Talk:Cunnilingus

Pornography

This is illegal and aginst wiki rules (drawings make no difference)--Meiamme (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. See WP:CENSOR. 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is illegal. At WP:CENSOR Wikipedia states:

"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".

However I don't think that the omission of the photograph that shows the cunnilingus action would make the article less informative, since there is already an illustration that shows exactly the same thing. Additionally, this photograph violates the U.S. laws for it is forbidden to publish such obscene photographs at pages which are not labeled for parental control.81.215.77.8 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not necessary under US law, as I understand it, to issue a specific disclaimer on each and every page which might fall foul of the relevant law. WP:AFP, which is easily available from the Main Page, is in my view adequate notice for that purpose since it constitutes valid constructive notice. Whether the images are encyclopedic, however, is a different debate. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of 'US law,' it is obscene and does not make the article more informative, relevant, accurate and equally suitable alternatives are already available in the article. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.162 (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

None of them show a close-up; how can they be comparable? Powers ^T 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, no such law could ever exist under our constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I note this comment at the bottom of the page. It looks like vandalism, but I can not find where it comes from in the edit mode: This article regarding Robotnik's penis is shite, you can help by removing it completely. I guess this should be removed by somebody who knows more about MediaWiki than I do.

Someone vandalised a template, and it's now been fixed. It's possible you are looking at an old version of the page, but it will be OK before long. --Rodhullandemu 17:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment

Is there really a need for a citation on whether some women find anal or vaginal penetration stimulating while receiving cunnilingus? Seriously?

This article has 11 interwiki and link to wikisource, do not kill it, please!--87.240.15.6 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging

I would like to express my frustration with the existence of this article. I suggest either a merging, or a deletion of all cunnilingus information from that article. --Vincentvivi 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact this article was separated out from the original fairly recently. It is usual practice to have a short summary in the more inclusive article, and a tag like this: "

Main article: cunnilingus

" pointing to the longer separate article. Paul B 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, but before my edit the extract from Oral sex contained more information that the cunnilingus article itself, and now I feel it is too informative for a "short summary". It is excessively long. --Vincentvivi 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cunnilingus_2.JPG

In follow-up of an Admin noticeboard incident discussion, is there any use for Image:Cunnilingus_2.JPG^{(not worksafe)} in this article? If so, please contact an administrator either directly or by posting a request on the Administrator's noticeboard. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, frankly it is not. It may seem useful (a real human example), but it is pretty much considered too obscene for use. I've seen this issue come up a number of times and be argued over numerous times, with many ludicrous arguments (like the Anal Sex article). Sorry for the relatively anecdotal evidence and all that, but nobody seems to have replied anyway. Cheerio. Lass Lethe 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an image that (and pardon me for being so explicit, but I'm shooting for level ground) that actually shows the woman's genitals. The image for blowjob actually shows the act, whereas the cunnilingus image merely shows him looking at it. Come on.

The act by definition covers the genitals. You can't have it both ways. If you're keen to see them, you have to have a picture of someone about to do it, which BTW, is what the main image depicts. There are also several others, just in case you haven't noticed. Paul B (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cunnilingus or cunnilinction?

As I am preparing for the exam in psychiatry, I have found a small notice in the textbook (written by several respected authors) COBISS 16843009:

Cunnilingus - (incorrect) synonym for cunnilinction.

The original terms used in the book are in Latin: cunnilingus and cunnilinctio. I hope I have translated correctly. The term cunnilinctus is mentioned as a synonym too.

Google, however, finds more hits for cunnilingus. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a synonym, along with other variations such as cunnilinctus. I've created a redirect. Cunnilingus is by far the most common version of the word. Paul B 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Linctum or linctus means "to lick" in Latin, while lingus means nothing. Cunnlingus therefore seems to be an euphemism. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A cunnilingus is a person preforming the act, not the act itself. Documentation can be found in the article on Latin profanity. However, I have no idea how the switch was accomplished in English, ie the name of the person performing the act becoming the name of the act itself. That said, however, we should keep "Cunnilingus" as the name of the article, as this is how the act is most commonly referenced in English. Melpomenon (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion here convinces me that the origin of the word has been corrupted from correct latin. This makes it similar to many other words in the english language which have become so established as to be the more correct contemporary usage. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dreadstar and links to literature on wiki subjects

I have written a book on this dear topic - and have naturally put in a link to my site where the subject is in focus.

In numerous other wiki articles there are similar links to books that deal with a given subject [1], [2], [3] - some authors even have a wiki page on them selves to which is referred. The Wiki-user Dreadstar thinks this is not relevant, and has encouraged me to place this here so that other Wikipedians may share their opinion. I would much apreciate other Wikipedians to let their opinion be shown here.Ian.Bendtsen 20:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ian, I appreciate your bringing this to the talk page instead of continuing to edit war.

The proposed link is strictly for promoting this author and his book, it is clearly a violation of WP:SPAM External link spamming and should not be added to the article. The link is to a personal website, which violates #11 under Wikipedia:External links - Links normally to be avoided. Dreadstar † 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the page you refer to, and have put in the link so that it follows the Wiki ISBN search guidelines. Of course I find this harsh - and heavily favouring books that are already in the market. And as shown here above links to literature is not at all unfound on Wiki.

Ian.Bendtsen 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance and notability are core issues here, perhaps you should consider proposing that an article be written on yourself, thus establishing notability such as that of Ian Kerner whose work is mentioned in the article. I suggest reviewing the guideline WP:NOTABILITY. Dreadstar † 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote a reference, no matter how worthy. It is the purpose of reference material to establish the factual basis of the descriptive Wikipedia article about the subject. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW

"Cunnilingus" is Latin slang as vulgar in that language as it sounds in ours -- lit: "cunt tongue". Ifnkovhg (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC

Yes. The article should translate "cunnus" as "cunt" rather than "vulva", surely? The article Latin profanity says that "cunnus" was an obscene word in Latin. 86.155.66.63 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so please propose a change in the article.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

James Bond

I'm almost certain that the film is Tomorrow Never Dies, not Die Another Day as cited... thats wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.132.8 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Song of Songs

The lovers in the Song of Songs are not described as "bride and groom" as the current phrasing in the article would have it. Perhaps pious theologians would like to portray them that way but this article should not take sides.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The couple in the Song of Songs are clearly referred to as bride and groom. Paul B (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the JPS translation in which I looked, the word "groom" does not seem to appear. The word "bride" appears in chapters 4 and 5 in the context of "my sister, my bride" and appears to be a synonym for "beloved" or "lover." Bear in mind the "Song" is full of allegory and poetic license to describe things. I admit I am no expert on the Song of Songs or the Bible in general, but the reading of the lovers as a "bride and groom" appears to be a contentious reading based on a pious sensibility. --NYCJosh (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to with piousness, but rather scholarly views about the function of the song as an epithalamion. See The Song of songs: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry [4]. Paul B (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the classification of the "Song" as a an epithalamion as urged by the source you cite is one position but you would have to establish that this position is a consensus position or at least a dominant position among Bible scholars. Second, the epithalamion is a genre of (originally Greek) poetry that is recited FOR a bride and groom but that does not prove that the "Song" is ABOUT a bride and groom. A national anthem is sung/played at sporting events but that does not mean that its contents have any connection with sports or that it was written about sporting events.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now your just being ridiculously picky. There is no meaningful distinction between being for or about a bride and groom. The general consensus is that the poem represents couples through its characters. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to provide an authoritative source for that proposition or should the statement in the article just be based on your word for the existence of such a consensus?--NYCJosh (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I have received no reply, do we have consensus for changing the wording about the "Song of Songs" being about a bride and groom? I am thinking changing the sentence to something along the lines that it's about lovers.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Eating out

In the popular culture section for the slang terms, the most popular slang term of all (Eating out) isn't mentioned. I find that odd. Caden S (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this not the link you were looking for? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

S of S again

There is some debate about this section. The article says that a word was traditionally translated as 'navel', but that's often now seen as a euphemism for 'vulva'. I think that's pretty much the consensus among scholars, and there are several such references in literature on the SoS. As for the stronger claim that if the liquid in the vulva is like wine, then this must mean that the lover is tasting it, that's less easy to find direct support for. Of course it may just mean she's fertile - and that she regularly produces mentrual fluid, which would look like red wine, but most sources seem to interpret the "wine" as a reference to sexual fluids ("your pussy is juicy" might be the modern equivalent). The nearest I can find to a direct reference to cunnilingus is Tremper Longman's book on the SoS which states, somewhat evasively: "the description of the woman's aperture as containing wine implies the man's desire to drink from the sensual bowl. Thus, this may be a subtle and tasteful allusion to the intimacies of sex". (Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001, p. 195). Paul B (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, Paul. Apparently the word in question is not found in any Hebrew text other than the SoS, but may be related to an Arabic word meaning "secret place" that has strong sexual overtones. I can put a reference in if you think it's worth it. I think the Longman quote is the source we're looking for: a scholarly source that supports the cunnilingus interpretation. Mind you, the language of the article would have to toned down - there's no basis for saying the SoS "appears to contain a direct reference to cunnilingus". I will change it to "may contain a veiled reference to cunnilingus" and may make some other small changes.

Do you suppose someone could argue that Longman is implying cunnilingus anyway. I mean, if "secret place" can mean "vulva", and "wine" can refer to the wetness of an aroused woman's vagina, then "taste" could refer to some other form of sexual enjoyment than cunnilingus. But I'm willing to let it stand for now.

There are a few other things that could be improved - for instance, the "alternative translation" sounds like Original Research - I'll try to do something later, unless someone else wants to try. 66.183.187.193 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Kentucky Fried Chicken" as a bona fide euphemism

My legitimate addition was deleted, probably on the ground that it referred to an activity that is illegal in most (though not all) jurisdictions. I find this odd. There must be thousands — perhaps millions — of entries in Wikipedia that refer, in one way or another, to an illegal activity.

"Kentucky Fried Chicken" is a slang term referring to the performance of cunnilingus on a pre-teen girl. This is a fact, whether you like it or not. (And it happens very often, whether you like it or not!) Surely Wiki exists to disseminate factual matter, even if distasteful. Wouldn't you rather, for example, have parents be aware of the meaning of this phrase if used by a child, rather than sail along in ignorant bliss because to inform is to offend the sensibilities of some members of Wiki?

I also submit that, when a registered member sets out to make a correction or addition, it is insulting, arrogant and against the spirit of the project for some anonymous other to come along and delate the addition without first raising a query with the original submitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postlewaight (talk • contribs) 05:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We haven't got time to inform people of deletions. You claim to be helping parents in some way is unconvincing. They are unlikely to look up KFC here! Anyway, find sources. BTW, The Urban Dictionary says nothing about pre-Teens. It defines KFC as cunnilingus followed by sex [5], on the grounds that you eat it and then put your "bone in the greasy box" (ho ho ho). There seem to be some variant usages, but least they make some sense. It's difficult to see why the term would be used with your meaning. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

... and I am not an "anonymous editor". I deleted this with the edit summary "unsourced"; Per this guideline, it is the responsibility of the editor to provide reliable sources for additions. We insist on this because of verifiability, which is a policy. As to whether we should include this definition, formal requirement being met, well Wikipedia is not censored; however, the edit failed at the first hurdle, so that didn't arise. --Rodhullandemu 12:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I disagree with the wording at the beginning "cunnus, whence the English slang cunt", as it is presented as factual that the English term derives from the Latin. The Online Etymology Dictionary disagrees, and so I've edited the page to reflect that. -- 70.190.98.31 (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure "analogous" is correct either, based on your research. Any connection is conjectural at best, although even if they don't strictly have similar origins, it seems likely their development was influenced by each other. =) Powers ^T 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it why not throw in 'cont' too? The French word? It keeps the 't' so is likely to have had an influence too... But whatever, the info doesn't go in without a good reference and there isn't one at the moment. Furthermore, the difference in register between cunnus in latin and the c-word (considered the most offensive word in English) mean that they are not analogous at all. They may be cognatees though ;) Malick78 (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

Surely 'Fanny's beauties displayed' is someone looking at a pussy, not applying the tongue?? It's out of place :) Malick78 (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cultural significance

The cultural significance is all religious stuff. The fellatio page gives more on the cultural aspects of oral sex. How come this one doesn't? 75.4.245.33 (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because no one's taken the time to find reliable sources on the topic and incorporate them into the prose. It sounds like you're interested; why don't you take a stab at it? Powers ^T 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've had to fully protect this page for a week or at least until this is sorted out; clearly, it's an explicit image, but then Wikipedia isn't censored. I tried to reduce conflict by reducing the size of the image, but it seems that isn't enough for some editors. I have no doubt protected the article in the wrong version, but that is how I most recently encountered this article. However, edit-warring IS unacceptable, and a consensus as broad as possible needs to be reached, and this isn't going to be achieved without discussion. Hence the protection. I have my own opinion, and I think I know what Jimmy's is likely to be, but ultimately, the community should decide. Thus, I pass this topic over to the community to decide. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind having an explicit photo to lead the article, but I'm not a big fan of the current image. For one thing, it claims to have been taken by the male subject, which is possible but potentially questionable. Second, the language on the image description page is coarse and unencyclopedic; this implies to me that the image was taken and posted for personal aggrandizement on the part of the subjects, rather than for encyclopedic interest. I'm not sure rewarding that with pride of place on the cunnilingus article is a good idea. Powers ^T 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is just an image. Most people are not going to read the description on the image page (which can be edited if need be). I'm fine with an explicit image, but I rather liked the old one. The problem is that even idf there is consensus here for it, it will not stop endless attempts at deletion as soon as the page is unprotected. For sanity's sake I'd prefer an art image. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My objection was not based on the possibility of a reader seeing the image description, since as you note that can be changed. Powers ^T 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I don't follow you. You seem to be mainly concerned with the motives of the image-maker(s) rather than the image itself. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's part of it. I also don't like the way it looks, although I can't put my finger on why. Regardless, though, that's just aesthetics. Powers ^T 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B, the original image was better than the current lead image, I think the new one is a very poor depiction of the subject matter. I don't have any objections to using hardcore photos, but as I said in the other discussion, 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 image that's now in the lead. It's a really bad image, and to be honest, when I first saw the image in question it appeared to show symptoms of Bacterial vaginosis. This cannot be the best image we can come up with, there are plenty of alternatives to choose from. So I have to oppose the inclusion of the current lead image. Dreadstar ☥ 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, no other image shows the act in as much detail, sadly. Powers ^T 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Image update

There is a new image available that I think better illustrates the act. I am thinking of replacing the second image (on the left) with said. Thoughts? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead an updated with the pic that more clearly illustrates the act. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Autocunnilingus

I can find no mention of autocunnilingus as either a bona fide sex act nor as a mythical one. It does not seem to merit an independent article. But maybe we should include it within this article. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I believe in the past the autocunnilingus page was removed because there was no proof of its existence, which seems silly because we have pages for all sorts of other urban legend type things, from big foot to gerbilling. Ignoring something that exists in culture, to the point that it even has a given name for the act, seems a silly thing for an encyclopedia to do. More appropriately, a page should be made (or a section added to this page) noting its conjectured existence and any related information as to the possibility or impossibility of the act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.223.105 (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't do anything without reliable sources. Powers ^T 13:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

True, that, but we needn't have reliable sources that prove it is actually possible, we merely need sources that note it as an item of interest or fascination, real or not. That having been said, I want to believe, but the fact that the pornographic industry has not provided us with tangible proof (and the opportunity to pay to see it) gives me grave doubts as to the existence of autocunnilingus. The world would seem to be a poorer place as a result.172.190.46.217 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

sopranos

throughout the series, characters (especially Junior) make references to being a "cat's hair" away from some important outcome.

i always thought they were saying 'cunt hair'

I never watched it, but 'cunt hair' is a recognised expression. See red cunt hair. I guess it was bowdlersied for TV. Paul B (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved here till referenced:

• Cunnilingus plays a major role in HBO's popular series, The Sopranos. It is a prominent plot point in the episode, "Boca". Tony Soprano refers that the episode in "I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano", when he explains to Carmela Soprano the reasons why his mother Livia, and Uncle Junior, ordered his assassination: Tony's seeing a psychiatrist and his teasing Uncle Junior about performing cunnilingus. And throughout the series, characters (especially Junior) make references to being a "cat's hair" away from some important outcome. (The Sopranos takes pains - through the liberal use of clothing choices, taloned fingernails, and gestures - to make parallels between cats and women, and in two cases, between cats and men: rapper Massive Genius and the corpse of Emil Kolar, on which, Christopher Moltisanti observes, the fingernails seem to have grown long "like a woman's".)

Images

the "techniques" photograph is frankly filth, can i recommend a more suitable screenshot/image (real world) of ray j tongue bangning kim kardashians snatch?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.9.253 (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be okay to remove the image under "technique". It doesn't really provide anything additional to the other images, and I generally take the view that it is better not to include images that are user-created by tracing over some porn. Comments? --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase My Chemical Romance, that's not okay, it's not okay, well it's not okay it's not o-f*cking-kay. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I said "comments?" when I meant to say "valid objections?". --FormerIP (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

because it was a picture of cunnilingus, where else would a picture like that go? On the Anthony Gormley page? ridiculous Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There are already four images on the page which illustrate the subject. These are obviously of greater historical interest and are more reliable as noteworthy depictions. What is it that you think a user-drawn image brings to the party? --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it can be called a party at all if there is only four pictures of cunnilingus, that's more of a gathering. the more the merrier Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I notice that there are only three pictures currently on the article for party and none of them are of cunnilingus, so I think there's something, somewhere, somehow wrong with what you're saying. --FormerIP (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Something's rotten with wikipedia's party page. I'll go fix that right now. thankyou for pointing out that error. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Air Embolism

The capillaries in the uterus can absorb any air they're allowed to come into contact with? Really?Is that just how that particular specific kind of capillaries work or something? Does that mean you could breathe through your uterus if you hooked it up properly? Can they extract a variety of gases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion of a lesbian picture

I noticed the second drawing is of a lesbian picture, which doesn't accurately portray that this is usually an act performed by a male. Also, there's no gay picture on the fellatio article, so why should there be one here? Anything better to change it to?