Talk:Autofellatio

Archives

• /Image polls and discussions Archived 12 March, 2005, 23:41

thru 00:37 next day

Kids getting shocked

On Kim Phuc Phan Thi, we have a picture of a little girl fleeing naked her firebombed village, having sustained horrific burns. I really think that this would, and should, be more shocking to children than a drawing of a guy sucking his own penis. Should we censor the napalm photo? David.Monniaux 15:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's see. Could it be that the difference between the two is the difference between pornography and an important photo, and that it is perfectly reasonable to treat them differently? - Nunh-huh 16:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying that you are ready to traumatise little children with horrific photographs that you ideologically label "important photos", and will on the other hand censor unharmfull and informative ones for no obvious reason ? Rama 16:11, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, then you seek to suggest that important photos and pornography are of equal value to an encyclopedia? - Nunh-huh 16:12, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know about him, but I'D suggest that this is just as an important, if not MORE important picture for illustrating this article as a girl fleeing a bomb is to evidence an article like that. Showing a picture here as an example is proof that the act can be done, basically. --Tyciol 19:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that pornography, as defined by US courts, implies that the drawing (or film, etc.) is meant to stimulate sexual desire. In which way is this drawing meant to stimulate sexual desire? Do you really think that many people would get sexually excited by looking at it?

When it comes to "little children", my appreciation is that most little children are not interested in sexual drawings. Interest in such matters seems to come later. So, if one is frank, one should say "think of young teenagers", but not "think of little children". Then, whether or not young teenagers should have access to material describing sexual acts in a non-pornographic manner is another problem. David.Monniaux 16:16, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The definition of "Pornography" seems to be a very blury line. If a very good sex-related image can be provided, it might certainly be as valuable as an hisotircal photograph, yes, why not ? Rama 16:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If in anyone's judgement a Pulitzer prize winning photograph and a photograph of a guy sucking himself off are of equal value to Wikipedia, their judgement is impaired. - Nunh-huh 16:47, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could we agree on something? You seem to say that shocking photographs may be included on Wikipedia if they have some redeeming character — like, if they are informational, or illustrate some point poignantly. (Note: on the strict aspect of being informational, the photo on clitoris is more informative than the photo of the little girl fleeing the firebombing — it's near impossible to imagine what a clitoris/vulva looks like without having seen one, whereas one can imagine a running little girl pretty easily. This photograph's redeeming character should rather be its poignant. But, being poignant is being shocking in a certain way, isn't it?) Am I correct? David.Monniaux 16:56, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Apparently no, we can't agree on something. It is shocking that this particular self-suck photo has such a devoted coterie of protectors, unashamed to advance the most peculiar sophistry in their desire to safeguard it. But that's the way it is. I don't think Wikipedia is particularly well-served by those unable to distinguish between important and unimportant illustrations. - Nunh-huh 17:02, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We're discussing a drawing, not a photograph here. Besides, I'm personally not a big fan of the autofellatio drawing (since autofellatio is something that can be easily imagined; there does not seem to be as much of a need of a drawing as, say, a photograph to illustrate clitoris). I'd thus be happy if you did not lump me with people supporting the inclusion of the photograph.

However, I'm trying to see what the rules should be. Clearly, we already have non-sexual material that could be shocking to little children (I'd say that a naked little girl crying because of large and nearly fatal burns is much worse in that respect that a drawing of a fellatio, but maybe that's me). I'm trying to see the criteria that we should use.

One thing I'm concerned about is that different cultures have different definitions of what constitutes inappropriate content. If we begin to cater to the conservative Christians (and, specifically, American Christians), who seem to have a problem with sexuality (and, especially, sexual acts outside of straight intercourse), we will have a problem later when trying to explain why we won't cater to the prohibitions of some other groups. For instance, Bahá'í Faithfuls are opposed to us having a picture of their prophet Bahá'u'lláh — because it shocks them.

Sticking to the legal norms applicable in the jurisdiction where the servers are located is one good method. We cannot be accused of unfairness if we ban content that could expose us to litigation. And, according to those same legal norms, much, if not all, of what is denounced as "pornography" on Wikipedia isn't pornography. David.Monniaux 17:20, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was discussing the photo. You may be discussing the picture. I am glad that you do not equate that particular photo with that of Kim Phuc. We cater a great deal to various groups: we have, for example, no drawing of the Prophet Muhammad on his page (apparently we care more about Islamic norms than Bahai sensibilities); we do not reveal sacred Mormon words such as "Pay Lay Ale" — and we could count on them being excised rather quickly if we added them. Legal norms are not designed to build an encyclopedia, and while trying to get the most offensive images one can while staying within the law seems to have become a rather fun WIkipedia sport of late, it's not the way to build a good reference work. - Nunh-huh 17:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

YOu seem to think that there is something inherently negative about this particular sexual subject, and that this negativity takes the form or either insignificance, or potential harm for children (note that the two are on the erge of being contradictory). But I fail to have a clear picture of what is wrong with it. Rama 17:17, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, you do fail to have such a clear picture. You also fail to have noted that I've said absolutely nothing about children. And your ability to read my mind about this particular sexual subject has also failed you. - Nunh-huh 17:42, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I respectfully add that while the drawing is tasteful and was produced with the intention of instruction, the photograph is gratuitous. Though I am very liberal when it comes to pornography, I don't think it belongs in this particular venue. The drawing is sufficent to illustrate the article. -- 70.59.113.223 01:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Uh, no, that would mean you're not very liberal. —Christiaan 10:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is an old debate, but I just read it. Mostly for the benefit of others coming along I would like to note that of course Nunh-huh's above views represent the majority feeling on matters of this kind in Wikipedia. If you are newish to the project, don't be misled by the fact that debates like this are usually stacked against the reasonable voice. These topics attract their own set of boosters and the impression will be given on a Talk page like this that their view is dominant throughout the project. Breathe easy-- quite the opposite is true. JDG 05:46, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

As a long-time contributor to Wikipedia, let me say that JDG speaks only for himself and does not represent the majority of the editors on Wikipedia. RickK 05:59, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm shocked by his arrogant dismissal of the opinions expressed by his fellow editors. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:05, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything arrogant about it. JDG does not seem to be dismissing anyone's opinion, he is just expressing a belief that the pool of people debating any particular article is not necesarily representative of the entire communities views. He is also asserting that the community-at-large would tend to have a less favorable opinion of the image/photo than those that participate in the discussion here. He may or may not be factually right about the views of the community, but either way I don't see him dismissing anyone's right to an opinion. Johntex\^talk 20:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

New drawing

File:Autofellation drawing 2.jpg

Since I was not extremely proud of the previous drawing, which has also been rightfuly criticised, fellow wikipedians have provided my photographs which have helped me drafting this. Maybe it is an improvement over then current drawing. Rama 16:19, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This drawing is much better. Paul August ☎ 17:27, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think it's lovely. Very sexy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:09, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Great job. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:59, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I also think it's an improvement, and I'm taking the liberty of swapping it into the article. Rhobite 21:59, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Very well done, Rama. Now we can clearly see the guy's legs! ^_^; —Markaci 2005-03-14 T 00:57 Z

I think it looks like he's taking a hit on a bong. ;) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:53, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Why was the first drawing criticized? Hyacinth 08:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what others have to say, but the proportions were quite wrong, and the overall movement what no very well rendered... Not that the current one is perfect either. Rama 08:46, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I hate it, I'd like this one linked though; and that horrible photograph of the man doing autofellatio deleted.--198 04:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you on the photograph (for a different reason), but it appears we're in the minority. As for the drawing, I and most others here have no objections to it. I understand your disgust, but this type of illustration is not a big deal. Books about sexuality frequently contain illustrations such as this one. For practical reasons, you probably shouldn't revert this image any more, since revert wars are frowned on here. Rhobite 05:08, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware, but could we please hold at least a poll to see how many editors want drawing at least linked. Now the photo is another ballgame..I'm willing to compromise with the drawing. --198 05:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Could we not? People are very weary of polls, especially on this page. Polls have a tendency to polarize opinions and end the discussion. Based on precedent on other pages, I am very sure that most Wikipedians support this image's display on the article. You've read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, so you understand where people are coming from. You can disagree with the consensus, but please don't engage in revert wars. Rhobite 05:23, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Allright, I seen it...however for the sake of decency please put the drawing below the fold at least.--198 05:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I want to see the photo deleted, but only because I think it's a lousy representation of autofellatio. One could argue that *any* representation is better than none at all, and we don't really have people lining up offering to pose for a new photo, but that doesn't change the fact that the photo really isn't that great. Also, I'd like to oppose any placement of the drawing on the basis of "decency". That's, IMO, always a bad reason to do things in articles. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 07:27, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'd pose for such a photo, but I'm not that flexible. --Carnildo 07:43, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd pose for one...awww but I don't want to make all you guys jealous. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would but i'd break something... I'm becoming a wrinkly old man now.  ALKIVAR™ 08:31, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the drawing at all, but does the guy look very young to anyone else? (I'm NOT complaining or trying to reignite controversy in the slightest. I think this page has been through enough). Exploding Boy 20:55, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

He is 19 next birthday, which is July 14th. Rama showed me his birth certificate. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:11, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He hasn't got any pubic hair. Hedley 19:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Maybe he has shaved. ;-) Well in fact I think that black bit there is pubic hair. Also, isn't he a bit too built to be a kid?--Deadworm222 18:49, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'd love to pose for one, too, but unfortunately my back is very long and my penis isn't. I love the drawing though, even though his penis must be like a mile long. I think the current solution, with the drawing displayed openly and the image below a link might be a good compromise. Rōnin 22:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually I found out the other day my back hardly bends at all. It just stays straight at all times. Odd, don't you think? Rōnin 23:26, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Image deletion

Just to make sure that everyone knows that the photo is up (again) at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion#March_22. — Asbestos | Talk 09:28, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More image deletion

The new image, Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg, which is copyright-issue-free and much better in quality and depiction of the subject (IMHO) has also been listed for deletion. Heads up. TIMBO (T A L K) 01:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to clutter up the voting page with this, so I figured it would best be discussed here. The following arguments for deleting the picture (as I understand them) are:

• It's pornographic
• It's unnecessary and unencyclopedic
• Someone could stumble upon it at the work place
• It is being used to vandalize

I would like to point out that Merriam-Webster's definition of pornography is "material that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement". It further defines erotic to be "of, devoted to, or tending to arouse sexual love or desire". The image is clearly not intended to cause sexual excitement, and it is not devoted to arousing sexual love or desire. Conclusion: It is NOT pornographic.

For the second arguement, I will counter-argue that Wikipedia shouldn't be running on necessity — nothing should. If we have the opportunity to a non-copyrighted image, then we should take it. It is not unencyclopedic either, because this is a contortionist act that some believe to be impossible. Having an image (rather than a drawing with unrealistic genitals), shows that it can be done and further shows how much contortion is involved (the man's back bends incredibly!). Conclusion: It is indeed an encyclopedic asset to Wikipedia.

No one in their right mind (unless having the intention of getting themselves or a coworker fired) would search for autofellatio on the internet at the workplace. Even if they somehow stumbled upon the article accidentally (which is a near impossibility), they would have to click on the link to view the image in question. Conclusion: No one that doesn't want to see the image will see the image.

Many images are being used to vandalize Wikipedia. Removing valuable media from the encyclopedia because of vandalism only encourages vandals, and hurts the encylopedia even more than the vandals do.

Reasons to keep it:

• It is a well-done image of a healthy and handsome man performing the act. The man doesn't have unusual genitals either, making it even more realistic.
• It is free of copyright problems
• It is indeed encylopedic because it proves an act of contortion to be possible and further exhibits how it is done
• You have to click on the link to see the image. This means that people who don't want to see it, will not see it. For those that are curious as to how it is done, they can have access to it. When people find something useful on Wikipedia that isn't found elsewhere (i.e. a tasteful, non-pornographic image of auto-fellatio), it gives Wikipedia a better reputation—something that I believe is very well needed. --Berserk798 02:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good points all around. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 02:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agree. I've also registered my objections to the increasing homophobia evident in users' votes for deletion. Exploding Boy 17:36, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, well put. I'm astonished not just by the homophobia, but by the male-centeredness in the discussion at IfD. Several people say "who needs it, it's obvious!" As you say, it's a bit of a contortionist act. And for women, it's not at all obvious that it's actually possible. FreplySpang (talk) 12:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The new photograph at least appears to be a little more tastefully shot than the old one, but why oh why can you not make do with the illustration that now appears? Chris 23:36, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

These very silly homophiles are going to bring down Wikipedia if left unchecked. I devote time here because I believe we are building a serious reference work. If this seriousness continues to be undermined by this childishness you can be sure most of the best contributors will drift away. Is there a current effort to delete this and similar junk? If so, where? JDG 08:05, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah, right, serious reference is defined as "things you approve of"? How nice. Rsynnott 00:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

"Homophiles"? Who the hell says that any more? Look, this page has already survived at least one VFD, and images related to it have gone through... I think it's three at this point. The consensus is clearly to keep; if you don't like it, well... Exploding Boy 18:45, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Moving Pics down

I figured I'll move the pics down on this page, because that's the way it's down on the Oral Sex page.--198 04:47, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved it back because it's linked. There shouldn't be a problem. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok; I moved the drawing down than.--198 04:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About the image, I figure it's too silly to fight over. I don't really care where it is, but I think the article isn't really long enough to have the drawing effectively "below the fold" on most resolutions. Right now it looks pretty messy (spanning the section header). Whatever. TIMBO (T A L K) 05:01, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It does; I admit, but I think this is a better solution than me removing it--198 05:05, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given that you're the only one that's offended by the drawing, I doubt you could remove it without being reverted every time. TIMBO (T A L K) 16:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

trolling

for the record, Alkivar was trolling User:198 tonight. Alkivar tried to tempt 198 into a third revert. To quote Alkivar in IRC: "Fuck I love it. I get to get 198 blocked for 3RR soon. I can still revert. If he reverts again, 3RR breakage. LOL. Fuck, I'm evil for instigating this...but I just have to." just telling what i saw. Kingturtle 05:38, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Very interesting.--198 06:39, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Help me contribute.

I've read the newbie tutorial, "Be Bold". But you have a nice article here, and a lot of people discussing an image show how great is their investment in the topic.

So I have put an opening remark, an advert of radical ideas about the religious significance of autofellatio, by a long experiencer in the domain, a primary source, me, off in a user:GlennScheper page, twice removed from the article I would influence; and will set this note here only once removed. My personal web page has more than a few attempts to start a thorough exposition, especially the one in web page .../oldword.htm

Some of you who watch this topic, let me know which parts of my concepts would be welcome here. Indeed, perhaps the bizarre religious twist, akin to David Lorton's article, and the Ouroboros speculation, deserve removal to some sub-topic or side-topic.

Yours truly, Glenn Scheper http://home.earthlink.net/~glenn_scheper/ glenn_scheper + at + earthlink.net Copyleft(!) Forward freely. GlennScheper 08:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Any religious revelations you may have experienced would be categorized as original research, and thus are not appropriate to Wikipedia. Sorry. If you can bring your views to public attention by some other means and have them discussed in print by a community of experts, then we would incorporate that into the article. LizardWizard 21:39, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Although it sounds otherwise, Lizard speaks for himself and those Wikipedians who may agree. I speak for myself and what I am confident is a majority of Wikipedians: your concepts would not be welcome here. Not directly or as a result of work elsewhere. Sorry to sound so unfriendly, but the time has come to start seriously protecting Wikipedia as a publication. Too much work is invested. Take your "religious" revelations while sucking your penis to an appropriate non-general-audience outlet. JDG 05:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

JDG, you also speak only for yourself. Stop trying to speak for others. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:06, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I didn't confine Lizard to himself. There's a fair number like him who would be welcoming to Glenn Scheper. My voice isn't alone either. In fact, I venture to say it is the majority voice. You disagree? JDG 06:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not try to limit what topics or ideas should or should not be presented, but to reference those topics and ideas which have some importance in the world. I haven't read what G.S. wrote on this particular subject, but Lizard is theoretically right regardless of the subject matter: any content presented elsewhere in print by a community of experts is appropriate for mention or reference in a neutral encyclopedia. +sj + 20:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Lizard was welcoming Glenn's religious revelations, I think he said that, were Glenn's work to be "discussed in print by a community of experts," i.e. in peer-reviewed journals, then there might be a place for them here. As the likelyhood of that happening is slim, though, why not focus on the part of Lizard's comments where he says that original research would not be appropriate to Wikipedia? — Asbestos | Talk 07:51, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, Asbestos has correctly gaged my intent. I do not expect Glenn will ever gain the credence or notability required to be noted in Wikipedia, but wanted to let him know what to do if he is dead set on having his ideas in the article. LizardWizard 09:07, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm convinced: My possible contributions would be 1) point of view 2) autobiographical and 3) original research, hence not suitable for the wiki venue. BTW, I learned a lot reading every page that links here. GlennScheper 05:51, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

This article has some serious bullshit in it.

This article has some serious bullshit in it.

1 - The Egyption reference,, maybe, 2 - But the Bill Hicks & Kevin Smith references??!! WTF?

These should be removed, prolly. If this were a popular or important article, then perhaps they would warrant mention somewhere footnote-ish, but I'd doubt this article would meet such a test.

3 - Someone should go dig up whoever snuck that "On the other hand" bit into the article. Smooth move. How many missed it? How many didn't and still didn't move to stop it. 4 - The "on the other hand" bit should be reworded. It's unbecoming.

-:)Ozzyslovechild 05:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nah, the Bill Hicks references are pretty famous. He had a whole bit about it, but the article doesnt quote much of it very well. "Ladies believe me, if we men could blow ourselves, you'd be sat on your own right now... watching an empty stage", hehe. TR_Wolf

Do you have a reference for your additions?

"It is a common means of masturbation among rhesus monkeys, mandrills, chimpanzees, and other primates. It also occurs widely among mammals of other groups."

Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:22, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

References

The citation in the references is Kinsey's book. What in the article actually used the book as a reference? Nothing looks like it came out of a book. The reference looks a little like last-minute term-paper reference lists, where anything that looks vagualy relevant is added in. 199 7 July 2005 22:23 (UTC)

Unless someone actually says they used the book to write a specific part of the article, I've removed what looks like a bogus reference. We should only reference works we actually use. 199 23:42, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Am I an exception?

"Few human males are both sufficiently "well-endowed" and flexible enough to perform the extreme front bend required -- though increased flexibility achieved via various activities such as gymnastics and yoga might make the difference for some."

Well, after quite a bit of training, I can now perform auto fellatio. However, with a penis size of below 6 inches, I could not by any stretch of the imagination describe myself as "well-endowed". I don't use a "front-bend" method either. I lie on my back and bring my body in towards me, so my legs are often going up almost vertically against the wall at my back. Its the position you'd take if you wanted to, for example, ejaculate down into your own mouth.

The part about being "well-endowed" seems factually wrong, or at least a poor (ie very subjective) choice of words. Flexibilty is the main factor. Also, the topic seems to imply that this front-bend method is the only way. I've tried the front-bend but cannot quite do it. Bringing my penis in towards me from above, with my neck and back extremely curved, I can. I don't know if I'm an exception here.

Cheers though. A nice article to find, but I think it needs some clarification.

I'm no contortionist, but I think the position you describe is still a frontbend. You've just rotated your body. Perhaps some rewording would be helpful though, since I've also found that a position with the penis coming down to the mouth is more successful than one with the mouth coming down to the penis. LizardWizard 03:22, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

If it's still called a front-bend in that position, fair enough. You're right, it's mostly just a case of rotation and getting gravity to assist a bit.

As for the other point, I wouldn't consider myself well-edowed, and I can still do it, so that line at the start just seems wrong unless I'm just the "exception to the rule". I doubt that I am, though.

I'd say people's flexibility varies just as much as the length of their penis. I would advise you to be careful doing it the way that you are though, you're putting a lot of stress on your lower back and it's quite an embarrassing pose to be wheeled into hospital in.--86.20.223.168 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok people. Let's remember that article talk pages are for discussing the content of articles only. Please find another forum for discussing your trials and victories with auto-fellation. Exploding Boy 15:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio_2_(rendered).jpg

Noting the objections to having the photograph linked here at all, and to User:Demi's objections on their user page, I created the above image in a similar style to the one I did for Penis (Image:Flaccid_and_erect_human_penis_(rendered).jpg). If it's deemed acceptable by whoever does that deeming acceptable thing, then perhaps an image could be re-added inline, or replace the link to the photograph in this article? The original photograph is linked in this image's description. Just an idea. --Veratien 03:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ugh. That just looks creepy. Exploding Boy 00:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

In fairness, it was creepy anyway... :p --Veratien 13:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You've taken one really creepy picture and kicked it up a few notches. I'm impressed and frightened at the same time. →Raul654 23:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Meh. :p I'm making a much much better version at the moment. I'll upload it when it's finished. --Veratien 00:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

See image page. :) --Veratien 01:18, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Veratien, how are you making these pictures? I don't doubt your sincere belief that they may be useful, but they're absolutely horrible. The poor penis man had his hairs replaced by some odd shadows, and the skin textures of his glans and foreskin merged. This fellow has had an even worse time of it, apparently having been transformed into an auton while in the act of sucking his penis. A cautionary tale for us all! --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Eeew, it's true. Exploding Boy 20:52, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Heh, when you put it like that... :p It's a combination of a couple of filters and some Script-fu in GIMP. Basically, I've just flattened the shading using a selective gaussian blur, and then applied some other filters to sharpen things again and add in outlines. I can do versions which are completely sharp but look drawn in about half an hour; these two took about 5 minutes each. I'll do better versions once I've got time, but for now this was more for comment than anything else. --Veratien 13:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Kill it dead with a glock. --SPUI (talk) 22:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It's a photograph, and a pretty good one. Suppose you were to distort it so that someone looking at it would be fooled into mistaking it for a drawing: how would this be an improvement? --Tony Sidaway^Talk 01:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's like The Joy of Sex. They took photos of the people in the various positions, and then traced the photos by hand. This is a more technical and lazier way that uses a similar idea to get around some people's possible objections. A drawing of a person performing self-gratiating acts is always seen as more acceptable than a photo of the same. :p --Veratien 23:53, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiproject Graphical content problem

I personaly do not care either way. I am neither excited or disgusted by the image. For parties who cant bear seeing such images an earlier project I proposed (which wasnt rejected nor accepted) can be useful. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe this image would be censored in any public TV viewing at even the most liberal places. But I think thats wrong. You should not hide "facts", however I also believe we should respect peoples right to read about information without being "disturbed" by the images. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 18:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg has been listed on WP:IFD again

Here we go again. User:Noitall has listed the image for deletion as "obscene". --Tony Sidaway^Talk 21:30, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Something which may interest editors of this page

Any help which could be provided would be greatly appreciated. -Godfearing Parent.

Said project is currently up for deletion. --Veratien 12:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Where? Exploding Boy 22:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Absurdity

Look, this is absurd. We're building an encyclopaedia - the only relevant question should be "Is it of encyclopaedic worth?". The photo clearly adds value to the page and should be included. (If it's not of encyclopaedic worth, why even link to it?) --Khendon 17:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Speaking to its encylopedic worth, we already have an illustration that depicts autofellatio perfectly well. In my opinion, the photograph is un-necessary, gratuitous, and obscene. It does nothing to enlighten on this subject matter, especially given the illustration, and has no inherent noteworthiness, as some "famous" photographs do. Mulling it over, I can find no reason for the image to exist on the encyclopedia. --Pathogen 08:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

If you are referring to the drawing, I have to disagree with you on this point. All drawings which we have seen on this page so far looked like there was simply errors in proportions, and I have reasons to think that making a convincing one will prove extremely difficult. A photograph does not have these drawbacks; I also fail to understand how a photograph should be more "obscene" than a drawing. Rama 08:38, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Well that's just it, you fail to understand. Whittling it down to an "error in proportion" is an oversimplification of the issue, which in my view happens to be quite laughable. I suppose I had better get to work providing photographs that illuminate the issue of castration, projectile vomit, Tubgirl, and bullet exit wounds, in the name of accuracy. Inquiring minds want to know, after all. In my view there is such a thing as good taste when it comes to the encyclopedia, which in my opinion the photograph leaves far behind, not to mention intrinsic encyclopedic value, of which this photograph has none.

I am perfectly fine with the entry and the illustration, though I find the fact that the article uses a commercial pornography website as an authoritative site on the issue to be very telling as to the spirit and intention of the article on the whole. I hope you'll at least agree that most people would find the photograph outrageous, even for an open content site. Pretending there's no difference between a drawing of something and an actual photo of it also seems extremely weak on a logical level, also. --Pathogen 19:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you need to step back a bit. Wikipedia contains all manner of images, and in general we don't censor them. Good taste is a whole different matter, and what you see as distasteful and "outrageous" will not be the same as what others see as (dis)tasteful or "outrageous". The spirit and intention of the article are to inform encyclopaedically, no more and no less. We don't censor images here because kids might see them, or because they might be offensive to some of our readers. We discourage outright pornography or gratuitous depictions of sexuality and nudity, neither of which covers this image. Exploding Boy 19:14, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

" We discourage outright pornography or gratuitous depictions of sexuality and nudity, neither of which covers this image."

Could've fooled me, judging by this situation as a whole. Also, addressing what I think of things and what other people think of things; if I want to see photographs of Genital mutilation, that doesn't automatically make my opinion worthy of being respected above others. I think YOU need to step back a bit and realize that the photograph is really pushing the line. I can tolerate a lot of stuff, even the photo of fellatio on the according page, but I, and I'm willing to wager a lot of others, find the idea that this photograph has encyclopedic value to be as close to ludicrous as this site ever comes.

I guess I'd better get to work cataloguing photographs for the shock site section, in the interest of accuracy. What's that you say? Un-necessary? Then how will we ever know what tubgirl really is? I need to know specifics! In the name of knowledge! --Pathogen 20:12, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

So what is the difference between the photograph of fellatio and this one ? Rama 20:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that there is at least some historical context behind the photograph, dating from a time when society was much less sexually open. Meanwhile, the autofellatio photograph provides no context whatsoever, and has no value as an inherently special photograph. To be blunt, it's just a guy sucking on his own cock. I don't believe it educates or informs in any encyclopedic way. Especially, again considering that there is already an illustration. --Pathogen 20:44, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't believe you'd be questioning the encyclopaedic worth of the picture if you didn't think it was "obscene". --Khendon 20:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand you, Pathogen. From what I read above, I would have to take it as you think that an illustration has to talk of several things at the same time to be a good one, and that something dealing specifically with the subject is not. No "context" is needed for a photograph of autofellatio, but a convincing showing of the position and movements certainly would have some value.

As for the present illustration, once again, I a not satisfied with this drawing. If you think that a convincing one can be provided, I would be very interested to see your own attempts in the matter. Rama 20:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Meh. Personally, I'd say the image at fellatio is less encyclopaedic than this one. The fact that it's black and white doesn't make it any less blatantly sexual. Exploding Boy 22:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Much of what I am seeing here is merely a concentrated effort to dodge the issues I have brought up. Quite frankly, I see nothing other than my own self-restraint preventing me from posting a tubgirl pic on the appropriate article, and moreover I see no consideration of the fact that my posting of such a picture would lead to Wikipedia being used as a shock site in and of itself, for one additional problem--as has occurred with this picture, thanks to vandals within Wikipedia.

I'm not arguing that the fellatio image is less sexual, but at the very least it provides some purpose. For another thing I could easily see where someone would be offended enough by it to campaign for its removal, much as is being done here time and time again. Personally I would be willing to entertain such a campaign, but that's beside the point.

Out of curiosity, what is your position on an attempt to photographically document genital mutilation, explosive diarrhea, or any number of other similarly graphic subjects? Quite frankly, I see no attitude here that can prevent me or someone else from doing that, while still defending a photograph like the one we are talking about. I would like to know what constitutes this photograph as being non-obscene in nature. From what I am seeing, using the same standards I could defend a photograph of a cum-shot or a Cleveland steamer.

My main point is that the photograph is highly graphic and by just about all recognized standards obscene, and to compound that problem, is not needed, nor is it particularly enlightening in any special way (aside from the miniscule particulars of positioning, which in my opinion hardly warrant the photograph to begin with). Combining this with the circumstancial evidence of the article linking to a simple commercial porn site, it seems to drag down any pretense of encyclopedic legitimacy that the article currently clings to.

Further, it is a favorite of vandals, and speaking frankly, is an easy piece of ammunition for trolls to cause trouble throughout the internet. Do you think it is worth having this picture, if it might well lead to libraries, ISPs, and other access terminals blocking some or all of Wikipedia? Do you not have any concerns that Wikipedia's ascendance as a serious piece of academic work will be halted and slowed by material of the photograph's nature, when people see it and react accordingly? --Pathogen 00:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Fraudulent photo?

This is not a picture of one person. Take another look. Two people are involved. If you doubt this, look at the proportions and look at the hair pattern at the crease between upper and lower body. It is a fraud! [Unsigned comment from User:70.70.69.53]

Weird - I see what you mean, but I can also see it being just one. It could be fake. --SPUI (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. I even did some scouting around the image's source (hornyboy.com) to find proof. I found an image (not work safe) that includes the same guy in the same chair about an inch away from his goal, but from further back so it is more evidently only one man. Also another (still not work safe) shot, from the front, also not looking to me like two people. The rest of the site is filled with pics that are clearly not faked physically (perhaps Photoshopped, impossible to tell), so I don't see why it would have just one set of faked pics. LizardWizard 05:18, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

The line drawing is more encyclopedic. The photo is just needlessly offensive and without a doubt, here -- clearly inappropriate for the article. --Mysidia (talk) 01:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I totally agree...the diagram is fine, the photo is an unencyclopedic pornographic shock image(ripped of an uncredible porn site). It is obsence AND redudundant. It is stricly pointless, obviously, just like the world is round.Voice of All(MTG) 04:30, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

PLEASE tell me you are joking? If you're actually looking for an article on "Auto Fellatio", why would you find it "obscene" to find a photo of the act you're researching, especially when the photo is actually behind a link you have the CHOICE of clicking or not! I dont understand why people whine and complain about finding an image in an article, when the image is OF the article! TR_Wolf

Thank you for your input, but we have had this conversation many times before and consensus is to keep the photo linked from the article. LizardWizard 04:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

And [...](Godwin's Law noted) terrible parties were voted in before. This is just retarted. Fortunetely, unlike Hitler, at least it won't harm too much. And aside from redirections from VfDs and WfD projects, this article probably gets 1 hit per week. I like to edit and watch important articles like GWB that get thousands of hits a week, rather than watching a tiny article all day to be ready to revert nonesense back in.Voice of All(MTG) 04:58, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Voice of All(MTG), I would be grateful if you could try and refrain from bringing in emotional and excessive comparisons. Furthermore, revert wars are not a good way to solve the matter. Thank you. Rama 07:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

(Just noting Godwin's Dysprosia 08:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC))

Rama, that's not what he threatened to do, and you know it. I would appreciate it if you, and your fellows, would stop over-dramatizing the situation whenever possible, i.e. by describing your opposition as homophobes and "over-emotional," etc. Quite frankly, if you couldn't foresee the image making a lot of people angry, you would have to be quite dim. --Pathogen 16:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

"This is not a picture of one person" What image is "this"? What image are we talking about here? Hyacinth 22:10, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I highly doubt that there is "concensus" for the article, more likely just a group of editors who don't happen to see anything wrong with that image. The [...](Godwin's Law noted) above example shows that voting can leave you with unreasonable decisions, so it is not a final word(although it certainly is important).

WIKIPEDIA POLICY>Encyclopedic Value>Concensus>a small group of editors.

Besides, there are so many articles that need pictures/graphs ect., why does this need two of the same thing? I don't mind photos of gentalia, ect. with parts labelled, because they have encyclopedic value. i.e. I could learn what Cribriform looks like, and perhaps if I had it(if I was a girl). This image just doesn't add anything, it is just there. "Oh, so you have to bend to do it!", is that what you are going to learn? Also one change and one revert is not a "revert war".Voice of All(MTG) 22:31, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Err...

In what way is a line drawing of a man performing the same activity better than a photo-image? Either inline or don't, but the line drawing is just as objectionable as the other from the perspective of inadvertant access by minors, which I thought was the justification for linking the image in the first place.

-- nm, just read 'wikipedia is not'. Don't necessarily agree, but I'll respect it.

Furthermore, in the past there were discussions of which images to use and how to use them, and we never really got very close to consensus, but the current arrangement was chosen by poll. I'm not actually sure where the polls are archived - they may have been lost if they were on the talk page of the original (unfree) photo of the act. LizardWizard 03:46, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by User:Poppypetty

PoppyPetty removed the solosuck.com link with the edit summary "remove commerical link". I don't think that's enough reason to remove a link to an external website--nearly all websites are commercial. I've reverted pending discussion. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:29, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Tony. A link to a single commercial site, clearly identified as such, where the content is relevant, should not be a problem. We may have a problem later if 50 other sites get linked, but for now, I think the link adds to the article. Johntex 16:09, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what this adds to the article? thanks.Voice of All (talk) 05:49, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Possibly hypothetical

...is not a very encyclopaedic or academic phrase, first of all, and secondly we've all seen acrobats and I have no doubt that some women can autocunn... now what would the word be? anyway, do that. It may not be common, it's probably a less common power than autofellatio, but I have no doubt that it's possible for some women. Exploding Boy 03:23, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment -- (expanding on my edit comment): whether AC is hypothetical or not is for the AC article to deal with, whether AC is hypothetical or not, it is the analogue for women and so nothing is being lost by removing extraneous adjectives. Furthermore it is slightly more neutral if we simply state the fact that AC is the analogue on this page, and leave out the speculation. Dysprosia 03:35, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the new wording should be removed, but mainly because it's so ugly. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Well there's that too of course ;) Dysprosia 07:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Explanation on Tony Sidaway's revert of edits by Voice of All(MTG) and Mikkalai

Voice of All(MTG) has removed the solosuck.com link, with the edit summary: " went to the solosuck page, and there is nothing informative there, is is just commercial spam".

Try again. On the front page, once you get past the disclaimer, are the following:

• "Look at pictures from my videos"
  • Click that link to see pictures of autofellatio. Each thumbnail on the next page expands into a gallery, with a built-in slide show function. The images are reasonable quality video captures. There are also short video clips.
• "Self-suck how-to"
  • Click on that link to find advice on how to perform this act.

There is also a link to some fairly active hosted forums on the subject.

I have reverted the edit. The site is informative on this subject. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 05:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the clips. Nonetheless, I guess the link might be able to stay because of the "how to", which is somewhat informative, if you want to do that kind of stuff, which I certainly wouldn't unless I was drugged up and insane...its still a How to, though....[SIGH]...

Still, how credible is this info? How much of it is just obvious? I don't have enough willpower to stay on that site for long, so I am assuming the best.Voice of All (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I haven't tried it myself, but he gives what appears to be good advice. It's easier to do if you're flexible and have a larger penis. Do yoga and work out, be careful not to strain your back when you're in the throes of sexual excitement. He gives some links to mostly non-sexual resources on flexibility and contortionism. Oh, and he reckons it might help if you buy his videos to see how it's done. :)

The forums can be used for discussion with other people interested in autofellatio.

The pictures and clips are also pretty good for someone interested in this extraordinary practice. Since the site contains an adequate content disclaimer and contains plenty of free material of fairly high quality, without too much commercial come-on, I think Wikipedia is better off having it than not. If he ever switches to mostly-pay, then I think we should remove the link and search for another. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:20, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai has also removed that link, with the edit summary " rm link to site that has no encyclopedic info". I have restored for the reasons given above. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 07:16, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Risks

This might be unrelated, but after attempting this wholesome activity a few times (and getting very close, I should add), not only have I suffered some nasty back pain, which is fortunately quickly subsiding, but also slightly reduced sensation in my legs. Of course, it might not be actual Spinal cord injury, but something completely different, but should we at least ask a medical professional about the potential risks before we outright recommend this to anyone else? Anonymous 13:35, 3 October 2005

Read Wikipedia:General disclaimer. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 14:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Duly noted. Still, if I find out there's a world of people out there with autofellatio-related injuries, I will feel tempted to include a tiny notice about it. And my sincere apologies for posting anonymously, but... yeah. :D Anonymous 23:30, 3 October 2005

Image

Similar going on at Doggy style. Please go help —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paeris (talk • contribs) .

Image linking & TFD for Linkimage

The template that makes the link to the image Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg (as opposed to keeping it inline) is up for deletion. As editors of this page will no doubt have an interest in this debate please see Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Linkimage... Mikkerpikker 15:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Egypt References Hoaxes?

Those references to autofellatio in ancient Egypt were added by an anonymous user. Could someone confirm them?

• I added the unreferenced template for that section. 24.199.113.234 23:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

New image

File:Autofellatio-svendora.jpg

I've found another GFDL picture on the Dutch Wikipedia of someone performing autofellatio. I think it looks better than the current two. —Ruud 04:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

• I don't see why it is any better or worse than the ones we already have, but I guess we could provide a link to it, as we've done with the other photo. Johntex\^talk 04:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• That image is just not as good, in my opinion. Perhaps a bit more artistic, but it doesn't have the detail of the others. ^L_Wizard @ 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
• I think it is well better! Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 16:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Warning

This article should contain a warning or disclaimer in it in order to warn those that might find the subject matter/pictures offensive.--King Vidor 02:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

How did they get here?--Eloquence* 00:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates. On the one hand, the page supports your suggestion, but the poll on the talk page tends to argue against warnings and disclaimers in general. You can contribute to that discussion to help decide what do do for this page.--ChrisJMoor 11:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm.. so putting a {{spoiler}} template on a page is a violation of that rule? Nippoo 15:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

why don't you just read? even the link provided! -- tasc ^talk_deeds 15:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg

Why is there only a link to the image, and not the image itself? Gerard Foley 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it is placed on Mediawiki:Bad image list, because it was used to vandalize articles and user pages. —Ruud 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But the article should have a picture of what it's talking about. Vandals vandalize pages anyway (http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Gmcfoley&oldid=35865649), and it's usually fixed within 60 seconds, so what's the problem. It sounds like we're letting the vandals win. Gerard Foley 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It would be interesting to see what we do when vandals start posting Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg all over the place. —Ruud 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know I put Mediawiki:Bad image list up for deletion. Gerard Foley 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting images likely to cause offense behind a link is smart because this does the greatest service to the greatest number of users. The large set of people who would be offended by the picture do not need to see it accidentally. The large number of people who want to see it are not kept from taking one simple click to see it. Johntex\^talk 19:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to include actual photographs of the act. The drawing depicts it well enough, and while this site is not censored for the protection of minors, it still is innappropriate. I hope that the image is deleted. If anyone here simply wants to look at men performing autofellatio, then there is a huge list of porn sites for him to choose from. - Conrad Devonshire 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe we are still discussing this after so many long, long months. Exploding Boy 06:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason to include the photo of the act is simply because that is what the article is about. There is no NPOV reason not to include it. Gerard Foley 10:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't this issue been voted on umpteen times already? Why do we have to keep revisiting it? Can't we just have a note on the talk page saying it's already been dealt with? Exploding Boy 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all there is No binding decisions, and the polls were done over a year ago. It might be time to look at the issue again. Gerard Foley 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is great behind the link. That way, it isn't hurting anyone who doesn't want to see it. U$er 04:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the Autofellatio image box looks terrible, since it overlaps the "References in fiction" box. I think the photograph does add something to the article, in that it is fairly solid proof that the act can be acomplished, but the "naughy image box" wrecks the layout. Perhaps it could be moved to the bottom of the page as a citation or an external link? Labia Ears 07:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

i've removed tag. --tasc 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What the Hell?

I know I'm adding to it by posting this, but how the hell does an article on autofellacio have 28 talk section? jesus christ!.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some people don't know that Wikipedia is not censored. If any of my young siblings stumbled across this I'd be "Yes, that's what a man who's sucking his own penis looks like. Any questions?" but some people are naive enough to think their kids don't already know far worse (or even more scarily, some people's kids actually don't know worse). ZoFreX 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, did you have a question? Johntex\^talk 11:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Added confusing tag

The article discusses the egyptian mythology in two places, which is silly in itself, and the second time round it seems to disregard some of what is said first time - first time seems to say that consensus is that Ra did not do autofellatio, second time seems to say he did. ZoFreX 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Monkey business?

"Autofellatio is the act of oral stimulation of one's own penis as a form of masturbation." - Animals clean themselves, they don't autofellate... Sweetie Petie 10:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Prove they only do it for cleaning... and you cant... no scientist will validate your assumption.  ALKIVAR™ 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Prove they don't. Sweetie Petie 08:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh... the word here is "stimulate", if they're cleaning, they dont stimulate, just like how if a person is cleaning their genitals in the shower, they arent neccessarily stimulating. Get it? TR_Wolf

I sometimes stimulate my penis in the shower LOL Jamie 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Autofellatio_2.jpg

Why is it linked? It shouldn't be censored for delicate people. As the articles Penis, Vulva (etc) contain images of the article subject it is only appropriate that autofellatio conforms. It should either be removed if it is of no encyclopedic value or shown completely if it contributes to the article. // Nnp 22:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's been put on the "bad image list", which I suggest as many people as possible strongly protest. Exploding Boy 04:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It says on the talk page for the bad image list that the consensus here is to not show it. Is this so? Maybe a vote (with the not censored guideline in mind) is in order? Or has this already been done? // Nnp 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this "bad image list" was created in order to prevent certain images being used to vandalise user pages. As far as I can tell, this system was created with little or no discussion, and is now being used to censor Wikipedia. Removing an image from the list will eventually cause it to reappear in place of the inline link--I did this with the image on Prince Albert piercing, which was placed on the list against consensus on the talk page to leave the image in the article, and without telling anyone. I strongly suggest that as many people as possible strongly object to this "bad image list." Exploding Boy 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• The consensus was to link it because displaying the image is needlessly shocking. Serious general references works do not tend to display photographs of sexual acts. We want to be considered a serious general reference work. Showing the image would be harmful to our mission, simple as that. It is not "censorship", it is simply an editorial decision. No government or dictator has forced its removal, so the term censorship is misleading. Putting the image behind one single click harms no one. People who wish to read a mainstream article about the practice can do so without having the image thrust upon them. People who wish to see it may click to do so. I strongly suggest we accept the wisdom of this, stop arguing about it, and get on with making improvements. Johntex\^talk 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not shocking in the context of an article about autofellatio. Keeping it as a linkimage is simply prudish and appeases people with certain moral/religious objections to such content. Let me ask: Do you object to the pictures in Penis, Vulva etc? The fact of the matter is that it is not our responsibility to look after the children of others. If kids can't handle the images they shouldn't be allowed by their parents/school to browse wikipedia, or the web in general (which is often far more graphic) unsupervised. People reading an article about autofellatio at work are old enough to know what kind of risks they are taking.

A far more elegant technical solution to the vandal problem would be to make a special category of images that can only be used in specified articles, requiring an admin (or a user in good standing, not in the newest 2% and with over 200 edits) to add to the list of articles allowed to use the image. This could be done with minimal server load increase by using a special image template with the check builtin instead of complicating the standard image template. // Nnp 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The image can be shocking even in an article about autofellatio for two reasons. The first is that some people will hear or see the term and not know what the term means, and they will look it up here to find out. Therefore, they cannot know in advance to expect a photo. The second reason is that most people have an expectation that a serious reference work would not show such a picture. To answer your question about pictures at penis and vulva, I do not personally find photos there offensive if they are clinical in nature, However, if they are shown in a titilating context, then I would find them offensive to include in an encyclopedia. Others may find even the clinical photos offensive. They should be able to express that view wihtout being called prudish. You go off on a tangent about protecting children. No one claimed it is our responsibility to protect them, but that doensn't mean we have to shock them or their parents deliberately. Just because we can't guarantee that no vandal will upload objectionable content does not mean we should deliberately chose to include objectionable content. We have control over our own actions and we can use our own editorial judgement. Again, your point about people knowing what they are getting into is not valid since not everyone will be familiar with the term beforehand. Johntex\^talk 00:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Images of penises are included on the so-called "bad image list." In fact, nearly all of the images on the list are of penises. Nnp, your suggestion is an excellent one. I suggest you introduce it on the Bad images talk page. Exploding Boy 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to implement it myself (time allowing) if people agree it's a better solution. I'll ask what they think. // Nnp 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Bad image list update

A patch implementing the abovementioned functionality has been made some time ago (not by me), it's on bugzilla. I don't have time right now to check if it's in wikipedia's mediawiki, check how to use it and battle every linkimage fan. Just thought I'd let you know. --Nnp 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Health concerns

I was rather surprised to see that this article neglected to mention health concerns. Are there any dangers (beyond muscular straining) concerning sucking or licking your own penis? Could you transfer STD sores from your penis to your mouth, or your mouth to your penis? Before I research this and make a contribution, I was wondering if you feel this article needs to have such a section. The Winds Are Broken 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In theory, maybe, but I can't imagine there are enough people actually doing this to warrant a health warning. Mushin^talk 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Notice

I'd like to post a notice at the beginning of the talk page, mentioning that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED FOR MINORS... I think placing a notice at the top might prevent future reoccurances of the same old discussions about "obscenities". Any agreements or disagreements? Kurds 08:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think such a notice would be inappropriate. We have general policies and guidelines that can be cited when people aren't themselves updated on their content. Besides, I don't think such a notice would prevent anything, nor do I feel it important to prevent people's outbursts of indignation now and again. __meco 10:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose your right. I'll leave everything as is. Kurds 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Porno links

Someone removed one of the links. However, if we are to have links to porno sites I feel the one that wasn't removed is more pertinent. These are the two links in question:

• Autofellatio Men
• selfellatio.com

Should we keep both, none or which one? __meco 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

how far is autofellatio closer to homosexuality than masturbation?

metaphysical question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.228.0.12 (talk • contribs) 21:35, July 6, 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a lot closer. However, that is based on my opinion that sexual preference as presented in both academic and popular lore is grossly misrepresented. I consider the object capable of arousing sexual feelings to reside on an axis of perceived ontological proximity:

1. Object much different from self - heterosexuality
2. Object less different from self - homosexuality
3. Object not different from self - autosexuality

As fellatio is a more encompassing and intimate sexual practice than manual stimulation (of one self or a partner), it takes more in respect of capacity for self-loving to autofellate than to masturbate. People with a diminished capacity for self-love will, this is my guess, be prone to phantasizing when masturbating, thus distancing themselves from their own self. __meco 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the POV, yes you're pretty right, this one is a common view. actually i was thinking about the extreme (final) purpose, refering to automasturbation, I think selfloving/autosexuality (or narcissism) is entirely part of homosexuality since homo/self/auto are synonyms (and the same entity in this particular case). also self/auto love/sexuality excludes the other side (male/female) -just like in the Narciss myth- but contains the own (homo/auto are the same here) side that's why i think automasturbation as well autofellatio is (phantasizing aspect apart) true homosexuality. don't you agree meco? 213.228.0.86 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)