Talk:Ass to mouth

Sources and extra material

We need to get some more sources in the article to help structure it better. We need external sources for things such as first appearances of the practice in film.

We also could do with expanding upon the history, but only if it were well sourced.-Localzuk^(talk) 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's the problem. Facts about hardcore porn, especially about the more revolting aspects, are never well-sourced; this problem was emphasized a few times during the deletion discussion. The first appearance likely was never "on film" but rather on video (the porn industry stopped using film in the 1980s, I think).

I recall seeing it first in the late 1980s in a Ron Jeremy video shown at a bachelor party, and the general reaction of the audience was either revulsion or shock ("doesn't she know where that thing has been?!"). Assigning an actual term to the practice likely came later. Now it's everywhere. =Axlq 18:27, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, I just tried and failed to find something... I could swear I saw in another Wikipedia article a sourced statement that porn stars get an enema to wash out any fecal matter before being filmed having anal sex. I can't find it in the anal sex article though. If this is true (and it seems sensible), then it deserves a mention in the health risks section of this article, perhaps in the context of "don't try this at home; leave it to the professionals." =Axlq 06:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It rings a bell with me too. So many sources were added and deleted during the AfD that it may have been one of the casualties. Mallanox 00:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I found a quote from a column by Dan Savage and added the cite. Although that article pertains to gay porn, the quote applies to all forms of porn. =Axlq 05:09, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise?

I've added the top message box. Hopefully it covers both sides of the issue. If not, please edit it to address what you feel needs to be said while leaving in place what the 'other' side are trying to say. Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the kind of thing I was looking for when I composed that big yellow infobox at the top. =Axlq 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes, less is more. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The conflict at present

First of all, thanks to BenAveling (talk · contribs) for adding that "offensive" notice at the top of the talk page. That at least acknowledges the dislike some users have about this issue.

Okay, so I've been asked to take a look at this, and I can't help to add my two cents (as a 3rd party editor). Frankly, I don't see why this particular article is getting so heated. There are many other articles that cover similar pornographic topics, but I don't see anyone complaining there. First, I would like to know why exactly CyberAnth and 193.219.28.146 feel this article is not encyclopedic. I know that other encyclopedias don't cover such topics, but we're Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia. By no means are we an academic encyclopedia, as you can see by the wide array of content here. This is just a compendium of all notable knowledge. I don't see how this particular article seems offensive to anyone. When you think about it, this all has to do with human sexual behavior. However odd it may be, it still is encyclopedic and at Wikipedia, such articles are welcomed. Nishkid64 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Plus of course they're free to nominate for deletion etc... /wangi 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed 1 sentance.

Applying the mouth to the genitals immediately after applying it to the anus can introduce Escherichia coli ("E. coli") into the urethra, causing a urinary tract infection.

This seems backwards. What is 'it' in this sentance? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"It" is the mouth, the only singular noun in the sentence preceding the pronoun. "Applying the mouth to the genitals immediately after applying THE MOUTH to the anus can introduce" e. coli [in]to the urethra.

07:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That sounds more like a sentence that belongs to the anal sex article. =Axlq 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this activity?

One thing the article does not address is why someone would do this. My understanding is that people who engage in anal sex generally consider it to be superior to oral sex. If such a person has successfully obtained access to his partner's anus, why would he want to withdraw his penis without achieving climax just to transition to an alternate form of sex that he considers inferior? 4.89.247.63 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only that, but the article doesn't explain the reason the receiving person would want to do this, either. Som people like to do strange things. Or perhaps the practice only occurs in porn videos. As editors, however, it is not our place to pass judgement. At best, all we can do is try to find a verifiable, citable source who can explain it. =Axlq 04:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

As a personal advocate of ATM, I must say that the heightened sense of "naughtiness" or defiance, is likely what gives ATM its extreme appeal to those of us in the anal-to-oral scene. Likewise, female participants often relish the tawdry nature of the act. Mike Brennan, a well-known porn actor, said that it was the only way he actually enjoyed having sex on film, despite the many other acts he has engaged in. That being said, Mr. Brennan's coprophilic nature (he is also an advocate of the dirty Sanchez), may preclude him from giving unbiased opinions on the subject.

Anyway, that just my 2 cents. For your information. 74.114.110.141 22:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

There is no compulsion to give a reason why anyone would do anything. Why would someone actually sit through a performance of chamber music? Answer me that. Because the bar was closed?

Nuttyskin (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedia?

Articles like this is the reason why Wikipedia is not generally considered as a serious source of information (in comparison with, let's say, Britannica). 193.219.28.146 16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Wikipedia is not censored and this article seems well-written and referenced, so I don't see the problem. Jayden54 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it is quite hard for me to believe that "Wikipedia is not censored" -- my polite message above was removed bazillion times, and this IP was blocked three times in a row because of me adding it again. You can also read (NSFW) regarding "censoring" and Wikipedia... 193.219.28.146 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I read the story, which was interesting indeed, but I can't say anything about it because I wasn't involved in that situation so I know nothing about it. All I can say is that although Wikipedia is not censored there are of course limits. An article that simply describes a certain sexual term or act, like this one, should not be censored. Photos depicting such acts might not be really suitable for Wikipedia. It's all really a gray area though and very prone to intense debates and heated discussions, so each situation will have to be judged differently. Cheers, Jayden54 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

While the subject of this article doesn't appeal to me either, it would seem that 193.219.28.146 was reverted and blocked (not "censored") because (a) the comment above, comparing Wikipedia to Britannica, violates the leading two paragraphs in WP:TALK; (b) repeated disruption from re-adding the comment violates WP:POINT; and (c) repeated violations of WP:3RR. Looking at Talk:193.219.28.146, it appears this user has been asked several times, but never answered, how his comments facilitate improving the article, or how they are constructive in any way.

To User:193.219.28.146: Please suggest improvements and constructive changes rather than make editorial comments and complaints. If you feel the article should be deleted, you can always propose it for deletion; see WP:AFD for the process. -Amatulic 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To User:193.219.28.146: Your points are well received by me, but the external reference you cited above undermines them a touch. By that definition we should have pictures of child abuse on the child pornography article. Let's try and keep it real here. I do agree that your initial comments were in good faith and seem to have been reverted a bit hastily but can we keep this debate on track. Pedro1999a |  Talk  22:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I gave link to this article on wikitruth, because it shows quite nice what is the (extreme but logical) consequence of current Wikipedia policies. "Zero censorship" policy is slippery slope in practice. "Zero censorship" + "we need pictures in every article" = pornopedia, not encyclopedia, and even Jimbo realizes this. 193.219.28.146 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Non-sequitur. Nobody has suggested adding pictures here. And you haven't explained how this discussion is constructive to improving this article. Please do so. I confess I am curious why you feel your comment at the beginning of this section is important enough to violate policy and get yourself blocked. -Amatulic 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to briefly put in my two cents by applauding those who have created and maintained this article. I did a google search for "ass to mouth", and this article came up. Most of the other links were pornographic or just plain random; personally I think it's good to provide information about the topic in a neutral, non-pornographic way. The section on health risks in particular is potentially valuable and IMO should be expanded if possible. --Hermitage 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Health Risks

"[T]o eliminate the possibility of any fecal matter appearing on film" is a bit confusing. Is there some sort of censorship provision that guys can have anal sex with someone, but the camera can't show shit on the guy's penis??? I suppose that would be consistent with prohibiting filming pissing, even though we all do it every day, and barring a few fetishists, it's not even all that sexy.

Responses are urgently solicited. What the f**k is going on?

Dick Kimball 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the article makes it clear (especially in the footnote) that porn films represent fantasies, and most audiences probably don't want to see feces unless that's actually the point of the porn. =Axlq (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest specifying that Hepatitis A, according to the CDC, is only spread from a person with Hep A to another. In other words, someone can't get Hep A from performing A2M on something that has been in their own anus.

HAV is found in the stool (feces) of persons with hepatitis A. HAV is usually spread from person to person by putting something in the mouth (even though it might look clean) that has been contaminated with the stool of a person with hepatitis A. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/a/fact.htm

fordag 22:05 2 Dec 2007 (EST)

After further research at the CDC website the same can be said for E.Coli as for Hepatitis A. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dbmd/diseaseinfo/escherichiacoli_g.htm#How%20is%20E.%20coli%20O157:H7%20spread

fordag 22:10 2 Dec 2007 (EST)

Looks like some good sources to mention in the article. Go for it. =Axlq (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

My edit has been deleted, apparently by you Axlq, because you said it was unsourced and my opinion, as you see above I did refrences and you agreed. My problem is an unfamiliarity with the proper format to put footnotes into the entry. fordag 21:46 13 Oct 08 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.18.109 (talk)

What is the source of this?

Despite its health risks, it is prevalent in pornographic films and growing prevalent among teenaged minors as a substitute for vaginal sex because of the lesser risk of pregnancy.[3][4]

Neither of the linked sources state that ATM is growing prevalent among teenaged minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.224.39.90 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-25

You are correct. When you see discrepancies like this, feel free to change the text to reflect the cited sources. I have just done so. =Axlq 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

(question from len) Why is it that it refers to getting aids from yourself in some weird way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.231.128 (talk) 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Terrible

I went to edit some of this article, but I really don't know where to start. It is in dire need of a complete rewrite. There is (for a start) much talk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases from one's own anus, which I believe belongs in the "a2om" section.

As it is, I feel that most of this article reads as if it were written by a 12 year old who is trying rather hard to be obscene. While I have no issue with "objectionable comment", I must postulate that large portions of the text are entirely for shock value, including the rather odd quote (resource 7). The nail in the coffin is the "see also: Dirty Sanchez", which always seems to be tacked onto the end of anal-related articles despite having absolutely nothing to do with the subject other than it is a sexual act.

114.30.108.221 (talk) 10:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to your opinion. Your feelings about who wrote it, however, aren't relevant here. Try reading the [[deletion review discussion before reaching conclusions about those who have taken an interest in this article.

Contracting diseases belongs in the health risks section. I am mystified why you would want such discussion in any other section.

The quote in reference 7 is necessary. There was no other resource that could be found with an explanation of douching in the context to the A2M act. As this act has high prevalence on film, a discussion of how the porn industry treats this act adds encyclopedic value to the article. Feel free to substitute a better reference if you can find it.

The Dirty Sanchez link has been removed before and has reappeared. I'll remove it again. =Axlq 16:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

American spelling != "English"

I hate to mention it, but outside of the US "ass" refers to a donkey. Given that Wikipedia aspires toward national and cultural neutrality, it is probably wise to replace the American spelling "ass" with "arse".

Have to say I am so damn sick of American spelling in a supposedly international Internet resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.74.35 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I live in Canada and I doubt like hell anyone thinks of a donkey when someone uses the word "ass," especially in this context. As for your bitching about American spelling, I'm sick and tired of seeing British spelling when American spelling is much more prevalent.68.146.2.138 (talk) 09:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Just because the Americans can't spell, don't blame us Brits, we did give you proper English to start with. Anyway, the name should stay as is - the only place you will see the name would be in a porn movie, and they always use the US spelling.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Heh. We Americans realized a century or so ago that the Brits have been misspelling English words for ages, so we corrected and simplified things. Unfortunately we haven't been able to rid ourselves of those ridiculous "gh" spellings (eight, through, cough, etc. although we did figure out that 'plough' is better off spelled 'plow').

I must admit, though, personally I prefer the British word 'arse' because it doesn't have the ambiguity of 'ass'. Nevertheless, in the context of the sex act, I have never seen it spelled any other way but 'ass'. =Axlq 03:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thankfully, we don't need to discuss this as it already well covered at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 23:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's be honest, unless we're talking about porn filmed in Tijuana no one is going to confuse "ass" with "donkey" in this context. SLEPhoto (talk) 16:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

...does anyone else find this section hilarious! — "donkey-to-mouth" sex anyone, lol; how the hell do you even do that (in fact, forget I asked)! 69.96.69.96 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

PC or not PC, that is the question

I have no issues with the removing the PC "person" in favour of "man" ([1]) given how that paragraph is currently written. However, I'm wondering if we should re-write that to re-PC it and include strap-on dildos. Ass to mouth is already an uncommon activity—is dildo A2M a common enough activity to warrant a minor rewrite? – RobinHood70 ^talk 01:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I say change it back. A2M is not just a penis, it's anything which goes from the ass to the mouth. "man" excludes quite a lot and is factually incorrect for that reason. You could rewrite it to incorporate "man" somehow but that distinction is not needed or exclusive to this behaviour. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

If the term most commonly means "penis taken from the ass, then placed in the mouth," which this Google search may indicate, I feel that we should use that as the definition first and then note the other definitions. But most of those sources are porn sites or other inappropriate sources for defining the term here at Wikipedia. I did not find much on Google Books regarding the term (even using specific words to indicate that I was referring to the porn aspect), but at least there are also a few sources on Google Scholar using the term. Flyer22 (talk) 11:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

RobinHood70, ass to mouth is not an uncommon activity. You should get out more!

Nuttyskin (talk) 23:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

IP edits of Nov 3

While there were some very good points brought up in the IP's edit summaries, and I think the edits themselves were mostly well-intentioned, they really went too far in removing content simply because it's mis-sourced or unsourced. That, in and of itself, is insufficient reason to remove content if the content is likely to be legitimate and related to the topic. The "Health concerns" section would be one example of that, and some of the other content, while more dubious, could also qualify. For example, A2M is very frequently associated with domination and humiliation, even if that wasn't properly sourced. Whether that's of relevance to the article or not is more debatable. Lastly, I reverted the edits due to the hidden commentary. That's rarely desirable in a wiki article, and completely unacceptable when it contains foul language. – RobinHood70 ^talk 10:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• The WP:BURDEN for providing sources to unsourced or unreliably sourced content lies WITH THE PERSON WISHING TO RESTORE THE CONTENT. Therefore, you are in the wrong when you simply restored all this content with no sources. Do not revert me again unless you have sources for this content, or I'll get an administrator here to support me. Per your comment I have removed the hidden content, but I did not have enough space in the "edit summary" box to communicate all the problems with the content I was removing. I also expand on some of these points below:

• The health concerns section was built out of unsourced content and content based on unreliable sources which did not ever mention this topic. It is WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH using primary sources.

• The images are of no benefit here. Arguably, neither is relevant to this topic, they have been taken from other articles, and the captions are unencyclopedic.- Anon 212.183.128.122 (talk)

To be honest this reads like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and the IP is violating WP:POINT also. If i see more reverts from the IP but no discussion here then i'm breaking out the vandalism templates. Also read WP:Censor. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 14:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Another point to take into consideration is the entire second paragraph of the WP:BURDEN policy you keep citing. Removing a lot of material just because it's poorly sourced—and I agree, it is—is not the appropriate first step, especially when what you're doing is basically reducing the article from being substantive to being a stub. Adding citation tags and removing sources that don't support statements is what you should be doing, then you and I and/or other editors can work to improve the sourcing of the article. Also, altering another user's message is extremely inappropriate, and can eventually lead to blocking. Please don't do it again. – RobinHood70 ^talk 22:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't threaten me with block, I am in the right, people who are re-adding unsourced content back in all the time are in the wrong. We should aggressively remove content like this. It is dangerous because it gives wrongful health information. Whoever made the health concerns section should have ALL their other edits looked at because they have no idea how wikipedia works.- Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.31 (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I have not said I don't like this topic once, I have asked for some of the content to be removed for legitimate reasons. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.31 (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, It is not accurate to say "poorly sourced". The sources which have been outright removed DO NOT MENTION THIS TOPIC. This is therefore WP:original research to suggest that the sources are linked to this topic. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.31 (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2013

The sources which don't mention or indirectly cover fecal-oral transmission (or whatever's appropriate) should be removed and replaced with {{Citation needed}} tags. You cannot arbitrarily remove large amounts of content without giving other editors the opportunity to find appropriate sources, as stated in WP:BURDEN. I'm fairly certain that when we have the time, there will be ample sources for the health concerns on articles like Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B, and other sourcing issues may similarly be easily resolved. Right now, however, we're too busy dealing with you to address the problems on the article. If you'd genuinely like to help, please take the advice you've been given and discuss the problems or alter the article as suggested, pointing out places where it can be improved rather than wholesale deleting the content. – RobinHood70 ^talk 00:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I just made some removals from the article. I didn't realize there was a talk page discussion here or I would have weighed in first. Basically, we shouldn't have content that is unsourced or sourced to unreliable sources on a controversial topic, especially one with medical ramifications. I left the images in for now, though I agree they are kind of stupid. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And, via WP:Echo, I thanked Mark for that removal. I've was staying out of weighing in on this dispute concerning the IP because I have other Wikipedia articles to worry about, and enough possible debates from those. However, I generally agree with the IP and Mark on this matter ("generally" because the IP's comments and actions with regard to WP:BURDEN are not entirely correct/defensible and I don't agree with Mark that the images are kind of stupid; the images' captions are possibly what are giving off the "kind of stupid" effect). Furthermore, considering that this edit that Jenova20 made is not supported by the source currently in the lead, it is not text that should remain attributed to that source; I already made my thoughts clear on this aspect (that type of text) in the #PC or not PC, that is the question section above. It's apparent that "Ass to mouth" generally refers to "a man's penis from the receptive partner's anus followed by the immediate insertion of the penis into the mouth of the receptive partner's or another partner's mouth." Therefore, that is the definition that most WP:Weight should be given to; it's the definition that should come first, perhaps with a clarification that the term most often refers to that aspect. There are barely any WP:Reliable sources on the "Ass to mouth" topic, and I have not yet seen any (not even unreliable sources) that extend the term to sex toys (dildos or otherwise). And as for health information, the standard sourcing in that regard is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS); the current health sources are not too good, and the Dan Savage source should perhaps be replaced. Flyer22 (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I was just about to sit down and go through the article myself, only to discover someone had beaten me to it. Thanks for the edits, Mark—they were far more surgical and reasoned edits than the near-total deletion the IP was trying to do. I still feel the health section could have stayed more or less intact with a few CNs for the time being, but as far as I know, Hep A is the big concern when talking about fecal-oral transmission, which is still there, so that's fair enough.

As a first step in reworking this article, I've reviewed some of the related articles and I've found support for some of the removed material. For health, the main one is Coprophagia#In humans, second paragraph. It isn't directly sourced, but several of the linked diseases mention transmission via the fecal-oral route in the lead. The articles for Campylobacter and Shigella, which were removed in your edits, also mention fecal-oral transmission in the body of each article. As far as the domination/humiliation aspect, that's mentioned in Coprophilia, and more tangentially (under the term "fetish") by Coprophagia#In sex. The question is, is that particularly enlightening for this article? I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to figure out that ass to mouth is a fairly humiliating or degrading activity, even for those who practice it consensually.

Lastly, Flyer22, I agree with your suggestion about the assumed definition with other variants coming afterwards. I'll reword that part appropriately. – RobinHood70 ^talk 04:08, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Some improvement has been made with these deletions. However, I point out that 4/5 sources still do not mention this topic.

The health concerns section is entirely WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH because it implies that these sources are somehow linked to this topic when this needs to be explicitly stated in the source. If you want to put scientific studies in saying this is a risky activity, then the source should probably mention this activity at least. This is not the same topic as feco-oral route of transmission, that's why there is a separate article on that.

The images, especially the image captions, are superfluous and do not add anything to the article. If at least the unencyclopedic captions were removed ... but still this is not the worst aspect of this article's quality.

The Dan Savage reference is barely linked to this topic. Neither is it reliable.

If there are hardly any reliable sources for a topic, do I really have to remind people that reliable sources are a requirement for notability of an encyclopedia entry. If there are hardly any sources, then it should be a stub. Better a stub than filled with bs.

It seems that Wikipedia pages on sexual topics (or at least the 2 I have looked at in detail, this and masturbation) are very below standard, where certain editors feel that the normal rules that apply to rest of the encyclopedia do not apply to them.

I could go on and on listing furhter original research that has been permitted to remain, the see also links, the hatnote. -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.10 (talk) 23:39, 6 November 2013

What makes you think that a reference has to specifically mention the subject at hand in order to be used in an article? It's not original research to equate fecal-oral transmission with ass-to-mouth in a health context, it's common sense. To quote the Fecal–oral route article, "pathogens in fecal particles [the "ass"] pass from one host and introduced into the oral cavity ["mouth"] of another host".

Also, how do you see this article as being "filled with bs"? Unsourced does not necessarily equate with "bs", it equates with "unsourced". As I outlined in my post above, sources from other articles on closely related activities to this one back up the information found in this article. You can hardly call multiple sources that agree with one another across multiple articles "bs". – RobinHood70 ^talk 03:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The anus and mouth come into contact = (possible, if person is unclean anyway) fecal/oral transmission, specifically ass to mouth. Those sources are therefore entirely appropriate. To argue otherwise is the argument of an incompetent editor and such people should therefore not be editing the article directly, but instead sticking to the talk page. I've thought about this since yesterday and even after sleeping on it i can't see how anyone can seriously make that argument and claim to know what they're talking about. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

The cavalier attitude of editors here is very concerning.

• Other wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources for another given wikipedia articles. Seriously, and you call me incompetent?

• Wikipedia articles are not a platform for your original research. There is no evidence linking this topic with those sources. Those sources are about feco-oral transmission, which is a separate article in the encyclopedia. This term is to do with contaminated water and food supplies. If any of those articles at least mentioned "the penis can carry these pathogens into the mouth if anal sex is followed by oral sex" then it would be OK. But they do not, at all. They are on a different topic, and it is original research to state that this activity is a health concern without a reliable source which explicitly states this.

• Why am I being threatened with banning and called incompetent for removing unsourced content and original research? This is what we all should be doing!

I think all things considered, the views of editors here strongly diverge from the mainstream consensus of wikipedia editors. Don't worry though, I will not make the mistake of visiting a Wikipedia article about sexual topics again. Clearly, attempts to make these articles encyclopedic are not welcome by these types of editors who consider themselves above the normal rules. -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.14 (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2013

I wasn't suggesting that we use other Wikipedia articles, I was suggesting that we use the sources from those articles, which is exactly what's described as appropriate in the Wikipedia guidelines. Fecal-oral contact includes, and I quote directly from that article, "sexual practices that may involve oral contact with feces, such as anilingus or coprophilia". Is the practice of ass-to-mouth mentioned directly there? No, but neither was that meant to be an exclusive list (hence, "such as"). We don't need a medical source to tell us that anal sex will place trace amounts of fecal matter on the penis, which you're then transmitting to the mouth. That's just simple logic. Finally, you're not being "threatened", you're being informed. Over the last few days, several editors have taken your points into account and acted on many of them because you had some very legitimate concerns, which we've all acknowledged from the beginning. That doesn't mean, however, that all your points were correct or that your actions to remedy them were appropriate. You have so far demonstrated nearly every common sign listed under "Common tendentious behaviors", and the natural consequence of that will be increasing corrective measures. – RobinHood70 ^talk 19:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

OK last comment, because this is getting stupid. As if anyone even reads this article anyway, most probably come here by mistake. "Sexual practices that may involve oral contact with feces, such as anilingus or coprophilia." is unreferenced on that article. Suggest if this is indeed supported in one of the sources from the feco-oral transmission article, and then that could support the following content on this topic: "Anal sex followed by oral sex could be potentially harmful via feco-oral transmission of pathogens". Then we can delete the OR. Interested parties could then follow the interwikilinks to the other topics. This avoids presenting references on this article as if they are specifically about this topic, which they are not. If, as I suspect the comment from feco-oral transmission is unreferenced and unsupported by any of the sources, that too should be deleted. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.121 (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2013‎

I'm sorry, but I still don't see why this is even a concern. The only things we're supposed to source are those that are non-obvious or contentious. It's simply not contentious that fecal-oral route includes ass to mouth. Nobody except for you has questioned this, and two of us have now pointed out different statements that both support that ass to mouth is clearly and obviously a fecal-oral transmission route. If you're still unconvinced, Google fecal-oral route. The Wikipedia article is the first result I got back, and this is the second. Rimming (aka anilingus) is discussed there as a fecal-oral transmission route.

Lastly, please stop deleting your signatures. A linked signature is expected on Wikipedia. – RobinHood70 ^talk 23:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If the IP wants to go down this route then he/she needs to prove with a reliable source his/her argument on the section of fecal-oral contact/transmission. The status quo should not be challenged by a less likely statement from an anonymous editor, with no evidence to back their argument. Use common sense and improve the article, instead of trying to covertly get it deleted or censored IP. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:19, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Cultural References

I've restored this section with acceptable references. IMDB is an acceptable source for data & raw info about movies. So the material from "Clerks II" is in point of fact a cultural reference to ATM. Please let it stay there, unless you can discredit the info. Tapered (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, regarding your restoration, IMDb generally is not a WP:Reliable source; see Wikipedia:IMDB/RS#IMDb and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. As you can see, the "generally" part applies to "data & raw info about movies" as well. Also seen in your restoration is YouTube used as a source; that generally is not allowed either, except for cases where it's the official YouTube channel with regard to the material or is being used, for example, to source information about an Internet celebrity, such as Chris Crocker or Jenna Marbles; again, see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Also see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:YOUTUBE. I'll also note this matter on the IP's talk page you very recently commented on. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

ATO(G)M

I'm not sure ATOGM particularly needs its own section. It is, after all, just a variant of the primary activity. It also inappropriately assumes a specific gender. I think the section can be removed, since the lead already mentions it. – RobinHood70 ^talk 12:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Images

Since both the image usage and its absence are contested, I thought I'd bring it to the talk page. I don't feel strongly about it, but I tend to side with the IP who restored the images. To me, the montage is about as clear as we can get short of adding video since it is, almost by definition, a two-part act. (In a three-way, you could actually reduce it to a single act, but I don't think that's the archetypal version of it.) Per UNCENSORED, I don't consider the images to be gratuitous since they demonstrate visually the act being described by the text. What's the argument for removing them? – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 02:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

actually I think an animated image (maybe not a vid but at the least a gif) would be the ideal. Surely we can find somebody to volunteer one? DeistCosmos (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be easy to convert those two images into an animated .gif with two frames and a slow 1-second frame rate. While I believe these images are borderline under the WP:GRATUITOUS policy, my primary objection to the montage is technical; it relies on page layout to make any sense, and requires splitting up a caption into two parts. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

The technical side of the issue could be mostly addressed by putting the pictures in a div or table, or better yet, just editing the two images into one, but I'd be fine with an animated GIF as well. Just don't ask me to make it...my image editing skills are limited to the basics. :) – Robin Hood  ^(talk) 20:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I could do it, but not from work! I'll have to wait until I get some free time at home, unless someone else wants to do it.

It should be a pretty simple process: On your computer, save the two images with the same dimensions in .gif format, then use a free online service like gifmaker.me to create an animated gif from them. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Different receptive partner

the withdrawal of a penis from the receptive partner's anus followed by the immediate insertion into the receptive partner's mouth

While the above does pass muster as a technical description/definition; please be aware that in the majority of instances, both in porn and in real life, the withdrawn penis is then inserted into the mouth of a different individual from the one who has just served as receptive partner.

Thus, as two physical systems are being penetrated, not simply one, the potential for the transmission of sources of infection is greatly increased.

Nuttyskin (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)