|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fellatio article.|
|Archives: 1, 2|
|Wikipedia is not censored.
Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding objectionable content and options to not see an image.
|WikiProject Sexuality||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
|Sources for development of this article may be located at|
If you find some images offensive you can configure your browser to mask them.
'Either gender' really should be changed to 'any gender'.
Let's move the language with the times: genderqueer people are a thing.
- 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)
Notice of discussion re "blowjob" redirect
- 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.
- I totally agree with the original comment by Flyer22. The image is extremely gross. Why must Wikipedia become a porn site? 188.8.131.52 (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)
WP:See also, and "cocksucker" in the lead
Joeleoj123 (talk · contribs), because I've reverted you twice now on the WP:See also matter, as seen here and here, I started this section. I would have started it on your talk page, but, if you are going to WP:Edit war over this, the discussion is better served here. That link does not need to be in the See also section; this is because it is already in the Practice section of the article. Read what WP:See also states about including links that are already in the article. And as for "cocksucker" being in the lead, it does not belong there; this is per these two edit summaries. Flyer22 (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Oops, I thought that I didn't make changes (assuming that I did only "edit", "preview" but not pressing "save changes"). Sorry, should've look at the "edit history". I tend to forget my very past edits.Joeleoj123 (talk) 19:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)