Talk:Fellatio/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2 →

Contents 1 Comment about image 2 Comment 3 NPOV 4 Sounds like it was written by a horney teen. 5 NPOV dispute 6 Specification of gender 7 Talk page reminder 8 Anus to Mouth Fellatio 9 Terminology (Giving Head) 10 Terminology (Blowjob) 11 Italic text 12 New picture 13 Dubious re: taste of semen 14 Source for correlation of practicing oral sex and oral cancer 15 Ejaculation into womans mouth/we should have a proper picture 16 Safety notice 17 Cultural significance 18 Sex Bias in Opening ¶ 19 Semen ingestion 20 Ingestion of Semen - Reliability? 21 Number of Calories in Semen 22 Re: etymology of fellatio 23 Unreferenced Claim 24 nutritional content 25 Lesbosians? 26 About that picture

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)

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).^{[original research?]}" 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)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.