Talk:Oral sex

Hey - some external link ideas

Hey, put up some fuck pics please!

I've read this article and I've seen the external links which you have put up at the end of the article.

Some of these external links are broken/not working anymore. Maybe they can be replaced with some more relevant links to a website on the subject, or to some other relevant articles.

I suggest you ad http://www.howtogivehead.biz instead of the link which is now for the text "How to Go Down on a Man".

Just a suggestion. Everything else seems cool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JackHutson (talk • contribs) 15:34, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

potential original research and typos?

Under the heading "STD Risk", the quote "While the exact risk of transmitting HIV through oral sex is unknown, it is generally tough to be lower than other sex practices" seems to have original or unverified research, and a typo ("tough" instead of "thought"). I'm not an editor, but wanted to point this out to those who are.

Hardcore photos

I'm aware that Wikipedia do not censor, but are stills from pornography really the best images for this article? Can an editor come up with something more appropriate?

Well, they are the best examples of these kinds of sex acts. That and they're freaking awesome. I'm a guy, what do you expect?--Kross^Transmit? 00:19, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dreadstar removed the hardcore pics after I put them there recently. I just reverted his revert so the pics are once again part of the article. Frankly I see nothing wrong with the pics. I found them on Wikipedia Commons and both are accurated depictions of oral sex. I sincerely believe they should stay put. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 14:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now two admins have reverted your edits. I suggest you attempt to achieve a consensus here for their inclusion first. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, lack of consensus seems like a weak argument here given the reasons I provided above. Had this been an article about something non-sexual I doubt I'd be running into this type of resistance. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 14:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the images because I think they are poor depictions of the article subject. Neither of the two disputed images is superior to the current images in the article. I also suggest you find consensus for your additions. Dreadstar ☥ 17:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

How can they be poor depictions of the article's subject if both are close-up photographs of people engaging in oral sex (see the pics below)? I believe the images I posted are superior because two of the images presently part of the article are illustrations done from a perspective many feet away and therefore provide no detail. This is not helpful to those people who are ignorant about oral sex but want to learn more. As for a consensus, it's obvious that user:Kross agrees with me. So, I'm not alone in my opnion. It would be great if other people could comment on this matter. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

• 
  A woman performing oral sex on a man
• 
  Cunnilingus

• Comment. Good lord this article certainly could use some actual photos. Of the images we have the lede drawing is <<sorry>> artistic but very unedifying; the other two illustrations? The one of the actual blowjob is slightly helpful although it really seems like it's out of a children's sex-ed book - designed to be neutered when we simply need neutral - although I'm sure the prudes would fight to use that than actual human beings. The other shows ... "An artistic rendering" which could just as easily be illustrating how to sniff pubic hair. There is a reason pornography is extremely popular and one of the most resilient industries - not only is it entertaining but it remains educational for those who wish to actually see or cathartically experience sexuality or sex acts otherwise unknown to them. We don't need to present film clips (yet) or overtly graphic material that seems outside the needs of this subject but we certainly can help educate our readers on the subject with some quality photos of actual human beings doing something that real people have done throughout history. Perhaps we could consider the best images available and determine if any would help our readers as opposed to removing that which offends our personal interests? -- Banjeboi 22:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
  • If I had to choose from our current images available through Commons I would go with:

• Fellatio
  Fellatio
• Cunnilingus
  Cunnilingus

Thanks for the support Benjiboi. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 23:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Now, now gentleman....No dissing other editors. Illustrative these pics maybe but they are only partially and marginally illustrative as encyclopedic content since they are close up views and not whole body pictures, so one wonders are they optimally educational. From that standpoint whether they are better than what's in place now is a matter for debate. As well Wikipedia has guidelines concerning pornography WP:CENSOR, and WP:Pornography an essay, has some points on past discussions where potentially pornographic photos or pics were being considered. For some these pics would be offensive for others not, again a matter for discussion. The size of the photos is important as well . At what point do they overwhelm the text of the article in terms of size or placement. The pics we add to article should support the text not overwhelm or dominate.

My point is that there is no definitive position on these photos and discussion and consensus are necessary. Because what is being determined is whether this kind of photo is going to be acceptable for the majority of our readers probably wider community input should be asked for.(olive (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

I've asked for comments here

I'd encourage us not to appeal to the acceptability but the encyclopedic value. Indeed many topics are objectionable but we cover them, with photos, encyclopedicly. As for the "whole body" issue I don't think there is broad confusion how one gets one's head into such a position as much as what one's mouth is doing once down there. I could be wrong. There was also some other more graphic illustrations I think could be good candidates to replace some that we are currently using as well. FWIW. -- Banjeboi 00:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We can't ignore acceptability, we need to consider it, per WP:NOTCENSORED, "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available.", so ”acceptability” actually puts a higher threshold on the encyclopedic value that’s brought by any graphic image that’s considered “offensive, profane or obscene”. Acceptability is a key element that we cannot put aside, and we need to appeal to both the value as well as the acceptability of any graphic image. Dreadstar ☥ 01:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I think we should use the same standard we use on all other images on all other articles. What the majority view as acceptable may be in conflict with good article writing. The majority may find pedophilia unacceptable but we still write about it. We don't use acceptability as the standard for what to include or not include - it's simply a guide. As is WP:Common sense. We're not doing our readers or ourselves any favor by censoring images that are readily available to all elsewhere 24/7. Instead we use them encyclopedicly to illustrate a subject to benefit our readers' understanding. People's preferences to have twelve images or none are just their preferences and we need to look at the bigger picture here. -- Banjeboi 01:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be misunderstanding me, I'm not saying we can't have hardcore pictures because they aren't considered acceptable by the majority, I'm saying when we do use hardcore photos to visually describe a graphic sex act, they need to be of the utmost encyclopedic value per WP:NOTCENSORED. and where its omission would "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." There are other images in the article that are equally suitable, if not superior alternatives, to the images that have been proposed thus far. I'm not trying to censor images, I'm just saying these aren't good enough. Dreadstar ☥ 02:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The composition of these photos (the second set) is OK, but the image quality of the fellatio one is poor and the other is not great either (bad flash). FWIW I'm sure the photo v illustration thing has been discussed several times previously - those interested may like to check the discussion archives... In cases like these illustrations have generally been used due to the absence of high quality photos that are not copyright violations. Photos - even video - have been used on other "sex" articles (see Ejaculation and Pearl_necklace_(sexuality) for example.) PollyWaffler (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The impression the page gives is important. I'd much prefer a viewer to see a sex education article than a porno one. Explicit photographs of sex acts are now inextricably linked in the public mind with web porn. Porn is actually linked (not just in the public mind) with sexual misinformation, credit card scams and various other nastiness. Any page should try to appear encyclopedic. Also pages need to be informative: highly experienced adults can see what is going on in these "explicit" photos, but many of our drawings are the best possible visual explanations of their subject matter. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This was my concern as well. Full body descriptions are more informative for the inexperienced, (the experienced already know what they are seeing in close up shots but for the inexperienced its only partial information). An encyclopedia is an educational tool as I see it at least. As with any teaching, if it teaches to the experienced it leaves out the inexperienced, but if it teaches to the inexperienced it also includes the experienced. (mind you the experienced might be bored to death).

I think I was the one who brought up "majority" and I should explain what I was considering. Although an encyclopedia such as this one has as a goal the inclusion of the "sum of all human knowledge" so anything notable with reliable sources can be included,(no censorship for the most part), the inclusion of content within the articles themselves must address those who define the encyclopedia audience on any particular article. So who comes to an article like this and what can we offer that will be the most educational, remembering that Wikipedia is not a "how to". This goes back to my last point. We have to offer something that teaches those who know nothing about the subject matter, don't we?

As well we have to realize that some if not many of the inexperienced will find hardcore photos. -porn-something they have no experience with. Is there a line between educating and turning readers away because the photos are too explicit... Just points that may be worth considering.(olive (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

All of the above arguments against displaying explicit pics strike me as ridiculous and disingenuous. We can always include both close-up and full-body pics if the sexually inexperienced find close-up pics confusing. Also, how are we to know whether readers associate explicit pics with pornography? Quite frankly, why should we care? I always thought the goal of Wikipedia was impartiality and accuracy, not worrying about whether we're upsetting our readers. To be honest, I believe the editors who are opposed to the explicit pics have a moral objection to them and the reasons presented above for not displaying them are excuses for that. Keep in mind, if the pics in question depicted insects having sex, nobody here would be raising these issues. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 22:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

They aren't insects... and we don't treat or deal with human beings as if they were anywhere, and not here either. Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has been created for readers and to give them knowledge, not for editors. Without readers Wikipedia would not exist, so we can't dismiss the needs of the reader. Everything we do is designed to create knowledge that is accesable and accurate for those same readers. To assume that because some editors are discussing this topic because they have moral concerns if those editors have not said so, is a standard form of dismissal of discussion on such topics. Rather, lets assume that the editors here here have given their honest opinions on this topic so that we can continue on with the discussion arriving at some consensus- driven, form of resolution.

I agree that its would be possible to include both close ups and distance shots of these positions. However I don't consideer these particular photos to be good examples per WP:UNCENSORED. Others may have different opinions, which I respect. How do we know what's going to be the best for the reader. We don't. That's why this is a collaborative project with consensus as a way and means for deciding such issues. No one owns these article so all opinions and discussion should be considered and respected. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Good points, Olive, all editors need to Assume Good Faith and abide by No Personal Attacks. Dreadstar ☥ 23:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on Dreadstar's talk page, I don't view my comments as a form of bad faith nor were they intended as a personal attack. They represent my sincere opinions and I stand by them. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC) (See the full conversation here.)

• Comment. IMHO, the current illustrations/drawings are generally inferior but could round out a set of images including photos. I'm hearing that the quality of the 2nd set of images set forth should likely improve before they are more seriously considered and that generally all seem to agree that it's more about finding the best images possible. What if we ask the graphic image lab to improve the quality of the photos proposed to see if they can indeed be improved and set out on a quest to determine (i) what images would be ideal for this article (regardless if they are currently available) and then (ii) look at the currently available images - my hunch is we should stay with commons images that are freely licensed for any use - to see if we have any good matches for what we see are the articles/our readers' needs. Does this sound like a productive way forward? -- Banjeboi 11:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

My position such as it is, is for this article to be educational and as technical as possible given the subject matter, but not a kind of how to. To that end, my feeling is that the drawings are more comprehensive in scope, and should dominate the article. There may be better versions, though. If the close ups are needed and I'm not disputing they aren't or are, they should be later in the article; as descriptions become more specific so can the illustrations. The lede is a more general area and so should the illustrations be.

If I have an objection to the close up photos we have here it may be that they are neither technical in scope, nor are they particularly human feeling. One thing that is lost in these close ups is a sense of the humanity of the people involved because they are more about the organs than the act. As Benjiboi and Dreadstar say above there may be and probably should be better examples.(olive (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

Sexual Life of South Sea Natives: Recent edit

This entry is not particularly encyclopedic in my opinion, since its from a relatively old source (1935), makes a sweeping statement ("all primitive peoples") and is quoted without context. As well the book as far as I can tell is not available for review on google books. I wonder if the editor who added the content would consider giving some direct text from the source, and posting it here so context can be checked. I would be happy to re add the content with a summary rather than quote style and some context.(olive (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC))

"Cunnilingus is very wide-spread among all primitive peoples and from Kubary's reports on the Sonsolans, it can be seen that even the children are already prepared for this".

Oral Sex within the Animal Kingdom

The section on this in the main page is, indeed, lacking in references. The following is a referenced, refereed journal article on the phenomenon in bats.

PLoS One. 2009 Oct 28;4(10):e7595.

Fellatio by fruit bats prolongs copulation time. Tan M, Jones G, Zhu G, Ye J, Hong T, Zhou S, Zhang S, Zhang L.

Guangdong Entomological Institute, Guangzhou, China, [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.72.133.245 (talk • contribs) 3:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

techniques

i have been with my girlfriend for 2 years now and we would like to have oral sex. could anyone suggest moves or techniques to help me to gain confidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.235.92 (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah man, no problem. Try out those moves your dad once had you perform on him. LaRouxEMP (talk) 12:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)