Talk:Anilingus/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Wikipedia or Pornopedia?

I know people who can and would masturbate while staring at the picture currently used to illustrate anal-oral sex. Pornography is images that are designed to cause sexual arousal, and while you could argue that anything could be sexually arousing to someone, this image would fit under my definition of "arousing" and therefore pornography. Perhaps a less-arousing image could be used? That's just my two cents. -MertJared —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Good Lord, not this argument again. It's not even a picture, it's an illustration. There are Wikipedia articles with much more "arousing" and "pornographic" images than this. Anyone who would spend time worrying about how arousing this cartoon is needs to get a hobby. Plus, if someone has a problem with it, what are they doing reading an anal-oral sex article anyway? 98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion

I think there should be a warning label on sexual articles on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.198.144 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a common sentiment, but Wikipedia does not put disclaimers in articles. There is actually already a disclaimer at the bottom of every article: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a label? "Warning: this article on licking a** may contain sexual content." DUH! Stupid idea. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Barracking the Obama

Your "biting the brown" entry has been reverted by numerous editors because it IS a made up term. Your continued insistence on posting an artificial, nonsensical term in a legitimate article is vandalism, period. If Wikipedia is open to anything, then I could add a ridiculous slang term such as "barracking the obama" to the list of slang terms. The other slang terms in the article are legitimate, widely used slang terms and therefore appropriate for the article. "Biting the brown" is illegitimate gibberish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmareishere (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlinguist (talk • contribs)

So, you criticize me for clinging to old arguments, all but one of which I still consider valid, then you bring up the one old argument of mine that I conceded, six months ago, was wrong. I since listed about a million other reasons why the term should not be used, as have many others. Really, re-posting this just makes you look childish and foolish. Then again, if the last six months have demonstrated anything, you can't really seem to keep from doing that. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This backbiting is getting crazy. I've lodged a complaint. superluser_tc 2008 November 07, 06:11 (UTC)

Did you mean "brown biting"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.127.151 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks dude, now with Barracking the Obama you gave me a new word for it, i will use it in the future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.245 (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

How can Wikipedia claim some larger moral high ground, when tripe like "Barracking the Obama" is stained upon its annals.

Wikipedia editors/administrators, please help

I just received this message on my TalkPage: "THE ATTACK ON "98" ..has begun and will not stop. Sock puppets, proxy servers, fake names, undoings; they're all fair game now and there are lots of us. Nightmareishere will be punished for it's unwillingness to accept the right to free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.97.210.2 (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:98.220.43.195"

This user, 67, has already begun to vandalize pages on Wikipedia by undoing several legitimate edits I made to various articles. What can be done to stop this person? SineBot (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.43.195 (talk) 07:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Too technical

My problem with this article is that is does not mention why anyone would be interested in doing it. No offense to those who enjoy it, I just don't get it. If someone could elaborate on that... 83.251.57.154 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the "why" you refer to has been incorporated into the article numerous times. And usually gets deleted for either WP:OR, WP:RS or for not meeting WP:NPOV guidelines. Anal-oral sex is just like most other forms of sex... making contact with a sensitive part of one person's body with a sensitive part of another's. That's it.--SeedFeeder (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thousand reasons, all quite obvious. I love to give anilingus to a woman because I love the looks, the smell and the taste (please read: Skatole) of a beautiful woman`s backside. A lot. and it's very tender and beautifully intimate and a sign of true devotion. Of course, depending on the circumstances, it can be submissive which can be an additional turn on. And some women REALLY enjoy this, which is another reason: the pleasure of giving pleasure. No offense to you, but I don't get why you didn't get it in the first place - could you elaborate on that? -- 91.34.233.73 (talk) 20:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Slang section

Why are slang terms buried in the definition of Anal-Oral Sex? It makes more sense to break them out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.149.66 (talk) 15:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called MOS, try reading it. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Darrenhusted, are you actually trying to tell me that no other wiki breaks out slang per the "MOS"? Are you saying that every wiki includes slang terms (where appropriate) in the definition? I beg to differ and would be happy to introduce you to plenty that don't. You got time?

Why don't you get your facts straight before you mouth-off (MO?) next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.73.149.66 (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

It is preferable to have slang terms summed up in prose, not listed in bare text. See: Cunnilingus, Oral sex, Mammary intercourse. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ironically, over on Slang, the definition is summed up using a bullets. It seems that the style preference of the editors over there differs a bit from yours, Darrenhusted. FYI, I adjusted the indentation of your previous post, per the guidelines laid out in the MOS. Thanks again for contributing.

216, since you are one of the vandals who is vandalizing this article with the "biting the brown" entry that has been determined to be inappropriate, your opinion on much of ANYTHING probably doesn't hold much weight. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

SUPPORT FOR "BTB"

It should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.38.18 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument was laid out well enough for me. I would like to see "BTB" included once Anal-oral comes off protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.242.165 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

support it, will undo edits to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.97.210.2 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.22 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It's been discussed many times (see Archive), majority do not want it. As you may see, it always gets reverted within a day (often much less). There are a lot of editors with this page in their watch list, for just such an edit. It will get reverted.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Archive?

Any objections to archiving the talk page? Seems to be getting pretty lengthy. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

None. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I've been proactive and set up an auto archive for you at the top of the page - after the bot runs later there will be minimum of 10 threads left, and nothing under 1 year old will be archived.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks you both for the reply and thank you Ronhjones for wrangling the bot. :) Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 22:51, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bot seemed to have worked well. Page is now one third the size. It will now keep the page nicely trim without attention. I case anyone wonders why I have used "User:MrKIA11/Archive Box" rather than the standard archive box - it's because it's less prone to vandalism - the standard box has a click link so you can change the archive name, but that creates a new sub page with the names of the archive pages, and you cannot get back to the default action of the box auto-detecting the sequential archives without deleting this extra page. Some one did it to my talk page - hence I searched out a better archive box.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should think about protecting this page

The "biting the brown" trolls are at it again. I think some serious consideration of protecting this page, either for a period of time or permanently, needs to be made. Nightmareishere (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's enough vandalism/disruptive editing to justify that. Also, I recently blocked the IP address who usually makes that edit. The usual pattern is that s/he lies low for a month or two after a block before trying it again.--Kubigula (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On a side note, it appears the vandal struck again. Just a heads up. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like we are back to some more BTB

We've had 2 additions from 74.115.160.22, and then one from 74.115.160.21 - looks like he is playing a dynamic IP game, so there is no blocking of his edits. Whois shows them as being "prod02.pvpn.iad.witopia.net" at "United States Reston Witopia Inc" with a potential range of 74.115.160.0 - 74.115.163.255 - I make that 1024 possible addreses...  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 19:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

This BTB thing is an embarrassment, and frankly it's these types of situations (which no doubt occur writ large across this site) that only continue to perpetuate the commonly held notion that Wikipedia is itself not a legitimate reference source. Ironic, no?. I came across your-all's little tussle after seeing it referenced in a comment on Digg.com. Has anyone gone back to read this stuff? Firstly, it's hilarious. But, really, no one gives a decent argument for why this phrase shouldn't be among the others. Really, go read it. The "I DO LOTS ON/FOR WIKI, AND I SAY SO" crowd wades in, of course, and some lame-brain even used the phrase "Barracking the Obama" as an example of only God knows what.

After reviewing the arguments presented, I'm for BTB.

Given the total insignificance of this "issue" to the article, the comments above, and the history of edit warring and disruptive editing over this, it's hard to see that as anything but trolling. I suggest WP:RBI.--Kubigula (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, seems like perfect example of when RBI is needed. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 13:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest WP:BTB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.23 (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

photo

is the photo of this act really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.151.155.123 (talk) 20:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

While perhaps not strictly necessary, it is a free image and does illustrate the subject of the article. Since Wikipedia is not censored, I don't think that removing it would accomplish anything. Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 23:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

lol, random lezbos. 190.161.18.58 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Biting the brown" in real life…

Hello. I'm not sure if it will help with the BTB issues this article has been having, but I can attest to hearing and seeing the phrase "bite the brown" and the acronym of same, "BTB," in real life.

The first instance was a conversation between an older gentleman and a thin, young, hairless man at a bar in the Westport area of Kansas City, Missouri. In the course of the conversation, the younger man said "I don't bite the brown," to which the older fellow expressed agreement. They then ended their conversation and left the establishment.

The second instance was at a bar in midtown Kansas City, Missouri. I was in the restroom amid several gentlemen. One asked another what the brown handkerchief in the left rear pocket of his jeans meant. The second man pointed out a third man's t-shirt, which was white with brown stylized text meant to look like smears that read "B.T.B." He explained it meant that he "bit the brown."

I realize this isn't an actual citation and constitutes original research, but it might serve useful when considering the reality of the BTB issue. If I was able to hear this phrase twice within two weeks during casual nights out on the town, it can't be long before the phrase shows up in a magazine column or some other sort of recorded discourse.

Hopefully this post will shed some light on the biting the brown issue.

Trollaxor (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow - you have been editing Wikipedia for a long time. As a self-admitted "classic internet troll" [1](unfortunately now only visible to admins), I assume you are the driving force behind this BTB nonsense. I give you points for persistence, but don't you think the joke has gotten old?--Kubigula (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No sir, I just happened to be reading this article and its talk and had something to add. But thanks for noticing.

Trollaxor (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Trollaxor, didn't you realize that Wikipedia is about the whims of their super editors like Kubigula, rather than frank, open discussion? Anyone who comments in favor of BTB is called a troll, stupid, vandal, etc. and their edits are always undone. Thanks for adding your piece. I found it interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.160.22 (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite welcome. I know editorial bias occurs at times, but I think discussion on both the process and the topic are important for making a good Wikipedia entry. Perhaps I can post my research materials somewhere on my user page or at my my site sometime soon so they're at least available.

Trollaxor (talk) 05:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

When, as you say "it can't be long before the phrase shows up in a magazine column or some other sort of recorded discourse", it does show up in a reliable source, we can add it in, so you have your mission - find the source.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

American comedian and satirist George Carlin in his famous c.1972 Filthy Words diatribe clearly includes a reference to biting brown. It can be viewed here at ~3:30m: [[2]]. Ronhjones, do we have your agreement this is a "recorded discourse"?

Carlin published books, whether authored by himself or with ghost-writers, that reflected new comedy routines and other spiels of interest. Any idea when this might have shown up in a printed work, or the titles of DVDs that might contain the reference? I am not familiar with his work so pointing us to an authoritative source would go a long way in this matter.

Unrelatedly, I would urge everyone who hasn't yet to register an account. There is a suspicion of non-registered commenters due to their association with sniping, vandalism, etc. Having an account will help to eliminate bias against your contributions. Since there is already bias aplenty in this situation we must adhere to convention in order to avoid non-issues that others get stuck on.

Trollaxor (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Carlin's live Bite the Brown reference was recorded on his 1973 album Occupation:_Foole, side two, track 5. Ronhjones, et al., again, do we finally have your agreement this is a "recorded discourse"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.162.11 (talk) 17:58, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kubigula and Ronhjones, et al. need to explain why they continue this uninformed edit war which, among other low points, has included the unfortunate Barracking the Obama portion.

Until they do, this situation remains unresolved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.27.1.179 (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I took this effort to add BTB seriously at one point. However, after watching the insults, the flame wars, the edit warring and the vandalism over something so incredibly unimportant, it became clear to me that we were being trolled. From our Troll (Internet) article - a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion. Seems like a pretty accurate description of what they have attempted to do here for the last year or so. The surfacing of User:Trollaxor, who openly brags about being a troll and has a section about it on his website, seals the deal for me.--Kubigula (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Kubigula, I urge you to stop your fallacious argumentum ad hominem attacks and consider the issues at hand. Dismissing good research because of your bias against my private activities is against Wikipedia policy. This dicussion is starting to garner some actual sources and it and those sources are what you should be engaging, not what I or anyone else does in their private, non-Wikipedia time. Trollaxor (talk) 15:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have found an explicit (no pun intended) reference that links anilingus to the phrase "bite the brown" at George Carlin's official website, though it's not a dateable reference. I await several Carlin books from my local library system, but have yet to hold a physical copy of Operation: Foole. The search continues. Trollaxor (talk) 02:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tossed_salad

Tossed salad is an obscure reference to the performance to anilingus, dating back to a 1995 HBO broadcast in the United States which analized the state of the American prison system. It has it's own wiki. While prominent American comedian Chris Rock did use it in his live act, it remains a relatively obscure synonym for anilingus. Yet, this seems enough to warrant its own Wiki.

There are those who continue to adamantly refuse to allow Bite the Brown to be added along side an equally relative obscurity such as tossed salad to the list of slang terms for anilingus. That's your right, but as many of us have said for quite some time now, it's a ridiculous argument to make; and on that just continues to erode and weekend over time. The intellectual and logical intransigence that's consistent to much on Wikipedia only does the site harm.

I am respectufully 4BTB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.37.245.155 (talk) 05:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DARTH SIDIOUS 2 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia data is based on reliable sources, not obscure synonyms.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

I have got a problem with the image in this article. I don't think that the article should have an image, but it if does have an image, it shouldn't be this one, on the following grounds.

Why is it two women? It's not just two women, but it's two young and comely lipstick lesbians. Is this a realistic portrayal of a typical subject population, or is this a teenage male fantasy? It sure looks like a stroke picture to me. Is there any reason to believe that this practice is particularly pronounced among lesbians as opposed to other populations, and if not, are we not doing a disservice to our distaff citizens? Can we get some people of normal size and age and fitness for in these drawings? This is not OK. Herostratus (talk) 15:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that articles should be illustrated where possible, and sex articles are no exception. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not useful - it easily illustrates the topic.

As for what image it should be, it seems to be consensus that actual nudity is verboten, so we have drawings. And this is the best drawing we have. If you're not happy with the image, I encourage you to make your own. As for whether it should be lesbian, I think it's useful to not have it the stereotypical gay men licking each other's backsides, it helps dispel the myth that it's only gay men who indulge in it. -mattbuck (Talk) 18:40, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The image for this article used to be a frequent issue. We previously had a soft core porn style photograph, which spawned so many disputes that it's been commemorated as one of our lamest edit wars. We then switched to File:Anilingus2.jpg, which resolved the edit war, but wasn't a very good image. So, the current version seems to be the best and least controversial that we have been able to come up with.--Kubigula (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Well it's not uncontroversial anymore, and while it may be the best we can come up with that doesn't make it good enough. And its not, because... it's a stroke picture. I don't think any reasonable person can deny this. Let's get a middle-aged mixed-gender couple in there or something, or let's not have any picture at all. What is the deal with picking on the women? A lot of our sex pictures -- and I gather that basically there's one artist doing this -- are centered around displaying young nubile women in a degrading and/or prurient manner, rather than a typical population. It's not OK for the Wikipedia to be so openly misogynist. Why don't we put one of the participants in blackface or something while we're at it, cover all the bases. The picture is not OK and it's not acceptable. Herostratus (talk) 04:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually someone did try and edit one of the images which ad a black guy in it to be white....

The problem is that this is what we have. If you can make a better image, fine, do it. But unless you have a suitable replacement image, I think this one should stay. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems your primary objection is that this is a "stroke picture". I consider myself a reasonable person, and I deny this. If I wanted something to masturbate to, I'd head to Google and find plenty of more explicit images.

But actually, to me, it's a question of what makes the article better. I think the article is better with the image than without; the image provides a good depiction of the subject without being unnecessarily explicit. If an image comes along that is better than the current one, I'll support its replacement or addition. I don't see how changing the race, gender or age of the people depicted in that picture would improve the article, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. I'm not going to produce one, as I'm not a particularly good artist. You are, of course, welcome to produce something yourself or to solicit another artist to do so at a noticeboard.

--me_and 21:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't love the current picture for this article. However, it is better than the ones we've had in the past, and it's certainly better than nothing.--Kubigula (talk) 01:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)