Talk:Autofellatio

The image

The continual debate on whether this article should have an image is simply down to the desires of the prurient who seem to get a kick out of having an image and those, like myself, who believe that the article's copy quite clearly explains it's all about sticking a cock in one's own mouth.

Let's be frank, it says more about the sad, sad nature of Wikipedia in general that the act of Autofellatio cannot be surmised in one line: the act of sucking oneself. The end!

If for whatever reason, and I am referring to males, if there is need to explore all facets of this weird and bizarre practise, should it be not left to other pornographic web sites (one's that need your credit card) to help you explore this disturbing subject?

As another editor has noted, I think it's risible that after five years the perverts hold out that an image is needed as if words are not enough!!?? On the other side of the coin, why are there no images representing what child pornography really is? Because it's illegal. The debate that rages here shows what happens when policy is not clear and that is WP's fault. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.86.187 (talk) 15:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the primary reason for using an image in this article: To illustrate that autofellatio is, in fact, physically possible. It's not a priori clear than a body is flexible enough to do that. It is a priori clear that it's possible to create child pornography, so that's not a very relevant comparison. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:38, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. He is correct, the picture is only here to satisfy prurient desires. No "real" encyclopedia would have this.

Regardless of GTBacchus' point, please note that we do not include images only when it is impossible to explain something via text! Take the article on squares, for instance; describing a square is even simpler than describing autofellatio, yet we still have a wide variety of images of squares on that page. Why? Because illustrations make for a good encyclopedia, and visual aids make for quicker learning and more solid understanding. Powers ^T 23:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

No "real" encyclopedia would have this picture; it is pornographic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.212.25 (talk) 08:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pornographic? That depends on how one views the photograph.  Davtra  ^(talk) 08:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And yet Wikipedia is a real encyclopedia and it has the image. Funny, that. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with morals can see it is pornographic. And, Wikipedia is NOT a real encyclopedia, partially because of stuff like that, but mostly because it allows people with an agenda to write articles like this. Any college student will tell you that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for a paper, while Britannica, Americana, even Funk and Wagnalls are accepted as sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.199.212.25 (talk) 05:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

First, if you want to participate in this conversation, please start using proper talk page formatting and signing your posts by typing four tildes (~) at the end. Second, morals have nothing to do with encyclopaedias and I wouldn't call that image pornographic. And finally, no general encyclopaedia, print or otherwise, is a good source for an academic paper. General encyclopaedias are a starting point for research, not the final word on any subject. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Whence my wacko comment. Morals have something to do with everything in this world, including fake encyclopedia wannabes. Morality is not relative. Let me put it another way, it is unethical to make this picture available in this manner, maybe even illegal. Wikipedia could be a fine source, but because it allows pictures like the ones on this page; pictures that if someone showed to a child they would be charged with a crime, it is considered a joke by most people. And yes, as a college student, I am allowed to use any mainstream encyclopedia as a source, except wikipedia. That is a shame, as this could be something could. It has been hijacked by people that think it is funny to shock people. That is the only reason this picture is here, to shock people. The idea that it is there to prove that this action is possible is nonsense. It is not an encyclopedias job to prove something is possible. There are plenty of other sites where someone could go to look at this filth. Dontberidiculous (talk) 05:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@98.199.212.25: "... while Britannica, Americana, even Funk and Wagnalls are accepted as sources." That depends on the academic level. Encyclopedias are not used in the higher levels of academia. You won't find an encyclopedic reference in any national or international peer-reviewed scientific journal. Wikipedia and Britannica are different in terms of the editorial processes. If one wishes to reference Wikipedia, one must do so by referencing a fact's corresponding inline citation. In other words, reference the original sources, not Wikipedia itself. Aside from that, there's a comment left by a user on that image's discussion page and it reads, "I always thought it was just an urban legend that some people could give themselves blowjobs!". That comment appears the user learnt something.  Davtra  ^(talk) 06:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the user learnt something": Not if the user can read. The article text includes references to videos of people, including Ron Jeremy, performing autofellatio. It is not a valid reason for inclusion of an obscene image that a user might disbelieve in the possibility of an obscene act, despite being provided links or references to pre-existing samples. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of other sites someone can go to look at this offensive filth if they need to prove this action exists. It is not an encyclopedias job to prove this sort of thing, only define what it is. The article should be two or three sentences at best. Dontberidiculous (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

While filth is in the eye of the beholder, won't somebody please think of the children? is not a reason to remove potentially offensive images from Wikipedia. You've not managed to convince anyone that the image should be removed, you've not given any new or more compelling arguments than anyone who's previously attempted to gain consensus (see the many archives), and there is therefore really no point in continuing this discussion. Exploding Boy (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That answer you just gave is why I, and many, many others regard wikipedia as nothing more than a site to read about a celebrity or get a quick answer on something unimportant. Wikipedia had great potential but has been hijacked by people who think that "filth" or pornography is in the eye of the beholder. Here's clue, filth or pornography is filth or pornography regardless of whom is looking at it. It's not relative. I have no interest in seeking to change anything here, it is a lost cause. Instead, I ban my child from this site, warn other parents and when the mood strikes, I will illuminate those here that have an agenda of putting pornography in the hands of children. I truly pity them. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontberidiculous (talk • contribs) 07:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There's an FAQ here if you haven't read it. It answers your questions.  Davtra  ^(talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The FAQ was written by those with the agenda described above. It is not censorship to remove images like the one on this article. Those responsible for this have no interest in intellectual value, but instead think it is funny to put pictures like this for shock value. In the past people like this just wrote on bathroom walls, now they have a worldwide medium to portray their sickness. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontberidiculous (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

You have not succeeded in trying to gain consensus on this page to remove the image you object to since (a) nobody agrees with you, and (b) we have policies in place that prevent us from doing what you want. If you don't like the policies then you can try to gain consensus to change them, which you would do at the various policy talk pages. You have been directed to read the FAQ and the many archives dealing with this issue. Further discussion here is simply a waste of everyone's time. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:24, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, I've already responded to this complaint as well as the FAQ. Wikipedia is a lost cause because of the sick individuals that have hijacked it. My only purpose on this page is to expose that truth. I am actually betting I can get some media attention to the fact that indecent and pornographic pictures like the one here are made available to children without so much as a warning page. Dontberidiculous (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fox news did that a few months ago. You're late. Also see WP:DISCLAIMER -mattbuck (Talk) 18:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Good, they,and other sources expose this again, and often. Light illuminates darkness. The people who post this type of stuff think they are in the mainstream, but they are on the fringe. Most people are decent and would be shocked this smut is here. This is not a censorship issue, this is a decency issue. Anyone who does not get that fact, should be exposed to public ridicule. Dontberidiculous (talk) 19:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

First, please remain civil. Second, as has been explained to you several times, you have not succeeded in creating consensus to remove the image. Continuing to argue about it is tendentious. If you don't like the policies then you can try to gain consensus to change them at the various policy talk pages, not here. Exploding Boy (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"My only purpose on this page is to expose that truth .." Then clearly you don't belong on this page, as "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Autofellatio article." Which is the purpose of all talk pages in general and is clearly stated so at the top of the page. Please take your irrelevant soapboaxing elsewhere. -- œ^™ 14:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think other photographs and even the video of ejaculation are helpful, and even beautiful, but if that picture isn't pornographic, then nothing is. (I'm speaking as someone who has no problems, moral or otherwise, with pornography.)Brmerrick (talk) 15:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think pornography is something that is described as having "no artistic or educational merit", or something similar, while this image is for the purposes of edification. Also, commentators should look up the No True Scotsman article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman . Sorry, I forgot the formatting for links. Anyone can edit my comment to fix it. Gamerunknown (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm reminded of the quite possibly apocryphal comment the old woman had to the Samuel Johnson on the publication of "The Dictionary of the English Language", about how she was glad there were no rude words within. To which he was purported to respond "I'm grateful you took the time to look". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamerunknown (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Any of the Wikipedia purists who wish to criticize me for not signing this comment may do so. However, I request in so criticizing they provide a link for a 'how to' article on the subject which I will bookmark on my browser. Because I cannot find one.

Anyway; the main argument from people saying this image should stay boils down to two points: 1) 'Wikipedia should not be censored.' and 2) 'The image displays a clear representation that the act is possible.' The first point is correct - except this argument does not apply here. The argument to remove the image is that it deters the article itself in that it is unprofessional, disturbing, and/or pornographic and the act can be adequately described without an image not that the image must be removed out of a predefined sense of righteousness. To better illustrate my point; if the image in question were that of a dog preforming autofellatio the argument for removing it would be that the article addresses Autofellatio in humans and therefore an animal representation is not applicable. Regulating content is not always censorship and should the image here be removed, which I believe it should be, would not be censorship.

The second point is silly. So long as the article sites qualified sources (some of which contain pictures of the act) why should people require an image? Those who remain skeptical can always check the sources. Or do a google image search.

My stance on this matter is that pornographic imagery (yes, this IS a subjective phrase but, speaking objectively, a photo picturing direct simulation of primary sexual organs is pornography) should not be portrayed unless necessary. Since the reasons for keeping the image are absurd (a misplaced sense of defeating censorship and 'some people only believe what they can see' attitude) the current text of the article suffices.

It has been a month and I have not received a response. I am taking down the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.63.136.181 (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, speaking objectively, pornography is anything made with the express purpose of causing sexual arousal. Appears to be intended for the purpose it is used for, i.e education as far as I can tell. Also, four tildes (~) is how you sign. 208.110.184.74 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Your stance on the matter may be that pornographic imagery shouldn't be portrayed unless necessary. That's not Wikipedia's. Wikipedia's policy on the issue is that in the absence of alternative images, obscene images should be used if they make the article more informative, relevant, or accurate. This one does. ^L_Wizard @ 04:04, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

What the policy actually says is this:

Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Wikipedia is not censored. However, images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available.

The lesson to take away is that you, LizardWizard, should not be editing Wikipedia or arguing over content based on such rules until you achieve the basic reading proficiency to understand them. In no way does this policy state, as you claim, that "obscene images should be used if they make the article more informative, relevant, or accurate". It only allows that they may be used under those circumstances. (And, as has been pointed out many times now, this offensive image does none of those. Informative? Accurate? Hardly. A picture of child rape could also be used to "prove" to a hypothetical benighted reader that such an act was also possible, despite the presence of links to authoritative sources establishing it beyond doubt; but such arguments are ridiculously off-topic and stupid to anyone with a bare minimum of common sense.) 70.109.144.96 (talk) 12:47, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

"Down with this sort of thing!" "careful now" 157.157.68.205 (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, hey, I didn't see this until now. Sorry, let me do some reading comprehension for you. The policy states "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Now ignore the "and only if" part, because it's independent from the rest, and the sentence says "Material that would be considered vulgar [...] should be used if [...] its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Hope this clears things up. ^L_Wizard @ 19:28, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Protection?

You might want to protect the page for a while, 4chan has the guy's name. --77.222.173.83 (talk) 22:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Useful source

Considering the rarity of popular coverage of this topic, this article from Slate could be useful in improving this article. Powers ^T 12:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

2257 record-keeping requirements

Deleted the image as it is patently offensive and does not add any helpful information. Keep in mind, Wikipedia editors that may yammer about censorship, that an offensive image must actually usefully add to an article, and this does not. In addition the image triggers 2257 record-keeping requirements and thus must be deleted. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are the 2257 record-keeping requirements, for the curious. The photograph at issue unquestionably triggers them: record keeping requirements for sexually explicit images KirthMersenne (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You're just vandalising and pulling up some vague sense you have of what is illegal to justify it. Wikipedia has no legal problem with nudity in articles - if there were a problem, it would have been raised a long time ago. The image is useful, primarily because many people may not believe autofellatio is actually possible. -mattbuck (Talk) 20:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, 2257 is discussed by WMF's lawyer (at the time) here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

*Yawn* KirthMersenne is now blocked for legal threats encase anyone wondered. "Deleted the image as it is patently offensive and does not add any helpful information" is complete rubbish, how is a picture of the exact thing the article is describing not useful? " The image is useful, primarily because many people may not believe autofellatio is actually possible." - totally agree. --Τασουλα (Almira) (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only is the image illegal under U.S. federal law as noted above, your argument is specious; otherwise any offensive/illegal content, including kiddie porn, would be includable on the basis that it merely showed the subject matter. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

We might want to look at blocking the above range as it seems to be the same user and the removal against consensus continues. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

You might instead want to look at following Wikipedia policy on offensive material, specifically WP:NOTCENSORED. I quote in pertinent part: "Content... that violates... the laws of the U.S. state of Florida where Wikipedia's main servers are hosted, will... be removed." Guys/gals, enjoy your porn on Wikipedia, fapping to your heart's content-- just don't shoot the messenger on clear Wikipedia policy. 24.61.244.32 (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't violate the laws of Florida though. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:22, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. If it violated the laws of Florida, then, since such material is always removed, there would have been an office action to remove it. There hasn't been any such office action, therefore it doesn't violate those laws. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

That's just stupid, and farcical to boot. Under that rationale no illegal content could ever be deleted until there was an office action to remove it. You really shouldn't talk about legal matters on which you know nothing, and your post is simply insulting in its intentional lack of logic. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

mattbuck, it certainly does. The image is correctly noted (and not by me, mind you) as triggering Sec. 2257 record-keeping and notification requirements. Since those have not been satisfied, the image is illegal under the laws applicable in the state of Florida. Note that Sec. 2257 requires not only that certain records be kept, but also that a notification of where those records are stored be furnished with the image. You simply don't have a leg to stand on, though it may gall you when your favored porn images are at stake. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, no, you're wrong. Wikimedia is a "safe harbour" - content reusers may have to comply with 2257, but it's not applicable here. That there is a 2257 template on the image is simply to warn potential reusers, but it may not actually be a requirement for those reusers. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope. The image posters themselves have to post the required 2257 notifications, or they're illegal under U.S. law. This is once more proof that liking your porn is not just the same thing as a law degree, eh? If you want to approach at least a correct layperson's view, you should begin by reading the law itself. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

No, the people uploading the image are not required to have 2257 if the content is primarily for noncommercial use. Wikipedia is a noncommercial use. Also, please get an actual account rather than posting anonymously. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:25, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

A better replacement image...

Since the majority of the objections seem to center on the perceived prurient nature of the photograph, I would ask would anyone object if I tried to find a picture of Ior Bock performing the act? Since for him autofellatio was a religious sacrament, the pornography argument would be kicked into the long grass. On an existential level there should be a way to get at least a screencap, since a Finnish television channel broadcast him in the act live (and hopefully will have kept the recording, though them releasing it might be another thing). It could be hard work to find a person who has kept a personal video of it (though I do have some weird friends, so I could ask aroundc :), but if one could be found, a screencap might be a better option. The newspaper Helsingin Sanomat also ran a photograph of him limbering up prior to the act by doing yoga. Perhaps that would be even more acceptable, because that picture does illustrate that the flexibility is possible, but it wouldn't actually show the act itself. What do you think, would that fly? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 00:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems unlikely that we could get a free image. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:52, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Further, I think you misunderstand the motivations behind the people wanting to remove the image. If I've learnt something from all the endless wars over nude images on Commons, it's that people who want to remove nude or sexual images rarely admit the reason they're doing it is because they simply don't want the image there in the first place. They'll come up with a lot of arguments about why it should be removed (too small image on a 12MP photo, out of scope on an image which is in use, no consent on a self-portrait, etc etc) and all of them are just to try and lawyer their way to their goal which is the removal of the image, because they know "I don't like it" would get a speedy kick up the ass. It's the same here I think, people will give reasons why they object to this image, and so we can try and placate them by finding a new one that seems less objectionable on this particular criteria, and then the new one will have a different problem. We could replace it with a drawing and they'd still object. It all boils down to this: if someone doesn't like the image (or more likely doesn't like the subject or wants to WP:THINKOFTHECHILDREN) they will construct a web of claims about why the image is bad to try and get it taken down, no matter what image is used. Call me cynical, I don't care, I look at it this way - the definition of futility is performing the same action over and over and expecting a different result next time. You can assume good faith, but after a while, you have to accept bad faith. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, as the originator of the article, and having followed it through nearly a decade, I think there isn't much new about how the discussions about it swirl around. I do apologize if you thought I was speaking in earnest. Text media. (lol, self-edit-conflicted twice. That brings back memories. Thought that wasn't possible anymore.) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't seem to be rare for people to state clearly that they don't think Wikipedia should be turned into Porn Central. Indiscriminate stuffing of explicit images into articles disobeys Wikipedia policies including WP:NOTCENSORED itself. Porn-happy zealots believe that NOTCENSORED stands for the proposition that any offensive image which refers to the article's subject is includable, when that's a perversion of the language of the rule. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said I did support "indiscriminate stuffing" of explicit images into articles. However, I think there is a place for them in an encyclopaedia that attempts to give a comprehensive coverage of human sexuality, and this is one place where such an image is warranted. -mattbuck (Talk) 01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, any reader can look at the image, and read Wikipedia policy, and see that you're in the wrong. Simply sticking your head in the sand doesn't suffice for correctly applying Wikipedia policy, which states: "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." The article would not be less informative, relevant or accurate if there were no image of a man sticking his cock in his mouth; text alone makes it clear what autofellatio is.

Your main fallacy lies in not thinking about obscene images in a different way from regular ones. Regular, non-obscene images can be a valid part of an article merely by showing the main subject. The standard is higher for obscene images. 70.109.144.96 (talk) 04:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't want the image just "because it shows the subject", I want the image because it "photographically shows that the subject is in fact possible". Speaking as someone who is not that flexible, it is hardly obvious that anyone could manage this act. In that manner, having an actual photo, rather than a drawing, is exceedingly useful and causes the article to be more informative. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:22, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is a possible good replacement since the person in the current picture has been banned from WP and this picture has been around the net a lot. It shows the act clearly in a non pornographic manor. If accepted i will upload to commons to the public domain. http://img850.imageshack.us/img850/9495/ss02v.jpg— Preceding unsigned comment added by Canter2626 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

As a commons admin, I can tell you that that image will be deleted on sight as a copyright violation unless you provide evidence of the licence. Just because something has been "around the net a lot" does not mean you have a right to distribute it. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:16, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not 100% sure how to provide that evidence, but you can see that I am the one that has submitted and "pulled" the image in the past, just because I was not sure as to if it would be used. or the correct rights that i should release. In all, i want to make sure that if I sacifice, that it is used for a good cause.````

You need to show that the copyright holder of the image releases it under a free licence, and imageshack generally doesn't provide for that. That "you found it on the internet" does not imply a free licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:29, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry for the misunderstanding, I hosted it on imageshack since it is of ME. It is a picture of me that was taken years ago and has been around a ton. I figured I would host it on imagshack to see if it would be an image worth displaying the content. I figured I didn't want to submit it if it was felt it did not display the content better than the current one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canter2626 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. No worries then. I would say however that the current image is better - that the guy was banned is really irrelevant as long as his image isn't a copyvio. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Since mine showed from the side, it showed a bit better understanding of the "bending" aspect since his is more straight on. I would submit it to the public domain. You really don't think the one in mine demonstrates and presents a better visualization? I want things to be as educational as possible. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canter2626 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)