Talk:Fellatio

message: The intro’s definition for this article describes it as “…an oral sex act involving a person stimulating the penis of another by using the mouth, throat, or both.” Not everyone is able to perform this act with the throat due to the potential gag reflex. I was wondering if it’s possible to simply just "…by using the mouth"? If not, that’s okay. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: . Many of your edits show a lack of understanding of the nuances of English and the topics. The sentence in question does not suggest that everyone is able stimulate the penis with the throat, only that it can involve the use of the throat. Also a gag reflex would not necessarily prevent a person, it could well dissuade one though. Your proposed edit that you actioned shortly after this post removed the fact that the penis can (even if by some, even if not part of the mouth) be used to stimulate the penis. You have gone on to make this same mistake many times on several different pages. May I suggest waiting for an answer first next time? Pabsoluterince (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's fine. Sorry I messed things up. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's okay! I understand that you have good motives. I would suggest either taking some more time with wording related edits, or ceasing altogether as you often introduce mistakes. I see that often you remove parts of sentences that aren't strictly necessary, but in my mind contribute to a more detailed explanation (particuarly for people unsure of the topic) e.g. this edit. Pabsoluterince (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better intro definition 

message: In the bit on deepthroating, it says that the tongue becomes immobilised when the penis is taken into the throat. This is obviously not true in a strict sense since the tongue can still be moved. But it can also still be engaged in the oral sex, eg by licking the balls.
There is a source right after the sentence so I don’t want to remove it on a whim, but “immobilised” should be changed, at the very least. Right? 2003:CB:8726:15A1:5169:E161:69DC:38B6 (talk) 16:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the current phrasing implies that a consequence of the activity is involuntary immobilization of the tongue, when I believe the intent is to convey that the tongue plays a less centralized role in providing stimulation. I think you should be fine to slightly reword the sentence. Jasphetamine (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed immobilized to restricted movement to be more clear potentially. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Tongue becomes immobilised” 

message: This article does not contribute to the objectives of Wikipedia and its images are jarring.  It should be removed. Fania Antilles (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , if you truly do not think that fellatio is a notable topic and that it does not deserve coverage in an online encyclopedia with 6,791,245 articles, then you are clearly wrong. The topic has been the main topic of books and countless articles in the academic media and the popular press. "Jarring" images to you are informative images to most readers. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED and never will be. If sexual topics disturb you, then refrain from reading Wikipedia articles about sexual topics, and seek professional help. Cullen328 (talk) 10:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Cullen328 These images are extraneous, unnecessary and gratuitous.  If you feel strongly that an article about a sex act is needed on Wikipedia, describing the act in words is an equally suitable alternative to the graphic images in this article.  The human capacity for imagination means the article maintains its relevance, accuracy, and informative nature if the images are omitted.   Every potential sex act living beings perform on each other does not need to be illustrated in images and described in words in the name of non-censorship. Fania Antilles (talk) 12:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I think reader who searches "fellatio" is already clear as to what to expect in this article. Thse images are part of the article and do not overlap into other articles not related to the topic. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 19:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @RoyalHeritageAlb I didn't search fellatio it was in an article about Monica Lewinsky Fania Antilles (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess it would be better to change the word from "fellatio" to "oral sex" on that article so at least the viewers can assume what this article is about. This is purely to evade underage readers from unintentionally viewing these images. Otherwise i agree that wikipedia should never be censored and those pictures should stay. As it happens with every information good or bad. RoyalHeritageAlb (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: oral sex is a broad term for every mouth-related sexual activity, while fellatio is pretty specific. as far as I know, there's already a wiki article for oral sex in general. I think there's nothing wrong with calling things by it's name – fellatio is a widespread practice, and the point of tge Wikipedia is to give people the simple access to the knowledge, even when it's the knowledge about something stigmatized (like sex, mental disorders etc.) 109.252.101.39 (talk) 23:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has no intellectual merit 

message: The redirect Sucking peepee has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Sucking peepee]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]