Talk:Cunnilingus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Comment

Is there really a need for a citation on whether some women find anal or vaginal penetration stimulating while receiving cunnilingus? Seriously?

This article has 11 interwiki and link to wikisource, do not kill it, please!--87.240.15.6 17:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging

I would like to express my frustration with the existence of this article. I suggest either a merging, or a deletion of all cunnilingus information from that article. --Vincentvivi 11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact this article was separated out from the original fairly recently. It is usual practice to have a short summary in the more inclusive article, and a tag like this: "

Main article: cunnilingus

" pointing to the longer separate article. Paul B 12:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Right, but before my edit the extract from Oral sex contained more information that the cunnilingus article itself, and now I feel it is too informative for a "short summary". It is excessively long. --Vincentvivi 19:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cunnilingus_2.JPG

In follow-up of an Admin noticeboard incident discussion, is there any use for Image:Cunnilingus_2.JPG^{(not worksafe)} in this article? If so, please contact an administrator either directly or by posting a request on the Administrator's noticeboard. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

No, frankly it is not. It may seem useful (a real human example), but it is pretty much considered too obscene for use. I've seen this issue come up a number of times and be argued over numerous times, with many ludicrous arguments (like the Anal Sex article). Sorry for the relatively anecdotal evidence and all that, but nobody seems to have replied anyway. Cheerio. Lass Lethe 03:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate an image that (and pardon me for being so explicit, but I'm shooting for level ground) that actually shows the woman's genitals. The image for blowjob actually shows the act, whereas the cunnilingus image merely shows him looking at it. Come on.

The act by definition covers the genitals. You can't have it both ways. If you're keen to see them, you have to have a picture of someone about to do it, which BTW, is what the main image depicts. There are also several others, just in case you haven't noticed. Paul B (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cunnilingus or cunnilinction?

As I am preparing for the exam in psychiatry, I have found a small notice in the textbook (written by several respected authors) COBISS 16843009:

Cunnilingus - (incorrect) synonym for cunnilinction.

The original terms used in the book are in Latin: cunnilingus and cunnilinctio. I hope I have translated correctly. The term cunnilinctus is mentioned as a synonym too.

Google, however, finds more hits for cunnilingus. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be a synonym, along with other variations such as cunnilinctus. I've created a redirect. Cunnilingus is by far the most common version of the word. Paul B 16:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Linctum or linctus means "to lick" in Latin, while lingus means nothing. Cunnlingus therefore seems to be an euphemism. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

A cunnilingus is a person preforming the act, not the act itself. Documentation can be found in the article on Latin profanity. However, I have no idea how the switch was accomplished in English, ie the name of the person performing the act becoming the name of the act itself. That said, however, we should keep "Cunnilingus" as the name of the article, as this is how the act is most commonly referenced in English. Melpomenon (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion here convinces me that the origin of the word has been corrupted from correct latin. This makes it similar to many other words in the english language which have become so established as to be the more correct contemporary usage. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Dreadstar and links to literature on wiki subjects

I have written a book on this dear topic - and have naturally put in a link to my site where the subject is in focus.

In numerous other wiki articles there are similar links to books that deal with a given subject [1], [2], [3] - some authors even have a wiki page on them selves to which is referred. The Wiki-user Dreadstar thinks this is not relevant, and has encouraged me to place this here so that other Wikipedians may share their opinion. I would much apreciate other Wikipedians to let their opinion be shown here.Ian.Bendtsen 20:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ian, I appreciate your bringing this to the talk page instead of continuing to edit war.

The proposed link is strictly for promoting this author and his book, it is clearly a violation of WP:SPAM External link spamming and should not be added to the article. The link is to a personal website, which violates #11 under Wikipedia:External links - Links normally to be avoided. Dreadstar † 21:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I read the page you refer to, and have put in the link so that it follows the Wiki ISBN search guidelines. Of course I find this harsh - and heavily favouring books that are already in the market. And as shown here above links to literature is not at all unfound on Wiki.

Ian.Bendtsen 21:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevance and notability are core issues here, perhaps you should consider proposing that an article be written on yourself, thus establishing notability such as that of Ian Kerner whose work is mentioned in the article. I suggest reviewing the guideline WP:NOTABILITY. Dreadstar † 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote a reference, no matter how worthy. It is the purpose of reference material to establish the factual basis of the descriptive Wikipedia article about the subject. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW

"Cunnilingus" is Latin slang as vulgar in that language as it sounds in ours -- lit: "cunt tongue". Ifnkovhg (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2008 (UTC

Yes. The article should translate "cunnus" as "cunt" rather than "vulva", surely? The article Latin profanity says that "cunnus" was an obscene word in Latin. 86.155.66.63 (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, so please propose a change in the article.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Pornography

This is illegal and aginst wiki rules (drawings make no difference)--Meiamme (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No it's not. See WP:CENSOR. 03:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is illegal. At WP:CENSOR Wikipedia states:

"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, and no equally suitable alternatives are available".

However I don't think that the omission of the photograph that shows the cunnilingus action would make the article less informative, since there is already an illustration that shows exactly the same thing. Additionally, this photograph violates the U.S. laws for it is forbidden to publish such obscene photographs at pages which are not labeled for parental control.81.215.77.8 (talk) 23:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. It is not necessary under US law, as I understand it, to issue a specific disclaimer on each and every page which might fall foul of the relevant law. WP:AFP, which is easily available from the Main Page, is in my view adequate notice for that purpose since it constitutes valid constructive notice. Whether the images are encyclopedic, however, is a different debate. Rodhullandemu 23:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of 'US law,' it is obscene and does not make the article more informative, relevant, accurate and equally suitable alternatives are already available in the article. It should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.220.13.162 (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

None of them show a close-up; how can they be comparable? Powers ^T 13:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, no such law could ever exist under our constitution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

James Bond

I'm almost certain that the film is Tomorrow Never Dies, not Die Another Day as cited... thats wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.132.8 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I note this comment at the bottom of the page. It looks like vandalism, but I can not find where it comes from in the edit mode: This article regarding Robotnik's penis is shite, you can help by removing it completely. I guess this should be removed by somebody who knows more about MediaWiki than I do.

Someone vandalised a template, and it's now been fixed. It's possible you are looking at an old version of the page, but it will be OK before long. --Rodhullandemu 17:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Song of Songs

The lovers in the Song of Songs are not described as "bride and groom" as the current phrasing in the article would have it. Perhaps pious theologians would like to portray them that way but this article should not take sides.--NYCJosh (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. The couple in the Song of Songs are clearly referred to as bride and groom. Paul B (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In the JPS translation in which I looked, the word "groom" does not seem to appear. The word "bride" appears in chapters 4 and 5 in the context of "my sister, my bride" and appears to be a synonym for "beloved" or "lover." Bear in mind the "Song" is full of allegory and poetic license to describe things. I admit I am no expert on the Song of Songs or the Bible in general, but the reading of the lovers as a "bride and groom" appears to be a contentious reading based on a pious sensibility. --NYCJosh (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's anything to with piousness, but rather scholarly views about the function of the song as an epithalamion. See The Song of songs: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry [4]. Paul B (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

First, the classification of the "Song" as a an epithalamion as urged by the source you cite is one position but you would have to establish that this position is a consensus position or at least a dominant position among Bible scholars. Second, the epithalamion is a genre of (originally Greek) poetry that is recited FOR a bride and groom but that does not prove that the "Song" is ABOUT a bride and groom. A national anthem is sung/played at sporting events but that does not mean that its contents have any connection with sports or that it was written about sporting events.--NYCJosh (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Now your just being ridiculously picky. There is no meaningful distinction between being for or about a bride and groom. The general consensus is that the poem represents couples through its characters. Paul B (talk) 11:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to provide an authoritative source for that proposition or should the statement in the article just be based on your word for the existence of such a consensus?--NYCJosh (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Since I have received no reply, do we have consensus for changing the wording about the "Song of Songs" being about a bride and groom? I am thinking changing the sentence to something along the lines that it's about lovers.--NYCJosh (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Eating out

In the popular culture section for the slang terms, the most popular slang term of all (Eating out) isn't mentioned. I find that odd. Caden S (talk) 15:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this not the link you were looking for? Darrenhusted (talk) 12:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was an odd omission too. It much more common, and pleasant, than "drinking phrom the phurry cup", which makes me pheel nauseous. I have never heard oph the latter, but have heard the slang term, eating out, consistently, phor decades. I'll try to make that inclusion. Thank you phor suggesting it! --FeralOink (talk) 15:55, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

S of S again

There is some debate about this section. The article says that a word was traditionally translated as 'navel', but that's often now seen as a euphemism for 'vulva'. I think that's pretty much the consensus among scholars, and there are several such references in literature on the SoS. As for the stronger claim that if the liquid in the vulva is like wine, then this must mean that the lover is tasting it, that's less easy to find direct support for. Of course it may just mean she's fertile - and that she regularly produces mentrual fluid, which would look like red wine, but most sources seem to interpret the "wine" as a reference to sexual fluids ("your pussy is juicy" might be the modern equivalent). The nearest I can find to a direct reference to cunnilingus is Tremper Longman's book on the SoS which states, somewhat evasively: "the description of the woman's aperture as containing wine implies the man's desire to drink from the sensual bowl. Thus, this may be a subtle and tasteful allusion to the intimacies of sex". (Tremper Longman, Song of Songs, B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2001, p. 195). Paul B (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the research, Paul. Apparently the word in question is not found in any Hebrew text other than the SoS, but may be related to an Arabic word meaning "secret place" that has strong sexual overtones. I can put a reference in if you think it's worth it. I think the Longman quote is the source we're looking for: a scholarly source that supports the cunnilingus interpretation. Mind you, the language of the article would have to toned down - there's no basis for saying the SoS "appears to contain a direct reference to cunnilingus". I will change it to "may contain a veiled reference to cunnilingus" and may make some other small changes.

Do you suppose someone could argue that Longman is implying cunnilingus anyway. I mean, if "secret place" can mean "vulva", and "wine" can refer to the wetness of an aroused woman's vagina, then "taste" could refer to some other form of sexual enjoyment than cunnilingus. But I'm willing to let it stand for now.

There are a few other things that could be improved - for instance, the "alternative translation" sounds like Original Research - I'll try to do something later, unless someone else wants to try. 66.183.187.193 (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

"Kentucky Fried Chicken" as a bona fide euphemism

My legitimate addition was deleted, probably on the ground that it referred to an activity that is illegal in most (though not all) jurisdictions. I find this odd. There must be thousands — perhaps millions — of entries in Wikipedia that refer, in one way or another, to an illegal activity.

"Kentucky Fried Chicken" is a slang term referring to the performance of cunnilingus on a pre-teen girl. This is a fact, whether you like it or not. (And it happens very often, whether you like it or not!) Surely Wiki exists to disseminate factual matter, even if distasteful. Wouldn't you rather, for example, have parents be aware of the meaning of this phrase if used by a child, rather than sail along in ignorant bliss because to inform is to offend the sensibilities of some members of Wiki?

I also submit that, when a registered member sets out to make a correction or addition, it is insulting, arrogant and against the spirit of the project for some anonymous other to come along and delate the addition without first raising a query with the original submitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Postlewaight (talk • contribs) 05:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We haven't got time to inform people of deletions. You claim to be helping parents in some way is unconvincing. They are unlikely to look up KFC here! Anyway, find sources. BTW, The Urban Dictionary says nothing about pre-Teens. It defines KFC as cunnilingus followed by sex [5], on the grounds that you eat it and then put your "bone in the greasy box" (ho ho ho). There seem to be some variant usages, but least they make some sense. It's difficult to see why the term would be used with your meaning. Paul B (talk) 12:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

... and I am not an "anonymous editor". I deleted this with the edit summary "unsourced"; Per this guideline, it is the responsibility of the editor to provide reliable sources for additions. We insist on this because of verifiability, which is a policy. As to whether we should include this definition, formal requirement being met, well Wikipedia is not censored; however, the edit failed at the first hurdle, so that didn't arise. --Rodhullandemu 12:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Etymology

I disagree with the wording at the beginning "cunnus, whence the English slang cunt", as it is presented as factual that the English term derives from the Latin. The Online Etymology Dictionary disagrees, and so I've edited the page to reflect that. -- 70.190.98.31 (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure "analogous" is correct either, based on your research. Any connection is conjectural at best, although even if they don't strictly have similar origins, it seems likely their development was influenced by each other. =) Powers ^T 13:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

While you're at it why not throw in 'cont' too? The French word? It keeps the 't' so is likely to have had an influence too... But whatever, the info doesn't go in without a good reference and there isn't one at the moment. Furthermore, the difference in register between cunnus in latin and the c-word (considered the most offensive word in English) mean that they are not analogous at all. They may be cognatees though ;) Malick78 (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

Surely 'Fanny's beauties displayed' is someone looking at a pussy, not applying the tongue?? It's out of place :) Malick78 (talk) 13:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cultural significance

The cultural significance is all religious stuff. The fellatio page gives more on the cultural aspects of oral sex. How come this one doesn't? 75.4.245.33 (talk) 06:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Because no one's taken the time to find reliable sources on the topic and incorporate them into the prose. It sounds like you're interested; why don't you take a stab at it? Powers ^T 14:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I've had to fully protect this page for a week or at least until this is sorted out; clearly, it's an explicit image, but then Wikipedia isn't censored. I tried to reduce conflict by reducing the size of the image, but it seems that isn't enough for some editors. I have no doubt protected the article in the wrong version, but that is how I most recently encountered this article. However, edit-warring IS unacceptable, and a consensus as broad as possible needs to be reached, and this isn't going to be achieved without discussion. Hence the protection. I have my own opinion, and I think I know what Jimmy's is likely to be, but ultimately, the community should decide. Thus, I pass this topic over to the community to decide. Rodhullandemu 01:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind having an explicit photo to lead the article, but I'm not a big fan of the current image. For one thing, it claims to have been taken by the male subject, which is possible but potentially questionable. Second, the language on the image description page is coarse and unencyclopedic; this implies to me that the image was taken and posted for personal aggrandizement on the part of the subjects, rather than for encyclopedic interest. I'm not sure rewarding that with pride of place on the cunnilingus article is a good idea. Powers ^T 14:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The image is just an image. Most people are not going to read the description on the image page (which can be edited if need be). I'm fine with an explicit image, but I rather liked the old one. The problem is that even idf there is consensus here for it, it will not stop endless attempts at deletion as soon as the page is unprotected. For sanity's sake I'd prefer an art image. Paul B (talk) 14:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

My objection was not based on the possibility of a reader seeing the image description, since as you note that can be changed. Powers ^T 15:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well then, I don't follow you. You seem to be mainly concerned with the motives of the image-maker(s) rather than the image itself. Paul B (talk) 15:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's part of it. I also don't like the way it looks, although I can't put my finger on why. Regardless, though, that's just aesthetics. Powers ^T 18:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Paul B, the original image was better than the current lead image, I think the new one is a very poor depiction of the subject matter. I don't have any objections to using hardcore photos, but as I said in the other discussion, when we do use hardcore photos to visually describe a graphic sex act, they need to be of the utmost encyclopedic value per WP:NOTCENSORED. and where its omission would "cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate." There are other images in the article that are equally suitable, if not superior alternatives, to the image that's now in the lead. It's a really bad image, and to be honest, when I first saw the image in question it appeared to show symptoms of Bacterial vaginosis. This cannot be the best image we can come up with, there are plenty of alternatives to choose from. So I have to oppose the inclusion of the current lead image. Dreadstar ☥ 20:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, no other image shows the act in as much detail, sadly. Powers ^T 20:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Image update

There is a new image available that I think better illustrates the act. I am thinking of replacing the second image (on the left) with said. Thoughts? Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead an updated with the pic that more clearly illustrates the act. Surv1v4l1st ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Autocunnilingus

I can find no mention of autocunnilingus as either a bona fide sex act nor as a mythical one. It does not seem to merit an independent article. But maybe we should include it within this article. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I believe in the past the autocunnilingus page was removed because there was no proof of its existence, which seems silly because we have pages for all sorts of other urban legend type things, from big foot to gerbilling. Ignoring something that exists in culture, to the point that it even has a given name for the act, seems a silly thing for an encyclopedia to do. More appropriately, a page should be made (or a section added to this page) noting its conjectured existence and any related information as to the possibility or impossibility of the act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.223.105 (talk) 07:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

We can't do anything without reliable sources. Powers ^T 13:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

True, that, but we needn't have reliable sources that prove it is actually possible, we merely need sources that note it as an item of interest or fascination, real or not. That having been said, I want to believe, but the fact that the pornographic industry has not provided us with tangible proof (and the opportunity to pay to see it) gives me grave doubts as to the existence of autocunnilingus. The world would seem to be a poorer place as a result.172.190.46.217 (talk) 22:01, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

NO. I would rather there be no autocunnilingus in this article, not unless some additional citations are located. This is why I am so emphatic: There is now an an autocunnilingus article, created approximately August 2013. It states that there are no documented, known instances of autocunnilingus, ever.

The only context for autocunnilingus provided in the article is about a severely psychologically disturbed young woman who was anorexic. She didn't accomplish any acts of autocunnilingus, but rather, told her psychiatric case workers that the reason she wanted to do so was because she saw it as a metaphor for eating. Specifically, and this is so horrific that it makes me wish it could be unseen, she wants to eat herself, all of herself, complete with a gruesome description of crushing the bones of her pelvis (and ilium, and spinal column) with her own jaws. That way she could vanquish whatever she perceived as shameful about herself, by killing herself through self-consumption. I cannot believe I wrote this horror, but it is all there, on the relevant WP page. I am not challenging the existence of that page, but I do not want it linked to and reproduced at length in this article, as a prior editor had done. It is a single, anecdotal incident, not a documented behavior typical or even occasionally associated with eating disorders.

Wikipedia should not describe cunnilingus as a possible, though exotic, method of physically harming women, fatally! It isn't sourced. Other than the psychiatric case, the autocunn article said that Camile Paglia or Naomi Wolf interpreted some work by Goethe or William Blake as alluding to autocunn. That is the extent, and neither are experts in Goethe nor William Blake. Again, it belongs in the autocunn article, not here. --FeralOink (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, FeralOink. Considering that this is the Cunnilingus article, autocunnilingus should be mentioned in it with WP:Due weight, or at least as a See also link. Our personal opinion on the act should not factor into whether or not it is included in this article. It was already mentioned with WP:Due weight, a single sentence about it that makes clear that it is very unlikely for a (human) female to be able to perform the act. I obviously agree with it not being mentioned in the lead, as seen here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

No. The article says THERE ARE NO KNOWN DOCUMENTED INSTANCES O AUTOCUNNILINGUS! We do not need to have an imaginary act in an encycloedia article --FeralOink (talk) 12:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

No, what you are proposing/suggesting on this matter is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Flyer22 (talk) 12:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

sopranos

throughout the series, characters (especially Junior) make references to being a "cat's hair" away from some important outcome.

i always thought they were saying 'cunt hair'

I never watched it, but 'cunt hair' is a recognised expression. See red cunt hair. I guess it was bowdlersied for TV. Paul B (talk) 07:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Moved here till referenced:

• Cunnilingus plays a major role in HBO's popular series, The Sopranos. It is a prominent plot point in the episode, "Boca". Tony Soprano refers that the episode in "I Dream of Jeannie Cusamano", when he explains to Carmela Soprano the reasons why his mother Livia, and Uncle Junior, ordered his assassination: Tony's seeing a psychiatrist and his teasing Uncle Junior about performing cunnilingus. And throughout the series, characters (especially Junior) make references to being a "cat's hair" away from some important outcome. (The Sopranos takes pains - through the liberal use of clothing choices, taloned fingernails, and gestures - to make parallels between cats and women, and in two cases, between cats and men: rapper Massive Genius and the corpse of Emil Kolar, on which, Christopher Moltisanti observes, the fingernails seem to have grown long "like a woman's".)

Images

the "techniques" photograph is frankly filth, can i recommend a more suitable screenshot/image (real world) of ray j tongue bangning kim kardashians snatch?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.9.253 (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Would it be okay to remove the image under "technique". It doesn't really provide anything additional to the other images, and I generally take the view that it is better not to include images that are user-created by tracing over some porn. Comments? --FormerIP (talk) 00:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase My Chemical Romance, that's not okay, it's not okay, well it's not okay it's not o-f*cking-kay. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 02:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I said "comments?" when I meant to say "valid objections?". --FormerIP (talk) 02:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

because it was a picture of cunnilingus, where else would a picture like that go? On the Anthony Gormley page? ridiculous Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 12:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

There are already four images on the page which illustrate the subject. These are obviously of greater historical interest and are more reliable as noteworthy depictions. What is it that you think a user-drawn image brings to the party? --FormerIP (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it can be called a party at all if there is only four pictures of cunnilingus, that's more of a gathering. the more the merrier Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 19:15, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I notice that there are only three pictures currently on the article for party and none of them are of cunnilingus, so I think there's something, somewhere, somehow wrong with what you're saying. --FormerIP (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Something's rotten with wikipedia's party page. I'll go fix that right now. thankyou for pointing out that error. Ðem Lusty, Lusty Roars!!!! † ^{Speak your beautiful, atrocious mind!!!!} 16:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Air Embolism

The capillaries in the uterus can absorb any air they're allowed to come into contact with? Really?Is that just how that particular specific kind of capillaries work or something? Does that mean you could breathe through your uterus if you hooked it up properly? Can they extract a variety of gases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

"vagina lips"

Please change the following sentence:

"The receiving female's partner may use fingers to open the vagina lips to enable the tongue to better stimulate the clitoris, or the female may separate the vagina lips for her partner. Separating the legs wide would also usually open the vagina sufficiently for the partner to orally reach the clitoris."

to the following, (for greater anatomical accuracy):

"The receiving female's partner may use fingers to open the labia majora to enable the tongue to better stimulate the clitoris, or the female may separate the labia for her partner. Separating the legs wide would also usually open the vulva sufficiently for the partner to orally reach the clitoris."

Thank you. 58.107.231.222 (talk) 06:49, 19 August 2013‎ (UTC)

Hello, IP. An editor took care of your request; see here. It's a good thing that he specified a layman term for it (genital lips) in parentheses; this is because many or most people are not familiar with the term labia majora and some other anatomical terms (which is also most likely why vaginal lips was used). Without that clarification, they would have to click on the Wikilink to understand what is meant. Others will of course click on the Wikilink to better understand that part of female anatomy, regardless. Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, vaginal lips more accurately refers to the labia minora. Flyer22 (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Positions

Please change the following: in the section "positions" it would be adequate to replace "the female" with "the receiver" or something. The female is bad style, but it also is inaccurate in case the cunnilingus is performed between two females.

Any position which offers a sex partner oral access to a female's crotch area is suitable for cunnilingus, including:

Doggy style – the receiver crouches on all fours, while her partner performs oral sex from behind or from below. Face-sitting – the receiver sits on or above the partner's face. In this position she has more control over her body movements and can guide her partner or auto-stimulate against the partner's face. Missionary – the receiving female lies on her back, with her legs spread, pulled up to her chest, on her partner or raised. The female can lay on any surface, such as a table, floor, etc. Mutual stimulation – such as in the 69 position. Sitting – the receiver sits on a chair or uses some other support. Spreadeagle – similar to the missionary position except that the arms and legs are spread wide, and that physical restraints may be used. Standing – the receiving female stands while her partner is either sitting or on the knees. However, in this position the clitoris is more difficult to reach and stimulate orally. She may lean against a wall or hold onto some furniture for support. Wassermelone89 (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Wassermelone89. Are you the IP address in the section immediately above this one? I ask because this talk is usually very inactive, but we have gotten two edit requests for this article today. I don't understand your objection to the use of "females" in the aforementioned section. It doesn't get in the way of the fact that cunnilingus may or may not be performed between two females; in this case, it simply indicates that the receiver is female while the other person is male or female. I do know that there are some grammar arguments about using "female" vs. "woman." Thing is..."female" is more so biological...while "woman" (as in what is a woman) is more so sociological; I recently discussed something like that at WP:MED (but with regard to cisgender and transgender).

Also, remember to sign your username at the end of the comments you make on Wikipedia talk pages. All you have to do to sign your username is simply type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. I signed your username for you above. Flyer22 (talk) 15:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, lost track of this completely. I see your point concerning female being more biological and less binary. True, "the female" does not indicate there cannot be two females - it merely IMPLIES that there is only one female. If there is two women one would hardly speak of "the female" if talking about one of them, right?

It's quite a while ago and I cannot reconstruct what went on in my head, but...I think my aversion against "the female" might have been that it's almost 'too' biological - especially since the section starts with "doggy style" that is also the image it conjures - and who wants to get images of dogs when talking cunnilingus? ;-) ... It just doesn't sound good. I'll keep thinking about a nicer solution for this.

Do not think the other proposal was mine btw. Wassermelone89 (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

With regard to the implication that it is "one female," similar can be stated with regard to use of the word woman (as in "one woman"). But again, I do not see the problem that you do on this matter. What I mostly meant about using the word woman being less than ideal because it is more so sociological is that, for example, a teenage girl may engage in cunnilingus; however, it depends on whether or not that teenage girl is considered a woman. In the United States, even if the 16-year-old girl is fully developed (finished with puberty, as the vast majority of females that age are), she is still generally considered a girl instead of a woman. That is another way that female is more inclusive than woman in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Where/when did I suggest "the woman"? Reading it again, I still think my solution sounds better than the current version

Wassermelone89 (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

BOLD overhaul for promotional links and content updates

I made two large series of changes to this article. --FeralOink (talk)

Autocunnilingus

My rationale begins, earlier in this talk page, with my concern due to inclusion of autocunnilingus and subsequent decision to remove, in lieu of adequate sources. --FeralOink (talk)

Assorted

The following are a series of mostly unrelated items. All are inaccurate, misleading, ethnically or religiously derogatory content that I removed or re-sourced. --FeralOink (talk)

Outdated examples of non-European culture and religious belief

1. I carved away a terrible "cultural" section that claimed that indigenous peoples of the Southern Hemisphere, Australian aborigines in particular, were well-known for enthusiastically training their young children, not teens, but 5 to 10 year old children, to perform cunnilingus upon friends and relatives. This was sourced from racist piece of imperialist crap, "The fascinating lives of South Sea Islanders" published in 1935, with no URL. --FeralOink (talk)
2. There was unsourced content that U.S. Christians and non-Christian peoples of sub-Saharan Africa were the two groups, exclusively of any in the world, whose cultures abjured oral sex and considered cunnilingus shameful, dirty, emasculating or humiliating (not to mention "unnatural"). I cleaned that up. --FeralOink (talk)
3. Possibly overly delete of section on the supposed exaltation by Taoist Buddhists of cunnilingus. It was bizarre because the source was written in Spanish and translated to English. The work was subsequently eviscerated by a German sinologist, for being unrepresentative of any Taoist belief, but rather, entirely new Age or the book's author's wishful thinking. This content took up far too much space in the article, under two different sections, for a single poorly sourced paragraph about Taoist belief (it had one source, publication date 1954 or maybe 1967; author Octavio Paz). Would be better to have more pictures instead ;o) --FeralOink (talk)

Implausible or frightening descriptions of physical harm from cunnilingus

1. Unlikely and sensational: That cunnilingus could cause ulceration to the frenum of the tongue that was so severe as to result in ulceration. The content was well-sourced, and stated that full recovery was attained by refraining for 7 to 10 days. That's reasonable, and it remains. The problematic part, which was unsourced, claimed that physicians recommended that men have their teeth filed down (and other "mandibular surgical procedures") in order to be able to perform cunnilingus! That is ridiculous on so many levels. But if a young person, or even a middle-aged person with a new wife or girlfriend read this article, it would be frightening to think that having one's teeth filed were a real possibility, just to sexually satisfy women! --FeralOink (talk)

Re. "Mechanical trauma to the tongue" section

Teeth filed down is a bit excessive wording, it would be just a few seconds of smoothing the inside edge of the lower front teeth. Could do this without an anesthetic. No mention of mandibular surgical procedures in the content? I don't see how something like that would reduce trauma to the tongue in this scenario ... The source in question I would consider reliable ... it's probably the most widely used textbook in that field. It has the following to say specifically about cunnilingus:

• "Fibrous hyperplasia from repeated cunnilingus. linear fibrous hyperplasia of the lingual frenum caused by repeated irritation from lower incisors." p 269 (A caption to a picture)

• "Erythematous or petechial lesions of the palate or ulceration of the sublingual area should be noted because these findings can result from the physical trauma associated with performing fellatio or cunnilingus." p 780

• "Oral lesions also can occur from performing cunnilingus, resulting in horizontal ulcerations of the lingual frenum. As the tongue is thrust forward, the taut frenum rubs or rakes across the incisal edges of the mandibular central incisors. The ulceration created coincides with sharp too the dges when the tongue is in its most forward position .The lesion s resolve in 7 to 10 days but may recur with repeated performances. Linear fibrous hyperplasia has been discovered in the same pattern in individuals who chronically perform the act." pp 268-269

However, it also states (talking about "orogenital sexual practices", which I assume fellatio + cunnilingus):

• "Considering the prevalence of these practices, the frequency of associated traumatic oral lesions is surprisingly low." p 268

So perhaps the statement could be qualified by saying that trauma in the mouth is rare, or removed altogether. I have no preference. On a side note, the content is borderline copyvio now that I read the original source again, so it might be worth rewording it slightly if it is kept... It's also a level 2 heading, I think it should be a subheading of the section "health risks" if it is kept. Lesion (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Got confused about who is saying what, apologies. Lesion (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, I see you are saying that you removed the content which mentioned mandibular surgery, which is why that can't be seen now in the article... The source does not support mandibular procedures to prevent this trauma, the smoothing of the lower teeth would not be considered a mandibular surgical procedure. Lesion (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: I queried Lesion to respond to this matter since Lesion added the Mechanical trauma to the tongue section to the article. Above, Lesion got confused about who made the initial comment in this subsection, since FeralOink didn't sign his or her username until the end of this section (meaning not this subsection, but at the end of this section in general). Lesion added FeralOink's signature in the subsections; the original signature, dated 16:25, 5 October 2013, is in the Promotion links and female genital mutilation section; my comments on the physical trauma and the other arguments FeralOink made are in that section. And, Lesion, the Mechanical trauma to the tongue section is a part of the Health risks section. You took care of that soon after adding that section. And as shown below, I reverted FeralOink's removal of material from that section. So what is there now is what you added, except for the "underside of the tongue" addition that FeralOink added and I added back. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, ty. I see now, I was looking at one of the old diffs you linked where this section was a level 2 heading. This is fixed in the current article so no issue there. To summarize I have no preference if the content about ulceration below the tongue stays or goes (it is supported by a source), but if it stays maybe it should be qualified by saying that it is rare, and that might go some what to address this particular concern raised by FeralOink, but I have no comment on any of the other issues raised right now. Lesion (talk) 20:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Promotion links and female genital mutilation

1. Next, I removed an embarrassment (of not-riches) worth of Cengage Learning Corporation links from the article. The first Cengage link, which was the citation to support the claim that a women's clitoris is the most sensitive part of her body, linked straight to a Cengage publication detailing the intricacies and multitudinous variations of female genital mutilation and circumcision. Who did that, I wonder? There's not much point to an article about cunnilingus if the second in-line citation, right in the lead/ introduction is exclusively about cutting, hacking, pulling or otherwise brutally removing a girl's, or woman's clitoris and lopping off adjacent external genitalia too. --FeralOink (talk)
2. I removed the gross metaphor of "drinking from the furry cup" and another that was a spam publicity link that was part of a UK filmmakers 2003 campaign to spread her message through the USA, or so the old, broken link said. I would prefer using the slang synonyms given in Wikitionary, as they have been discussed at length. An earlier talk page comment, dated 2008 maybe, gave a popular colloquial term for cunnilingus that I recall hearing in continuous use from 1985 through the present. --FeralOink (talk)

I don't think it morally justifiable to complain about a supposed "GOP war on women", but have multiple references to an act of female sexual gratification that is redolent of my least favorite Clive Barker horror story, specifically involving death of the woman. I think the GOP would be horrified. --FeralOink (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, FeralOink. This edit you made appears to me to be mostly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT edit (which I believe is also shown by the edit summary: "removed excessive links to Cengage Learning products; gratuitous and frightening links to female mutilation and practices resulting in serious physical harm; removed outdated content that was grossly insulting to indigenous Australians; cleaned URL messes"); the same goes for the one you made on September 6th. Regarding that former edit, concerning the sourced information about Australian aboriginals teaching children to perform oral sex: A lot of people who know that I work on Wikipedia child sexual abuse and pedophilia topics, among other Wikipedia topics, know that I have very strong feelings against child sexual abuse and would very much like to see pedophilia (meaning the mindset, considering that the act involving real-life children is termed child sexual abuse) eliminated, but the point is that Australian aboriginals may not see teaching children cunnilingus to be child sexual abuse; their view on that would be similar to the Sambia people of Papua New Guinea, who have males, beginning at age seven, regularly engage in oral penetration by adolescents in a six-stage initiation process because the Sambia people believe that regular ingestion of an older boy's semen is necessary for a prepubescent youth to achieve sexual maturity and masculinity. By the time he enters mid-puberty, they have him participate in passing his semen on to younger males as well. I don't know if the Australian aboriginals still have children engage in cunnilingus, or if they ever did. But if they did, there is nothing wrong with documenting it in this encyclopedia article about cunnilingus. Furthermore, that exact text was not in this article; it was in the reference's text, which you'd already removed.

Regarding the latter edit, today you decided to remove "There is some anthropological evidence for cunnilingus as a widespread activity amongst Australian aboriginals." I don't much care about that removal since the reference is so old and there needs to be one or more updated references to validate that the act is still widespread there; and, as can be seen here and here, I accommodated you on that removal and other edits you made. But there is nothing embarrassing or promotional about the Cengage Learning references and I certainly did not include them to promote that company or, in one instance, female genital mutilation. I am female and abhor female genital mutilation, but if I were to edit the Female genital mutilation article (which is being well taken care of by others, including WP:MED editors other than myself), I would not let my bias get in the way of editing that article. You mentioned the Cengage Learning reference used to support mention that the clitoris is the human female's most sexually sensitive erogenous zone. Well, let's look at that source; on pages 110-111 (in addition to chapter 10 that page 111 cites), it details exactly why the clitoris is the human female's most sexually sensitive erogenous zone. It is only on page 112, a page that I did not cite in the pages field (the reference template), that the source goes on to address female genital mutilation in significant detail. Removing a valid source simply or mostly because you don't like that it discusses female genital mutilation (with or without picture-assistance) is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. You removed additional references from that line, even though that line can be contentious, and left it with one source using a quote from the source that states: "The clitoris is the most sensitive structure in the female body." One might argue that the term erogenous zone, or something similar to it, needs to be in that quote, despite the fact that that if the clitoris is an erogenous zone (which it undoubtedly is) and is the most sensitive structure of the female body, it is well-reasoned to state the clitoris is the human female's most sexually sensitive erogenous zone. The reason that line requires the additional citations is because people, especially teenage boys and men, are prone to believe and argue that the vagina is the most sensitive female erogenous zone, a belief that could not be further from the truth (or specifically that the G-Spot, which is still an unproven area of the female vagina, is the human female's most sexually sensitive erogenous zone). You also removed from the lead mention of oral sex often being regarded as taboo, legal text regarding the act, and heterosexuals commonly not regarding cunnilingus as virginity loss...and rather left the text centered on lesbians as though the lesbian view is primarily or all that matters on that. All three changes made the lead less WP:LEAD-compliant. Additionally, you need to be careful about removing sources, such as the Dianne Hales Cengage Learning source; this is because the source may be covering material that the other source or sources are not and is therefore supporting the material while those sources don't support it.

Regarding autocunnilingus, slang...and trauma: I addressed autocunnilingus above, in the #Autocunnilingus section. I don't care much about the slang. If we are to keep the slang, we should limit it to the most common terms (WP:NOT A DICTIONARY). As the hidden note in that section shows, some were already cut before your removals. I don't know if the source, in the Mechanical trauma to the tongue section, used for "corresponding to the contact of the ventral tongue with the incisal edge of the mandibular incisor teeth when the tongue is in its most forward position" and "This type of lesion resolves in 7–10 days, but may recur with repeated performances. Chronic ulceration at this site can cause linear fibrous hyperplasia. The incisal edges of the mandibular teeth can be smoothed to minimize the chance of trauma." is supported by the source; the source has no URL for me to do a quick check. But if it is in the source, that text should stay. The text did not state "physicians recommend that men have their teeth filed down (and other 'mandibular surgical procedures') in order to be able to perform cunnilingus"; it states: "The incisal edges of the mandibular teeth can be smoothed to minimize the chance of trauma."

Regarding cultural views on giving or receiving cunnilingus: You removed "range from disgust to high regard," and replaced it with "vary." I disagree with that; a summary of the specifics should be mentioned. You removed "at least frowned upon, in many cultures and parts of the world," and replaced it with "discouraged, in some parts of the world"; while I agree with your replacement of "frowned upon" and have added that replacement back, I don't believe that "many" should be replaced with "some." Various reliable sources can support "many" in this case, and the source states "there have been many taboos associated with oral sex." You removed "In Chinese Taoism, cunnilingus is revered as a spiritually-fulfilling practice that is believed to enhance longevity." I don't see why that should be removed, other than the fact that there is already a Taoism section where it is or can be mentioned. You removed "This has been more or less the case in Christian and Sub-Saharan African cultures and other modern religions. Some people view all or some sexual acts in terms of submission and control." I agree with that removal because it is unsourced; therefore, I have re-removed it. You removed "While commonly believed that lesbian sexual practices involve cunnilingus for all women who have sex with women, some lesbian or bisexual women dislike cunnilingus due to not liking the experience or due to psychological or social factors, such as finding it unclean.", and replaced it with "Lesbian sexual practices do not necessarily involve cunnilingus. Some lesbian or bisexual women dislike the experience or consider it to be unclean." The problem with that edit is that it fails to mention that it is a common misconception that all women who have sex with women engage in cunnilingus; given that it is such a widespread belief, it is worth documenting as a misconception. And I can't agree with the removal of "psychological or social factors."

You replaced "Other lesbian or bisexual women believe that it is a necessity or largely defines lesbian sexual activity, attributing lesbian or bisexual women who dislike oral sex as a problem. Often, lesbian couples are likely to define a woman's dislike of oral sex as a problem more than heterosexual couples are, and commonly seek therapy to overcome inhibitions regarding oral sex." with "Lesbian couples are more likely to consider a woman's dislike of cunnilingus as a problem than heterosexual couples are, and seek therapy to overcome perceived inhibitions." I mostly agree with that change, especially since the previous wording (which was mine) made it seem as though the women are considered a problem in general by their lovers. I don't agree with the removal of "commonly" because the removal of it makes it seem that therapy will be sought in all such cases. The source makes clear that such therapy is common among lesbian couples, but rare among heterosexual couples. So I used "and it is common for them to" in place of "commonly." I didn't retain "perceived" because the source is talking about sexual inhibitions, not perceived sexual inhibitions, in this case. And I added "regarding it" in the spot where you removed "regarding oral sex"; I did so because it should be clear that we mean cunnilingus in that case as well. For the "The concept of 'technical virginity' or sexual abstinence through oral sex is particularly popular among teenagers, who may also use oral sex to create and maintain intimacy while avoiding pregnancy." line, you removed "sexual abstinence through oral sex," and the words particularly and also. Sexual abstinence is not the same as technical virginity or as having never engaged in sexual activity at all; considering that and it being the terminology that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) uses for the adolescent/teenager text, I disagree with its removal. "Particularly" helps to indicate that it's not just teenagers that the concepts are popular among, but since "popular" can indicate that the concepts are significantly more practiced by teenagers (and it does seem that they are significantly more practiced by them, which seems to be the case most likely because significantly more adults than teenagers/non-adults have lost "technical virginity"...and of course sexual activity is far more common among teenagers than younger children/younger minors), I somewhat don't mind if "particularly" is removed. I don't mind much that "also" was removed and so I re-removed it. The entire Taoism section, which addressed a philosophical and religious view regarding cunnilingus, should not have been removed; as shown in my revert of your edits, I added that back. Flyer22 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Oink Excessive use of Cengage Learning products as references, including promotional codes, is NOT proper in Wikipedia! Are you saying that some one should personally benefit, every time a link is clicked on Wikipedia? That is the case here. Excessive use of for-profit Cengage Learning Corporation publications as references, and a general over-referencing in the article, needs to be addressed. This is especially true, since there are a multitude of other sources, from many viewpoints, that are reliable e.g. NLM and PubMed journal articles, anthropology books, studies written about lesbian identity and experience by lesbian authors and or feminist studies folks, books written for heterosexual married people, websites for teenagers to learn about reproduction and sexual activity, guides for lay nurses, the CDC and World Health Organization publications.

Oink * I am sorry, the promo code was for New England Journal of Medicine.

Oink Regardless of your personal feelings about sexual abuse of minor age children, an outdated racist tract dated 1935, "Practices of South Sea Islanders" that states that Australian aboriginal peoples train their young children to perform cunnilingus is unacceptable in more ways than I can enumerate. I am certain that I can locate an outdated racist, obscene tract that claims that some group of people, whether "natives" or otherwise, are so immoral and unenlightened that they instruct their children to behave in ways that are not considered acceptable by societal standards of the time, nor now. Those are NOT credible sources. They do not belong in an encyclopediac work. Think a moment please. Australian aboriginal peoples are just like you and me; they live in Australia though. Do you have evidence of the following claim that you made here?

"the point is that Australian aboriginals may not see teaching children cunnilingus to be child sexual abuse"

Oink Unless you do have evidence that this is true, why would you make such a conjecture? The point is that unless there is evidence that Australian aboriginals see teaching children cunnilingus now, or in 1935, by a credible source, it does not belong here. I should not need to explain this to you. You claim that:

"their view on that would be similar to the Sambia people of Papua New Guinea, who have males, beginning at age seven, regularly engage in oral penetration by adolescents in a six-stage initiation process because the Sambia people believe that regular ingestion of an older boy's semen is necessary for a prepubescent youth to achieve sexual maturity and masculinity.

Oink Using the behavior of the Sambia people as a basis for supporting conjecture about the behavior of Australian aboriginal people, who, by the way, are probably integrated to some degree in urban and suburban Australian society, is WP:SYNTH. I don't know what Sambia people's boy folk do. It doesn't pertain to oral sex with women, so it isn't relevant.

Oink What does this mean to you?

"The incisal edges of the mandibular teeth can be smoothed to minimize the chance of trauma.

Oink It means that teeth are filed in order to avoid injuring oneself with mouth ulcers due to performing cunnilingus. If you cannot locate the text, why is it here in Wikipedia? It is not straightforward language, not by any means. In one section, you argue that the article should be comprehensible to boys, and here, state, that "incisal edges of the mandibular teeth can be smoothed" is not equivalent to filing, but is some subtle something else. Are young boys supposed to know this? Recall, you just said they didn't know the difference between vaginas and other female anatomy as the most efficacious means of female sexual gratification.

Oink I am Female too! I was horriFied that an article that is supposed to be about Female pleasure is grossly distorted. Do not tell me that I am biased, because I do not Find Female Genital Mutilation to be appropriate content in an article about cunnilingus. One CANNOT perForm cunnilingus upon an eviscerated Female! Even iF I LOVED Female Genital Mutilation, thought it was great For every woman, I would not link to it in an article about Cunnilingus. The organs are gone! It does NOT belong as a reFerence in this article! Put it where it is appropriate, which is what is being done. You said this, that I cited:

"...one source using a quote from the source that states: "The clitoris is the most sensitive structure in the female body." One might argue that the term erogenous zone, or something similar to it, needs to be in that quote, despite the fact that that if the clitoris is an erogenous zone (which it undoubtedly is) and is the most sensitive structure of the female body, it is well-reasoned to state the clitoris is the human female's most sexually sensitive erogenous zone.

Oink I would be delighted to have that included. I did not realize it was removed.

OINK Cunnilingus is NOT a Taoist religious belief system. Why is so much arcane, obscure content included in this article. It is disinformation.

Oink I am puzzled to no end regarding your absolutist statements oF opinion, e.g.

"teenage boys and men, are prone to believe and argue that the vagina is the most sensitive female erogenous zone, a belief that could not be further from the truth (or specifically that the G-Spot, which is still an unproven area of the female vagina, is the human female's most sexually sensitive erogenous zone)"

Oink I do not presume anything about what teenage boys and men are prone to believe. I am rather surprised that you are even bringing up the G-spot matter. In fact, I PERSONALLY don't think that I have a G-spot, and all of that is silly, but would not want to go near such a debate. Nor do I want to get involved in debating the related issue of Sigimund freud and the debate about so-called immature clitoral climax versus vaginal. Please, let's not even broach any of that here.

Oink YOU have an opinion about what teenage boys and men are "prone to believe". I don't know what they are prone to believe, and I would rather emphasize basic truths instead of non-existent, undocumented concepts such as Autocunnilingus. The same is true for needing mandibular filing in order to perform oral sex. It is obscure. I am certain that I could find innumerable arcane accounts of physical harm that resulted from cunnilingus, but that would be misleading, and dis-informational, because it would give false weight to the unlikely. That is a form of sensationalism and sometimes antagonistic attitudes that are masked, in passive-aggressive style, as "wanting to include for the sake of completeness", whereas the result, the overall impression upon the reader, results in negative perception.

Oink Words such as "disgust" and "high regard" are extremist and inconsistent with current usage when describing sexual acts in the English language. Cunnilingus is "nauseating"? According to whom? It is not necessarily more, OR less nauseating than the analogue, fellatio, and swallowing steaming ejaculate. Some prefer not to do so, others find it pleasant. To use terms more extreme than that is making an implied value judgement. It is personal preference, regarding taste and squeamishness about these matters. It is beyond the scope of an article in Wikipedia. Also, why did you remove analingus from the laundry list of non cunnilingus acts of oral sex, but only included fellatio?

Oink There is nothing wrong with submission and control. Do you wish to introduce that in the context of this cunnilingus article? If so, do so comprehensively or not at all, as it is confusing otherwise, in my opinion. Some people find submission and dominance to be enjoyable. It may have negative connotations as well. That is mentioned later in the article. "frowned upon" is an antiquated expression. It is a metaphor. Who does the frowning? Why do we care? Again, I know what it means, but it is not usage typical of Wikipedia diction. Why not be clear, instead of using oblique phrases?

Oink You reverted my edits that removed duplicate links, including the gross sexual humor book link. Once is sufficient. It isn't necessary to mention it twice, on consecutive lines. Also, the link to the Discovery page leads to a hilarious 404 not found page, somewhat inappropriately! I removed the URL. You reverted it! --FeralOink (talk) 12:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

FeralOink, in my opinion, your arguments are significantly WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based instead of being significantly based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The only things I can agree with you on with regard to editing Wikipedia is if something is obscure, it likely should not be mentioned in the Wikipedia article (per WP:Undue weight), and the matter of WP:Citation overkill. However, seeing as autocunnilingus has a WP:Reliably sourced Wikipedia article and is about cunnilingus, it is not WP:Undue weight to mention it in this article...as long as it is given due weight, and an alternative is to add it to the See also section; I already explained this above on this talk page. And WP:Citation overkill is an essay, not a policy or a guideline, and it addresses when additional references are appropriate; I also addressed the additional references aspect above. As for my statements about men and teenage boys (not simply young boys in general), that is based on my knowledge of that subject; an abundance of WP:Reliable sources make it perfectly clear that many men and teenage boys do not know the importance of the clitoris and that it is (usually) the human female's most sensitive erogenous zone/the sex organ that is significantly more likely to bring about female orgasm. For example, I have dealt with a male Wikipedia editor who challenged the "most women need direct clitoral stimulation to orgasm" matter, suggesting that we (despite what anatomy shows and agreeing that women orgasm easier by direct clitoral stimulation) cannot know if it's the case for most women (such as the fact that we cannot poll every woman), and even suggesting that women may simply need to learn to be able to orgasm vaginally. The factor about men and teenage boys (not all of them, of course), even some women, not knowing the importance of the clitoris with regard to female sexuality, is addressed and sufficiently sourced in the Clitoris article (an article that I have significantly worked on and brought to WP:GA status); it is a factor that can also be found by simply Googling the matter and reading discussion forums, or reading sources like this one by Shere Hite (though Hite cites most women knowing that clitoral stimulation is the key to their sexual pleasure). Many people (especially men and teenage boys) do not even know where the clitoris is because its anatomy is either not addressed in school classes or by parents. The vagina is always given attention in sex education and anatomy classes (except for societies that suppress female sexuality and/or focus on male sexuality instead). See this, this and this layman source, for example, showing people not knowing where the clitoris is (for all those sources, it is more likely a man querying the matter instead of a woman). Or this source with regard to a woman who is unsure why she cannot orgasm vaginally, but suspects the key to achieving an orgasm is the clitoris. I brought up the G-Spot because not only is it mentioned in this article (and other Wikipedia sexuality articles), despite its existence being highly debated, but because scientists these days generally believe that, if it exists at all, it is an extension of the clitoris, as shown by this, this, this and this source (for examples).

Regarding Australian aboriginal people, the teeth, your being female...and female genital mutilation: I did not make any actual claim about Australian aboriginal people, except for using "may" to mean "might." Among other things, I stated "the point is that Australian aboriginals may not see teaching children cunnilingus to be child sexual abuse" and "I don't know if the Australian aboriginals still have children engage in cunnilingus, or if they ever did. But if they did, there is nothing wrong with documenting it in this encyclopedia article about cunnilingus. Furthermore, that exact text was not in this article; it was in the reference's text, which you'd already removed." I did not "[use] the behavior of the Sambia people as a basis for supporting conjecture about the behavior of Australian aboriginal people" in this article; therefore, it is not WP:SYNTH. I also did not use it as a basis at all. And anyway, that text and its source are no longer in the Cunnilingus article (which I already told you above). The teeth matter? Lesion and I already addressed that matter above. As for "If you cannot locate the text, why is it here in Wikipedia?", the "cannot locate the text" part can be applied to you as well; you removed the material and stated above, "The problematic part, which was unsourced"...without knowing if it's sourced or not. But regarding your question about accessibility, I suggest you read WP:SOURCEACCESS. Female? I suspected that you are female. And bias? I did not tell you that you are biased because "[you] do not Find Female Genital Mutilation to be appropriate content in an article about cunnilingus." I essentially called you biased and not working on Wikipedia reasoning partly because you are demanding that a source that happens to discuss female genital mutilation, even though it is not being used in this article for anything about female genital mutilation, should not be used as a source in this article (no matter that it is a great source for information about the clitoris); that rationale of yours is absurd. There are likely other sources in this article that discuss female genital mutilation. In fact, many sources that discuss the clitoris, especially in significant detail, discuss female genital mutilation because it is so widely and mostly practiced on the clitoris (as opposed to the vagina). But just because the aforementioned Cengage Learning source briefly addresses it on one page and extensively discusses it on the following page (a page that is not cited in this article), you assert that it cannot be used in this article; that argument, again, is absurd. With regard to Australian aboriginals and sourcing, you stated, "I should not need to explain this you." Rest assured, there is nothing about Wikipedia policies and guidelines or the topic of human sexuality that you can explain to me that I do not already know.

As for a few other matters: Regarding the use of "range from disgust to high regard," my point, as noted, was your use of the vague word vary. There is nothing at all wrong with being specific. Seeing as that text is in the lower body of the article instead of in the lead, it is the place to go into specifics. And as noted, I agreed with your replacement of "frowned upon" with "discouraged," and I restored that. As for "the giving partner may find unpleasant or nauseating," I do not care whether or not "nauseating" is mentioned in that regard, but I removed it just minutes ago because it is not needed; the word unpleasant covers that, unless some people find nauseating matters pleasant. However, stronger odors (whether a person likes them or not) emanate from the vulva than they do from the male genitals; most often (and this is going by WP:Reliable sources) male genitals have no noticeable odor. As for anilingus, that was removed because I reverted all of your edits with one "undo" option. But in what way should anilingus be mentioned in the lead? It is not the male equivalent of cunnilingus, and is not a significant aspect lower in the article. In fact, it's not mentioned lower in the article at all. Because of these reasons, it fails WP:LEAD. I'm not sure what you mean about "gross sexual humor book," but a sexual humor book (if indeed that) is not an appropriate reference for this article unless used specifically for humor text with regard to cunnilingus. I'm also not sure what you mean by "the link to the Discovery page," but, per WP:Dead link, you should not remove a link solely because it is a dead link; there are usually means of preserving the source, such as Internet Archive.

Because I feel that your arguments are significantly WP:IDONTLIKEIT-based, and I can't, or rather won't, debate with someone who argues that way on Wikipedia (not for long anyway), I encourage others watching this article to weigh in on your arguments and you to seek outside opinions from other Wikipedia editors on these matters. I also changed your formatting of having cut into my comment because, like I stated in my edit summary with this reply, it messes up thread order and is confusing to debate that way (especially for others). Flyer22 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Note: Replaced "disgust" with "aversion" because it's a softer way of stating the same thing (a soft synonym of "disgust"). Flyer22 (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)