Talk:Fellatio

Better intro definition

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)

@Autisticeditor 20:. 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)

No, that's fine. Sorry I messed things up. Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

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)

“Tongue becomes immobilised”

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)

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)

I changed immobilized to restricted movement to be more clear potentially. Pabsoluterince (talk) 13:52, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Article has no intellectual merit

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)

Fania Antilles, 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)

@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)

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)

@RoyalHeritageAlb I didn't search fellatio it was in an article about Monica Lewinsky Fania Antilles (talk) 19:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

RoyalHeritageArb said "on that article", not here. 180.242.129.52 (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

I so agree with you.

This article can stay... but only as some short term, one sentence , what is it.

For WHAT sake you need illustration picture. For me, it seems, like deviants finds again way to children and minors, how to show them basicaly P stuff, although animated. You can make your P-wiki for this, but on normal wikipedia, the one decent sentence without pictures (so they are not shown in every link to this article) would be enough.

Imagine, minor searching for "hawk tuah" , the meme for .. lets say less intelectual people, that swarmed internet... I did the same , as many teenagers or minors, because they are curious, what the heck is it, as they hear it everywhere. And there is link with explicit picture, "for education" purpouse right? No... for what sake, you need to display explicit pictures of fellatio to minors, that goes to Hawk tuah or any article, even Madonna (if some celebrity is for example SA - ed, there can be sentence, like she was forced to do BJ in car, or similiar, and guess, what link appears there? Yes, your explicit porn picture or cartoon, just in every article, that mentioned fellatio.

I'M ASKING. And that's serious question. HOW ARE MINORS PROTECTED to your porn stuff? I don't want so wikipedia is free for all, if it shows your porn stuff for educational purpouse... FOR THAT, please make your own "confirm I am over 18" wikipedia, or educational page. Or go to P...hub to explain it there.

But please, stop showing your porn-cartoons to thousands of articles that are free to surf even to minors. Yes, they know what IS oral sex, they know it in 15, they know it in 13. But you don't have to go into details and show them "illustrational pictures ". This is some serious deviant pedo stuff or tactic. Showing now everywhere.

It should be strictly separated all sexual stuff, to some "adult" version of wikipedia, where one need to confirm age. Lofr2 (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

"Sucking peepee" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 April 24 § Sucking peepee until a consensus is reached. Chaotıċ Enby (talk · contribs) 23:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)