Talk:Fellatio/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Comment about image

Why show a picture of two men involved in the activity? At least balance this otherwise prejudicial representation of fellatio as an exclusively same-sex activity with a depiction of it as being practiced by an opposite-sex couple (i. e., man and woman). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.215.28.17 (talk • contribs) 10:10, May 6, 2007 )UTC).

I have reinstated the image, because the biological sex of the person fellating is unclear. I suppose we could add more images, but I don't think the sex of the person performing fellatio really matters; because it looks basically the same. Joie de Vivre 19:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If you read the history over at Oral sex, where this article was split from, this image was created after a long debate over gender roles. The image was created so as to leave the gender of the giver deliberately unclear. 68.52.88.131 20:29, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment

why did you take out all my additions? i mentioned the intimacy and pleasure for both a man and woman it's not only factual, it's been going on 3,000 years that I know about —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.13.7 (talk • contribs) 02:57, May 14, 2007 (UTC).

i'm beggining to see that wikipedia only expresses ideas of its 'editors,' not readers - anything based on reality is taken out —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.13.7 (talk • contribs) 03:01, May 14, 2007 (UTC).

have it your way - i'm out of here - no wonder it's full of bs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.136.13.7 (talk • contribs) 03:02, May 14, 2007.

NPOV

This article is written from a gay POV. The writers go painfully out of their way to preserve sex-neutral pronouns. This article is a joke. 68.198.220.235 23:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but honestly, what do you expect from these guys? Manic Hispanic 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Good faith, maybe? San Diablo 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

ya srsly. Joie de Vivre 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(My use of AOLese is entirely tongue-in-cheek.) Joie de Vivre 16:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Deja con tu (epithet removed)! Good faith? Women by far fellate much more than men. That is a fact... Ergo, it should have female pronouns for the reciever. 71.249.27.85 21:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Pejorative epithet in above comment removed by Joie de Vivre per WP:CIVIL. Joie de Vivre 02:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm. Actually, I probably shouldn't have been quite so flip. I'm sorry about that. In any case, yes, please remember WP:AGF, but also note that this is a linguistic issue, not a sociopolitical one. While most fellatio may well be performed by women, to use exclusively feminine pronouns would imply that only women can fellate. As this is not the case, it is more correct to use gender-neutral terms. San Diablo 01:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, folks, please focus on the topic, not personal attacks. If you resort to them, you not only appear incapable or unwilling to defend your beliefs, you are also in violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If you have arguments to bring up, by all means do so, but insults won't bring this page closer to NPOV. Thank you. San Diablo 04:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I am focused on the topic, and it is misrepresented by the GAY POV. The issue here is that pro-gay editors are dominating the article and suppressing the truth: women give blow jobs much more than men, ergo, the picture should be a woman. What? Gays own fellatio? 68.198.220.235 03:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Although 68.198.220.235 may not like it, the use of gender-neutral terms is the best way to go in an article that deals with behavior practiced by multiple genders. Likewise, the picture currently in use is appropriate because the individual shown performing fellatio could be of any sex. Homologeo 06:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. Women perform fellatio overwhelmingly more than (epithets removed) homosexuals. Why is it the "best way to go" when this is fact? You are discriminating against women when you deny them the right to be represented in the majority as fellators. Why should a small minority claim to own the subject? Furthermore, "practiced by multiple genders" sounds rediculous, given that the noun "gender" is when we apply to an inanimate object a sexual charactor, such as to a boat, or a car. What is up with your whole thinking? JBYORK 18:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Epithets in above comment removed by Joie de Vivre 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing the fairer sex this good service and fighting "discrimination against women". Women will undoubtedly rally behind you to defend their "right" to be represented as the majority caste of cocksuckers. While we wait for them to show up, putting aside the fact that you haven't provided any verifiable proof, there is a consensus at Wikipedia to use gender-neutral language in articles about sexual practices, regardless of how many or how few people of whatever gender engage in them. Joie de Vivre 18:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

As much as you might like to get offended, Joie De Vivre, I did not use any "epethets" which should have caused you to edit out anything; I simple wrote, "sexually deviant active homosexuals." There is nothing malicious there, nothing offensive there. Reference the word deviant and you will see so. You argument is dishonest and you have an agenda to normalize homosexuality, or making it on par with heterosexuality; and in so doing, you are victimizing women by denyig them the right to be represented as what they are: cock-suckers. Are you trying to say that more men suck cock than womrn, and that I should disprove your thesis? You cannot bend the truth, despite your fantasies. No matter what you do, you are not gonna stuff this down anyone's throat, even though that is what you prefer to do. JBYORK 19:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Your logic is faulty. Have a nice day. Joie de Vivre 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

H-ey you, joie de vivre, you wikipedia fascist, instead of deleting peoples words, how about you do yourself a favor and read this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CENSORED#Wikipedia_is_not_censored Manic Hispanic 21:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone a fascist is specifically identified as unacceptable in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable and it is a violation of Wikipedia policy at WP:NPA. Removing unacceptable content is viewed critically and is a matter of debate, but it is not a blatant violation as your previous comment is. I removed the comments completely openly and signed my name to make what I was doing completely transparent. Please review policy and do not attack other editors as it is not allowed. Joie de Vivre 21:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Educate me and my philistine ways. JBYORK 23:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of triping me with the WP rules and guidlines and hiding behind the same, tell me how my logic is faulty. JBYORK 23:57, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I did nothing to trip you. I explained that I moved your comment down "to preserve chronology" which is recommended. You reverted several times and would not stop until I explained at your Talk page that the Talk page guidelines support a threaded discussion, which your edits were disrupting. After I took the time to explain the Talk page format, you accused me of "harrassing" you. Please learn the rules and people will have far fewer concerns to raise with you. Joie de Vivre 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

If you think that including language in this article that recognizing that both men and women engage in fellatio constitutes "victimizing women by denyig them the right to be represented as what they are: cock-suckers", then I am not interested to delve further into your logic. Joie de Vivre 00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Be quiet defender of the oligarchy. You are more then likely a homosexual, and regardless you are pushing a homsexual agenda. You are trying to marginalize heterosexuality on this page. I really don't give a fuck, but what I don't like is you censoring JBYORK's opinion, just because you are offended. That is blatant censorship to quote JBYORK "you low level beurocrat". I'm a stop now before you go complain to your superiors and King Jimbo. Manic Hispanic 00:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Calling someone names is specifically identified as unacceptable in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable and it is a violation of Wikipedia policy at WP:NPA. Removing unacceptable content is viewed critically and is a matter of debate, but it is not a blatant violation as your previous comment is. I removed the comments completely openly and signed my name to make what I was doing completely transparent. Please review policy and do not attack other editors as it is not allowed. Joie de Vivre 00:14, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like it was written by a horney teen.

the techniques section in particular seems very unprofessional. perhaps if we added bigger words and put more unneeded citations it would be better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.152.248.109 (talk • contribs) 16:04, June 7, 2007 (UTC).

-*snort*- probably. Joie de Vivre 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

Hash it out here. Abide by WP:TPG, WP:CIVIL and especially WP:NPA: "Comment on content, not on the contributor". Meaning: only discuss the content of the article. Making personally-directed remarks about other editors at article Talk pages is a violation of Wikipedia official policy and it is not allowed.

It's the best form of sex and you can ejaculate without worrying you will impregnate your partner, it's great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.12.193 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

71.249.27.85 has expressed a concern that the article pushes a "homosexual POV". Joie de Vivre 23:36, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, there is lgbt slant here. pic needs to be of a woman fellating a man, as heterosexuality is the majority, not homosexuality. you dont cater to the small minority, Mr. Joie de Vivre, who is trying to homogenize this page. Manic Hispanic 20:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Look better. This is a woman, just with short hair. 80.101.20.20 4:00, 18 June 2007 (CET)

Actually, this image was a compromise after a lengthy discussion about the sex/gender of the people in the images. The decision was to create a deliberately androgynous image, because the gender of the person performing fellatio in the image is not really important when it comes to the depiction. See Talk:Oral_sex#Renewed_discussion_and_new_images and the archives of Talk:Oral sex. Joie de Vivre ^T 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Why cater at all? San Diablo 13:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No significant evidence has been provided to support the allegation that this article fails to meet NPOV. Gender-neutral terminology and images are the best way to avoid bias and POV. Thus, the article should stay as it is, unless real evidence is presented to support the claim that NPOV is not upheld. Homologeo 12:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Specification of gender

Am I the only editor who finds the recent addition about gender to be problematic? It was attempted here, here, and here, reverted twice by myself and once by San Diablo. Whoever is editing this seems concerned to distinguish between the different sexes in regards to who performs fellatio. This strikes me as unnecessary. It's pretty obvious that whoever wants to perform fellatio will do so, attempting to categorize those who do as "straight" "gay", etc isn't useful or accurate. A curious straight guy or lesbian might give it a try one day, and what about bisexual people? It's a lot simpler to just describe the act. The internally-defined sexual orientation of the individual performing fellatio isn't particularly important in regards to this article. It would be almost impossible to verify what percentage of people of which orientations fellate, how often they do, etc, etc. That's outside the scope of this article. It might be appropriate at Human sexual behavior. Joie de Vivre ^T 20:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

no Joie, you are not alone, this is about the act, and the act is the same whoever performs it. POV tosh. IdreamofJeanie 20:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The article awkwardly goes out of its way to avoid any sex, or "gender" [sic] whatsoever.. This is the problem. The fact is that women fellate far more than gay men do. The article is dishonest as it tries to avoid glaring fact and in the process seeks to normalize deviant gay behavior. 71.247.110.93 21:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Your repeated reverts to a version that three editors have reverted are not helpful. What you are doing goes against consensus. Please build consensus here at the Talk page before implementing changes. Joie de Vivre ^T 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the article does not strike me as awkward. Your insertion of "note: deliberately androgynous image" and "fellatio is performed by women and homosexual males" does. The way I see it is that describing the sex act does not require going into a discussion of the sexual orientation of people who engage in it. Joie de Vivre ^T 22:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Why do you have a problem with it? It is encyclopedic and factual. Furthermore, the words, "deliberately androgynous image" are word that Joie de Vivre used (above) to describe and defend the image. Why would Joie de Vivre have a problem with his own written words to defend the image, as part of the public description of the image. Is there something that you wish to withhold from the public? The article is dishonest. 71.247.110.93 22:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are taking my quote out of context. The entire quote was: "The decision was to create a deliberately androgynous image, because the gender of the person performing fellatio in the image is not really important when it comes to the depiction." It seems you disagree with the latter half of the sentence, but three editors disagree with you. Now would be a good time to present some reliable sources that demonstrate the factuality and relevance of your argument. Joie de Vivre ^T 22:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Now four editors have reverted these additions. Please stop, and seek consensus here. Thank you. Joie de Vivre ^T 22:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It's also edit warring and a violation of the three revert rule. San Diablo 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To ask me to prove that there a more gays who felate than straight women is dishonest and flies in the face of reality, and it suggests that the position you advance is the flawed position here. As for your words, they are your words and your additional context does not make a difference. It is still "deliberately androgenous". There is not reason not to state so. Perhaps you could explain why it is wrong to include it. But, as stated before, the objective is clear: a deliberately androgynous image. There is no harm. 71.247.110.93 23:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobody's asked you to prove any proportion of who fellates. Moreover, your claim is not "encyclopedic and factual" - it presumes that Alan Cumming is gay, and that Angelina Jolie is straight. San Diablo 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 71.247.110.93 at 23:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC) removed by Exploding Boy

Hardly a checkmate. For one, you have not established why your text is appropriate, particularly after it was proven unfactual. Furthermore, though you insist that a neutral gender term is corrupting the article, you have not proven why your edits are any more NPOV. Gender neutral terms do not favor any sexuality, while your own edits have ignored facts. San Diablo 23:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

He knows not the coup de grace when it comes... You are denying reality. Once again, deviant gays represent a tiny fraction of those who fellate. Preference is not reality, but is a point of view. Reality is not a point of view. Reality simply is. Checkmate, dude. 71.247.110.93 23:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, reality is not a point of view, but your point of view is manifestly not reality. You have yet to explain why your factually inaccurate edit is less POV than the factually accurate one. San Diablo 23:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You are conflating the determination of "common" versus "less common" with the determination of "normal" versus "deviant". "Common" versus "less common" is a relative assessment of how often something occurs. "Normal" versus "deviant" is a moral judgment. How common or uncommon something is does not indicate whether it is morally right or wrong. Whether something is morally wrong is up to the individual.

There is not a uniform cultural consensus as to whether men fellating men is right or wrong. That is a moral question, and it is entirely appropriate for the arena of Societal attitudes towards homosexuality. However, it is illogical to state that "this is rare, therefore it is deviant", unless you are prepared to state that being an Olympic medalist or a virtuoso or a Nobel laureate is "deviant" too. Joie de Vivre ^T 00:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading this thread, and 71.247.110.93 has ended this discussion, and accurately with checkmate. No one has address the simple facts that 71.247.110.93 presents in his/her argument. It seems to me that others are taking a defensive posture, likely becaue 71.247.110.93 uses the words deviant and normal. I can see how one could get offended by that, but those words by themselves and as used by 71.247.110.93 are not necessarily judgements of males who fellate. That is not the point it seems. Along with refusing to recognize reality as he/she puts it, now you are redifining the word deviant, which just looks silly and bespeaks defeat. 67.87.92.56 01:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not "redifining" anything. Deviant at Google: "pervert", "aberrant", "a violation of an accepted norm". These are moral distinctions. Joie de Vivre ^T 01:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

So it's a simple fact that only straight women and gay men fellate? Moreover, neither you nor he have established that gender-exclusive text is more NPOV than gender-inclusive text. It's not a checkmate. It's just a refusal to acknowledge opposing arguments. San Diablo 01:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 67.87.92.56 at 01:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC) removed by Exploding Boy

You're not judging me, you're just assuming that I'm gay, and compelling you to appease someone by asking that you explain why you feel that text that excludes gender and orientation in its entirety is somehow more POV than text that ignores facts. I have established my belief that it is better to be accurate and inclusive in the text. This is because the act described by the text only refers to the gender of the recipient, not the performer. Gender neutral text makes no comment whatsoever on politics of homosexuality. By arguing that we should discuss gender and sexuality here and address it in the article, it is you and he that are trying to push a POV, not us. San Diablo 02:08, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment by 67.87.92.56 at 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC) removed by Exploding Boy

What, exactly, does this have to do with the Fellatio article? Joie de Vivre ^T 02:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Based on the simple fact that more editors engaged in the editing of this article agree with the use of gender-neutral terminology, and following the general Wikipedia guideline not to assume something when facts are not provided, the article should indeed use gender-neutral terms. Despite whether some may think homosexuality is deviant or wrong, the fact of the matter is that any person of any sex and of any sexual orientation is capable of performing fellatio. Although I cannot provide any statistics, I'm pretty sure there is a portion of every group, be it defined by sex or sexual orientation, that does fellate. Besides, the use of gender-neutral terminology is more NPOV than describing the act as if only members of a single sex and sexual orientation engage in fellatio.Homologeo 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Long list of refactored off-topic comments removed by Exploding Boy 17:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a fact more women then men give head. Manic Hispanic 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also a fact that only the gender of one partner is a given. That most people who perform fellatio are female is not a reason to use exclusive text in place of inclusive text. Given that the gender of the performer is not significant with regards to the act itself, I feel that it is more accurate, and more neutral, to use gender-neutral terminology. Moreover, gender neutral terms do not say anything about the gender of the performer, one way or another. As such, it is less POV than making assumptions about the uninvolved gender of the performer. - San Diablo 12:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page reminder

All editors: please remember that discussion on article talk pages is to be limited to discussion of the article itself. Any off-topic chat will be removed. Users who persistently violate this policy will be blocked. Exploding Boy 22:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Anus to Mouth Fellatio

Why was this section removed? It is certainly as relevant as deep throating, and the spiritual significance of fellatio. 162.84.212.42 18:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See Anilingus. Exploding Boy 18:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

No, you are confussing two very important sexual acts. I am not talking about eating another's anus. I am talking about the meritorious act of performing fallatio on a penis that was just in the ass of the same fellatio performer, hense ass-to-mouth fellatio. This act renders the fellatio act higher in stimulation and significance. It would be cool and appropriate to have there. 162.84.212.42 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Meritorious," eh? Look, fellatio is fellatio is fellatio. It's not particularly necessary to have a description of every possible variation of a sex act in its Wikipedia article, unless it's particularly important for some reason, as deep throating is, due to its association with an infamous movie. Exploding Boy 18:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is of merit. If you are gonna defend the inclusion of deep throating by referencing a porn movie, it seems fair to allow ass-to-mouth fellatio, given that there is a huge porn niche that caters to anus-to-mouth fallatio all over the internet. Serious. 162.84.212.42 18:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Does the group mind if I restore the anus fellatio section? 162.84.212.42 18:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Instead of deleting my edits, this editor would like to engage the discussion about Anus-to-Mouth fellatio. It should be included as inherent within the varieties in fallatic behaviors. It is also very commonplace on internet porn. No? 162.84.212.42 21:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how the below is out of the scope of the article:

From-Anus-to-Mouth Fellatio

Many fellators like to give fallatio immediately after receiving anal sex by the one to be fellated. The action is performed by first penetrating the anus, followed by anal sexual activity, and concludes with removing the penis to the mouth for fellatio -often accompanied by ejaculation into mouth. The fellatio action is heightened. The action is often called Ass-to-Mouth, a style which is widely circulated on the internet.

It's unsourced (how many is "many"? how is it "heightened"?), misspelled, and little more than an overview of the practice. It'd be one thing if it were part of a list of fellatio variants here, but this reads more like a stub of its own article than a part of this one. San Diablo 21:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about the action being 'heightened' but it definitely tastes good ;) Ass to Mouth has it's own page anyway, ad a link if you really want to. 88.107.201.172 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminology (Giving Head)

It's mentioned at the end of the first paragraph that:
    "Fellatio – as well as cunnilingus – can be referred to as 'giving head'."
This is perhaps, very true in certain regions and/or within specific social circles. However, where I come from, the term 'head' refers to fellatio ONLY. (i.e. a male recipient of oral sex 'gets head'... and his partner (the giver) 'gives head').
A female recipient of oral sex 'gets face'. Her partner (the cunnilingus giver) 'gives face'.
I think this should be addressed. You simply do not and cannot give a woman head in some parts of the world. Using the term is just... really weird.
Rick 142.68.47.97 11:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Where I am from "give face" is never used and "head" is acceptable.65.110.227.169 15:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that is why it says "can be referred..." ArdClose (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard the term 'give face' for cunnilingus. I have heard people say 'give head', but it does sound odd to me. In my high-school, people used the term 'eat out'. Mike barrie (talk) 12:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Terminology (Blowjob)

Edited the introduction slightly to adjust the given meaning of the twrm "blowjob." While I don't think anyone disputes that "fellatio" is the physical activity of sucking on the penis, I have never heard the term "blowjob" mean [i]incomplete[/i] fellatio, or fellatio preparatory to intercourse.

You've obviously never had 'intercourse' then.

Arnold Nonymous

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.134.95.138 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Durindana 01:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

LOVE IT!! BEST THING EVER!!

Italic text

[] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.52.154 (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

New picture

I have a much better quality picture, would anyone mind if I added it and/or swapped it with the one in the article? 68.143.88.2 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

File:TeabaggingArtistsImpression.jpg

An artist's impression of teabagging. Note that of the man's testes, the left is being licked by the woman's tongue and that the right is on her forehead.

---

An editor has nominated the above file for discussion of its purpose and/or potential deletion. You are welcome to participate in the discussion and help reach a consensus.

It's actually about time thatwikipedia starts using actual pictures of these sexual acts. Photos I mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.186.134.104 (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Dubious re: taste of semen

Can we remove this nonsense about improving the taste of semen, or at least find a better source? The current source explicitly states that there is NO study showing a correlation between diet and semen flavor, in the first line no less. Telor 08:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What about all the anecdotal evidence? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient basis for an encyclopedic claim. The sources given are not reliable. AskMen.com and this semen taste article are sources that seem to make little or no effort to check or cite their facts and rely heavily on rumors. Whipped is fiction. The Badger Herald article is a campus newspaper that cited neither scientific nor anecdotal sources. The article from the Liberated Christians is self-published and has never been published by a reliable third party publication. In short, none of the given sources follow Wikipedia's verifiability policy. For this reason, I will be removing the claims that they are attached to. If you find a reliable source, feel free to add them back in. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Source for correlation of practicing oral sex and oral cancer

I believe the source for this information may not be reliable. New Scientist is not a peer-reviewed journal, and unless I am mistaken this study does not appear anywhere else. That makes me think that this information may not be agreed-upon in the scientific community. I think we should remove the second paragraph in the section 'HPV and Oral Cancer Link.' Thoughts?R isaiah stern 04:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Moreover, the statement "cancer implies oral sex" has no logical relationship to "oral sex implies cancer", which means that this conclusion seems to be based on a logical fallacy. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ejaculation into womans mouth/we should have a proper picture

If we are going to inlcude this, we should have a proper picture showing it. Otherwise, leave it out!--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather not. Also, can we switch to a picture of a woman doing fellatio? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

There has already been discussion on this in the past, and the consensus was that an intentionally androgynous image would be used, as the gender of the person performing the act is unimportant to the act itself. I changed the picture back. Please do not replace it without further discussion. See the NPOV dispute section. Ketsuekigata (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Safety notice

Should'nt we have warning notice about the health risks of blowing up your partners genitals?--TreeSmiler (talk) 01:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Cultural significance

Isn't this heading going a bit far trying to be politically correct. fellation is a sexual act and I think the page could dare talk about it as that not just a cultural and spiritual thingy.

Lena Bimbo (talk) 15:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious that it's a sexual act, especially considering that the first sentence defines it as oral sex. The idea behind discussing the cultural and spiritual aspects of fellatio, I believe, isn't at all to imply that they are the only aspects. If you have information that focuses more purely on the sexual act itself, feel free to include it in the article. Ketsuekigata (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Sex Bias in Opening ¶

{{helpme}} Good work everybody trying to keep this article free of silliness: (Left-handed people tend to enjoy performing fellatio twice as much as ambidextrous people.)[sic]

One little problem, the final sentence of the opening paragraph states: a woman who performs fellatio may be referred to as a "fellatrix," but there's no mention as to what a man who performs fellatio is called.

Frankly, I don’t know how noteworthy the inclusion of this little vocab tip is, especially in the OP, but according to my wiktionary research and vast understanding of Latin declension(not), the word is fellator. (Link to English Wiktionary entry)76.115.97.117 (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Semen ingestion

Is there a technical term for semen ingestion, as there is for dirt ingestion (geophagia) and feces ingestion (coprophagia)? Thanks, Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this study have any implications that we may want to mention in the article? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Ingestion of Semen - Reliability?

Is AskMen.com really a reliable source? It seems to be full of opinions and uncited generalizations. Also, I noticed that the citation doesn't actually link to askmen.com at all, but to another site entirely, which doesn't even mention AskMen.com. I'm also concerned that certain parts of askmen.com are members-only, and that membership isn't free, which may be why I was unable to find the article that should have been cited here. Similarly, I'm pretty sure that the movie Whipped is not a reliable source. I also have concerns about To Get Better Sperm, since it seems to make a good many dubious claims. For instance, it says that "a recent study concluded that vegetarians have better tasting semen", but I have been unable to find any evidence (apart from hearsay) that such a study was even conducted. It cites none of its sources, and the level of expertise of the author is unclear.

In conclusion: both the sources and the claims made in the Ingestion of Semen section need serious review. Ketsuekigata (talk) 21:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I removed some of that nonsense once before. Also, the gender bias is creeping back in. Exploding Boy (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of Calories in Semen

I deleted the line "According to The Kinsey Institute New Report on Sex, there are approximately 15-75 calories in the amount of semen usually ejaculated", as it was completely unrelated to the rest of its paragraph and didn't seem to add anything to the article. Ketsuekigata (talk) 05:06, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: etymology of fellatio

Hi guys, most of the posts seem to be about sex, not surprising. I am a linguist and I have written a detailed article about the supposed connexion between L. femina and L. fellare (root of fellatio).

It is at http://www.europaic.com/Etymology%20of%20L.%20femina%20and%20L.%20fellare.htm.

If anyone thinks it interesting, you can put it in as an external link. (I assert copyright.)

Regards, EdwardAftung (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced Claim

I removed the sentence "However, conversely, the receiver is willingly placing his genitals in an environment filled with teeth, so there is an element of sexual submission by the receiver as the giver performs fellatio on the willing partner – particularly if the receiver is restrained (e.g., in bondage)." because it's unreferenced and appears to be original research. I'm noting it here so that if anyone would be willing to rephrase it and find a source, they may. Ketsuekigata (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

nutritional content

I have removed a piece of text dealing with the nutritional content of semen. It is basically non-existent (enough to keep some cells in glucose for a small amount of time). This has been addressed by the straight dope among others. Just a heads-up. BananaFiend (talk) 13:58, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Lesbosians?

I removed this parenthetical remark:

(then called Lesbians, now called Lesbosians)

Because, as far as I can tell, people from Lesbos are still called Lesbians. In fact, there is a lawsuit about it going on in Greece right now.Cadwaladr (talk) 04:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There's such a stream of vandalism pouring into these pages that some vandal (and some good faith but badly thought out) edits get through and aren't noticed. Well done for spotting and fixing a problem --Simon Speed (talk) 22:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

About that picture

I submit that that cartoon drawing of someone sucking a penis is not needed in this article. Anyone who wants to know what fellatio looks like can easily find endless amounts of pornography showing it elsewhere on the internet. Besides, it's perfectly easy to imagine what fellatio looks like even without a picture. I am inclined to remove it. Skoojal (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just for purposes of comparison, I don't think an article about murder would need a graphic picture of someone being killed. Skoojal (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides anything else, that image (unlike the moche ceramic) has no artistic value whatever. It just looks dumb. Skoojal (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The very worst thing about pornography is that it has taken on the role of sex-education by default and is making such a lousy job of it. The existing cartoon is excellent: it is tasteful, well drawn and easy to understand. The pot, on the other hand, is a historical curiosity involving an unfeasibly large penis. The article would benefit from further illustrations showing the act in various usual positions. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The cartoon is stupid. It is without artistic merit and should be removed. The moche ceramic has genuine historical interest, and your comment about it is crass. Skoojal (talk) 09:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a prude, but the picture does seem at the least to be inappropriate as a lead photo. (Some wiki readers may be using public library computers unaware they are about to load an x-rated illustration). Not to mention that if you are old enough to know what oral sex is, the picture is unnecessarily redundant. --09:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caveman80 (talk • contribs)

Removed picture in question & replaced it with a link to Wiki commons category fellatio --10:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caveman80 (talk • contribs)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Dispute/3rd opinion tag

Picture removal reverted by 3rd party. WP is not censored (and my removal of the pic wasn't censoring), but are we going to include pornographic anime representations in all encyclopedia articles about sex? Good grief. washing hands of this, tagging with 3rd party opinion request. -- Caveman80 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My main reason for objecting to the picture is that it lacks inherent merit or interest. No one needs to look at that dumb cartoon to find out what a blow job looks like. A sexually explicit image might be OK if it was historically interesting. Skoojal (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As for 'wikipedia is not censored', you could use that as a justification for adding any kind of rubbish. The question remains: what is the point of that particular picture? Skoojal (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with one by a recognized artist. In my opinion it is not as good as the medical style illustration, but at least it does illustrate the act clearly, which the photo of the pot does not. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

works for me -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

goodjob on finding it, works better than the manga pic. if skooj doesn't have any objections i say we call it resolved? -- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the image with the one that was previously used (Fellatio.png). That image was created for this article based on previous consensus. Specifically, it depicts fellatio as performed by an androgynous person, thus avoiding gender bias. The image that Simonxag replaced it with depicts a woman fellating a man, which puts that gender bias back into the article. Also, the image is not pornographic (its primary purpose is to inform, not to arouse). There has been plenty of previous discussion on this. Skoojal, calling the image "dumb" and the anti-censorship argument "rubbish" doesn't really serve to support your point. What, specifically, is wrong with the image? Why do you consider the argument in question invalid? You say that "a sexually explicit image might be OK if it was historically interesting", but why don't you think a sexual explicit image is ok otherwise? Oh, and the point of the image isn't to have "artistic merit", it's to inform, so why is it necessary that the image is by a "recognized artist" (though I admit to being a little bit confused as to what that means)? Caveman80, if your removal of the image was because you believe that the image was pornographic, how do you figure that your edit wasn't censorship? As I previously stated, that image was placed in the article based on consensus. It's ok to question that consensus, but new consensus needs to be reached in order to invalidate it. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If there was a consensus in favour of that picture, then the consensus needs to be overturned, because the picture is pointless. For one thing, we don't need pictures of fellatio to know what fellatio looks like. It is rather easy to imagine, and pictures of it are widely available. For another, depicting fellatio as performed by an 'androgynous person' does not remove gender bias. Rather, it enshrines gender bias in favour of androgynous persons. If heterosexual fellatio and homosexual fellatio are equally important, and for some reason need to be shown, then include pictures of both. And please make them pictures of genuine artistic value, because that cartoon has none. Skoojal (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify, I am not saying that sexually explicit images should never be used. They have their place. I am only saying that sexually explicit images are not tolerable unless they have genuine worth from an artistic or historical point of view. That cartoon has neither. Skoojal (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly concerned that the article gets clearly illustrated (so long as the image doesn't actually have the look and feel of internet porn). I'd be happy with either picture. I'm a little dubious about androgyny being so neutral, it seems to be a particular sort of gender-identity like all the others, but I don't think it's bad. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings fellow editors.,,,I'm not a prude. (If anything the 3rd century painting showed more skin than the cartoon). My taking down of the cartoon the other day was not censorship but editorialship. It looks more like it belongs on a manga site. Anyhow, I do not care what happens. There's more important things to do on Wikipedia, and I didn't sign up for this. No offense to present company, but the fact that the tribal council had to come to consensus over whether a girl or boy would be the one giving head, and then comission an artwork of it, speaks volumes. If some bi or gay dude (and I am bi myself, not that it matters) actually gives a crap that some girl is the one giving head, instead of a guy. He needs to go read WP:DGAF & also WP:SANDWICH for dessert.  :-) Anyhows..

[ahem] :-)

Wikipedia is a top-ten website. It appears at the top of Google searches and tons and tons of people use it for reference. We all are adding to human knowledge and contributing to the fact-checking and NPOV-checking from all over the world in a way never seen before in 200,000 years of human existence. There's more important things to contribute than these stupid edit wars on pages like this. :-) I could go make sure the LGBT articles are fact-checked and NPOV. I could go put together an article on how right now while we're sitting here, our earth is hurtling extremeeely fast thru space around the sun, which in turn is hurtling extreeeeeeeeeeemly more fast around the center of the milky way (and the milky way itself is moving too...) all of us moving at breakneck speeds through space unaware and spending our time debating penis pictures. oh well. have fun, i surrender & bequeath my shares in the Fellatio Educational Industrial Corporation to whoever wants them. laters. :-)

-- caveman80^{(my 2 cents)} 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, edit wars bad!!! I'll support any picture that clearly illustrates the article. But fellatio is as much a part of life as Meiosis (which I remember being taught as sex in school) and until we have a link to Cure for AIDS maybe we should think sex acts as worthy of serious factual articles. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There already is a picture that clearly illustrates the article. It's the moche one. It does have the merit of not being some worthless, run of the mill piece of pornography that one could find on the internet in two seconds. That's reason enough to use it. Skoojal (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For purposes of comparison, look at the article on anal sex. It uses historical images, not contemporary pornography, and definitely not manga. That's the example this article ought to follow. Skoojal (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I note anal sex has numerous pictures, most clearly illustrating the act. Sadly, none of these are with a condom and anal sex is a very high risk activity. If you check out Dragon Ball (manga) you will not find anything looking like a medical illustration. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture in the article isn't manga, and it isn't pornography. It was created specifically for this article. You may wish to read the archives of the discussion leading to its creation. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't debate manga with you, but yes, the picture is pornography. It may have been specifically created for this article, but that can't over-ride all other factors. Perhaps there was a consensus in favour of that picture in the past; I'm not at all sure that there is one now. Skoojal (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure? It is intended to inform, not to arouse (which should be obvious since it was created for this article), which makes it non-pornographic. What are the other factors you're talking about? Instead of giving supporting evidence for your claim that the image is pornographic or proposing an alternative, you have simply restated your point and replaced the image again. I would also like to point out that Wikipedia has no explicit policy against pornography, as long as the image in question pertains to the subject of the article and is legal under Florida law. The previous image was created with an intentionally androgynous person performing fellatio, because the gender of the performer is inconsequential. This was a compromise that was reached through consensus, which you would know if you read the archived discussions. The current image depicts a woman performing fellatio on a man. You have not addressed the issue of gender bias that the image you replaced it with introduced into the article. If you would like to find or create an image that would not introduce gender bias but that you feel would be more encyclopedic, I, for one, would be open to that. I am also concerned that the current image (Édouard-Henri Avril (20).jpg) is somewhat unclear, and the focus is not entirely on fellatio. Also, your statement that "sexually explicit images are not tolerable unless they have genuine worth from an artistic or historical point of view" contradicts the policy that Wikipedia is not censored. This does not mean that Wikipedia is not censored as long as all images used have artistic or historical merit. This does not mean that Wikipedia is not censored as long as the images used are non-pornographic. This does not mean that Wikipedia is not censored if the images used resemble medical diagrams. It means that Wikipedia is not censored, period. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of using pornography to 'inform' people about oral sex is preposterous. If people are too young to know what oral sex is, they should not be looking at that picture. If they are old enough to know what oral sex is, they do not need to look at the picture. The purpose for which the picture was created does not alter its being pornography. Regarding the issue of gender bias, I actually have already addressed it. A picture of an androgynous person creates a gender bias in favour of androgynous persons. Skoojal (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Copying section from oral sex pregnancy

I'm not sure what the best way to make this link, but I feel it is important that both this page and the oral sex page have a statement (or perhaps a link to a statement) regarding oral sex and pregnancy. This is a hugely confusing topic for teenagers and I feel this information should be accessible wherever possible. I do not think this is large enough a topic to warrant it's own article however. Is it acceptable to simply have the content duplicated on both pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaldor (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"A common misconception.." Really? This seems a little patronising to be honest, as anyone who has a vague idea about how anything works know that this isn't possible. I don't particularly object to the section in itself, but the phrasing could be better. It certainly makes me worry about the state of sexual education outside of the UK... -Toon⁰⁵ 14:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean the section to be patronizing at all, but you would be very surprised at the number of teens that are confused about this. For adolescents who are just learning about these topics, it is not a given that they would understand this. Particularly with the confusion of defining what sex is: strictly vaginal, including (or not) anal, including (or not) oral; it is a huge source of confusion. Many teens associate sex with pregnancy, but then are confused as to whether that extends to oral sex as well. I think clarifying this is important. Additionally, the phrase "a common misconception" acts as a normalizing statement. It helps to neutralize the concern and show that the individual asking the question isn't alone in their confusion. This helps prevent the person from thinking their question is foolish to ask. Sadly, the state of sexual education is not the same all over the world. I'm glad the UK has a very thorough sexual education program, but unfortunately, that is not the case in other parts of the world. I believe the phrase should stay. Chaldor (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand your line of reasoning, the purpose of this encyclopaedia isn't to reassure teens. I do think it is important to highlight the whole pregnancy issue, but from an encyclopaedic perspective, I would prefer to remove the "Although a common misconception" part, leaving simply: "Fellatio alone cannot result in pregnancy, as there is no way for sperm from the penis to enter the uterus and fallopian tubes to fertilize an egg." This would leave the information exactly the same, but bring the article into a more factual resource, rather than an agony aunt column in a teen magazine. Would this be acceptable to you? -Toon⁰⁵ 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I would not want the wiki to cater particularly to any single group of people. I have, however, seen articles in the wiki where phrases like "despite popular opinion" or "common misconception" are used: 1 2 3 4 5 6. If this is not proper wiki style, then I apologize for the references. I was looking for some insight into this in the manual of style and in the NPOV guidelines, but couldn't find much that really states one way or another. Please refer me to it if there is something I missed. I did however, read that NPOV states that minority opinions held by others (assuming a significant number of people hold that opinion) should be reasonably addressed by the wiki. I think by stating that pregnancy from oral sex is "a common misconception" we are recognizing the fact that this is an opinon held by a small, but significant minority. This will therefore validate that such an opinion exists, but then go on to show why such a belief is incorrect. Removing this phrase somewhat implies that we are not recognizing the existence of the opinion. If the goal of the wiki is to be as comprehensive about knowledge and issues surrounding that knowledge, then should we not at least acknowledge that there are a group of people that have incorrect beliefs surrounding the topics of pregnancy and oral sex?Chaldor (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well argued (although comparing other articles on this project is misleading, given the fact that artices are written in different ways, by different people (and I could point out trillions of articles where this hasn't happened, but would clearly be stupid)). I see your point, and although to me it feels inappropriate to have that phrase there, my feeling is not as strong as to push for its removal, therefore I'll just leave it there and trust I'm being fussy! I hope you are enjoying the wikipedia experience (and I note with interest the articles you are editing!) -Toon⁰⁵ 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I had not seen this discussion, so I removed the part about it being a common misconception. First of all the statement is unsourced, secondly it's relevance depends on the extend of the misconception (this would also be fixed by a citation), thirdly my gut feeling tells me that it is not a common misconception. Anyhow, the most important thing is that it is obvious from the article that you cannot get pregnant from a blowjob. --Morten (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the text with a source. There are dozens of sources to show that this is a common misconception, as ridiculous as it sounds. Take a look at google[[1]]. Chaldor (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your change in placing the the about.com teen's advice at the end of the section in it's own paragraph seems somewhat awkward. You stated that in doing so, you are reflecting the relevance of the topic. However, I feel in doing so, you have actually given more weight to the idea than due. Additionally, the about.com page is only one of many sites (as I pointed out in post just above this) that address this specific issue. Given the number of sites that are clearly addressing the issue, and about.com's direct statement stating that the questions listed in this page are commonly asked, it is completely reasonable to conclude that this is "a common misconception." If more sites were referenced, would it then be acceptable to phrase the sentence as I had in the front? Please keep in mind that for an educated person, the pregnancy section seems out of place (why would there be a pregnancy section in the fellatio page?). Having the first line state (with references) that it is a common misconception helps dispel that question, as well as address the a minority opinion (a minority opinion held among adolescents/teens and likely some uneducated adults). Chaldor (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will not contest the placement of the sentence further. On the wording "common misconception", let's say that 10% of the population write questions to sex advice services and let's say that about.com thinks common is 5% of the questions are about fellatio and pregnancy. Then 0.05*0.1 = 0.005 = 0.5% of the population has asked this question. Based on this we can say very little about the general population, because many probably don't write questions to these services. The point is that we don't know based on this source (and similar sources), so we should stick to stating what we can assume to be true in the source, namely that they receive these kinds of questions on a regular basis. Note also that sex advice services has an interest in overstating the volume of "stupid" questions to create an atmosphere in which it is OK to ask "stupid" questions because. --Morten (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for asking, but I don't quite understand. Are you saying you are ok with restoring the phrase as I had it? Chaldor (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem ;-) I recognize you argument for the placement of the sentence, but I think the wording should be different in order not to over-interpret the source. What we know from the source (and other similar sources) is that sex councilors receive the question with some frequency. The frequency we do not know, not from this source at least. It would be better with a source that said i.e. "10% of European 15-year-olds believe that you can get pregnant from a blow job". I have looked for this kind of thing but did not find anything (though I am certain the statistics are out there). --Morten (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It is for the lack of more accurate information that I chose the phrase as I did. If we did have more correct information, this would be very valuable and far more useful. I have done some extensive searching, and perhaps the most relevant things I found were the SKAT (Sex Knowledge and Attitude Test) and SKAT-A (same, for adolescents). Sadly the paper on the SKAT was published in 79, and I don't have access to it (PMID: 513145) so I can't evaluate what's in it (though it seems the skat was aimed at medical students, so it's probably too advanced to have this question in it). The SKAT-A, aimed at adolescents, seems far more relevant, but is copyright some company [2]. My guess is that this question is addressed in the SKAT-A. I just wish I could find out whether it was and what hte results were. Chaldor (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have access to the journal, but only from 1999 :-( --Morten (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto me. I have access, but it only goes back to 97. There are print editions are at my library though. I'm going to see if there's anything of value in there. Chaldor (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

More history would be nice

This article would greatly benefit from a lot more historical info about fellatio (not just from the classical era). Some information on its popularity, when it became acceptable in pop culture, and in common discourse in various countries, when the practice became widespread and when (and where) it was (or is) still taboo. 64.30.3.122 (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "originated" in African-American sexual slang and gained popularity ....etc. Doesn't this statement defeat the etymology section following it? A rewording may be in order. 64.228.92.41 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

fellatio can reduce risk of breast cancer?

I read an article saying that women who fellate has lower risk of breast cancer than those who not. But I don't know if the article is reliable. Look at this [3] Dreamback1116 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the article under 'Comments.' 66.191.19.217 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Is New Guinea Sexual Culture Relevant?

"For example, among the Sambia of New Guinea the initiation of boys into manhood begins at the age of around 8 and lasts many years. These years are dedicated to ridding the boys of polluting maternal influences and turning them into pure and fierce men. To this end, they are subjected to repeated painful episodes of bleeding, induced by inserting sharp grasses into their nostrils. This is held to release accumulated maternal blood. This is followed by repeated episodes of fellation by adult male initiators to ‘feed’ the boy masculinity, a masculinity which is associated with physical strength and military prowess. In these cases, anthropologists have usefully brought psychoanalytic forms of understanding to bear in understanding the dynamics of gender creation, though always in the context of local understandings of the person." - from http://www.answers.com/topic/initiation-rites

Gilbert Herdt researched the sexual culture of Sambia (which is according to Wikipedia an invented name for some tribe of New Guinea) and this strikes me as an interesting example of a society that openly practices fellatio as a rite, but I don't know whether it is relevant in a general article about the act.

71.191.251.27 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is supposed to provide a world view of a subject, so New Guinea culture would be very relevant. The problem is that original research is a complete no no and anything controversial has to be properly referenced from reliable sources. "www.answers.com" is not a reliable source. If this information could be sourced (not quoted) from somewhere academic and reliable then it would make a welcome addition to the page. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

This picture is unnecessary

That picture is extremely inappropriate and way too graphic. The other two pictures in the article are more then enough. Dumaka (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Graphic" is precisely what a picture should be. Articles should be well and clearly illustrated just as they should have clear and informative written content. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So what's next? Child pornography links and pictures on the Child pornography article? There are two other pictures in the article that clearly illustrate fellatio. I don't understand why that pornographic distasteful picture is even on Wikipedia. Seriously, the pubic hair and engagement ring are just too much. It's ok, lets just hope that parents will stop their children from using Wikipedia from now on. Dumaka (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Slippery slope argument. Fellatio is not child porn. Fellatio is fellatio, and legal in most countries. Legally speaking, as well, there is no real guidelines for what's pornographic and what isn't. The fact is that you're arguing against something that isn't against wikipedia rules, using an argument that wikipedia says in it's guidelines you're not supposed to use, to remove an image that's far less offensive than, say, a picture of 2 porn stars going at it. 71.173.95.12 (talk) 21:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia is not censored for minors. It does obey US law. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a photograph. (And, what objection do you have to the engagement ring?) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the engagement ring curious because, the picture being a drawing rather than a photograph, it was clearly included intentionally. But why? What was the intention? Is it in some way an attempt to legitimise the act that's depicted? I'm curious from a philosophical standpoint. I'm puzzled by Dumaka's objection to the pubic hair though. Some amount of it is normally present on an adult. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

a similar picture or two have found their ways on to other sexuality articles- where do these (digital by the looks of them) come from ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.215.26 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just have to comment. I am a foreigner to the US society, and I am rather shocked by the discussion above regarding "oral sex pregnancy". Mere existance of such misconceptions boldly illustrate what censorship of potentially disturbing information leads to. 76.93.226.104 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your looking up a Fellatio article don't expect no pics. Any picture or drawing you put up is still as offensive and pornographic as the next one. If you find that the pictures don't fit the article because they offend is no reason to change or delete them. Pictures speal louder then words. Try to remember Wikipedia is not censored: ( meaning as long as the picture illustrates the article well and follow the rules it is perfectly okay). Plus it adds more to the article. Which I can say less about you.--WiseCrow (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the picture to be distasteful because it confirms negative sterotypes of permiscuity in african american females. From the image, it can be gathered that she is married (see the ring), but she is performing fellatio on an unmarried white man (lack of ring). Safe to conclude he is not her husband. Why not have a same race picture??All other images on that page are of people of the same race. If it is not meant to be damaging, how come the image could not have been of a white woman on a black man?? Many white people would be offended, as I and other african americans find this image offending. I don't know how to edit it, I tried, but it didn't work (sorry), but someone please use the image from the oral sex page that shows a woman giving head to a man while in a 69. Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that you spent an awful lot of time analyzing a picture that is merely there to visually illustrate the topic at hand. The race of the participants, inclusion (or not) of a ring, and other factors are unrelated to the topic of this article. I find it extremely ludicrous to suggest that readers of this article will see this illustration and therefore magically think of all black women as sexually promiscuous adulterers, and it seems to me that such a suggestion is racist and/or stereotypical in and of itself. I personally didn't take notice of the ring nor the race until your comment was read. 71.48.194.47 (talk) 21:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I may misunderstand you, Obscure323. Are you suggesting the image would be better if it weren't an interracial couple? In any case, to me the image didn't immediately connote adultery because the ring appears to be an engagement ring and not a wedding band. --66.234.43.136 (talk) 18:54, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

The race aspect is always going to offend someone's notion of political correctness, but IMO it is refreshing to see an interracial couple.

My complaint is that this image (or a similar photo) belongs on the Sixty-Nine (69) page. That position should not be the top/foremost image for fellatio, because AFAIK it gives undue weight to a position that is not the most common. At the least, the 69 position does not show the activity as clearly as a simple act of fellatio (e.g., man seated as in the Avril illustration). Martindo (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Wikipedia wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Wikipedia! Renaissancee (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

STD Risk

I take great issue with the following

"While the risk of transmitting HIV through fellatio is unknown, it is suspected to be rare.

Any kind of direct contact with body fluids of a person infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, poses a risk of infection. The risk from most of these types of infection, however, is generally considered far lower than that associated with vaginal or anal sex."

It lacks any citation, and is medically questionable. The mouth has a fairly consistent set of cuts [as stated earlier in the article] from abrasive foods and toothbrushing which would provide and opportunity for the virus to enter the bloodstream. Also, mother-child transmission through breast milk is a noted risk, which would imply oral sex presents more than the 'very low' risk implied (even considering the more regular exposure to milk there is risk from fellatio - the viral load in breast milk is lower than semen)86.157.169.91 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a credible citation, the statement about elevated risk due to toothbrushing, etc., should be revised or eliminated. While there is certain logic to the concept, it should be backed by more substantial evidence, if it exists, or removed. Otherwise, thank you for the contributions. --Onemoreusername (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Why was the real picture removed?

Good question, I think the picture should be put back on, wikipedia is not censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.41.84 (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture?

I dont see why this article doesnt get a photograph of the act being performed. Wikipedia is not censored. 64.151.6.98 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think photos of such nature tend to be copyrighted. 203.184.0.132 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you look at the page for "Ejaculation", there's a video of a guy blowing his load on camera. There's no video on "Traffic Collision" or "Dance" to show what those are, but for some reason, we need a guy jizzing on camera to help explain ejaculation. The difference between that and blow job is that the losers with nothing better to do can't find a woman to give them a blow job, much less on camera, so nobody has an original vid they can post. I think it's freaking retarded. I mean, if I say, "Put penis in mouth", why do you need any picture that shows "penis in mouth"? Why is any picture necessary at all? Oh, I know... "Wikipedia is not censored." That's their license to post whatever perverted crap they want. Hey, since we need pictures of cartoons getting sucked off and videos of guys blowing their loads, perhaps we could get a good "educational" video clip on the Beastiality page or the "Child Porn" page.68.50.114.44 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

One picture removed

Two pictures of the same thing add no info. I am leaving a famous museum painting. A poc by a nonnotable author deleted. Wikipedia is not art gallery. There is a link to commons where many more images of fellation. If you object, please state solid resons why two pictures are necessary. - 7-bubёn >t 09:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Personally, I'd go with no picture (I have to think twice about reverting vandalism when my kids are around) but, if I have to, I'd choose the Avril one. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 10:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A better quality picture was produced to be the main illustration of the article. Sexuality articles benefit from being well illustrated as much as any others. It is not an issue of whether a article "can do without" something but whether it is more informative with. I feel the new illustration does at least help redress the racial balance of the encyclopedia. So I'm replacing it (but leaving one image for now). --Simon Speed (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Racial balance is bogus argument. Just as well I may accuse you of sexism and racism: subservient black-skinned woman - "brothers" may kill you (ha-ha only serious). - 7-bubёn >t 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Both images now restored. The main image is a neutral illustration, the second gives historical context. Both are relevant, both are there. Exxolon (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The computer-generated sketch should be replaced by a photo. I don't care what racial combination. The 69 position is not the best way to illustrate fellatio. See the ejaculation page, where there appears to be no shortage of "volunteers" willing to upload videos and other images. Martindo (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and if you look at the discussion page to the Ejaculation page, you'll see that this Martindo guy is the "volunteer" who is blowing his load in the video, then defends it as an "educational" measure!68.50.114.44 (talk) 06:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

As you wish - I've changed it for something else. If that's not to your liking, then have a browse at commons:Category:Fellatio.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd much prefer not to have a photograph. Drawings are at least as clear and photographs have a very strong association with web porn. I'm not saying that they actually are (or make the page) "pornographic", it's just the way they make the page feel to the visitor. Artwork can be just as explicit, but feels more educational. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, we'll try a different drawing. Somehow I feel that "we can't please all the people all the time", c'est la vie.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee, I should have praised that photo while I had a chance. Hard to beat the realism of a photo, which I think is preferable, as shown abundantly (after much discussion) on the ejaculation page. Can't please everyone, but those who are willing and able to recognize the value of imagery for educational purposes can (and hopefully eventually will) come to consensus. Can we try the photo for a few days and see who else comments on it? Martindo (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I know people some people are reverting edits. I'm not at the moment: it's much better if we reach some sort of consensus. --Simon Speed (talk) 00:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus needs to be informed consensus. If nobody can see the deleted photo, how can they judge its value? Would there be harm in leaving it on the page for a day or three? Martindo (talk) 03:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed:- picture from October,
photo which replaced it for a while,
current image (Nov 1) and
Commons category of images. --Simon Speed (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Out of pure scientific interest I took a look at that category... and as of now, all of the pictures are of very low quality, in many respects, and none of them actually do a good job of illustrating what is going on. In fact, there's really only four photographs:

File:Fellation_from_2006.JPG - For the purpose of illustrating fellatio, this photograph is inappropiate, as you can't actually see her mouth. Aside from that you have bad lighting and a distracting background. Rejected.

File:File0026_edited.jpg - The image quality is bad from a technical point of view. Regarding the content, it's illustrating ejaculation rather than fellatio itself. In fact it could even be a pure handjob, who knows. Rejected.

File:IndoMiMisucksHardttcore-1.jpg - This is a close-up that does illustrate the act very well, but for some reason I think a shot showing the giving partner's entire head (or face anyway) would be more suitable. Rejected.

File:Fellatio gay.jpg - Also a little close, and a really messed up color balance. If it wasn't for that awful orange tint, this would actually be decent though. Rejected unless someone can fix the tint.

So, imho we don't even get into the whole discussion of photo vs. illustration, simply because there aren't any good photographs at this point. You can help out by standing in front of a nice clean background (how abaout a white wall?), a good angle (I suggest a profile showing the giver's head and receiver's hip from the side) with some decent lighting and a steady camera ;-) Have fun!

Until then, let's go with File:Wiki-fellatio-2009-25-09.png or File:Fellatio.png. Those are simply the most clear and unambiguous images.87.78.3.145 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, "you can't please all the people all of the time" - especially on what pictures to put in sexual articles - the final pic in woman on top has been in and out like a yo-yo as well (it's currently a photo - not sure how long it will last). I put forward File:Fellation from 2006.JPG because I knew believed that if I used the picture with the mouth very visible e.g. like File:IndoMiMisucksHardttcore-1.jpg - then it would tend to get removed too quickly (by the "do-gooders") as p*rn, and then we go into a saga of multiple reversions quoting wp:notcensored. I still like File:Fellation from 2006.JPG it's not a bad compromise and shouln't really upset too many editors. If a photos is not wanted, by consensus, then my second choice would be the File:Wiki-fellatio-2009-25-09.png drawing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I could go with the last 2 of the 4 photos named by anonymous at 87.78.3.145 (BTW, are you aware that your identity is BETTER protected if you register as a WP user?). IMO, it's an advantage NOT to show the full face ("identity") of the giver (or receiver) -- less likely to tweak those who fear porn, and less appealing to those who want to glorify themselves by uploading their own photo. I agree that the color is not good in #4.

Regarding androgynous fellator/fellatrix, I'm not partial to political correctness. There are many WP pages that include a "gallery" at the bottom and we could have 2 or 3 images that show various combinations of gender, race, etc. to try to please people without blurring distinctions. Putting photos at the bottom might diminish complaints about the prominence of "porn". Martindo (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that there should never be a photograph of sexual activity on Wikipedia. I'm not a prude, I don't care about the sexual part of it: it's the legal part of it that makes me think this is absolutely unacceptable. It is literally impossible for the Wikipedia Foundation to be sure that such a photo would contain only adults who have given their consent to be in the image: it simply cannot take the word of a semi-anonymous editor who could be lying about the subjects' age and/or any consent. The stakes are too high legally - if one of the subjects were later found to be under 18 there could be criminal charges against the Foundation, and if one of the subjects had been photographed without consent there could be a lawsuit. Editors cannot put the Foundation in a situation where it could be sued or criminally charged.

In my opinion, no photograph, ever, under any circumstance, in any situation. It's simple not legally safe. Drawings are much safer. --NellieBly (talk) 04:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a sensible comment. I suggest that you share it higher up the food chain. I think there are forums to discuss overall WP policy. As background, look at the much greater controversy about imagery at the ejaculation page. Martindo (talk) 06:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Picture depicts stereotypes

I find the picture to be distasteful because it confirms negative sterotypes of permiscuity in african american females. From the image, it can be gathered that she is married (see the ring), but she is performing fellatio on an unmarried white man (lack of ring). Safe to conclude he is not her husband. Why not have a same race picture??All other images on that page are of people of the same race. If it is not meant to be damaging, how come the image could not have been of a white woman on a black man?? Many white people would be offended, as I and other african americans find this image offending. I don't know how to edit it, I tried, but it didn't work (sorry), but someone please use the image from the oral sex page that shows a woman giving head to a man while in a 69. If you want to have racial balance in wikipedia, why not make the man AND the woman black? Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope Obscure323 won't mind, I've moved his comment from the section above (which was pretty well finished) and brought it down here to start a new section. His point seems to be different from any other that's been brought up before, so I moved it here for discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting thought. I don't agree with it since inter-racial sex, marriage, and the presence or absence of rings means nothing these days. I guess I didn't pay attention to the difference in skin color but, now that it is pointed out, I'm not sure if she is African (African-American is not the correct usage here because there is no reason to believe that either person is American) - could be a Pacific Islander, she is sort of out of Gauguin, or perhaps Indian. Clearly we can't have many images so an argument such as why doesn't it have a white woman with a black man is not germane. To me this seems to be a non-issue and I'm curious as to what others think. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Many people may not understand why it is offensive, so let me explain why. It depicts the stereotype of the "black, promiscuous, subserviant" female who "worships" the phallus of her white "master/king/overseer". This is no different than having an article about chicken and watermelon that states "this is the primary food source for black americans". It is just as much a stereotype. This imagery has been one perpetuated by the white supremacist power structure since slave days in this country. Now, I in no way believe that the illustrator intended this message, but this faux pas will definately reaffirm the stereotype in the conscious/unconscious mind of the general public. As a lover of wikipedia, I believe it also belongs to me, and I prefer that we use images to would not result in the defamation of any group of people, especially one that poses significant sensitivity in today's "still-evolving" racial climate. Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One difference between the watermelon analogy and this page is that it is relatively easy to verify the stereotype involving watermelons. However, I'm not sure if this 'submissive' stereotype associated particularly with fellatio can be easily verified. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think some people are reading meanings into the picture that just aren't there. Promiscuity? We don't know these people's relationship. Subservience? She's on top! These concerns say much more about the editors expressing them than they do about the artwork. Most of the human images on the Wikipedia are of white people. There's nothing wrong with white people, but it would be a great shame if concerns for "racial sensitivity" caused us to remove images of black people or of interracial relationships. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I understand why you might feel this way, but again, I must stress that you probably cannot not understand my concerns and that they may seem "petty" especially if you are not of my demographic. No I'm not reading too much into it, I telling you exactly what it will reaffirm whether consciously or subconsciously. Secondly, I think that his artwork is beautiful, I'm just asking that it be of a black couple. If that is too much, then make him black and her white? Maybe that actually won't offend people of the latter demographic, and if not, then fine, everybody's happy. Hell, make them both white, I personally don't think it matters. It's just that the way it stands now is offensive and stereotypical.--Obscure323 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to be picky, then that is not a wedding ring - it's more like an engagement ring (since it has a single stone). A man is highly unlikely to wear an engagement ring (not that many wear wedding rings!), so it could easily be concluded that this is an engaged couple.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, why is it being suggested that I am being "picky"? If you don't understand, fine, but don't argue moot points that do nothing but detract from the actual point I am making.--Obscure323 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with Obscure323's concern about the image's depiction of a power relationship and believe such discussions are worth having. I agree with Simon Speed's conclusion that this hardly depicts a non-white woman in a subservient to white male position. For the sake of argument, let's say that the woman in this image is in a "submissive position" - but, her facial expression does not appear to indicate any form of subservience, therefore, I do not find it to be a re-affirmation of stereotypes. Out of curiosity, I looked at some of the image author Seedfeeder's other images for signs of stereotypical power relationships:

Image	Skin color of individual in "dominant" position	Skin color of individual in "submissive" position	Apparent disposition of submissive
File:Wiki-fellatio.png	Non-white *arguable	White *arguable	Unknown
File:Wiki-analoral.png	White	Non-white	Happy
File:Wiki-facial.png	White	Non-white	Happy
File:Wiki-cumshot.png	White	Non-white	Happy
File:Wikibukkake.png	White and others	Non-white	Not happy
File:Wiki-fingering.png	White	White	Unknown
File:Wiki-mam-intcs.png	White	White	Unknown
File:Wiki-pegging.png	White	White	Unknown
File:Wiki-gangbang.png	White (2)	White	Happy
File:Wiki-sball.png	White	White	Unknown
File:Wiki-prostitute.png	White	White	Unknown

Feel free to suggest modifications to the table, if I'm off-base. Unfortunately I cannot thumbnail some of these due to their presence on MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. The author's images seem to primarily depict white individuals in dominant positions. The individuals in the submissive positions do not seem to be expressing displeasure in their position, with the exception of File:Wikibukkake.png and likely File:Wiki-pegging.png. I think there might be an argument for File:Wikibukkake.png being racially offensive, per Obscure323's criteria. LagrangeCalvert_{<Talk / Contribs>} 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Lagrange, thank you for being open to the discussion and bringing something to the table. Your table is very interesting, not to say that this is deliberate on the part of the artist as many artists tend to illustrate people from their ethnicity (which are often of a common race) more often then they depict those of other ethnicities. I don't find that to be racist. I do believe; however, that it is important to present various types of people across many demographics when depicting generic terms if the images are applicable. With that said, I am not saying that the woman's body position is subservient in relationship to the man, I am saying her ROLE is. In fellatio (between 2 people), there are two roles: the server (the one sucking)and the servee (the man getting head). Now, I would say that it is general knowledge that the server is a lesser position. This does not mean that the "server" must be angry or not like the action. Many people enjoy being of service to others in many situations. If she were unhappy in this, the pic would illustrate rape/sodomizing. Being as though she appears to be content, IMO it just further solidifies the argument of stereotypical sexual promiscuity. Basically like she enjoys serving the "massa".

Again, all I'm saying is that if the picture was done that way to offer diversity to the wiki community, then why not make them both black? I mean, black people do like sex, and they do have it with eachother, so what is wrong with that? On the same page, there is a picture of white on white fellatio, and asian (indian) on aisian fellatio. As you noted in your table, why not have other races in dominant roles and positions? Most importantly, if wiki is about diversity, why not allow people from various ethnicities, religions, and races interject their experiences and opinions concerning how they are depicted in a "collective source of human knowledge"? Thanks lagrange, you really added valuable points to the discussion.--Obscure323 (talk) 22:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I just want to point out that the images created by Seedfeeder are his personal work, so obviously he gets to choose the racial identity of the subjects. I definitely would not suggest that he edit his artwork to "make them both black". However, Wikipedia editors, through consensus, clearly have a choice of what artwork to include in an article, and must consider the signified meaning of such images prior to inclusion. LagrangeCalvert_{<Talk / Contribs>} 03:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Lagrange, I actually second what you just said. I was just making a point when offering that they both be black. Initially, I only requested that someone use the picture from the oral sex page that depicts a white female performing fellatio. The suggestions regarding changing races where in case the artist did not want to use that same picture twice, which I don't think would matter. I do respect his artistic perspective and I don't think that he has to modify or cater to any of our wants as he is providing a FREE service to all of us. With that said, I don't think that we neccessarily HAVE to use those images and in the case of the fellatio pic, we can substitute it with another one of his artworks that depicts the same thing. I'm not sure how to addresses the other pics. I do however, find it interesting, as your table illustrates, that it is only white men in the act of ejaculating on women of other races.--Obscure323 (talk) 12:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've looked at the images: only the fellatio and bukkake pictures contain people who look to me other than white Europeans. I think there's a lot of projecting onto these images going on here, of US categories and of US social taboos. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know Simon, the cumshot and facial pictures appear to be either a light skinned black woman or a hispanic. Then again, she could also be classified as multiracial, but it is obvious that she's not white. I don't think that it's "projection" as the images are what they are. We were responding to them. It would be different if we were making points about things that were obviously not in the picture.--Obscure323 (talk) 23:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In Europe she's definitely white. In France, Spain or Italy she's not even particularly dark skinned. What a joke racial categories are! --Simon Speed (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon, Spain, France, and Italy ARE Europe! You totally missing the point of what we are saying and seem to be arguing the semantics of race without actually addressing the issue. In short, look at every other picture. Notice all the white people share the same color. Now this female is not the same color as the other people. I think that it says enough that she is NOT, nor was intended to be white.--Obscure323 (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I would plump for the woman in the picture being Thai or very similar - the eye angle, the black silky hair, with a parting, all point to someone of that origin.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a black woman from the UK and I see no problems at all with this image. To transcend racism you need to look beyond the colour of someone's skin: There is no reason at all why a black woman cannot do whatever they like with anyone else (white or otherwise). To edit or remove this issue would be racial discrimination in itself. This is clearly an isolated (non-)issue. -- Chantelle A. 23:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be the one to do this... Actually I lied. I've seen this statement made in a few parts of wikipedia from obscure to the artist who did the image, basically calling him a racist in such a way that he can't defend himself, so I take a bit of joy in doing this.

This isn't a web forum. This is also not the place to be debating the racial merit of the artist's images. wp:soap comes to mind. The talk pages for the images, maybe, but even then, wikipedia does not exist so you can argue about if artists have specific feelings about racial equality. wp:notcensored *specifically* says that you can't mess with an image just because it offends you, which has been mentioned throughout this conversation enough that it's undeniable that that's the problem. If you have a better suggestion for an image, that would work better for the purposes of this article than the one currently in use, feel free to suggest it to the community for verification and it might see use. Until then? Terms of use specifically state that this conversation isn't supposed to happen here. 71.173.95.12 (talk) 22:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I am black and I do not find this offensive. As for the ring, it is an engagement ring - two rings means married. -- C —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.181.239.249 (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly find it hard to believe this. The fact that someone brought it up does not surprise me hugely ("black hole" comes to mind) but the consensus... and the table? Seriously.

What's the point of spending your whole life desperately looking out for anything that can be construed as a negative stereotype and trying to eradicate it?

Really if there is any prejudice here it is the assumption that the woman must submissive.

82.43.158.82 (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As a black woman and a psychiatrist, I don't find the image wrong, negative or politically incorrect in any sense, and it looks OK with NPOV, because we're all human beings. Thank you. --91.203.136.146 (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading the previous entries, I really think the issue with Obscure is his dislike for white men. I noticed several times he said he had no problem with a black guy and white girl, and he did make the comment about all the other pictures being white dominated. From my perspective at least, this isn't about showing a black women being promiscuous(Apparently he has no problem with a white girl being promiscuous), but that a black woman is with a white man. So while trying to defeat racism, he is himself being racist. There really is no problem with the picture, it is an engagement ring and in most Western nations, the guy doesn't get a ring until the wedding. I'm glad wikipedia did not change the image because Obscure doesn't like white guys. -Chiang —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.106.102.134 (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Did Seedfeeder specifically say the guy getting head was white? Given his light skin, he could also be of East Asian descent. Pyro721 (talk) 13:49, June 10th, 2010 (UTC)

More than likely - notice the complete absence of body hair.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Other species

I've added some info about bats that perform fellatio, Cynopterus sphinx says that they are the only non-primate to perform fellatio, from that there must be other primates that do it. Can anyone find more info to reduce the human bias of the article? Smartse (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's relevant but what's the point of the video? IMO, it belongs on a page about bats, not one that primarily focuses on humans. Martindo (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a good point. Maybe a section about "fellatio in animals"? The source that discussed fellatio in Cynopterus sphinx also mentioned in passing that bonobos have also been documented to perform fellatio (although the Wikipedia article on bonobos did not mention this). I think it is relevant to an article about fellatio to note that it is not solely a human activity, and there does not seem to be enough material to warrant an entire new page about fellatio in animals, just a section on this one. Alternatively, one could just add a sentence or two to the introduction (with appropriate citations) along the lines of: "Some species of animals have been documented to perform fellatio; examples include greater short-nosed fruit bats and bonobos." Augurar (talk) 01:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a black person in the picture?

Whose idea was it to have a black person in the picture? It makes me want to vomit my gizzards in the gutter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.224.239 (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A little jealous, perhaps? Actually, if this was your edit, I see where you may be coming from. Word of advice:this is one of the quickest ways to get blocked from editing. Rodhullandemu 19:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most people do not find viewing a black person to cause nausea. If you have felt this way, it may be a sign of some sort of emotional/psychological disturbance. Given the prevalance of multi-racial societies and multi-racial media, you may find getting professional help will open a lot of doors for you and make your life alot more comfortable; you must be suffering terribly. Either way, I recommend you seek assistance, at least to clear up the nausea. Good luck.Olyus (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This guy seems to be trolling. Is it possible to delete this section of the talk page? (I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and don't know the policy on this.) Augurar (talk) 08:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Policy is here for changing/deleting comments. It's close to "Removing harmful posts" criteria, but probably not quite there, I think this one is best ignored, and then allow the auto-archiving to remove it from the page.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Pregnancy removal

I see no reason for this to remain unless there is a reliable source to show this is a common misconception. Without such a source, anybody could create a section on what blowjobs don't cause to happen (i.e. blow jobs do not cause rainbows etc..). So, I say without a decent ref. it should go.Olyus (talk) 14:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree! I doubt if anyone one except an exceptionally naive child would believe that fellatio can cause pregnancy. Semen#Semen_ingestion already explains what happens to the semen and spermatozoa in the digestive system, anyway, so a link there should suffice for that info, if deemed at all necessary --89.195.199.150 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Even though it seems stupid, many other websites address this question, which suggests that it is a common misconception. Here are some sites that address this question:

• http://teenadvice.about.com/od/sexuallyactive/a/sillysexqa.htm
• http://www.avert.org/get-pregnant.htm
• http://www.teenhealthfx.com/answers/1030.html
• http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/1000.html

The first two sites are actually lists of frequently asked questions, while the other two are giving a response to a question that has been asked. Either way, they seem to suggest that there are a considerable number of people who are uninformed or misinformed about this. Augurar (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Deep Throating

Is this actually possible? I read once in sex manual written by a woman who seemed quite expert on the subject that is was impossible due the gag reflex.

 SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 14:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You may take my word for it that it is. Rodhullandemu 21:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Being deep-throated by a puppet bird under your arm doesn't count RodHull. :-) SmokeyTheCat 11:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

A Joke

I remember once reading a letter from a woman to a Agony Aunt wondering if swallowing sperm was dangerous. The Agony Aunt replied "No dear, just like egg white but much more fun!" :-)  SmokeyTheCat  •TALK• 11:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Cultural significance section

The "Cultural significance" section is confusing and disorganized. I encourage someone to clean it up. Augurar (talk) 08:43, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

picture

great job on the interracial couple picture. 67.167.180.64 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's chillingly interesting that according to Wikipedia, fellatio seems to be practised only by heterosexual women.What about gay or bisexual men? May this tacit ignorance have something to do with a victorian attitude wikipedia authors have towards all forms of homosexual interference? What about the so-called neutrality that wikipedia reclaims for itself? This article is all but neutral with respect to the issue--85.182.49.230 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you find it "chillingly interesting", why not correct the information? You can't complain about something being wrong if you aren't willing to correct it! – Toon^(talk) 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I can't show up myself in an environment of professional editors. I am simply a critical observer.--85.182.49.230 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Professional editors? I'm assuming your saying that tongue-in-cheek... – Toon^(talk) 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Professional ?!?!? My pay check is late. Hey anon ip complainer how about reading WP:BOLD and make the article exactly as you think it should be.--Adam in MO Talk 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth do we have a cartoon instead of a real picture? Is there any real reason? It seems like a copout and a frank attempt at trying to sensor the act. --Koolahawk (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the picture to be distasteful because it confirms negative sterotypes of permiscuity in african american females. From the image, it can be gathered that she is married (see the ring), but she is performing fellatio on an unmarried white man (lack of ring). Safe to conclude he is not her husband. Why not have a same race picture??All other images on that page are of people of the same race. If it is not meant to be damaging, how come the image could not have been of a white woman on a black man?? Many white people would be offended, as I and other african americans find this image offending. I don't know how to edit it, I tried, but it didn't work (sorry), but someone please use the image from the oral sex page that shows a woman giving head to a man while in a 69. Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Obscure323. I also notice the married woman of African descent with the unmarried man of Caucasian descent. At best it unintentionally plays on poor stereotypes and at worst it tries to "push the envelope" of personal agendas of infidelity. While infidelity may be a fact of life for many, I don't believe it should be portrayed in such a way in an unrelated article. I'd have much less issue with this picture if they were both married or not, or perhaps at least in a way that wasn't quite so potentially unflattering. Anton.hung (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also possible that the ring is an engagement ring, and that the author was trying to add some racial diversity to the mix, so that people weren't complaining that "all of the people in the illustration are white". And, for the record, there are other images in other sections that feature a white female on a black male. 71.173.95.12 (talk) 21:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

What utter rubbish about a black woman and a white man. Firstly, Americans may choose to be ridiculously politically correct but that does not mean all black people are African American. Secondly, it is very hypocritical to complain that it is wrong to have a black woman fellating a white man but not a white woman fellating a black man. Lastly, it does not imply "permiscuity", as you put it, it is just a picture. Not every negative depiction of a black person is racist and not everyone believes a blow job (ring or not) to be negative depiction.

82.43.158.82 (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... Not the ring AGAIN! - we've been here before... Talk:Fellatio/Archive_1#This_picture_is_unnecessary  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 01:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Obviously many people have a problem with it. Why not remove it? )<c==8 vap (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Slight Racism is Bad in The Lede Picture

Okay, why is it that the woman in this picture is wearing a ring- it seems to imply (albeit as a technicality) that black women are promiscuous.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Or that fellatio occurs in mixed-race marriages? Rodhullandemu 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It gives no indication that the man is married. --Zucchinidreams (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither does it give any other indication. I'd resist over-interpretation of artistic works, because we have no idea of the artist's intention other than to depict fellatio and in that, I think he or she has succeeded. Anything else is fluff. Rodhullandemu 22:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. People can find racism in everything. Maybe they're a married couple. Obviously one of the male's hands is being obstructed from view; maybe he wears his ring on that hand. Maybe the ring means nothing, and only serves to add detail to the picture. If it was a black man with a whick female, people would be complaining about how the size of the male's penis doesn't accurately represent that demographic, and saying it stereotypes white females as promiscuous. This article is on fellatio, not the effects of diverse cultures clashing and how that is being depicted in drawings of fellatio. I personally, don't think the color of either person matters at all. 70.162.155.136 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with the conclusion that the ring ifnger is necessarily hidding a ring. What if it isn't, and is it not true that subtle POV is being produced by that omission from the image? An image with the male's ring finger- and ring!- being shown would be, I think, better- if you can find one.--Zucchinidreams (talk) 20:54, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I would counter that, by the same logic, showing a ring on the man would add the subtle POV that people wearing a ring on their ring finger are necessarily married, that monogamy is inherently better than polyamory, that black women are more likely to marry white men…

Whatever image is there, someone will be able to contend it introduces subtle POV. To avoid that accusation, the only solution I can see is to remove the image. The consensus, however, is that doing so would make the article worse.

I see three options here:

1. Keep the image.
2. Remove the image.
3. Replace the image.

The presence of the image improves the article, in my opinion, and in the apparent community consensus, which rules out #2. Nobody has yet provided a better image, which rules out #3, so that leaves #1.

If you can obtain a better image, by creating one anew, by editing the current one, or by convincing someone else to do so, great! Until that point, keeping the current image is the only viable option.

—me_and 11:28, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Remove the image. Its offending many people as racism and wikipedia shouldn't be like that. The information will still be the same once it is gone.vap (talk) 16:07, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

image replaced. No concensus to remove. There is no slight, and no "subtle message" IdreamofJeanie (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep image. There is no bias. Why should the man have a ring on? Most married men in this country don't!  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

And we beat it to death at Talk:Fellatio/Archive_1#This_picture_is_unnecessary - Guys - it's time to WP:LETGO.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 21:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ngigesan (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)The image on the profile shows both people's faces. I do take issue with the lack of ring on the man. there really are no if's it's either he is or he isn't . in this case the correct hand does not show a ring. therefore it is an loaded image. There are many, many images available. it does not *need* to be a multi-ethnic couple, keep in mind every other image does not. to sum up the problems i have with this image 1. both people's faces are not depicted, 2.the image does not flow with other images on the page 3. the Black woman is wearing the ring and the while male is not.

No ring does not equal no marriage. I, and many of my married friends do not wear a ring. it proves nothing, and is of no consequence in any case. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Perfectly normal for a married couple in my country (UK)  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

New bias introduced

Is it just me, or is TyrS' attempt to "remove hetero bias" basically applying bias itself? The "gender neutral" crops are quite lower in quality than the originals, and I would suggest bringing them back. Getting homosexual tolerance isn't reached by censoring heterosexuality. TyrS, if you really want a high quality homosexual illustration, see if you can get one made. Otherwise, the article was better before the last two edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.184.96 (talk) 06:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

In addition, other unnecessary "gender neutral" edits have been made at articles like Facial (sex act) and Cum shot. The quality is really compromised by these alterations, Wikipedia should not have some sort of agenda. If the image is that of a man and a women, we shouldn't change it so it looks like it could be anything. 70.109.184.96 (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear "70.109.184.96",
Firstly, I'd suggest you at the very least register a username before you try to start an edit war with an established editor.
"Is it just me...?" you ask? Yes, it is just you. My edits have mentioned nothing about "removing hetero bias" but have explained clearly that they are about removing irrelevant details that contribute nothing to an understanding of the topic. I agree with you that "Wikipedia should not have some sort of agenda" and the inclusion of irrelevant details in images suggests that the person insisting on including those irrelevant details does have an agenda.
p.s. your opinions on the quality of the articles is not helped by the fact that you are writing anonymously.
Fondly,  TyrS  chatties  04:11, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

By your constant changing of these articles, it is clear that there is an agenda present. These images have been agreed on for, in some cases, years. Changing them to make them gender neutral is not right. When it already illustrates the topic, why would it need to be altered? If gender is truly irrelevant, there is no reason to bother changing it. If you really want to have gender neutral images, then have some, specifically, gender neutral images made. Otherwise, changing of the images is not constructive. Valknuter (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

And your constant changing of these articles doesn't indicate that you have an agenda? If you agree that the gender of the fellator it is irrelevant, why are you compelled to insist on specifying it via an illustration? You need to remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Our mission is to deliver the facts, not personal editors' opinions & preferences. So please tell me how an unnecessarily gender-specific image of a fellator is encyclopedic and neutral in tone?-- TyrS  chatties  04:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How is preferring the image that better illustrates the topic an opinion or preference? The image is centered, and shows what is intended to be shown. Where do you see "unnecessary gender" specificity? If that is the case, you should take the Greek vase one, and crop it so the gender identity of the fellator, a man, is not seen. How does this go against the neutrality of the encyclopedia? To me, insisting that the image should be changed to something it isn't is a violation of neutrality. Valknuter (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Valknuter, you clearly have significant difficulty differentiating your opinion from facts (here, I'll help you out: "the image that better illustrates" = your opinion; "what is intended to be shown" = your opinion; "changed to something that it isn't" = your opinion). If you want to try cropping the vase image, go ahead. -- TyrS  chatties  04:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The original should be kept purely because it is the original. If you really want to crop it, at least leave it centered. Specifically cropping it so the breasts are not visible is not neutral. Valknuter (talk) 04:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Valkutner, for your argument to make any sense you need to convincingly explain why you think that an encyclopedia illustration of this kind & on this subject needs to include breasts.-- TyrS  chatties  07:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia guidelines on offensive images: "images that can be considered offensive should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner." I maintain that your preferred version of the image in question is unencyclopedic since it includes completely irrelevant details.-- TyrS  chatties  08:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The function of this image in this article is to illustrate it, to help those who do not understand the subject of the article to do so. The cropping does not just lower the quality of the image, it harms its illustrative function. Breasts are not irrelevant details, they are normal parts of the human body. People do have gender and I can see no benefit in trying to censor this from illustrations: imagine doing this across the Wikipedia, removing areas of pictures of people so as to hide their gender. This would not be tolerated on non-sexuality articles and should not be tolerated here. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but breasts being "normal parts of the human body" (and, of course, claiming they aren't was never part of my argument) doesn't explain why you think they are necessary for illustrating the subject of fellatio. This is about relevance, neutrality and article quality - core Wikipedia principles. As the guideline I quoted above states, this type of image especially needs to be treated in an encyclopedic manner.  TyrS  chatties  00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The cropped version does not look good, and there's still one breast visible (just look at the circular shading on the main picture), so I don't see that as a good replacement. If you don't like it then go back to the old version (drawing that is, not the photo!) at Image:Fellatio.png  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, Ronhjones, that version is preferable, though still rather unnecessarily gender-specific in terms of a neutral, encyclopedic illustration of fellatio (as the guideline requires).  TyrS  chatties  00:43, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

While that image seems more "gender neutral", I fail to see why that is really relevant. It is of noticeably lower quality than the one we have right now, and changing the image isn't really necessitated. I don't see why TyrS wants to crop the image so badly. If gender isn't truly the motive here, and getting rid of "irrelevant details" is, then we may as well just crop it completely to show only the fellatio occurring. Get rid of the hands, the nose, everything! Of course, that would be ridiculous, and unneeded. The image has no need to change until a better illustration (doubtful) or licensed photo (doubtful) comes along. Valknuter (talk) 08:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)