to say that California is a state within the United States of America and that this fact is common knowledge an argument could be made that an entire town in VietNam would be ignorant of that fact. At what point do we as editors assume the reader has knowledge of the fact prior to arrival to the page? This is a place where one can learn information on a subject that is unfamiliar. The only way we can provide credible information on a subject, especially one with medical and psychological implication, expert citation is required. If one were to argue that it is common knowledge that oral-sex is pleasurable to giver and receiver, I would submit that the reverse is true. I would say that it is common knowledge among many married adults (or adults with the experience of long-term sexual relationships) that oral sex is discontinued over time for that very reason. But I'm not an expert. The author of the sentance is likely not an expert. An expert opinion on this matter of fact is required in order to make the assertion. I pose that the author is promoting oral-sex, and is using that sentence to that end. DarthAlbin (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no interest in censorship. When you're viewing an article related to, say, sexual behavior, then you're doing so at your own discretion -- the content found therein won't always be agreeable to every person viewing it. As much, I think it's fair to expect that anyone who ventures into articles such as this should already be educated enough about sexual matters in a way which prevents these situations from seeming gross or awkward. Human sexuality is simply... human sexuality. If you're not willing to be exposed to it, then good luck dealing with the rest of this society.
However, I want to say that I agree that the image seems inaccurate. Most people don't associate oral sex this way, and using the homosexual image would seem to attribute oral sex to homosexuality. So, I think that if we want to be perfectly fair in representing everybody, we should have four seperate images (or one larger image with comparible depictions) depicting male-female, female-male, male-male, and female-female positions. (in any given order, I suppose) Maybe this would prevent any issues in the future. Grendel00:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I am willing to create three new images for this page in a similar style (e.g. lineart, but my style is clearer than those currently on the page). I can make them so that it is not clear whether the individual administering oral sex is male or female and only the person reciving oral sex can be clearly identified by the genital region or breasts. I agree and disagree with the original statement. Whilst there is nothing wrong with this, it does create a rather skewed impression that oral sex only occurs between homosexual participants. I hate to say it but I can't help but feel that the 3 original diagrams are deliberately homosexual for some ulterior motive. But in any case, If everyone can put their views on sexuality aside for one minute consider that many children are likely to come here, this may be the page they learn about oral sex from. For that reason its very important that it provide a clear and unbiased (either way) view on its subject matter. Fact is that oral sex occurs between all manner of different people. If you agree that me redrawing (what I must admit are awful drawings anyway) then please post here one of the following: Agree, Impartial or Disagree with a short comment. I will check back in a day or twos time and act on the general consensus. Thanks (examples of my work will be up on my user page soon). --WikipedianProlific(Talk)12:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
It's certainly a novel argument that pictures of oral sex between a man and woman are appropriate for children, but not between a man and two men. I don't think that the pictures suggest oral sex only occurs between people of the same sex (it certainly doesn't imply that only homosexuals have oral sex, because not only homosexuals have sex with people of the same sex), and I'm not sure where you get the ulterior motive from. Why not assume good faith? If the pictures showed opposite-sex couples, would you say that there was an ulterior motive to promote heterosexuality? If you'd like to contribute images that you think are better, feel free, but there are certainly far more useful ways you could be spending your time contributing to the project. Catamorphism14:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't disagree with that at all. Thats why if I do it i'll make the recipients gender clear and the person giving oral sex no identifiable gender...e.g. it could be a woman or a man. As I said, I'm not here to argue the finer points of sex, society and morals but rather to say that at the end of the day some kids might show up here looking for some genuine information and at the moment the drawings are just a) lewd, b) uninformative and c) poorly drawn. Even as a piece of art I don't find them very aesthetically pleasing. Though that may just be my personal taste. I hate to say it and please don't get me wrong as its not personal to anyones lifestyle here, but one must look beyond the whats 'right and wrong', 'acceptable and unacceptable' with this, as a heterosexual I am going to be biased one way. As a homosexual/bisexual you are going to be biased the other way. But in any case I think both sides can be satisfied by simply removing any suggestion of gender from the pictures, then its down to the reader to view what they want into the drawings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipedianProlific (talk • contribs)
You haven't answered my question: why is a drawing showing two men having oral sex more unsuitable for children than a drawing showing a man and a woman having oral sex, or two people of ambiguous sex/gender having oral sex? (I didn't bring in "the finer points of sex, society, and morals" here; you did, by asserting without evidence that a picture of two men having oral sex "promotes homosexuality".)
I am not biased because of my sexual orientation, and I would hope that your heterosexuality doesn't prevent you from being objective, either. I request that we discuss content rather than people and leave the sexual orientation of editors out of this. Catamorphism16:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
To be honest your posts clearly show bias, I think its something we need to work around in order to achieve progress here as there has clearly been a lengthy and heated debate on the subject matter. I apologise if its not intentional but none the less it is there right from the second post of this question. I am entirely objective but thats because I accept areas that I may be biased in and try to avoid anything which may favour my personal bias. For example I have suggested removing any clearly identifiable gender from the person giving oral sex in each of the three pictures. That way both sides are satisfied and we have both avoided areas of potential personal bias and conflicts of interest. I suggest reading up on [[1]] and being sure that you aren't applying it here. I don't mean to make anything personal of course, but the NPOV and Bias issues were facing are simply preventing a speedy solution to the original question which was why are all the pictures of homosexuals and that this paints a dispropotionate and misleading idea of oral sex to potential unknowledgeable children/individuals seeking this page for assistance.
Additionally I don't have to answer the question "whats wrong with two men having oral sex in a picture" because that question is not relevant to this discussion. I have not said anything is wrong with it in principle, and it does seem to be the moral principles your trying to get at. All thats being said is that this paints a hugely dispropotionate view that only homosexuals have oral sex. Now we all know thats not the case but you need to be objective here in consdiering the people most likely to come to this page are children with little or no prior knowledge. You cannot seriously believe that having 3 pictures of homosexuals performing acts of oral sex is presenting a NPOV situation? If you do then your bias has gotten the better of you and thats something that needs resolution before you post here again. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
In the beginning, you said: "consider that many children are likely to come here, this may be the page they learn about oral sex from." By the maxim of relevance, I can only conclude that you think there is something wrong with children seeing a picture of two men having oral sex. Have I made an error in reasoning? Please, let's stick to discussing the facts rather than accusing the other side of bias; such accusations aren't productive. Catamorphism16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes an error in reasoning has been made, partly my fault for my wording. apologies. What I meant was that at the end of the day its down to a person (be them child or otherwise) to come to a conclusion about their sexuality. Its not something that should be presented to them least of all by this project. Therefore I was suggesting that it is of the upmost importance that we observe clear NPOV policy here. Having 3 pictures of homosexuals performing acts of oral sex and none of heterosexuals is not NPOV. In these circumstances where multi viewpoints arise its best to try to represent either all of them or none of them. I'm saying because children are involved we should we should represent none of them in pictures and all of them in the article. by a) pointing out somewhere in the article that oral sex occurs between all manner of individuals of any sexual orientation. and b) we remvoe any trace of gender from the diagrams as it just isn't nessessary. Please check out the diagram opposite, I made it while we've been talking here in the last 30 minutes. Its pretty basic and not how I'd want the final piece to be exactly but its a rough example of how I could draw it without clear or obvious gender. I appreciate your feedback, hopefully if theres consensus i can go ahead and finish this and re-draw the other two for tomorrow or friday and then we can be done with this whole silly debate.--WikipedianProlific(Talk)17:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't share your concern that a child will become gay (or straight) as a result of seeing a picture in a Wikipedia article. You're still free to create and upload whatever images you choose, and they'll be subject to the same process as always. I just don't think there's any compelling reason to do so. Catamorphism18:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I've only scan-read this discussion so forgive me if I've missed something, but I agree that 3 homosexual images and no heterosexual images is a bit biased. Indeed, you could argue that the heterosexual pictures should have a more prominent role in the article as straight oral sex is probably more common than gay oral sex. -- Steel22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Oral sex is more common among people who are nonwhite than people who are white (since there are more non-white people in the world than whites) -- would you therefore argue that a picture of white people engaging in oral sex is biased? Catamorphism23:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I have been following this conversation for a long time. I agree with my dear friend Catamorphism that it is silly to worry too much about the fact that the pictures are homosexual, it certainly doesn't bother me. However, there does seem to be strong support (perhaps even consensus) for having a mixture of images (gay, straight, black, white, etc), so I would like to express my support for finding suitable images that provide the diversity that so many editors seem to want. Interestingstuffadder23:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Here is my proposed new image for fellatio. Again it is a person of no apparent gender giving oral sex to a male (only obvious due to the genitals). I've also tried to make them a little bit more "medical text book" style to make them less 'shocking' as several complained about the current pictures. Feedback is very much appreciated else I will no doubt swap my images for the current ones and then they'll be a storm of complaints about "there was no need" and "the older pics were better"...you know how its goes. If there is consensus that my images are more helpful to the article than the original ones then I shall go ahead and change them. ta - --WikipedianProlific(Talk)00:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it is absolutely necesary to have both hetereosexual and homosexual images of oral sex. If there was any evidence being presented that man-on-man oral sex is somehow done differently than woman-on-man oral sex, and if the drawings reflect that difference, then it would be important. Otherwise, it would be a "nice to have", not a "must have". I see no importance whatsoever to having a mixture of skin colors and the like. Taken to its extreme, we'd need young people and old people and fat people and skinny people... and then the permutations would be endles (we don't have any short fat black people giving sex to tall skinny white people yet...) Johntex\talk00:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Having said that, I do like [[[:Image:Fellatio.png|thumb|200px]]. I especially like the fact that it is "medical text book" style and does not veer very far towards the pornographic. - Johntex\talk00:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I have now edited Image:Cunni.png (Cunnilingus) to be more like fellatio.png, I hope that this medical text book style will resolve this dispute which seems to have been in deadlock for some consdierable time now. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)01:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm a bigot but I question the motives of a gay guy "just happening" to provide 3 images depicting homosexual oral sex... Yes, we assume good faith but you undermine it when you blatantly push an agenda and then hide behind political correctness. 68.166.69.24517:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Various responses:
The curent images where made by someone who created a large series of images for wikipedia, and he only made three images depicting same sex couples. Accidently oral sex images. Suggesting that deliberately homosexual for some ulterior motive is a sign of bad faith, which is not appreciated. I also know quite well for myself and other, that that is not my motivation (to be honest, a person sucking a penis disgusts me, regardless of the gender, but the is my personal reaction to it). The motive is to have good illustrative images worthy of an encyclopedia. Until now, NOBODY has come up with good images free of copyright issues (there where some that were copyrighted, which had to be deleted for that reason).
I think the criteria for a images are (in order of importance):
Being illustrative and informative so that they clarify the text.
Not more graphical than needed, aka, depicting what they need to depict, not for example a group orgy in which oral sex as a side theme.
Not pornographic.
Estetically pleasing.
And if we have a choice, of the corrct mixure of sexual orientations (page wide criterion).
I have always hold the position that replacing all images with opposite-sex couples is equally biased as having three same sex couple images, and I personally have no problem in replaing tow of the three, as long as they are of equal quality or better.
Ok, and now the new proposed images.
The Cunnilingus image as far as I am concerned fails several of my criteria. It suggests oral sex, but it is not illustrative of the act itself, more the wider context (which might be also of use, but the current image is in that sense better). I think it also at the same time is a bit more graphical than needed, as I was at first drawn towards the face of the woman. But in general, a nice image!
The fellation image is as far as I am concerned a perfect replacement candidate for the current image. It is illustrative, depicts what needs to be depicted, not more graphical than needed, estetically pleasing, nothing wrong with. (And it not even gives me e string feeling of disgust, which is exceptional).
Thanks very much Kimvdlinde, your time on resolving this matter is much appreciated. As for the assuming good faith you make a fair point, I will bear that in mind. I will also endevour to improve the cunnilingus image, without going into too much detail I'll see if I can move the person administering oral sex down a little bit further and draw a tongue in so its quite clear whats going on without showing too much as to be shocking. As for the womans face I'll see if I can remove it or perhaps make it more subtle, but I may not really be able to given realistic time constraints and my now rising backlog of artwork pending completion. An area for compromise perhaps?. I am also progressing on a third replacement image which will feature someone/ or both people of a different racial origin. Not for any specific reason but I just feel personally that it will add to the article to make that small addition, I'm trying to be as artistically inclusive and unbiased as is possible. Having now spent upwards of 6 hours drawing and discussing these I hope you will all understand that there is going to have to be a small margin present for compromise on the drawings as a result of artistic license and time constraints. Thanks --WikipedianProlific(Talk)01:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What I would say is, use them both for the time being, as they illustrate two different aspects, and if in time, you feel like making another that can replace both of them, even nicer. I have to do stuff also, and yes, it is time consuming, but also rewarding! As for an image with people of different racial origin, that would be great! -- Kim van der Lindeat venus01:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
as promised here is the final picture of the set of three featuring a woman on top and an undisclosed individual on the bottom. The female is of asian racial features whilst the bottom person is of african racial characteristics. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)02:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
What posessed you to think including Interracial sex would be a brilliant idea? You do realised that this might be highly offensive in Asia? Or even in many other parts of the world? You do realise that this may even be offensive to Africans themselves? Why insert Interracial sex in an entry about oral sex, is this your notion of subtleness in offering the world your own agenda? If you merely wanted to describe Oral sex, you could easily do it with 2 Asians. You do realise that only a miniscule minority of people involve themselves in either interracial sex or breeding? So what posessed you to arrogate yourself to stepping on the toes of other peoples cultures and beliefs? Who elected you god of morality and needlessly offend other cultures? I'm here talking a wild guess, and taking a shot at stating you're an American, if you're not, i'd be surprised, why? Because i've rarely seen such petulant needless want to be a purposeful jackass in insulting other people's cultures and imposing your own self-delegated set of "morality", than in any other people other than Americans. 85.138.1.7110:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Firstly please go check WP:NPA. Secondly I'm not American I'm British so your wrong there. Thirdly this is the English wikipedia. It caters for the English speaking peoples of the world. And in the english speaking parts of the world our 'self-delegated morality' as you call it is our own right to express. For that very reason you won't see my pictures on the chinese or african wikis. Only here. I seriously doubt anyone else is going to have a problem with this diagram, which promotes an unbiased approach to race/gender when refering to sexual matters. Furthermore in the countries the wiki is intended for there is nothing against the law regarding this. Please take your problems with american and hatred somewhere else, because none of us want to hear it. WikipedianProlific(Talk)10:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Those pictures are all of very high quality, illustrative without being pornographic -- thumbs up, everyone should be able to accept those. :) —Nightstallion(?)14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Just an innocent question: Why would a photo of two "real" human beings doing exactly the same thing ... be considered inappropriate by most people? — Mütze17:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Its a question of social convention. "clinical-style" drawings are appropriate for a reference work. Photos of sexual acts are generally considered more titilating. Of course, some people would object even to the drawings, but the drawings are the closest thing to a middle ground in terms of being useful, but not as provocative as photos. Johntex\talk17:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
as Johntex says I have tried to make the drawings as objective, clinical and un-sexual as is possible whilst still showing enough detail to make it clear what it is illustrating. Equally I believe the Florida state law (which wikipedia must comply with as thats where the servers are located) would prohibit any similar photographic images but doesn't stop a medical illustration. I hope this answers your question. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)12:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I just wanted to say that these pics are much better than the ones that were here before. They're more vivid and at least some show hetero oral, which is way more common than gay oral. Magister Erik the Rude05:29, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow, good job on solving (apparently) the image issues this article has been plagued with. I took it off my watchlist ages ago due to sheer volume of edits, but I checked back into day, and was very impressed with the article. -- nae'blis21:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
The old fellatio image either seems to have either reappeared here or I never removed it (I can't remember to be honest). But is there really a need for 2 images depciting in almost identical ways, the same thing. It also leaves a door open for the old issues about blatently homosexual images to resurface unessessarily. I would support removing the old black and white homosexual fellatio image from the article in favour of the one I created for the article depeciting an individual of none-specific gender administering fellatio. Its a safer option and shows exactly the same thing from effectivley the same angle. Also its more colourful, medical and less pornographic. WikipedianProlific(Talk)15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems like a good plan. You're right: it's superfluous, unnecessary and, frankly, not as good a picture. Fan-196715:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I was scanning this article and noticed this sentence:
Its effect is to cleanse the urethra and make the conditions of the urethra more suitable for ejaculation because the alkaline secretion will neutralise the acidic residual urine that might be still in the urethra and prepare it for the ejaculation of semen that may soon follow, as well as to provide lubrication for the foreskin and glans during foreplay and intercourse.
The sentence drags out so much! I have a feeling the rest of the article could be much of the same. Whats to be done? T. Moitie01:21, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
69 sex position
So of course, I have to stir up trouble again... I noticed this article today, and it looks like a split off of this page, but without much merit (as far as I can tell) with respect to asying anything truly different. I think merging and redirecting it here would be appropriate. -- nae'blis15:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. It seems worth its own page, given (for instance) the number of cultural references. --SEF23a20:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I also disagree. 69 has some fairly powerful cultural and linguistic meanings to it other than just a sex position and the quantity of information there amounts to enough to be worth of its own article. I can imagine people searching for the 69 page frankly, and evidently they do as people comment on it in the droves. --WikipedianProlific(Talk)20:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to have a represenatation of beastiality (octopus on woman) on here? I'm all for inclusiveness but this seems a bit much. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.90.35.185 (talk • contribs) 12:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree, not based on taste or prudishness, but it really doesn't seem relevant to the article. Many of our readers have engaged in oral sex. I feel safe in asserting that not one has received oral sex from any cephalopod. Fan-196720:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Whoa... I missed a bestiality picture of octopus on woman? I think a whole page should be devoted to that. Seriously though...octopus? Is that even possible? Don't they live and BREATHE underwater? I can imagine the problems they would have outside of their habitat, basically suffocating during the process. Now that I think about it, this is very interesting. Please someone post a wiki on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.20.151.157 (talk) 01:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC).
Linkspam
Just a note to anyone watching the page. Some outfit selling enlargement pills is repeatedly spamming for them here. They have a number of different (reasonable-looking) URL's, and they lie in the edit summaries. Fan-196702:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Since the majority of entries seem to be from anonymous user(s), I'll put in a request for semi-protection.Rsm9983302:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Since it's a semi-permanent problem (from one spammer or another), it's probably a problem we need to live with. Except for very controversial articles, we really don't like permanent semi-protection. Fan-196703:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, seeing that the majority is coming from anon users, adding semi-protection (non-permanent) is the best way to discourage this. I know there's more than enough people here to revert within minutes, but why not cut them off at the proverbial pass for a while.Rsm9983303:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. I requested permenant semi protection for a few articles like 'horse' and 'cat' which due to their obvious search nature are vandalised daily. But I can understand reluctance in those cases as there is no reason why they deserve vandalism. However I think 'oral sex' and '69 sex position' need semi permenant protection due to both the frequency and nature of the vandalism they recieve. We must accept that this page is going to attract a high number of wikipedia unfamilar users who will vandalise it out of it's 'humor value'. I literally can imagine the 12-15 year olds sitting on the school computers in their lunch break doing this giggling with friends. 99 times out of 100 its an anonymous user, literally those are realistic statistics not exaggerations. I think semi-perm-protection would be most prudent for this article, for the sake of my watchlist I emplore an admin to grant it. As for the 'enough people watch this to just revert it' arguement, for every revert I do thats an article I don't have time to edit... reversion prevents users like me creating new content. Thats something for us to consider, the sheer waste of time workload this is producing unessessarily. WikipedianProlific(Talk)17:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the {sprotect} was removed about a week ago. You can always request its re-add at WP:RPP. Linkspam is only half the issue. There's also the IP's and new users (mostly teenage, I'd guess) constantly making nonsense edits. Fan-196717:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
I recently edited the Wiki article on Christian views on contraception and talked on the talk page abouyt my removing of material on that page about oral sex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christian_views_on_contraception#Orgasms_and_oral_sex and suggested it be integrated here. I think a heading Views of Religions would be beneficial. Some of the material currently under the Taboo heading should then be re-worked into the new section. I am prepared to begin and add material to the new section if given editing capability.—Preceding unsigned comment added by CyberAnth (talk • contribs)
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Thank you.
The page is only semi-protected, which means anonymous IP's and newly registered users only are prevented from editing it. Just be sure any material added is cited and verified, as I am unaware of specific, documented religious positions on the subject, but you may be able to enlighten us. Fan-196714:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
A Couple of Awkward Phrases
"The pun "cunning linguist" is a play on "cunnilingus". In its whole form, the pun is often used with a second sexual pun in the following sentence: "You may be a cunning linguist, but I'm a master debater!" The second sexual pun being "master debater," a play on "masturbator." These puns can be found in the popular films Annie Hall, Tomorrow Never Dies, Austin Powers and the musical Cabaret."
Now what is the point of that chunk? Even if it does have a good reason for being there, the second to last sentence is a fragment, and is rather repetitive.
Secondly, I want to see a source for the fact that potato chips can cause microscopic cuts. I'm suspicious of that.
I removed the reference to Annie Hall. Nothing else bothers me, but neither of these puns appears in Annie Hall. PacificBoy01:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
"It is also possible for the inside of the mouth to be bruised by the penis if oral sex is too rough, although this can be lessened if the person giving fellatio tilts his or her head back (as in looking up) instead of keeping the head level."
This is a real photograph of a person performing oral sex. To see the image click on the microscopic icon or...
click on "oral sex" from commons, and with patience search until you come to the filename "Fellatio1.jpg"
1. Why do you think a picture showing a real person performing oral sex should be on the page?
2. Why do you think a picture showing a real person performing oral sex shouldn't?
YES, I ABSOUTELY BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD GET AWAY FROM ILLUSTRATIVE DIAGRAMS AND DEPICTIONS OF VARIOUS HUMAN BEHAVIOUR, AND I THINK WE SHOULD INSTEAD USE PHOTOGRAPHS OF REAL HUMAN BEINGS E.G. ENGAGING IN ORAL SEX. SO I AM ALL FOR PHOTOGRAPHS.
Let's make this a configuration option and tag the images [[Tag:Gay]] and [[Tag:Illustration]] with alternates. ;) You need an account to turn on 'offensive' (or 'hot' depending on who you ask) images.
And I reverted it - you cannot simply replace an image with an unrelated one. The new image was not sourced as described & we had no reason to believe it was under the stated license. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
example answers:
1. It shows an event partly.
2. It can be described in other ways without causing too much unnecessary problems for people watching the article.
Any sort of other comments are also welcome user:Logictheo 04:10, 11 October 2006
No sadly this can't be done. It breaches the law in florida where it is illegal to show this on a website which does not censor against minors. Since anyone can view this material without having to log in, identify their age or even prove their age means that it would be illegal. Infact the fact this image is hosted on commons is currently in contravention of the florida state law and it should be removed. Although no official policy guidelines are clear on nudity in images, actual photographic pictures of individuals is strictly agains the state law of flordia which Wikipedia and its parent organisations must comply to (as thats where the servers are located). Diagrams are okay as they do not depict real individuals engaging in a sexual act. WikipedianProlific(Talk)12:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh, sorry charlie, but you are mistaken. See the discussion on the guidelines page mentioned above.
You are correct that the images in Wikipedia are limited by the laws governing the state of Florida where the servers reside. The laws of Florida are limited by the first amendment to the constitution. In Florida, status 847 defines obscenity, and all laws regarding this are based on that obscenity definition. That definition is nearly a duplicate of the Miller Test, in Miller v. California. Also called SLAPS (Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. ) That is because Florida law can not be more restrictive than the supreme court ruling, without violating peoples first amendment rights. The florida law is less restrictive in that it duplicates the miller test, but then states that a mother breastfeeding is never obscene. (not mentioned in Miller v. California).
The State of Florida does not, and can not prohibit "actual photographic pictures of individuals is strictly agains the state law of flordia " as you put it. Please, if you don't have a clue, don't try to pretend you do. The State of Florida does prohibit "obscene" pictures in Wikipedia. That would be an article where the work does not, as a whole (including the photo of a sexual act), have any serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. An encylopedic entry on oral sex, with a photograph of oral sex would certainly be controversial, but not likely obscene in this context.
(Replying to the original question.) While I do not see any problem with this photograph, I think that it is not any more informative than the drawing that we currently have. Since it will likely offend more people, I vote against changing to it. If you can find a photograph that is obviously illustrates something notable about oral sex which is not illustrated by any current drawing, I would be in favor of using it. --Strait22:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that there is great ambiguity about whether such a photo would be allowed by law. On the one hand, we are serving an educational purpose. On the other hand, we do not check ID of our readers, nor do we maintain the records necessary to show that the participants are over 18 (as required by US law). Also, content on Wikipedia is reused by mirrors that accept paid advertising and may not be able to rely on the same educational claim as us.
What I am very sure of is that serious reference works frown on using photographs of sexual acts. You will not find such photos in EB or Encarta. You will find that even books on Sexologoy prefer drawings over photos. Showing such photos would give fuel to our critics who would like to dismiss us as being less than a serious encyclopedia.
Therefore, because of the potential legal issues and the likely damage to our credibility, I oppose the use of photographs.
In the past, we have accepted a compromise where photos are used behind a linkimage tag, to allow some warning and ensure that the reader is at least taking responsibility on themselves for clicking that link. I can continue to go along with that compromise. Johntex\talk23:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is U.S. law is it required that we check age? (Hint: It doesn't.)
How Wikipedia is reused is not our problem.
I accept that you oppose using photographs on sexuality articles. Others do not oppose it.
Many of the things are just ways of creating fear, uncertainty and doubt, to try and get people to self-censor. We are discussing a guideline where "sex acts" are behind a link, and I could live with that.
I won't go into the finer points of the law right now. As I mentioned, the law is conflicting and murky in this area. You didn't speak to my main objection, which is simply that it will reflect badly on Wikipedia in the opinions of many readers. I think that is very important. I don't want us to be the most informative encyclopedia that no one reads because they think we have too much pornographic content that would not be found in any other encyclopedia. As I mentioned, I also can live the the linkiamge solution. Johntex\talk03:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
I think it will be good when 'Western society' has evolved to the level that no one is upset by explicit sexual imagery, but that time has not yet come. So, although it would be good to have that or other pictures on the article, you can be sure that enough people would be offended that it would be taken off shortly. Try again in next summer, I would say. Cheers -- Vranak00:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
What are your views on western society 'evolving' to perform oral sex casually as part of senior sex ed? "Today, as part of 12th grade education, we will learn Oral Sex as contraception. We have strawberry and cherry flavored condoms; remember, condoms are relevant during oral too. Now everyone please find a partner.."
Two Concerns
First, the bit about sexual fluids being absorbed into the mouth like alcohol at a wine tasting is ridiculous. These two procesess are completely different. Second, shouldn't this article include some discusion of the increasing role and acceptance of oral sex in western culture in recent years, especially since the Lewinski Affair?
Your first point is absolutely correct. The second probably ought to be included, but needs to be seriously sourced and documented. One of the things that came out at that time was that, in fact, there had been a growing attitude change long before Clinton, and he wasn't the only one who thought it doesn't qualify as sex (it was a major plot point in the 1994 movie Clerks). Serious change, but I don't know when it occurred or how it developed. When I was single in the 70's and 80's it was totally opposite: you were more likely to get real sex on a first date than oral sex. Fan-196714:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
There definitely has been a shift. In my life I've seen cunnilingus go from guys denying it to guys making jokes about having to do it to guys bragging about their prowess, for what it's worth. But I can't find a citable source to back that up. TRWBW06:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Second, shouldn't this article include some discusion of the increasing role and acceptance of oral sex in western culture in recent years, especially since the Lewinski Affair? This presumption is not supported by any facts, and should not be included in the article. It's simply a talking point repeated ad nauseam on conservative talk radio. The existing wiki article arleady supports this when it mentions the 2005 study, cited in Time Magazine, as the first of its kind. How can we conclude that something is on the rise when it has only been studied once? There is no baseline to which to compare. Also, anecdotes of "guys bragging about their prowess" have nothing to do with the prevalence of oral sex. Even if it is true that people are more open and honest nowadays, that does not necessarily mean they are having more sex, only that they are talking about it. I would not be opposed, however, to a mention of oral sex once being considered by psychiatry as a deviant act, and the "sexual revolution" which led to a change in such perceptions. 72.78.5.2712:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
To be best of my knowledge, sexual fluids can and are absorbed by the mouth and tongue during sexual intercourse. They are even absorbed by the lips and skin. Not in it's entirety, but certain... 'nutrients', shall we say, do indeed enter the body. In other words, a girl does not have to swallow in order to reap the benefit of ejaculate. Cheers -- Vranak00:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the links describes the "health benefits of oral sex." It is my understanding that these claims have largely been debunked. See, e.g., snopes.com—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt2h (talk • contribs)
I know it seems dubious, but when there's a citation from a genuine medical journal with the same information, I'm reluctant to remove it. Fan-196717:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't see such a citation from a medical journal on that site. The only one was about a study about vaginal sex, performed by college students.. --Anonymous4410:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
The link contains the sourced info about fellatio preventing pre-eclampsia, but it also contains the urban legend that semen is nutritious. So I guess it might as well be removed. Instead, the readers can benefit from the serious online references, which are contained in the relevant section. --Anonymous4422:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh, that one; yeah, it's pretty lame. The amount of nutrition available from a few cc's of semen has to be infinitesimal. Fan-196717:57, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
The only thing I can find on snopes.com is about a rumour that oral sex reduces risk of breast cancer. Am I missing something about pre-eclampsia?--Doctorcoy17:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
In the health benefits section, thanks whoever added the remark about possible confounding with overall frequency of sex. I have edited the paragraph to link this idea (possible confounding) with the remark about the absence to date of a randomised trial. I think two citations are needed: (i) for the confounding remark. The reference currently in place (on BBC news) cites anonymous "other doctors" as saying that people who have oral sex "probably" have more sex. (ii) It seems absurd to mention a need for randomized trials of oral sex without acknowledging that needed or not these are probably never going to happen: but I haven't found a good reference for this, and have had to use careful wording to get in a sort-of-right reference. Can anyone find either (i) a primary source for a correlation between oral sex and overall sexual activity or (ii) any reference for ethical and practical difficulties in randomized trials of specific sexual behaviours?--Doctorcoy16:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Moved to talk page
I have been adding a "citation needed" tag to a sentence in the intro for at least half a year now, and each time I drop in, I find out that somebody has removed the tag and not the sentence. Now I am moving it to the talk page. Somebody should actually take pains to find a source for it. In case somebody wonders why I doubt it (you never know) - well, nerve endings are one thing, the sexual pleasurability associated with the genital area is another. Of course "enjoyment is not always limited to one party", but the reasons for that are hardly the immediate physiological stimulation.
"Not only are the sexual organs sensitive and well supplied with nerve endings, the same is true of the mouth/throat cavity, tongue, and lips, so enjoyment of oral sex is not necessarily limited to half of the involved party." '
Islamic views on oral sex: In regards to the religious views on oral sex.
(B) Techniques of Foreplay:
As far as the methods of mutual stimulation in foreplay are concerned, the shari'ah allows the husband and the wife to see, kiss, touch, smell and stimulate any part of each other's body. Therefore, oral sex, as it is known in this part of the world is allowed. Imam Musa al-Kazim was once asked, "Can a person kiss his wife's vagina?" The Imam said, "No problem." (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 77; for similar views of present mujtahids see al-'Urwah, p. 625) The only restriction is that no foreign object should be used. And this restriction is quite understandable: nothing can really substitute the things Allah has created in our bodies!
The restriction I am placing on the use of foreign objects is based on the following hadith. 'Ubaydullah bin Zurarah says that he had an old neighbor who owned a young slave-girl. Because of his old age, he could not fully satisfy the young slave-girl during sexual intercourse. She would therefore ask him to place his fingers in her vagina as she liked it. The old man complied with her wishes even though he did not like this idea. So he requested 'Ubaydullah to ask Imam ' Ali ar-Riza (a. s.) about it. When 'Ubaydullah asked the Imam about it, the Imam said, "There is no problem as long as he uses any part of his own body upon her, but he should not use any thing other than his body on her." (Wasa'il, vol. 14, p. 77)
In an earlier discussion, we said that masturbation (i.e., self-stimulation of one's own sexual organ till emission of semen or orgasm) is not allowed. However, in the case of married persons, there is no problem if the wife stimulates her husband's penis till the emission of semen or the husband stimulates his wife's vagina till orgasm. (This issue has also been clearly mentioned by the late Ayatullah al-Khu'i in answer to some questions sent by an 'alim from London) This is allowed because it does not come under "self-stimulation;" it is stimulation by a lawful partner. The Qur'an clearly says that, "The believers are.. . those who protect their sexual organs except from their spouses." (23: 5-6) And stimulation of sexual organs by a lawful partner surely comes under the definition of protecting one's organ s "except from their spouses." - http://www.najaf.org/english/book/10/chap3b.htm#anchor541828—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.82.247 (talk • contribs)
And this is important why? Shall we include the Klingon views on foreplay while we're at it? Perhaps a section on what Software development consultants think of oral sex to? I would imagine that information is better placed in the article on Islam or one of its various sub pages. WikipedianProlific(Talk)12:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Islam is one of the largest religions on the planet. If you're going to include Christianity, Sub-Saharan Africa and ancient Rome, mentioning widely held beliefs in the muslim world, be they silly or sensible, is just as appropriate. 72.78.5.2712:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I would like to see an expansion of Klingon foreplay in this article. Even though it differs with the Islamic views of foreplay especially regarding the use of foreign objects and tools, the names of the people would be equally entertaining. Besides, when else can you say "Nuj parmaq tlhej wIj be' 'oH QaQ" and have it be relevant?70.20.151.15701:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved to talk page 2
Could very well be true, but sounds like personal experience (OR), or, more likely, a joke.
Others have found that tracing the alphabet, in the lack of a better idea, seems to work quite well.[citation needed] A variant of tracing the alphabet is to trace letters that spell out words and sentences; this technique is less repetitive to the licked and less boring for the licker.[citation needed]
Tracing the alphabet has been suggested in several of the guides I have read (mostly in Norwegian, which wouldn't do much good as a source on English wikipedia), and it works nicely. You'll probably find that some letters work better than others. It's published, so not OR. Zuiram07:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Earliest reference to this "technique" I'm aware of is from Sam Kinison on one of his earlier videos. Though I've heard it repeated as a useful strategy many a time. Zandlyman04:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Zandyman
I heard about this technique once when I came across some website. They said it was a great way to stay in the closet if you're gay and have a girlfriend.
Fellatrix? or Fellator
"One form of fellatio is known as deep throating, after the 1972 pornographic film Deep Throat. This technique involves repressing the gag reflex and taking the entire erect penis in the mouth, the shaft bending slightly to allow the head of the penis to slide partially down the throat of the fellatrix."
Fellatrix refers only to females. The second sentence has moved on from discussing the origins in Deep Throat to describe the technique of deep throating generally - so 'fellator' might be an improvement and more neutral. Michaelastirling08:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Someone has added the information, if there is an agent in semen that is protective against pre-eclampsia, it is transforming growth factor TGF-beta. Two things: is there a reference for this idea; and, should it be presented as a certainty (as in the current draft) or as a possibility? I have also seen serum hormone leutinizing agent (SHLA) suggested as a candidate for this role. --Doctorcoy16:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Ram2006 is fighting me to change the 69 image from one that shows a brown person and a white or maybe asian person to one which is identical except that both people are the same (light) color. I do not believe that we need all of our images to show white people, nor do I believe that couples should be of matching races in all images. We should have a mix which is appropriate for English speakers. Can I assume that most editors agree with me? --Strait00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur. W/o looking at the images in question, I see no supportable reason to insist that illustrations impose contrived racial consistency. White, black, yellow, green, blue, they're all consenting illustrations. David Spalding (☎✉✍) 02:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
P.S. I disagree with this statement (emphasis added): "We should have a balanced selection of races in images." I oppose the word "should" in 99% of contingencies. We do not need to impose requirements to a) have same-race illustrations or b) quota of mixed-race illustrations. If someone starts counting, I'm worried. David Spalding (☎✉✍)
Agree that we do not need quotas. However, if every single image depicted the same race or every single image depicted matching (or non-matching) races, I think that would be a problem if for no other reason than it fails to adequately illustrate reality. In this case, we should prefer new images that provide variety over new images that do not. We're very close to that right now, I think. Past that, my hope is that balance will occur naturally as each illustrator provides images from his or her own experience. --Strait15:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
You're right, of course. Variety is spontaneous and inevitable on WP. And I was speaking with tongue in cheek (mea culpa for not making that clear). David Spalding (☎✉✍)
First of all, the fact that a particular editor objects to interracial sex (and claims to speak for an entire continent in doing so) has no value in deciding article content. Secondly, and most importantly, I never interpreted this picture as being deliberately interracial. The image is simply much, much clearer when the two participants have easily distinguishable skin tones. Fan-196715:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I found that the modified image (rather crudely modified, I'd say) was created by same editor changing this page. That user has a negative comment about on his/her talk page, Multiculturalism is a disaster and genocide. As the image was only linked to from this article, I tagged it with ac IsD (image for speedy deletion). David Spalding (☎✉✍) 16:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Subject for Deletion
This is not a "true" encyclopedia subject. If you look at any of the encyclopedias (both print and online), you will notice that this subject is not mentioned at all.
The admins and other enforcers have removed my innocent images of horses all because I hold copyright to them and I won't release into their hands nor the public domain. On this article, there are a TON of photos that should be up for deletion
How are these image even appropriate???? My images of horses get deleted because I hold the copyrights to them and they are totally legit pictures that are far from being an "x-rated" image.
Approval of these images and removal of mine .... I am lost for words. Children go on this site. The subject "oral sex" should not even be discussed here..... not to mention the "visual" effects that go with it. It's not far from porn. It's basically showing how to do it and what positions to use.
There is a law for this and I believe that Wikipedia has violated those laws. To make matters worse, this article gets a "Top" rating which means that "This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale." What does that mean??? Oral sex is now on the high priority for the list of things to do? Not only that, but this subject is "protected", meaning noboby can go in to make corrections without prior approval. Gee, I wonder why??? Is it because you may have the perverts coming around to vandalise it? Yes, I think so. And not only the pervs, but the folks who have their morals in tact would want the images removed immediately. So yeah, it is protected because they (the WikiAdmins) don't want an edit war and at the same time love the fact that this subject, along with the other items listed are on their site.
Either way, this content is offensive and children at any age should not have access to this subject period! It should not be freely accessable.--Webmistress Diva13:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia publicly announces that all its content may be freely recopied and redistributed. You're not willing to grant such permission for your horse pictures, so they can't be here. You want your pictures here, release them under the same rules that applies to all other Wikipedia content. Your refusal to release them has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this article, and isn't even remotely, conceivably, in any way, relevant here.
"What does that mean??? Oral sex is now on the high priority for the list of things to do?" Um, well, now that you mention it... yeah.
I was trying to make a point.... in comparison to "images to images". The subject "Oral Sex" is not an "encyclopedic" content and you know it. If Wikipedia is suppose to mimic the same concept of what an Encyclopedia is, the least they can do is adhere to the same guidelines and give censorship. This article is a step-by-step guide on how to have sex with useage of different positions, along with illustrations. Rules can be changed. Just an FYI, giving my images a "copyright" and Fair Use image tag has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Stick to the subject. Don't try to turn it around. The bottom line is this. Children of age go to this site to do research for their homework/projects and having an article like this is very INAPPROPRIATE. There's really no sense in trying to make your point or argue this case. There is no justification for this topic to be here. It's bothering to know that admins and editors will scrutinize and remove an article because the subject or person we are talking about in their eyes are not "notable" and therefore is questionable. But content which includes things like a penis rubbing against a vagina is top priority importance. Okay.... whatever!--Webmistress Diva15:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
You're the one who brought up the issue of your pictures, that you refused to release. It's not relevant here at all, in any way.
Your opinion that the subject is not encyclopedic is just that: your opinion.
Your opinion that we should not include any content that children should not see is also just that: your opinion.
Diva, please avail yourself of some quality diva time reading WP:NOT, WP:NOTE, WP:C, WP:ICT. Image guidelines here are clear and necessary. The subject oral sex is certainly notable, of general interest, and your own tastes and opinions are yours alone. If this doesn't work ... try going outside, have a nice meal at a restaurant, get some exercise. All these will help mitigate your concern about this one li'l bitty harmless page. David Spalding (☎✉✍) 00:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, the reason that most encyclopedias don't cover this is that no encyclopedia is as large as Wikipedia. Encyclopedias are general works that cover all fields. The word encyclopedia comes from the Greek words enkyklios paideia, meaning "general education."--Abs Like Jesus04:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Removed some text
I removed some text on the Latin origin. Some was wrong: fellatio is a noun (the act of sucking); the verb is fello. The other claimed word irrumare does not seem to be borne out by any Latin source I can find. The references I find all translate it as normal, not oral, sex. Fan-196723:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Check Catullus. I don't know your latin background, obviously, but he used irrumare, meaning to suckle, to imply fellatio of a forced nature.
You're right. I think my problem was looking at older translations that were, uh, less than specific. The original or literal meaning seems to be what a mother does in giving her breast to a baby.
The presented translation here wasn't quite right though. In Catullus' usage it doesn't mean "I am sucked" (passsive), but rather something more like "I f--- the mouth of" (active). It's probably why the word didn't get carried over into English. Most of the time, we view oral sex as something the felator does to the fellatee. Irrumare reverses the actor/actee roles. Fan-196702:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Important issue with the fellatio picture
The picture shows the lady performing the fellatio from the top, as if in 69, which does not easily allow stimulation of the frenulum with her tongue. Representative picture should show fellatio from the bottom. The importance of frenulum stimulation is also not mention in the "Technique" section. Kokot.kokotisko16:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There are two 69 pics. There should be a pic with "normal" fellatio.
separate articles for fellatio/cunnilungus?
203.144.160.248 has recently spun off cunnilingus to its own article. It had been a redirect for a long time. Fellatio is still a redirect back here. I personally think that both of these can be adequately covered on one page and that spreading them over three pages will just dilute the content. I don't feel terribly strongly about this, but in any case, there should be either be a page for both cunnilingus and fellatio or they should both be redirects. Comments? --Strait16:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Re-added some decent external how-to's that were apparently lost in the merge? Blimfark 23 February 2007
Orgasm
The cunnilingus section states that "most women can achieve orgasm only through cunnilingus...." Let's see a source. The section then goes on to reference a scene from a movie. Since the page is apparently blocked from editing I wonder who had the authority to put this in the article. It seems silly to lock up the article when whoever still has access either refuses to improve the article or is doig damage to the article themselves.
"Blowjob"
I've heard this phrase used to refer to oral sex on women, too. Does this require a quote?
Also, should the Oral Sex page cover performing oral sex on a strap on dildo? This is covered in most lesbian sex manuals, but I'm not sure how it should be categorised. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.89.218 (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC).
Photos?
I really like this article, but i think it could use some photos in addition to the drawings and paintings. On Wikimedia Commons there is a good fellatio photograph in the Oral sex category that shows a detailed depiction of fellatio technique, but it restricted. could an admin possibly add it or give me the authority to do it?
Herkelthebrave06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; a drawing serves the same level of encyclopedic information on the topic. I could understand if you wanted to include a photograph of The Louvre, for instance, at the article of that name, but the drawing suffices here. Joie de Vivre19:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
The slang terms show up in three separate lists in the article. It would be great if somebody (sorry, not me) would organize them into a single place. Matchups03:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Oral sex had been considered to be a taboo or at least frowned upon in many cultures and parts of the world.[1] Reasons mentioned are that this sexual act does not lead to procreation, or that is a humiliating and/or unclean practice (an opinion that is, at least in some cases, connected with the symbolism attached to different parts of the body). This has been more or less the case in Christian and Sub-Saharan African cultures, in Ancient Rome, and Ancient India. Similar lines of reasoning have been espoused by some modern religious authorities in Islamic cultures.
In pre-Christian Ancient Rome, sexual acts were generally seen through the prism of submission and control. This is apparent in the two Latin words for the act: irrumare (to penetrate orally), and fellare (to be penetrated orally)[citation needed]. Under this system, it was considered to be abhorrent for a male to perform fellatio, since that would mean that he was penetrated (controlled), whereas receiving fellatio from a woman or another man of lower social status (such as a slave or debtor) was not humiliating. The Romans regarded oral sex as being far more shameful than, for example, anal sex — known practitioners were supposed to have foul breath and were often unwelcome as guests at a dinner table.[2] The practice was taboo for public health reasons, as well. In Rome, the genitals were considered to be unclean. Oral sex was thought to make the mouth dirty, and (ultimately) to present a public health risk.
An editor removed this section arguing that "(this section is not supported by the sections and is in fact refuted at the "cultural" sections of Cunnilingus and Fellatio. see Talk.\)"
Yes, indeed they are. The idea of a "taboo" section is POV; because in some cultures it was not taboo, quite the opposite. An overview is more appropriate here, as the Fellatio and Cunnilingus articles can go into more specific detail about specific cultural attitudes towards each act. The views towards fellatio and cunnilingus sometimes differ even within the same culture, so sweeping statements about "oral sex" are not appropriate. Joie de VivreT15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
External Links
External links have been pared down, with the loss of quite a bit of information. What's in place now doesn't really add much more than what's in the article, whereas previously there were pointers to respectable "How-To" guides (some quite old). I've re-added some sites that don't contain advertising and conform to WP:EL. Comments welcome.
Blimfark08:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
in ancient rome fellatio was considered extremely taboo
I don't know anything of the history of oral sex, but i think this would be a great section. Were there oral sex in very ancient times? what about "exotic" (for us) cultures? User:Luizabpr —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 16:32, August 26, 2007 (UTC).
I switched it with [2], which may be a little easier to make out at the small size. Mostly I changed it though because the previous image technically didn't illustrate the subject. -kotra (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
In the vagina article, it states that vagina is "self cleaning". How does oral sex then affect the vagina PH balance? Has anybody information about this and should it be mentioned here?
Dragon?
Utility > Variants
"Making a dragon (Spanish: el dragón) is to swallow a the semen during the ejaculation and expell it trough the nose"
No, and the source that was provided didn't even actually detail what the expression meant, just that it was some "twisted" sexual activity. I couldn't even find the expression on Google so I removed the claim. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions about Oral sex. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
located above the edit window.
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Hayez02.jpg){kind=link}