Talk:Oral stimulation of nipples

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] Comment

This is not a disgusting sex article like rusty trombone or urethral play, but it really is quite dicdef-ish and probably would fail AFD.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 13:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Is the black one a trany? --Seth slackware 03:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is that ridiculous picture really necessary? It's not even that good and sort of ridiculous
It does the job by showing the act --Seth slackware 12:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree, it is a rather ridiculous picture. Scarian 15:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay guys, just had a word with an admin, the picture needs to be changed because it is too distracting and just too... ugh... Also, the article is too much like a dictionary entry. It needs to be expanded... but... seeing what the topic of this entry is I don't really see much else that can be done. I'm removing the picture. If you have a problem with that, please do not revert, speak on the discussion page. Or bring it up with the admin. Scarian 18:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
As part of a more extensive edit, I have replaced the pic which imho works very well in the context of this article ... it is in no way "horrible" since it simply demonstrates, in quite an artistic way, the subject matter. I think you will find that the editor you mentioned was simply giving an opinion rather than making a ruling and as such her opinion is no more valid than any editor's ... much as I respect herAbtract 18:49, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, I don't really wish to argue about such a trivial thing. The article now needs some citations, but I'm washing my hands [thoroughly] of it completely. Best of luck, friend. Scarian 18:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
If someone used "Ugh" and "Vile" as a basis for deleting an imige in Wikipedia, (which by the way is not censored) then they should create a new guideline WP:UGH or WP:VILE and see if it has consensus. It could have been removed on the basis that it was a poorly drawn image which did not add in any to the understanding of the subject. Edison 14:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what I meant... it was poorly drawn. Apologies for not saying that more explicity. But now I see the picture has gone... Score one for Wikipedia. ScarianTalk 12:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vulgar Image Removed

That image was absolutely Vulgar, badly drawn, and out of place at an "encyclopedia". It's gone. If you MUST have a picture here, make it something less Vile please.

[edit] up for deletion

I put it up for deletion. I read the rules a few times and now know it shouldn't be on hereYVNP 10:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you take time to read the previous AFD les than a month ago? What has change? The overwhelming consensus was to keep it. This is not a "pitch til you win" game. Edison 14:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Just because an article was not deleted the first time means nothing. The article was not listed so most of the people in the discussion were people who go to this article often. It's not suprising that when a deletion review is done by people who read this article often it will be in support of the article. Neither time it was put up for deletion were admins or deletion specializing users told about the review. Until a review is created and admins and deletonists know about it the first and even second review say nothing. ps: I sggest you tone down the aggression.YVNP 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
The pic is back again. It has already been explained that it is confusing and not informative enough. Although I think the article should be deleted if the page stays an informative picture is needed.YVNP (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photograph

A new illustration has appeared, a photograph of a young woman licking her nipple while looking at the viewer. I quite like the picture, but think there are problems. We do try to avoid the look and feel of pornography in these articles and this seductive nude pose addressed to the viewer from a photograph is just the sort of thing one might find on a "naughty" web page. Also I would like to see 2 lovers as the 2 person sex act is far more common and an important part of safe sex practice.--Simon Speed (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe reducing the image to focus only on the breasts may solve the problem. No necessity to show the whole-body picture. --201.228.196.23 (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've cropped the photo. I have a gut hostility to removing genitals from an artwork, it smacks of fig leaves and silly prudery, but the resulting picture does seem more simply illustrative. However I still think we really need a well drawn illustration of one person erotically sucking another's nipple, a sex act rather than an act of seduction and preferably not a photograph. --Simon Speed (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I have added a picture which I think better illustrates the subject of the article. I have left the previous picture below it as it still illustrates a variant activity that is mentioned. However if editors would like to justify it's removal (or some other course of action that seems reasonable) I'll probably go along with it. --Simon Speed (talk) 11:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)