Talk:Oral sex/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Giving Head?

Am I the only one who always thought the slang term "giving head" referred to the cranium of the one doing the giving (rather than the glans of the one receiving), and therefore could apply to both fellatio and cunnilingus? -- Arteitle 07:05 3 Jun 2003 (UTC)

You're not the only one.

I understood it meant exciting the head of the penis and so only applied to fellatio. Any experts on oral sex out there??? :-) FearÉIREANN 21:52 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Googling the exact phrase "giving head" demonstrates that the term is used for both fellatio and cunnilingus interchangeably. Thus the head must, logically, be that of the giver, not the head of the penis. Karada 21:58 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I've ALWAYS heard it for both. So I changed the text to reflect that. jaknouse 23:01 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

"This is apparent in the two Latin words for the act: irrumare (to penetrate orally), and fellare (to be penetrated orally)." This section appears open to question. "Fellare" simply means "to suck"; if you look it up in Lewis & Short's Latin Dictionary, its older usage was non-sexual and included babies sucking on their mothers' teats. So was that, too, regarded as "penetration" (of the baby's mouth)? If so, could we have some citations for this? 23:10 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Saying "gives good head" is like saying "gives good hand" or "gives good phone." - Larry Clark 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

In my understanding, the current pop trend of using the phrase "gives good x", where x could be hand or phone or anything, is itself derived from the phrase "gives good head", which is a long-standing slang phrase for being adept at performing oral sex, even though it's ungrammatical in the normal sense. But ungrammaticalness is sometimes a feature of slang, especially where sex is concerne. There was a famous paper in a linguistics journal at least 20 years ago, I believe by one of Chomsky's students, showing that "fuck you" does not correspond to any standard English grammatical form, e.g. it looks like an imperative but isn't, and if you try to say what you think its grammar is, you'll find it very difficult to do so. Jeremy J. Shapiro 01:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Tell that to people who give good directions or give good advice.—Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

When a person is "giving head," they are giving their head. The head of the penis is not being given by the person performing the oral sex. Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.90.225.119 (talk • contribs)

Health risks of blowing into the vagina.

The reason I have heard blowing forcefully into the vagina is dangerous, is the fact that the bit where the baby attaches (placenta?) can be breached and bubbles of air might enter the bloodstream. Whether it is true, or an urban legend or alarmist advice, I couldn't possibly say. But note that embolism can also result from any injection with an injection needle. And that stuff is still routinely done, for the most minor of justifications. So there you are. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Try http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed&cmd=Display&dopt=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=6631360 for a number of references.

In particular:

Kaiser RT. Air embolism death of a pregnant woman secondary to orogenital sex. Acad Emerg Med. 1994 Nov-Dec;1(6):555-8.

Hill BF, Jones JS. Venous air embolism following orogenital sex during pregnancy. Am J Emerg Med. 1993 Mar;11(2):155-7.

-- The Anome 08:32, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Well, I will stick to my guns and say that I have never heard of it. It is probably a vanishingly rare occurrence, especially in non-pregnant women. To put it into context, it's possible to give yourself an air embolism from blowing too hard while inflating many balloons, but I have yet to hear of other doctors generally advising people to stop blowing balloons themselves. --

• there's this article I just Googled: they searched years of Medline and could only find less than 10 articles on this. If you believe an encyclopedia should strongly advise against this, there's some snake oil that I think you should have ... Alex.tan 08:56, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Let's just say "rare"? -- The Anome 09:10, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Blowing into the vagina (not the urthra) is generally safe, and some say, pleasurable, but shouldn't be done if there is any chance that the woman is pregnant. TheMadBaron 05:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oral sex is a method of birth control?

So does that mean watching TV is a method of birth control, too? Anthony DiPierro 20:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Oral sex is a way of having sexual release without risking pregnancy. The same is true of other birth control methods.

You can't consider the sexual act as a method of birth control. That makes no sense. Birth control is a method of preventing pregnancy during sex which could otherwise cause pregnancy!. I thought dictionaries were supposed to be logical at least.

The decision to practice oral sex while restraining from traditional intercourse, if made specifically to avoid the risk of pregnancy, would seem to reflect a contraceptive strategy, no matter what semantic arguments are applied to "birth control." Indeed, watching television (and avoiding sex), as you put it, which was a glib way of describing abstinence, could be construed as a contraceptive stratgey in the context of two sexually active partners who decide to avoid intercourse when the female was felt to be ovulating. (Of course this may not be a particularly reliable method of contraception overall, but that is another matter.) --12.203.233.125 10:57, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Questionable addition

"It is best not to allow the owner of the penis to ejaculate when the penis is partially down the throat of the fellator as semen could spurt into the lungs, causing significant discomfort." Does anyone have evidence of this? I've certainly never noticed this to be the case, nor have I heard of any such circumstance. Indeed, that Savage Love advice columnist guy recommends it to those squeamish about gulping copious amounts of semen. A little help here please? Jack 02:26, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Spit or swallow? (from VfD'd articles)

The material below is of questionable veracity, and needs to be fact-checked:

---

Cum spitting is a slang term for a sexual behaviour which includes the spitting of semen (colloquilly referred to as cum) from one's mouth, usually following fellatio.

It is considered by many people to be a safer alternative to cum swallowing. However, there is some debate on this issue, as the act of spitting forces the semen back past the gums, rather than down the oesophagus and into the stomach. Some doctors believe that, as the gums are more prone to small cuts than the oesophagus or stomach, spitting represents a greater STD risk than swallowing.

---

Cum swallowing is the consumption of ejaculate via the mouth. Often exercised after blowjobs and nowadays found in many pornographic movies, cum swallowing is common among modern couples which also practice swinging. gay and bisexual people also love to engage in this sexual behaviour.

Public opinion varies: many people, usually women, regard swallowing as a dangerous activity. In 1700s to swallow was considered a pact with the devil; In 1800s it was thought to cause pneumonia.

Becuase of the possiblity of sexually transmitted diseases, it is not a safer sex practice. However, in the absence of infectious diseases, it is proven scientifically to be safe, since ejaculate does not natuarally contain any toxic or otherwise dangerous ingredients.

People who dislike swallowing may like to try cum spitting.

---

Chewing gum?

Removed from the article:

If not using a condom, one is advised to chew gum before performing oral sex so as to coat the mucus membrane of the mouth and to not swallow or have any oral contact with the ejaculation.

Can anyone give a cite for this?

Missoula City-County Health Department.Hyacinth 20:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see any evidence of this on their website. Can you give a more detailed, checkable cite? For example, to a paper publication, or something like PubMed, or to a contactable person at the Heath Dept? -- The Anome 20:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Both my contacts, Joyce and Brant Good, have since moved on to other employment. [1] Hyacinth 22:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, a bit of Googling around found a few recommendations regarding chewing gum and oral sex. Far from recommending chewing gum as a barrier, they were discouraging toothbrushing prior to oral sex because of the tiny cuts generated by brushing, and recommending chewing gum or mouthwash for fresh breath / oral hygiene as an alternative. Some examples: [2] [3]. No mention of gum as a barrier. -- The Anome 20:49, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Gum is not the barrier, spit is (if anything). Hyacinth 22:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Humming

I've seen the mention of humming during cunnilingus has been removed. However, I can testify the thing works quite well. Should it be said with another sentence than under fellatio, or is there any perticular reason to remove the reference ? Thanks ! Rama 11:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Slang terms

I am about to revert an anonymous edit, which adds only "sucking his dick". I think there are plenty of slang terms listed, and any more belong at Sexual slang. MikeX 16:57, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Can I get pregnant if...?

About a week ago my boy friend and I have decied to take our relationship to another step. WE decided to give each other oral sex. We both enjoyed it, very much. But i am concerned that I could get pregnat because after Im done giving him head I kiss him and then He goes down on me... Im Scared that I might have given him some sperm in his mouth and that he put it into my vagiana. Im very scared. Please help me. A very scared Woman

Hi. The best place for factual questions is Wikipedia:Reference Desk. Without any expertise, I would venture that the chance of your conception would depend on how much ejaculate ended up in his mouth/on his lips, and how vigorous the oral sex was. I hope things work out for you. [[User:MikeX|MikeX (Talk)]] 07:06, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

I suspect that using a dental dam or condom would probably cut down on the risk of pregnancy greatly. →Raul654 07:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

There is a risk of oral sex resulting in pregnancy, but it is very, very small. If you are really concerned, you should talk to your doctor (rather than getting advice from strangers on the internet!) -- FirstPrinciples 07:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I read something like this somewhere... Sex is like driving a race car; if you're not sure about anything, go and get the "basic" education before you start. --Rrjanbiah 19:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jeese! Of course you can't get pregnant this way! Yes, check with your Doctor, but guys, come on! This is crazy stuff. I mean, I assume he didn't stick his head right up your vagina, right? Well, you're probably OK then.

Are the images more helpful than not?

Can someone please say what the purpose is for each image in this article, and why they are more helpful than not?

Images are useful only to the extent that they help explain the content. However images also have associated costs. For example they can offend or disturb. And they may cause access to Wikipedia, to be restricted or denied. So for each image we add, we need to weight its benefits against its costs.

The "sixty-nine" image does explain what is not now explained in the article's text. Also it is a sketch, and sketches are generally considered less offensive than photographs. Nevertheless, the image will still offend some, and might be made superfluous by a textual description.

The two fellatio images are, in my judgment, both less beneficial and have a greater cost. As far as I can see, neither image provides any more information than is already present in the text. Or, for that matter, each other, why is it necessary to have two images? Of the two, the sketch would be preferable.

Also, I just noticed that all the images are homosexual, so if more than one image stays, I think that at least one should be heterosexual, so that the impression is not given that oral sex is only, or is predominately, a gay activity.

Paul August ☎ 19:18, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

The images seem to perform a useful function on this article by illustrating the acts described. Nobody is forced to read these articles or, if they do, to download the images that accompany them. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony: Yes nobody is forced to read these articles. On the other hand nobody should be prevented from reading these articles because of the unnecessary presence of an explicit photograph. Can you explain why this photograph, in particular, is necessary? What information content does it add beyond the sketch? Paul August ☎ 21:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Paul, it's a lovely photograph and it illustrates the subject beautifully, showing what a loving act oral sex can be. If you don't want to download it, you don't have to. Just set your browser to not download images. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony: This isn't about me or my likes or dislikes. I have no problem with the picture per se. For myself, I think it's a perfectly fine picture. But it may not be appropriate for everyone. I can see your point that an illustration might demonstrate what "a loving act oral sex can be" but I don't necessarily see that this photograph does that. In particular, I don't see how the photograph adds anything that the sketch doesn't. Why do we need both? Paul August ☎ 22:53, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad you like it. We don't need it, but it's a nice picture and I think having a photograph of oral sex adds to the article, which you may have noticed is on that subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tony: What does the photograph add that the sketch doesn't? Paul August ☎ 23:53, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

Feeling! It's a lovely photo. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but with all the good faith in the world, I cannot see how the idea that a textual description makes an image useless stands the examination. As for the "disturbing" nature of the context, which would make these images more "costly" than the graph of the exp(x) function, I assume that one who does not like to hear about sex does not read this article in the first place.

Also, I must say that I find this general offensive on sexual pictures very suspicious; for all genuine it might be, the concern of shocking people is not consistent with the pictures featured on articles like Shoah. Rama 23:53, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Rama: It is not a valid assumption that anybody who wants to read about oral sex, necessarily wants to see photographs of it. As for these images being more "costly" than the graph of the exp(x) function, as I said above there is a very real risk that explicit images may cause some parents, schools and libraries to deny access to Wikipedia. That would be unfortunate. Many children, for example, who might otherwise benefit from the information in articles like these might be denied access because of an explicit photograph where at most a sketch would convey the same basic information. Paul August ☎ 21:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)

It is a valid point that both the sketches are of homosexual couples. I think the pictures are good, and should remain, but perhaps the tag should say something like "The 69 position, here performed by two women", or something. Otherwise we risk the implication that oral sex is predominantly performed between homosexual couples. — Asbestos | Talk 10:55, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Not only children, but also adults who for various reasons believe viewing such images compromises their moral principles but may wish to learn about oral sex. I believe we should have this material, but that we should not put it inline because it hinders use by people who might be best served by the article (ie, those that would not dare seek sexual instruction through google for fear of pornography). Cool Hand Luke 13:30, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Someone whose moral values are compromised by seeing oral sex wants to learn about it? How does that work? --24.118.77.253 04:18, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I find some text not that appealing or frankly adding to the encyclopaedic value ;-). Apparently, they want to implement options excluding categories from viewing. That would be best, since you could opt-in or out; Google has it in the preferences too. When the adult filter is off, the pics could be shown, since the user chose. --J heisenberg 13:44, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You have my agreement. Many of these controversial picture articles aren't very well-written. I also agree that site-side improvements will render this moot. Cool Hand Luke 13:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If children read "Oral Sex", they are going to find oral sax... else, someone could as well decide that we need to move the text to a more cryptic location and replace it with Puff the magic Dragon :p If you don't want to find information, it's obviously not safe to look in an encyclopedia. By the way, I haven't read anywhere that Wikipedia was supposed to be a children site...

As for what the photograph adds, I think it can be reasonably be said to address the concern about lack of heterosexual pictures. Rama 10:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

yeah, it's great pr0n too.

Has anyone noticed that the man in the black and white picture has a medical ailment? Possibly Syphilis? Upon closer examination, you will see that on the base of his penis, there lies a sore. Syphilis can be transmitted through oral sex as well; especially, if the giver has an open sore on the gums or tongue.

• I'd like to register my vote to find heterosexual images to illustrate the article. It's not the homosexuality per se, because I would likewise be distracted if the images depicted amputees or similar out-of-the-ordinary versions of oral sex. The point is to illustrate the act in its usual form, but this seems like some strange social statement about diversity. One picture makes sense since it is a larger part of gay sex than straight sex, but three out of four is a bit silly. --Tysto 20:55, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

Template

I've added a template indicating that this article is not child safe. Doesn't help when mommy is not in the room, but still...

Who is this template for? —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:16 Z

Has been deleted. However, there might be a replacement: {{morbid warning}}. Right now, I'll try to remove it from Abu Grhaib. No templates for content selection, after all--J heisenberg 13:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Replacement? Huh? Cool Hand Luke 13:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I think you may find Template:morbid warning has consensus on the page in question. I'm not a fan, myself, but that isn't the issue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oral sex in 1860?

I laughed when I saw that caption, and the picture moved to the history section. Oral sex in 1860 looks to me pretty much like oral sex in 2005 except it's in black and white and the process used doesn't give as clear a picture. The reason we use an ancient photograph of this virtually timeless act of love is that the photograph is out of copyright. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Just trying to increase its usefulness in the article instead of just sticking it anywhere. I also thought a caption might be helpful. Can you think of a better caption? —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 14:59 Z

"Yummy!" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

How racy, then. ;) I suppose, not as racy as the picture itself, but eh... haha Mike H 22:13, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

The material below is of questionable veracity, and needs to be fact-checked:

Rainbow parties and increased oral sex activity by non-adults needs more than anecdotal evidence. Where is the evidence that either of these is more than urban legand and media hype? Disputed text:

-- increasingly non-adults --

This "oral sex is not real sex" attitude, which is perceivably spreading especially among the younger generation, is almost the exact opposite of the previous moral state of oral sex, being considered dirty or at least to be one of the most intimate relations between two people. One particular result are so-called "rainbow parties", a form of group sex where there is a kind of contest among the males to receive the most blow jobs, documented by the number of different lipstick colors on their penises. Nkedcondo 13:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Identity of the Individual in the Photograph

Apparently, that's Aleister Crowley (alias of Edward Alexander Crowley).

Explanation of revert by Tony Sidaway at 10:20, 13 March, 2005

Hi, I noticed some people playing around with the photograph--removing it, turning it into a link, and so on. Please stop doing this. The photograph illustrates the article, and also happens to be a lovely photograph. If you don't want to look at the photograph, you don't have to download it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:25, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As another user pointed out above, the image is redundant with the sketch, only adding "feeling" as you put it. It also compromise some folk's moral values, so I don't think it should be inline with the text. At any rate, I don't intend to remove the inline image, but I'll continue to reestablish it as a link whenever it's removed. I don't think content should be effectivly removed from the project. The link is a nice balance, I think. Cool Hand Luke 10:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Only adding feeling? I think that what we have is at the moment one user on a crusade. No sense in appeasing his one-man campaign in any way (same argument as the Clitoris case for now). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:10, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't think protection aids an individual's crusade? I believe we ought to request unprotection whether 198 agrees to talk or not. If he stubbornly continues, I'll co-certify his RfC myself. In either case, protection ought to be the last resort for this sort of thing. I couldn't have said it better myself. Cool Hand Luke 00:17, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference. Sometimes a brief period of protection can help to force a breathing space. Sometimes a user is beyond that. Prolonged protection is not good. Let's lift and see what happens. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:01, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have yet not heard anyone stating that the presence of the image would "compromise some folk's moral values"; it would seem that some people are commandably over-concerned about this, but tend to pre-judge of other people's values. Also, it is remarquable that this kind of concern do not arise for generally displaying images of human and living beings, which would contradict some islamic customs, for instance. I suggest that we wait until a real question arises, and then discuss the matter with people really concerned. Rama 10:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I truthfully said that last month. User:Paul August also noted this image's redundancy and its potential to disturb or surprise some readers. Cool Hand Luke 11:08, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tony and Rama seem to have forgotten or have no regard for my concerns. Paul August ☎ 15:51, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Having no regard for your concerns is not the same as disagreeing that your (and others') concerns about morals should dictate Wikipedia policy. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:13, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I've not expressed any concern about "morals". What makes you say that? Paul August ☎ 18:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

My mistake, I mistook the quoted text above by Rama for your words. Of course, I don't see how anyone could possibly be disturbed by the image unless it offended their moral sensibilities, but that may just be me. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:54, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

No they were not my words ;-) To try to clarify, I'm not "disturbed" by the image, nor does it offend my "moral sensibilities". My concern, (as I tried to express above) is twofold. First, I'm concerned that the image may disturb and offend others. And second I'm concerned about the potential harm which might occur if images like this cause access to Wikipedia to be restricted or denied. Paul August ☎ 20:44, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your overall motive, I remain (personally) steadfast in my opposition to any censoring of any sort of material relevant and appropriate to Wikipedia on the grounds that it might offend and or disturb a certain group of people (and I cannot imagine anything being offensive or disturbing other than on moral grounds, assuming that humanity en masse isn't offended or disturbed). The problem of what might happen if access to Wikipedia is restricted or denied is not our problem, it is the problem of those who control and legislate access to information and the people whom that control negatively affects. History shows what happens to organizations that attempt to "shield" their "constituency" from reality. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:02, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should also clarify, my remark that "Tony and Rama seem to have forgotten or have no regard for my concerns". Luke, had made the comment that "another user" (referring to me), besides 198, had expressed concerns about the image. Both Tony and Rama seemed to take exception to this. Tony replied that 198 was "one user on a crusade" waging a "one-man campaign" (thus seeming to imply that only one user had expressed any concern). While Rama said that we should "wait until a real question arises" with "people really concerned" (thus seeming to imply that no "real" question or "concern" had yet been stated by anyone) Luke responded, that in fact, there had "also" been someone else who had concerns with the image, mentioning me by name. I wanted to support Luke's assertion so, since it seemed to me that my earlier concerns had been either forgotten or disregarded, I responded with the above. I never meant to imply that I took their "disagreeing" as lack of regard, or that my concerns "should dictate Wikipedia policy" Paul August ☎ 21:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. It should also be remembered that although we have similar concerns, theres no reason to pigeonhole our arguments. I do think that we ought to consider the risk of compromising a reader's moral values, but there's also a strong (purely editorial) argument against shocking readers unnecesariy. You've expressed your views very well,

I think. I don't believe that, say, moving the picture behind a link censors it—it's just the sort of decision editors make so that their encyclopedia is more useful. Cool Hand Luke 23:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To clarify, the "one-man campaign" reference was in the context of whether to compromise. I don't doubt that there are other people with various problems with parts of the article, but those people don't see to be editing it to remove the photograph right now, so there isn't any need to compromise. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:09, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tony, are you saying that the only way you would consider compromising with me about the image is if I delete it? Paul August ☎ 22:22, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm confused on this point too. Do restrained editors count, or does it take an edit warrior to earn your respect? Cool Hand Luke 23:21, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm a restrained editor myself. However I do make edits once when I think they're the right thing. We could talk about it until the cows come home but only editing will change the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's true, but why shouldn't we edit the article with an eye toward compromise? Do you believe it's worthwhile to compromise with editors who are not edit warriors? Cool Hand Luke 23:58, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe in compromising with editors who *are*. They usually fall at that little hurdle of wiki aikido known as dispute resolution.

On the other hand if someone removes the picture and nobody else inserts it, then the picture will be gone. The sole reason that it is there at present is because this hasn't yet happened. Since I'm not in the habit of edit warring myself, it won't be me who puts it back if it's removed--I've had my revert, said my piece, and that's enough. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:07, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So are you saying, Tony that if I make the picture an imagelink like Luke did that you won't revert it? Paul August ☎ 19:39, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

How come there are no cunnilingus pictures?

How come there are no images and pictures of women receiving cunnilingus? Many people like to see how a woman receives oral sex.

it is difficult to illustrate constructively what can be done on a woman's clitoris, since the female organs are much less visible than the male ones. The reason for the lack of an illustration is thusly purely technical, and will hopefully be solved over time. Rama 08:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, a woman licking a donut, with the cream running down her chin. How difficult would that be to illustrate? :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Autofellatio Precedent

I was wondering what the community reaction to introducing applying the same type of technique used to deal with the graphic photograph at Autofellatio on this page regarding Image:OPI.jpg would be? It seems that there was an interesting consensus formed regarding what to do with types of photographs that certainly could be considered to add to the article yet would be unwanted by some visitors to Wikipedia. It seems that the more inclusion we can obtain and the most choice at what content to access we give that the better and more accessable Wikipedia can become. While I'm sensative to concerns about censorship (and not interested in doing it at all), I simply raise the issue of choice and propose the Autofellatio-class solution to it. Community comments? -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I certainly see your point, and I wish everyone who feels that way would phrase it as logically and calmly as you :). However, it has been my experience that doing such things usually emboldens the puritanical cabal to then try to delete the image altogether. The amount of grief I get trying to defend the autofellatio pic from deletion, it's infuriating. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The image is already in the article. Readers can download or not download it according to their wishes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well yeah, that's what I'm saying. At autofellatio, the graphic image is behind a dialog box saying "Autofellatio.jpg: Photograph of a man performing autofellatio." What I'm suggesting here is that we employ the same tactic here so that readers actually can download it or not according to their wishes. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't need a precedent for that; the guidelines on images suggest that sensitive images may be linked like this. On the other hand it's not clear to me that this particular image could be seen as offensive. It's just too people making love. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:27, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So... I actually implemented this. Not sure if that's a good idea or if I'm violating the will of the community here. Anyway, better to have been bold than not to have been. If you think I'm wrong, change it back. I have no real interest in an edit war here. I wish more of the community was paying attention though. -SocratesJedi | Talk 08:33, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine. We'll sit with it and see how it goes down. Er, well you know what I mean. :) --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Porn on Wikipedia? No way!

Okay...I was looking through a vandal's list of contributions and I ran into this page. I admit it. Maybe I shouldn't have. But....

The picture is awful!

I'm sorry, but an actual photograph of a couple performing a sexual act has absolutely no place on this site. Discuss the act? Well, I guess I can tolerate that. But an actual picture? No, that's simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia. The picture of the fellating couple would be considered pornography by most standards and is simply out-of-place here.

I won't remove it, because then I'd be flamed. However, I think we ought to seriously think about getting rid of it...

Why do you think an article about oral sex in an encyclopedia shouldn't have a picture of oral sex? Isn't that a little perverse? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This picture isn't awful. I think because of it's age and it isn't that exciting it can be used in wikipedia. In a normal encyclpedia you will also see pictures like this. It just describes what oral sex is! User:Indication 13:59, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I too was surprised by the photograph. Now, I don't object to its presence in Wikipedia. Clearly, though, it can be considered pornographic by some people, and I think that point of view needs to be respected (remember NPOV?). It doesn't matter if it's absurd that people who would look up oral sex in an encyclopedia would be shocked to find an old photograph of it. Some people would, that's what matters. Remember this encyclopedia is for everyone, not just you (and I'm certainly no prude myself, I have 10 gigs of naughty materials on my hard drive). I'm in favor of linking the image, but I think a good compromise might be to move it further down the page and put the illustrations at top. Or we could go with all illustrations and remove the photograph (many people find illustrations more acceptable than photos). - furrykef (Talk at me) 15:29, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

-- Anyone who considers this stuff to be "Pornography" shouldnt be looking up this stuff on wikipedia anyway! --

On template suppression

I thought I'd note that I'm not User:Chakravyuh, but I find sens edit to be an acceptable compromise. It's perhaps better than a link because the version with photos is now available in it's entirety. Some apparently found even the drawing vulgar, so this should ameliorate their concerns.

For those who are unaware: the "(no pictures)" version is not a fork. It works by using this article as a template and comments out the warning to replace it with a message refering readers back here. Check it out yourself. Cool Hand Luke 23:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wonder if we could finally implement something site-wide. I recall Christiaan talking about m:End-user image suppression - eh? TIMBO (T A L K) 04:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'd be strongly for that. The last sort of discussion along these lines fractured badly, and I think image tagging is more POV/editing trouble than it's worth. A mechanism for non-technical readers to turn all images off and selectively view them would make this moot in my view. This won't entirely satisfy those that are trying to protect minors, but I don't think minors can be protected on the internet without active parenting. It addresses my concern about potentially shocking content in articles though, so I'd strongly support any such option. Cool Hand Luke 05:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

End-user suppression is already available. Almost nobody uses it. The capacity to turn off all images and selectively view them is actually built in to IE, and has been for nearly a decade. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Right you are. I do think, though, that it might make more users happy to have an option to turn off only the article's images (i.e. not the wikipedia logo or other stuff) and have it only for the wikipedia domain. Almost all image tagging seems suspect to me, but if it were applied to all images in an NPOV way (and someone spent the time actually implementing this) I think it could be a good thing. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Explanation of Tony Sidaway's revert of an edit by 68.229.240.32

68.229.240.32 edit the section on fellatio to change the text "A rarer technique is deep throat" to "Another technique is deep throat". This in my opinion is removal of significant information. The technique is far more often talked about and depicted than actually performed--for obvious reasons of discomfort and breathing difficulties for the fellator, not to mention the gagging reflex. I have reverted the edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Linking the image

Luke, your bowdlerized article has been deleted, I understand, well while that's a matter of concern to you it should not really impact the main article. Please do not link the picture--in effect by doing this you're reincarnating a VfD'd article and substituting for it the deletion of the original.

Nobody comes to "Oral sex" without a clear idea of what it entails. This coyness really is most irritating and seriously detracts from Wikipedia as an illustrated work. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tony, it was not my article. I didn't have it on my talk page, and was surprised to see it gone.

It's understood what the term means, but an image of a sex act in an encyclopedia article is surprising, and distracting from the article. I'm not the only one with this concern.

I found the no pictures version an acceptable compromise, but inlining the image with no obvious recourse for readers is not. Cool Hand Luke 10:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Precisely why is an image of oral sex in an article about oral sex suprising? Particularly when Wikipedia is not censored. I fully support Tony Sidaway on this - as far as I'm aware the consensus in every single instance (with one exception) this has been debated has been that the image should be inline. The only exception has been Autofellatio. Thryduulf 11:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Many encylopedias to not contain images of sex acts. Wikipedia is not, and should not be such an encyclopedia. We should not censor (remove) free images on the grounds of offending people. However, linking the image makes the article more useful for those who do not wish to see it. It gives readers an informed choice. The template solution satisfied my (and apparently other's concerns) as discussed above, but because this isn't viewed as viable, this is again a live issue.

P.S. You are incorrect. For another exception, with a much stronger majority, see Nick Berg. Cool Hand Luke 15:33, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I suggest that we keep the image visible untill we encounter real-life examples of these hypothetical people who would find the article more useful without the images. For now, all sorts of conjectural categories of people (children traumatised by the vision of female breasts, ...) have been invoked in such contexts, but no single instances of these have been found. Let us apply Occam's razor. Rama 15:48, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then I volunteer. For clitoris I always spoke in hypotheticals; I honestly am not bothered by the image at all (although I'm certain some of my family would be). But I'd prefer not to look at photographs of actual sex acts. I'd prefer not to be be surprised to find such photographs in articles. Some in my culture would be even more upset by these images, which are considered pornography. This is not to say that married Latter-day Saints are not curious about sex topics; indeed Christian and LDS-marketed sex books (sans photographs) sell rather well. It's that our faith prohibits use of such photographs.

Unlike some other editors, I don't think it's obvious such photographs would be here. Indeed, until recently there was no photograph in this article. I agree that the photograph adds something valuable for those who want to see it, but I am not one of those people.

You would be correct to say this is moot for me. I can use tricks to get around viewing it, but for readers like me, we should provide an informed choice. Cool Hand Luke 21:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The issue of "offensive" pictures on wikipedia has become a topic of discussion for quite some time. In the interest of full disclosure, I tend to agree that photos depicting their article's subject shouldn't be too surprising to anyone, even if they don't really want to see those pictures. I think it's probably a very small minority that wants to learn about oral sex, but can't stand to view pictures of it. That doesn't mean, however, that it's not a concern that might be remedied by some creative solution. Moreover, there seem to be a great many editors who fell that, although they're fine with these "offensive" pictures, they'd like to include the small minority that isn't.

It seems to me that arguing about every single instance of this issue is both an inadequate solution to the problem and a waste of our time. Every time we decide, for example, that autofellatio should be linked, but not heterosexual fellatio, etc., or that any picture is more "offensive" than another, then we're inadvertently instilling a certain cultural conception of offensiveness. I don't think that fits well with NPOV. I know there was a large survey of what to do with offensiveness on the pedia, and the overall feeling was "Do nothing now, as there's not really a problem," I think that it has become such a drain on many editors' time and resources that we should revisit it.

The solution that seems most effective and palatable to everyone is this: have an unpbtrusive link at, say, the bottom of every page that says something like "Click here to view Wikipedia without images." It would turn off all images in all articles, and be easy to toggle back and forth. This would not have any kind of cultural bias because it turns off all pictures. So for heaven's sake, if you want to read about oral sex but know you don't want to see the pictures, why not just turn 'em off?

This is very similar to turning off all images in your web browser. It seems a lot of people don't know how to do that, and it seems like a lot more people would be happier with just a way to come to wikipedia and turn off the images in the wikipedia.org domain.

Incidentally, this is the only broad solution to "offensive" images I'd support, since it is the only one that doesn't rely on any conception of "offensiveness." I think it would be pretty easy to implement. Maybe some developer could be bold and do it. TIMBO (T A L K) 22:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Strongly agree, although I think the option should be at the top of the default layout. A proposal to do something like this failed badly, but I believe it was muddied by undesirable categorization schemes. All we need is an on/off. Comments suggest many users would be against even this, but developers can apparently just slip features in. I hope they do.

Oh, and I think editors should have sense enough not to put potentially offensive pictures near the top of an article so that a user can reasonably determine if it's a subject they might find offensive. Some people don't know what a Prince Albert piercing is, for example. Would you find this reasonable? Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that would seem absolutly reasonable. I might also propose a text at the top of some pages with something to the effect of: "This article contains images some may find offensive. To disable pictures, click here" or something like that. Allows informed decisions while allowing pictures to remain inline and allows even the most inept users to activate the pictures on/off feature if desired. -SocratesJedi | Talk 07:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, that would not be appropriate, IMHO. Putting some disclaimer at the top of some pages defeats the whole purpose of my proposal. If you're going to be offended of pictures of oral sex, and you surf to oral sex, you should have the sense to turn off those images with the site-wide option on every page. Any singling-out of pages is POV. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But a user unaware that a choice exists is a user without a choice. It is not POV to observe the empircal fact that a decently-sized group of users will object to being shown sexually-explicit images. I don't think it's at all obvious to most uers that an encyclopedia would be expected to include images (by which I am not saying that their inclusion is wrong) and that a fair warning giving the individual user options is completely appropriate. -SocratesJedi | Talk 03:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your sentiments about giving readers an informed choice, but I hope a link at the top of each page is sufficient. Concerns about NPOV are practical as well as philosophical: how do we decide when images offend a large enough minority to merit an additional disclaimer? Photos of sex acts are obvious candidates, but many other images aren't. This issue is trolled by people from both sides, so new practices should be designed with conflict minimization in mind. The best compromise is to make the "no pictures" option reasonably prominent, as noticeable as the edit tab, I think. Cool Hand Luke 09:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The only way to make the option NPOV is to make it available to every article or no articles. What do you define as a sexual article? Oral sex, I'm sure most people would agree is sexual in nature. Equally, I doubt you'd find many people saying that Olchfa footbridge comes under their definition of a sexual article. But what about Penis, Menstruation, Homosexuality, Fetish, AIDS, Puberty, Playboy, and Nudism? Any of these may fall under someone's definition of a "sexual related article". See also Wikipedia:Wikiproject Graphical content problem. Thryduulf 09:57, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Cool Hand Luke that any "no pictures" button should be as prominent as "edit". I agree with Thryduulf on the difficulty of deciding which page is likely to give offence--if the Kate Winslet Titanic picture can give offence, that makes the scope absurdly wide. We already have a content disclaimer linked to every page, saying "Wikipedia contains spoilers and content you may find objectionable." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

We have the page about the disclaimers about spoilers that might be upsetting to people, but we also have the presense of WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS-type of tags on specific pages when the community consenses is that we would reasonably expect a normal user to be upset if they read a spoiler without being warned that that was what was contained. Similarly, why do we not have content warnings inline with pages based on the same principle? -SocratesJedi | Talk 21:46, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well I also happen to disagree with "spoiler"-style warnings. They're extremely obtrusive and of no earthly use. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The idea of the spoiler tags is good in my opinion - "Plot or ending details follow" is a matter of fact (either the article contains details about the plot/ending or it doesn't), for example a large part of The Sixth Sense is the revalation towards the end about what happened right at the start. Once you know this the entire film takes on a different meaning (if you've seen the film you'll know what I mean). Some people might not care about knowing the plot in advance, but others do.

However, the non-universal application of it to the articles it applies to undermines its worth imho. Thryduulf 22:45, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the best solution here might be to have a pictures on/off button prominent enough so that even newcomers will notice it, but no so huge that it's obtrusive and ugly. If we can agree on that, it would be moot whether or not to single out "offensive" pages for further disclaimers – they wouldn't be necessary. TIMBO (T A L K) 19:01, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I think a diverse plurality would be behind that solution. Just need it developed... Cool Hand Luke 07:06, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's hunt down a developer and talk someone into it. In the meantime though, what should we do about Image:OPI.jpg (the old-timey fellatio picture)? -SocratesJedi | Talk 06:23, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

There is an important point that needs to be considered here: the image in question is clearly of a nature that would be legally be considered obscene in some jurisdictions, and therefore its presence on the page renders (knowingly) viewing the page an illegal act in those areas. I don't think a situation where reading a particular wikipedia article is illegal is sensible, not when it can be avoided simply by the removal of a photograph that really adds no useful information to the page. JulesH 22:03, 9 July 2005 (UTC) (writing from the UK, where the inclusion of the photo is probably illegal)

It isn't illegal in the UK. You can get sex guides in normal bookshops and even W H Smith that are somewhat more explicit than this. If this is illegal in some jurisdictions I'd suggest thats their problem, or should we only show pictures of women who are wearing veils over their faces on the assumption that depiction of a bare female face may be illegal in some jurisdictions? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It's very hard to tell. The image is more explicit than any I've seen in sex guides published in the UK (although I'll admit those that I've read are not recent releases), and more explicit than I've seen in pornographic magazines published in the UK. The legal definition of obscene is ambiguous and rests on a lot of case law. Many cases seem to have found that an erect penis is obscene. It depends entirely on the opinion of the jury. As it stands, I would not be comfortable (e.g.) redistributing copies of wikipedia in the UK because of this image. Viewing at home is probably OK, although it might legally be classifiable as importation you almost certainly wouldn't have any trouble over it. Viewing it in public could be a problem, though. JulesH 10:37, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Glory holes

Did the term blow job become a slang for oral sex by deriving from the term glassblowing which was used for glory holes at steel mills since glory hole refers to both a hole at the steel mill and a hole to stick a male's willy in? --SuperDude 03:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

images

i realize there is a place for images here, and i personally do not support censoring such things - however, let me lay something out for you. i teach history at a public high school in the United States. i use wikipedia in my lessons. i have students use wikipedia for their research. the district has a very strict policy about image content, especially because we have elementary schools using the same network. the images on this article are putting at risk student access to wikipedia.

sure, sure, you'll say - well, fight the district. it isn't that easy. the district has elementary schools, middle schools and high schools, all under one umbrella. we all use the same network. in other words, currently, the elementary schools in my district also have access to wikipedia. in the case of children, it is not for you to decide whether they should see these images or not - it is up to the parents of each child.

the point of all this is: whatever websites are blocked for the elementary school are also blocked for the high school - because we only use one network.

yes, i agree, there should not be censorship. however, i really want you all to think of the complicated situation here. potentially, i could lose access to wikipedia from my high school - and that would be a tragedy. Kingturtle 07:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

• If students see swear words on Wikipedia used in legitimate sense (e.g. ass, shit, etc), would that count as risk for students in the elementary school using Wikipedia? --SuperDude 15:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • I doubt it. The concern would be seeing explicit photos and drawings of sexual acts. I am fully opposed to censorship - but this situation calls for some serious thought. Kingturtle 16:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
    • So images of ass and shit are okay, but an act involving one person providing pleasure to another through intimate physical contact is unacceptable?—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I am rather happy to see the question arising in a sensible and non-partisan tone. It is a legitimate question to consider, and I think that it would be very positive if it could at last be discussed calmly and with genuine intents to come to a reeasonable conclusion. Rama 16:06, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I hate to interrupt here but, why would you be teaching oral sex in a history class?--Orgullomoore 21:34, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neutral comment: I think his point is that site-wide bans because of pages like oral sex will lead to pages a history teacher will have a legitimate interest in using, like Roman republic, being blocked by overzealous administrators. It's no secret that the commercial webblocking programs have employed heavy-handed techniques in the past. Wikipedia is no good if people can't get to us, but it's also no good if it becomes a censored community. That's why it's so vital to find a compromise. -SocratesJedi | Talk 05:08, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The images shouldn't be here. It's illegal to show sexually explicit images to children, without consent of parents, without making any attempt to prevent it. Like copyright law, it's irrelevant if you disagree with the law. It's irrelevant if the law is inneffective. Also, yes, people do read about topics they do not wish to "partake" in. There are also a number of other acts, that nobody wishes to see pictures of. I can think of countless articles (not this one) that describe an act (sexual and non-sexual), which most people would wish to read about, but would not engage in. At a minimum, wikipedia should "tag" this and other pages, so that "filter" software can exclude it. I don't beleive that is done. So, the pictures should go. --rob 07:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

What acts, for example?—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd agree with the above statements, the photos really do have to go. There's no excuse for having what could be deemed hardcore pornographic content on an encyclopedia. Also, we seem to only be looking at it from our westernised point of view. In many theocratic countries pornography will get you flogged and worse in others. I'd rather ditch the eye candy than think some poor sap in Indonesia just got beaten within an inch of his life because he was trying to learn and clicked through to somewhere he shouldn't have.

As there has been no complaints or "Keep the porn." attitudes demonstrated, not even by a vocal minority, I will be so bold as to make a move and remove the images in question.

Jachin 09:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Here's your "keep" voice. This needs to be settled by the legal department of WP (if there is one). WP should be a source of information for adults, before children. The responsibilty of protecting children from sensitive content should be upon those providing the content to the children. Many people suffer from confused misunderstandings and anxieties in their adult lives, particularly regarding issues of human sexuality. The concept of oral sex may be terrifying or disgusting to somebody confronted with it for the first time. It may threaten even the viability of their relationship (marriage even). Should they be in such a position and needing information about this sexual act, then WP should be there for them, as a sort of Dr Ruth or on-line sex advisor. These images are not so over-the-top as to be clearly pornographic. Just because some school district in some backwater of the US decides so does not mean that the entire English speaking internet community needs to be denied.—Gaff ^ταλκ 05:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

This image has been removed numerous times and has always been restored. Please do not remove information unless you have something better to replace it with. Rama 09:54, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm failing to see the advantage to an inline vs. linked image. No content is being removed, but Wikipedia is in real danger of violating obscenity law by providing no warning/disclaimer/age protection. Linking the image should satisfy this concern (yes, I've read the above arguments from April). Nae'blis 22:03:47, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

There is absolutly no such risk. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:05, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a porn site. I have noticed other editors (including myself) consistently rejecting hardcore, overly-explicit images in favour of less explicit ones that still illustrate the topic. This is a good thing. But illustrations are needed; do I really need to quote Confucius?

It's impossible to develop an encyclopaedia devoid of the "naughty bits", whether those naughty bits concern sex or making bombs; it's impossible to keep that information off the Internet as a whole. Simply put, the onus is not on Wikipedia (or any other on-line knowledge tool) to censor itself so as not to offend; the onus is on those who allow themselves to be offended (it's not someone else's fault if you are offended by something not directed specifically at you), the onus is on those who would assume (such as parents and schools) to be protecting someone (like a child), and the onus is on someone living in a totalitarian state if viewing (accidentally or not) a naughty bit (as defined by his/her government) is likely to result in punishment.

My opinion (not that anyone asked me) is that those who find themselves offended by the simple act of seeing a picture of something they find distasteful should not be -- plain and simple. If you are responsible for educating a child, you should not be "offendable" (see previous sentence), and if you are you shouldn't have or teach children. If you do have or teach children, you should be prepared to put the information the child discovers (on-line or off-line) into context, not "protect" him/her from it. This doesn't mean, however, that you give your five-year-old the "keys to the Internet" and tell them to have fun any more than you would give him/her the keys to your car. And finally, if you live in a country where the simple act of clicking on a link might cause you to end up in jail -- well, it's probably not the only thing that might cause that problem, and it's part of a much bigger problem that needs to be addressed in ways that don't even have anything to do with naughty bits on the Internet.

As for a practical solution to the problem outlined by the teacher who started this thread -- you don't need to "fight" the district. If the district is providing Internet access to all school levels in the district and they see a need (as you do) to limit access based on whether a student is in an elementary, middle or high school, then they should put the three on three different networks and police them accordingly. Seems very simple and logical to me.

And please, in between History lessons, ask the English teacher to tell you about a concept called capitalisation. I realise the "Shift" key is an enigma to most people on the Internet these days, but one would expect more from a teacher. I did look at your user page and I know you are capable of using it, so it makes your not using it (except, noticeably, for the words "United States") seem rather odd. Speaking for myself, I do find it harder to read text that isn't written properly (whether it's capitalisation, punctuation, spelling or something else) and so it detracts from the writer's message. Not that I'm insisting on perfection (nobody is, least of all me), but if a writer doesn't take the time to hit the "Shift" key occasionally, I often don't take the extra time to read what they've written.

--Craig 07:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to cater to a specific school's needs. The images demonstrate the act, which is relevant to the topic at hand. If the topic at hand is oral sex, a picture of the act being done provides visual information to people who are ignorant of the act and wish to know more about it. If you are offended by the images, or your school deems it necessary to censor such information, then wikipedia isn't for you. Facts and information come before political correctness. Lengis 02:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Spurious "Origins" section

Can someone confirm or deny the following? It seems to contradict everything I learned in bio. - "Hence, some theorise that its origins are biologial, and not simply carnal. A study published in the British Journal of Medicine showed a correlation between oral sex and healthier newborn children. Semen, when ingested orally, is thought to familiarise the female immune system with the male dna" Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 21:57 (UTC) - - You're right, it's unverified. I've commented out this entire section - - Everything in the "Origins" section is highly implausible and unreferenced, so I've removed it (someone had put it back). It reads like pure disinformation by a prankster, put there to confuse readers and generally discredit wikipedia. September 8 2005

Origins

Considering its current popularity as well as its depth in recorded history, oral sex is thought by many to have been a part of prehistorical human sexuality. Hence, some theorise that its origins are biological, and not simply carnal.

A study published in the British Journal of Medicine showed a correlation between oral sex and healthier newborn children. Semen, when ingested orally, is thought to familiarise the female immune system with the male dna, lowering the risk that male genes would be rejected, and thus the risk of birth defects. One hypothesis points to the possibility that the apparent connection may be a biological evolutionary trait, which favors reproduction among couples who have more long-term and intimate relationships than others.

User comments:

..It seems to contradict everything I learned in bio... Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 21:57 (UTC)

Everything in the "Origins" section is highly implausible and unreferenced, I've removed it (someone had put it back since July). It reads like pure disinformation by a prankster, put there to confuse readers and generally discredit wikipedia. -- Anon, September 8 2005, 18:28 (UTC)

You're right, it's unverified. I've commented out this entire section

I'll explain why. Firstly, it's fatuous to suggest that oral sex was part of prehistoric sexuality. Sure, it may have been, but why is recent (ie merely prehistoric) sexuality linked to the earliest sexuality of the human race, which will be forever lost to us? It's "thought by many" to be so, well so what? There is no reference for this. Then we're told "some theorize" that it's origins are biological. Well who theorizes this? Again, no reference.

A study in the BMJ is mentioned, but not cited. Well let's see this study cited, otherwise this is going to be the fairlyland encyclopedia. Semen is "thought to ..." Who thinks this? "One hypothesis..." Whose hypothesis? This is an encyclopedia, we don't permit tripe like this to live. We don't write new stuff, we write about what other people write. And we cite the authors. There are no authors here, just vague references and handwaving. Please correct if you can be adding references, rewording or whatever, and restore to the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• According to Robin Baker's book Sperm Wars (which I keep meaning to write an article about), oral sex for both men and women allows the partners to small and taste the other's sex organs, which can be (he claims) a very important way of determining the overall health of the partner (and thus the chances for healthy children). I don't know whether this is worth mentioning. — Asbestos | Talk 01:30, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I have done an extensive literature search on Pubmed.gov and the British Medical Journal's electronic archives. Not only are the claims in the "Origins" section unsubstantiated, the claims of content from the BMJ are fabricated. I have thus removed the section from the wiki.

how do we ask a sysop to ban or do something about R jayz?

I've just checked this guy's contributions and all he does is insert porno photos into articles. Only three so far, but he seems to be stubborn in that he reverts them if they're removed. He's a pest. Hayford Peirce 16:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

User warned. Rama 16:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

We tend to have a number of people uploading blatantly pornographic and copyrighted images here. I think that it is safe to speedy-delete these images and indefinitely ban the authors, especially when their only contributions are disruptives or when they have vulgar, provocative and disturbing usernames. Rama 18:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. --Mütze 15

16, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I have about had it with the constant vandalism on this article. No two days can go by without someone inserting porn or spam into it or removing pictures without giving any reasons. I think the article could really benefit from being temporarily locked. --Mütze 12:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

You call that a lot ? I reckon you don't have Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince on your watchlist ! :D

Now, seriously, if you feel that this gets out of hand, I think that the best course of action would be to report your concerns on Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages (where it is indeed listed). Blocking the page might become an option if we had repeated vandalism in a short period of time, but for the sort of vandalism which we have now, I think that the disadvantage of making the page unavailable for edition outweight the benefits of ceasing vandalism. But do mention it if it gets worse. Rama 13:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Good point. I see that right now it is still fairly easy to immediately revert any vandalism, so I guess it's really not that much of a problem. It's just that it is... annoying. I haven's been on Wikipedia for that long (some months on the German Wikipedia) and I'm not yet used to this. Thank's for the advice. --Mütze 12:09, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

emphasis on slang

I am not offended by this article, but it seems to lack a certain gravitas appropriate for an encylopedia entry. In particular, the prominence of slang terms related to oral sex (e.g. "snowballing") lends a sophomoric air to the entry.

Image:OPI.jpg

Someone has just overwritten the main image of the article Oral Sex with a censored version. Is this correct? --None-of-the-Above 20:56, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

That's what happened, but I reverted to the original. In addition, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. I'd like to know what kind of objections User:Hottentot and User:Reynoldsrapture have to an image of oral sex on oral sex, keeping in mind previous discussions of the image on this page. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-11 T 16:50:32 Z

This article stands on its own without the need for an actual oral sex pic for two reasons: 1) the text of the article is excellent, and substansial enough to educate those who read it, and 2) the hand written drawings more than enough demonstrate how oral sex is performed on both men and women. I strongly believe a Victorian photograph of some guy getting his crank sucked is not only completely unwarranted, but extremely over-the-top for this article. Just because Wikepedia doesn't have a censor program for minors doesn't mean we should be able to post any material we choose, especially if that material is sexually graphic in an overt manner. Reynoldsrapture 19:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your deletion for a couple reasons: 1) your edit summary made it seem like you objected to this "PORNOGRAPHY", and Wikipedia is not censored, per above, and 2) I saw no discussion of this removal. Afterwords, I saw this note posted here right after I put it back. I don't think this deletion should just be done without consensus. I see you've now reverted my revert. I'm not going to violate 1RR, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone comes along and re-adds the pic. From the looks of previous discussions here, I don't believe there is any consensus for its removal. Friday (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

As much as I personally may or may not enjoy vintage porn (I've got some etchings in my apartment I'd like to show you...) a photo of an overt sex act is unnecessary. I've looked over the arguments for keeping the image and they are far from compelling. In fairness, some of the arguements for it's removal are flimsy as well. ^_^
brenneman^(t)(c) 01:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Drawings are always weaker then photographs for such applications. They can be a useful complements to make an movement particularly evident, but there are cases (such as Autofellatio) where the drawings that we have are way more unconvincing than the photograph. In this case, I regard the drawings as a complement to the photograph, not the converse. Rama 05:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

All the more reason for the *compromise* of linking to the picture, leaving the drawings inline. The picture adds *nothing* to the clarity of the article, as it is grainy and b&w, whereas the drawing of oral sex on a male is extremely clear w/o being titillating. This article should probably be referred to mediation if this revert war continues. Nae'blis 15:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

That's not a solution. The picture is an example of the act, and is far more illustrative than a drawing could be. Linking it is a violation of WP:NOT - this is not an image like those on the blocked images list - it's not so graphic as to be shocking. I think that the victorian era photo, grainy and b&w is far more informative than a more recent picture would be - it demonstrates the practice has been in use for a substantial period of time. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyone out there who truly doesn't know what a blow job looks like!? This whole argument is rediculous. Rama is right, the drawings are weak, but the picture is on the other side of the spectrum: extreme. You know what I think? Most guys just want to see some dude get his meat whistle blown. They don't give a damn about censorship unless someone takes away their precious porn pics.

I'm investigating ways I can communicate this to the executives of Wikipedia. If anyone has suggestions on how I can best prove my case, feel free to drop me a line. Reynoldsrapture 17:00, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Interesting starting premise. However, I do believe there are people "out there" who don't know what a blowjob looks like. That's why they go to Wikipedia to learn about it.

Wikipedia isn't "most guys"; I'm not like "most guys". I do not take censorship lightly. What you call porn is what I (and, I think, many others) call an informative image which can be used on Wikipedia to illustrate oral sex and fellatio. If you can come up with a better image, that would be great. However, I'm afraid putting a black rectangle over the genitals and mouth does not constitute a better image. ~⌈Markaci⌋ 2005-09-12 T 19:15:23 Z

Frankly, I think that one who would read Wikipedia for the sexual arousal induced by its pornographic content would have a very sad sex life indeed. Or might not exist. Rama 20:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

You guys are nuts for putting that picture in this open forum. I, as an adult, don't object to that per se, but some kid can get online and look that up, and that's not cool. Wikipedia is not porn, it's an online collection of knowledge, but pictures like that would give the impression that it's also porn. Otherwise open minded people would discourage their kids and family members from visiting Wikipedia simply because it has some pornographic material. This article describes oral sex perfectly fine and it does not need those pictures. For the sake of keeping Wikipedia a valued resource of knowledge, and for not giving the government an excuse to censor, remove the pictures. A little self-censorship won't hurt nobody, and it will allow people of all ages and sensibilities to enjoy the treasure trove of useful knowledge that is Wikiepdia.

Whoever wrote that last post- AMEN. I'm a father, and having seen this picture on Wikipedia, there is no way I would let them search this site, for school or otherwise, without me sitting there right next to them. The article and drawn images should absolutely be enough to fully explain oral sex. Why oh why do we need an explicit photograph to get the point across? Please, if anyone agrees with me, post a message so we can get a concensus! Reynoldsrapture 00:19, September 13, 2005 (UTC)

There is no such consensus. Hipocrite - «Talk» 05:20, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Conversely, there is no concensus that the image should stay. Nae'blis 15:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The solution, then, is to talk about without taking action untill we find a solution agreeable to all. The solution is not to violate WP:NOT. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't censor for the protection of minors, but I think it's clear the article is more useful without the picture inline. I think linking sex act images (as opposed to simple nudity) would be a good standard—unless Autofellatio is singularly offensive for reasons I can't imagine. Cool Hand Luke 16:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

How the article can be more useful by being less precisely illustrated is beyond me. Rama 20:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Hipocrite, I have no doubt that if 99 people came out against the picture and 1 person said it should stay, you would say the conversation needs to continue. There can be no iron clad concensus here, but it is evident to me that based on this section in the discussion, most would say the picture is not nessecary, even if they believe there is nothing inherently wrong with the pic itself. For this reason I believe the issue here goes beyond cencorship. We are not intending to censor this article, but to simply remove a picture that detracts from the article, and doen't add anything positive to it. Reynoldsrapture 19:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"a picture that detracts from the article" ? I was very much under the impression that the text and the photograph were matching quite well. Rama 20:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read and adhere to WP:AGF. Looking back ONLY AT THIS SECTION (if we go back, it's even more clear where the majority lands), I see the following individuals voicing their opinion:

Markaci - Keep

Hipocrite - Keep

Rama - Keep

Cool Hand Luke - Link

Nae'blis - Link

71.35.55.104 User has 1 contribution prior to this vote - Delete

Reynoldsrapture - Delete

brenneman - Delete brenneman^(t)(c)

Krakatoa - Keep (added by Krakatoa 14 Sept. 2005)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters - Keep, inline; but move to relevant section, and size to standard, not oversized. A similar cunnilingus photo would be helpful too, for visual/content balance.

Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:25, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I vote to keep the picture. Krakatoa 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh please. We all know that a handfull of militants will come and shout all over the place for the removal of the image, which will eventually stay by popular consensus after a long and boring dispute. This has happened N times in the past, and I wonder why we discuss this more than squaring a circle. Rama 20:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Calm and rational discourse

First, a few messages to individuals, feel free to ignore them:

• Reynoldsrapture - please don't use the royal "we". Please don't take offense, but you and I are not a "we".
• Hipocrite - please don't make this a vote. You know, the whole "not a democracy" thing?

Second, why is this debate so nasty and random? My point is a very simple one, and has nothing to do with "censorship" or "minors". What does the very large, very top of the page, very lovely I agree image add to the article? Or, more pointedly, how much does the article suffer if it is taken away? Can we stop with the rhetoric, and be clear and precise for a change?
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

This debate is nasty and random because one user failed to WP:AGF, and violated WP:NPA. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, Okay. I'll digress. This is a losing battle anyway. But, I pose this question, and I invite everyone who has commented to answers this: If the picture was removed, does the article suffer as a result? I believe Brenneman has a point here. No more talk about censorship, just answer this question. For the record, I say removing the blowjob pic doesn't take away from a good article. Reynoldsrapture 02:00, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, it takes away an image. Hoever, I can't imagine how linking the image can be equated with "censorship"; it removes nothing. Since there is not and never has been a consensus or even a super-majority, this really ought to be an open question. Cool Hand Luke 19:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I believe the article would be significantly worse if the photo was excluded. It would be slightly worse if the image were linked versus inlined. However, I do think the inline photo was sized larger than it should be visually, and makes more sense in the fellatio section than in the lead (I've fixed both minor issues). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm really liking Lulu's edit. Getting it off the 'top of the fold' avoids any objections I had to inlining the image. Nae'blis 18:15, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the article is best with the picture there. Where, exactly, may well be a good question. Elephant benefits from a picture of an elephant, why should this be different? Friday (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

In case there were any doubt, I'm in favor of keeping the image inlined too. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 20:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There was never any doubt! ^_^ But linking is good for me.
brenneman^(t)(c) 23:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Now that we have reached what I would call a rough consensus for Lulu's edit, the origional removal warrior has attempted to go around the back door and remove the image by questioning it's copyright status. This is negotiating in bad faith. The image on the page is the least graphic available, but if it's deleted and we have to replace with GFDL home-porn, I'm certain I can convince an adventurous friend or two, but I doubt that modern color photography with the facial identifying features cropped out would be nearly as informative or less graphic. I guess that's the tradeoff, though. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:42, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Charming; I've never witnessed negotiating in bad faith before! It's my first time *happy sigh*.

Looks like people are keeping an eye on the image, too. Nae'blis 15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

pictures

just take out the pictures, i think that a seriuos website like this doesn't need this kind of stuff, the curious ones can check pics at google. in other words: NACK IT OFF YOU PERVERTS.

Read through the talk page and you'll see it has nothing to do with perverts. Insults are quite uncalled for here. I will not explain the difference between porn and educative imagery to you as you could already have read through this page instead of writing wild accusations at its top! (btw: moved to bottom) So long Mütze 11:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

what's the name of making oral sex while driving a car?

I mean, a female sucking a man driving the car.

Is this an urban legend? Or there's some truth behind? I searched the article but found nothing.

It can be a man sucking a man too, but either way, it's known as "impatience" ;)

--User:Mdob

It occurs, if that's what you mean, but I don't know the name for it... nae'blis _(talk) 01:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

It's called "road head" I believe. -- Virgin

Virgin's right, it's "road head," but I'm not quite sure it's notable enough to be in here, as this is not Slang terms for fellatio. --Rory096 01:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Origin of the term 'blowjob'

In this article it says about this subject: "The term 'blowjob' stems from the Victorian era. Prostitutes were often referred to as "blowsy", as 'blow' was slang for ejaculation. 'Blowjob' describes the man's experience." I may have a different explanation. In Dutch the word for 'giving a blowjob' is 'pijpen'. This is a rather old word which was used in the past for playing a wind instrument like a flute. The dictionary still notes this meaning but it is not used for that meaning anymore. (now we use the word 'blazen' which means 'to blow' in stead) It seems obvious to me that the act of performing fellatio somewhat resembles the act of playing a flute, and how it is plausible that the latter could come to be a euphemism for the first. A euphemism nobody understands anymore because the original meaning of the word has been replaced by the meaning it used to be a euphemism for. Compared with the situation in the Dutch language, the verb 'to blow' in connection with performing fellatio in English seems to make sense. It's also an easier explanation. The usage of the same imagery in both the Dutch and English language could be explained through a common culture of sailors. A reference to a flute and also to a pipe can be found in the French article about fellatio 'fellation' too. --Vunzmstr 22:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

In German it's the same as "blow" in English, i.e. "blasen", meaning "to blow". Jeremy J. Shapiro 01:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Removal of image

I have removed Image:Fellatio1.jpg because I think it is inappropriate for the article. I personally have no problems with the image itself, but I think that it was inserted solely to provoke unnecessary debate. I also question the validity of the copyright release claim - see User talk:Solar.plexus. --Reflex Reaction 22:28, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

You're not the first to remove it, and people keep removing an image of a vulva that he/she keeps putting on the vagina page. I have also posted a message on his/her talk page asking him/her to discuss why he/she feels the need to go against what appears to be the wishes of most. --Craig 00:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

ive always believed censors are people with a lot of time... or just americans.

I believe I'll have another beer. :) --Craig (t|c) 05:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

smotherbox peer review

I'm having a peer review for smotherbox article. Please leave your comments and improvement suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Smotherbox/archive1. --Easyas12c 00:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Pop culture section

I think that oral sex has worked its way into pop culture enough that citing examples, and especially the ones that have been chosen, is both unnecessary and unrepresentative. Perhaps if we had a few well-known examples of pop culture references, that'd be OK. However, Playboy cartoons regularly talk about oral sex, so choosing a specific one seems weird, and "cunning linguist" is such a common phrase that quoting Bill Maher might even be confusing - why is his use notable? I think that a prose overview of pop culture's references to oral sex would be a better choice than this seemingly random list. - Bamos

I agree. When I first saw it I thought this section was weird and out of place. I mean, it's not as if oral sex was invented last week and it's so novel we have to cite instances of its mention in all of our favourite movies. I vote that the entire section be removed or, as you say, replaced with an objective prose-based look at the topic, if it's worthwhile. The only one that I think has any relevance would be the first one about George Carlin because of the relative notoriety of his Seven Dirty Words skit, but even that isn't enough to keep the section.

As for the preceding section on "Terminology and Slang" -- Jjshapiro has a project to remove this stuff to existing lists of slang, which is where it belongs, so I presume he'll be getting around to this article at some point.

--Craig (t|c) 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I see that a user from 144.53.251.2 eliminated all the slang tonight, and, in line with prior discussion, I'm glad to see it go. I haven't checked, however, to see if he/she moved it to "sexual slang". Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the anonymous user did the right thing and did it the right way. the article is more encyclopedic now.--Alhutch 18:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, this section is extremely bizzarre. Oral sex is everywhere in pop-culture, and this list doesn't indicate what makes any of the instances included significant. - Ncsaint 01:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed the section entirely, as there seemed to be a consensus about its pointlessness. -- Ncsaint 21:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I entirely support the removal. I do have one additional thought, though, not so much even with regard to this particular popular culture section as to a number of them I have seen, about what would in fact constitute a 'good' popular culture section. Most of the ones I've seen are rather like free associations, often representing individual editors' personal associations or just things that they like. But I could imagine that a historical discussion of how and when things were treated in popular culture could be a legitimate part of an encyclopedia article. For example, (I'm just making up the names and dates here, since I don't know the cultural history), "Throughout the late 19th century and early 20th century, no acknowledgement of even the existence of oral sex appeared in the arts or popular culture until Blankety Blank's 1923 novel "Down on the Blank", where it was mentioned obliquely. Only in Fwangety Fwang's poem "Pre-oedipal love", published in 1937, was oral sex mentioned with any of the slang words with which it is colloquially described. But it took until 1997, with the hit song "Cluck my Duck" by the rock group Melting Rivets for oral sex to be mentioned in any musical form." I'm not saying that we need to have such sections of Wikipedia articles -- and one would have to have fairly encyclopedic cultural novel to be able to write one -- but that it seems to me that this type of information would be legitimate and valuable information in a Wikipedia article. Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I could definitely see the sort of information you are talking about being interesting and relevant, but I don't see how, even if it were done properly, it would justify a 'popular culture' section. There are already sections (e.g. 'taboo') which speak to cultural attitudes about the practice. Early references from popular media could be effectively used in such sections as evidence of changing cultural views; a distinct section listing such references, however, seems excessive to me, even if it were improved from the current 'free assosciation' format. -- Ncsaint 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

POV dispute

Opinionated words (such as excellent) have been found on this page, being used to "advertise" engaging in this behavior. This is definitely POV, and may even be vandalism. Roy Al Blue 04:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

There's no need to throw around words like vandalism. If you don't like it, change it. --Prosfilaes 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)