Talk:Ass to mouth

This topic may be offensive. Some people feel that offensive topics should not be covered by encyclopedias such as Wikipedia. However, the community consensus is that this topic, handled carefully, should be covered.

Please read before posting comments First of all, welcome to this article's talk page. This article represents the work of several contributors. Negotiation is required to find consensus for an accurate and complete representation of the topic. A common objection made by newcomers is that this Ass to mouth article may degrade the value of Wikipedia, and induces feelings of revulsion when reading it. Please do not display your displeasure by making unconstructive comments. Instead, suggest ways to improve the article. Please also do not remove statements from the article that have verifiable sources. You may find that it's easy to commit a faux pas. That's OK — everybody does it! However, if you commit a faux pas your comment will be summarily deleted. You'll find a list of a few common ones you might try to avoid here. This talk page is for discussing the text, photographs (if any), format, grammar, sources, etc. of the article itself and not the inherent value of the subject. See WP:What Wikipedia is not. This talk page should be used only for discussion on how to improve the Wikipedia article. Any attempts at trolling, using this page as a soapbox, or making personal attacks may be deleted at any time.

Notes to editors: Any debates contained here are meant to improve the article. Reasoned, civil discourse is the best means to be taken seriously. Rude behavior not only distracts from the subject at hand, but tends to make people deride or ignore what was said. Comments deemed to be uncivil or non-constructive will be summarily deleted. Please use edit summaries.

Sources and extra material

We need to get some more sources in the article to help structure it better. We need external sources for things such as first appearances of the practice in film.

We also could do with expanding upon the history, but only if it were well sourced.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. Facts about hardcore porn, especially about the more revolting aspects, are never well-sourced; this problem was emphasized a few times during the deletion discussion. The first appearance likely was never "on film" but rather on video (the porn industry stopped using film in the 1980s, I think).

I recall seeing it first in the late 1980s in a Ron Jeremy video shown at a bachelor party, and the general reaction of the audience was either revulsion or shock ("doesn't she know where that thing has been?!"). Assigning an actual term to the practice likely came later. Now it's everywhere. =Axlq 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, I just tried and failed to find something... I could swear I saw in another Wikipedia article a sourced statement that porn stars get an enema to wash out any fecal matter before being filmed having anal sex. I can't find it in the anal sex article though. If this is true (and it seems sensible), then it deserves a mention in the health risks section of this article, perhaps in the context of "don't try this at home; leave it to the professionals." =Axlq 06:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It rings a bell with me too. So many sources were added and deleted during the AfD that it may have been one of the casualties. Mallanox 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a quote from a column by Dan Savage and added the cite. Although that article pertains to gay porn, the quote applies to all forms of porn. =Axlq 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

I've added the top message box. Hopefully it covers both sides of the issue. If not, please edit it to address what you feel needs to be said while leaving in place what the 'other' side are trying to say. Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the kind of thing I was looking for when I composed that big yellow infobox at the top. =Axlq 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, less is more. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The conflict at present

First of all, thanks to BenAveling (talk · contribs) for adding that "offensive" notice at the top of the talk page. That at least acknowledges the dislike some users have about this issue.

Okay, so I've been asked to take a look at this, and I can't help to add my two cents (as a 3rd party editor). Frankly, I don't see why this particular article is getting so heated. There are many other articles that cover similar pornographic topics, but I don't see anyone complaining there. First, I would like to know why exactly CyberAnth and 193.219.28.146 feel this article is not encyclopedic. I know that other encyclopedias don't cover such topics, but we're Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia. By no means are we an academic encyclopedia, as you can see by the wide array of content here. This is just a compendium of all notable knowledge. I don't see how this particular article seems offensive to anyone. When you think about it, this all has to do with human sexual behavior. However odd it may be, it still is encyclopedic and at Wikipedia, such articles are welcomed. Nishkid64 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus of course they're free to nominate for deletion etc... /wangi 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed 1 sentance.

Applying the mouth to the genitals immediately after applying it to the anus can introduce Escherichia coli ("E. coli") into the urethra, causing a urinary tract infection.

This seems backwards. What is 'it' in this sentance? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"It" is the mouth, the only singular noun in the sentence preceding the pronoun. "Applying the mouth to the genitals immediately after applying THE MOUTH to the anus can introduce" e. coli [in]to the urethra.

07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more like a sentence that belongs to the anal sex article. =Axlq 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this activity?

One thing the article does not address is why someone would do this. My understanding is that people who engage in anal sex generally consider it to be superior to oral sex. If such a person has successfully obtained access to his partner's anus, why would he want to withdraw his penis without achieving climax just to transition to an alternate form of sex that he considers inferior? 4.89.247.63 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the article doesn't explain the reason the receiving person would want to do this, either. Som people like to do strange things. Or perhaps the practice only occurs in porn videos. As editors, however, it is not our place to pass judgement. At best, all we can do is try to find a verifiable, citable source who can explain it. =Axlq 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As a personal advocate of ATM, I must say that the heightened sense of "naughtiness" or defiance, is likely what gives ATM its extreme appeal to those of us in the anal-to-oral scene. Likewise, female participants often relish the tawdry nature of the act. Mike Brennan, a well-known porn actor, said that it was the only way he actually enjoyed having sex on film, despite the many other acts he has engaged in. That being said, Mr. Brennan's coprophilic nature (he is also an advocate of the dirty Sanchez), may preclude him from giving unbiased opinions on the subject.

Anyway, that just my 2 cents. For your information. 74.114.110.141 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?

Articles like this is the reason why Wikipedia is not generally considered as a serious source of information (in comparison with, let's say, Britannica). 193.219.28.146 16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not censored and this article seems well-written and referenced, so I don't see the problem. Jayden54 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is quite hard for me to believe that "Wikipedia is not censored" -- my polite message above was removed bazillion times, and this IP was blocked three times in a row because of me adding it again. You can also read (NSFW) regarding "censoring" and Wikipedia... 193.219.28.146 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the story, which was interesting indeed, but I can't say anything about it because I wasn't involved in that situation so I know nothing about it. All I can say is that although Wikipedia is not censored there are of course limits. An article that simply describes a certain sexual term or act, like this one, should not be censored. Photos depicting such acts might not be really suitable for Wikipedia. It's all really a gray area though and very prone to intense debates and heated discussions, so each situation will have to be judged differently. Cheers, Jayden54 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While the subject of this article doesn't appeal to me either, it would seem that 193.219.28.146 was reverted and blocked (not "censored") because (a) the comment above, comparing Wikipedia to Britannica, violates the leading two paragraphs in WP:TALK; (b) repeated disruption from re-adding the comment violates WP:POINT; and (c) repeated violations of WP:3RR. Looking at Talk:193.219.28.146, it appears this user has been asked several times, but never answered, how his comments facilitate improving the article, or how they are constructive in any way.

To User:193.219.28.146: Please suggest improvements and constructive changes rather than make editorial comments and complaints. If you feel the article should be deleted, you can always propose it for deletion; see WP:AFD for the process. -Amatulic 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To User:193.219.28.146: Your points are well received by me, but the external reference you cited above undermines them a touch. By that definition we should have pictures of child abuse on the child pornography article. Let's try and keep it real here. I do agree that your initial comments were in good faith and seem to have been reverted a bit hastily but can we keep this debate on track. Pedro1999a |  Talk  22:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave link to this article on wikitruth, because it shows quite nice what is the (extreme but logical) consequence of current Wikipedia policies. "Zero censorship" policy is slippery slope in practice. "Zero censorship" + "we need pictures in every article" = pornopedia, not encyclopedia, and even Jimbo realizes this. 193.219.28.146 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Nobody has suggested adding pictures here. And you haven't explained how this discussion is constructive to improving this article. Please do so. I confess I am curious why you feel your comment at the beginning of this section is important enough to violate policy and get yourself blocked. -Amatulic 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to briefly put in my two cents by applauding those who have created and maintained this article. I did a google search for "ass to mouth", and this article came up. Most of the other links were pornographic or just plain random; personally I think it's good to provide information about the topic in a neutral, non-pornographic way. The section on health risks in particular is potentially valuable and IMO should be expanded if possible. --Hermitage 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Health Risks

"[T]o eliminate the possibility of any fecal matter appearing on film" is a bit confusing. Is there some sort of censorship provision that guys can have anal sex with someone, but the camera can't show shit on the guy's penis??? I suppose that would be consistent with prohibiting filming pissing, even though we all do it every day, and barring a few fetishists, it's not even all that sexy.

Responses are urgently solicited. What the f**k is going on?

Dick Kimball 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the article makes it clear (especially in the footnote) that porn films represent fantasies, and most audiences probably don't want to see feces unless that's actually the point of the porn. =Axlq (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest specifying that Hepatitis A, according to the CDC, is only spread from a person with Hep A to another. In other words, someone can't get Hep A from performing A2M on something that has been in their own anus.

HAV is found in the stool (feces) of persons with hepatitis A. HAV is usually spread from person to person by putting something in the mouth (even though it might look clean) that has been contaminated with the stool of a person with hepatitis A. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/a/fact.htm

fordag 22:05 2 Dec 2007 (EST)

After further research at the CDC website the same can be said for E.Coli as for Hepatitis A. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm#How%20is%20E.%20coli%20O157:H7%20spread

fordag 22:10 2 Dec 2007 (EST)

Looks like some good sources to mention in the article. Go for it. =Axlq (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My edit has been deleted, apparently by you Axlq, because you said it was unsourced and my opinion, as you see above I did refrences and you agreed. My problem is an unfamiliarity with the proper format to put footnotes into the entry. fordag 21:46 13 Oct 08 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.18.109 (talk)

What is the source of this?

Despite its health risks, it is prevalent in pornographic films and growing prevalent among teenaged minors as a substitute for vaginal sex because of the lesser risk of pregnancy.[3][4]

Neither of the linked sources state that ATM is growing prevalent among teenaged minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.224.39.90 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-25

You are correct. When you see discrepancies like this, feel free to change the text to reflect the cited sources. I have just done so. =Axlq 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(question from len) Why is it that it refers to getting aids from yourself in some weird way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.231.128 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrible

I went to edit some of this article, but I really don't know where to start. It is in dire need of a complete rewrite. There is (for a start) much talk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases from one's own anus, which I believe belongs in the "a2om" section.

As it is, I feel that most of this article reads as if it were written by a 12 year old who is trying rather hard to be obscene. While I have no issue with "objectionable comment", I must postulate that large portions of the text are entirely for shock value, including the rather odd quote (resource 7). The nail in the coffin is the "see also: Dirty Sanchez", which always seems to be tacked onto the end of anal-related articles despite having absolutely nothing to do with the subject other than it is a sexual act.

114.30.108.221 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. Your feelings about who wrote it, however, aren't relevant here. Try reading the [[deletion review discussion before reaching conclusions about those who have taken an interest in this article.

Contracting diseases belongs in the health risks section. I am mystified why you would want such discussion in any other section.

The quote in reference 7 is necessary. There was no other resource that could be found with an explanation of douching in the context to the A2M act. As this act has high prevalence on film, a discussion of how the porn industry treats this act adds encyclopedic value to the article. Feel free to substitute a better reference if you can find it.

The Dirty Sanchez link has been removed before and has reappeared. I'll remove it again. =Axlq 16:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

American spelling != "English"

I hate to mention it, but outside of the U.S. "ass" refers to a donkey. Given that Wikipedia aspires toward national and cultural neutrality, it is probably wise to replace the American spelling "ass" with "arse."

Have to say I am so damn sick of American spelling in a supposedly international Internet resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.74.35 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I live in Canada and I doubt like hell anyone thinks of a donkey when someone uses the word "ass," especially in this context. As for your bitching about American spelling, I'm sick and tired of seeing British spelling when American spelling is much more prevalent.68.146.2.138 (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because the Americans can't spell, don't blame us Brits, we did give you proper English to start with. Anyway, the name should stay as is - the only place you will see the name would be in a porn movie, and they always use the US spelling.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. We Americans realized a century or so ago that the Brits have been misspelling English words for ages, so we corrected and simplified things. Unfortunately we haven't been able to rid ourselves of those ridiculous "gh" spellings (eight, through, cough, etc. although we did figure out that 'plough' is better off spelled 'plow').

I must admit, though, personally I prefer the British word 'arse' because it doesn't have the ambiguity of 'ass'. Nevertheless, in the context of the sex act, I have never seen it spelled any other way but 'ass'. =Axlq 03:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, we don't need to discuss this as it already well covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest, unless we're talking about porn filmed in Tijuana no one is going to confuse "ass" with "donkey" in this context. SLEPhoto (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)