Talk:Fellatio/Archive 1

message: 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).
: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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment about image 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, but honestly, what do you expect from these guys? Manic Hispanic 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good faith, maybe? San Diablo 16:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  ya srsly.  Joie de Vivre 16:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

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

text:  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)

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

text:  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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: Epithets in above comment removed by Joie de Vivre 18:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Your logic is faulty.  Have a nice day.  Joie de Vivre 21:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: 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).
: -*snort*- probably. Joie de Vivre 18:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sounds like it was written by a horney teen. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Talk page reminder 

message: It's mentioned at the end of the first paragraph that:<BR>
    <B>"Fellatio – as well as cunnilingus – can be referred to as 'giving head'."</B><BR>
This is perhaps, very true in certain regions and/or within specific social circles. However, where <B>I</B> come from, the term 'head' refers to fellatio ONLY. (i.e. a <B>male</B> recipient of oral sex 'gets head'... and his partner (the giver) 'gives head').<BR>
A <B>female</B> recipient of oral sex 'gets face'. Her partner (the cunnilingus giver) 'gives face'.<BR>
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.<BR>
Rick 142.68.47.97 11:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well that is why it says "can be referred..." ArdClose (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology (Giving Head) 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology (Blowjob) 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  New picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: What about all the anecdotal evidence? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Dubious re: taste of semen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Source for correlation of practicing oral sex and oral cancer 

message: 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)
replies: text: I'd rather not. Also, can we switch to a picture of a woman doing fellatio? Sarsaparilla (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ejaculation into womans mouth/we should have a proper picture 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cultural significance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sex Bias in Opening ¶ 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Semen ingestion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ingestion of Semen - Reliability? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Number of Calories in Semen 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Re: etymology of fellatio 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Unreferenced Claim 

message: 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)
thread_title:  nutritional content 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lesbosians? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  About that picture 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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[]. Chaldor (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Copying section from oral sex pregnancy 

message: 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)
thread_title:  More history would be nice 

message: 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  Dreamback1116 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Look at the bottom of the article under 'Comments.' 66.191.19.217 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  fellatio can reduce risk of breast cancer? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Is New Guinea Sexual Culture Relevant? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  This picture is unnecessary 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Article Reassessment for [[WP:MED|WikiProject Medicine]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  STD Risk 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why was the real picture removed? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Other species 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Why is there a black person in the picture? 

message: 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)
replies: text: You may take my word for it that it is. Rodhullandemu 21:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Being deep-throated by a puppet bird under your arm doesn't count RodHull. :-) SmokeyTheCat 11:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Throating 

message: 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)
thread_title:  A Joke 

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

message: great job on the interracial couple picture. 67.167.180.64 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Professional editors? I'm assuming your saying that tongue-in-cheek... –  Toon(talk) 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  New bias introduced