Talk:Deep-throating

message: Removed statement that It is usually helpful to have a willing ... partner — perhaps "legal" would have been a better word than "helpful". Vashti 16:49, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement removed

message: The 'examples' appears to be collection of semi-related porn. Seems like it should be deleted IMO.
I agree, it's not really informational, but more pornographic prose.
Again, this last site does not link to examples! It links to an adulot porn site, and this site changes daily. I'm all for oral action, but this is not the correct "example".
STILL NOT A LINK TO 'EXAMPLES'!!!!!! Link to a porn site. Grow up people....oy
——————
"Removed 'in pornography' link, which, though it did go to a deepthroat pornography site, it is prudent to remove this link, as the site is degrading and buggy.)"
I just removed the "In pornography link".  I would like to further add and note the degrading manner in treatment and attitude towards women of the aforementioned offsite 'examples'.
Stuff like - "bitches sucking it all the way dooowwn" and, this is a direct qoute - 
"By the
time we were done with her, she had a nut mustache and was taking cumshots in her eyes!!!".
I hope I'm not overdoing this, but short and sweet, it was a link to a pornography paysite, and I'm sure with the already available description, we don't need that link there. RatherBeBiking 00:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  eh 

message: The greater majority of this article is copied word for word from this site : http://www.deepthroatexpert.com/
Such content is copyright protected.
Agreed, 98% of it is just a copy and paste job that needs to be removed.
I agree too. That material is below rather than in the article. Why doesn't somebody take the following text as a starting point?
**********************
**********************
Techniques
Since an average erect penis is longer than an average mouth depth, deep throating requires suppressing the gag reflex in order to partially swallow the end of the penis. In order to perform this form of fellatio, the sexual partner performing deep throat controls all the muscles at the back of the throat and flattens the tongue, while gradually inserting the erect penis completely.
In one variation of the technique, the fellatee will take an "upright" position, in which the fellator kneels in front of or otherwise faces the front of the partner to be fellated.
In another variation of the technique, the fellator lies face up on a bed, with his or her head hanging over the edge. For some fellators, this ensures that the throat and mouth line up, aiding penetration, and can also give the fellatee additional control over the act, which may be desirable if the couple is experimenting with domination and submission play.
Because mouth and throat structure (as well as penis shape) vary from person to person, different persons will prefer different techniques and positions, and some experimentation may be necessary.
Advantages
Deep throating may facilitate swallowing of the semen, as the ejaculate may bypass most of the tongue and tastebuds, depending on the depth of penetration at the time of release. If the penis is held completely inside the mouth and throat as the man ejaculates, the semen may be released into the esophagus without the fellator having to swallow.
Additionally, many men enjoy the sensations and psychological effects associated with the act. Similarly, many women and men enjoy incorporating it into their sexual repertoires, particularly as a variation on other forms of fellatio. It may be difficult for some persons to learn, however, due to the requirement of suppressing the natural gag reflex.
**********************
**********************
::I noticed this as well, but I more or less just stumbled across the article. No one has as yet undertaken the task of at the very least rewording the article, so if no one has removed the plagarised sections in a few days I will try and make the time to rewrite it. --CokeBear 14:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that it is not the Wikipedia article that has been copied? http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=deepthroatexpert&tld=com seems to show that the domain has only existed since april 2006, does the wikipedia text outdate this? --Paulhurst 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: [http://www.deepthoatexpert.com/Technique/p2_articleid/11 also seems to be a copy of http://www2.freedomacres.com/library/deepthroathow2.html so maybe   the site has collated information --Paulhurst 14:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  COPYRIGHT 

message: Cynthia Heimel can claim that the film was done by mirrors. But since the film there is plenty of other video evidence and individual experience to show the act is real and practised. Have removed the word "Purportedly" accordingly. Publicgirluk 06:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  purportedly? 

message: The image could be better, and it suggests, but does not show anything specific.  We should get feedback from many people, not just have one person decide.  In the mean time, let's look for a better image.  Atom 03:49, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First, none of those images show the act described, and I can assure you from editing previous sex-related articles that this image is not useful and will be removed. I'll go get some other editors if you want. Jokestress 03:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I edit "numerous" sex-related articles, and yet have the opinion I do that mediocre image is better than none.  As for your comment, it seems to me that the two in the right are clearly deep throat.  Just because it is not the "ideal" picture, doesn't mean that it does not show visually what the article discusses.  As I say below I am always willing to give in to consensus, but it seems it has been your one opinion against two others, so far.  Regards, Atom 04:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Just left a comment on your talk page. Let me know how you'd like to proceed. I can get a buncha folks over to weigh in if you wish. The problem with the image is that the recipient could be doing anything in the image you propose. If you can find a non-copyright image of someone deep throating, we can discuss the merits of that image, but sexually explicit images typically get removed unless they are considered critical to understanding the article. Jokestress 04:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I tend to agree, yes. —Nightstallion (?) 09:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: the article doesnt seem to mention that men can deepthroat men too==
Exclusion of a gay perspective on deep throating would be denying this entry a whole other and necessary facet...
* I agree, it needs a rewrite to more gender-neutral language WilyD 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In general, more gender neutrality would help, including in relation to the images. At the moment the overall tone (images and text) make for an unbalanced and unencyclopedic article.-- TyrS  chatties  08:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: gay deepthroat

message: I removed the image in accordance with the guideline Wikipedia:Profanity.  In particular:
:"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate..."
The article seemed just as "informative, relevant and accurate" without it, so I judged the image suitable for removal.  It's likely to be deleted shortly for uncertain copyright status anyway.  --Rrburke(talk) 19:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of image

message: It says right up in the title that this is an article about a sexual act, yet the bulk of the article seems to focus on its use in pornographic film.  is there a reason for this? -MBlume 03:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pornography 

message: I've moved the majority of the material in this article to Deep throat in pornographic film, a new article.  This is because I noticed that this material did not seem to be about deep throat as practiced by individuals concerned only with their own pleasure (as the article title implies) but as practiced by performers in pornographic films.  If anyone thinks I was wrong to make this move, I would be glad to discuss the matter.  -MBlume (talk) 08:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article 

message: the over the edge of the bed image is very useful and informativeChuletadechancho (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  external images 

message: the use of the word 'artists' multiple times in this article made me chuckle... it's not exactly like you go to see pictures of deepthroating in galleries.  67.86.126.40 (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Artist?

message: gagging should be added, given an extra section.
the differnece is that a woman which is deepthroating HAS the ability to take it in completely, while a woman that gags,  or, as in most cases, is gagged, has still her full reflex, you know, i think there is even a whole part of porn films concentrating on this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.196.243.245 (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  gagging 

message: Image cropped for encyclopedic tone. Gender of person performing act is an irrelevant, distracting detail that sacrifices objective, neutral presentation of the material. (Remember, this is an encyclopedia.)-- TyrS  chatties  04:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How does it distract the reader, sacrifice the objective, and not neutral? Changing it to fit you preference is not neutral. The original should be the one present. Valknuter (talk) 04:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Valknuter, re. your edit summary: "...If you get rid of important details while removing unnecessary..." please specify what you mean by "important details".   TyrS  chatties  07:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See also section 8 above, where article's imbalances were also pointed out by others.-- TyrS  chatties  08:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: In accordance with WP:NOTHOW AND WP:NOTADVOCATE, the extensive material on "Technique" needs to be removed.   TyrS  chatties  22:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extensive how-to advice in article 

message: It's a bit confusing who's who when using these terms (the mind automatically connects the "giving" to the person with the penis - or at least *my* mind does). It would be good if we could find alternative ways to refer to the person giving the deepthroat, and the person receiving it.
:I agree: see #Giving/receiving, below. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 17:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's the giving partner and who's the receiving partner? 

message: "Bruno's sexual partner (Eloise)" 
What the hell is that supposed to mean?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.114.143.36 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bruno? Eloise?=

message: It appears as giving vs receiving is defined in the article, but later sections seem to reverse the definitions.  Someone should edit it for consistency.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.202.192 (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. This aspect is very confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.105.14 (talk) 02:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In my current edit, I have attempted to fix this by reversing the definitions back to receptive and insertive, while also eliminating a lot of the redundant references to partner, using unambiguous anatomical references instead. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 17:55, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just noticed the Fellatio article and the fact that it also uses the giving/receiving terminology, as it was here before my edits. Unless the two articles are merged, as suggested in #Reason for separate article?, below, we should make the terminology consistent. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 23:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving/receiving 

message: Vranak, regarding this wording, I think that the previous wording is better and more accurate. Your wording implies that people who can deep-throat are abnormal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I hear ya honey but that's exactly what the original writer was trying to convey. Basically they are telling the audience "If you can't deepthroat, don't feel bad, because a lot of people have trouble with their gag reflex." My edit was simply trying to make that point more front-and-center rather than subtly implied. But if you prefer it how it originally was, that's fine with me. Either way. Vranak (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I don't think that the original writer was talking about who is or is not a normal person. This edit you made is better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

text: But re-adding "most people" would be clearer. My point regarding "a normal person" is that there are many things people can do that most people cannot, but this does not make the minority abnormal people. An ability to do something may be considered atypical or abnormal, but it does not mean that the person with the ability is abnormal. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  As you may have noticed from the edit log, I gave it some thought and realized that yeah, that word 'normal' should just be cut out altogether, and we don't even need any adjectives, just 'person' will do nicely. Cheers Flyer, I really like having productive discussions with people I recognize from before, people whose work I admire. It's good stuff. Take it easy. Vranak (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A normal person" 

message: This has probably been discussed before, but why is this a separate article and not just part of the fellatio article? Trivialist (talk) 02:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I would favor merging the two articles (by creating a deep-throating section there), or at least making the giving/receiving terminology consistent between the two. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 23:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reason for separate article? 

message: (Discussion will be at Talk:Fellatio#Merger proposal, not here.)
 An article that you have been involved in editing—Deep-throating—has been proposed for merging with the article Fellatio. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Peter Chastain [¡hablá!] 02:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal