Talk:Cunnilingus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sexology and sexuality
Sexuality Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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):

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)

[edit] 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 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex, http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilze - some authors even have a wiki page on them selves to which is refered.

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.

And 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] James Bond

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