Talk:Autofellatio/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Image:Autofellatio_2.jpg

Why is there only a link to the image, and not the image itself? Gerard Foley 20:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Because it is placed on Mediawiki:Bad image list, because it was used to vandalize articles and user pages. —Ruud 21:24, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

But the article should have a picture of what it's talking about. Vandals vandalize pages anyway (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gmcfoley&oldid=35865649), and it's usually fixed within 60 seconds, so what's the problem. It sounds like we're letting the vandals win. Gerard Foley 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. It would be interesting to see what we do when vandals start posting Image:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad drawings.jpg all over the place. —Ruud 21:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know I put Mediawiki:Bad image list up for deletion. Gerard Foley 22:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Putting images likely to cause offense behind a link is smart because this does the greatest service to the greatest number of users. The large set of people who would be offended by the picture do not need to see it accidentally. The large number of people who want to see it are not kept from taking one simple click to see it. Johntex\^talk 19:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

There is no reason to include actual photographs of the act. The drawing depicts it well enough, and while this site is not censored for the protection of minors, it still is innappropriate. I hope that the image is deleted. If anyone here simply wants to look at men performing autofellatio, then there is a huge list of porn sites for him to choose from. - Conrad Devonshire 06:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I cannot believe we are still discussing this after so many long, long months. Exploding Boy 06:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The reason to include the photo of the act is simply because that is what the article is about. There is no NPOV reason not to include it. Gerard Foley 10:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hasn't this issue been voted on umpteen times already? Why do we have to keep revisiting it? Can't we just have a note on the talk page saying it's already been dealt with? Exploding Boy 16:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all there is No binding decisions, and the polls were done over a year ago. It might be time to look at the issue again. Gerard Foley 04:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the image is great behind the link. That way, it isn't hurting anyone who doesn't want to see it. U$er 04:52, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the Autofellatio image box looks terrible, since it overlaps the "References in fiction" box. I think the photograph does add something to the article, in that it is fairly solid proof that the act can be acomplished, but the "naughy image box" wrecks the layout. Perhaps it could be moved to the bottom of the page as a citation or an external link? Labia Ears 07:07, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

i've removed tag. --tasc 07:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

What the Hell?

I know I'm adding to it by posting this, but how the hell does an article on autofellacio have 28 talk section? jesus christ!.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems that some people don't know that Wikipedia is not censored. If any of my young siblings stumbled across this I'd be "Yes, that's what a man who's sucking his own penis looks like. Any questions?" but some people are naive enough to think their kids don't already know far worse (or even more scarily, some people's kids actually don't know worse). ZoFreX 21:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Moshe, did you have a question? Johntex\^talk 11:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Added confusing tag

The article discusses the egyptian mythology in two places, which is silly in itself, and the second time round it seems to disregard some of what is said first time - first time seems to say that consensus is that Ra did not do autofellatio, second time seems to say he did. ZoFreX 21:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Monkey business?

"Autofellatio is the act of oral stimulation of one's own penis as a form of masturbation." - Animals clean themselves, they don't autofellate... Sweetie Petie 10:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Prove they only do it for cleaning... and you cant... no scientist will validate your assumption.  ALKIVAR™ 02:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Prove they don't. Sweetie Petie 08:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh... the word here is "stimulate", if they're cleaning, they dont stimulate, just like how if a person is cleaning their genitals in the shower, they arent neccessarily stimulating. Get it? TR_Wolf

I sometimes stimulate my penis in the shower LOL Jamie 14:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow.......that was unnessesary.....70.248.193.161 21:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Autofellatio_2.jpg

Why is it linked? It shouldn't be censored for delicate people. As the articles Penis, Vulva (etc) contain images of the article subject it is only appropriate that autofellatio conforms. It should either be removed if it is of no encyclopedic value or shown completely if it contributes to the article. // Nnp 22:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Because it's been put on the "bad image list", which I suggest as many people as possible strongly protest. Exploding Boy 04:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It says on the talk page for the bad image list that the consensus here is to not show it. Is this so? Maybe a vote (with the not censored guideline in mind) is in order? Or has this already been done? // Nnp 09:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this "bad image list" was created in order to prevent certain images being used to vandalise user pages. As far as I can tell, this system was created with little or no discussion, and is now being used to censor Wikipedia. Removing an image from the list will eventually cause it to reappear in place of the inline link--I did this with the image on Prince Albert piercing, which was placed on the list against consensus on the talk page to leave the image in the article, and without telling anyone. I strongly suggest that as many people as possible strongly object to this "bad image list." Exploding Boy 17:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• The consensus was to link it because displaying the image is needlessly shocking. Serious general references works do not tend to display photographs of sexual acts. We want to be considered a serious general reference work. Showing the image would be harmful to our mission, simple as that. It is not "censorship", it is simply an editorial decision. No government or dictator has forced its removal, so the term censorship is misleading. Putting the image behind one single click harms no one. People who wish to read a mainstream article about the practice can do so without having the image thrust upon them. People who wish to see it may click to do so. I strongly suggest we accept the wisdom of this, stop arguing about it, and get on with making improvements. Johntex\^talk 21:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not shocking in the context of an article about autofellatio. Keeping it as a linkimage is simply prudish and appeases people with certain moral/religious objections to such content. Let me ask: Do you object to the pictures in Penis, Vulva etc? The fact of the matter is that it is not our responsibility to look after the children of others. If kids can't handle the images they shouldn't be allowed by their parents/school to browse wikipedia, or the web in general (which is often far more graphic) unsupervised. People reading an article about autofellatio at work are old enough to know what kind of risks they are taking.

A far more elegant technical solution to the vandal problem would be to make a special category of images that can only be used in specified articles, requiring an admin (or a user in good standing, not in the newest 2% and with over 200 edits) to add to the list of articles allowed to use the image. This could be done with minimal server load increase by using a special image template with the check builtin instead of complicating the standard image template. // Nnp 22:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The image can be shocking even in an article about autofellatio for two reasons. The first is that some people will hear or see the term and not know what the term means, and they will look it up here to find out. Therefore, they cannot know in advance to expect a photo. The second reason is that most people have an expectation that a serious reference work would not show such a picture. To answer your question about pictures at penis and vulva, I do not personally find photos there offensive if they are clinical in nature, However, if they are shown in a titilating context, then I would find them offensive to include in an encyclopedia. Others may find even the clinical photos offensive. They should be able to express that view wihtout being called prudish. You go off on a tangent about protecting children. No one claimed it is our responsibility to protect them, but that doensn't mean we have to shock them or their parents deliberately. Just because we can't guarantee that no vandal will upload objectionable content does not mean we should deliberately chose to include objectionable content. We have control over our own actions and we can use our own editorial judgement. Again, your point about people knowing what they are getting into is not valid since not everyone will be familiar with the term beforehand. Johntex\^talk 00:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Images of penises are included on the so-called "bad image list." In fact, nearly all of the images on the list are of penises. Nnp, your suggestion is an excellent one. I suggest you introduce it on the Bad images talk page. Exploding Boy 22:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to implement it myself (time allowing) if people agree it's a better solution. I'll ask what they think. // Nnp 22:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how to join the discussion(dunno if this was pasted properly) but I would like to say I'm no child and I have no children... however I think it only makes sense to not have an actual picture of a guy committing auto fellatio. This is considering I do not believe there are any sex position related articles besides it that have anything besides drawn depictions, which this article has already. Anon451 8:45PM, 29, 2008 (GMT -06:00) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.216.22.130 (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Bad image list update

A patch implementing the abovementioned functionality has been made some time ago (not by me), it's on bugzilla. I don't have time right now to check if it's in wikipedia's mediawiki, check how to use it and battle every linkimage fan. Just thought I'd let you know. --Nnp 14:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Health concerns

I was rather surprised to see that this article neglected to mention health concerns. Are there any dangers (beyond muscular straining) concerning sucking or licking your own penis? Could you transfer STD sores from your penis to your mouth, or your mouth to your penis? Before I research this and make a contribution, I was wondering if you feel this article needs to have such a section. The Winds Are Broken 13:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In theory, maybe, but I can't imagine there are enough people actually doing this to warrant a health warning. Mushin^talk 23:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Notice

I'd like to post a notice at the beginning of the talk page, mentioning that WIKIPEDIA IS NOT CENSORED FOR MINORS... I think placing a notice at the top might prevent future reoccurances of the same old discussions about "obscenities". Any agreements or disagreements? Kurds 08:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think such a notice would be inappropriate. We have general policies and guidelines that can be cited when people aren't themselves updated on their content. Besides, I don't think such a notice would prevent anything, nor do I feel it important to prevent people's outbursts of indignation now and again. __meco 10:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose your right. I'll leave everything as is. Kurds 17:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Porno links

Someone removed one of the links. However, if we are to have links to porno sites I feel the one that wasn't removed is more pertinent. These are the two links in question:

• Autofellatio Men
• selfellatio.com

Should we keep both, none or which one? __meco 23:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

how far is autofellatio closer to homosexuality than masturbation?

metaphysical question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.228.0.12 (talk • contribs) 21:35, July 6, 2006 (UTC)

I'd say a lot closer. However, that is based on my opinion that sexual preference as presented in both academic and popular lore is grossly misrepresented. I consider the object capable of arousing sexual feelings to reside on an axis of perceived ontological proximity:

1. Object much different from self - heterosexuality
2. Object less different from self - homosexuality
3. Object not different from self - autosexuality

As fellatio is a more encompassing and intimate sexual practice than manual stimulation (of one self or a partner), it takes more in respect of capacity for self-loving to autofellate than to masturbate. People with a diminished capacity for self-love will, this is my guess, be prone to phantasizing when masturbating, thus distancing themselves from their own self. __meco 22:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the POV, yes you're pretty right, this one is a common view. actually i was thinking about the extreme (final) purpose, refering to automasturbation, I think selfloving/autosexuality (or narcissism) is entirely part of homosexuality since homo/self/auto are synonyms (and the same entity in this particular case). also self/auto love/sexuality excludes the other side (male/female) -just like in the Narciss myth- but contains the own (homo/auto are the same here) side that's why i think automasturbation as well as autofellatio are (phantasizing aspect apart - homosexual act can be done with hetero phantasizing i guess, and phantasizing about the other side's organ can be possible in autofellatio if you know what i mean) true "physical homosexuality". don't you agree meco? 213.228.0.86 22:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Apart from a prominent contamination of most sexual behavior with neurotic content, which tends to obfuscate the picture, I'd say you highlight some highly significant correspondences. However, I'd go beyond your wording of describing autofellatio/automasturbation as "true 'physical homosexuality'", refering to my previously outlined threestep evolutionary scheme. Meaning auto, when realized in a trancendent experience (altered state), would to some extent integrate the opposite gender identity with the single-gender self (where homos would not). Glenn Scheper also elaborates on this aspect of the phenomenon. (And, btw, I assert the resident neurotic content was what triggered Scheper's psychoses when he entered a higher level of consciousness for an extended period.) __meco 23:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

An article talk page is for talking about its associated article, not the subject of the associated article. This conversation, while somewhat interesting, has no place here. ^L_Wizard @ 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right, of course. Let's not add to this thread. __meco 00:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

see also

what the conection of autofelatio and Entheogen?

The connection is discussed in the section "Autofellatio as entheogenic practice". As it states in the inrtroduction of the entheogen article "an entheogen is "that which causes God (or godly inspiration) to be within a person". __meco 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Might it not be appropriate to move it further down the page, though? Seeing as it's a rather specialized topic. Rōnin 18:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree somewhat, however, that would entail placing this section after the section on references in popular culture, which basically is nothing but a list of trivia. __meco 08:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that is true. Rōnin 11:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Autofellatio in film

According to this article, the movie Shortbus contains film of real autofellatio. Anchoress 04:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

bogus information

removed:

Autofellatio was apparently performed during religious rituals in honour of this.

apparently to whom? david lorton, the only source cited in the paragraph, does not mention any such thing. googling found only unreferenced websites which may well have taken their information from this article. does anyone have a halfway reliable source for this?

the following paragraph is similarly flawed:

Another controversial theory, still debated by egyptologists, suggests that Horus, the son of the god Osiris, performed autofellatio every night because ingesting his own semen kept the stars in their places, and thus order was maintained. While autofellatio may have been a normal part of Egyptian life, the information has been largely suppressed from the general public due to its taboo nature. Many paintings featuring the act were vandalised in Victorian times for that reason.

1. which egyptologists? name one. name two, in fact, since there's supposedly a debate over this.
2. or it may not have been any such thing. the evidence available is, to put it kindly, thin. does anyone who knows what they're talking about hold this theory?
3. the information has been suppressed by whom? oh, right, the victorians. here's the thing: to make a claim like this, one needs some evidence that such vandalisms did in fact take place. if the diary of some victorian egyptologist records the destruction of a painting of autofellatio, then there are grounds for supposing that there were more; without something like that, this is no more than empty speculation. 65.95.37.193 20:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Improper references to religion and entheogens

Entheogens are "psychoactive substances used in a religious or shamanic context", a quite unrelated topic and misleading link. Find good references to prove the connection between the topic of the article and use of psychoactive substances.

Also the category of "religious behaviour and experience" is unsuitable here. Even if somebody is very serious about his sexual preferences, this does not make a religion. Try to prove existence of such practice inside any religion with notable amount of followers. Hele 7 23:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I do respect the viewpoint you profess, however, I believe it may not be that simple. I quote from the introduction to the Entheogen article:

“ The word entheogen is a modern term derived from two Ancient Greek words, ἔνθεος (entheos) and γενέσθαι (genesthai). Entheos literally means "god (theos) within", more freely translated "inspired". The Greeks used it as a term of praise for poets and other artists. Genesthai means "to cause to be" or becoming. So an entheogen is "that which causes God (or godly inspiration) to be within a person". ”

Normally the word entheogen is applied only to psychoactive substances, however, the article itself lists a notable exception of the Christian Eucharist often being named an entheogen by some. Also, I have aired my use of the term in the current article on the Entheogen talk page some two and a half months ago having heard no objections or comments to this use thus far.

So, while you may argue that the way the term is used in the current article is a watering-out of the term, I find it the best describing word for the spiritual applications and the results that allegedly may arise from them which are being elaborated on in Autofellatio. I cannot see any alternative term that would provide an equally meaningful emphasis.

Having written the above I now read your second paragraph which I more strongly disagree with. A religious practice does not have to be linked with any organized or labelled religion. A relgious practice may be an intensely personal, private experience, with no links to peopled organizations. __meco 08:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

About entheogen: Ethymology cannot be taken for definition (example: "demagogy"). An encyclopedia is not a proper place to practice "my use of the term"; we should stick to well-established use. An encyclopedia may mention exceptional uses of terms (your example of Christian Eucharist, that meaning a substance for ingestion is less exceptional than your use), but it should use their normal meanings. If you want to modify common use of the term, use it your way in your published works - if you do it well enough, maybe this will change the common use and make its way to secondary sources and encyclopedias. But you should not insert "your use" (which differs from normal use as you admit) directly into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a right place to propose a new usage of a term.

About religion: religion is always a social phenomenon; it is more than a personal conviction no matter how deep. See the article about religion - no one of religions mentioned there practices autofellatio. A notable "religious behaviour or experience" should appear in at least one notable religion. Hele 7 07:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The article we have on religion emphasizes the diversity of definitions and perspectives one may take towards this, and although "a religion" certainly is contained in your definition, "religious behavior and experience" most certainly isn't.

As for your opinion on the use of the word entheogen in the article, I can see the rationale of your argument, but, this word is a neologism and again, I will assert that "an entheogen" narrows the possible uses of the word when contrasted with its application as an adjective which is how it is used in this article.

I will await other comments on this dispute. __meco 19:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "is contained in your definition"? I do not propose "my definitions", I insist that Wikipedia should use words in their established meanings. "Religious behavior and experience" should occur in context of some religion - you should prove that such a religion exists. Try to find some reliable sources. Hele 7 22:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

But that is exactly where we disagree. You assert that use of the adjective "religious" must be traceable back to an organized (and named) religion whereas I claim that a person may very well exercise religious behavior and have religious experiences without these being derived from the community of a religion. I also claim that my interpretation is supported in our article on religion which you have previously called in reference. __meco 06:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The article on religion does not support your view that can exist a personal and private "religious practice" which is not practiced in any religion. On contrary, the article reads: "Religion is a system of social coherence based on a common group of beliefs or attitudes concerning an object, person, unseen being, or system of thought considered to be supernatural, sacred, divine or highest truth, and the moral codes, practices, values, institutions, and rituals associated with such belief or system of thought. It is sometimes used interchangeably with "faith" or "belief system", but is more socially defined than that of personal convictions."

No matter how seriously one can take any of his activities, these are not religious activities if these are not connected with a religion. Example: a person is extremely interested in knitting, practices it often and considers this the most holy and meaningful activity. Nevertheless this does not justify saying "knitting is a religious practice" in Wikipedia article about knitting. There are many people who are very fond of football, collecting stamps, automobiles... whatever, but we do not label these hobbies "religious" in respective Wikipedia articles. Why should a kind of masturbation be an exception? Hele 7 12:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You seem not to acknowledge the significant element of the individual's relationship with God and/or the Holy, and you bring on some ludicrous examples that could only serve to bring ridicule on this whole discussion. The quote that you cite is out of context. Let me quote from that same aticle:

• "Religion may be defined as the presence of a belief in the sacred or the holy."

Also from the Wikipedia article on Religion:

• The Encyclopedia of Religion describes religion in the following way:

"In summary, it may be said that almost every known culture involves the religious in the above sense of a depth dimension in cultural experiences at all levels — a push, whether ill-defined or conscious, toward some sort of ultimacy and transcendence that will provide norms and power for the rest of life. When more or less distinct patterns of behaviour are built around this depth dimension in a culture, this structure constitutes religion in its historically recognizable form. Religion is the organization of life around the depth dimensions of experience — varied in form, completeness, and clarity in accordance with the environing culture."

(Winston King, Encyclopedia of Religion, p 7693)

Your interpretation would appear also to exclude the entire new age movement and instances of individual spirituality from the realm og religiosity, so I find it therefore eccentric and not persuading when it comes to making the changes you have proposed to this article. __meco 14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

1. I do acknowledge individual's relationship with God, but in every religion there are also social and cultural aspects. You can see the cultural aspects also in the quotes you chose. Without these cultural aspects there is no religion, just personal beliefs, behaviours and feelings.

2. My quote was not "out of context", this is the very beginning of the article on religion and a summary of it. It does not exclude the New Age movement which is also a social phenomenon. Note that no similar movements of autofellators exist. Instances of individual spirituality are "religious" if they are connected with a religion.

3. You did not answer my question: why should a kind of masturbation be called religious if other activities of similar significance for some people are not called religious?

4. You have not found any reliable sources which would mention autofellatio as a religious behaviour or experience, or would apply the adjective "entheogenic" to it. Some university textbook on religions, a scientific monography, a peer-reviewed journal would do. Wikipedia is not a place to express unsupported personal opinions. Hele 7 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As for references to this highly esoteric perspective, Glenn Scheper's web is linked. When you describe this practices as "a kind of masturbation" comparing it to "other activities of similar significance" I would like to see some relevant examples before I can consider your argument. You have previously named knitting, football, collecting stamps, automobiles and I have asserted these examples as spurious and arbitrary with no relevant significance to autofellatio in the context of achieving a heightened level of consciousness or a sense of "God consciousness". __meco 07:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should use reliable published sources, a personal web is not enough. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it says:"A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Also, you still did not answer my question. It is you who should prove (with references to reliable published sources) that autofellatio is a religious or entheogenic activity. Labelling my examples with pejoratives does not help you. Hele 7 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have stated that your so-called examples are spurious. Without any realistic examples your question dissipates. Since you insist I will elaborate on the matter of qualified sources. Here we have an example of a practice (autofellatio) which is linked with religion and religious practices both through its prevalence in ancient Egyptian religion AND creation myths according to scholar David Lorton (referenced as footnotes 2 and 3 currently-- I added the second one now to make previous wording of that paragraph clearer). Furthermore the documentation comes additionally as an elaborated self-published anecdotal testament and analysis through Glenn Scheper's lengthy essay. As you have quoted, provision for use of such a source has been established. You may insist it is inapplicable in this case whereas I assert that this is prima facie instance where it must be applied. The two of us alone cannot settle that dispute. Nevertheless Lorton alone would suffice. __meco 02:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that comments from others are needed and I requested more comments. 1. Websites in your references clearly do not comply with Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Also they do not say a word about autofellatio as an entheogenic practice or achieving altered states of consciousness through it. 2. Note that not everything a god is claimed to have done is a religious practice - e.g. god Hephaestus was a blacksmith in ancient Greek mythology, but this does not mean that smithing should be categorized as a religious behaviour in Wikipedia. 3. You still have not answered my question: why is autofellatio more "religious" than other hobbies? Instead you keep labelling my examples as "spurious and arbitrary" without any arguments. Hele 7 06:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed from article the following:

Scheper likens what happens to the phenomenon of infinite regress known in quantum mechanics as a strange loop or Von Neumann's catastrophe of the infinite regress where the mind loses its grip on the subject-object relationship and one finds oneself at once being receiver and giver of fellatio. This could be comparable to an experience of apotheosis which Scheper compares with the surmised initiatory states of consciousness attained by religious icons such as Enoch, Moses, Buddha and Jesus. The literature history is, according to Scheper, replete with esoteric references to this act. He gives for instance the following example from the Old Testament involving Moses:

And the LORD said, Behold, [there is] a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock:

it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:

I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:21-23)

The exoteric significance of this section becomes very obvious when one sees the rock as Moses' skull; the glory as Moses' phallus, that also being his standing aspect. Scheper points out that for this metaphor (and other that he enumerates) to be recognized it is essential to realize that the classic autofellatio discovery position is inverted, "when body weight flexes one's neck to yield a sudden advantage. Thus upside-down"

This text is not properly sourced. The reference to Robert Anton Wilson does not say anything about autofellatio and the reference to Scheper is a dead link to a personal webpage. Also I am convinced that this article should not belong into Category:Religious behaviour and experience [1] and autofellatio should not be called "an entheogenic practice" in an encyclopedia. Our dispute is already too long both in screenspace and time. As my request for comment did not bring any comments, we should somehow involve other editors. Would you agree to a formal mediation procedure? Hele 7 19:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have fixed the dead link for now. However, as you have brought the issue here and there seems noone seconds your opinion, I have reverted the page to its original state. How you decide to proceed with this matter is up to you. _meco 18:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I reverted your revert as you did not indicate any reliable sources. A personal webpage is not a reliable source and the book by Robert Anton Wilson does not mention autofellatio at all. Also "noone seconds your opinion" equally. Hele 7 19:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is not that any contentious claims are not sourced. The problem is that you do not appreciate their reliability. That is another matter altogether. Had it been the case of there being no referenced sources you would have had all the backing of Wikipedia procedures and guidelines to support you in moving the text to the talk page. Now, since this is not the situation at hand, you have raised the issue here at the article talk page, which is correct procedure. Now, after three weeks of debating your grievances, you have decided to go ahead with your proposed change having received no mandate to do so. This is a very peculiar behavior: first you propose a change, then, when you get no support for this, you go ahead and make the change anyway. I cannot accept that, and I will enforce the status quo as long as your voice is the only one which supports your opinion. __meco 19:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

To your comment about Wilson's book not mentioning autofellatio, that has not been asserted. It is referenced as a source to explain the quantum mechanical principle mentioned which Scheper describes without using the terms Von Neumann's catastrophe or infinite regress. __meco 19:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You have no reliable sources for your claims about autofellatio. Self-published webpages like Scheper's are not reliable sources according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources, it's why I "do not appreciate their reliability". You should find reliable sources that support your claims. As you have not found these reliable sources (you have had enough time to do this), any editor can remove these claims without needing any "mandate". You should support your claims, not just to insert these into article and demand support from me to remove these. From Wikipedia:Verifiability:

"The policy:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.
2. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.
3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it."

It not "my grievances", it is an official policy. If you want to change this, please discuss it on the talk page of the policy. Hele 7 00:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I have previously stated and I keep insisting that your facts are off. The statements that you seek relieable sources for have already been sourced — independently of Scheper's website. Why you continue to ignore this bewilders me. __meco 01:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Guys. Rich Fife here. Hele 7 asked me to step in and see if I could help out as a third set of eyes. Some of the elements of the discussion above have eluded me, so for the sake of clarity, meco, could I get you to state the sources you're using? The Scheper article has been removed from its original location, but I found a backup here. Unfortunately, it's positively huge. Forgive me for being obtuse, and I do respect an individuals choice of religious expression (I'm a Deist, by the way), but two questions come up for me:

1. Is autofellatio as a religious experience solely espoused by Scheper? Meco mentions other references, but as far as religious experiences go, I only see the one. The definition of religion doesn't count. I've had a long day though, and I may have missed it. Sadly, a single person's source for religious ecstasy isn't notable, and we can't change notability standards because something relates to religion and not, say, business. We really need to apply the same standards to religious experiences as boring things like sports and manufacturing. I know some will find that offensive, but Wikipedia is what it is.
2. The Scheper quote is full of simile and metaphor but never goes right out and says that autofellatio is used as an entheogen by anybody out in the real world. The article the quote came from is 183 pages (!) long, so there may be something in there, but I'm not going to be the one to find it.

Thanks! - Richfife 04:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, in the section Autofellatio#History there is sourced evidence stemming from ancient Egyptian religion. I thoroughly agree that Scheper's testimony alone could not be used to source any religious claims, not because they don't support such claims, but due to the non-reliability of him being a private person of unknown standing. __meco 07:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The reference on David Lorton [2] used in the History section does not relate to Scheper's claims. It says nothing about autofellatio being related to infinite regress, entheogens or Old Testament. Only properly sourced statements can be included into article, you should not claim more than your reliable sources do. You wrote: "The statements that you seek relieable sources for have already been sourced — independently of Scheper's website." Where they have been sourced? The source by David Lorton does not contain such claims, neither does the anonymous article at www.sexinfo101.com [3] which is not a reliable source anyway. There are no more references in the History section. There has been enough time to find the sources, so I think these statements should remain out of the article until good sources are found for them. Hele 7 09:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, the article on David Lorton's webpage is self-published and he admits on main page that the article is unpublished. See [4]. So this article is not a reliable source. Hele 7 12:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The section based on this source has now been removed. __meco 18:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Hele 7 08:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Pending further developments the links to both Lorton's article and Scheper's essay should probably be included in the external links section. __meco 00:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Can You Fix The Autofellatio Pic So It Shows Without Having To Link?

Thanks.100110100 11:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The image is listed on MediaWiki:Bad image list and cannot be displayed directly. __meco 11:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

they can, the "Bad image list" has no policy support.--BMF81 16:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is a good compromise. It allows people who may have come to this page without knowing the meaning of "autofellatio" (and who may be under legal age in their jurisdiction, etc) to read the article first and then make a decision to click the link or not. The picture should stay behind the link, as we've discussed and agreed upon before. Johntex\^talk 16:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Auto-fucking?

I have no idea what the proper term would be; "self-fucking" is the colloquial.

Yes it's possible; viz. these PornoTube videos [soooo NSFW obviously]: 1 2. Presumably spinal flexibility isn't an issue, though penis configuration (size / flexibility / direction & curve when erect) would be. Possibly perineal size also - not sure how much this varies.

Suggest a new article be added and linked as none exists now that I can tell.

Perhaps Autocoitus? Rōnin 23:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be "self-fucking." Coitus refers only to male-female fucking. Could we really say enough about self-fucking to create a whole article, though? Exploding Boy 05:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Could we really say enough about autofellatio for a whole article? Cmon... anything can happen! Self-Fucking sounds best so far. --Banime (talk) 00:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re-added Image

• I added back the image removed by User:Enlarge as it seems the final decision before was to keep it. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 23:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to that guy. We all should be so lucky. NinaOdell | Talk 15:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

• The long-standing consensus on this page has been to have the image as a linkimage. I have restored the linkimage. Please do not revert as this compromise has been key to preventing edit warring on this page. Thanks, Johntex\^talk 09:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I was under the impression from some of the discussions that the picture should have been there, and when I saw the edit to remove it I re-added it. So pretty much it was decided to have it linked? →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 09:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

And here is the link to the relavent discussion Talk:Autofellatio/Image_polls_and_discussions, in case anyone else was confused. →James Kidd (contr/talk/email) 10:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is outragous, making it a linkimage is so POV, who are we to decide what should be one more click away and what should not? Shame on those voting for linkimage. Next stop is linkimage of the Muhammed Cartoons, as far as I know muslims feel offended by this, but as the majority here is not offendede, the drawing stay. --Morten LJ 15:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There really is no need for saying things like "Shame on those [who disagree with you]." If you will treat your fellow editors with respect, they will treat you the same way in return.

To answer your question "...who are we to decide what should be one more click away and what should not?" The answer is that we, as the editors of the article, decide these things all the time. What level of detail about Eagle Scouts should be in the Boy Scouts of America article, and what should be split out to anohter article or disregarded entirely? How much should be said about John Kerry's war-time service controversies and what should be split out? Which ones of the dozens of freely licensed photos of Paris should go in that article and which ones should be one click away at the commons? Johntex\^talk 18:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason for the image beeing linkimage now is that part of the users of Wikipedia is offended by the display of the image. What you mention is totally different, in these cases the choice made is one of prioritizing, you need to put some stuff into subarticles to make the main one more readable. These two cases cannot be compared.

The image is a good illustration of the article, I cannot see why it should not be included as normal images, but i guess the community has spoken. --Morten LJ 08:10, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree the examples are not exactly the same. However, in a larger sense I think they are all a question, as you say, of priortization. The priority of some people to view the image directly is balanced against the priority of certain other people who would prefer to read an article on the topic without a sexually explicit image being in plain view. We have to remember that our goal is to help the reader, not to prove some sort of point. In that spririt, we have tried to prioritize such that both types of readers get a little something. In that sense, the examples are relevant. To return to the John Kerry article example, putting things in sub-article does make them ever-slightly-less-accessible. In fact, one could argue that finding this image here is much easier than finding a fact on a sub-page. I appreciate your views and discussion on this. Johntex\^talk 08:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete this image because it is pornography from a pornography website.

This image is pornography from a pornography website.

Please put aside, for a moment, consideration of whether other images on Wikipedia are or are not pornography, and delete this one image which is.70.253.82.193 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Whether an image is pornography or not depends on context. Just because it appeared on a pornography website does not make a picture, used encyclopedically, pornography. Contrariwise, I've seen pictures on pornography websites (for instance [5]) which seem to me completely non-pornographic (that one is SFW), but are intended as pornography. You need to pay attention to intention. ^L_Wizard @ 04:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:45, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

60% or 1%?

Didn't Kinsey state that (less than) 1% of men could successfully lick their own penises? How come he changed his statement after being cited in this article? Rōnin 23:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. ^L_Wizard @ 00:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Would be nice if it were true though :D Rōnin 21:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened?

...to this article? It's become some weird collection of anecdotes. Exploding Boy 03:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

another film

the porn film last days of sodom and gomorrah has a scene of a self-fellating giant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.29.149 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Linked image

An editor reverted the change to a linked image, referencing Jimbo. Please insert a link to where we can find that statement into a comment. Thanks. --Eyrian 01:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Refering to Jimbo is not a valid argument. However it seems the concensus on this talk page is to have use linkimage. But maybe we should have a vote to get a clear concensus. As I see it there are three options:

1. No image
2. Linked image
3. Normal inclusion of the image

--Morten LJ 06:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about that? I'm unclear about precise ownership issues, but I've had the impression it was his website. That said, having no image is unacceptable. A drawing is nice and all, but a real image is more illustrative. There is no good reason to remove entirely (linking is bad but better) a freely-licensed, illustrative image that fills a gap (i.e. realism) in the article. So... put me down for normal inclusion.--Eyrian 06:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know the servers are run by the Wikimedia Foundation. Also se here (yes I know it is lame to refer to his own word when I am arguing for the opposite). But of course his opinion counts, it should just not be regarded as "final". --Morten LJ 07:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I personally have no knowledge of whether or not Jimbo actually voiced an opinion on this issue, but, if we're voting, I would vote for Normal Inclusion. As long as there are no ownership problems, I reason that this image is very relevant to the article. Not only does it fill the gap of "realism" that Eyrian refers to, but it also clearly demonstrates a particular technique described within the text. Since censorship has no place in Wikipedia, and readers could reasonably be expected to know what the article is about, the claim that this image is obsene or offensive does not provide sufficient support for deleting or linking the image. Besides, there is nothing overtly obscene about this image, considering the context. All the while, if the votes come down to whether or not this image should be made available through this article, and Normal Inclusion is deemed unfavorable by the majority of participating editors, then I would, at the very least, urge the inclusion of the link. However, for the reasons above, I would personally recommend Normal Inclusion. Homologeo 09:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's latest intervention was [6], he says linkimage is the best compromise, previously he has removed the image. I agree that linkimage is the only compromise possible but I prefer normal inclusion. --Morten LJ 10:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Images

There appears to have been a move to remove all images from this article. As there appear to be discussions about this in more than one place (which I certainly haven't been following), I have no idea whether this represents a potential consensus or whether it is flagrant censorship. Anyone know any better? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 06:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Just an IP. Edit undone. Will ^(talk) 06:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Carr

The article says: "On his Gag Reflex tour, Jimmy Carr has asked men in the audience to put their hands up if they have never attempted autofellatio. Very few have." Does this mean very few have attempted autofellatio, very few have never attempted autofellatio or very few have put their hands up? Clarification is required. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 20:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact that this is included in the article at all probably means that very few have not attempted. Not sure though. 86.135.28.32 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Linkimage template was deleted: now at deletion review

The linkimage template used in this article was deleted (Deletion discussion). It is now up for deletion review at Wikipedia:DRV#Template:Linkimage, should anyone from here want to comment. Lyrl^Talk _C 00:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Risks/Precaution

In this section it says "One should not attempt the act if his penis is any shorter than 6 inches." I do not believe that I am extremely flecible, but my penis is shorter than this and I can still partake in the act. Can anyone give me an explanation on why such a definite measurement was given? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.231.33 (talk) 09:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What image should we use

As far as I can se we have two possibilities for the image:

1. Image:Selfsuck.jpg
2. Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg

User:Chris4713 has uploaded the former and inserted in on the article. I however changed it back since i think image 2 better shows the subject at hand. Can we get some consensus on what image we should use (disregarding the linkimage discussion)? --Morten LJ 09:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the original, the second one listed. Is using both out of the question? — AnemoneProjectors (I can't help it if I've got a natural curl to my hair!) 18:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your solution as an obvious one, why I did not think of that I cannot tell you. I have inserted both images now. I do however think that one picture would be sufficient. --Morten LJ 19:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

They're basically the same. And heck, I could get it in further than that... Cale 17:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're essentially the same, the drawing should suffice? Three seems a bit of overkill. - jc37 09:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a photograph is better than a drawing as it seems more encyclopaedic. My opinion is that Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg is the better image. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 12:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, actually, but that aside, I have little problem with the drawing and a photo (except redundancy, and possibly unnecessary shock value). I notice that at least several of our medical articles place the photos at the bottom. Perhaps that's the simplest answer: use the drawing at the top, and place whichever photo is selected at the bottom. - jc37 16:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just uploaded some new images, so now we have another choice. I believe we need to show a different position, instead of just the one: bending over. We should have a picture with the guy on his back or something like that. Take a look at commons:Taric Alani#Autofellatio for two new pictures: Taric Alani Self suck tonguing it.jpg and Taric Alani Self sucker.jpg. Oh, I recognize Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg from Hornyboy. I worked with Heinz Oberdez, the director, when he flew me out to Arizona to film Alone with Abu and Damien & Abu. Taric25 12:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need various positions. As I said above, I think the drawing should be enough. - jc37 13:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, both the drawing and the current photo we use in the article are in the same position. What I mean is we should use the drawing, but then the photo we use should be in a different position than the one in the drawing. Taric25 13:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I just made a BOLD edit to include the drawing, showing one position, bending over, and a photograph, showing another position, on the back. I also moved it to the In modern culture section, since the section begins discussing pornography, and the photograph's caption has a wikilink to other images of the porn actor. I also included a reference indicating the source. What do you think? Taric25 14:10, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Just my personal preference but I prefered the old image to the new one. — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 17:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if this is a WP:COI question, or at least vanity? (Since presumably the image is of Taric25.) - jc37 17:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just offering the image as a suggestion, and I didn't mean it to be a conflict of interest. If we decide that the old image is better than the new one, then I have no problem with that. In addition, you can verify the image is me by visiting my blog, which is how I ask people to attribute me in my other Wikimedia Commons contributions. Anyway, if we decide to use the image at a later time, fine. If not, that's fine too. Taric25 23:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This might sound odd but I think your image looks too pornographic, whereas the others look more encyclopaedic! Does that make sense??? — AnemoneProjectors (会話) 18:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though I would hesitate to call either "pornographic". Image:Selfsuck.jpg makes more of an aesthetic impact, but I think the blandly illustrative qualities of Image:Autofellatio 2.jpg make it better suited for encyclopedic inclusion. Image:Selfsuck.jpg is just a bit too artsy; you actually have to study it for a moment to figure out it's not a picture of 2 people.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Are we still talking about this? Now it's just another new picture. When will this end?? Exploding Boy 06:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It is on the bad image list for a reason. It was used to vandalize talk pages unrelated frequently. The drawing is better because it is descriptive and cannot be used for shock value. censorship is not acceptable but no information is being removed when a drawing is used.YVNP (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Photo can now be linked again.

We can still have the image on the page but collapsed like the way the image is at Rorschach inkblot test The inclusion of a rorschach inkblot was controversial but there was a compromise on the rorshach image being done this way to satisfy both sides. The autofelllatio photograph is controversial but I think the controversy can be eliminated this way. I oppose the image but am willing to meet this half way. I am inclding a sample of how the image can apppear. The File:Autofellatio 2.jpg won't work with the example because the photo is protected, so I have replaced it with the drawing for the purposes of the example.

Photograph of a man performing autofellatio

Please note: I am a prolific contributor to Wikipedia but am using a sock puppet to hide my identity because of the sensitivity/controversy of this topic. I will use this account exclusively for this talk page and not use my other account on this page--Koepu (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother using that image as it's already been shit-canned by Jimbo himself. --WebHamster 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

That was over three years ago, and it wasn't an WP:OFFICE action. Powers ^T 14:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Disgusting

What is the point of showing that photo? People can assume how it's done without it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.105.190.202 (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of the photo is to illustrate how it's done. If you find it so disgusting, why do you need to be reading the article at all? There are plenty of articles on other topics. Rōnin (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

You don't need two pictures to illustrate how it's done. Why not a link to a video of a dude selfsucking to show how it's done? The boy in the drawing looks very young. 66.175.215.124 (talk) 23:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC) BG

The point of the photo is to *turn* *you* *on*. Are you turned on? 24.252.113.75 (talk) 21:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Ma'am! xD --87.123.91.98 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. End of story. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 17:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hell, yes! And it`s about time, until we, the blain-brackled masturbating Wikipedia community, produce self-made porns and upload them under a creative commons-license or the GNU free DOCUMENTATION license. F*ck for sciene! --87.123.91.98 (talk) 22:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello.jpg is deleted the instant someone uploads it. Uncensored, eh?--69.29.89.195 (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

If this article ever has a history section

History of Sexuality by Michel Foucault, vol.3, p.24 notes that Artemidorus lists five types of unnatural sexual conduct in his Oneirocritica. One of these is "relations with oneself." "Relations with oneself" encompasses three types of activity, the last of which "taking the sex organ into one's [own] mouth." Dreaming of this portends the death of one's children, loss of one's mistresses, or extreme poverty. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like there used to be a History section, citing Autofellatio and Ontology, a lecture given by a [http://www.amazon.com/Ancient-Egyptian-Books-Afterlife/dp/0801485150 published] egyptologist. It was removed on grounds that the source was self-published, and therefore unreliable. But WP:RS allows self-published expert sources, as this one is. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject banner spam

An anonymous editor appears to have dedicated him-/herself to spamming talk pages with long lists of WikiProject banners. This goes against the good advice at WP:WikiProject Council/Guide#Article_tagging and WP:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject#Over-tagging, which recommends against speculatively spamming a long list of tangentially related WikiProjects to an article.

The editor often adds empty {{todo}} lists and usually {{talkheader}}, even to empty talk pages, which also violates the instructions for their use.

While WikiProject Medicine is normally happy to have articles obviously within its scope tagged by any editor, I have removed the WPMED tag from this article because it doesn't fall within the core "diseases and their treatments" scope of the project. WikiProject Medicine does not support the inappropriate medicalization of everyday life. (I may or may not have removed other banners at the same time.)

If you believe that there is a significant medical connection to this subject that I've overlooked, please do not re-add the banner. Instead, take these steps:

1. Read Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article?
2. Read the instructions on the WPMED template.
3. Then leave a message at the doctors' mess to ask whether the article falls within the scope of the project.

I continue to attempt to communicate with this anon editor, but the IP address changes very frequently, and efforts so far appear to be unsuccessful. If the anon editor places the WPMED banner on this article again, I ask for your support in removing it again. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)