Talk:Ass to mouth

message: I've added the top message box.  Hopefully it covers both sides of the issue.  If not, please edit it to address what you feel needs to be said while leaving in place what the 'other' side are trying to say.  Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. That's the kind of thing I was looking for when I composed that big yellow infobox at the top. =Axlq 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes, less is more.  Regards, Ben Aveling 09:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Compromise?

message: First of all, thanks to  for adding that "offensive" notice at the top of the talk page. That at least acknowledges the dislike some users have about this issue.
Okay, so I've been asked to take a look at this, and I can't help to add my two cents (as a 3rd party editor). Frankly, I don't see why this particular article is getting so heated. There are many other articles that cover similar pornographic topics, but I don't see anyone complaining there. First, I would like to know why exactly CyberAnth and 193.219.28.146 feel this article is not encyclopedic. I know that other encyclopedias don't cover such topics, but we're Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia. By no means are we an academic encyclopedia, as you can see by the wide array of content here. This is just a compendium of all notable knowledge. I don't see how this particular article seems offensive to anyone. When you think about it, this all has to do with human sexual behavior. However odd it may be, it still is encyclopedic and at Wikipedia, such articles are welcomed. Nishkid64 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus of course they're free to nominate for deletion etc... /wangi 21:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The conflict at present 

message: :Applying the mouth to the genitals immediately after applying it to the anus can introduce Escherichia coli ("E. coli") into the urethra, causing a urinary tract infection.
This seems backwards.  What is 'it' in this sentance?  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds more like a sentence that belongs to the anal sex article. =Axlq 17:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed 1 sentance. 

message: Articles like this is the reason why Wikipedia is not generally considered as a serious source of information (in comparison with, let's say, Britannica). 193.219.28.146 16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Wikipedia is not censored and this article seems well-written and referenced, so I don't see the problem. Jayden54 18:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but it is quite hard for me to believe that "Wikipedia is not censored" -- my polite message above was removed bazillion times, and this IP was blocked three times in a row because of me adding it again. You can also read (NSFW) regarding "censoring" and Wikipedia... 193.219.28.146 18:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the story, which was interesting indeed, but I can't say anything about it because I wasn't involved in that situation so I know nothing about it. All I can say is that although Wikipedia is not censored there are of course limits. An article that simply describes a certain sexual term or act, like this one, should not be censored. Photos depicting such acts might not be really suitable for Wikipedia. It's all really a gray area though and very prone to intense debates and heated discussions, so each situation will have to be judged differently. Cheers, Jayden54 20:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: To User:193.219.28.146: Your points are well received by me, but the external reference you cited above undermines them a touch. By that definition we should have pictures of child abuse on the child pornography article. Let's try and keep it real here. I do agree that your initial comments were in good faith and seem to have been reverted a bit hastily but can we keep this debate on track. Pedro1999a |  Talk   22:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave link to this article on wikitruth, because it shows quite nice what is the (extreme but logical) consequence of current Wikipedia policies. "Zero censorship" policy is slippery slope in practice. "Zero censorship" + "we need pictures in every article" = pornopedia, not encyclopedia, and even Jimbo realizes this. 193.219.28.146 23:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Non-sequitur. Nobody has suggested adding pictures here. And you haven't explained how this discussion is constructive to improving this article. Please do so. I confess I am curious why you feel your comment at the beginning of this section is important enough to violate policy and get yourself blocked. -Amatulic 01:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedia? 

message: "[T]o eliminate the possibility of any fecal matter appearing on film" is a bit confusing. Is there some sort of censorship provision that guys can have anal sex with someone, but the camera can't show shit on the guy's penis??? I suppose that would be consistent with prohibiting filming pissing, even though we all do it every day, and barring a few fetishists, it's not even all that sexy.
Responses are urgently solicited. What the f**k is going on?
Dick Kimball 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article makes it clear (especially in the footnote) that porn films represent fantasies, and most audiences probably don't want to see feces unless that's actually the point of the porn. =Axlq (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Looks like some good sources to mention in the article. Go for it. =Axlq (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Health Risks

message: Despite its health risks, it is prevalent in pornographic films and growing prevalent among teenaged minors as a substitute for vaginal sex because of the lesser risk of pregnancy.[3][4]
Neither of the linked sources state that ATM is growing prevalent among teenaged minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.224.39.90 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-25
:You are correct. When you see discrepancies like this, feel free to change the text to reflect the cited sources. I have just done so. =Axlq 04:45, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the source of this? 

message: I've restored this section with acceptable references. IMDB is an acceptable source for data & raw info about movies. So the material from "Clerks II" is in point of fact a cultural reference to ATM. Please let it stay there, unless you can discredit the info. Tapered (talk) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, regarding your restoration, IMDb generally is not a WP:Reliable source; see Wikipedia:IMDB/RS#IMDb and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. As you can see, the "generally" part applies to "data & raw info about movies" as well. Also seen in your restoration is YouTube used as a source; that generally is not allowed either, except for cases where it's the official YouTube channel with regard to the material or is being used, for example, to source information about an Internet celebrity, such as Chris Crocker or Jenna Marbles; again, see Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites#IMDb. Also see WP:USERGENERATED and WP:YOUTUBE. I'll also note this matter on the IP's talk page you very recently commented on. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural References

message: I'm not sure ATOGM particularly needs its own section. It is, after all, just a variant of the primary activity. It also inappropriately assumes a specific gender. I think the section can be removed, since the lead already mentions it. – RobinHood70 talk 12:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ATO(G)M 

message: the withdrawal of a penis from the receptive partner's anus followed by the immediate insertion into the receptive partner's mouth
While the above does pass muster as a technical description/definition; please be aware that in the majority of instances, both in porn and in real life, the withdrawn penis is then inserted into the mouth of a different individual from the one who has just served as receptive partner.
Thus, as two physical systems are being penetrated, not simply one, the potential for the transmission of sources of infection is greatly increased.
Nuttyskin (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Different receptive partner