Talk:Fellatio
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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
|
|||
 |
|||
| Archives | |||
|
|||
| About archives • Edit this box |
[edit] 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)
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 Wikipedia, 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..
[ahem] :-)
- Wikipedia 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(my 2 cents) 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not censored. This does not mean that Wikipedia is not censored as long as all images used have artistic or historical merit. This does not mean that Wikipedia is not censored as long as the images used are non-pornographic. This does not mean that Wikipedia is not censored if the images used resemble medical diagrams. It means that Wikipedia 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)
