Talk:Oral sex/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Girls and fellatio

Should someone add in the fellatio section that girls should really avoid using their teeth, but ESPECIALLY to drag teeth, to maximize pleasure for the majority of guys? I really think this would increase the functional education of this topic.

Orgasm through intercourse

I'm pretty certain that only around 30% of women can achieve orgasm through intercourse alone, so I changed that bit. See http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0014.html Chrisser 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Pre-ejaculatory fluid

The paragraph under the headline "Techniques" contains a large section about "pre-ejaculatory fluids". I found it to be mostly irrelevant to oral-sex. Does anyone else think it should be reduced to only mention the pre-ejaculatry fluids? (anon, may 17, 2006)

WHY ARE ALL THE PICTURES HOMOSEXUAL?

The first features two men then second again to men and the third two women, fair enough you may feel the need to include homosexuallity but does every picture need to be of gays?

Just because a picture is of two people of the same sex having sex doesn't mean it's a picture of "gays"; moreover, what difference does the sex of the giving partner make when illustrating oral sex? Would you be complaining if all of the pictures were of opposite-sex couples? Catamorphism 20:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

lol Im not complaining just htought it was odd. seeing as homosexuallity isn't the majority of the population also, I dont mind if you change it or not but its is an interesting co-incidence is it not?

It IS odd that the first and third pictures certainly depict same-sex participants, and the second one possibly does. Given the fact that homosexuals comprise only a small percentage of the population, it seems likely that the person who selected the pictures may have an agenda.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.108.95.179 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-29 04:17:17 (UTC)

There was a heterosexual picture that was removed by a bot yesterday.. -- nae'blis _(talk) 15:52, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Pfff, you know... if you're not happy with what is here, the answer is simple: provide your own ! Rama 15:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think what they've tried to do is have a gay male couple, a straight couple, then a gay female couple, to be fair. Plus to be honest who cares? It's not advertising sexualities, it's explaining the sex act.

It still is shocking! Seeing both homosexual partners having oral activities gives me something in the top chest and throat, something like a feeling of upcoming vomit, something deep and involontary. I mean in my case it's not a religious, nor cultural shock but more a physical reaction, a physiological reject actually that makes me unconfortable with this vision. In the opposite, seeing heterosexual partner doing the same, makes me euphorical and relaxed (execpt when the female partner is not seducing me -old/young/fat/ugly/etc-, so this should be more complex than just a hetero or homo vision, it must have some "compatibility unvolontary feeling" in it!). Am I the only one? This must have something to do with the eyes (nervous reaction) and the brain (stimulus interpretation). As the majority is heterosexual (AFAIK), I guess it would be fair to use heteresexual illustration instead. Let me know what do you think of it. The Young Grasshopper 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm unable to read the article because of these pictures! Really, this is no joke. The Young Grasshopper 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a simple way to resolve that:

If you wish to hide the images on this article, follow these steps:

• Go to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Mypage/monobook.css?action=edit
• Add #mi{display: none;}

That makes it possible for you to read it without the images. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh thanks Kim, this is very kind of you. The Young Grasshopper 03:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As for replacing the images, there is a long standing request for equally good images that illustrate the point, but all proposed alternatives have been of poorer quality, and untill someone makes a few really good images, it is going to stay as it is. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

--

I agree and I disagree. While it is obvious that there is no ulterior motive to having 2 unambiguously homosexual couples and one ambiguous couple, it nonetheless seems to imply that oral sex is confined to the homosexual community. We just need someone to make an unambiguously heterosexual couple sketch and the problem is solved. - Cuivienen 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This is awfully POV to make all of these illustrations homosexual. I suggest removal or replacement with something that doesn't have an agenda. --66.82.9.88 06:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I came to the talk page to mention this too. I don't have anything against gay people, but it seemed a very strange choice for the images. It DOES look like it's trying to make a statement. Would it be possible to have a person of ambiguous gender rather than obviously male/female (at least for the first two images)? Are the images even necessary?

- I have deleted the pictures in question. In deleting them, I noted that whoever p laced those pictures up, presumably catamorphism, deleted a picture described as Victorian fellatio for the reason that there was "no source." This pattern is consistent with Catamorphism's m.o.: she finds a wikipedia policy, and then bastardizes it to serve her agenda. Frankly, folks, I don't think we need a source to verify whether the event going on in a picture is fellatio. - Nathaniel

Then the one with two women should be removed too.

Thank you for your comments. It is incumbent upon me, however, to clarify that I don't agree that homosexuals ought to be rounded up and shot. I am largely indifferent to them, but definitely don't want them to experience violence or to be denied civil rights. I note this only in passing, however, as my actions in respect to this article are not a result of my personal feelings. Catamorphism, or whoever posted these pics initially, replaced a picture entitled "victorian fellatio" for the reason that there was no source. She then proceded to upload several pictures of homosexuals engaged in oral sex. The stated reason for deleting the initial pic is dubious, and provides a cover for Cat's true ambitions. We do not need a source to verify for us whether the act going on in a picture is fellatio, neither does adding the source contribute to the quality of the article. Catamorphism, or whoever posted the pics initially, posted them to invite support for the lifestyles the depictions support. That a slim majority of people in virtually any modern country engage in homosexual oral sex, coupled with the fact that homosexuality is a controversial issue should suggest that posting pictures of homosexual oral sex in the "oral sex" article is a loaded action showing blatant POV. Moreover, (but less importantly), it is guaranteed to repulse many of the readers of this article. Both of these assertions can be verified by reading the complaints of others above. My previous attempt to delete the pictures was reverted without comment. Additionally, my comments on this subject in the discussion page were deleted without comment as well. For any person contemplating reverting the changes, I would encourage you to read above to show where the preponderance of opinions lie. Sincerely, Nathaniel

Someone, again, replaced the image without discussion or reason given. I have removed the images, again. How are we to know what is the proper thing to be done if nobody states their justifications for their edits?

Sincerely, Nathaniel

Again, my edit was reverted without discussion or reason given. I noted in replacing my edit that this was the case, and said "see discussion." Additionally, let this record reflect that my comments as well as the comments of others have been deleted. My second-to-last post was in response to someone's comments about homosexuals, which, along with one of my comments, was deleted. Sincerely, Nathaniel

Catamorphism has reverted to previous images discussed above and provides this as a reason: "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_censored_for_the_protection_of_minors." As the protection of minors was never a motivation for my actions, it is apparent she has chosen to ignore the discussion of the images on this discussion page. This, in spite of my several requests to discuss the issue before reverting it. I should note that many of the posts to this discussion page supporting my position have been deleted, presumably beacuse they violate the wikipedia policy on "homophobia" or "personal attacks." Of course, the portions of the posts containing the questionable material could have been deleted instead of the whole thing. For the sake of posterity, I am replacing the nonoffensive portions of the last post deleted that was not mine: "Nicely said, Nathaniel. "Seeking to create approval for your lifestyle" is exactly what these people are doing. These people are clearly trying to sway other gullible and innocent people from tradition." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oral_sex&diff=40635555&oldid=40630316

I say again as I change my edits. If you desire to replace the images, please look above to the discussion that has taken place. Please post a wikipedia policy in support of your reversion, and please subject your opinion to peer review. Please note where the preponderance of the opinions lie above with respect to this issue. Sincerely, Nathaniel

Maybe try to be constructive. Removing images will not satisfy other editors, but replacing them with hetrosexual images of the same might do the job. (BTW, I am a lesbian, but I could care less whether it are two men, to women or heterosexual couples) --KimvdLinde 16:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you think Catamorphism was being constructive when she replaced a picture of heterosexual fellatio with the homnosexual ones under the pretense that no source was available for the first one? This action was seriously disengenuous. She is not engaging in this discussion---I am willing to bet she would delete any heterosexual picture I posted for the reason that it lacks a source.

Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.152.52 (talk • contribs)

I've been avoiding this discussion due to your repeated personal attacks, but I'm going to step in briefly to clarify that contrary to your assumptions, the cunnilingus image was uploaded on April 28, 2005, and the fellatio image was uploaded on on January 16, 2005, both by Rama. Though I will revert blanking and other vandalism in any articles that I watch, the decision to use these images in the article was made before my first contribution to Wikipedia, which was on June 30, 2005. Catamorphism 18:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to look at that picture, unfortenately it has been deleted, and as such, I can not check the source. I think most editors would have no issue with alternative good images to replace the current one, if you would provide them and when they do not violate copyright issues. At least I would notobject to that. But I will revert blanketing of the images as I think the images are instructive. --KimvdLinde 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was uncertain as to whether you added those images, as noted by my "presumably" above. I am glad that we are all in agreement on this, then. Although I am not really sure images are necessary, I will try to find images depicting heterosexual fellatio and cunnilingus as they remove the undesirable imposition of POV that the present images present(in the view of many of the poeople above). P.S. Don't let my so-called "personal attacks" get in the way of your addressing my arguments. My contention is that you have an agenda and that you selectively and sophisticly enforce wikipedia policies to accomplish your objectives. Information about you and your societal affiliations would certainly inform that discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.153.58 (talk • contribs)

There is extensive discussion on this talk page that supports the idea of including images in this article. Given that, removing content from Wikipedia is vandalism. This has nothing to do with your political agenda, or my political agenda. As you have seen, several other editors have reverted your removal of these images -- not just me -- and if you read the history of this article, you will see that many other editors, not just you, have tried to remove these images, and had their changes reverted as well. If you wish to find alternative images to replace the current ones, you may do so, as long as you follow the rules that govern uploading images to Wikipedia. Finally, given that you seem to be threatening to post personal information about me ("Information about you and your societal affiliations...") and that you followed me to this article from a different article to continue disruption, you may wish to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's harassment policy. If you continue to engage in vandalism and harassment, you may be blocked by an administrator (I am not an administrator). Since I would rather not see people blocked when not necessary, consider this an amicable warning. Catamorphism 22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel, is it save to say that you will leave the images as they are unless you can replace say two of the three for heterosexual versions of comparably quality and fullfilling the criteria on copyright (and expect discussion on both aspects from me). I do not see any reason for only heterosexual versions, and could be equally seen as POV as only homosexual images. And please, sign your posts here with --~~~~ as I have been digging through the archive which is very difficult to read because of the lacking signings. --KimvdLinde 01:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cat: I most certainly did not "follow you." Seemingly, we have overlapping areas of interest. Neither did I "threaten to post personal information" about you. How I discovered your information was by clicking on your name, and googling your nickname. The fact that you belonged to an organization with "queer" in the title, and that you denied your gender seemed relevant to whether you might bring some agenda to the "Effects on Heterosexual Relationships" section of the Feminism page. Similarly, this information seems relevant to your present support for retaining the images in question. It is you who is guilty of personal attacks, repeatedly chastising my approach without addressing the merits of my arguments.

I would like some substantiation for what you imply to be a policy of wikipedia: that when images are removed under any circumstances, it is an act of vandalism. If this were true, an uploaded image that violated wikipedia policies could never be deleted but could only be replaced.

The contention that the presence of these images is not POV is ridiculous. Without passing judgment on the value of homosexual behavior, I will say it is a taboo in most societies. Would posting an image depicting something objectionable to most of the article viewers and society generally suggest a bias on the part of the poster when it replaced a picture that was not objectionable? (Bear in mind that visual depictions of oral sex are probably not objectionable in themselves, as they navigated towards a page called "oral sex.")

Your use of wikipedia policies to support your POV is insincere. While I understand the policy against copyright infringement, if indeed "victorian fellatio.jpg" was taken during the victorian period, the copyright would have long since lapsed.

If given the choice to have an image depicting oral sex that elicits disgust from the majority of an article's viewers, or an image that does not have this effect, which would you choose? Certainly, many people have demonstrated their revulsion for the images by mentioning it here. Several of these posts were deleted, however, because they overtly stated a disdain for homosexuality. The fact that the opposing point of view here is represented covertly in a non-objectionable way does not make the motivations of these posters any less transparent: they seek to make something on the fringe more mainstream, and it is definitely a controversial, unpopular point of view. Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.152.65 (talk • contribs)

I have read the discussion about the images accompanying the article and find Nathaniel's comments risible. The notion that heterosexual readers will come to the page, see same-sex couples engaged in fellatio and deduce that heterosexuals do not practise oral sex, is ludicrous and suggests insecurity in Nathaniel's views on heterosexuality. If that's your concern, why not add something to the text stating that homosexual and heterosexual people practice oral sex? The pictures are perfectly illustrative and there is nothing that would be added by changing or removing them. Nor would adding more pictures of the same thing provide any more information, which is what an encyclopedia is for. Leave the pictures, and go get some for real. Dubbin 12:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand my arguments. I certainly do not contend that homosexuals don't practice oral sex. I am replacing the image I replaced... The poster of the original pics said, "if you don't like them, post some others." (Above). I don't think I'll deign to respond to your request that I "go get some for real." Everyone here seems to be in agreement that new pics could be posted. Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.152.19 (talk • contribs)

stop replacing the images! no one is in agreement that the kind of images you're providing is satisfactory. I'd prefer you'd showed them here first. --tasc 19:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Nathaniel, do not twist words. I think the general consensus is here that nobody objects against a heterosexual image, but only when it is equally good. Your image is not. --KimvdLinde 01:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think all images should be removed until this dispute is resolved. Personally, I'd like to see all the homosexual images, which were doubtlessly planted with subversive intent, gone. Uploading them was just in bad taste, and I'm surprised they lasted this long. There is no reason for them to be there, or to have replaced the previous images. 156.34.219.173 04:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, i don't think we should discriminate. homosexuals are people too. they have oral sex just like anyone else. If you'd like to go ahead and find or draw a better picture of oral sex than the ones we have now, go right ahead.--Alhutch 05:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

WHo cares, Gays and Lesbians are people too chill out dudeHP465 14:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely hilarious! Now all the images depict homosexuals. I think Cat and all other users with passive-aggressive inclinations who keep trying to use this page as a launchpad for some POV statements should just drop it. Nathaniel is entirely correct when he states that the majority of wikipedia users do not want to see that and should not have to either. The images would be better suited on a page exclusively about homosexual intercourse, so that whoever does have an interest in them can see them. The "why not add something to replace them" clause is becoming a bit tiresome too. The images should be removed until something better is found, not when it is. If the images are inadequate, why keep them up? If they're not inadequate, why wait until something better is found to remove them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.202.244.177 (talk • contribs)

This discussion thread has become severely bloated, but has anyone noticed how the gay wikipedia users are the only ones who keep vehemently pushing for the gay images in any way possible, whether by re-uploading them all the time or deleting any images depicting heterosexuality? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HeavyMetalManiac (talk • contribs)

I'm not gay. Catamorphism 07:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As indicated, there is no objection against hetrosexual images, bring them on to this talk page and if they are as illustrative, lets change them. It is that the people who object against them can not come with something equally good. --KimvdLinde 03:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Any alleged ulterior motives for the original selection of the images is irrelevant, and suggestions about the sexual orientation of Wikipedia users is also irrelevant (ad hominem). There is no basis for the "majority of Wikipedia users" claim. "If the images are inadequate, why keep them up? If they're not inadequate, why wait until something better is found to remove them?" is incoherent -- the images are not inadequate, and allowing for eventual replacement is merely catering to the whims of those who don't like that they depict homosexuals. The gender issue is not relevant to the article itself, so it should not be considered unless an alternative is available that is of as good (or better) quality as the present pictures. 82.103.215.147 21:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Kim, Cat, there is a consensus of reasonable people who believe the removal or replacement of the present pictures is important and significant. The reasons for replacement of the original picture were purely pretextual, and the continued presence of the homosexual pictures is a testimony to how special interests twist wikipedia policies to inject their fringe POV. When reasonable people object to your injection of POV, you take it as some sort of civil rights crusade. Nobody is trying to opporess homosexuals here. I even tried to play your ballgame by posting an alternative picture of fellatio that would not present the POV problems. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Billed7.jpg This was replaced because it wasn't graphic enough. We are not creating a how-to article here. I'm sure you would have replaced whatever image I found with another pretextual reason. KimvdLinde and Catamorphism will probably win, and the images will remain. But let us all stop and marvel at what a terrible job they are doing as wikipedians. Sincerely, Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.64.6 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for your insunuations and personal attacks. --KimvdLinde 05:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I have described your actions and the motivations for your actions. That seems like fair game. Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.175.64.6 (talk • contribs)

No, you have severly misrepresented them. --KimvdLinde 14:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is fair to say that the first image shown on the page is not an accurate image of what the majority of people imagine when asked about oral sex. I think it is a misleading and inappropriate picture regardless of sexuality because regardless of a person's sexual orientation the majority of oral sex is hetrosexual and thus should be depicted accordingly. Having homosexual pictures is ok but it is wrong to attribute oral sex to homosexual by having the first picture shown being between two men. Darkchun 07:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Repeat, come to this talk page with a equally good heterosexual image, and if that is a good image, lets replace it when there is consensus. --KimvdLinde 14:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So.. are you saying that, even though many people do recognize that the current images are unacceptable, that they will remain? Please post some wikipedia policy in support of your contention that an inappropriate image will remain until a "suitable" replacement is found. I attempted to post an alternative image. Frankly, though, you are trying to shift the burden of persuasion away from yourself. If the majority of users agree that these images are violative of the wikipedia spirit of NPOV, they should be removed. Then, you should bear the burden of finding a suitable replacement.

Sincerely,

Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regionalsimp (talk • contribs)

In general, things are not just changed because a few people want it some way, build consensus first is the general rule before changing things. As for now, you have not reached that. I think many people find the current one acceptable, but do not object to change them for an equal good heterosexual image after being proposed here at the talk page and after reaching consensus that it is indeed a good replacement. --KimvdLinde 19:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

What compels you to agree to an "equally good heterosexual image?" Is it your acknowledgment that there is widespread dissatisfaction with the present images?

Sincerely,

Nathaniel—Preceding unsigned comment added by Regionalsimp (talk • contribs)

The reason that I agree with potentially replacing the image for an equally good one is that some people, such a yourself, have an issue with three homosexual images on the page. The widespread dissatisfaction is your impression, not mine. --KimvdLinde 20:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

So, in recognizing the undesirability of the present images as voiced by several of the posters above (and some who have been deleted), are you saying the only legitimate response is replacement of the image with an "equally good" one?

I am not recognizing the undesirability of the present images, I recognize that some people are of the opinion that the images are undesirable because they depict all three samesex couples. In my opinion, the images are suitable, but I am willing to replace two of the three images for non-samesex couple images in accomodating their feelings. But I am not willing to delete them. In that context, Wikipedia is not censored. If you do not like that, read the Content disclaimer. --KimvdLinde 23:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Assume, arguendo, that my contention that the articles possess POV and should be deleted is correct. Is deletion not a legitimate response to the inadequacy of these images? If your logic were followed to its logical conclusion, an unsuitable image uploaded would remain until a replacement image satisfactory to all replaced it. (Example: For the primary picture of Allah in an article on Islam, a drawing of the prophet with a bomb in his turbin would have to remain and could not be deleted unless an image of allah satisfactory to everyone could replace it.) Indeed, several people have question whether there is a need for any images at all.

You deem the images POV, I am not, and many other editors are not. As such, the argument is not applicable to the current discussion. --KimvdLinde 23:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The question is definitely applicable. We will sort out where the support lies after we discuss the proposed action. I am asking you simply and directly in my paragraph above whether images that most people found unsuitable would have to remain until replacements deemed "suitable" by everyone existed. Please answer me that. The way you carry on in this discussion suggests that your answer to this question is "yes, irrespective of the appropriateness of an image, it must remain and cannot be removed unless an image suitable to everyone replaces it."

Sincerely, Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regionalsimp (talk • contribs)

First of all, if we would remove everything from WP that someone could be offended by, Wikipedia would be very empty. In that case, I would veto everything christian, everything conservative, meat, dogs, and a bunch of other things. And I am pretty sure, the combined veto list would be extemely long, leaving limited room for full agrement articles. In that context, read WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not censored. I am really strong on not sensoring as I believe that sensoring leads to oppression. So, working by the idea that someone is offended by it, does not make it a better encyclopedia. In that context, see also Wikipedia:Pornography for some more discussion on this kind of images. In general that are much more graphical images, and in some cases, I agree that they should be deleted from Wikipedia. However, the drawings at this page are very decent compared by those photographs discussed there. And the by you suggested answer is incorrect, as you link two different questions together. First is whether the image is inappropriate, the second is whether an inappropriate image should remain. The second is only relavant if the first question is answered positively, and I answer that wuestion negatively. So, the second is not even relavant for this answer. I think all three images are appropriate. And as indicated several times before, I have no objection against replacing two-out-of-three images with an opposite-sex couple of equal illustrative quality after that image has been discussed here at the talk page. --KimvdLinde 07:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, while you have rejected my proposed image as not being graphic or instructive enough, it addresses the concerns of all of the people who found the present image undesirable. In rejecting my proposed image, you have noted why you found them undesirable. But you have not explained how the proposed image's "lack of informativeness" is somehow more important and so should outweigh the interest of removing the POV present in the current images. Before I posted the image, you never expressed a desire that the image be informative, graphic, or instructive. Why should your desire that the image be instructive, graphic, or informative trump the expressed concerns of many over the POV present in the current images?

Sincerely, Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regionalsimp (talk • contribs)

It is your contention that the images are POV, I do not agree with that. As indicated above, I am willing to accomodate the feelings of some people by REPLACING some of the images, not by deleteing. Whether I have expressed certain feelings in an earlier stage is irrelavant, because not expressing them could be because the question did not come up.

An encyclopedia is to provide information about topics, and as such, an image can be a very good way of clarifying the topic. As such, "lack of informativeness" is a crucial aspect of judging an image. In my opinion, that is more important than the objections of some members who could equally well NOT look at those pages. There is not requirement for you to look at the pages, and if you are really offended by such material, you can actually set your browser to NOT show images at all. So, the benefit for some people, who are not obliged to look at the article, of removing the image, versus the lack of information to other people who are looking for good information results in keeping good illustrative images in the article.

BTW, as you start mediating in other cases, it would be a good habit to sign your contributions to the talk pages with --~~~~. --KimvdLinde 23:43, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted." What are the conflicting views here, and how are they presented unfairly or asserted? Instead of removing something, what would have to be added to achieve balance? I don't see how (N)POV applies here at all, at least wrt the subject matter of the article. Surely informativeness of the pictures, which IS relevant to the subject, is more important in any case. 82.103.215.147 21:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey, why don't we just work out a compromise. You express some desire that at least one of the three pictures remains homosexual. Considering I have proposed an alternative for only one of the three images, and it would probably reduce considerably the amount of people coming to the talk page to voice their opinions on the matter, why don't we just keep that picture? We can all drop this, and we will all walk away with something. Regionalsimp 06:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I offered already a very decent compromise dealing with you main concern, nameliy that the three images are of same-sex couples. Now you propose to reduce the illustrative quality of one of the images, and I do not agree with that. --KimvdLinde 07:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a wonderful compromise. How magnanimous you are. Perhaps, when you start mediating in other cases, all other wikipedians will realize what value you can add to the discussion by quickly resolving disputes, as you have so wonderfully done here. --24.175.64.6

Please just change the pictures!!! Wikipedia is enjoyed by all ages and imagine a curious 12 year old or younger surfing in and seeing the pics. We have enough homos around, try not to twist the children's mind please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.248.94.239 (talk • contribs)

Again, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors... --Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 06:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless these pictures are deemed appropriate for the article by the majority of people seeking to constructively edit this page, then it can be assumed that these pictures are in fact placed in this article as part of some agenda, and not for the sake of depicting oral sex. While the nature of homosexuality's acceptability is not of issue here, it is its occurenece that is. It is much more common for two heterosexual people to practice oral sex than for two homosexual people, being that it is an incontrovertible fact that there are more heterosexual people in the world. Therefore, the pictures on this page should seek to appeal to the interest of the majority of people reading the page, who statistically would be heterosexuals. Otherwise, the motives are very obvious. Seriously, double talking and symantics aside, its obvious that these homosexual pictures serve an agenda. Everyone here sees throguh the bullshit and knows the game that is being played.--68.192.92.58 20:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we see through that game. KimvdLinde 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I insist that it violates NPOV to include only homosexual pictures in this article. In addition, it disenfranchises heterosexuals by removing references to them. I demand EQUAL RIGHTS for heterosexuals!!! You may try to hide us from the Wikipedia conscience, but you can't hide an idea forever!!! Ignorance is not bliss!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.44.227 (talk • contribs)

I'm happy to include one or more GFDL image of homosexual oral sex so long as it is a line drawing in similar style to those we already have. If you know of any, or if you are skilled enough to draw a good one, then please provide it. I see no reason homosexual images should not be included. As for the text, it seems to already cover both hetero-and-homo-sexual oral sex. If important informaiton about either is missing, please feel free to add it or make specific recommendations. Johntex\^talk 22:02, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand what all the fuss is about, as this is actually quite simple. First, the fact that the images are ALL homosexual (yes, they are ALL homosexual) is clearly pushing POV. There is no doubt that homosexuals are a minority. Second, pictures are not NECESSARY to the article. Heterosexual drawings would be more acceptable since they would not necessarily be pushing POV, considering the vast majority of human beings are heterosexual... but even heterosexual images would not be necessary. Wikipedia cannot maintain NPOV if it fuels one side of a controversy. --Mcmachete 22:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

How do you know they're homosexual? I mean, I agree that the person sucking on the penis is drawn to resemble a dude, but how do you know that the person attached to the penis is a dude!? You can't even see their face! Ewlyahoocom 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewlyahoocom has given an illogical argument, male is characterised in humans as having a penis. This picture is showing the most common situation and the most common situation is NOT a female with a penis!! --Greataff 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Is it possible to have some sort of referendum on whether the homosexual pictures stay or not?--128.235.249.80 13:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, it works by consensus WITHIN the general rules, policies and guidelines, and wikipedia is not censored. The consensus is that the images are illustrative, and usefull, but also that if someone can provide an equally illustrative images with a woman doing the blow job, it can be replaced after discussion at this talk page. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite aside from the sexual orientation issue, the first two drawings are TERRIBLE. They look like they're done by a 4-year-old. The 4th one is marginally better, but still not good enough. Crappy, crude sketches do not belong in an encyclopedia. 68.60.201.35 13:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, these pictures are tasteful considering the nature of it. Yanksox 02:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Enhancement

I just moved here the latest "enhancement", i.e. the following:

"The pleasure of cunnilingus for women may be greatly enhanced by simultaneously stimulating the g-spot with either finger[s] or a dildo. Similarly, fellatio can be enhanced by the simultaneous stimulation of the prostate (either externally or internally) and/or testicles."

My reason is that the article about oral sex is not supposed to be a general sex guide but an article about oral sex. While previous enhancements are specifically about the oral part of oral sex, and therefore seem related to the article topic, the latest two, about stimulating the g-spot and prostate or testicles, seem about the general increase in sexual pleasure, not about oral sex. For some people, having their toes rubbed while receiving oral sex might also lead to a general increase in sexual pleasure -- but rubbing toes wouldn't therefore count as part of oral sex. Other opinions? Jeremy J. Shapiro 10:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

======================================

To the person who wrote this:

"How do you know they're homosexual? I mean, I agree that the person sucking on the penis is drawn to resemble a dude, but how do you know that the person attached to the penis is a dude!? You can't even see their face! Ewlyahoocom 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Ewlyahoocom has given an illogical argument, male is characterised in humans as having a penis. This picture is showing the most common situation and the most common situation is NOT a female with a penis!!--Greataff 14:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you forget that most people who have penises are men? Anything else is rare. How can you come to this conclusion?

Discomfort with interesting but subjective generalizations without sources

The article now contains the following statements: "Today performing/giving and receiving/getting oral sex are both considered both active and passive. Homosexual men seem to consider performing oral sex active, while women seem often to be treated as the passive partner when doing so. It is common for women of all sexualities to accept oral sex from other homosexual women."

I feel quite nervous with such statements that seem highly subjective and hard to document and perhaps expressive of particular personal or subcultural experiences. Other opinions? Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It does seem quite bold. I would recommend moving the part here on the talk page until it can be nuanced and referenced. Rama 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It is common for women of all sexualities to accept oral sex from other homosexual women.

Where did that come from? Could the author resource that? Women of all sexualities seems a total contradiction. Yes, it is difficult to resource and documented, but it does need to be, yes.--Dakota ^{t e} 20:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

moved statement here: "Today performing/giving and receiving/getting oral sex are both considered both active and passive. Homosexual men seem to consider performing oral sex active, while women seem often to be treated as the passive partner when doing so." Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm crying I'm laughing so hard. Where do you guys come up with some of the stuff that you put in here? Completely subjective without any valid references!

I bet that one of the things that happens with the sex articles (as in many other departments of life) is that people read an article that they're personally interested in, then notice that they have had some personal experience that is omitted from or neglected by the article, and then they go and generalize from their personal experience, or that of their personal circle of friends, to the whole population. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that's exactly what happens. It makes for horrible encyclopedia articles. Hell, it doesn't even make very good "how-to" articles. Benami 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

collective terms vs. specific

Is all of the irrumation or teabagging or cunnilingus really necessary? Can't we just say "oral sex" where it applies equally to all major variants? I'd make a bold change, but this page gets reverted all the time; I thought I'd ask here first. nae'blis _(talk) 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

43wz

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia and NOT a pornography site. Have you think that childs can see it? the obscene images will be moved.

See the official policy, Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. If you keep reverting pages, you will be blocked under WP:3RR. Catamorphism 20:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

i find it rather funny how people think that kids will eventually bump into this page just by accident, truth is, if that would ever happend it would be because they would be looking for blowjob on wikipedia. Safe to say, the photo (that was removed by someone who thought he "knew-best")was not necesarely pornographic in my opinnion. If a kid comes by this page, i seriously doubt he'd be 6 years old, i seriously doubt that he would be 10 years or 12... well maybe 13. If the kid comes to wikipedia to ask for what a blowjob is, then i really think the parents have done something wrong there, if the parents dont have it in them to answer whatever questions they may have on sexuality. Curiosity, masturbation, lack of self control, all these things come with the age, to censor them or to keep them as a taboo subject will do more harm in the end than anything else.

"I find it rather funny how people think that kids will eventually bump into this page just by accident, truth is, if that would ever happend it would be because they would be looking for blowjob on Wikipedia."

Ah, yet another person who hasn't seen the large "Ramdom article" link on the front page of this site!

TRiG 00:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

tongue piercing

is it true that oral sex with a tongue piercing is much more pleasureable than regular oral sex?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilove*** (talk • contribs) 2006-02-12 00:53:46.

... Have you tried Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science?

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you do, be sure to get the same folks who did the egg-balancing. Ask by name. They're amazingly helpful.

Adrian~enwiki (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed new "Fellatio" image is not an improvement

File:Billed7.jpg

Fellatio drawn by Signe Hermanns

The replacement image for "Fellatio" that was added to this article by User:68.90.225.119 seems to be much worse than the original image. The drawing shows two people who, it can be reasonably guessed, are engaging in fellatio. However, it is impossible to see either a penis or a mouth. The whole point of having an image in this article is to illustrate what fellatio is. IMO, if we're going to have an image like this, we might as well just not have an image at all. Surely, actually illustrating the subject that the article is about should be more important than "eradicating POV" (even if you believe that including an image of a same-sex couple constitutes POV, which I don't.) Opinions? Catamorphism 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, this is only a suggestion of fellatio. I would prefer that the user who changed it would discuss it here first. --KimvdLinde 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The user who changed it appears to be the same anonymous user who signs his posts on this talk page with "Nathaniel" (based on looking at the user contribs page for User:68.90.225.119. Catamorphism 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

See under header giving head: Nathaniel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.225.119 (talk • contribs) . --KimvdLinde 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to to more instructive image, and brought the new opne here for discussion. --KimvdLinde 06:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I actually think this is a nice image. It's clearly heterosexual, which would introduce a bit more sexual diversity to the images on the page. And, really, it's an elegant depiction of the act, and there's no doubt what they're up to. I'd like to put it in. Babajobu 02:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

It more implies fellatio than shows it. For an encyclopedia, I don't think this really helps anything. If we're going to have an image of fellatio, we're going to want to actually depict it happening.--Alhutch 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is a very elegant image, and adding it (not repalcing the other image) might be a good idea! --KimvdLinde 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the drawing depicts the interpersonal mechanics that go into performing this particularly elegant permutation of the oral sex act. It is instructive in that respect. Also, it shows that enjoyment of oral sex is not exclusively a homosexual act engaged in by Caucasians, which a reader might otherwise suspect without this image in the article. The other images provide more detail, but this demonstrates another ethnosexual context in which oral sex can occur. Plus, it's a wonderful drawing. Babajobu 02:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful drawing? This picture blows chunks and was likely taken from the DeviantArt page of the user who posted it as an attempt to get an ego boost. In fact, all of the pictures currently on the page are either offensive or just bad. I'm certain that they can be replaced with much better images that are more informative and generalized.156.34.220.69 00:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, be constuctive and come to the talk page with such a wonderfull alternative... --KimvdLinde 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This musculature of the bodies in this drawing are beautifully rendered & in that respect it's well done. What is unsuccessful, IMO, is the position their bodies are in, specifically hers. I state sincerely that my first thought was not one of oral sex, because there is a sterility to the image & fails to adequately illustrate this topic. To my eye she could very easily be looking for crabs or braiding/trimming his pubic region, or looking at a scar. He is watching her intently, but is it in passion or out of fear of being knicked by scissors? Even now I'm wondering why he's holding her head. wbm 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Are you naive or joking? He's pushing her head in. Saccerzd 18:21, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, very aestaticaly pleasing, especially the girl (yes, I am a lesbian). I would favour the reinsertion of that images next to the more illustrative present version. But not as a replacement of that current image. Are there editors who object against that?--KimvdLinde 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Who would have thought that with an Internet chocked full of porn, we'd have so much trouble finding images to illustrate this article? Raul654 01:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I'm sure that's meant sarcastically, I'll just say that porn generally doesn't show sex in a realistic or instructional way :-) Catamorphism 02:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I would say, it is so difficult because so many are porn. I think what we look here for is things that are not porn so much, but illustrative. --KimvdLinde 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

How clever of you! You have resumed the conversation on this topic in an area where the reasons for its posting are absent. Good thing I noticed it. The image was posted in response to the discussion at the top of the page. It was an attempt to do as Kim suggested, "Maybe try to be constructive. Removing images will not satisfy other editors, but replacing them with hetrosexual images of the same might do the job." Is the prohibition against original research applicable to the uploading of drawings? I say this because the illustrator of the present homosexual pictures was also the person who uploaded them. Sincerely, Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regionalsimp (talk • contribs)

Yes, you inserted an image that is not the same. No, those images are artwork, not original research. --KimvdLinde 15:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection request

I've requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that this page be semi-protected. I'm getting tired of seeing the same nonconstructive edits from anonymous users over and over, and I'm sure everyone else is too. Catamorphism 05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am affraid that the admins are not going to do it as it is less than about 10 times a day, which is kind of the criterion for sprotect :-( --KimvdLinde 07:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we got lucky :-) Catamorphism 08:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Does the fact that the people making the edits are "anonymous" have anything to do with the merits of their edits? It appears to me that I and others have posted reasons for the edits, whereas you and several others have not. Sincerely, Nathaniel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Regionalsimp (talk • contribs)

I think this page will very quickly go to full protect if the vandalism resumes by users unaffected by the semi-protect. Furthermore, we have extensively given arguments. --KimvdLinde 15:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Irrumatio?

I have a hard time believing that this term is really used outside of a select group of dirty-minded classicists, of which I am a member. (Huh, huh. I said member.) It clearly comes from Catullus 16, the first line of which reads, "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo," or "I'm going to fuck you in the ass and make you suck my dick." I flagged this as non-verified, because I've never heard anyone but fellow Latin scholars use the word, and when they say it, it's irrumation or "irrumate," not irrumatio. The text right now reads:

"Irrumatio is similar to fellatio, but involves the penis actively penetrating the mouth as a passive orifice, making the involvement of the person thus penetrated a passive one, with little control over the proceedings."

Anyone with a dick in their mouth who is still in possession of at least some teeth that can tear flesh is still in control, barring something like a gun to the head or a knife to the throat. The text, as is, is ludicrous. In the poem by Catullus, irrumabo is generally understood by translators to imply physical threat. The text suggests that a man who is receiving oral and is thrusting his pelvis involuntarily, as occasionally happens, has changed the act from passive to active, and that just doesn't ring true to me. Active and passive roles in sex are assigned according to cultural mores. I'm tired of seeing articles like this on Wikipedia that are clearly part of a feminist, gay, liberal agenda. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes a knob shine is just a blow job. Fellatio isn't a political statement, and it's text like this that makes me think that someone wants it to be.

People who don't know Latin should stick to calling it "skull fucking" instead of "irrumation." "Skull fucking" is more graphic, its meaning is widely known, and it's in English. Its meaning differs slightly from irrumation, though, in that skull fucking is often used to describe particularly vigorous fellatio from the perspective of the fellated.

By the way, that picture up top of a guy sucking off another guy got me a little nauseated, not that there's anything wrong with that. BrianGCrawfordMA 03:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the discussion of "irrumatio" (I've also only heard classic majors talking about this term), but attributing what is probably the result of sloppy research to THE EVIL GAY AGENDAX0RZ sounds pretty paranoid.

I'm a vegetarian, so the images that appear on the Steak article make me feel pretty nauseated. I'm not complaining about them there, though, nor do I think that anyone should feel obligated to care if I did complain. Catamorphism 07:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

When you visit the Steak article, you do so with the expectation that you will probably see images of steak. When you visit a page on oral sex, you do not expect to be immediately confronted with a depiction of a guy sucking off another guy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.220.165 (talk • contribs)

That seems about as silly as saying "when I visit Steak, I expect that I will see a picture of a steak sandwich such that I can see a bun and lettuce, but no meat; I don't expect to be immediately confronted with a depiction of a huge hunk of beef." Catamorphism 22:09, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is exactly that you are trying to say here. Are you implying that just as an image of a big hunk of beef is a more "true" representation of a steak than one covered by a bun and lettuce, so too is an image of homosexual oral sex more true to what oral sex really is? I have never heard of a steak that is covered in lettuce and a bun either; a steak is just a slab of grilled meat. You don't go to the steak page expecting to see a hamburger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.220.165 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps your culture's cuisine does not include steak sandwiches; that's just as well. Neither an image of oral sex between two men (sex acts are not "homosexual", by the way; people are homosexual), nor an image of oral sex between a man and a woman, nor an image of oral sex between two women is a more "true" representation of oral sex than any of the other possible representations. When one is expecting to see an image of oral sex, there is no reason to think that the image is going to fall into any one of those three categories; one should expect to see an image from one of those categories (ignoring the question of people with a non-standard gender or sex, for the sake of argument). You seem to be arguing that oral sex between an opposite-sex couple is the "true" representation of oral sex, and that in the absence of other information, a reasonable person would expect that an image of oral sex would show an opposite-sex couple. I'm arguing that there is no "true" representation. Catamorphism 02:49, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about steak or vegetarian rights or anything else other than 1) the bit on irrumation was wrong, and 2) seeing a picture of a man sucking another man's penis is something I personally find disgusting. I'm not going to go removing any pictures, so there's no reason to go engaging in "discourse" or "consciousness raising." You're not going to change my mind, and if you don't like the little bit of opinion I added, just ignore it. I'm not in college anymore, so I'm not obligated to be politically correct, conform to a speech code, or justify or hide my opinions. I'm not telling you what kinds of genitalia or food products to put in your mouth or not put in your mouth, so don't tell me what is and is not disgusting. As far as definitions go, any coupling of mouth and genitals is oral sex, and I'm not going to go deleting stuff that is factually true just because I don't find it aesthetically pleasing. Brian G. Crawford 19:19, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My original point was just that while you may be disgusted by oral sex and I may be disgusted by meat, neither of us ought to feel entitled to have an audience for that on a Wikipedia talk page. It's just not the right forum for that sort of thing. We're trying to write an encyclopedia; hopefully people can put their personal tastes aside. You come across as very defensive and seem very bitter about your college experience; I'm sorry to hear that, but I'm quite sure I didn't go to college with you, so I didn't really have anything to do with that. Catamorphism 20:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a bully old time at Dear Old Dartmouth, where I quaffed many a pint of ale, but that's really beside the point. Also beside the point is a picture of steak on a page about steak. Is this the talk page for Steak? Is this the page for the Red herring or the Chewbacca Defense? No. This is the page for oral sex, where the first illustration is of what appears to be a male sucking a penis. Lots of people seem to object to this picture, otherwise it wouldn't get erased so often. I don't like it either. I guess I'll just have to find a better picture and post it further up in the article. (Isn't that what strippers and digital cameras are for?) As far as my personal tastes go, they haven't influenced this article at all, although I will be changing the bit about oral sex in Ancient Rome and Greece as soon as I feel like it, because it's not correct, something I've addressed below. If you don't want a heterosexual classicist working on an article that you've apparently invested a lot of time in, go recruit someone else. As far as things go now, the only thing we disagree on is the appropriateness of a man fellating another man as the leading image for this article, and judging by the edits and other comments, I'm not alone, but fear not, I'm a descriptivist when I write the Wiki. While I'm at it, there are a lot of things that bug me besides man-on-man action, like eye surgery, carnies, serious birth defects, pro-wrestling, and Steely Dan. In fact, I'm probably more grossed out by eye surgery and serious birth defects than by explicit man-love, even though I can draw a blood sample without any discomfort. That's why I've contributed to Venipuncture and avoided Eye surgery. I'm really rather diverse in my pet peeves. Come to think of it, if it weren't for the fact that I don't like the pictures, I probably wouldn't even bother with this article, but I feel that it has offended my sensibilities, and now I must watch it carefully and correct it where I can. Brian G. Crawford 23:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, several people have searched for an equally good image of an woman doing a fellatio, but until one has been found, this at least illustrates the point. I am not a fan of penisses regardless, but hell, almost half the world has one.... :-) --KimvdLinde 23:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't want to look at some other guy's erect penis, either. That's probably part of my objection. Brian G. Crawford 02:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it funny how heterosexual men and lesbian women come together..... :-) KimvdLinde 02:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-01_ORal_Sex

Nathanial has filed a request for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-01_ORal_Sex --KimvdLinde 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

compromise?

It involves some redundancy, but why not depict all examples of oral sex with both heterosexual and homosexual participants? Would not any resulting agendas regarding political/ethical appropriateness then be transparent?

IMO, it's the path of least resistance, tho I can understand if the powers that be argue against this suggestion in that dual images involve redundant depictions of each act. My argument against it being an example undue redundancy is that articles about religion (ie. God) go to great lengths to be inclusive of all faiths. Or perhaps this logic is flawed?

I also note that Deity contains no images, merely links to other pages containing images. Why is 'linking-but-imageless' not an acceptable alternative? Certainly there are images of oral sex elsewhere on the www ;)

Or, if images are deemed absolutely necessary, perhaps they'd be better placed on Human sexual behavior (with linking from this page) , where heterosexuality & homosexuality 'should' be able to be discussed without repercussion (or am I naive?).wbm 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The major discussion is not whether there should be images (although I have the feeling the discussion is going that way somewhat), but if it would be nicer to have some images for heterosexual couples (actually, the maker of the images has drawn mainly heterosexual images and accidently, the three about oral sex contain homosexual couples). As I, and I have not heard any objections from the other editors who want to keep the images, have indicated above, replacement of two of the three images by an equal good alternative is not an problem. I think that removing the images altogether is not a good idea. First of all, try searching google images for an illustrative image on fellatio (I have done so in order to accomodate the feelings of the objectors here) WARNING: PORNOGRAPHIC (when you have your safe mode off). Compared to that, the current images are really mild, non-pornographic and illustrative. Furthermore, pointing at different pages is just shifting the problem as the same objections can be made for that page. I think the solution is not difficult, provide an equal good image to this talk page that is as illustrative as the current ones, and if good, we replace it. And if it is a consensus change, I am the first to defend it. --KimvdLinde 23:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"why not depict all examples of oral sex with both heterosexual and homosexual participants?" - I'm completely in favor of this! If someone can find a good, illustrative image with opposite-sex participants (let's not refer to people in images as "heterosexual" or "homosexual", since people in any image may be bisexual too), they should feel free to insert it into the article along with the existing images. However, it does not seem that people who are objecting to the same-sex images are interested in doing this. The one image that one anonymous editor managed to find and add to the article did not actually illustrate oral sex. It seems that the people who are objecting to the images are really objecting to having any inclusion of images featuring same-sex sexual activity on Wikipedia at all. And that's a slippery slope, because if we accede to those demands, what's the next step? Deleting articles related to homosexuality and bisexuality because just discussing those topics might offend some people, too? Catamorphism 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For those reasons, I am against replacing ALL images for opposite-sex participant versions and I will defend that vigorously. I would be equaly ok with having multiple images of each category. --KimvdLinde 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I fail so see the logic behind your absolute determination to show heterosexual relations in every image of sexuality. My vote is still for even depiction, but the fierceness behind your drive to always show hetero interaction is disturbing. The Kinsey scale Kinsey_scale was created in an attempt to describe the range of human sexuality. Homosexuality is considered a normal sexual expression for those who are so inclined & should not be considered inappropriate here.wbm 05:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not. I offer this as a compromise to others who have an objection against only same-sex couples, I could care less whether it are same-sex or opposite sex couples. --KimvdLinde 07:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect from Cocksucker

(moved from above)

Cocksucker is an insult. This article has nothing to do with the insult. I have never known anyone to proudly proclaim "I am a cocksucker!" I use this word to describe sneaky assholes. Oral sex is something altogether different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.77.153 (talk • contribs)

Yup, that word is an insult, but I do not think it matters whether it is a woman or a man who is performing the fellation. --KimvdLinde 04:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this comment got put in the wrong section. I don't think it has anything to do with the pictures being homosexual -- I think someone noticed that Cocksucker redirects here and didn't know where on the talk page to comment about it. Catamorphism 04:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it redirects because of the name... "cock sucker" ie sucking cock... sucking a penis, and therefore Oral Sex/Fellatio. And I've known people proud to be cocksuckers but they're usually of loose morals ;) Also, note that "cocksucker" as an insult is just an American thing I think. Its not much used here in the UK in that way.

Mediation

File:Fellatio.jpg

Current image, with caption Fellatio with oral stimulation of the glans Also Sporting a rather fetching Mullet (haircut) in the current edit of this image, looking less heterosexual than ever! Anyone care to revert, to most people in the developed world mullets are far more offensive than the idea of homosexuality

Greetings, I was brought here by a request for mediation. I'll be the mediator here. I'd first like just a short statement from all involved parties stating what content they believe the article should contain and why. Thank you. --Cyde Weys 05:51, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that there should be illustrative and clear images illustrating the different oral sex techniques. I personally do not care whether they are homosexual or heterosexual, and if someone wants to replace two out of the three current ones with an equal good and illustrative images, no problem. I however do not see the need of complete erasing the 'homosexual images'. I am against removal of the images all together per WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not censored. --KimvdLinde 06:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

File:Billed7.jpg

Only proposed image, with caption Fellatio drawn by Signe Hermanns

I would call your attention to the "autofelatio" image which was deleted. Image:Autofellatio.jpg is no more or less graphic than the images here. It is discussed in the Wikipedia:Pornography and I quote Jimbo "This image is completely unacceptable for wikipedia -- I don't even consider this borderline." There is no value in these images. They don't perform any illustrative value. I am not an official "involved party." --Tbeatty 06:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Original image:Autofellatio.jpg was deleted (copyvio) and replaced by drawing. As such, comment by Jimbo Wales reflects different image than currently available. Autofellatio page also contains link to other graphical image, which support from Jimbo (see history of that page). --KimvdLinde 07:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm just going to quote Kim: "I believe that there should be illustrative and clear images illustrating the different oral sex techniques." That's all. The images in the article now are certainly not the best illustrations of oral sex (or anything else) ever, but no one involved in the dispute has been able to contribute an equally-illustrative or more-illustrative image.

I feel it is against the spirit of Wikipedia to remove these images because depicting a same-sex couple is supposedly POV, as is the motivation behind Regionalsimp's actions and possibly those of others. I do not believe that showing a same-sex couple holding hands, kissing, engaging in oral sex, or cooking dinner constitutes POV; I believe it constitutes documenting reality. Catamorphism 18:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me clarify. I'm seeing a bit of discussion about theoretically which would be the best pictures, but reality is often a bit different. I'd like to see alternate pictures that people are proposing including in the article and we can work from there. There's not much I can do here if the debate isn't even about a discrete disagreement over which picture out of several is the best example of oral sex. --Cyde Weys 19:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The first image is the current one, the second is the proposed replacement. No other images have been proposed. No objection to add the second to the article, next to the first one. The second one can indicate everything from fellatio to someone inspecting her boyfriend for ticks. --KimvdLinde 20:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the second illustration isn't illustrating the article content as well as the first. How do you illustrate fellatio with a penis? --Cyde Weys 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, this is not a disagreement about which picture is the best example of oral sex. It's a disagreement about whether including images that feature a same-sex couple in a Wikipedia article constitutes POV. I believe that there is nothing POV about this; Regionalsimp wants the images removed because he believes that merely including the images constitutes promoting the POV that same-sex sexual behavior is acceptable. The only reason this user contributed an alternate image is that he was asked to do so; his original objective was to erase images of same-sex couples from this article. Catamorphism 20:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs pictures for illustrative purposes, it's as simple as that. For mediation to work we must be analyzing different alternatives, not merely eviscerating the article's contents. And I'm perfectly well aware of what others may believe the disagreement to be; I'm simply rephrasing it in such a way that it is actionable. --Cyde Weys 20:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so this sounds as we are at the same point as were the whole discussion was already. My summary would be:

• The page needs illustrations.
• Whether the images are heterosexual or homosexual does not matter to most editors, they do not see it as POV.
• Some editors find three homosexual images POV.
• Other editors have no objection to replace some of the images for equally illustrative heterosexual images.
• Only one, considerably less illustrative image has been presented, and deemed not good enough by most editors to replace the current image.
• Request for equal illustrative images remains open.
• Mediation request is made.

Personally, I do not see anything that needs to be mediated, unless it is the removal of images all together or towards less illustrative images. --KimvdLinde 21:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this summary; the only thing I'd add is that there's no such thing as a "homosexual image" or a "heterosexual image". Images don't have sex with other images of the same or opposite sex. There are images depicting same-sex pairings, and images depicting opposite-sex pairings. Catamorphism 21:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was using the terminology of the person who objects. --KimvdLinde 21:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm not a part of this dispute but I've been lurking over it for some time with much amusement. I'm intervening now because I have reasons not yet pointed out to believe that the images in question do not reflect the POV of any of the accused.

While I cannot verify that s/he added them to this page, the pictures seem to have been drawn by the user Rama whom has contributed many illustrative images of everything from sexuality to first-aid. Focusing specifically on the sexuality drawing you'll notice that Rama is quite prolific and incorporates a healthy mix of hetro- and homosexual elements into his/her work . That, and his/her only contribution to this discussion (that I know of) being "Pfff, you know... if you're not happy with what is here, the answer is simple: provide your own !", seem to reflect a very NPOV.

On the subject of the quality dispute, I'd have to add that I'm partial to this pic by Rama for cunninglus, but that's not to see that the pictures provided are not good enough, so I'm not going to cause a big fuss about it. :) Elvrum 22:39, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Where do we go from here? Thus far I haven't seen anything that is really mediateable or actionable on my behalf. The guy who wanted the pictures removed because of a perceived homosexual bias hasn't materialized yet. Nobody else seems to have much of a disagreement on the issue. So, where do we go from here? --Cyde Weys 02:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I would say let this open for a week. The guy you are talking about might be a student away from his university computer over spring break (he has not made any contributions to wikipedia, despite being a mediator himself in another case since March 2). When he surfaces, he might be able to voice why he requested the mediation apart from the motivation that he gave here. --KimvdLinde 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was thinking of, shelving this until there is evidence of an actual ongoing continuing disagreement on article contents. --Cyde Weys 04:18, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are there pictures at all?

They don't appear to be graphic enough to illustrate any particular technique. They are static which is probably the worst technique on the planet. They simply show a mouth on the genitals which doesn't add any more information than the sentence. I can only surmise that their inclusion is gratuitous. The pictures should simply be removed. --Tbeatty 06:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Not an involved party.--KimvdLinde 06:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Everyone on this talk page is, by definition, an involved party. There is no barrier for entry into the discussion over this article's content; even non-Wikipedians (i.e. anonymous users) are allowed to contribute. --Cyde Weys 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, can live with that definition. Just makes things somewhat more complex. --KimvdLinde 20:07, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatelly, all pictures (or at least vaste majority of them) on WikiPedia are static. This is not reason to remove them. "Image worth thousand words" (or smth. of that sort :) - this is a reson to keep them. Therefore, they are not gratuitous. --tasc 20:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And Tbeatty, pictures are worth a thousand words. Even though these pictures aren't fully animated videos (which you seem to support), they do add a lot more information that merely stating the sentence "mouth on a penis". You might want to look at the neurological research that's gone into the aphorism "A picture is worth a thousand words" — the history of our evolution as a species shows that our brain is much more equipped to deal with visual images (millions of years of experience) than written words (thousands of years of experience). --Cyde Weys 20:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

THese pictures are not worth a thousand words. In fact they are mostly worthless. They have such little value that removing them would actually lend credibility to the article by taking away the argument of obscenity or POV. We don't need to keep pictures just because of some cliche. If the picture truly is worth 1000 words that are not already in the article, the talk page is a good place to put them. To keep them when they have no value is gratuitous. --Tbeatty 01:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

They are only "worthless" to you because you apparently have seen the real thing. To someone who hasn't seen the real thing these pictures, even though they are merely illustrations, do a better job of explaining oral sex than words alone ever could. Humans are very much visual creatures. --Cyde Weys 02:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Is a mouth on a penis really something that needs to be illustrated? Is it really so hard to understand as a concept that a picture is required to fully grasp it? Trau

It's hard to look back in hindsight to before you knew something. There are lots of things that seem so incredibly simple and obvious to me now but didn't before I knew them. --Cyde Weys 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you the mediator? This doesn't appear to be an objective point of view and it seems that you now advocate a position. --Tbeatty 17:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Mediators start out neutral and make up their mind as they go along. And anyway, the disagreement was over specific pictures in the article, not if there should be any at all. --Cyde Weys 03:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia is not to be a visual dictionary. The photos add absoluetly nothing to the article. I don't care if some things are different in hindsight. A picture of a blowjob or something similar does nothing more than a written description will. Trau

Maybe not for you, but for other people it does. In general, I am more visually oriented, and an image says me much more than a description. So, you want to make it more difficult for people who are more visually oriented? --KimvdLinde 04:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that if you had never seen anyone performing a blowjob before you would really be at a loss to fully comprehend it as the words "someone's mouth sucking on a penis" really don't do it justice. Ditto for the other form of oral sex which is even more incomprehensible. --Cyde Weys 02:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I concur. The images don't hurt anyone, illustrate a subject which may be difficult to comprehend, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT censored. —Nightstallion (?) 11:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies regarding Classical society

From the article:

"The Romans regarded oral sex as being far more shameful than, for example, anal sex — known practitioners were supposed to have foul breath and were often unwelcome as guests at a dinner table."

I'm tempted to change this, since it's just plain wrong, but an edit war over sexual politics isn't my idea of fun, so I'll submit my ideas here. I've read nothing in primary sources (i.e., Catullus, Martial) or any scholarly literature (i.e., The Latin Sexual Vocabulary) to suggest that oral sex was more "shameful" than anal sex. More important than the act itself was the participant's role in it. Men were supposed to penetrate, and women were to be penetrated. Therefore, it follows than men being penetrated and women engaging in penetration were engaging in a transgressive act. Anal sex between two men of putatively equal social standing was wrong, not because anal sex per se was wrong, but because one of the men was being penetrated, and this upset the social order. Similarly, a man with a penis in his mouth was acting in a female or subservient capacity. It's really a very different situation than that of the modern U.S. It was considered a tolerated sexual outlet for wealthy Greeks and Romans to sodomize slaves and boys. There's a difference between acceptable sex (vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman), tolerated sex, and taboo sex, and the article as it stands doesn't show any knowledge of this. Also, the salon.com article linked as a citation is ridiculous. It's just a piece of feature journalism, not expert opinion. Brian G. Crawford 18:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you know where you are talking about, so I would say, change it. If you want, make a proposal and discuss it here, or add it immediatly to the text. --KimvdLinde 19:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"Creampie"

The definition of "creampie" in this article differs from that in the creampie article. Clearly, the two things are related, but can someone clarify this? -- Arthur Frayn 10:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

pictures

Inclusion of pictures serves no purpose than to titilate. Oral-genital contact is self-explanitory. The intricate descriptions make it obvious. Inclusion of pictures adds nothing at all. Besides that, they dipict entirely same-sex interaction. One wonders why this was chosen as it would not be the obvious choice for most. I sense alterior motives by a few. Just the facts please. Not the politics, not the "how-to" manual, not the titilation.

WP:NOT censored. Deal with it or get lost. —Nightstallion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 15:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is not censored, its articles are not to contain bias. Given that all three oral sex diagrams are of same-sex partners, which is a controversial minority-group orientation, I feel it most certainly adds a degree of pro-homosexual bias to the article. I'm not opposed to including diagrams, nor am I opposed to homosexuality, but I feel that it would be very much in line with Wikipedia's non-bias policy to replace two of the three diagrams with heterosexual couples (as more individuals are heterosexual than homosexual, and this would be more representative of the population as a whole), or to include three additional diagrams of heterosexual couples engaged in oral sex presented alongside the homosexual diagrams.

--J. Arlington, 17:01, 02-April 2006 (PST) Effectively User:68.43.140.213

I strongly agree with J. Arlington. Just to clarify, I am completely not anti-homosexual in any way, shape or form, but the pictures all being homosexual orientated suggests that the artist has an axe to grind. The pictures should be a mixture between both orientations, not just a biased representation of one of them. Schizmatic 20:27, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussion has been done above. If you have better or equal quality images of opposite sex people performing these acts, provide them here at the talk page for discussion. Untill now, there has been only raised objections, complainers do not provide alternatives that are equally good as to work contructivly towards solving the bias they experience. KimvdLinde 14:41, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Until someone provides such images, the best way to go about removing the bias that clearly exists is to take down the homosexual diagrams, as while they may aid the description of oral sex by providing a visual, they are not necessary in communicating the act lucidly to the reader. A majority of the descriptions for people, objects, and acts at Wikipedia do not have accompanying diagrams, and I feel that such diagrams are unwarranted if they taint the article with pro-homosexual bias. --J.Arlington, 10:01, 5 April 2006 (PST)Effectively User:68.43.140.213

Wikipedia is not censored! The best way to go it to provide images and not to reduce the quality of the article. So, where are the images, please bring them on to this talk page for discussion. KimvdLinde 01:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I find your claim the artist has an axe to grind bizarre. More likely, the artist may be homosexual and so may find homosexuality more natural then heterosexuality. Alternatively, the artist might just be having a bit of fun and trying to see what kind of responses he or she can get. I also fail to see how exactly these images featuring homosexuals "taint the article with pro-homosexual bias". They are simply diagrams showing a practice. Furthermore, as for your claim comparing the rest of wikipedia, well it's rather bizarre. Firstly, articles in which diagrams to describe some practice usually includes them (tieing ties for example). If you agree that diagrams are useful here, then we need to ask what are the best diagrams available. Even if these diagrams 'taint' the article as you suggest, we need to keep them until we have better alternatives. If you want to argue this page doesn't need them, then that's a far more wide reaching argument. Also, I suspect oral sex isn't as self evident as you seem to think. If you've never seen a naked body of the other sex for example, it might be somewhat difficult to visualise. BTW, I also suspect oral sex is more common among homosexuals then heterosexuals, especially because homosexuals have, generally speaking, fewer alternatives. They also tend to be less conservative. Given that heterosexuals are in a large majority, the number of heterosexuals engaging in oral sex at any one time is probably higher then homosexuals of course Nil Einne 15:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if you would look up the artists contributions, most are heterosexual, only a few, primarily oral sex are between same partners. KimvdLinde 16:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing the pictures doesn't reduce the quality of the article, in my opinion, if it helps to remove bias. This is assuming that "quality," at least in regard to Wikipedia articles, is a combination of usefulness AND an unbiased approach (among other factors, as well). In fact, by doing so, it enhances the unbiased quality of the article. Whether one agrees that it will increase the overall quality of the article depends on the weight one places on instructiveness and non-bias as contributing factors to such overall quality.

The diagrams create a sense of bias, once again, because they are all of homosexual couples, which is a controversial, minority orientation that most individuals likely would not picture when thinking of sexual acts that are common among indiviuals of all sexual orientations.

I feel that instructiveness can be compensated for, at least temporarily, in words if the pictures are removed. Most individuals, even younger individuals, do understand what the genitals of the opposite sex are and what they look like, and provided they are even semi-literate, could easily understand written directions, provided they are detailed enough. I'm not saying the article wouldn't benefit from both a verbal description AND less-biased diagrams, given that some individuals learn better from visuals than descriptions (and vice versa), I simply don't feel that removing the existing diagrams for the time being would damage the overall quality enough to warrant keeping them and the commonly-perceived bias they create.

In regard to the diagram artist and whether or not they have an "axe to grind," their personal motives are completely moot. Whether they were attempting to infuse pro-homosexual bias into the article does not matter; the intention behind their actions and the result of their actions are two very different things. Even if they didn't have an ulterior motive, the diagrams still results in a biased article (even if they're not coming from a biased individual). Diagrams are indeed a good idea, but only if they do not violate Wikipedia's policies, which I, and many others, feel the diagrams in question do. In regard to whether oral sex is more common among homosexuals or heterosexuals, I would agree that it's more common among heterosexuals given the fact that, overwhelmingly, most couples are heterosexual (as mentioned previously).

Finally, removing the pictures has nothing to do with censorship any more so than removing biased phrases or other such restricted content from articles. Therefore, I remain adamant in my position that the diagrams should be removed, regardless of whether someone can provide additional heterosexual diagrams either now or in the future. --J. Arlington, 20:10, 6 April 2006 (PST)Effectively User:68.43.140.213

1. Removing the pctures does reduce the quality of the article.
2. Wikipedia is not censored and I think removing the images because they are depicting same-sex couplkes is a form of censorship
3. Instead of putting so much effort in getting the pictures removed, maybe provide a good alternative to this page. That would be the fastest way in removing the bias you experience

KimvdLinde 02:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Removing the pictures does not reduce the quality of the article significantly enough to warrant keeping them and the bias that many experience, as they are not necessary in conveying the acts they depict, whereas keeping the images DOES necessarily convey a feeling of pro-homosexual bias to many who have read the article, as this discussion thread should indicate. I feel that the benefits of removing them, therefore, outweigh the costs of keeping them in regard to overall quality.

2. Removing the images is not a form of censorship if it removes bias from the article, again, any more so than removing biased phrases from any other article. We're not arguing they should be removed because they're offensive or because they violate social norms in and of themselves, but because of how many naturally interpret their exclusively homosexual nature.

3. I find that it take less effort to just remove some or all of the pictures for the time being, as I do not have the time or resources to produce new ones.

--J. Arlington, 20:10, 6 April 2006 (PST)Effectively User:68.43.140.213

removing of the images is not agreed upon. i don't see any reasons to remove them despite your personal objection. I don't know why do you claim that those are 'homosexual' pictures. And anyway most editors don't seem supporting img. deletion. --tasc 13:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keeping the images is not wholly agreed upon, either. I have provided several reasons in support of their removal, as they violate Wikipedia's non-bias policy. They are homosexual images in that they depict exclusively homosexual acts. The issue has been recurring for months now, and I think it's clear that many who read the article are perceiving it as being pro-homosexual, rather than neutral. --J. Arlington, 20:10, 6 April 2006 (PST)Effectively User:68.43.140.213

So far we just see you claiming that someone perceived images as being 'pro-homosexual' --tasc 13:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

So far, other readers and I are making the claim because many are, in fact, perceiving the article as being biased, which is a sound enough reason to have the causal diagrams removed. Clearly, the diagrams have resulted in an article that several readers have found to be non-neutral enough to take up issue with here at the discussion thread. That should be apparent at this point, given that a majority of this discussion thread lately has revolved around the issue. If the article does not convey an unbiased feeling to many of its readers, then it ought to be edited so that it does, and again, while providing some heterosexual examples to include is the best of the three options, removing the images completely is still in greater accordance with Wikipedia's non-bias policy than keeping them, which may be helpful to only some, but not necessary in conveying the act. --J. Arlington, 20:10, 6 April 2006 (PST)Effectively User:68.43.140.213

Well, i don't think that it's sound enough reason to remove drawings. It seems to me that your argument of the same do-not-offend-readers sort. Readers feelings have nothing to do with article content. Most of the time those are just emotion. I don't see how pictures are not in accordance with NPOV policy. --tasc 14:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it amazing that people spend many pages full arguing against the majority of the editors who want to keep images in the article, instead of providing usefull alternatves that would settle the problem immediatly. KimvdLinde 15:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

My argument is quite different from the argument in favor of censorship to prevent offending readers given that Wikipedia forbids the removal of content on basis of its potentially offensive nature, but also forbids the inclusion of material that a common consensus does not find to be objective. Readers finding material to be offensive and objective/unobjective are both based on individual perceptions, points of view, and feelings about the article, but they are still two very different criteria, with different policy stipulations in regard to protection or deletion.

The purpose of an article is to use words and images to communicate to its reader a message, which, in this case, should be descriptive and objective. How individuals interpret the images and words in an article is always based on their individual perceptions, reasons, and points of view, regardless of how the article is written. If you're going to argue against removing the images because it creates a frequent perception of bias that is unrepresentative of all involved parties, then it makes no sense to adhere to any form of editing based on content, because content is only as good as its common interpretation. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy advocates that material in an article should be objective and representative of all points of view based on a common consensus. Given the recent frequency of individuals who have interpreted the article as being biased based on its exclusively homosexual depictions of oral sex acts, there is most certainly not a majority/common consensus among readers that the article is objective and unbiased. Homosexuality is not a common orientation among sexually active individuals, and the notion that the existing diagrams are unbiased is not a common, but highly-controversial position among editors and readers.

In addition, the presence of exclusively homosexual diagrams places an undue weight on one particular political and sexual perspective within the realm of the article's content. According to the NPOV policy, an article should be representative of all significant perspectives, in proportion to the prominence of each. In this case, a limited minority view is visually presented and frequently interpreted as a representative of the whole. Therefore, the images should be removed.

Finally, I did not see anything on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines page excusing the presence of biased material on grounds that it could be helpful to some in describing acts within the article. For this reason, I feel that prior arguments in favor of keeping the diagrams due to visual descriptive value or for lack of a less biased image combination/alternative are entirely moot, and maintain my position that the diagrams should be removed immediately, regardless of whether alternative images are presented. --J. Arlington, 14:10, 7 April 2006 (PST)Effectively User:68.43.140.213

Sorry, I diagree with you, and I think a large number of other editors as well. KimvdLinde 16:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Reason being? --J. Arlington, 16:10, 7 April 2006 (PST)Effectively User:68.43.140.213

1. Where is the article about? -> Oral sex
2. So, images should demonstrate Oral sex
3. Current images do clarify the different Oral sex techniques
4. Removal of the images diminuishes the quality of the article
5. Best available by chance (see large collection of images produced by artist for the variety he produced) depict all three partners of the same sex.
6. There is no objection by the editors of this page against replacing the images with partners of the different sex (after being discussed here at the talk page).
7. Removal of the images because of percieved bias towards homosexuality without replacing for an image of equal or better quality is a reducting in the quality of the article.
8. The percieved bias by some visitors does not weigh against the reduction in quality of the article

If you are really so terribly offended by the images, I suggest you provide good quality alternatives. KimvdLinde 16:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The presence of NPOV-violating material is nowhere excused for any of the reasons you've given. It doesn't matter that it is in regard to the content of the article, that they were the best diagrams immediately available, or even whether they affect the descriptive quality of the article. In regard to quality reduction and Wikipedia policy, the rules therefore are covered in the vandalism article, which describes vandalism as any deliberate reduction in an article's quality via addition, editing, or deletion. Also, "Image Vandalism" is defined as an image that conveys any sort of a political message, which many believe the current diagrams, in their particular combination, do. Therefore, it is not the prospective removal, but the presence of the diagrams that reduces the article's quality.

If you and others of your position agree with replacing the images on basis of reducing the article's bias, as others have argued in the past, then it only logically follows that you agree the existing images are insufficient in delivering an article that is truly in-line with Wikipedia's NPOV policies; otherwise, there would be no policy-based reason to support their replacement. Again, biased content is unacceptable on this site, which is why I feel that if the images cannot be replaced immediately, they should be removed.

I understand that removal of information, as stated on the NPOV page, is used as a "last resort" effort in cases where the content will not or cannot be changed. Unlike text, pictures cannot be easily replaced to remove bias, especially when none can be located through a Google search, and producing them requires an uncommon skill (artistic ability) and considerably more time than a text edit. Therefore, I feel removal is justified.

The perceived bias of repeated readers and editors evident from current and past discussions in this thread prevents a common consensus from existing for the justification of the diagrams. The fact that most individuals are not homosexual prevents the article from being representative of majority perspective, and therefore, qualifies it as a NPOV violation. It is not common, but frequently controversial in both cases.

Also, I'm not offended by the images in the least. I simply don't feel that in their current state and combination, they belong in an encyclopedia that aims to be unbiased in its approach, material, and presentation. I've searched for good-quality alternatives, but haven't been able to locate any at the moment. --J. Arlington, 16:10, 7 April 2006 (PST) Effectively User:68.43.140.213

I do not think the images provide a bias or that the article is biased, and that having the images is a violation of NPOV. I can agree with replacing the images because SOME people have a personal problem with it, not because the article is supposingly biased (which I think it is not). --KimvdLinde 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that there is such disagreement over whether the diagrams have resulted in a biased article, and given that upholding the NPOV policy should be our foremost interest, perhaps the best way to resolve the issue is to produce and conduct a survey that all parties agree upon (as suggested on the dispute resolution page), directing participants to the article and collecting their opinions on the matter. If an agreed-upon percentage of readers experience a pro-homosexual bias as a result of the diagrams, they will be removed. Otherwise, they will remain. --J. Arlington, 16:10, 7 April 2006 (PST)

It's not about censorship and it's also nothing to do with the pictures being upsetting or offensive - it's about keeping an NPOV. It cannot be denied that the article misrepresents, to quote the NPOV article, "All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one". When the pictures are all homosexual, it hardly depicts all the points of view and is hardly NPOV. It's not obvious bias, but it's bias nevertheless, and it doesn't conform to what a neutral article is supposed to be - neutral. "More likely, the artist may be homosexual and so may find homosexuality more natural then heterosexuality" - whether or not the artist finds homosexuality more natural is irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia, not a gathering of ones own personal views or their interpretation of being natural. Schizmatic 03:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no objection against replacing the images for an equal quality images after having discussed it here. KimvdLinde 03:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am currently working on two heterosexual renderings to mix in with the existing homosexual images, to result in a fair blend. I will post them in the discussion section prior to using them as replacements in the article so that consensus can be reached as to whether or not they're acceptable replacements. J. Arlington 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I am looking forward! KimvdLinde 20:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Blow-job

I have always thought that the word "blow" in "blow-job" signifies the ejaculation of semen, and "job" in "blow-job" signifies the stimulation required to cause the penis to ejaculate. Anyone agree? Dionyseus 08:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

there are few version of blow job origin and none of them supports your opinion. If you could provide some kind of references, perhaps it could be included in the article. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 08:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

This article talks about the origins of the term "blow-job" [1] . Apparently I would fall under the second school of thought in that article. The second school of thought proposes that the word "blow" indicates the climax, the orgasm of the penis, and that it is a reference to the term "blowing (someone) off."

Dionyseus 08:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

The stated origin/history of "blowjob" is silly. It was a common term at least during WWII, when I first heard it (as a teenager), and is almost certainly much older than that. "Blow" is obviously a reverse pun, or whatever the grammatical term is, for "suck."

and it is said that they used to whiten their lips as though with semen

quote from entry "...and it is said that they used to whiten their lips as though with semen." i'm no harvard professor but that sentence seems unecessarily complex to me and it is hard to understand what thought is trying to be conveyed.

what is wrong with this sentence? it says what it says nothing more... i guess it's a plain citation. -- tasc ^talk_deeds 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Over 18, has it been suggested yet?

I'm not for censorship, but I am a fan of adult ratings, so I'll ask this question:

Could you possibly make pictures that are definitely adult content subject to asking if the person is 18 or over? I find the pictures to be considered illegal to share with minors in any context that I am aware of. Otherwise, Hollywood would really sell alot more movie tickets if their content wasn't limited as to what is NC-17.

GOOD POINT!!!

Hope that helps if it's not been done before. U.S. law is pretty strict, and many countries are even stricter on such things, so I want to see your site prosper. I use it all the time, and want to know it won't be shut down for legal reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aleman amable (talk • contribs) .

This is what I get for browsing new user submissions iso vandalism, I guess...

I kinda agree a bit about the pictures that are in use on the page, though I imagine I'd be scared knowing what other sorts of things are haunting Wikipedia's halls. As far as US law and such goes, though, I'd be willing to bet I can get to some sites hosted in the US where there's a lot worse just waiting for you to visit the page. Ahwell.

~Kylu (u|t) 04:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia does obey the laws of relevant countries. However, it is not illegal in the US to show a picture like this to a minor. Movie ratings are a matter of industry self-regulation, not law. I hope reading WP:NOT clarifies things for you. Catamorphism 07:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, boy. What is against the law and what will get you arrested and humiliated are two different things. It's a good idea in general not to show sexual pictures or descriptions of any kind to children. The reasons for this should be obvious to anyone who isn't a sociopath. I really don't think this should be pushed. Brian G. Crawford 05:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a difference between showing a picture to a person under 18 and making the latter available in a place where a person under 18 could see it if they took the initiative themself. If you believe that they are the same, you're basically saying that the Internet should only include content that would be acceptable (under the mores of every culture) for a person under 18 to see. I find that an unacceptable outcome because the harm to adults from having to dumb down their discourse to a child's level is greater than whatever nebulous harm children suffer from seeing sexual images. (Personally, I sought out all the sexual images I could when I was between the ages of 11 and 18, and I don't consider myself to be any more maladjusted than the average person in my country.) Catamorphism 06:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

over 18 question, can't reply to answer...

Any picture of an erect penises, open vaginas, or graphic sexual acts, it is considered pornography in the united states and it is a crime that is often punishable by law under such, or sharing matter meant of adult stimulation. The content i just mentioned always receives NC-17 ratings in the U.S, and actually just soft porn often merits it, though many things done on screen in rated R movies are illegal to do in front of a child in person.

That is why it surprises me that the person answering knows little about U.S. law, or feels that using the "over 18" inquiry as to viewers on such material is censorship.

Can you tell me how to anser in a preexisitng thread? I can't find the button.

clarifying thread 21

I meant sharing such images with children is illegal in most countries. Every D.A. in this country would prosecute it, and it often appears in the newspapers. That's why you are in legal jeopardy unless you put in an over 18 disclaimer.

As WP:NOT says, Wikipedia obeys the laws of the state of Florida in the U.S., where the servers are located. Trust me, the people who run Wikipedia are concerned about the continued existence of the project too, and wouldn't do anything that would put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Catamorphism 18:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Florida state law on pornography

You can't tell me that Florida state law (where the toughest sex laws in the country exist) allows you to show X-rated pictures to children in magazines, videos, or over the web. They all come off of porn sites, and pictures of staff's genitals are not exempt from the porn provision, either, epecially erect. I am quite sure if you were reported, you would be closed down, and you don't want to seem to try to be pro-active enought to put an over 18 disclaimer.

Parents would have no upfront knowledge that your sites contain pornography. All they would suppose is that it's a regular encyclopedia. Your kind would never be located in the public library if it were in print, nor in bookstores.

Maybe swallow your pride so your site stays legal, but don't lie about the law to people who don't know any better. There are reasons this stuff is never on anything but adult entertainment, and I don't have to consult a lawbook to know it or report it.

How do you respond to an existing thread? I can't find it in the instrucitons or in the tabs. Most sites I know have respond buttons, so I'm kind of lost here.

Have you read [2] yet? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia a bit before you assume that the people who run the site (and I am not one of them; this is not "my site", any more than it's yours) are completely ignorant of laws that apply to them. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~. Catamorphism 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Interestingstuffadder 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism, I think you may want to read WP:NOT again. It is really a disclaimer saying that we don't guarantee Wikipedia is free from profanity/nudity etc. This is partly because some nudity/profanity may be considered non-pornographic and encyclopedic - a picture of a penis at penis for example. It is also partly due to the fact that anyone can edit, so innapropriate things may appear briefly before they are removed. It is NOT a statement that anyone can include any image they want to. It is NOT a statement that we hold ourselves above applicable laws. It is NOT an excuse to show hardcore pornography that is inconsistent with encyclopedic standards. Johntex\^talk 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This image is not hardcore pornography in the context in which it is used in this article. It is illustrative and relevant -- much like your example of having a photo of a penis at the penis article. And, for however much it counts, this is not even a photo. Also, although there may not be a consensus to keep this image, there is also not a consensus to delete it, as many experienced users have argued for its inclusion or the inclusion of something like it. In a situation like this -- where there is no clear consensus -- I am inclined to defer to a user -- like Catamorphism who is experienced and has a long history of helpful edits. Interestingstuffadder 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree there is some ambiguity about what the law will and will not permit. As an administrator, I try to err on the side of caution in protecting the Wikimedia Foundation and this project from legal problems. We do not have a lot of cash in the bank, and we can't aford to spend it just for the sake of supporting some sort of free speech crusade. Pictures of oral sex are widely available on the internet. There is a small benefit of convenience to our readers to have one right on the article, but the benefit is very small compared to the potential risk. Johntex\^talk 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, then...I suppose this "legal argument" is the silver bullet that will prevent us from having a useful picture to illustrate this article. Interestingstuffadder 01:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Looking at for example the comments of Jimbo himself on the autofellatio talk page, and the leaving of the images, it is not a concern at the highest levels. If that changes, it will be spread all across wikipedia, and that is not happening yet. Untill that moment, I will assume that the images are ok with regard to florida law. KimvdLinde 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Autofellatio only has line drawings. Photos have been consistently removed or linkimaged behind a one-click warning system. Also, legal arguments are not the only argument I am making. I am also saying that serious reference works avoid explicit images of titalating hard-core pornongraphy. We do well to follow those norms. Johntex\^talk 07:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and this page is simlar to that page with regard to the images. Whether or not linkimaged, the photo is still on the servers of Wikipedia, which is what counts for the law. So, the legal argument does not hold. KimvdLinde 08:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering whether any other serious reference work even has an article on oral sex. Wikipedia has the power to do a lot of things that there aren't precedents for. I don't know whether you found the image that was removed to be titillating; I sure didn't. The woman didn't look very happy. Catamorphism 07:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

(resetting indent) IANAL, but the linkimage seems to make a big difference in that there is a warning to people that a picture of the act is coming behing the link. I think this matters not only from a legal perspective but also from a standpoint of avoiding uncessesary provocation to an unsuspecting user. Textbooks on sexuality definitely have text descriptions of oral sex. I don't know of any that have photos. As for other serious works, The Joy of Sex certainly has line drawings of sexual intercourse, as well as text on oral sex as well. It may not be a "scholarly" work exactly, but it is taken as credible by lay people - and it is mainstream enough to be sold in big-chain bookstores in western countries. Online dictionairies are serious reference tools and they do have a definition for oral sex.[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johntex (talk • contribs)

I actually do not see that we have a disagreement. The images are not photo's (which I think are not needed here, type in fellatio in google and you have those), and they are nicely illustrative without being pornographic. KimvdLinde 15:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about legal issues, but the removed hetero image certainly looked like hardcore and not like a sexological illustration. It's not what you want to find in an encyclopdia. If you doubt that, why not ask the broader wikipedian community at Wikipedia:Current surveys? --85.187.44.131 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Please, links to some how-to pages or community sites on the matter?

How-to pages are interesting and relevant, as well as community sites on the matter. This is common practice in any other article, why not here? In fact I came to this article to find such links. I am sure there have been links before. Please put them back and make them stay. Thanks. Pablo2garcia 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Citation Needed"...

Who really thinks it's necessary for a citation to the claim "Some contend that homosexual partners can have an enhanced ability to perform oral sex on members of the same gender because they are already familiar with their own body's sensations and responses." or "Also, for some males, when their partner swallows their ejaculate, it sends a subconscious message that their partner accepts them."

These are both, more or less maters of opinion...not some study done in the New England Journal of Medicine.

On Wikipedia, we try to avoid weasel words, like saying "...some people say that..." Rather than saying "some contend that... [whatever]", it's important to give a citation to show who thinks that. Catamorphism 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Catamorphism is exactly right about this. Johntex\^talk 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Verb conjugation

cunilingus is the noun, to give cunnilingus is a wierd way of making it a verb, but what is the real verb?

Is it cunnilingate? or cunnilinguise? ie. I would like to ****** you.

As far as I know, you can't make a verb out of it. "I would like to fellate you" would seem to be the best option. JackofOz 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Lawrence VS Texas

What does Lawrence VS Texas have to do with oral sex? The judgment is about sodomy, not oral sex.

It is mentioned because of the wider implications of the ruling on the non-enforcement of the anti-oral sex laws in some states. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

But this judgment is about the inconstitutionality of an anti-sodomy law because that law indirectly discriminates against homosexuals. It therefore does not have any wider implication on the non-enforcement of oral sex laws. By mentioning it here the wrong impression is created that Lawrence VS Texas strikes down an anti-oral sex law, which is not the case at all.User:Domberlic

Sodomy laws are different in different states. Many states construe oral sex (and indeed, anything besides missionary-position sex between a person with male parts and a person with female parts) as sodomy. Others leave the definition of sodomy rather vague. Bowers v. Hardwick was about oral sex, as Georgia at the time had sodomy laws that encompassed oral sex. Catamorphism 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, the idea that the Lawrence holding is somehow limited to equal-protection concerns is from the separate concurring opinion by O'Connor, not the majority opinion. The majority opinion does not support such a narrow reading. Doctor Whom 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph in the article also includes the following statement: "Most anti-oral sex laws had not been enforced prior to this overturning." I don't know how the author of that statement came to believe that, but from my activist and legal work in Michigan, Maryland, and Virginia, I know that insofar as it can be applied to any of those states, it's flatly wrong. Doctor Whom 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that what the editor probably meant to say was something like "Most anti-oral-sex laws were enforced rarely, compared to the overall incidence of oral sex." I'm not going to make that change, though, because I think such a statement would be fairly hard to verify. Of course, the existing text is also not sourced. Catamorphism 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Taboo section rewrite

Today, someone from Saudi Arabia inserted a sentence about oral sex and islam, and after some searching, this showed correct implying that the taboo section is factual incorrect. I have edited a little part, but it might need more editing. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Almost every sentence in the section was and is sourced, although even these quasi-scholarly sources are somewhat, err, light-headed, as you might expect from such a topic. Inserting "acording to [source]" in the very text of the article might make the section more reliable and avoid further conflicts. BTW, the Saudi wasn't 100% correct: as further online "research" shows (see the article), some Islamic authorities have actually interpreted existant literature as discouraging oral sex. Besides that, just because Islamic literature doesn't explicitly prohibit it, that doesn't mean it hasn't been a taboo. After all, the Bible doesn't explicitly prohibit oral sex either. I guess the authors of the scriptures just didn't figure out that such a practice was likely, as zoophilia appears to have been a much greater problem at the time :). --85.187.44.131 10:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags?

Does the statement "cunnilingus may be a way for women to achieve orgasm with a partner" really require a citation? Catamorphism 05:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Catamorphism, thanks for your question on my talk page about why I reverted the removal of the {{citation}} tags. I was watching recent changes for vandalism or unwise edits and I observed that an anonymous user removed 4 citation tags with no discussion on this talk page. They did this in two edits: One with no summary, the other with an edit summary I believed to be uninformative about their reason for removal.

My thinking was that someone had found those tags needed for some reason, and that they were deleted with no discussion. (I did not make the connection betwee n your question and the anonymous user - although even your posting does not seem to question the need for the other 3 tags.

Of course it is always a matter of opinion how strict we are going to try to be with ourselves about citing our sources.

In this case, in my opinion, the tag you question is probably the tag that is least needed. I don't really see an urgent need to provide a citation for the fact that women can achieve organism from oral sex. On the other hand, surely such a source would be trivially easier to find. So ideally, we should just put a source in rather than deleting the tag.

In the case of the other 3 statements that are flagged as needing a source - these 3 statements are much weaker and really should be cited because as it is they smack of personal opinion and/or original research and/or contaminated by weasel words:

1. Oral sex is often used as the principal form of sexual expression or as part of foreplay. Not only are the sexual organs sensitive and well supplied with nerve endings, the same is true of the mouth, tongue and lips, so enjoyment of oral sex is not always limited to the person on the receiving end. ‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

"is often used as the principal" is a weasel phrase. How often? By what percentage of people? How often is it enjoyed by the person giving the oral sex and how often is it not?

2. As in all human sexual behaviour, the variety of techniques in cunnilingus and individual responses to them are almost endless.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

"almost endless" is not a very encyclopedic term. Who claims this? Who claims this is also true of all "human sexual behaviour"?

3. As always, communication, experimentation and practice are the best way to learn how to please a particular partner.‹The template Talkfact is being considered for merging.› 

This is not very encyclopedic. It reads more like a how-to. Who claims these things are important? Why do they belong in an encyclopedia?

Thanks again for your question. Johntex\^talk 18:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Nail Varnish

For those of your curious to know why there used to be an image of nail varnish pictured on the article page, http://web.archive.org/web/20050224084408/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_sex provides the original version.

Gay oral sex drawing

Seriously what is the point of showing a male sucking a penis, a woman sucking a penis is a blowjob too. and everyone loves to watch a woman sucking a penis while the opposite is not true.

First, from reading the above Talk section, the reason that it shows a man giving oral sex to a man (and a woman giving oral sex to a woman, something you didn't mention) is because they're the most illustrative pictures of oral sex that anybody's come up with. Second, I didn't even notice the gender of the participants until I came onto the Talk page and found people asking the same thing you did, so I'm guessing that either I'm unobservant or not a lot of people are bothered by it. Third, claiming that "everyone" loves to watch a woman giving a man a blowjob while the opposite (either a man "sucking a penis," or a man giving a woman oral sex) is wrong and biased. I'd delete this question, partly because it seems like homophobic vandalism and partly because I couldn't come up with a less hostile response, except I hope that this guy will get my point. I'm sorry if I seem angry. Sillstaw 01:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)