::::::It contradicts the text... how so? It's someone having what might well be anal sex, and punching the bottom in the neck. That in no way contradicts the text.  
 ::::::It was drawn by a 15 year old... I agree it's not a brilliant image, but it's better than this 25 year old could do, and frankly it's suitable for purpose. 
 ::::::Educationally useless... it shows the act as the article explains it, so how is it educationally useless? 
 ::::::Misleads the reader... how? It doesn't show the tensing of the anal cavity, only the punching part.  
 ::::::No, what makes Wikipedia look like a bunch of "puerile and profoundly pathetic wankers" is talk pages like this 
 ::::::Pushes a POV... how exactly is this POV?  
 ::::::Someone ending up paralysed... If people just view the image, they aren't going to know much about the act, or why people would want to do it, and so they wouldn't do it (one hopes) because they wouldn't want to kill someone. If they read the text, they'll know it's dangerous and so (one hopes) won't do it. Either way, we can easily add a caption saying "an illustration of a donkey punch, a fictitious and dangerous sexual act" or something along those lines. We cannot however be held responsible for the stupidity of readers. 
 ::::::To me this is not a NOTCENSORED argument, it's an argument about whether this image is useful or not. -''''