Talk:Anilingus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pornography (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Archives
Archive
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Rimming?[edit]

Is there any reason why the term rimming is not mentioned anywhere in the article? While I don't doubt the veracity of the scientific term for this act being anilingus, I've never heard of anyone referring to it as anything other than rimming. It seems bizarre that this is not mentioned anywhere in the article when, as far as I know, this is how most people refer to the act. Vorpal22 (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have added mention of rimming. The rimming information has been removed from the lead two times that I know of, by two IPs (obviously the same person): See here and here. While it is true that Wikipedia, per what the essay WP:SLANG says (while pointing readers to guidelines and policies), generally avoids slang, I disagree with removing the rimming mentions as alternative terms because, as you noted, this act is almost exclusively referred to in those ways by the general public. So I view this matter as more of a Wikipedia:Article titles#Treatment of alternative names matter. Flyer22 (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that it's appopriate to add the word "rimming". Unfortunately, this page does have a history of trolling and/or editors trying to add increasing obscure or non-existent slang terms - see e.g., the topic immediately above.--Kubigula (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Note: The person removed "rimming" again and was reverted. Flyer22 (talk) 16:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
No slang, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.119.18.29 (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain your objection?--Kubigula (talk) 00:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
"Rimming" removed again and reverted. I have to side with Kubigula and ask you to explain your objection in more detail, preferably addressing the points made above in this discussion. Vorpal22 (talk) 01:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, I think you are misapplying WP:SLANG, which states that the article should not be written IN slang, which, with my addition, it currently is not; I see no direct objection to pointing out that the most commonly used expression for the behaviour - by which it is pretty much universally known - is inadmissible. Vorpal22 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
See this thread from Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for an update on what this person's IPs have been doing to the article. He or she is still removing "rimming," and has very recently been repeatedly disruptive in other ways. Oh, and despite my having wondered (in the section the IP started on Kubigula's talk page) if there is a language barrier between us and the IP, this edit makes me doubt that. Flyer22 (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This page has long been a favorite target for some odd trolling behavior. Reference to "Baracking the Obama" or "biting the brown" are signs that this stuff has reared up again.--Kubigula (talk) 23:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I see that the administrator, Lectonar, who recently added page protection to this article, replied to me about the topic of semi-protection. Considering that semi-protection has been added to Wikipedia articles for the aforementioned type/level of vandalism, even if for only a few hours, several hours, or a whole day, I disagree with Lectonar that the vandalism in this case was not enough to require semi-protection. But I appreciate that he or she did something about the matter. And after all, pending changes protection will last longer than brief temporary semi-protection...which is all I would have most likely gotten otherwise. Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
This edit was very likely made by the IP-hopping "No slang" editor as well, and, in that case, at least he or she replaced "rimming" with "rim-job" this time (instead of removing the slang aspect altogether). Thus, I reverted myself. Flyer22 (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Once again, the acceptance of rim-job as a replacement for rimming shows the lack of seriousness on behalf of the 'editors' of this wiki. It was agreed to among this community many years ago that there should be no slang. Why did this one stick? Should he/she/they/we be accepting of more slang now? There are doubtless more terms, and many are willing to add them now. (Barracking the Obama made it in at one point, for instance.) Please advise on how we/he/she/they should proceed. No edit wars, please. Thank you. 213.128.81.67 (talk) 05:49, 18 July 2013‎ (UTC)
Stop your nonsense. And you are the one who replaced rimming with rim-job, even though you'd rather not have either mentioned. Testing to see how serious we are by exchanging one name for the other, because you view use of rimming as so much better than use of rim-job? And now, because either has been accepted, you are determined to add a bunch of slang or crude material to the article to attempt to illustrate your point? More nonsense, nonsense which shows that you are the one who is not serious about editing this site. Time to ignore you and/or revert your "I'm proving my point" edits. I've wasted enough time at this talk page and its article with regard to you. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22 is very late to this discussion and is using his/her/their power as an 'editor' to stymie discussion. Many of us choose to not to be formal editors, but add much. Might does not make right.
My suggestion is that Flyer22 go back into the archives (both 1 and 2) and read, and learn. We've been over this, and Flyer22 is not helping. This site was vandalized many, many times by people who decided what they thought was acceptable as slang (which seem now to be cleverly disguised as colloquialisms). It was decided by the community, both editors and non, that there would no longer be slang allowed on the Anilingus wiki, as the list is far too long, and no consensus could be reached on keep how to keep it pared down. My only question is this: where was Flyer22 in 2008 when it was discussed and ultimately decided; with the community in full agreement?
Welcome to Wikipedia, and cut it with the brash attitude, Flyer22! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.153.229 (talk) 02:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Sigh, and revert as usual. Flyer22 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh, and I've been a registered Wikipedia editor since 2007. But that is beside the point. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Sigh... and I'm Jimmy Wales. Congratulations on your 'tenure', however you were not here then, and we know that. Go read the archives before you brashly shut this page down again. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.80.245.83 (talk) 02:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I already had a look at the archives (and a read of them) with regard to what you have stated. And your "No slang, please." rationales/actions are ridiculous for the reasons gone over above. Nothing more to state on the matter, really. I will now be ignoring you, except for when reverting you. Flyer22 (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
More arrogance from the 'editor' set.
You 'had a look' at the archives Flyer22? Look a bit more closely and stop emotionally shooting from the lip. You're simply wrong, and I can go find back up if you want it. Slang was done away with by the community to avoid this type of edit war; something that you yourself are now perpetuating again via petulant comments like "I will now be ignoring you." You seem to like to fight. It's unproductive (yet as I've seen you operate, not all that surprising). 111.90.150.13 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)
Again, sigh. More nonsense from you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22 you said you'd ignore me/us, and we'd appreciate it if you would. Again, you're all over the place. Also, please retract your threat of reverting at will. It's not very productive and unbecoming of an editor of your obvious stature. Thank you. 111.90.150.13 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)
LOL, "us"? And I'm the one who's all over the place? LOL!!!! Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there are a handful of us non-editors who monitor this page, and have done so for years. Why does that surprise you? What's really humorous (but maybe, unsurprising), Flyer22, is how simple disagreement/argument has reduced you to a giggling fool so quickly. Please at least follow through with your own aforementioned threat to ignore/revert at will. Dealing with these situations is de rigueur for non-editors on Wikipedia, and we can deal with it. Time is on our side. You doubtlessly -- rather, hopefully -- will move on, but we won't. Had you not just arrived on the Anilingus discussion, you'd know this. As my fellow non-editor(s) have implored you to do, go look at the archives, and learn something. Ridicule, if you will, however simplistic edits such as your "LOL!!!!" are unbecoming of someone who has been editing "since 2007", and are, frankly, what's truly laughable. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.211.108.228 (talk) 03:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The "handful of us non-editors who monitor this page" are you with your many IPs. As for me moving on... LOL, that doesn't happen often with me with regard to a sexual topic on Wikipedia that I've decided to watch and/or edit and watch. Oh, and continuously linking my username is pointless. It's not like I get a notification via WP:Echo when you do it; it must be that it doesn't work with regard to IPs doing it. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Rimming should be used in this article. It is no more a slang term than "doggy style" which is used in image captions, and is widely used and understood. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.Kubigula (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Finally some reason. If the policy on slang has shifted again, I agree as well. Kubigula, would you kindly add it in along with "Rim-job"? 111.90.150.13 (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)
You are beyond silly. You are the one who kept removing "rimming" from the lead. You are the one who replaced it with "rim-job." You are the one who is obviously trolling. You now agree? LOL. Either sarcasm, trolling, or both. And learn to sign your posts. Others, including the bot, shouldn't have to sign it for you. Flyer22 (talk) 21:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If you take exception to re-adding "Rimming", kindly take it up with Flat Out, and Kubigula too, please and stop focusing on us. It's silly.
Back to the point, I agree with two other editors that "Rimming" should be re-added to the wiki. I would kindly ask that an editor make this change to avoid the petulant wrath of Flyer22. Where did this person come from? 111.90.150.13 (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2013‎ (UTC)
LOL!!!! Flyer22 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't believe there is consensus for "rim-job." Flat Out let's discuss it 10:27, 30 July 2013‎ (UTC)

Kubigula, you've been here forever and have respect as a quality steward of this page. Can you please address this? What is Flyer22 trying to accomplish here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.74.67 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It's of no consequence since editing must be achieved by consensus. There is currently consensus for the the widely used colloquialism "rimming" but I do not see consensus for "rim-job." Let's keep discussion on point. Flat Out let's discuss it 05:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-analoral.png vs Wiki-anilingus.png[edit]

(This discussion was in reply to User:Flyer22. I am placing it here for reference.)

I think that a short summary of my reasoning may be of use here. Yesterday, I noticed that the Anilingus page, which previously featured the Wiki-anilingus.png picture, now featured the Wiki-analoral.png picture, both of which are made by the user Seedfeeder. Both pictures depict the act of anilingus, but the former is more explicit, while the latter is more removed. I decided that featuring only the Wiki-analoral.png picture would be a bit like having a picture of a mushroom cloud as the primary picture of the Nuclear fission page. Yes, a mushroom cloud is a visible manifestation of nuclear fission chain reaction, but it doesn't depict the essence of the phenomenon. Instead, the primary picture of the nuclear fission page is rightfully a diagram depicting a nucleus splitting in two due to the absorption of a neutron. Similarly, the Wiki-analoral.png picture does indeed show two women engaged in anilingus, but it doesn't really explain the act itself. In essence, anilingus is defined by the stimulation of the anus by the lips and tongue. The primary picture of an encyclopedic article explaining anilingus should attempt to visually explain this concept. The Wiki-anilingus.png picture does this well; it clearly shows a person's tongue on another person's anus. Similar reasoning has probably gone into the decision to feature Wiki-anilingus.png as the primary picture of the anilingus page on many other languages of Wikipedia.

However, it is still useful to include a picture of a mushroom cloud on the Nuclear fission page, because it shows an external, physical manifestation of the phenomenon. Similarly, I reasoned, the Anilingus page should probably include a more external view of the act. This allows for the reader to see a possible physical position of two people involved in the act. Therefore, instead of simply deleting the Wiki-analoral.png picture, I moved it to the Technique section of the page and changed its caption such that, together, the picture and caption visually explain that anilingus may be performed in the doggy style position. I then replaced the primary picture with Wiki-anilingus.png.

In my edit summary, I wrote that the Wiki-analoral.png picture is ambiguous. I used the word for brevity's sake: I meant to refer to the above concept that an encyclopedic article's primary picture should clearly depict the essence of the action, rather than a removed manifestation of the action. Additionally, it is ambiguous in that one cannot clearly see what the woman on the right is doing, because it does not show any part of the receiving partner's anus or even her perineum. The essence of the anilingus act, which is anal-contact of the mouth, is obscured by the receiving partner's buttocks.

In your notification, you wrote that you do not find Wiki-analoral.png to ambiguously show that anilingus is being performed. I disagree. Because the action is obscured by the receiving woman's buttocks, the giving woman's tongue could be on the receiving woman's perineum or somewhere inside or on her vulva. Maybe the giving woman's mouth is closed, and she is simply resting her head there. Maybe she wanted to get a really close look at the small of the receiving woman's back. As the primary picture of the anilingus article, it is indeed ambiguous. If it comes after the Wiki-anilingus.png picture, one can only assume that the giving woman's has her tongue on the receiving woman's anus. If it comes alone, though, one cannot assume anything.

In summary, I think that Wiki-analoral.png is ambiguous if left alone. Wiki-anilingus.png can be left alone in the primary position, because it clearly depicts the essence of anilingus. However, the two pictures complement each other in that Wiki-anilingus.png depicts the essence of anilingus, while Wiki-analoral.png depicts an external manifestation (physical human positions) of the act. Together, the two pictures concisely explain anilingus in a visual format.

I hope that this helps you understand my reasoning. BirdValiant (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining, BirdValiant. And thanks for moving this section here to the article's talk page, which is what I was going to do. As my questions show, I did consider that you meant that File:Wiki-analoral.png is ambiguous because it does not explicitly show the act. Though I still don't consider File:Wiki-analoral.png ambiguous, since it is a drawing and the act of anilingus is what the artist describes for the image (not to mention that, to me, the mouth is a little too high up for the placement of the vulva), your rationale for re-adding the File:Wiki-anilingus.png is valid and strong and I agree with that rationale. Flyer22 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

why?[edit]

why only female/female pictures and no male/male pictures? those pictures were obviously chosen by a heterosexual male...uggh

(And I'm a woman.) 86.70.90.144 (talk) 12:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Despite agreeing with BirdValiant's rationale above, I also agree that both pictures aren't needed. Both pictures include one of the women in the doggy style position, but I'd prefer to keep the first picture because, as discussed above in the section BirdValiant started, it more clearly demonstrates the act of anilingus. In addition to both images not being needed, I support removing the other image because only having two pictures of women engaging in anilingus can suggest bias to some readers, as it seems to have suggested to the IP in this section. A lot of people know that same-sex sexual contact between women is more tolerated among the general public than same-sex sexual contact between men, and the pictures can project that same sentiment to some readers. However, why suggest male/male pictures and not male/female pictures as well, IP? Or is it that that's simply the first example that popped into your head? My reason for asking is, of course, it's not as though anilingus is only or mostly engaged in by same-sex couples. In fact, the article points out that it's rarely practiced between women, which makes it even more odd to only have pictures of women engaged in the act. That stated, from what I've read on the subject, engaging in anilingus is rare among the general public as well. Flyer22 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Pointless to try an make logic out of the illogical. He/she/they like images of women performing the act around here. I agree that it's completely misogynistic, and I'm a 'they'! Not for nothing, but 'editors of this wiki also prefer their own acceptable slang terms. Only advice I can give is to keep at it. Good luck! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.128.81.67 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Wow, do you have a poorly-formed, overly-broad definition of misogynistic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.184.189 (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that having two illustrations of women performing the act is unbalanced, particularly since the behavior is chiefly associated with male-male sex. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.15.175 (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree that ideally the article would have pictures of more than one gender coupling for completeness and neutrality GrassHopHer (talk) 14:12, 17 May 2014 (UTC)