Talk:Oral sex/Archive 2

message: I'm pretty certain that only around 30% of women can achieve orgasm through intercourse alone, so I changed that bit.  See http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/0014.html   Chrisser 00:04, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orgasm through intercourse 

message: I just moved here the latest "enhancement", i.e. the following:
"The pleasure of cunnilingus for women may be greatly enhanced by simultaneously stimulating the g-spot with either finger[s] or a dildo. Similarly, fellatio can be enhanced by the simultaneous stimulation of the prostate (either externally or internally) and/or testicles."
My reason is that the article about oral sex is not supposed to be a general sex guide but an article about oral sex.  While previous enhancements are specifically about the oral part of oral sex, and therefore seem related to the article topic, the latest two, about stimulating the g-spot and prostate or testicles, seem about the general increase in sexual pleasure, not about oral sex.  For some people, having their toes rubbed while receiving oral sex might also lead to a general increase in sexual pleasure -- but rubbing toes wouldn't therefore count as part of oral sex.  Other opinions?  Jeremy J. Shapiro 10:32, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Enhancement

message: To the person who wrote this:
"How do you know they're homosexual? I mean, I agree that the person sucking on the penis is drawn to resemble a dude, but how do you know that the person attached to the penis is a dude!? You can't even see their face! Ewlyahoocom 23:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ======================================

message: The article now contains the following statements:  "Today performing/giving and receiving/getting oral sex are both considered both active and passive. Homosexual men seem to consider performing oral sex active, while women seem often to be treated as the passive partner when doing so. It is common for women of all sexualities to accept oral sex from other homosexual women."
I feel quite nervous with such statements that seem highly subjective and hard to document and perhaps expressive of particular personal or subcultural experiences.  Other opinions? Jeremy J. Shapiro 20:42, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It does seem quite bold. I would recommend moving the part here on the talk page until it can be nuanced and referenced. Rama 20:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: It is common for women of all sexualities to accept oral sex from other homosexual women.
Where did that come from? Could the author resource that? Women of all sexualities seems a total contradiction. Yes, it is difficult to resource and documented, but it does need to be, yes.--Dakota t e 20:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: moved statement here:  "Today performing/giving and receiving/getting oral sex are both considered both active and passive. Homosexual men seem to consider performing oral sex active, while women seem often to be treated as the passive partner when doing so."  Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I bet that one of the things that happens with the sex articles (as in many other departments of life) is that people read an article that they're personally interested in, then notice that they have had some personal experience that is omitted from or neglected by the article, and then they go and generalize from their personal experience, or that of their personal circle of friends, to the whole population. Jeremy J. Shapiro 02:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's exactly what happens. It makes for horrible encyclopedia articles. Hell, it doesn't even make very good "how-to" articles. Benami 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discomfort with interesting but subjective generalizations without sources

message: Is all of the irrumation or teabagging or cunnilingus really necessary? Can't we just say "oral sex" where it applies equally to all major variants? I'd make a bold change, but this page gets reverted all the time; I thought I'd ask here first. nae'blis (talk) 17:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  collective terms vs. specific 

message: The replacement image for "Fellatio" that was added to this article by User:68.90.225.119 seems to be much worse than the original image. The drawing shows two people who, it can be reasonably guessed, are engaging in fellatio. However, it is impossible to see either a penis or a mouth. The whole point of having an image in this article is to illustrate what fellatio is. IMO, if we're going to have an image like this, we might as well just not have an image at all. Surely, actually illustrating the subject that the article is about should be more important than "eradicating POV" (even if you believe that including an image of a same-sex couple constitutes POV, which I don't.) Opinions? Catamorphism 05:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you, this is only a suggestion of fellatio. I would prefer that the user who changed it would discuss it here first. --KimvdLinde 05:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user who changed it appears to be the same anonymous user who signs his posts on this talk page with "Nathaniel" (based on looking at the user contribs page for User:68.90.225.119. Catamorphism 06:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See under header giving head: Nathaniel —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.90.225.119 (talk • contribs) . --KimvdLinde 06:22, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed it to to more instructive image, and brought the new opne here for discussion.  --KimvdLinde 06:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I actually think this is a nice image. It's clearly heterosexual, which would introduce a bit more sexual diversity to the images on the page. And, really, it's an elegant depiction of the act, and there's no doubt what they're up to. I'd like to put it in. Babajobu 02:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It more implies fellatio than shows it. For an encyclopedia, I don't think this really helps anything. If we're going to have an image of fellatio, we're going to want to actually depict it happening.--Alhutch 02:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it is a very elegant image, and adding it (not repalcing the other image) might be a good idea! --KimvdLinde 02:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, the drawing depicts the interpersonal mechanics that go into performing this particularly elegant permutation of the oral sex act. It is instructive in that respect. Also, it shows that enjoyment of oral sex is not exclusively a homosexual act engaged in by Caucasians, which a reader might otherwise suspect without this image in the article. The other images provide more detail, but this demonstrates another ethnosexual context in which oral sex can occur. Plus, it's a wonderful drawing. Babajobu 02:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wonderful drawing? This picture blows chunks and was likely taken from the DeviantArt page of the user who posted it as an attempt to get an ego boost. In fact, all of the pictures currently on the page are either offensive or just bad. I'm certain that they can be replaced with much better images that are more informative and generalized.156.34.220.69 00:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, be constuctive and come to the talk page with such a wonderfull alternative... --KimvdLinde 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This musculature of the bodies in this drawing are beautifully rendered & in that respect it's well done. What is unsuccessful, IMO, is the position their bodies are in, specifically hers. I state sincerely that my first thought was not one of oral sex, because there is a sterility to the image & fails to adequately illustrate this topic. To my eye she could very easily be looking for crabs or braiding/trimming his pubic region, or looking at a scar. He is watching her intently, but is it in passion or out of fear of being knicked by scissors? Even now I'm wondering why he's holding her head. wbm 05:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, very aestaticaly pleasing, especially the girl (yes, I am a lesbian). I would favour the reinsertion of that images next to the more illustrative present version. But not as a replacement of that current image. Are there editors who object against that?--KimvdLinde 15:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Though I'm sure that's meant sarcastically, I'll just say that porn generally doesn't show sex in a realistic or instructional way :-) Catamorphism 02:15, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I would say, it is so difficult because so many are porn. I think what we look here for is things that are not porn so much, but illustrative. --KimvdLinde 03:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, you inserted an image that is not the same. No, those images are artwork, not original research. --KimvdLinde 15:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed new "Fellatio" image is not an improvement 

message: I've requested at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection that this page be semi-protected. I'm getting tired of seeing the same nonconstructive edits from anonymous users over and over, and I'm sure everyone else is too. Catamorphism 05:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am affraid that the admins are not going to do it as it is less than about 10 times a day, which is kind of the criterion for sprotect :-( --KimvdLinde 07:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like we got lucky :-) Catamorphism 08:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this page will very quickly go to full protect if the vandalism resumes by users unaffected by the semi-protect. Furthermore, we have extensively given arguments. --KimvdLinde 15:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protection request 

message: Nathanial has filed a request for mediation: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-01_ORal_Sex --KimvdLinde 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-03-01_ORal_Sex]] 

message: It involves some redundancy, but why not depict all examples of oral sex with both heterosexual and homosexual participants? Would not any resulting agendas regarding political/ethical appropriateness then be transparent? 
IMO, it's the path of least resistance, tho I can understand if the powers that be argue against this suggestion in that dual images involve redundant depictions of each act. My argument against it being an example undue redundancy is that articles about religion (ie. God) go to great lengths to be inclusive of all  faiths. Or perhaps this logic is flawed?
I also note that Deity contains no images, merely links to other pages containing images. Why is 'linking-but-imageless' not an acceptable alternative? Certainly there are images of oral sex elsewhere on the www ;)
Or, if images are deemed absolutely necessary, perhaps they'd be better placed on Human sexual behavior (with linking from this page) , where heterosexuality & homosexuality 'should' be able to be discussed without repercussion (or am I naive?).wbm 23:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The major discussion is not whether there should be images (although I have the feeling the discussion is going that way somewhat), but if it would be nicer to have some images for heterosexual couples (actually, the maker of the images has drawn mainly heterosexual images and accidently, the three about oral sex contain homosexual couples). As I, and I have not heard any objections from the other editors who want to keep the images, have indicated above, replacement of two of the three images by an equal good alternative is not an problem. I think that removing the images altogether is not a good idea. First of all, try searching google images for an illustrative image on fellatio (I have done so in order to accomodate the feelings of the objectors here) WARNING: PORNOGRAPHIC (when you have your safe mode off). Compared to that, the current images are really mild, non-pornographic and illustrative. Furthermore, pointing at different pages is just shifting the problem as the same objections can be made for that page. I think the solution is not difficult, provide an equal good image to this talk page that is as illustrative as the current ones, and if good, we replace it. And if it is a consensus change, I am the first to defend it. --KimvdLinde 23:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "why not depict all examples of oral sex with both heterosexual and homosexual participants?" - I'm completely in favor of this! If someone can find a good, illustrative image with opposite-sex participants (let's not refer to people in images as "heterosexual" or "homosexual", since people in any image may be bisexual too), they should feel free to insert it into the article along with the existing images. However, it does not seem that people who are objecting to the same-sex images are interested in doing this. The one image that one anonymous editor managed to find and add to the article did not actually illustrate oral sex. It seems that the people who are objecting to the images are really objecting to having any inclusion of images featuring same-sex sexual activity on Wikipedia at all. And that's a slippery slope, because if we accede to those demands, what's the next step? Deleting articles related to homosexuality and bisexuality because just discussing those topics might offend some people, too? Catamorphism 01:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For those reasons, I am against replacing ALL images for opposite-sex participant versions and I will defend that vigorously. I would be equaly ok with having multiple images of each category. --KimvdLinde 03:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail so see the logic behind your absolute determination to show heterosexual relations in every image of sexuality. My vote is still for even depiction, but the fierceness behind your drive to always show hetero interaction is disturbing. The Kinsey scale Kinsey_scale was created in an attempt to describe the range of human sexuality. Homosexuality is considered a normal sexual expression for those who are so inclined & should not be considered inappropriate here.wbm 05:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not. I offer this as a compromise to others who have an objection against only same-sex couples, I could care less whether it are same-sex or opposite sex couples. --KimvdLinde 07:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  compromise? 

message: From the article:
"The Romans regarded oral sex as being far more shameful than, for example, anal sex — known practitioners were supposed to have foul breath and were often unwelcome as guests at a dinner table."
I'm tempted to change this, since it's just plain wrong, but an edit war over sexual politics isn't my idea of fun, so I'll submit my ideas here.  I've read nothing in primary sources (i.e., Catullus, Martial) or any scholarly literature (i.e., The Latin Sexual Vocabulary) to suggest that oral sex was more "shameful" than anal sex.  More important than the act itself was the participant's role in it.  Men were supposed to penetrate, and women were to be penetrated.  Therefore, it follows than men being penetrated and women engaging in penetration were engaging in a transgressive act.  Anal sex between two men of putatively equal social standing was wrong, not because anal sex per se was wrong, but because one of the men was being penetrated, and this upset the social order.  Similarly, a man with a penis in his mouth was acting in a female or subservient capacity.  It's really a very different situation than that of the modern U.S.  It was considered a tolerated sexual outlet for wealthy Greeks and Romans to sodomize slaves and boys.  There's a difference between acceptable sex (vaginal intercourse between a man and a woman), tolerated sex, and taboo sex, and the article as it stands doesn't show any knowledge of this.  Also, the salon.com article linked as a citation is ridiculous.  It's just a piece of feature journalism, not expert opinion. Brian G. Crawford 18:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like you know where you are talking about, so I would say, change it. If you want, make a proposal and discuss it here, or add it immediatly to the text. --KimvdLinde 19:15, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Inaccuracies regarding Classical society

message: The definition of "creampie" in this article differs from that in the creampie article. Clearly, the two things are related, but can someone clarify this? -- Arthur Frayn 10:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Creampie" 

message: I have always thought that the word "blow" in "blow-job" signifies the ejaculation of semen, and "job" in "blow-job" signifies the stimulation required to cause the penis to ejaculate.  Anyone agree?  Dionyseus 08:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: there are few version of blow job origin and none of them supports your opinion. If you could provide some kind of references, perhaps it could be included in the article. -- tasc talkdeeds 08:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article talks about the origins of the term "blow-job"  .  Apparently I would fall under the second school of thought in that article.  The second school of thought proposes that the word "blow" indicates the climax, the orgasm of the penis, and that it is a reference to the term "blowing (someone) off."
Dionyseus 08:42, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blow-job 

message: quote from entry "...and it is said that they used to whiten their lips as though with semen."  i'm no harvard professor but that sentence seems unecessarily complex to me and it is hard to understand what thought is trying to be conveyed.
: what is wrong with this sentence? it says what it says nothing more... i guess it's a plain citation. -- tasc talkdeeds 12:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  and it is said that they used to whiten their lips as though with semen 

message: I'm not for censorship, but I am a fan of adult ratings, so I'll ask this question:
Could you possibly make pictures that are definitely adult content subject to asking if the person is 18 or over?  I find the pictures to be considered illegal to share with minors in any context that I am aware of. Otherwise, Hollywood would really sell alot more movie tickets if their content wasn't limited as to what is NC-17.
GOOD POINT!!!
Hope that helps if it's not been done before.  U.S. law is pretty strict, and many countries are even stricter on such things, so I want to see your site prosper.  I use it all the time, and want to know it won't be shut down for legal reasons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aleman amable (talk • contribs) .
:This is what I get for browsing new user submissions iso vandalism, I guess...
:I kinda agree a bit about the pictures that are in use on the page, though I imagine I'd be scared knowing what other sorts of things are haunting Wikipedia's halls. As far as US law and such goes, though, I'd be willing to bet I can get to some sites hosted in the US where there's a lot worse just waiting for you to visit the page. Ahwell.
::~Kylu (u|t)  04:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia does obey the laws of relevant countries. However, it is not illegal in the US to show a picture like this to a minor. Movie ratings are a matter of industry self-regulation, not law. I hope reading WP:NOT clarifies things for you. Catamorphism 07:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, boy.  What is against the law and what will get you arrested and humiliated are two different things.  It's a good idea in general not to show sexual pictures or descriptions of any kind to children.  The reasons for this should be obvious to anyone who isn't a sociopath.  I really don't think this should be pushed. Brian G. Crawford 05:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a difference between showing a picture to a person under 18 and making the latter available in a place where a person under 18 could see it if they took the initiative themself. If you believe that they are the same, you're basically saying that the Internet should only include content that would be acceptable (under the mores of every culture) for a person under 18 to see. I find that an unacceptable outcome because the harm to adults from having to dumb down their discourse to a child's level is greater than whatever nebulous harm children suffer from seeing sexual images. (Personally, I sought out all the sexual images I could when I was between the ages of 11 and 18, and I don't consider myself to be any more maladjusted than the average person in my country.) Catamorphism 06:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Over 18, has it been suggested yet? 

message: I meant sharing such images with children is illegal in most countries.  Every D.A. in this country would prosecute it, and it often appears in the newspapers.  That's why you are in legal jeopardy unless you put in an over 18 disclaimer.
: As WP:NOT says, Wikipedia obeys the laws of the state of Florida in the U.S., where the servers are located. Trust me, the people who run Wikipedia are concerned about the continued existence of the project too, and wouldn't do anything that would put Wikipedia in legal jeopardy. Catamorphism 18:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarifying thread 21 

message: You can't tell me that Florida state law (where the toughest sex laws in the country exist) allows you to show X-rated pictures to children in magazines, videos, or over the web.  They all come off of porn sites, and pictures of staff's genitals are not exempt from the porn provision, either, epecially erect.  I am quite sure if you were reported, you would be closed down, and you don't want to seem to try to be pro-active enought to put an over 18 disclaimer.
Parents would have no upfront knowledge that your sites contain pornography.  All they would suppose is that it's a regular encyclopedia.  Your kind would never be located in the public library if it were in print, nor in bookstores.
Maybe swallow your pride so your site stays legal, but don't lie about the law to people who don't know any better.  There are reasons this stuff is never on anything but adult entertainment, and I don't have to consult a lawbook to know it or report it.  
How do you respond to an existing thread?  I can't find it in the instrucitons or in the tabs.  Most sites I know have respond buttons, so I'm kind of lost here.
: Have you read  yet? Maybe you should familiarize yourself with Wikipedia a bit before you assume that the people who run the site (and I am not one of them; this is not "my site", any more than it's yours) are completely ignorant of laws that apply to them. Also, please sign your comments on talk pages by typing ~~~~. Catamorphism 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amen. Interestingstuffadder 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catamorphism, I think you may want to read WP:NOT again.  It is really a disclaimer saying that we don't guarantee Wikipedia is free from profanity/nudity etc.  This is partly because some nudity/profanity may be considered non-pornographic and encyclopedic - a picture of a penis at penis for example.  It is also partly due to the fact that anyone can edit, so innapropriate things may appear briefly before they are removed.  It is NOT a statement that anyone can include any image they want to.  It is NOT a statement that we hold ourselves above applicable laws.  It is NOT an excuse to show hardcore pornography that is inconsistent with encyclopedic standards. Johntex\talk 21:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is not hardcore pornography in the context in which it is used in this article. It is illustrative and relevant -- much like your example of having a photo of a penis at the penis article. And, for however much it counts, this is not even a photo. Also, although there may not be a consensus to keep this image, there is also not a consensus to delete it, as many experienced users have argued for its inclusion or the inclusion of something like it.  In a situation like this -- where there is no clear consensus -- I am inclined to defer to a user -- like Catamorphism who is experienced and has a long history of helpful edits. Interestingstuffadder 21:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there is some ambiguity about what the law will and will not permit.  As an administrator, I try to err on the side of caution in protecting the Wikimedia Foundation and this project from legal problems.  We do not have a lot of cash in the bank, and we can't aford to spend it just for the sake of supporting some sort of free speech crusade.  Pictures of oral sex are widely available on the internet.  There is a small benefit of convenience to our readers to have one right on the article, but the benefit is very small compared to the potential risk. Johntex\talk 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then...I suppose this "legal argument" is the silver bullet that will prevent us from having a useful picture to illustrate this article. Interestingstuffadder 01:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Looking at for example the comments of Jimbo himself on the autofellatio talk page, and the leaving of the images, it is not a concern at the highest levels. If that changes, it will be spread all across wikipedia, and that is not happening yet. Untill that moment, I will assume that the images are ok with regard to florida law. KimvdLinde 04:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Autofellatio only has line drawings.  Photos have been consistently removed or linkimaged behind a one-click warning system. Also, legal arguments are not the only argument I am making. I am also saying that serious reference works avoid explicit images of titalating hard-core pornongraphy.  We do well to follow those norms. Johntex\talk 07:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly, and this page is simlar to that page with regard to the images. Whether or not linkimaged, the photo is still on the servers of Wikipedia, which is what counts for the law. So, the legal argument does not hold. KimvdLinde 08:24, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm wondering whether any other serious reference work even has an article on oral sex. Wikipedia has the power to do a lot of things that there aren't precedents for. I don't know whether you found the image that was removed to be titillating; I sure didn't. The woman didn't look very happy. Catamorphism 07:26, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I actually do not see that we have a disagreement. The images are not photo's (which I think are not needed here, type in fellatio in google and you have those), and they are nicely illustrative without being pornographic. KimvdLinde 15:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Florida state law on pornography 

message: How-to pages are interesting and relevant, as well as community sites on the matter. This is common practice in any other article, why not here? In fact I came to this article to find such links. I am sure there have been links before. Please put them back and make them stay. Thanks. Pablo2garcia 23:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please, links to some how-to pages or community sites on the matter? 

message: Who really thinks it's necessary for a citation to the claim "Some contend that homosexual partners can have an enhanced ability to perform oral sex on members of the same gender because they are already familiar with their own body's sensations and responses." or "Also, for some males, when their partner swallows their ejaculate, it sends a subconscious message that their partner accepts them."
These are both, more or less maters of opinion...not some study done in the New England Journal of Medicine.
:On Wikipedia, we try to avoid weasel words, like saying "...some people say that..." Rather than saying "some contend that... [whatever]", it's important to give a citation to show who thinks that. Catamorphism 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Catamorphism is exactly right about this. Johntex\talk 09:45, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Citation Needed"... 

message: cunilingus is the noun, to give cunnilingus is a wierd way of making it a verb, but what is the real verb?
Is it cunnilingate? or cunnilinguise? ie. I would like to ****** you.
:As far as I know, you can't make a verb out of it.  "I would like to fellate you" would seem to be the best option.  JackofOz 10:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verb conjugation 

message: What does Lawrence VS Texas have to do with oral sex? The judgment is about sodomy, not oral sex.
:It is mentioned because of the wider implications of the ruling on the non-enforcement of the anti-oral sex laws in some states. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sodomy laws are different in different states. Many states construe oral sex (and indeed, anything besides missionary-position sex between a person with male parts and a person with female parts) as sodomy. Others leave the definition of sodomy rather vague. Bowers v. Hardwick was about oral sex, as Georgia at the time had sodomy laws that encompassed oral sex. Catamorphism 19:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, the idea that the Lawrence holding is somehow limited to equal-protection concerns is from the separate concurring opinion by O'Connor, not the majority opinion. The majority opinion does not support such a narrow reading. Doctor Whom 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That paragraph in the article also includes the following statement:  "Most anti-oral sex laws had not been enforced prior to this overturning."  I don't know how the author of that statement came to believe that, but from my activist and legal work in Michigan, Maryland, and Virginia, I know that insofar as it can be applied to any of those states, it's flatly wrong.  Doctor Whom 00:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that what the editor probably meant to say was something like "Most anti-oral-sex laws were enforced rarely, compared to the overall incidence of oral sex." I'm not going to make that change, though, because I think such a statement would be fairly hard to verify. Of course, the existing text is also not sourced. Catamorphism 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lawrence VS Texas 

message: Today, someone from Saudi Arabia inserted a sentence about oral sex and islam, and after some searching, this showed correct implying that the taboo section is factual incorrect. I have edited a little part, but it might need more editing. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taboo section rewrite 

message: Seriously what is the point of showing a male sucking a penis, a woman sucking a penis is a blowjob too. and everyone loves to watch a woman sucking a penis while the opposite is not true.
: First, from reading the above Talk section, the reason that it shows a man giving oral sex to a man (and a woman giving oral sex to a woman, something you didn't mention) is because they're the most illustrative pictures of oral sex that anybody's come up with. Second, I didn't even notice the gender of the participants until I came onto the Talk page and found people asking the same thing you did, so I'm guessing that either I'm unobservant or not a lot of people are bothered by it. Third, claiming that "everyone" loves to watch a woman giving a man a blowjob while the opposite (either a man "sucking a penis," or a man giving a woman oral sex) is wrong and biased. I'd delete this question, partly because it seems like homophobic vandalism and partly because I couldn't come up with a less hostile response, except I hope that this guy will get my point. I'm sorry if I seem angry. Sillstaw 01:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay oral sex drawing