Talk:Anilingus

A page history resides at Anal-oral contact/history1

Porno picture or not?

- new discussion about illustration for subj. Alexandrov 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If by porn you mean adult imagery under US law (meaning, a depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" under 18USC2256) clearly yes. It is a simulation of (or perhaps a part of the act of) oral-anal sexual intercourse. Nothing intrinsically wrong with porn on Wikipedia; however, the law seems to impose a burden (see 2257) for Wikipedia to keep proof-of-age documentation for everyone depicted under penalty of felony, whether the parties are over 18 or not. Obviously we can't do that. Still awaiting word from Mike Godwin (the Foundation's attorney) on what he thinks we should do - I emailed him this past Saturday and haven't yet noticed a response in my inbox or on Wikipedia. Wikidemo 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is a "secondary producer", I would doubt whether the law currently applies. The law doesn't address "secondary producers", leading to those regulations being struck down by the courts in 1998. (A law and the regulations for its implementation are often very different creatures in the United States.) The Department of Justice did not comply with the court ruling (and indeed expanded the definition of "secondary producer"). However, as of 2005, the courts placed the secondary producer regulations under injunction, at least until the resolution of a current case against the government. IANAL, but it seems like Wikipedia is under no current legal obligation to maintain such records as a "secondary producer". Vassyana 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The law was amended post-1998. Although a court ruled in 2006 that the 2005 version of the regulations as applied to "secondary producers" exceeded the scope of the law and were thus without basis, the FBI has been conducting inspections of secondary producers anyway. The law was amended in 2006 specifically to enable the regulations as they then existed. It's an arcane and technical (if not undecided) legal question whether regulations under preliminary injunction in a suit seeking to invalidate them for exceeding the scope of the law may be rehabilitated by a legislative veto occurring before trial that would moot the complaint, or whether the suit may proceed and only subsequently written regulations are effective. In any event the law currently on the books covers secondary producers and is not under any strong legal challenge.Wikidemo 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My first thought when I entered this page was, woah, explicit. Should we not try use a diagram rather than an actual picture? KennedyBaird 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: Do you think a diagram would illustrate the concept more clearly than a photo? Or are you advocating censorship for minors? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the main question is does the use of this image mean that wikipedia needs to maintain records of the people in the image in order to comply with U.S.C 2256[1] and hence to comply with Florida law (my opinion is yes, obviously, and hence the image should be removed). Just in case you were wondering USC 2256 states "Whoever produces any book ... or other material... contains one or more visual depictions ... of actual sexually explicit conduct ... shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction [and] ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth". A besides from the legal mumbo jumbo, does this article really need this image? Oral-anal contact is not that complicated an issue. It might take you 5 seconds to figure it out without the image, and 1 second to figure it out with the image. Not really that big a deal. On the other hand, autofellatio seems to have settled on an explicit image, while Creampie (sexual act) seems to have settled on not have one. Some more discussion here Bilz0r 07:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Before you swooped in here to make this change, a request had been made to Mike Godwin, the foundation lawyer, about this very point. It's not as clear cut as you present it, and it should be resolved him or one of his representatives. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike hasn't responded to me after two weeks. I'm checking my email boxes to see if it got lost. It's also possible that he's too busy or doesn't feel like taking a position on the legality or appropriateness of sexually explicit images here. It sounds paradoxical but sometimes the company lawyer doesn't want to publicly render an opinion on legality. I think we should wait a while longer. Wikidemo 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem may be not be that it's explicit, but rather that the picture is sexually charged.-W2bh 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but is there a reason why Wikipedia should comply with US law? 89.217.156.28 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the servers and the foundation are based/located in the US. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does that picture need to be there in the first place? It's totally unnecessary. Whoever put it there just wants to be stimulated and have other people stimulated whenever it is seen. And people that defend this picture think similarly. Call it judgmental if you want but just because this is an encyclopedia-type website and that the article is about this type of sex doesn't mean a picture of that explicitness has to be shown. It's ridiculous. If people feel the need to watch pornography, which this is - (and accessible to any age person I might add, without asking for age confirmation - making it illegal) - then one should visit a website for that purpose if they must. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, we don't have photos for articles on vaginal sex, anal sex, oral sex or any other kind of sex. There are illustrations. I am deleting this photo.--Ellissound 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

This image is inappropriate for Wikipedia. There is no need to have this image here. It is enough to read about this explicit act without looking at pictures of it. Delete this image.

"Contact" in picture

There doesn't appear to be actual contact between the anus and the tongue. I think a picture where the tongue is clearly touching or inserted into the anus would be better. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Got a camera? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'd have a hard time explaining to my wife the necessity of uploading a picture of her licking my asshole or viceversa to a publically accessible, online encyclopedia. (Wow, I can't believe I just typed such a sentence.) D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Put your money where your... mouth... is? Sorry, that metaphor really fell apart halfway. :P - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's questionable that a picture of this is needed (yes I'm well aware of WP:NOTCENSORED), the pic in question does not actually illustrate what it purports to illustrate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all questionable for there to be a picture of rimming on the article for rimming even if it is titled "anal-oral contact". The other respective articles have them and in almost every language see fellatio and cunnilingus for the phallic and vaginal, oral counter-parts to this act, furthermore the articles for sex acts and sexual positions and concepts such as orgy, missionary, doggy style, anal sex, vaginal sex, all have illustrations. Most people don't "rim" as much as they do those other sexual acts and therefore this article is in greater need of a picture to explain this human behavior to the reader since its more likely people will wonder what it looks like, especially in an encyclopedia. A human sexuality, or biology student would be helped by having easy access to a free image for such a project also. Besides sure some people may find it disgusting to look at such an image, but what kind of moron looks up anal-oral contact expecting to see a picture of a cute little birdie or hawaiian sunset (insert donnie dark references <<there<<) Its the image we've got, so lets put it in, the other languages such as spanish use it with no problems, and lets wait for a better image or drawing to show up in the meantime since this image represents the act in a tasteful way. Although i would have to say most anuses aren't so nicely shaven and that is rather unrealistic, but it does occur doesn't it and it is not a big sticking point if you ask me.

US Court invalidates 2257 law

Well I'll be. I did not expect this but a US appeals court ruling apparently struck down the law that would make it so difficult for Wikipedia to host images of people engaged in the conduct described by this article. I have yet to fully digest the opinion but for now it appears that the world is safe for pictures of anal-oral contact. Read it for yourself here, [2]. If this is true then there's no legal impediment. Wikipedia is not censored, so the only issue becomes an editorial decision on whether or not the picture is the best way to illustrate the phenomenon. There may also be some age verification requirement for viewers but this is the main issue. Wikidemo 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the opinion...yes, the entire law is thrown out on free speech grounds so unless the Supreme Court takes the case or a different US Circuit Court comes to a contrary conclusion (both unlikely) there is no longer a proof-of-age record-keeping requirement. It would take the government 2-3 years to enact and put in place a new law that agrees with the US Constitution. Even if it does it's unlikely to cover this kind of noncommercial image because the law's Constitutional defect was that it was so broad as to cover noncommercial images like this. So again, the world is safe for pictures of anal-oral contact. As far as I'm concerned that ends this issue. Wikidemo 15:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the image may stay legally, even if this ruling had not occurred it was clearly an unconstitutional ex post facto law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.74.132 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

We've been back and forth on this enough. I originally, a while back, removed the photo, cause it frankly disgusts me, but that's really not a valid reason. Yes it's pornographic, but that too is no reason to remove something on Wikipedia. The question is really whether or not this photo adds something informative to the article. While ejaculation and intercourse articles benefit from visual aids, since those aren't things a person can simply imagine having never seen them, this image is something a person could easily imagine -- it's simply a tongue and an anus, albeit shown next to each other. Then again, I'm sure its proponents would say that it helps to see what this act might look like. I don't agree with that contention but I respect it, and were I the kind of person who didn't find something like this revolting, I would be miffed at having been repressed by those who do.

Ejaculation went through a similar debate and arrived at a compromise whereby the demonstrative image was initially hidden by default but prominently displayed as a showable object. I've borrowed the code from that article and implemented it here for our purposes. I hope this is a satisfactory compromise and that both sides can rest easy.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:17, 12/18/2007

Linkimage along with its template code is deleted, not just deleted in template form or subst'd and deleted. Adding previously deleted template code to an article is the same as re-creating a template that meets CSD G4 (and T2), and goes against the consensus of not having this kind of box anywhere in the project. I also don't see any debate at Talk:Ejaculation. The insertion of the deleted template code seems to have been done by just one editor. Prolog (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Linkimage was deleted because ordinary wiki image links (:image:file.jpg) serve the same purpose. This isn't an image link, it is a show/hide object, and it serves our purposes in the extenuating circumstance of a highly controversial photo. Being that it serves our purposes so well I don't see why we shouldn't use it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:55, 12/18/2007

No, it was deleted for reasons stated in the closures of the TFD and the DRV. I have checked the deleted revisions. The code and functionality (show/hide) here are identical to Template:Linkimage. Someone just copied all the code to him-/herself before the template was deleted. This template code can't be used in this or any other article without going through a new DRV. Prolog (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then I don't know what to say. That allows for no leeway then in cases where the opinion is split down the middle. A compromise is impossible. I wouldn't go through another DRV because if a template exists it encourages people to hide images they find offensive, but at the same time I think it should be used here because some people find this image informative while others find it unnecessary. I feel this is an extenuating circumstance and the reasons stated in the closure don't apply to this case. I'm going to invoke WP:IAR here and say that this is the best solution for this article. Violation of the technical rule shouldn't stop us from doing what's best in individual scenarios. Let's see what others think.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:19, 12/19/2007

It's not valid to say this photo is equivalent to the illustrations in the other sex-related articles; those are line drawings and established artistic images (read: oil paintings one might find in a museum or gallery, for ex.), not photographs. This photo adds no value but titillation to the article; the mind boggles at the idea that a reader can't imagine for themselves the juxtaposition of a tongue and an anus. One could possibly argue for the validity of inclusion of an illustration from farther back, thus showing a likely position or positions from which analingus might be achieved, but, again, line drawings suffice. Question: why are there no naked pictures, much less images of explicit sexual activity, at Jenna Jameson for one example? You could certainly make a better case for hardcore images being necessary to the understanding of that subject than the case for this picture being necessary to the understanding of this one. That is a generic tongue and a generic anus and no useful information is presented with the image. Jrssystemsnet (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you there. The last time I argued about it, my opponent cited the unavailability of a suitable free drawing, therefore the photo would have to suffice until one is found. I agree that it adds absolutely nothing. Everyone has an anus and everyone has a tongue. Displaying them does not inform anyone of anything.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:19, 12/19/2007

I think its simply backward and ridiculous to hide an image of buttlicking. Why on earth would someone look buttlicking up on wikipedia and then be shocked or scared to see an image of it. That is ludacrous and whoever says they have an issue with a picture of buttlicking on the buttlciking article is one ballsy liar. Wikipedia is a work in constant progress. Let's just request a better photograph of the same thing. But look at this, this article probably should have tongue-anus contact. But people are so conservative that a picture of a tongue near an anus is used. If this image is not useful then this article is not useful. Sure you can imagine it. But but you could also imagine eating or kissing, but we have image of that on those articles. The argument that people can image this are simply stupid (i mean baseless). They are a veiled way of saying, i don't like rimming and i don't want to see it. But don't be selfish, because a humans sexuality student, does and or needs to see it. Whether or not its revolting is subjective, since you guys have even said some people might get aroused by it. Thats very much the opposite of revolted huh? Any image can cause just about any emotion. Some people find a picture of two women kissing revolting, or of a woman's breast, or a woman showing their face! Wikipedia should remain neutral and you should all bite your lip. Wikipedia is not censored and show/hide is pretty much a disclaimer. If anything the default should be show, and people may hide if they are in a situation like school and want to read but can only see discreetly. Illistrations directly correlating to the article topic are very informative and useful. Everyone eats, everyone has seen a bird, not everyone licks butt, but that doesn't make images of them not helpful. This could be hard to imagine. Most people don't look at their anus, and its pretty hard to see one without a mirror. Honestly most people who have not been the insetive partner in anal sex or anal conact sexual relations such as fingering or anal-oral sex, have never seen an anus. Its not as easy to "imagine" as you would think. In fact people look this sort of thing up in encyclopedias so they can imagine it. This needs to be added to the heap of all human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 06:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) click on the other language links of this article they all use this image, every last one. The global consensus seems to imply that this image is indeed encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 06:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe my stance was pretty balanced and I did accept that my view was subjective. I'm sorry you feel that your way is the only way anyone could possibly see the issue. We haven't gotten anywhere with this and won't get anywhere with it any time soon. If you've got a human sexuality class and feel you therefore would benefit significantly from seeing a tongue lick an anus then you may click the "show" button. That's the product of a compromise -- each side at least gets something, in lieu of everything. You're welcome.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:02, 12/21/2007

I think that violates WP:NOTCENSORED.Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)