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

'Either gender' really should be changed to 'any gender'.[edit]

Let's move the language with the times: genderqueer people are a thing.

(See the page on the gender binary.) (talk) 22:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Agree Cogiati (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree 602p (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Also ok this page totally focuses on male receivers of oral sex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emilykind (talkcontribs) 05:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean? You think there is not enough focus on the givers? If so, I don't see that when I look at/read the article. You have an issue with the images? If it's the images and a claim of heterosexism, see Talk:Fellatio/Archive 2#Balance of images heterocentric. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
With this edit, I changed "male and females" to "participants" in the lead and added an image of male-male fellatio; I did this because of the genderqueer concerns above, because "participants" is used in the General subsection of the Practice section lower in the article, and because of the previous point that we should have somewhat of a decent image of two men engaging in fellatio in the article. But regarding gender wording, like I also noted with this followup WP:Dummy edit, we should be going by what the sources state in the vast majority of cases. The vast majority of sources on fellatio do not give the genderqueer aspect any space, and the vast majority of people do not identify as genderqueer; so WP:Due weight comes into play here. We won't be banning the use of gender-specific terms from the Fellatio article. A lot of sources on fellatio are gender-specific when speaking of the act, especially since fellatio is about performing oral sex on a male (or on a penis, in the case of a person who does not identify as a male), and teenage boys and men and teenage girls and women have different reactions to/views on fellatio. Flyer22 (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Emilykind (talk · contribs), I'm pinging you now via WP:Echo so that you know that I've replied above. Flyer22 (talk) 06:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Why not a photo?[edit]

Female performing fellatio on a male

Why don't we include a photo in the article? I'd suggest including this photo or another similar. It's educational as it shows the actual act. A drawing isn't the actual act, it's a depiction of the act so it's not the reality. Many other articles have photos but this one doesn't. Cogiati (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Cogiati. I told you why when I reverted you. Like I stated elsewhere on Wikipedia: I don't see how your image, simply because it's of the real-life act, illustrates the subject better. The image that is currently up there as the lead image is pretty life-like and illustrates the topic very well. WP:NOTCENSORED is not a valid reason to change a perfectly adequate image. There is WP:GRATUITOUS to consider. Many of our readers take more offense to images of real-life sex anatomy or real-life sex acts than of images of these types that have been drawn. And if we can minimize such offense with an alternative image that adequately conveys the same message, we should. Like WP:GRATUITOUS states, "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." A real-life image of the sex act is not needed to illustrate any of the content in this article; people can quite clearly understand the act with drawings, and even without images. Our readers more readily state or shout "That's porn!" or something about the article not being encyclopedic or detracting from its encyclopedic value more so when it's a real-life sex image being shown instead of a drawn one, though they make a fuss over some of the drawn ones as well (especially the ones by Seedfeeder, such as the lead image we are currently debating). And there is a valid point that using a real-life image to illustrate a sex act distracts from the text and makes the article feel pornographic and less encyclopedic; there is no need for that when an equally suitable alternative is available. As for your assertion that "Many other articles have photos but this one doesn't.", Seedfeeder's images have helped clean up matters concerning the many complaints and much WP:Edit warring that have gone on at Wikipedia over images of sex acts, and it's now standard practice to use a drawing of a sex act instead of an image of a real-life sex act. Flyer22 (talk) 03:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The Pearl necklace (sexuality) uses both a photo and a drawing. The fellatio article has photographic pictures of bats, but apparently humans are taboo in fellatio photos. I feel that using drawings instead of photos originates in cultural factors regarding fellatio as inappropriate, but our encyclopedia is for the whole world so we shouldn't let cultural factors prevent the inclusion of fellatio photos, even if drawings are available too. As I said, the drawing doesn't show the actual act, it shows the artist's interpretation of the concept of the act. Only a photograph can show the reality and readers must get informed about the reality rather than what's inside artists' minds. Cogiati (talk) 04:08, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Cogiati, I understand what you mean (generally). But I am also thinking about our readers. Therefore, your WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS Pearl necklace (sexuality) argument is not a convincing argument for me to believe that including a redundant, yet more offensive image is a reason for us to forgo WP:GRATUITOUS in the aforementioned case regarding the Fellatio article. There is nothing that your image conveys that the drawing does not convey, except for a bit of the head of the penis (if that is a bit of the head that is shown and not simply the circumcision scar) and different non-sexual scenery. Like I noted above, it's not just this Fellatio article that WP:GRATUITOUS is applied to. Flyer22 (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Besides, there is some suspicion that Seedfeeder's images are of real people; some people consider his images so life-like that they have suggested that he traces lines over porn to create the images, as seen in this accusation. But whatever the case on that, his images on Wikipedia are commonly substituted for images of real-life sex acts, and, like I noted, that factor has substantially improved matters on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:GRATUITOUS cover the argument. If an illustration clearly conveys the information needed and supports the article content, as the current lead image does, a photograph is simply not necessary. Zad68 04:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Another issue concerns the encyclopedic value of a picture. An image may have value if it is described in a reliable secondary source, but photos staged by unknown people ("Elmo H. Love"—yeah, right) do not necessarily illustrate anything more than fantasy. Johnuniq (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Is Queen Victoria still on the throne ? "We always do it this way because it causes less fuss" is no answer to the argument that prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense.--— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht Talk/Stalk 21:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
If we call it "puritan nonsense," it happens to be vast "puritan nonsense." From what I have studied with regard to sexual topics (and it happens to be a lot), the reaction to sexual imagery as offensive and/or distracting, except in situations deemed appropriate by whatever means, is the prevailing reaction (meaning it prevails over "Oh, I'm fine with that."). Since I've been at this site (which is since 2007), I've witnessed "That's porn!" and "That detracts/distracts from the article." type of arguments from various walks of life, including on Jimbo Wales's Wikipedia user talk page; those arguments exist whether it's a drawing, painting, some form of digital art or a photograph, but they are far more prevalent when it is a photograph (as in a real-life image). Our readers have consistently stated that they cannot enjoy the article as much, or take the article as seriously, with such images. To them, it is simply porn. So we might as well make it less pornographic to them; this approach has been working well, as editors such as Herostratus can attest to, and I see no valid reason to disrupt that. The aforementioned picture of semen on a woman's neck in the Pearl necklace (sexuality) article is not the same as sexual imagery of two connected bodies. Furthermore, I don't see how that semen image is necessary (the semen hardly looks any different than it does in the drawing), much like I don't see how this real-life photograph of fellatio is necessary. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS tell us what to do in the case of an image that is likely to be offensive, whether we should use that one or an "equally suitable alternative." WP:GRATUITOUS is the answer to "prudishness is culture specific and WP should rise above such puritan nonsense," and it is quite valid; it exists partly for that reason. Flyer22 (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The actual answer to this is rather more surprising. It turns out that Elliot Rodger, who recently went on a stabbing and shooting spree in Isla Vista lately that left six dead, started a successful drive with his account (User:ElliotR1, who began by editing his father's article, and is the precise account name used by Rodger on OKcupid[1]) to remove the image on February 20 2013 with this edit. After threats and then the reality of a block to his account for trying to do the same sort of removal five times at footjob, ElliotR1 disappeared from the scene, but an IP filed an edit request on March 2 2013 for the same action. This was rejected by two other editors in that talk section; nonetheless, User:Iamcuriousblue (who is definitely not Elliot) removed the image and replaced it with the diagram in an edit that alleged that File:Fellatio.jpg is a copyright violation on February 16.[2] However, that file remains on the server with a valid Flickrbot confirmation of a free license. I think it is time for a renewed thrust toward freedom of speech here; besides, who can resist a chance to edit war with a famous psychopath? Wnt (talk) 04:28, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The involvement of the killer in this matter is irrelevant and should be disregarded. I think that Flyer22 has accurately summarized past consensus, and I have no interest in going to battle about this issue. But I do want to go on record here as supporting inclusion of tasteful neutral photographs of human sexual acts. Any concerns about consent can be addressed. If Dorling Kindersley can publish scrupulously neutral photos of human beings engaging in sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio and other sex acts, then Wikipedia should be able to do so as well. And if one of our young readers comes to our articles with a desire to learn more about these topics, we should illustrate that photographically. We include photos of Abraham Lincoln, not just drawings and paintings. The same should apply here. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the killer aspect is irrelevant, whether removed by Elliot Rodger or not. And while I don't see depicting sex acts as anywhere close to the same as depicting historical figures, especially per everything I stated above about Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS, I appreciate Cullen328 weighing in on this matter. I hardly have anything more to state on the topic, except that I strongly support the aforementioned guidelines and don't think that WP:NOTCENSORED is the only or main thing that should factor into image additions. Flyer22 (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: Since the image that Wnt added is providing an aspect of fellatio that the drawings in the article don't (clearly showing the head of the penis/up-close and light fellatio of the head) and is placed lower in the article (seemingly in an appropriate section for the image) instead of in the lead, I don't much object to its inclusion. Flyer22 (talk) 13:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

herbs and fruits sweetening semen[edit]

I put a citation needed tag on this section because I don't readily have access to April 2006 Playgirl, from which Yahoo Answers said it originated. [3] It would be good for someone to look over the article and make sure our section accurately represents it, including proper attribution. I don't know if it reviews any "ethnobotanical data" from a wider community or if it is just a single person's report with no background, and our section should be sure to represent that accurately.

I know that to some this may seem too silly to think about, but nothing in biology is ever too silly to look at! I can't put this in the article, but note that somehow this woman came up with herbs - cinnamon, parsley - which were traditionally used as treatments for diabetes, and is using them to increase the loss of sugar from the body. I don't know if they cause sugar to be lost in other places in more significant amounts. I suspect this might actually be a useful lead for those who care to look into it. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Notice of discussion re "blowjob" redirect[edit]

There is a discussion that may be of interest to watchers of this page at Talk:Blowjob. Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove obscenities[edit]

The man sucking the other guy off needs to be removed. Its obscene and vulgar.Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of all of the images currently in the article, you focus on the same-sex one, which doesn't even clearly show the act of fellatio because of the shadows? Out of all the human fellatio images in the article, that one is the less offensive one...except for in the cases of those who find homosexuality offensive no matter what. It also abides by Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS, when compared to other real-life male-male fellatio images on WP:Commons. If we had a painting or computer-generated image of male-male fellatio, like we have of male-female fellatio, we would likely use that image per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS, since it would likely be the less offensive "equally suitable alternative." Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
As seen with this edit (followup note here), I reverted Vranak's removal of the male-male fellatio image. Vranak called the image "a bit much altogether." Vranak, given what I stated to the IP above in this section, how is the image, which is not as explicit as the other images of human fellatio in the article, "a bit much altogether"? Flyer22 (talk) 23:38, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
And for why I included a male-male image, see the #'Either gender' really should be changed to 'any gender'. section above, which notes the Talk:Fellatio/Archive 2#Balance of images heterocentric discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
You've gotta rememeber that this is an encyclopedia, not a risque book to put on your coffee table, and it's certainly not a porn site. It's a little explicit. Hand-drawn illustrations tone it down enough to keep things palatable. Moreover, let's remember that heteronormative is a thing because, all issues of politics aside, heterosexuality is the norm. Vranak (talk) 23:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Vranak (last time WP:Pinging you to this section because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies), if I didn't remember that "this is an encyclopedia, not a risque book to put on [my] coffee table, and it's certainly not a porn site.", then I would not have mentioned Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images#Offensive images and WP:GRATUITOUS. I also would not have made the comments I made in the #Why not a photo? section above. Or the comments I made in the Gawker interview noted on Seedfeeder's talk page; he now has a Wikipedia article, by the way. To preach to me about readers interpreting images as pornographic and that "[h]and-drawn illustrations tone it down enough to keep things palatable" is preaching to the wrong person. That stated, your objection to the male-male image at hand is an objection I disagree with; the image doesn't look doesn't pornographic to me, and it barely even shows the fellatio, which is exactly why I chose it. Preaching to me about heteronormativity is also wasted on me, as is clear from my user page. As noted there on my user page, engaging in WP:Advocacy is not my thing; using WP:Due weight appropriately is.
Since Iamcuriousblue is the one who started the "Balance of images heterocentric" section, I am WP:Pinging him to this discussion. Also, if WP:Consensus is to remove the male-male image, I will follow that WP:Consensus. Flyer22 (talk) 00:18, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I totally agree with the original comment by Flyer22. The image is extremely gross. Why must Wikipedia become a porn site? (talk) 09:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
By my "original comment," you mean what I stated in the "Why not a photo?" section above? Or are you confusing me with a different editor? Also, how is the real-life image more gross than the drawn lead (introductory) image that clearly shows the act? Furthermore, you have a history of opposing same-sex sexual imagery; see this link. And as that link shows, you are opposing a painting in that case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake. I totally agree with the original comment by who said that the extremely obscene picture of this sex act should be removed. (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)