Talk:Oral sex/Archive 1

message: The reason I have heard blowing forcefully into the vagina is dangerous, is the fact that the bit where the baby attaches (placenta?) can be breached and bubbles of air might enter the bloodstream. Whether it is true, or an urban legend or alarmist advice, I couldn't possibly say. But note that embolism can also result from any injection with an injection needle. And that stuff is still routinely done, for the most minor of justifications. So there you are. -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 08:22, 2 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text:  Blowing into the vagina (not the urthra) is generally safe, and some say, pleasurable, but shouldn't be done if there is any chance that the woman is pregnant. TheMadBaron 05:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Health risks of blowing into the vagina. 

message: So does that mean watching TV is a method of birth control, too? Anthony DiPierro 20:36, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Oral sex is a method of birth control? 

message: "It is best not to allow the owner of the penis to ejaculate when the penis is partially down the throat of the fellator as semen could spurt into the lungs, causing significant discomfort." 
Does anyone have evidence of this?  I've certainly never noticed this to be the case, nor have I heard of any such circumstance. Indeed, that Savage Love advice columnist guy recommends it to those squeamish about gulping copious amounts of semen. A little help here please? Jack 02:26, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable addition 

message: Removed from the article:
:If not using a condom, one is advised to chew gum before performing oral sex so as to coat the mucus membrane of the mouth and to not swallow or have any oral contact with the ejaculation.
Can anyone give a cite for this?
:Missoula City-County Health Department.Hyacinth 20:33, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I can't see any evidence of this on their website. Can you give a more detailed, checkable cite? For example, to a paper publication, or something like PubMed, or to a contactable person at the Heath Dept? -- The Anome 20:40, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Both my contacts, Joyce and Brant Good, have since moved on to other employment.  Hyacinth 22:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: Gum is not the barrier, spit is (if anything). Hyacinth 22:14, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chewing gum? 

message: I've seen the mention of humming during cunnilingus has been removed. However, I can testify the thing works quite well. Should it be said with another sentence than under fellatio, or is there any perticular reason to remove the reference ? Thanks ! Rama 11:46, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Humming 

message: About a week ago my boy friend and I have decied to take our relationship to another step. WE decided to give each other oral sex. We both enjoyed it, very much. But i am concerned that I could get pregnat because after Im done giving him head I kiss him and then He goes down on me... Im Scared that I might have given him some sperm in his mouth and that he put it into my vagiana. Im very scared. Please help me.           A very scared Woman
:Hi. The best place for factual questions is Wikipedia:Reference Desk. Without any expertise, I would venture that the chance of  your conception would depend on how much ejaculate ended up in his mouth/on his lips, and how vigorous the oral sex was. I hope things work out for you. MikeX (Talk) 07:06, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
:I suspect that using a dental dam or condom would probably cut down on the risk of pregnancy greatly. →Raul654 07:10, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
::There is a risk of oral sex resulting in pregnancy, but it is very, very small. If you are really concerned, you should talk to your doctor (rather than getting advice from strangers on the internet!) -- FirstPrinciples 07:12, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
:FWIW, I read something like this somewhere... Sex is like driving a race car; if you're not sure about anything, go and get the "basic" education before you start. --Rrjanbiah 19:39, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I get pregnant if...? 

message: I've added a template indicating that this article is not child safe. Doesn't help when mommy is not in the room, but still...
:Who is this template for? —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 13:16 Z
::Has been deleted. However, there might be a replacement: . Right now, I'll try to remove it from Abu Grhaib. No templates for content selection, after all--J heisenberg 13:24, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Replacement? Huh? Cool Hand Luke 13:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I laughed when I saw that caption, and the picture moved to the history section.  Oral sex in 1860 looks to me pretty much like oral sex in 2005 except it's in black and white and the process used doesn't give as clear a picture. The reason we use an ancient photograph of this virtually timeless act of love is that the photograph is out of copyright. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:41, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh. Just trying to increase its usefulness in the article instead of just sticking it anywhere. I also thought a caption might be helpful. Can you think of a better caption? —Mar·ka·ci:2005-02-20 14:59 Z
"Yummy!" --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:30, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: How racy, then. ;) I suppose, not as racy as the picture itself, but eh... haha Mike H 22:13, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)
* 
The material below is of questionable veracity, and needs to be fact-checked:
Rainbow parties and increased oral sex activity by non-adults needs more than anecdotal evidence.  Where is the evidence that either of these is more than urban legand and media hype?
Disputed text:
-- increasingly non-adults -- 
This "oral sex is not real sex" attitude, which is perceivably spreading especially among the younger generation, is almost the exact opposite of the previous moral state of oral sex, being considered dirty or at least to be one of the most intimate relations between two people. One particular result are so-called "rainbow parties", a form of group sex where there is a kind of contest among the males to receive the most blow jobs, documented by the number of different lipstick colors on their penises.
Nkedcondo 13:25, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Oral sex in 1860?

message: How come there are no images and pictures of women receiving cunnilingus?
Many people like to see how a woman receives oral sex.
: it is difficult to illustrate constructively what can be done on a woman's clitoris, since the female organs are much less visible than the male ones. The reason for the lack of an illustration is thusly purely technical, and will hopefully be solved over time. Rama 08:43, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  How come there are no cunnilingus pictures? 

message: I was wondering what the community reaction to introducing applying the same type of technique used to deal with the graphic photograph at Autofellatio on this page regarding :Image:OPI.jpg would be?  It seems that there was an interesting consensus formed regarding what to do with types of photographs that certainly could be considered to add to the article yet would be unwanted by some visitors to Wikipedia.  It seems that the more inclusion we can obtain and the most choice at what content to access we give that the better and more accessable Wikipedia can become.  While I'm sensative to concerns about censorship (and not interested in doing it at all), I simply raise the issue of choice and propose the Autofellatio-class solution to it.  Community comments? -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:54, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly see your point, and I wish everyone who feels that way would phrase it as logically and calmly as you :). However, it has been my experience that doing such things usually emboldens the puritanical cabal to then try to delete the image altogether. The amount of grief I get trying to defend the autofellatio pic from deletion, it's infuriating. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: The image is already in the article.  Readers can download or not download it according to their wishes. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yeah, that's what I'm saying.  At autofellatio, the graphic image is behind a dialog box saying "Autofellatio.jpg: Photograph of a man performing autofellatio."  What I'm suggesting here is that we employ the same tactic here so that readers actually can download it or not according to their wishes. -SocratesJedi | Talk 16:36, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autofellatio Precedent 

message: Okay...I was looking through a vandal's list of contributions and I ran into this page.  I admit it.  Maybe I shouldn't have.  But....
The picture is awful!
I'm sorry, but an actual photograph of a couple performing a sexual act has absolutely no place on this site.  Discuss the act?  Well, I guess I can tolerate that.  But an actual picture?  No, that's simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia.  The picture of the fellating couple would be considered pornography by most standards and is simply out-of-place here.  
I won't remove it, because then I'd be flamed.  However, I think we ought to seriously think about getting rid of it...
: Why do you think an article about oral sex in an encyclopedia shouldn't have a picture of oral sex?  Isn't that a little perverse? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porn on Wikipedia?  No way! 

message: I thought I'd note that I'm not User:Chakravyuh, but I find sens edit to be an acceptable compromise. It's perhaps better than a link because the version with photos is now available in it's entirety. Some apparently found even the drawing vulgar, so this should ameliorate their concerns.
For those who are unaware: the "(no pictures)" version is not a fork. It works by using this article as a template and comments out the warning to replace it with a message refering readers back here. Check it out yourself. Cool Hand Luke 23:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if we could finally implement something site-wide. I recall Christiaan talking about m:End-user image suppression - eh? TIMBO (T A L K) 04:16, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd be strongly for that. The last sort of discussion along these lines fractured badly, and I think image tagging is more POV/editing trouble than it's worth. A mechanism for non-technical readers to turn all images off and selectively view them would make this moot in my view. This won't entirely satisfy those that are trying to protect minors, but I don't think minors can be protected on the internet without active parenting. It addresses my concern about potentially shocking content in articles though, so I'd strongly support any such option. Cool Hand Luke 05:10, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

text: End-user suppression is already available.  Almost nobody uses it. The capacity to turn off all images and selectively view them is actually built in to IE, and has been for nearly a decade. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:33, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right you are. I do think, though, that it might make more users happy to have an option to turn off only the article's images (i.e. not the wikipedia logo or other stuff) and have it only for the wikipedia domain. Almost all image tagging seems suspect to me, but if it were applied to all images in an NPOV way (and someone spent the time actually implementing this) I think it could be a good thing. TIMBO (T A L K) 17:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  On template suppression 

message: 68.229.240.32 edit the section on fellatio to change the text "A rarer technique is deep throat" to "Another technique is deep throat".  This in my opinion is removal of significant information.  The technique is far more often talked about and depicted than actually performed--for obvious reasons of discomfort and breathing difficulties for the fellator, not to mention the gagging reflex. I have reverted the edit. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Explanation of [[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]'s revert of an edit by [[User:68.229.240.32|68.229.240.32]]

message: Did the term blow job become a slang for oral sex by deriving from the term glassblowing which was used for glory holes at steel mills since glory hole refers to both a hole at the steel mill and a hole to stick a male's willy in? --SuperDude 03:33, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Glory hole]]s 

message: Can someone confirm or deny the following? It seems to contradict everything I learned in bio. 	 	
-	"Hence, some theorise that its origins are biologial, and not simply carnal. A study published in the British Journal of Medicine showed a correlation between oral sex and healthier newborn children. Semen, when ingested orally, is thought to familiarise the female immune system with the male dna" Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 21:57 (UTC)	 	
-		 	
-	You're right, it's unverified. I've commented out this entire section	 	
-		 	
-	Everything in the "Origins" section is highly implausible and unreferenced, so I've removed it (someone had put it back). It reads like pure disinformation by a prankster, put there to confuse readers and generally discredit wikipedia. September 8 2005
: Origins
:
: Considering its current popularity as well as its depth in recorded history, oral sex is thought by many to have been a part of prehistorical human sexuality. Hence, some theorise that its origins are biological, and not simply carnal.
:
: A study published in the British Journal of Medicine showed a correlation between oral sex and healthier newborn children. Semen, when ingested orally, is thought to familiarise the female immune system with the male dna, lowering the risk that male genes would be rejected, and thus the risk of birth defects. One hypothesis points to the possibility that the apparent connection may be a biological evolutionary trait, which favors reproduction among couples who have more long-term and intimate relationships than others.
User comments:
..It seems to contradict everything I learned in bio...  Superm401 | Talk July 3, 2005 21:57 (UTC)
Everything in the "Origins" section is highly implausible and unreferenced, I've removed it (someone had put it back since July).  It reads like pure disinformation by a prankster, put there to confuse readers and generally discredit wikipedia. -- Anon, September 8 2005, 18:28 (UTC)
You're right, it's unverified.  I've commented out this entire section
I'll explain why.  Firstly, it's fatuous to suggest that oral sex was part of prehistoric sexuality.  Sure, it may have been, but why is recent (ie merely prehistoric) sexuality linked to the earliest sexuality of the human race, which will be forever lost to us? It's "thought by many" to be so, well so what? There is no reference for this.  Then we're told "some theorize" that it's origins are biological. Well who theorizes this?  Again, no reference.
A study in the BMJ is mentioned, but not cited.  Well let's see this study cited, otherwise this is going to be the fairlyland encyclopedia.  Semen is "thought to ..." Who thinks this?  "One hypothesis..." Whose hypothesis?  This is an encyclopedia, we don't permit tripe like this to live.  We don't write new stuff, we write about what other people write. And we cite the authors.  There are no authors here, just vague references and handwaving.  Please correct if you can be adding references, rewording or whatever, and restore to the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spurious "Origins" section 

message: I've just checked this guy's contributions and all he does is insert porno photos into articles.  Only three so far, but he seems to be stubborn in that he reverts them if they're removed.  He's a pest. Hayford Peirce 16:17, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: User warned. Rama 16:57, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: how do we ask a sysop to ban or do something about R jayz?

message: just take out the pictures, i think that a seriuos website like this doesn't need this kind of stuff, the curious ones can check pics at google. in other words: NACK IT OFF YOU PERVERTS.
:Read through the talk page and you'll see it has nothing to do with perverts. Insults are quite uncalled for here. I will not explain the difference between porn and educative imagery to you as you could already have read through this page instead of writing wild accusations at its top! (btw: moved to bottom) So long Mütze 11:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: In this article it says about this subject: "The term 'blowjob' stems from the Victorian era. Prostitutes were often referred to as "blowsy", as 'blow' was slang for ejaculation. 'Blowjob' describes the man's experience." I may have a different explanation. In Dutch the word for 'giving a blowjob' is 'pijpen'. This is a rather old word which was used in the past for playing a wind instrument like a flute. The dictionary still notes this meaning but it is not used for that meaning anymore. (now we use the word 'blazen' which means 'to blow' in stead) It seems obvious to me that the act of performing fellatio somewhat resembles the act of playing a flute, and how it is plausible that the latter could come to be a euphemism for the first. A euphemism nobody understands anymore because the original meaning of the word has been replaced by the meaning it used to be a euphemism for. Compared with the situation in the Dutch language, the verb 'to blow' in connection with performing fellatio in English seems to make sense. It's also an easier explanation. The usage of the same imagery in both the Dutch and English language could be explained through a common culture of sailors. A reference to a flute and also to a pipe can be found in the French article about fellatio 'fellation' too. --Vunzmstr 22:21, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In German it's the same as "blow" in English, i.e. "blasen", meaning "to blow".  Jeremy J. Shapiro 01:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the term 'blowjob' 

message: I'm having a peer review for smotherbox article. Please leave your comments and improvement suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Smotherbox/archive1. --Easyas12c 00:00, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  smotherbox peer review 

message: I think that oral sex has worked its way into pop culture enough that citing examples, and especially the ones that have been chosen, is both unnecessary and unrepresentative.  Perhaps if we had a few well-known examples of pop culture references, that'd be OK.  However, Playboy cartoons regularly talk about oral sex, so choosing a specific one seems weird, and "cunning linguist" is such a common phrase that quoting Bill Maher might even be confusing - why is his use notable?  I think that a prose overview of pop culture's references to oral sex would be a better choice than this seemingly random list.  - Bamos
: I agree. When I first saw it I thought this section was weird and out of place. I mean, it's not as if oral sex was invented last week and it's so novel we have to cite instances of its mention in all of our favourite movies. I vote that the entire section be removed or, as you say, replaced with an objective prose-based look at the topic, if it's worthwhile. The only one that I think has any relevance would be the first one about George Carlin because of the relative notoriety of his Seven Dirty Words skit, but even that isn't enough to keep the section.
: As for the preceding section on "Terminology and Slang" -- Jjshapiro has a project to remove this stuff to existing lists of slang, which is where it belongs, so I presume he'll be getting around to this article at some point.
: --Craig (t|c) 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that a user from 144.53.251.2 eliminated all the slang tonight, and, in line with prior discussion, I'm glad to see it go.  I haven't checked, however, to see if he/she moved it to "sexual slang".  Jeremy J. Shapiro 03:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the anonymous user did the right thing and did it the right way. the article is more encyclopedic now.--Alhutch 18:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, this section is extremely bizzarre. Oral sex is everywhere in pop-culture, and this list doesn't indicate what makes any of the instances included significant. - Ncsaint 01:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I have removed the section entirely, as there seemed to be a consensus about its pointlessness. -- Ncsaint 21:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I entirely support the removal.  I do have one additional thought, though, not so much even with regard to this particular popular culture section as to a number of them I have seen, about what would in fact constitute a 'good' popular culture section.  Most of the ones I've seen are rather like free associations, often representing individual editors' personal associations or just things that they like.  But I could imagine that a historical discussion of how and when things were treated in popular culture could be a legitimate part of an encyclopedia article.  For example, (I'm just making up the names and dates here, since I don't know the cultural history), "Throughout the late 19th century and early 20th century, no acknowledgement of even the existence of oral sex appeared in the arts or popular culture until Blankety Blank's 1923 novel "Down on the Blank", where it was mentioned obliquely.  Only in Fwangety Fwang's poem "Pre-oedipal love", published in 1937, was oral sex mentioned with any of the slang words with which it is colloquially described.  But it took until 1997, with the hit song "Cluck my Duck" by the rock group Melting Rivets for oral sex to be mentioned in any musical form."  I'm not saying that we need to have such sections of Wikipedia articles -- and one would have to have fairly encyclopedic cultural novel to be able to write one -- but that it seems to me that this type of information would be legitimate and valuable information in a Wikipedia article. Jeremy J. Shapiro 23:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I could definitely see the sort of information you are talking about being interesting and relevant, but I don't see how, even if it were done properly, it would justify a 'popular culture' section. There are already sections (e.g. 'taboo') which speak to cultural attitudes about the practice. Early references from popular media could be effectively used in such sections as evidence of changing cultural views; a distinct section listing such references, however, seems excessive to me, even if it were improved from the current 'free assosciation' format. -- Ncsaint 00:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture section 

message: Opinionated words (such as excellent) have been found on this page, being used to "advertise" engaging in this behavior.  This is definitely POV, and may even be vandalism. Roy Al Blue 04:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no need to throw around words like vandalism. If you don't like it, change it. --Prosfilaes 05:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV dispute