Revision as of 22:47, 1 July 2009

Sexology and sexuality B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Dispute/3rd opinion tag

Picture removal reverted by 3rd party. WP is not censored (and my removal of the pic wasn't censoring), but are we going to include pornographic anime representations in all encyclopedia articles about sex? Good grief. washing hands of this, tagging with 3rd party opinion request. -- Caveman80 (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

My main reason for objecting to the picture is that it lacks inherent merit or interest. No one needs to look at that dumb cartoon to find out what a blow job looks like. A sexually explicit image might be OK if it was historically interesting. Skoojal (talk) 02:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As for 'wikipedia is not censored', you could use that as a justification for adding any kind of rubbish. The question remains: what is the point of that particular picture? Skoojal (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have replaced the image with one by a recognized artist. In my opinion it is not as good as the medical style illustration, but at least it does illustrate the act clearly, which the photo of the pot does not. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

works for me -- caveman80 14:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

goodjob on finding it, works better than the manga pic. if skooj doesn't have any objections i say we call it resolved? -- caveman80 14:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I replaced the image with the one that was previously used (Fellatio.png). That image was created for this article based on previous consensus. Specifically, it depicts fellatio as performed by an androgynous person, thus avoiding gender bias. The image that Simonxag replaced it with depicts a woman fellating a man, which puts that gender bias back into the article. Also, the image is not pornographic (its primary purpose is to inform, not to arouse). There has been plenty of previous discussion on this. Skoojal, calling the image "dumb" and the anti-censorship argument "rubbish" doesn't really serve to support your point. What, specifically, is wrong with the image? Why do you consider the argument in question invalid? You say that "a sexually explicit image might be OK if it was historically interesting", but why don't you think a sexual explicit image is ok otherwise? Oh, and the point of the image isn't to have "artistic merit", it's to inform, so why is it necessary that the image is by a "recognized artist" (though I admit to being a little bit confused as to what that means)? Caveman80, if your removal of the image was because you believe that the image was pornographic, how do you figure that your edit wasn't censorship? As I previously stated, that image was placed in the article based on consensus. It's ok to question that consensus, but new consensus needs to be reached in order to invalidate it. Ketsuekigata (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If there was a consensus in favour of that picture, then the consensus needs to be overturned, because the picture is pointless. For one thing, we don't need pictures of fellatio to know what fellatio looks like. It is rather easy to imagine, and pictures of it are widely available. For another, depicting fellatio as performed by an 'androgynous person' does not remove gender bias. Rather, it enshrines gender bias in favour of androgynous persons. If heterosexual fellatio and homosexual fellatio are equally important, and for some reason need to be shown, then include pictures of both. And please make them pictures of genuine artistic value, because that cartoon has none. Skoojal (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify, I am not saying that sexually explicit images should never be used. They have their place. I am only saying that sexually explicit images are not tolerable unless they have genuine worth from an artistic or historical point of view. That cartoon has neither. Skoojal (talk) 06:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm mainly concerned that the article gets clearly illustrated (so long as the image doesn't actually have the look and feel of internet porn). I'd be happy with either picture. I'm a little dubious about androgyny being so neutral, it seems to be a particular sort of gender-identity like all the others, but I don't think it's bad. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Greetings fellow editors.,,,I'm not a prude. (If anything the 3rd century painting showed more skin than the cartoon). My taking down of the cartoon the other day was not censorship but editorialship. It looks more like it belongs on a manga site. Anyhow, I do not care what happens. There's more important things to do on Misplaced Pages, and I didn't sign up for this. No offense to present company, but the fact that the tribal council had to come to consensus over whether a girl or boy would be the one giving head, and then comission an artwork of it, speaks volumes. If some bi or gay dude (and I am bi myself, not that it matters) actually gives a crap that some girl is the one giving head, instead of a guy. He needs to go read WP:DGAF & also WP:SANDWICH for dessert.  :-) Anyhows..

 :-)

Misplaced Pages is a top-ten website. It appears at the top of Google searches and tons and tons of people use it for reference. We all are adding to human knowledge and contributing to the fact-checking and NPOV-checking from all over the world in a way never seen before in 200,000 years of human existence. There's more important things to contribute than these stupid edit wars on pages like this. :-) I could go make sure the LGBT articles are fact-checked and NPOV. I could go put together an article on how right now while we're sitting here, our earth is hurtling extremeeely fast thru space around the sun, which in turn is hurtling extreeeeeeeeeeemly more fast around the center of the milky way (and the milky way itself is moving too...) all of us moving at breakneck speeds through space unaware and spending our time debating penis pictures. oh well. have fun, i surrender & bequeath my shares in the Fellatio Educational Industrial Corporation to whoever wants them. laters. :-)

-- caveman80 01:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, edit wars bad!!! I'll support any picture that clearly illustrates the article. But fellatio is as much a part of life as Meiosis (which I remember being taught as sex in school) and until we have a link to Cure for AIDS maybe we should think sex acts as worthy of serious factual articles. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

There already is a picture that clearly illustrates the article. It's the moche one. It does have the merit of not being some worthless, run of the mill piece of pornography that one could find on the internet in two seconds. That's reason enough to use it. Skoojal (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

For purposes of comparison, look at the article on anal sex. It uses historical images, not contemporary pornography, and definitely not manga. That's the example this article ought to follow. Skoojal (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I note anal sex has numerous pictures, most clearly illustrating the act. Sadly, none of these are with a condom and anal sex is a very high risk activity. If you check out Dragon Ball (manga) you will not find anything looking like a medical illustration. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The picture in the article isn't manga, and it isn't pornography. It was created specifically for this article. You may wish to read the archives of the discussion leading to its creation. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I won't debate manga with you, but yes, the picture is pornography. It may have been specifically created for this article, but that can't over-ride all other factors. Perhaps there was a consensus in favour of that picture in the past; I'm not at all sure that there is one now. Skoojal (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you figure? It is intended to inform, not to arouse (which should be obvious since it was created for this article), which makes it non-pornographic. What are the other factors you're talking about? Instead of giving supporting evidence for your claim that the image is pornographic or proposing an alternative, you have simply restated your point and replaced the image again. I would also like to point out that Misplaced Pages has no explicit policy against pornography, as long as the image in question pertains to the subject of the article and is legal under Florida law. The previous image was created with an intentionally androgynous person performing fellatio, because the gender of the performer is inconsequential. This was a compromise that was reached through consensus, which you would know if you read the archived discussions. The current image depicts a woman performing fellatio on a man. You have not addressed the issue of gender bias that the image you replaced it with introduced into the article. If you would like to find or create an image that would not introduce gender bias but that you feel would be more encyclopedic, I, for one, would be open to that. I am also concerned that the current image (Édouard-Henri Avril (20).jpg) is somewhat unclear, and the focus is not entirely on fellatio. Also, your statement that "sexually explicit images are not tolerable unless they have genuine worth from an artistic or historical point of view" contradicts the policy that Misplaced Pages is not censored. This does not mean that Misplaced Pages is not censored as long as all images used have artistic or historical merit. This does not mean that Misplaced Pages is not censored as long as the images used are non-pornographic. This does not mean that Misplaced Pages is not censored if the images used resemble medical diagrams. It means that Misplaced Pages is not censored, period. Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The idea of using pornography to 'inform' people about oral sex is preposterous. If people are too young to know what oral sex is, they should not be looking at that picture. If they are old enough to know what oral sex is, they do not need to look at the picture. The purpose for which the picture was created does not alter its being pornography. Regarding the issue of gender bias, I actually have already addressed it. A picture of an androgynous person creates a gender bias in favour of androgynous persons. Skoojal (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Copying section from oral sex pregnancy

I'm not sure what the best way to make this link, but I feel it is important that both this page and the oral sex page have a statement (or perhaps a link to a statement) regarding oral sex and pregnancy. This is a hugely confusing topic for teenagers and I feel this information should be accessible wherever possible. I do not think this is large enough a topic to warrant it's own article however. Is it acceptable to simply have the content duplicated on both pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaldor (talk • contribs) 06:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"A common misconception.." Really? This seems a little patronising to be honest, as anyone who has a vague idea about how anything works know that this isn't possible. I don't particularly object to the section in itself, but the phrasing could be better. It certainly makes me worry about the state of sexual education outside of the UK... -Toon 14:02, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean the section to be patronizing at all, but you would be very surprised at the number of teens that are confused about this. For adolescents who are just learning about these topics, it is not a given that they would understand this. Particularly with the confusion of defining what sex is: strictly vaginal, including (or not) anal, including (or not) oral; it is a huge source of confusion. Many teens associate sex with pregnancy, but then are confused as to whether that extends to oral sex as well. I think clarifying this is important. Additionally, the phrase "a common misconception" acts as a normalizing statement. It helps to neutralize the concern and show that the individual asking the question isn't alone in their confusion. This helps prevent the person from thinking their question is foolish to ask. Sadly, the state of sexual education is not the same all over the world. I'm glad the UK has a very thorough sexual education program, but unfortunately, that is not the case in other parts of the world. I believe the phrase should stay. Chaldor (talk) 18:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Although I understand your line of reasoning, the purpose of this encyclopaedia isn't to reassure teens. I do think it is important to highlight the whole pregnancy issue, but from an encyclopaedic perspective, I would prefer to remove the "Although a common misconception" part, leaving simply: "Fellatio alone cannot result in pregnancy, as there is no way for sperm from the penis to enter the uterus and fallopian tubes to fertilize an egg." This would leave the information exactly the same, but bring the article into a more factual resource, rather than an agony aunt column in a teen magazine. Would this be acceptable to you? -Toon 19:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. I would not want the wiki to cater particularly to any single group of people. I have, however, seen articles in the wiki where phrases like "despite popular opinion" or "common misconception" are used: 1 2 3 4 5 6. If this is not proper wiki style, then I apologize for the references. I was looking for some insight into this in the manual of style and in the NPOV guidelines, but couldn't find much that really states one way or another. Please refer me to it if there is something I missed. I did however, read that NPOV states that minority opinions held by others (assuming a significant number of people hold that opinion) should be reasonably addressed by the wiki. I think by stating that pregnancy from oral sex is "a common misconception" we are recognizing the fact that this is an opinon held by a small, but significant minority. This will therefore validate that such an opinion exists, but then go on to show why such a belief is incorrect. Removing this phrase somewhat implies that we are not recognizing the existence of the opinion. If the goal of the wiki is to be as comprehensive about knowledge and issues surrounding that knowledge, then should we not at least acknowledge that there are a group of people that have incorrect beliefs surrounding the topics of pregnancy and oral sex?Chaldor (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, well argued (although comparing other articles on this project is misleading, given the fact that artices are written in different ways, by different people (and I could point out trillions of articles where this hasn't happened, but would clearly be stupid)). I see your point, and although to me it feels inappropriate to have that phrase there, my feeling is not as strong as to push for its removal, therefore I'll just leave it there and trust I'm being fussy! I hope you are enjoying the wikipedia experience (and I note with interest the articles you are editing!) -Toon 23:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I had not seen this discussion, so I removed the part about it being a common misconception. First of all the statement is unsourced, secondly it's relevance depends on the extend of the misconception (this would also be fixed by a citation), thirdly my gut feeling tells me that it is not a common misconception. Anyhow, the most important thing is that it is obvious from the article that you cannot get pregnant from a blowjob. --Morten (talk) 07:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I restored the text with a source. There are dozens of sources to show that this is a common misconception, as ridiculous as it sounds. Take a look at google]. Chaldor (talk) 11:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Your change in placing the the about.com teen's advice at the end of the section in it's own paragraph seems somewhat awkward. You stated that in doing so, you are reflecting the relevance of the topic. However, I feel in doing so, you have actually given more weight to the idea than due. Additionally, the about.com page is only one of many sites (as I pointed out in post just above this) that address this specific issue. Given the number of sites that are clearly addressing the issue, and about.com's direct statement stating that the questions listed in this page are commonly asked, it is completely reasonable to conclude that this is "a common misconception." If more sites were referenced, would it then be acceptable to phrase the sentence as I had in the front? Please keep in mind that for an educated person, the pregnancy section seems out of place (why would there be a pregnancy section in the fellatio page?). Having the first line state (with references) that it is a common misconception helps dispel that question, as well as address the a minority opinion (a minority opinion held among adolescents/teens and likely some uneducated adults). Chaldor (talk) 21:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will not contest the placement of the sentence further. On the wording "common misconception", let's say that 10% of the population write questions to sex advice services and let's say that about.com thinks common is 5% of the questions are about fellatio and pregnancy. Then 0.05*0.1 = 0.005 = 0.5% of the population has asked this question. Based on this we can say very little about the general population, because many probably don't write questions to these services. The point is that we don't know based on this source (and similar sources), so we should stick to stating what we can assume to be true in the source, namely that they receive these kinds of questions on a regular basis. Note also that sex advice services has an interest in overstating the volume of "stupid" questions to create an atmosphere in which it is OK to ask "stupid" questions because. --Morten (talk) 07:50, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for asking, but I don't quite understand. Are you saying you are ok with restoring the phrase as I had it? Chaldor (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem ;-) I recognize you argument for the placement of the sentence, but I think the wording should be different in order not to over-interpret the source. What we know from the source (and other similar sources) is that sex councilors receive the question with some frequency. The frequency we do not know, not from this source at least. It would be better with a source that said i.e. "10% of European 15-year-olds believe that you can get pregnant from a blow job". I have looked for this kind of thing but did not find anything (though I am certain the statistics are out there). --Morten (talk) 13:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with you. It is for the lack of more accurate information that I chose the phrase as I did. If we did have more correct information, this would be very valuable and far more useful. I have done some extensive searching, and perhaps the most relevant things I found were the SKAT (Sex Knowledge and Attitude Test) and SKAT-A (same, for adolescents). Sadly the paper on the SKAT was published in 79, and I don't have access to it (PMID: 513145) so I can't evaluate what's in it (though it seems the skat was aimed at medical students, so it's probably too advanced to have this question in it). The SKAT-A, aimed at adolescents, seems far more relevant, but is copyright some company . My guess is that this question is addressed in the SKAT-A. I just wish I could find out whether it was and what hte results were. Chaldor (talk) 07:55, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I do have access to the journal, but only from 1999 :-( --Morten (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ditto me. I have access, but it only goes back to 97. There are print editions are at my library though. I'm going to see if there's anything of value in there. Chaldor (talk) 20:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

More history would be nice

This article would greatly benefit from a lot more historical info about fellatio (not just from the classical era). Some information on its popularity, when it became acceptable in pop culture, and in common discourse in various countries, when the practice became widespread and when (and where) it was (or is) still taboo. 64.30.3.122 (talk) 00:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "originated" in African-American sexual slang and gained popularity ....etc. Doesn't this statement defeat the etymology section following it? A rewording may be in order. 64.228.92.41 (talk) 20:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

fellatio can reduce risk of breast cancer?

I read an article saying that women who fellate has lower risk of breast cancer than those who not. But I don't know if the article is reliable. Look at this Dreamback1116 (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Look at the bottom of the article under 'Comments.' 66.191.19.217 (talk) 21:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

STD Risk

I take great issue with the following

"While the risk of transmitting HIV through fellatio is unknown, it is suspected to be rare.

Any kind of direct contact with body fluids of a person infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, poses a risk of infection. The risk from most of these types of infection, however, is generally considered far lower than that associated with vaginal or anal sex."

It lacks any citation, and is medically questionable. The mouth has a fairly consistent set of cuts from abrasive foods and toothbrushing which would provide and opportunity for the virus to enter the bloodstream. Also, mother-child transmission through breast milk is a noted risk, which would imply oral sex presents more than the 'very low' risk implied (even considering the more regular exposure to milk there is risk from fellatio - the viral load in breast milk is lower than semen)86.157.169.91 (talk) 23:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

picture

great job on the interracial couple picture. 67.167.180.64 (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's chillingly interesting that according to Misplaced Pages, fellatio seems to be practised only by heterosexual women.What about gay or bisexual men? May this tacit ignorance have something to do with a victorian attitude wikipedia authors have towards all forms of homosexual interference? What about the so-called neutrality that wikipedia reclaims for itself? This article is all but neutral with respect to the issue--85.182.49.230 (talk) 20:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

If you find it "chillingly interesting", why not correct the information? You can't complain about something being wrong if you aren't willing to correct it! – Toon 20:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Because I can't show up myself in an environment of professional editors. I am simply a critical observer.--85.182.49.230 (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Professional editors? I'm assuming your saying that tongue-in-cheek... – Toon 20:27, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Professional ?!?!? My pay check is late. Hey anon ip complainer how about reading WP:BOLD and make the article exactly as you think it should be.--Adam in MO Talk 20:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth do we have a cartoon instead of a real picture? Is there any real reason? It seems like a copout and a frank attempt at trying to sensor the act. --Koolahawk (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I find the picture to be distasteful because it confirms negative sterotypes of permiscuity in african american females. From the image, it can be gathered that she is married (see the ring), but she is performing fellatio on an unmarried white man (lack of ring). Safe to conclude he is not her husband. Why not have a same race picture??All other images on that page are of people of the same race. If it is not meant to be damaging, how come the image could not have been of a white woman on a black man?? Many white people would be offended, as I and other african americans find this image offending. I don't know how to edit it, I tried, but it didn't work (sorry), but someone please use the image from the oral sex page that shows a woman giving head to a man while in a 69. Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 18:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was the real picture removed?

This picture is unnecessary

That picture is extremely inappropriate and way too graphic. The other two pictures in the article are more then enough. Dumaka (talk) 13:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Graphic" is precisely what a picture should be. Articles should be well and clearly illustrated just as they should have clear and informative written content. --Simon Speed (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

So what's next? Child pornography links and pictures on the Child pornography article? There are two other pictures in the article that clearly illustrate fellatio. I don't understand why that pornographic distasteful picture is even on Misplaced Pages. Seriously, the pubic hair and engagement ring are just too much. It's ok, lets just hope that parents will stop their children from using Misplaced Pages from now on. Dumaka (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages is not censored for minors. It does obey US law. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not a photograph. (And, what objection do you have to the engagement ring?) --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 23:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I find the inclusion of the engagement ring curious because, the picture being a drawing rather than a photograph, it was clearly included intentionally. But why? What was the intention? Is it in some way an attempt to legitimise the act that's depicted? I'm curious from a philosophical standpoint. I'm puzzled by Dumaka's objection to the pubic hair though. Some amount of it is normally present on an adult. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

a similar picture or two have found their ways on to other sexuality articles- where do these (digital by the looks of them) come from ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.215.26 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Just have to comment. I am a foreigner to the US society, and I am rather shocked by the discussion above regarding "oral sex pregnancy". Mere existance of such misconceptions boldly illustrate what censorship of potentially disturbing information leads to. 76.93.226.104 (talk) 06:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Your looking up a Fellatio article don't expect no pics. Any picture or drawing you put up is still as offensive and pornographic as the next one. If you find that the pictures don't fit the article because they offend is no reason to change or delete them. Pictures speal louder then words. Try to remember Misplaced Pages is not censored: ( meaning as long as the picture illustrates the article well and follow the rules it is perfectly okay). Plus it adds more to the article. Which I can say less about you.--WiseCrow (talk) 01:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I find the picture to be distasteful because it confirms negative sterotypes of permiscuity in african american females. From the image, it can be gathered that she is married (see the ring), but she is performing fellatio on an unmarried white man (lack of ring). Safe to conclude he is not her husband. Why not have a same race picture??All other images on that page are of people of the same race. If it is not meant to be damaging, how come the image could not have been of a white woman on a black man?? Many white people would be offended, as I and other african americans find this image offending. I don't know how to edit it, I tried, but it didn't work (sorry), but someone please use the image from the oral sex page that shows a woman giving head to a man while in a 69. Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Picture?

I dont see why this article doesnt get a photograph of the act being performed. Misplaced Pages is not censored. 64.151.6.98 (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think photos of such nature tend to be copyrighted. 203.184.0.132 (talk) 02:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

One picture removed

Two pictures of the same thing add no info. I am leaving a famous museum painting. A poc by a nonnotable author deleted. Misplaced Pages is not art gallery. There is a link to commons where many more images of fellation. If you object, please state solid resons why two pictures are necessary. - 7-bubёn >t 09:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Personally, I'd go with no picture (I have to think twice about reverting vandalism when my kids are around) but, if I have to, I'd choose the Avril one. --Regent's Park (Rose Garden) 10:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

A better quality picture was produced to be the main illustration of the article. Sexuality articles benefit from being well illustrated as much as any others. It is not an issue of whether a article "can do without" something but whether it is more informative with. I feel the new illustration does at least help redress the racial balance of the encyclopedia. So I'm replacing it (but leaving one image for now). --Simon Speed (talk) 11:47, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Racial balance is bogus argument. Just as well I may accuse you of sexism and racism: subservient black-skinned woman - "brothers" may kill you (ha-ha only serious). - 7-bubёn >t 17:15, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Both images now restored. The main image is a neutral illustration, the second gives historical context. Both are relevant, both are there. Exxolon (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Is New Guinea Sexual Culture Relevant?

"For example, among the Sambia of New Guinea the initiation of boys into manhood begins at the age of around 8 and lasts many years. These years are dedicated to ridding the boys of polluting maternal influences and turning them into pure and fierce men. To this end, they are subjected to repeated painful episodes of bleeding, induced by inserting sharp grasses into their nostrils. This is held to release accumulated maternal blood. This is followed by repeated episodes of fellation by adult male initiators to ‘feed’ the boy masculinity, a masculinity which is associated with physical strength and military prowess. In these cases, anthropologists have usefully brought psychoanalytic forms of understanding to bear in understanding the dynamics of gender creation, though always in the context of local understandings of the person." - from http://www.answers.com/topic/initiation-rites

Gilbert Herdt researched the sexual culture of Sambia (which is according to Misplaced Pages an invented name for some tribe of New Guinea) and this strikes me as an interesting example of a society that openly practices fellatio as a rite, but I don't know whether it is relevant in a general article about the act.

71.191.251.27 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages is supposed to provide a world view of a subject, so New Guinea culture would be very relevant. The problem is that original research is a complete no no and anything controversial has to be properly referenced from reliable sources. "www.answers.com" is not a reliable source. If this information could be sourced (not quoted) from somewhere academic and reliable then it would make a welcome addition to the page. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Article Reassessment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello. I am a member of WikiProject Medicine, a Misplaced Pages wide project that maintains and improves articles that fall under the scope of medicine. Since your article has not fallen under our scope, I have placed the correct template(s) on this talk page. Leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Thanks, and keep editing Misplaced Pages! Renaissancee (talk) 00:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture depicts stereotypes

I find the picture to be distasteful because it confirms negative sterotypes of permiscuity in african american females. From the image, it can be gathered that she is married (see the ring), but she is performing fellatio on an unmarried white man (lack of ring). Safe to conclude he is not her husband. Why not have a same race picture??All other images on that page are of people of the same race. If it is not meant to be damaging, how come the image could not have been of a white woman on a black man?? Many white people would be offended, as I and other african americans find this image offending. I don't know how to edit it, I tried, but it didn't work (sorry), but someone please use the image from the oral sex page that shows a woman giving head to a man while in a 69. If you want to have racial balance in wikipedia, why not make the man AND the woman black? Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope Obscure323 won't mind, I've moved his comment from the section above (which was pretty well finished) and brought it down here to start a new section. His point seems to be different from any other that's been brought up before, so I moved it here for discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's an interesting thought. I don't agree with it since inter-racial sex, marriage, and the presence or absence of rings means nothing these days. I guess I didn't pay attention to the difference in skin color but, now that it is pointed out, I'm not sure if she is African (African-American is not the correct usage here because there is no reason to believe that either person is American) - could be a Pacific Islander, she is sort of out of Gauguin, or perhaps Indian. Clearly we can't have many images so an argument such as why doesn't it have a white woman with a black man is not germane. To me this seems to be a non-issue and I'm curious as to what others think. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 18:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Many people may not understand why it is offensive, so let me explain why. It depicts the stereotype of the "black, promiscuous, subserviant" female who "worships" the phallus of her white "master/king/overseer". This is no different than having an article about chicken and watermelon that states "this is the primary food source for black americans". It is just as much a stereotype. This imagery has been one perpetuated by the white supremacist power structure since slave days in this country. Now, I in no way believe that the illustrator intended this message, but this faux pas will definately reaffirm the stereotype in the conscious/unconscious mind of the general public. As a lover of wikipedia, I believe it also belongs to me, and I prefer that we use images to would not result in the defamation of any group of people, especially one that poses significant sensitivity in today's "still-evolving" racial climate. Thanks.--Obscure323 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One difference between the watermelon analogy and this page is that it is relatively easy to verify the stereotype involving watermelons. However, I'm not sure if this 'submissive' stereotype associated particularly with fellatio can be easily verified. Just a thought. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think some people are reading meanings into the picture that just aren't there. Promiscuity? We don't know these people's relationship. Subservience? She's on top! These concerns say much more about the editors expressing them than they do about the artwork. Most of the human images on the Misplaced Pages are of white people. There's nothing wrong with white people, but it would be a great shame if concerns for "racial sensitivity" caused us to remove images of black people or of interracial relationships. --Simon Speed (talk) 20:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Simon, I understand why you might feel this way, but again, I must stress that you probably cannot not understand my concerns and that they may seem "petty" especially if you are not of my demographic. No I'm not reading too much into it, I telling you exactly what it will reaffirm whether consciously or subconsciously. Secondly, I think that his artwork is beautiful, I'm just asking that it be of a black couple. If that is too much, then make him black and her white? Maybe that actually won't offend people of the latter demographic, and if not, then fine, everybody's happy. Hell, make them both white, I personally don't think it matters. It's just that the way it stands now is offensive and stereotypical.--Obscure323 (talk) 20:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

If we are going to be picky, then that is not a wedding ring - it's more like an engagement ring (since it has a single stone). A man is highly unlikely to wear an engagement ring (not that many wear wedding rings!), so it could easily be concluded that this is an engaged couple.  Ronhjones  20:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, why is it being suggested that I am being "picky"? If you don't understand, fine, but don't argue moot points that do nothing but detract from the actual point I am making.--Obscure323 (talk) 21:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I sympathize with Obscure323's concern about the image's depiction of a power relationship and believe such discussions are worth having. I agree with Simon Speed's conclusion that this hardly depicts a non-white woman in a subservient to white male position. For the sake of argument, let's say that the woman in this image is in a "submissive position" - but, her facial expression does not appear to indicate any form of subservience, therefore, I do not find it to be a re-affirmation of stereotypes. Out of curiosity, I looked at some of the image author Seedfeeder's other images for signs of stereotypical power relationships:

Feel free to suggest modifications to the table, if I'm off-base. Unfortunately I cannot thumbnail some of these due to their presence on MediaWiki:Bad_image_list. The author's images seem to primarily depict white individuals in dominant positions. The individuals in the submissive positions do not seem to be expressing displeasure in their position, with the exception of File:Wikibukkake.png and likely File:Wiki-pegging.png. I think there might be an argument for File:Wikibukkake.png being racially offensive, per Obscure323's criteria. LagrangeCalvert_{<Talk / Contribs>} 22:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• B-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
• Mid-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
• WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content