Talk:Felching/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Neutrality" and "factual accuracy"

So, where's the debate about this article's "neutrality" and "factual accuracy"? All I see is a debate about it's existence. Shouldn't the template be changed? Anyway, I vote for keeping. /Skagedal 17:43, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Good question. I don't even see a mention of the adding of the tag in the last 50 edit summaries of the last couple of months, so I'm going to take it out along with a couple of minor edits. --Craig (t|c) 15:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Miscellany

It's important to use Wikipedia as a tool to educate - slang is an important part of the culture - it should be free from judgement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.232.98.25 (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2005

Okay, this is going TOO FAR -- do we really need an article on THIS TOPIC? Come on now... this is an Encyclopedia, not some fetish magazine! -- Anonymoues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.249.132 (talk) 07:40, 27 October 2002

Ok, by your logic, why do we need an article on ANY topic? There are plenty of articles here that someone could take a moral issue with, why stop with this one? -- user:oarias — Preceding undated comment added 07:43, 27 October 2002

I personally think this act is disgusting but that alone doesn't warrent exclusion. What I am worried about is whether or not this topic can be anything more than a dictionary entry. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and don't even think about making this a detailed HowTo (Wikipedia ain't that either). :) Is there some history of this subject we can draw on? Some mention of social norms and taboo would also be nice. --mav — Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 27 October 2002

I don't think there is going to be much to be said about this subject... the issue of "should we allow felching?" is hardly one of the pressing social issues of the day, or any day yet for that matter. There is no "felchers-rights movement", no preachers preaching "felchers will all burn in hell", nothing... its just a dictionary entry and will never be more... and besides, its disgusting... next thing someone is going to upload photos of it... -- user:Anonymoues — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.109.249.133 (talk) 07:52, 27 October 2002

At some point I'm sure that someone who knows more about the history of this act than I do can to "fill in the gaps". (errr... no pun intended). Personally it's not my bag either, but it was something I heard in conversation once that forced me to go online to look it up; so I figured the people must be informed! As far as it being a dictionary entry, as I've said, I'm sure that sooner or later someone will add more substance to the article. -- User:oarias — Preceding undated comment added 07:58, 27 October 2002

Anon: There are LOADS of articles on here that would fall under "hardly one of the pressing social issues of the day". I just saw an article that someone wrote here about "Famous Cartoon Cats"! -- user:oarias — Preceding undated comment added 08:04, 27 October 2002

I'm concerned about people innocently hitting the Random Page link and ending up here. Is there a boilerplate warning that we can put at the top, similiar to Warning: Wikipedia contains spoilers, as a courtesy to people who don't want to read about such things? -- Merphant — Preceding undated comment added 08:50, 27 October 2002

A warning like "Wikipedia articles may contain sensitive material"? I'm not too keen on this sort of article either. Could we corral all these articles into a single "Sexual practises terminology" page -- that would reduce the chance of landing on this material, & they're mostly stubs. Besides, this article doesn't investigate the questions it suggests -- such as: "is post-coital oral sex technically felching, or must there be intent and actual sucking action?". -- Tarquin — Preceding undated comment added 13:32, 27 October 2002

It seems a little rediculous to talk about labeling this particular article as potentially offensive, doesn't it? Wikipedia is huge and has lot of potentially offensive content. And since it can be edited by anyone, there's a good chance you're going to run into offensive vandalism in places, too. All of wikipedia is therefore a potentially offensive zone. Let's put a warning on the front page if we must, and be done with it. (Some other articles you might want to read and be offended by: Double vaginal, double anal, the shocker, and my personal fave, the dirty sanchez. --joeOnSunset 07:44, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Tarquin, I disagree with that argument. In a paper-bound encyclopaedia, are these terms all bound into a single "Sexual practises terminology" page? No! They're not. The Internet gives Wikipedia the freedom to expand greatly and therefore, having its own page is fine and it makes it much more navigable. This subject may not be everyone's 'cup of tea' but it is a reliable source of information nevertheless and should therefore have its own page. Besides, using your analogy, lets just stick all the words in the dictionary into a single "Commonly used words" page?! --Dan 10:42, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Tarquin, I completely feel that this needs to be left as its own entry as opposed to part of a sexual terminology page. I had no clue what this act was until I stumbled across it somewhere and it was used as a random word, completely out of proper context. Naturally, I pulled up Wikipedia to find out what the heck it was. Being a little blurb on a redirected sexual terminology entry is not appropriate for the average user of Wikipedia, IMO. --Xadnder 01:22, 20 June 2006

Okay, I did not want to read even the first couple of lines of this page; they're just gross. My point is that yes, I would greatly prefer some sort of disclaimer, similar to the spoiler warning, that the content below may be considered vulgar and offensive by some. I probably would have kept reading anyway, but at least then I could only have blamed myself. -- Calion | Talk 01:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

---

hum...questions from a male relation...cough...

1. does it necessarily imply it is from someone else vagina, or can it be from self ?
2. does it imply or not, for a man, that it is his own semen ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthere (talk • contribs) 20:14, 8 June 2003

1. Usually, but if you know any women capable of autocunnilingus, please send me their contact details.
2. Not necessarily. Can be either one's own semen or that of another man or men.

--Craig (t|c) 15:30, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Tarq , the beauty of Wikipedia and indeed the internet is that it is the ultimate open source compendium of knowledge in existence, the closest we shall ever come to, say, a real life Hitchiker's Guide. The notion that we should "corral all these articles into a single page" - and hide them away from the random search filter like some embarrassing little secret - offends the precepts of the free, ready and universal exchange of knowledge. The administrators of Wikipedia and its allied institutions have observed above all the non-judgmentalism and non-POV philosophy that is fundamental and cricual to this sort of project. You must learn to become emotionally detached from the fact of knowledge. The purpose of Wikipedia in including Felching as a topic is to explain, define and reference and not to encourage or judge. A filter? Knowledge is always a dangerous thing... and parents should not allow children unrestricted access to the internet. Why should we filter to cover for poor parenting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.247.76 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2006

Sources for Sexual Content

It seems anytime a fetish related article or an article featuring extreme sexual activity is written about on Wikipedia, there are always those who try to debunk it, talk about how disgusting it is, debate whether or not it should even be on Wikipedia and then begin the requests and demands for "sources". Since most sources for these types of activities are only written about and viewed in the world of pornography, it would be difficult to cite sources. This doesn't mean that these activities don't occur. Then begins the debate about if these activities are widespread and common enough to be written about in Wikipedia. There is no way to really know, considering the fact that most people who engage in such things are not polled and even if they were, they probably wouldn't be entirely truthful. Since most encyclopedias don't mention such things, why shouldn't Wikipedia mention them. They should be mentioned somewhere, and if someone writes about them here, they are probably the best source of the information. There is probably no way to verify if these extreme sexual practices are widespread and common, but we do know that they do in fact exist. If Wikipedia limits itself to listing only things which it deems not to be offensive or limits itself to things that are only widespread and common, then how is Wikipedia any different than any other bland and boring encyclopedia in print or online? What "reputable" encyclopedia, article, magazine, or other media talks about extreme sexual practices than anyone can use as a "source"? We know for a fact that these extreme sexual practices do in fact exist in our culture and to omit articles about them based on lack of them being widespread and common is a slap in the face of truth. The truth is that extreme sexual practices such as felching, enema consumption, copraphagia, smegma play, urine play, and other practices not commonly written about in the mainstream media do exist and should be written about somewhere other than pornographic material. What college or university professor is going to write a thesis on these practices? Probably none. Who does write about it? Well, it would seem that Wikipedia editors make attempts at writing about it, either from their own experiences or from knowledge of others doing it and yet, when they do, there articles are constantly deleted, questioned, and debated. If Wikipedia is going to be a true open source directory, then it should be "open" to more than what some editors consider to be widespread and common, even if they disagree with the practice.

Mirlin 07:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to know how the author claims to know anything at all of the sexual proclivities of ancient Sodom and Gomorrah. Records of the period are scanty and obscure enough, but if there is some mention of felching in them I'd sure like to see the source. 216.39.180.60 cneron — Preceding undated comment added 04:10, 20 July 2006

• I concur. Indeed, the entire last paragraph is incredible (as in unable to be believed). Citations, please! - Two Halves, not logged in, at home even! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.167.162.48 (talk) 04:15, 20 July 2006

Extreme and obscure human sexual behaviour is the kind of thing that is the subject of serious study and if you can't find a source to back up things (in particular etymology and, often spurious sounding, references to antiquity) then it is speculation and hearsay and falls within the original research area. Ancient origins of sexual practices? Check out books like The Prehistory of Sex by Timothy Taylor. Etymology of words? Cassel's Dictionary of Slang has entries for things that I didn't even know went on (like docking - which gets a passing mention in another entry) and certainly doesn't support any link with gerbilling. Felching is an odd one as when I was growing up it was a word for a sexual practice that was so obscene it couldn't even be explained. Ths kind of thing may have lead to misunderstandings but we can't really list every indidence of someone getting... the wrong end of the handle. Anyway the urmm... bottom line is that there are places to look for sources (and Urban Dictionary isn't one as anyone can add anything and there is no attempt at quality control - at the very least it shouldn't be the only source - I can grab the definition from Cassel if you'd prefer - as well as not going near some of the things discussed here it provides other usages like "felch queen") and if you can't prove it then it has to go until you can.

I have similar concerns for things like French Dip (sexual) and Figging (see in particular the latter's talk page) and there seem to be a lot of other entries cropping up with very little solid infomration on obscure sexual practices. I'm not going to claim they aren't worthy of a mention here but the bulk of a lot of such entries are unsupported nonsense that seem to stem from hearsay within the various scenes they originate from. One could do a round of deletions but it seems uneccessary in most cases but they do require heavy pruning which often leads skimpy entries that are open to deletion. As I suggested on the figging entry perhaps it might be best to trim a lot of these back and merge them into a "List of obscure sexual behaviours" or some such (although the word obscure in the title leaves it wide open to notability concerns). A lot of these entries are a real mess and something needs doing - I'd like to try and avoid completely removing them unless they are complete nonsense. (Emperor 05:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC))

"goat felcher"

and i quote, "Felcher is used as a derogatory term; 'goat felcher' is popular in many Internet forums." please remove or somehow cite this. ::this is not up to par with what encyclopedias are for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MobiusStriptease (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 August 2006

Seconded -- Slicedoranges 15:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The thing is that just about anything can be added to "felcher" to create a derogatory term. We don't need to list "X felcher" names and even if someone could post links to prove it is in use it still isn't worth mentioning. (Emperor 15:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC))

Lack of Evidence for References

There is absolutely NO evidence that I have found ANYWHERE that most of these "Cultural References" are of ANY relation to this term. Most of them are conjecture and reaching at best. So the name of the firm in the Terry Tate videos is "Felcher & Sons," it is as plausible that the guy who wrote the ads has the last name of Felcher...or his 5th grade teacher was named Felcher, or his dogs name is Felcher...there is no proof that its because of the term. Same with the other ones. They've been deleted twice now and readded becuase they're lacking sources...well it's been over two weeks on some of them and no sources have been provided saying that ANY of them are of any relation to this term. The lack of sources and the imputting of the information leads me to believe that its original research. Just because something has a similar sounding name (i.e. Felcher & Sons) does not mean its inspired by this word. REAL sources need to be provided, in which it is specifically outlined that the ad writers chose the names or SPECIFICALLY referenced this term when making their adds. If those sources can't be found, then there's no valid reason in wikipedia for including them. It's been two weeks now with source requests...i've done some independent checking on google and found nothing relating to them, if sources are found...great...include the information, but if not it MUST be removed. 157.91.44.1 15:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've provided verification of my source, the R. Crumb cartoon from 1975. The original source, and possibly the coiner of the term, is Ken Weaver. Weaver was a commune-mate of Crumb and Crumb's ex-wife Dana. I've never found a reference earlier than that, although one should also search the alternate spelling "feltch". K8 fan 21:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe there is any question about the "Felcher & Sons" piano in "South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut". The creators of the film reference a number of outre sexual practices, and seemed to take particular delight in slipping them past the MPAA (which appeared to completely miss that the title could refer to a large, uncircumcised penis.)K8 fan 21:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

It all sounds very interesting, and your theory sounds pretty likely. Certainly there is a newspaper or magazine article that documents it? Otherwise, we ought to leave it out. Also, it does sound pretty trivial to the meaning of the word. Do we really need every occurence of the world in popular culture to be documented? Atom 22:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, not every. But certainly the first would be worth adding. I have no idea if Weaver is still alive, but the source is in the link already provided - the talk by Robert Williams about his career in underground comics:

OK, since we didn’t get in any trouble with Snatch and Jiz, and a couple of these other comics, I was partying one night with Crumb, Wilson and these other guys. And Wilson mentioned to me, he says, "I was talking to Ken Weaver and he had this real interesting word." I said what, "what it?" A word called "felch." I said, "what does that mean?" He said, "it is a real old term and it means orally withdrawing semen from someone’s lower digestive track after having anal sex." I said, "there’s a word for something like that?" That’s incredible that not only is there a word like that, but it has a provenance. Hell yeah, we’re going to do a felch comic. So I talked to Crumb, "yeah we’re going to do a felch comic."

So, unless someone can come up with a print appearance of the word "felch" that predates 1975, this should be added as the first appearance. K8 fan 04:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

==other usages==

I have never seen 'felching'anywhere, except 7 or 8 years ago on a bulletin board in AOL. I can't remember the name of it or the user's name, but he used it in the sense that it meant licking or sucking excrement from the anus. His usage was 'sheep felching'. I agree this is a dictionary entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEScott (talk • contribs) 07:10, 9 February 2006

The OED lists a second sense, to do with rodents. I think it's far less prevalent, but maybe we should make some mention of it? Franciscrot 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Snowballing Nitpick

The sentence about snowballing seems to me to imply that only semen which has been through a felching phase qualifies for use in snowballing. I understand snowballing as a transfer of any semen from mouth to mouth? Should it be rephrased? Franciscrot 17:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Snowballing and felching are two different acts.K8 fan 19:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion or improvement

Other than a weak section on cultural reference this is nmo more than a dictionary definition of the term and should go to Wiktionary. Dainamo 10:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed your addition of an AfD discussion to the AfD log, because you neglected to create the deletion discussion itself (step #2 at WP:AFD). Anyway, it doesn't seem like a dicdef to me, it's a description of a sexual, um, practice. Pan Dan 15:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I added material to the cultural reference section, and re-wrote it in article form.K8 fan 14:52, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Other pop references

In Drawn Together, I think maybe the second season there's a mention of this sort of ehhh sexual act(?). It went something along the lines of "Can you beat the Mad Felcher?" "Of course I can, he sucks ass!". This was in regards to the episode where Captain Hero places bets on himself, then cheats by throwing matches. I found the link to the episode. Ghostesses in the Slot Machine

My work here is done, done well! Aeryck89 01:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure...

...that this page ranks #1 on the "List of best pages for your grandmother to find when clicking 'random article'" 65.81.147.222 06:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Robby Roadsteamer

The recording artist Robby Roadsteamer, based out of Boston, Mass. recorded a song entitled "The Felcher" which may be heard on his first album "Robby Roadsteamer Croons the Classics".

Check Roadsteamer.com for more infornmation... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sydeshowschwab (talk • contribs) 07:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Reference from 1975

I've added a print reference from 1975, from an underground comic by the artist Robert Williams. The comic has been reprinted in a collection titled "Hysteria in Remission" (Fantagraphics). The reference to the fictional practice known as "gerbiling" as another name for felching is incorrect and should be removed unless some reference material can be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8 fan (talk • contribs) 05:12, 11 November 2006

Would a scan of a single image from either a Robert Williams or R. Crumb cartoon be acceptable "fair use" commentary? The Crumb cartoon appeared in 1975, and features a cartoon "sound effect" of the felcher - "Felch!" (a la "Boing!"). — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8 fan (talk • contribs) 20:57, 12 November 2006

I have scanned the image in question, and would like to include it. Here is an temporary external link the image in question. The image establishes the meaning of the term as early as 1975.

Robert Crumb cartoon — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8 fan (talk • contribs) 18:00, 1 December 2006

Thanks, I had been looking for a new wallpaper. 4.249.45.104 18:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Protect this page?

Hardly a days goes by without this page being vandalized. Are any contributors reading this familiar with how a page can attain semi-protected or protected status? From what I understand, semi-protected means that no edits can be made by anyone without an account.K8 fan 20:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, it adding your best friends or worst enemies name to this article as a noted felcher has become the thing to do in school these days. How do we obtain semi-protected status for this page? K8 fan 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes this is needed. The vandalsim is ridiculous. You want to go here: WP:PROT and read up on how to get this semi-protected (I've never done it myself). (Emperor 12:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC))

Apparent nonsense awaiting to be sourced

Felching, as it is known today, began possibly hundreds of years ago, with references found in KamaSutra and other ancient texts. Though lost to the world in many ways, it was a common practice in Sodom and Gomorrah and also other parts of the earth. The actual use of this act was contraception and not pleasure, as is believed widely. Rich men and lords of ancient years did not wish to see several illegitimate children around the small cities, towns or villages they lived in as it would be public embarrassment. They used eunuchs and slaves, often captured from defeated kingdoms and principalities, for the act. Once they had discharged semen into their mistresses, the slave would be left to suck and lap it up and prevent the woman from conceiving. The sucked-up discharge, as myths went, would decide where in the owner's echelons, the slave fits. This led to 'snowballing' as each slave wanted a drop of his master's discharge and rise in favor. In modern days, felching is common in some countries of the Far East, as a normal act and not for porn.--194.145.161.227 00:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This is obviously someone's crazy historical sex fantasy and has no basis in fact at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.65.175.244 (talk) 17:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

picture

i thought the picture was useful for understanding and was actually quite tasteful (given the topic). is it wikipedia's accepted policy not to includew pictures unless neccessary? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.55.79 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2006

The picture was frankly baffling. The only seeming resemblance to felching in that picture was the word 'felching'. I'll take a picture of a cat and label it as a horse and put it on the article for horses. I'm sure they'd say the same to me as they have about the felching picture. This article doesn't need a picture (never mind a completely random one) and there's no point adding one unless it's really necessary. At the end of the day, a bit of whipped cream on an arse is not the same as sucking the fluid from the anus or vagina. If it is, then I'll promptly take a picture of my cat and label it as 'Black Beauty with white stripes and a tendancy to claw at thick rugs and curtains'.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 00:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

i disagree with the idea that "there's no point adding one unless it's really necessary"... it seems to be that one of the major advantages to wikipedia (unlike a print encyclopedia) is that there is no added cost to using pictures and thus they should be used whenever they (even slightly) increase clarity, and not just when its absolutely neccessary. otherwise i agree about the relevancy though (which is why it was described as "artists rendition") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.167.55.79 (talk) 05:30, 3 April 2006

The availability of seemingly unlimited storage space on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we have to cram it with media because we feel an obligation to make it better than printed media! There is a point at which you have to ask yourself 'Does this article really need a media?'. When it comes to topics such as this, I think it's best to say no. If a picture accurately depicting felching were to appear, it would immediately be pulled by Wikipeda anyway for the content of the picture. Most of the imagery found on the Net is copyrighted anyway, so it's a case of asking the wife if she'd like further human knowledge by posing for the camera at an opportune moment for most people.--Dan ^(Talk)|@ 09:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a cartoon illustration by Robert Crumb from 1975. It's a parody of an editorial cartoon - "John Q. Public" felching "Lady Liberty". I believe it is as tasteful as any illustration of felching can possibly be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8 fan (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 December 2006 The carton appears in the Fantagraphics book "The Complete Crumb Comics, Volume 10: Crumb Advocates Violent Overthrow!" on page 64. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K8 fan (talk • contribs) 18:47, 9 December 2006

good luck coming up with a "fair use rationale" to meet standards here.Bustter (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

See also: Fletching ?

This would seem to a common misspelling of Fletching. Perhaps add a link to Fletching at the beginning of the article? Nutster (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Health effect?

I would like to see a section on the health/disease effects of this activity, especially from the rectum. This seems important to me. Nutster (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A Bit of Fry & Laurie Felching Reference

There is a reference to felching in "[http://www.oocities.com/mmemym/bits2/fal0077.htm Flushed Grollings]," a sketch from A Bit of Fry & Laurie. In it, a character played by Peter Fry attempts to purchase "four felching pens" from a plumbing shop. The shop, unfortunately, has none but the shopkeeper offers to subsitute some frotting pencils. In the context it's an obvious reference to the sexual practice. Enjoy. Trollaxor (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Gerbiling

According to the 2003 draft version of the OED, felching includes the act of "gerbiling".

felch, v.

coarse slang (orig. U.S.).

trans. Usually of a male homosexual: to stimulate the anus of (a sexual partner) orally; spec. to remove orally semen ejaculated into the anus of (a partner). Also: to insert a small animal, esp. a gerbil, into the anus of (a partner) for sexual stimulation.

Bueller 007 (talk) 00:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Since when is there a "draft version" of the OED? It either is in the printed edition, or is not. If it exists, cite page number. Until then, removing as uncited. K8 fan (talk) 04:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a copy of the article in question? Because the link supplied is only to an abstract, and does not include the term in question. K8 fan (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Your assertion that there is no such thing as a Draft Version demonstrates that you aren't really familiar with the OED project. Draft entries are constantly being entered and existing entries updated between official print editions. If you have a subscription, it's all available at http://dictionary.oed.com/ Nor is the link I've provided only a link to the abstract if you have the proper credentials to access the paper. It's on page 101. And here's the full entry from the OED:

==

felch, v. DRAFT ENTRY Mar. 2003

coarse slang (orig. U.S.).

Forms: 19- felch, feltch. [Origin unknown.]

trans. Usually of a male homosexual: to stimulate the anus of (a sexual partner) orally; spec. to remove orally semen ejaculated into the anus of (a partner). Also: to insert a small animal, esp. a gerbil, into the anus of (a partner) for sexual stimulation.

1972 R. A. FARRELL in Anthropol. Linguistics 14 101 Feltch, to use one's mouth or tongue on the anus of his partner; anilingus. 1985 Nat. Lampoon Sept. 15 What is your definition of ‘kinky’?.. Felching [a prominent politician]. 1997 N. KELLY in S. Champion & D. Scannell Shenanigans (1999) xviii. 293 A Canadian body-builder..very kindly offered to ‘felch’ [him] in the gents' toilets.

felching n.

1989 Re: How can you eat Unwashed Pussy? in alt.sex (Usenet newsgroup) 17 Nov., The story also talks about sucking on the clitoris... But..I want to read about *felching! 1993 Private Eye 10 Sept. 17/1 A felching session had gone seriously wrong. ‘I pushed a cardboard tube up his rectum and slipped Faggot, our gerbil, in... I tried to retrieve Faggot but he wouldn't come out again.’ 1998 Village Voice (Nexis) 14 July 10 ‘A Dutch oven’..double vaginal, double anal... And then there's just your regular old felching.

== Bueller 007 (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Fetch me my gerbil, im feeling a little frisky ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.144.61 (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Brenda Love, Michael Perry: The Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices, Barricade Books, Incorporated, 1994, ISBN 9781569800119 :

p. 11
FELCHING Felching is a term used to describe the act of sucking semen out of a partner's vagina or anus. Felching gives pleasure to some sex slaves as an act of submission even when the semen belongs to previous lovers. The woman sometimes squats over the face of her slave and lets the semen drain into his mouth, others assume the usual positions for cunnilingus. The term felching may also be used to describe the use of a live animal in anal or vaginal sex. (See ZOOPHILIA)

p. 106
FELCHING Felching (fellare: to suck, fell: animal hide) refers either to stuffing animals into the vagina or anus, or to a partner sucking semen out of one of these orifices. (See ANAL SEX, OPHIDICISM, SAFE SEX, STUFFING and ZOOPHILIA)

p. 301
FELCHING Felching (fellah: to plow or fell: fierce, cruel, causing death, animal's hide) is the act of inserting a live animal into the anus or vagina for the purpose of receiving sexual pleasure from their body movements. Felching is done with gerbils, rodents, or fish. Some of the Ponape men of the Croline Islands insert a fish into a woman's vagina and then slowly lick it out as a form of fore- play. (Patterns of Sexual Behavior, by C. Ford and F. Beach, p. 51) Remains of small rodents have been found in the lower intestines and rectums of cadavers during autopsies. (Personal communication with student at the University of California at Davis.) These animals are said to have been placed into a plastic bag or condom and inserted into the anus after it has been stretched. The bagged gerbil is put into a lubricated toilet paper roll which is pushed into the rectum and at the right moment the empty roll is yanked out leaving the gerbil and bag inside. (Personal communication.) CAUTION: This form of felching is extremely dangerous. The rectal wall is very thin and can tear easily. It may lead to peritonitis and death.

This is also the first sight of "felching" and animals stuffing in Google Books. Description of the 1992 Version of the Book in Studies in Human Sexuality: A Selected Guide: fellching (both meanings)

Seemen slurping is the most used meaning, gerbilling is not so often but exists and has a prominent:

[Amendment No. 166 is about death animals. Lord Lucas (Conservative)] Amendment No. 166A addresses what is a fairly common and well-attested variety of sexual activity with animals, and that is felching. I do not know how far the classical education of the noble Lord goes — certainly when researching this particular offence I began to understand why classics is a popular subject at university — but he will perhaps be aware that Messalina won a competition with a prostitute for suffocating stoats. She won with 25 stoats in 24 hours.
Sexual Offences Bill - House of Lords Deb, 9 June 2003

Another deals with both:

If “felching” is sucking your cum out of another's yas yas yas or if “felching” is the stuffing of animals up another's yas yas yas doesn't really matter because Society did both. He was the weirdest of the weird.
Jason Rogers, David L. Tamarin: My Love Affair With David Lynch And Peachy Like Nietzsche: Dark Clown Porn Snuff for Terrorists And Gorefiends, Lulu.com, 2005, ISBN 9781411652217 [1]

I searched not so strong, but it seems that the Verb "felch" is only for the seemen meaning. (It is hard, because Felch and Feltch are also surenames) Rare is the form "fellching". An i found only one "feltching" in the meaning gerbilling: 2005, others is seemen slurping.

My first of "felching"/"fellching" in the meaning of gerbilling is 1994/1992. This from OED is from 1993. Hypothesis: 1990 was Gerbilling and Richard Gere. And then there was one time a confusion about "pipe in the butt" or a confusion about "what kinky things homosexuals do". --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 03:14, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Fantabulosa: A Dictionary of Polari and Gay Slang (3 times) --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 03:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Mary Whitehouse

If you're looking for a source for the definition of felching, it is described in the Mary Whitehouse Encyclopedia, which was issued around 1992. It was a spin off from the British comedy show of the same name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Technohead1980 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 9 May 2006

Although this term may have occured in that Encyclopedia and also that sitcom, it's origin is much, much, older.
As any able bodied Seaman worth his grog can tell you, "Felcher Boy" is an ancient occupation well known amoung mariners.
Because it would be unwise to bring a woman along on a voyage for the entertainment of the men,
it was common practice to employ a young boy for the purpose of sexual intercourse, just as boatswain is the title of the person charged with preservation of the ship,
and purser the title of the treasurer, felcher is the title for a boy used for sexual utility.
The oral/anal association of this term, apparently, is a modern development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler foster (talk • contribs) 01:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Felching Refers To Oral Retrieval Of Semen From A Rectum *Only*

The vagina doesn't enter into it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.154.3 (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2009

Correct. It is a perversion popular only with homosexuals. No normal person would ever engage in such a God-awful practice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.32.25 (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Image?

Why there no pic? Snowballing gets a pic. I will draw the straw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.82.40.97 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Finnegans Wake

Page 594 of Finnegans Wake (1939) has "Now if soomone felched a twoel" which could be coincidence except that the context includes other ambiguous hints: http://fwannotated.blogspot.com/2012/02/p594c.html Timmy Finnegan (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Felching Fetishes

My current feeling is if you have never tried it, don't knock it. Felching can also refer to sucking any liquid out of a persons vagina or anus. Enemas from beer and wine, or urine enemas. And yes it can be yours or someone elses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.237.129 (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2004

Wrong on two counts. It's a perversion, not a fetish. And the vagina has nothing to do with it. It is purely related to homosexuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.75.32.25 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2013

Felching is not exclusive to homosexuals.The above statement is a prejudice to the writer. Felchimg is removing semen from a rectum, not a homosexual or hetrosexual rectum! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buttfdkr (talk • contribs) 10:47, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• If there is anything in the history of the ever after that can be knocked without trying, I think felching is it. I'm just glad that the article doesn't mention the popular insult "goat felching". --Ben Brockert 21:07, Jul 6, 2004 (UTC)
• Does it have to be a persons? What defines a person, is it a soul? Do cats have souls? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.140.207.100 (talk) 17:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

To all of you who are offended by this article, I have one question; What were you doing looking up the term felching in the first place? If you heard the term in a sentence, then obviously you knew what context it was used in, right? So why is it that when you hear what the word means that you get offended? I am just stupid, I guess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.77.73 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2005

OK now

Different strokes for different folks! I say go for it! I mean I have eaten my own out of my wife and that is sexy and turns her on, so where's the harm? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.137.173.221 (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2005

== I have never seen 'felching'anywhere, except 7 or 8 years ago on a bulletin board in AOL. I can't remember the name of it or the user's name, but he used it in the sense that it meant licking or sucking excrement from the anus. His usage was 'sheep felching'. I agree this is a dictionary entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEScott (talk • contribs) 07:09, 9 February 2006