Talk:Anilingus

A page history resides at Anal-oral contact/history1

Porno picture or not?

- new discussion about illustration for subj. Alexandrov 13:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If by porn you mean adult imagery under US law (meaning, a depiction of "sexually explicit conduct" under 18USC2256) clearly yes. It is a simulation of (or perhaps a part of the act of) oral-anal sexual intercourse. Nothing intrinsically wrong with porn on Wikipedia; however, the law seems to impose a burden (see 2257) for Wikipedia to keep proof-of-age documentation for everyone depicted under penalty of felony, whether the parties are over 18 or not. Obviously we can't do that. Still awaiting word from Mike Godwin (the Foundation's attorney) on what he thinks we should do - I emailed him this past Saturday and haven't yet noticed a response in my inbox or on Wikipedia. Wikidemo 16:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia is a "secondary producer", I would doubt whether the law currently applies. The law doesn't address "secondary producers", leading to those regulations being struck down by the courts in 1998. (A law and the regulations for its implementation are often very different creatures in the United States.) The Department of Justice did not comply with the court ruling (and indeed expanded the definition of "secondary producer"). However, as of 2005, the courts placed the secondary producer regulations under injunction, at least until the resolution of a current case against the government. IANAL, but it seems like Wikipedia is under no current legal obligation to maintain such records as a "secondary producer". Vassyana 20:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The law was amended post-1998. Although a court ruled in 2006 that the 2005 version of the regulations as applied to "secondary producers" exceeded the scope of the law and were thus without basis, the FBI has been conducting inspections of secondary producers anyway. The law was amended in 2006 specifically to enable the regulations as they then existed. It's an arcane and technical (if not undecided) legal question whether regulations under preliminary injunction in a suit seeking to invalidate them for exceeding the scope of the law may be rehabilitated by a legislative veto occurring before trial that would moot the complaint, or whether the suit may proceed and only subsequently written regulations are effective. In any event the law currently on the books covers secondary producers and is not under any strong legal challenge.Wikidemo 00:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My first thought when I entered this page was, woah, explicit. Should we not try use a diagram rather than an actual picture? KennedyBaird 13:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Question: Do you think a diagram would illustrate the concept more clearly than a photo? Or are you advocating censorship for minors? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the main question is does the use of this image mean that wikipedia needs to maintain records of the people in the image in order to comply with U.S.C 2256[1] and hence to comply with Florida law (my opinion is yes, obviously, and hence the image should be removed). Just in case you were wondering USC 2256 states "Whoever produces any book ... or other material... contains one or more visual depictions ... of actual sexually explicit conduct ... shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction [and] ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth". A besides from the legal mumbo jumbo, does this article really need this image? Oral-anal contact is not that complicated an issue. It might take you 5 seconds to figure it out without the image, and 1 second to figure it out with the image. Not really that big a deal. On the other hand, autofellatio seems to have settled on an explicit image, while Creampie (sexual act) seems to have settled on not have one. Some more discussion here Bilz0r 07:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Before you swooped in here to make this change, a request had been made to Mike Godwin, the foundation lawyer, about this very point. It's not as clear cut as you present it, and it should be resolved him or one of his representatives. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 12:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Mike hasn't responded to me after two weeks. I'm checking my email boxes to see if it got lost. It's also possible that he's too busy or doesn't feel like taking a position on the legality or appropriateness of sexually explicit images here. It sounds paradoxical but sometimes the company lawyer doesn't want to publicly render an opinion on legality. I think we should wait a while longer. Wikidemo 18:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem may be not be that it's explicit, but rather that the picture is sexually charged.-W2bh 16:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

This may be a stupid question, but is there a reason why Wikipedia should comply with US law? 89.217.156.28 19:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Because the servers and the foundation are based/located in the US. Garion96 (talk) 19:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does that picture need to be there in the first place? It's totally unnecessary. Whoever put it there just wants to be stimulated and have other people stimulated whenever it is seen. And people that defend this picture think similarly. Call it judgmental if you want but just because this is an encyclopedia-type website and that the article is about this type of sex doesn't mean a picture of that explicitness has to be shown. It's ridiculous. If people feel the need to watch pornography, which this is - (and accessible to any age person I might add, without asking for age confirmation - making it illegal) - then one should visit a website for that purpose if they must. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, we don't have photos for articles on vaginal sex, anal sex, oral sex or any other kind of sex. There are illustrations. I am deleting this photo.--Ellissound 14:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a picture at least on the anal sex page. 24.84.8.126 (talk) 21:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

This image is inappropriate for Wikipedia. There is no need to have this image here. It is enough to read about this explicit act without looking at pictures of it. Delete this image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zone (talk • contribs) 02:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now officially seen everything. If you wonder why Wikipedia is a joke ... well, here you go.

74.185.105.135 (talk) 19:19, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture is completely unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.25.243 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The photo is of homosexuals, look at the testicles of the receiver! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.104.180 (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

"Contact" in picture

There doesn't appear to be actual contact between the anus and the tongue. I think a picture where the tongue is clearly touching or inserted into the anus would be better. D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Got a camera? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'd have a hard time explaining to my wife the necessity of uploading a picture of her licking my asshole or viceversa to a publically accessible, online encyclopedia. (Wow, I can't believe I just typed such a sentence.) D-Fluff has had E-Nuff 20:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Put your money where your... mouth... is? Sorry, that metaphor really fell apart halfway. :P - CHAIRBOY (☎) 05:14, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's questionable that a picture of this is needed (yes I'm well aware of WP:NOTCENSORED), the pic in question does not actually illustrate what it purports to illustrate. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all questionable for there to be a picture of rimming on the article for rimming even if it is titled "anal-oral contact". The other respective articles have them and in almost every language see fellatio and cunnilingus for the phallic and vaginal, oral counter-parts to this act, furthermore the articles for sex acts and sexual positions and concepts such as orgy, missionary, doggy style, anal sex, vaginal sex, all have illustrations. Most people don't "rim" as much as they do those other sexual acts and therefore this article is in greater need of a picture to explain this human behavior to the reader since its more likely people will wonder what it looks like, especially in an encyclopedia. A human sexuality, or biology student would be helped by having easy access to a free image for such a project also. Besides sure some people may find it disgusting to look at such an image, but what kind of moron looks up anal-oral contact expecting to see a picture of a cute little birdie or hawaiian sunset (insert donnie dark references <<there<<) Its the image we've got, so lets put it in, the other languages such as spanish use it with no problems, and lets wait for a better image or drawing to show up in the meantime since this image represents the act in a tasteful way. Although i would have to say most anuses aren't so nicely shaven and that is rather unrealistic, but it does occur doesn't it and it is not a big sticking point if you ask me.

I dunno. The article is describing a number of techniques (some of which do not involve the tongue, unlike what is depicted in the picture), and any biology or human anatomy student would very likely be looking for a specific technique, and not a picture depicting the whole penumbra of a-o contact. So if you want to have pictures of the majority of types of a-o contact with appropriate descriptions, I wouldn't object.

I also specifically have a problem with this image. You can't see the rest of the body connected to the anus and you can't see the head connected to the tongue, both of which would be necessary to truly understand the technique being described.

One final thing. Another WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not USA Today (unless I am not speaking for the consensus). We do not need to have shiny, 4-color stock images that have nothing more than some vague, tenuous connection to the article. If it's not adding information to the article, we really shouldn't have it, IMO.

That's my argument, but if you can come up with an effective counter, I may fold like Superman on wash day. superluser_tc 2007 December 23, 07:41 (UTC)

US Court invalidates 2257 law

Well I'll be. I did not expect this but a US appeals court ruling apparently struck down the law that would make it so difficult for Wikipedia to host images of people engaged in the conduct described by this article. I have yet to fully digest the opinion but for now it appears that the world is safe for pictures of anal-oral contact. Read it for yourself here, [2]. If this is true then there's no legal impediment. Wikipedia is not censored, so the only issue becomes an editorial decision on whether or not the picture is the best way to illustrate the phenomenon. There may also be some age verification requirement for viewers but this is the main issue. Wikidemo 07:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just read the opinion...yes, the entire law is thrown out on free speech grounds so unless the Supreme Court takes the case or a different US Circuit Court comes to a contrary conclusion (both unlikely) there is no longer a proof-of-age record-keeping requirement. It would take the government 2-3 years to enact and put in place a new law that agrees with the US Constitution. Even if it does it's unlikely to cover this kind of noncommercial image because the law's Constitutional defect was that it was so broad as to cover noncommercial images like this. So again, the world is safe for pictures of anal-oral contact. As far as I'm concerned that ends this issue. Wikidemo 15:49, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree the image may stay legally, even if this ruling had not occurred it was clearly an unconstitutional ex post facto law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.74.132 (talk) 18:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Compromise

We've been back and forth on this enough. I originally, a while back, removed the photo, cause it frankly disgusts me, but that's really not a valid reason. Yes it's pornographic, but that too is no reason to remove something on Wikipedia. The question is really whether or not this photo adds something informative to the article. While ejaculation and intercourse articles benefit from visual aids, since those aren't things a person can simply imagine having never seen them, this image is something a person could easily imagine -- it's simply a tongue and an anus, albeit shown next to each other. Then again, I'm sure its proponents would say that it helps to see what this act might look like. I don't agree with that contention but I respect it, and were I the kind of person who didn't find something like this revolting, I would be miffed at having been repressed by those who do.

Ejaculation went through a similar debate and arrived at a compromise whereby the demonstrative image was initially hidden by default but prominently displayed as a showable object. I've borrowed the code from that article and implemented it here for our purposes. I hope this is a satisfactory compromise and that both sides can rest easy.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:17, 12/18/2007

Linkimage along with its template code is deleted, not just deleted in template form or subst'd and deleted. Adding previously deleted template code to an article is the same as re-creating a template that meets CSD G4 (and T2), and goes against the consensus of not having this kind of box anywhere in the project. I also don't see any debate at Talk:Ejaculation. The insertion of the deleted template code seems to have been done by just one editor. Prolog (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Linkimage was deleted because ordinary wiki image links (:image:file.jpg) serve the same purpose. This isn't an image link, it is a show/hide object, and it serves our purposes in the extenuating circumstance of a highly controversial photo. Being that it serves our purposes so well I don't see why we shouldn't use it.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 23:55, 12/18/2007

No, it was deleted for reasons stated in the closures of the TFD and the DRV. I have checked the deleted revisions. The code and functionality (show/hide) here are identical to Template:Linkimage. Someone just copied all the code to him-/herself before the template was deleted. This template code can't be used in this or any other article without going through a new DRV. Prolog (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then I don't know what to say. That allows for no leeway then in cases where the opinion is split down the middle. A compromise is impossible. I wouldn't go through another DRV because if a template exists it encourages people to hide images they find offensive, but at the same time I think it should be used here because some people find this image informative while others find it unnecessary. I feel this is an extenuating circumstance and the reasons stated in the closure don't apply to this case. I'm going to invoke WP:IAR here and say that this is the best solution for this article. Violation of the technical rule shouldn't stop us from doing what's best in individual scenarios. Let's see what others think.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 00:19, 12/19/2007

It's not valid to say this photo is equivalent to the illustrations in the other sex-related articles; those are line drawings and established artistic images (read: oil paintings one might find in a museum or gallery, for ex.), not photographs. This photo adds no value but titillation to the article; the mind boggles at the idea that a reader can't imagine for themselves the juxtaposition of a tongue and an anus. One could possibly argue for the validity of inclusion of an illustration from farther back, thus showing a likely position or positions from which analingus might be achieved, but, again, line drawings suffice. Question: why are there no naked pictures, much less images of explicit sexual activity, at Jenna Jameson for one example? You could certainly make a better case for hardcore images being necessary to the understanding of that subject than the case for this picture being necessary to the understanding of this one. That is a generic tongue and a generic anus and no useful information is presented with the image. Jrssystemsnet (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm with you there. The last time I argued about it, my opponent cited the unavailability of a suitable free drawing, therefore the photo would have to suffice until one is found. I agree that it adds absolutely nothing. Everyone has an anus and everyone has a tongue. Displaying them does not inform anyone of anything.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:19, 12/19/2007

I think its simply backward and ridiculous to hide an image of buttlicking. Why on earth would someone look buttlicking up on wikipedia and then be shocked or scared to see an image of it. That is ludacrous and whoever says they have an issue with a picture of buttlicking on the buttlciking article is one ballsy liar. Wikipedia is a work in constant progress. Let's just request a better photograph of the same thing. But look at this, this article probably should have tongue-anus contact. But people are so conservative that a picture of a tongue near an anus is used. If this image is not useful then this article is not useful. Sure you can imagine it. But but you could also imagine eating or kissing, but we have image of that on those articles. The argument that people can image this are simply stupid (i mean baseless). They are a veiled way of saying, i don't like rimming and i don't want to see it. But don't be selfish, because a humans sexuality student, does and or needs to see it. Whether or not its revolting is subjective, since you guys have even said some people might get aroused by it. Thats very much the opposite of revolted huh? Any image can cause just about any emotion. Some people find a picture of two women kissing revolting, or of a woman's breast, or a woman showing their face! Wikipedia should remain neutral and you should all bite your lip. Wikipedia is not censored and show/hide is pretty much a disclaimer. If anything the default should be show, and people may hide if they are in a situation like school and want to read but can only see discreetly. Illistrations directly correlating to the article topic are very informative and useful. Everyone eats, everyone has seen a bird, not everyone licks butt, but that doesn't make images of them not helpful. This could be hard to imagine. Most people don't look at their anus, and its pretty hard to see one without a mirror. Honestly most people who have not been the insetive partner in anal sex or anal conact sexual relations such as fingering or anal-oral sex, have never seen an anus. Its not as easy to "imagine" as you would think. In fact people look this sort of thing up in encyclopedias so they can imagine it. This needs to be added to the heap of all human knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 06:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC) click on the other language links of this article they all use this image, every last one. The global consensus seems to imply that this image is indeed encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 06:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I believe my stance was pretty balanced and I did accept that my view was subjective. I'm sorry you feel that your way is the only way anyone could possibly see the issue. We haven't gotten anywhere with this and won't get anywhere with it any time soon. If you've got a human sexuality class and feel you therefore would benefit significantly from seeing a tongue lick an anus then you may click the "show" button. That's the product of a compromise -- each side at least gets something, in lieu of everything. You're welcome.

Equazcion • argue/improves • 07:02, 12/21/2007

I think that violates WP:NOTCENSORED.Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the claim that every last article on this topic uses that image is false, as a quick click on the language links will reveal. Second, we don't go by what other language Wikipedia's do; we have our own rules. Third, this image is superfluous and unnecessary. Everything about it is unencyclopaedic, from the lighting, to the unprofessional quality, to the pornographic "look" and "feel." I'm not at all against explicit sexual imagery, and have argued in favour of the inclusion of certain controverial images on Wikipedia, but this one adds nothing to the article or to the average reader's understanding (not least because it doesn't actually depict the act it's supposedly illustrating). The text alone is sufficient, and, if an image is really desirable, there are plenty of line drawings available that illustrate the concept clearly enough. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• You are right, 12 out of 21 languages use it. But that is a whole lot! And it does and should matter that many wikipedias use it. How is it superfluous? There is only one image in this article, so look up superfluous in the dictionary friend. The lighting and unprofessional quality you claim this image has is commonplace of all the images of encyclopedia, this is an amateur site, you can't expect profession images. We can, over time, wait for a better one however. If it looks or feels like porn to you is irrelevant, policy states you should avoid labeling things pornographic in these debates anyways, any image of rimming will be pornographic by definition, as is the text in this article. Adds nothing? Seems to add something to 12 other wikipedias, its a tamer representation of analingus, most of the drawings down show clear tongue-vagina contact in cunnilingus. And while performing rimming you do lick around the anus and go back and forth, analingus is being performed here. Please offer us one of these drawings. But policy does state, that photographs are preferable to drawings and vice versa, when one illustrates the subject matter better, like drawings for birds and photographs for living people.

Here is one example, but it looks inadequate to me. oops. the image isnt on the commons. oh well.Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. i removed the hide/show box, because it violates WP:CENSOR, particularly WP:NDA. i double checks, see the village pump here.Ah0000000ga (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to consider what this project is about. It is an encyclopaedia, an academic work. There needs to be a balance between lack of censorship and the academic nature of the project. The concept of anilingus is easily understood without the need for recourse to an image, versus, say, autofellatio which, it was generally agreed, really did need an image. The fact that at least one of the images you're promoting is of yourself leads me to believe you have a different motive for its promotion. Exploding Boy (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The concept of anilingus may be easily understood, but there are frequent edits (including one today) to include ass to mouth, which is a totally different concept. A picture would help clarify the difference (but I doubt that everyone who adds such irrelevant references bothers to read the article enough to understand what they're doing). HalJor (talk) 22:03, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree that the image should not be censored if it be included, but (as I've said before) (1) there are many types of A-O contact but only one image, (2) the image doesn't illustrate any actual contact or sex, and (3) it does not provide researchers with any real understanding of respective body positions required to undertake any of these practices. superluser_tc 2007 December 24, 04:41 (UTC)

First, I must say that this site isn't only full of amateurs, of course. Second, I don't believe that the hide-show box violates Wikipedia's policy on censorship. It's not censoring anything by having a hide-show box; it's giving the reader a choice to either look at it or not, instead of seeing it as soon as they click on this article (or stumble onto it). Third, I agree completely with Exploding Boy about this issue. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is most certainly censorship to use a hide/show box. It is not needed, as Wikipedia already has a content disclaimer. Please see Wikipedia:Graphic and potentially disturbing images, specifically propositions C and D. Ideas similar to yours have been rejected quite resoundingly (though I would actually support Proposition B). superluser_tc 2007 December 25, 02:38 (UTC)

I am aware of that link you pointed me to. And I still don't feel that it's censorship to have a hide-show box. No different than having a hide-show box for the character infobox of a fictional character article...like J.R. Chandler. Ideas similar to mine? There is no idea of mine here. I was simply agreeing with Exploding Boy. I'm not a fan or a hater of censorship, considering that it is sometimes needed. My main reasons for backing Exploding Boy is because I do not see how that image adds to this article and I don't see the hide-show box as censorship. My feelings won't change concerning this matter, whatever is decided about that image. Flyer22 (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies if this has been suggested before, but there is a picture on the Afrikaans wikipedia article that might be a compromise.--Kubigula (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That is precisely the type of image that is preferred in most sex-related articles. Look at the List of sex positions article for more examples. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is much, much better. It shows things like the relative position of the participants, and although it's not clear if there's actually any contact between the two, most of my concern is allayed with this image. Still left is the matter of whether it really needs a picture. I'm not sure if the picture actually adds any content, but that's a separate discussion. superluser_tc 2007 December 26, 04:26 (UTC)

The Afrikaaner picture appears to be a compromise and to better fit the consensus here, I've gone ahead and uploaded it to commons and inserted it here. I think it's still short of ideal, but it's better.--Kubigula (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

both the Afrikaner and the other image?

It seems to me that it is pretty safe to say that we don't need two images of the same type of sex here, but a recent edit has placed both the disputed image and the Afrikaner image together on the page. I have reverted to only the Afrikaner image. Dispute? That's what the talk page is for. superluser_tc 2008 February 04, 15:40 (UTC)

Two images of same thing can stay when one image is drawing, then other image is real photograph. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

To what benefit? I agree with Superluser that there is no encyclopedic benefit of having two illustrations of the same act. The photograph does not add any illustrative value beyond what is already shown by the drawing. It has also proven controversial, and I don't see any argument for changing the previous compromise.--Kubigula (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the Afrikaner image is a photograph. It's been rotoscoped or edge-enhanced, but you can tell that it is actually a photo.

I'm all for changing consensus. If you think that the consensus version of the article is wrong, I'd really like to hear about it. But don't make changes that go against the will of the consensus before checking a talk page to see what people think.

Also, if you want the article to be better, why don't you try to expand it in other ways? It's only 8,203 chars long, while other articles like Missionary Position (49,076 chars) and Erotic asphyxiation (21,795 chars) are much longer. I think it would help to try to make the words better before worrying about that one blasted image over and over again. You know we're on WP:LAME, right? superluser_tc 2008 February 04, 23:11 (UTC)

i actually really like having two images, the layout is very nice and takes up ugly blankspace, and the article is long enough to support two. also this practice is not widespread so thoughough illustration seems to be quite helpful here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.106.117 (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Slang terms?

The first sentence of this article has a long list of terms, slang or otherwise. Every day or so, someone adds a term, and then someone reverts it. Can we please stop this reverting business, come to a consensus here and move on?

The term that is causing the contention is "biting the brown." Is this more or less encyclopedic than "salad tossing" or "eating out"? Should those terms be in there, either? Discuss. Don't war. superluser_tc 2008 February 21, 03:59 (UTC)

I could not agree more with Superluser. I am not a member, but I am wondering why I would join a community that is trying to censor (yes, that's what it is) a serious post. Superluser's point about slang terms already existing in the opening sentence is what originally prompted me to add the term under debate. Not sure they're teaching the term "tossing salad" at Harvard Med. School, but that's okay? Please explain yourself.

There are plenty of references to this term as real. I'd be happy to reference them for our Editor friend. If it is offensive to some, then look elsewhere. However, just because you find a actual term for "anilingus" to be inappropriate, doesn't mean you have the right to censor it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.36.187 (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who have reverted this addition. A google search on biting the brown returned pages and pages of results about brown spiders, and another on "biting the brown" returned pages of fiction and other non-sexual results, with the exception of one hit, which was this article. I just don't think this term is in particularly wide use, unlike "tossing the salad," which is at least well known if not widely used. Oh, and a search on Urban Dictionary returned the suggestion "eating shit"; hardly the same thing. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I should point out that I am *NOT* agreeing with anyone here. The only person that I'll agree with in this case is the person who admits defeat and moves on. Seriously, aren't there better things to do with your time than argue over which slang terms are appropriate for this article?

I would argue that this is the very reason Wikipedia is so thorough. If we who edit Wikipedia had anything better to do with our time than obsess over teeny tiny details, Wikipedia probably wouldn't exist, or at least would be less thorough. Many OCD folks reside here. :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, to Exploding Boy and whoever else is changing feces/faeces, both feces and faeces are valid spellings for the term. One is British and one is American. Unless you think that the article is or should be written from a British English perspective (I didn't see anything else BE in there, and I don't particularly associate rimming with the British), it should probably not be part of a revert war. See WP:ENGVAR.

Though I did find a solitary instance of feces, and I changed it so that they would all be consistent. Per WP:ENGVAR. superluser_tc 2008 February 21, 17:24 (UTC)

I don't particularly think anyone is edit or revert warring, and I don't think it's particularly helpful to try to paint anyone's actions as such, even by putting someone's user name in bold face. I changed "feces" back to "faeces" as it appeared to have been altered for no good reason (or because someone erroneously thought it was a spelling error) as is often the case, and I have explained my reasons for removing that particular slang term. While I take your point that it's probably not the most important aspect of editing this article, editors here do have to make some decisions about what is and isn't worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia articles, and little-used, little-known regional slang terms are usually not. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I continue to insist that the term "biting the brown" (or to "bite the brown") is not only legitimate, but it is completely appropriate considering the other uses of slang in this article. I have been repeatedly harassed and had my post edited by some cowardly user who claims I have made this term up. I did not. This person is not only dead-wrong, but an editorial fascist. They can't spell, either.

This is the PM I received last night:

"WARNING: Please stop vandalizing the "Analingus" [sic] page with your repeated "biting the brown" post, or you will be reported. There is NO references ANYWHERE on the Internet of this term as a slang term for analingus [sic]. Just because you or your friends have coined a cute phrase does NOT make it an acceptable Wikipedia entry."

So, as I understand it, this person objects to a term that he/she has never heard of, nor can find "on the Internet". Isn't finding and sharing new information basically the charter of Wikipedia?

To whom this may concern: don't ever PM me again. Put your feelings out in the open and let the Wiki community decide what is appropriate and what is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 12:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your "biting the brown" entry has been reverted by numerous editors because it IS a made up term. Your continued insistence on posting an artificial, nonsensical term in a legitimate article is vandalism, period. If Wikipedia is open to anything, then I could add a ridiculous slang term such as "barracking the obama" to the list of slang terms. The other slang terms in the article are legitimate, widely used slang terms and therefore appropriate for the article. "Biting the brown" is illegitimate gibberish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmareishere (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, "analingus" is an acceptable spelling of the term. Look it up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmareishere (talk • contribs) 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Search for the term "bite the brown" on any of the following:

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/GC/sex-scat.html http://www.definition-of.com/bite+the+brown http://aethlos.com/gaydictionary http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anilingus

Let me know if you want anymore. It seems your search skills are as poor as your argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

O.k., the term exists. But on the one page, it is listed along with at least a dozen or more obscure nicknames. Are we going to list EVERY SINGLE nickname? I say we list the ones that are widely used, otherwise, the paragraph will be 20 lines long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmareishere (talk • contribs) 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Wait, you just called it "illegitimate gibberish". Your whole argument for removal has been predicated upon your ignorance of the term as being real. Now that you've been proven wrong, you are changing tack and claiming that the entries would be too numerous if we included this legitimate term? Which is it?? Please explain why you've suddenly changed your argument in the face of the facts and why you should be allowed to continue removing the entry.

By the way, this one was written by a PhD at Roanoke College:

Glossary of Sexual Slang Compiled by G.F. Pranzarone Ph.D., AASECT: CSE

http://www.geocities.com/lluisa_pr/txt/diccionari_glossari/slang_sex.txt

Please let me know if you'd like to see more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have admitted the term exists. But the point has to be made that the term is so obscure that neither I nor several others were successful in finding it on the Internet. My argument now is that if we include every obscure slang term the entry will be too long. If you don't like my argument, too bad. (Nightmareishere (talk) 20:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

No, what I don't like is how you are now tailoring your argument in light of the fact that the term is indeed real. If I were to prove that it is not obscure, what then would be your reason for continuing to remove the entry? I'm sure you'd come up with one. For you this is personal now. Wikipedia is weakened by those of your pseudo-intellectual, bullying ilk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 20:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

ATTENTION WIKIPEDIA EDITORS: Not only is this attempted entry pointless, ridiculously obscure and quite honestly, nauseating sounding (I suspect that's why it's being repeatedly entered...for an immature person to get a chuckle), but the person entering it can't even decide what the slang is. Biting the brown, to bite the brown, biting brown, yadda yadda yadda. Another reason I question this term is, does biting brown refer to eating sh*t, or to performing this act on someone who has just defecated? If so, this term belongs in a scat fetish article. Just because someone's into anal-oral sex doesn't mean they're into scat. Could we protect this page? Maybe we should just resolve this nonsense by getting rid of the slang terms altogether. (Nightmareishere (talk) 01:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC))

ATTENTION WIKIPEDIA EDITORS: I was waiting for Nightmareishere to come up with another, completely different complaint about this post. I hardly expected it to involve grammar and personal distate. When are is this person going to move on from this? Does "eating ass" sound less nauseating than "biting brown"? If so, please explain why? And why should slang terms be removed? Maybe Nightmareishere needs to go elsewhere if they can't handle the FACTS surrounding this sexual practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 17:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I only suggested removing the slang altogether as a way to resolve the problem. My question to you is, when are YOU going to move on from repeatedly vandalizing the anal-oral sex entry with your immature, sophomoric posts? As determined as you are to vandalize the page with this chilish stupidity, I am just as determined to ensure that this page retains quality. With some people, Wikipedia has a bad reputation -- and it's because of people like you who insist on sullying otherwise legitimate articles with crude jokes. (Nightmareishere (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC))

Protection of the page due to edit warring

This dispute has entered into the realm of edit warring. At this point, the page is semi-protected in order to minimize the impact on other editors. Please work toward a consensus rather than edit warring. --Kubigula (talk) 04:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I feel I have put forth a logical argument as to why the slang term for oral-anal sex, "to bite brown", is not only real but deserves its place among the list of slang terms.

My thanks? I've endured personal insults, been privately harassed and had my veracity questioned repeatedly. I once again question why I would ever consider joining a community full of intellectual and editorial bullies.

If you're not going to use the addition of "bite the brown"/"biting brown", I would kindly ask that you remove all previous edits of mine; all of which have been accepted by the wiki community. Including by the bully/National Socialist, Nightmareishere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*. That would seem to mean no. superluser_tc 2008 March 30, 21:20 (UTC)

My arguments for why this entry should not be included in this article are documented on this page. I have nothing further to say at this time. (Nightmareishere (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's review those arguments, flawed as they are:

1. It's "gibberish". Wrong, it's a real term. See above. 2. I made it up and/or it is not synonymous with "anal-oral sex". This was central to your argument, but wrong. See above. 3. It's vandalism. Wrong. It is and will continue to be a serious post. 4. It's "nauseating sounding" [awk]. And your point is...? 5. Whatever fits your argument at that moment. See below. 66.30.36.187 (talk) 05:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Funny how you conveniently, continually refuse to address a couple points I made previously: 1). That the term is so obscure that I and other editors failed to find it on repeated Internet searches. My contention is that the slang terms used in the article should be well-known and widely used slang terms. If we start to use every obscure term ever coined, the list of slang terms will overwhelm the article. 2). You have failed to answer my question as to whether this is, in fact, a scat fetish term. If your answer is no, provide evidence. If your answer is yes or I don't know, the term does not belong in the article. To me, "biting brown" sounds like some kind of reference to eating s*it. Scat fetishism and oral-anal sex are NOT synonymous, by any means.(Nightmareishere (talk) 20:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)).

6. See item #5. Now it's a term for "scat fetishism"?? No it is not! WTF dude! When is someone going to help me here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to throw my hat in the ring and say that "biting the brown" is a fringe term and not widely used at all. When I first saw it posted I laughed, but seriously, nobody uses it and it shouldn't be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.218.156.54 (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. Another voice of reason and intelligence. This particular person has called me a bully, a coward, a moron, and a socialist simply because I want to maintain quality and maturity in this article. I know I'm not the only one who has issues with this "biting the brown" comment (see posts several paragraphs above), but it's nice to hear it. Since several people have spoken their objection to this entry and no one except the one posting it wants to defend it, can we consider this matter closed and return the page to its regular status -- with a warning to that anonymous user to NOT continue to try to put his childish entry in the article anymore? Then again, I don't have any hope that he'd stop without being banned from editing altogether. (Nightmareishere (talk) 17:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC))

I maintain that "biting the brown" (and its appropriate conjugations) is indeed a real and fully-appropriate slang synonym for anal-oral sex. The only compromise I can see is removing slang terms all together. Otherwise, I remain unconvinced that this edit is inappropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the appropriate thing is for the current WIDELY USED five slang terms to be deemed as sufficient and for you to leave the fucking page alone. Go write stupid jokes on a bathroom stall or something.(Nightmareishere (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC))

Dude, WP:CIVIL. superluser_tc 2008 April 09, 02:12 (UTC)

Who has given you the authority to define what "widely used" is? I am trying to add serious content to this wiki and I continue to meet ignorance, shifting arguments and hostility from Nightmareishere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.220.78.107 (talk) 14:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And now here's another one...REAMING IS NOT SLANG FOR ANAL-ORAL SEX!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And you get a WP:CIVIL, too. superluser_tc 2008 April 09, 02:12 (UTC)

Dr. Panzarone, PhD disagrees. All perfectly legitimate and referenced. And you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 03:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I take no responsibility for the postings of IP 75.220.78.107, btw. I have no idea who that is and I appreciate not being associated with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 03:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To the above comment: Yeah sure. We know the real deal: home computer, work computer. Come on. Gimme a break. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Right, and you're User:Nightmareishere. Pretty obvious. Please stop editing my legitimate post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

...though you know what? You're wrong again. A simple search showed that "reaming" is indeed slang for anilingus. I'm not here to argue for inclusion of that one because frankly I don't care, but you are dead wrong, nonetheless. One of various citations: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ream —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppets

I have made this easy.

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nightmareishere
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/66.30.36.187

Click on the link, make your accusation, and you're set. So put up or AGF.

Incidentally, that's some commute between 66.30.36.187 and 75.220.78.107. I hope light dawns on the other guy. superluser_tc 2008 April 12, 04:51 (UTC)

Eh, I'd rather just drop the whole thing. Yes, I am Nightmareishere. I never had any nefarious intent to set up a sock puppet or anything. It's simply that when I edit, sometimes I don't or forget to log in. This all started because I was taking a jab at 66.30.36.187 for going out of his way to protest against being mistaken for that other user, even though to my knowledge no one had asked him if he was the same person. I was giving him a hard time, in the vein of "methinks the Wikipedia user doth protest too much." My apologies for the whole thing. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm not sure the IP address has anything to do with the geography of the user, but rather to the provider itself. I get my Internet through my cable company, and my IP address was 74.something, but then my cable company switched, and now it's this. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 03:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

My main point was that a lot of people seem to be uncivil here, and assuming bad faith on the part of the other editors. If you're going to go around making accusations, you should be willing to accept the ramifications of making such accusations (otherwise, such accusations do not have any positive purpose).

As to IP addresses, they are supposed to provide lattitude and longitude to a specific computer, though in practice, I tend to find that they are only reliable to something like county-level location. And though two IPs here belong to the same ISP, they have very different geographic locations. superluser_tc 2008 April 13, 09:29 (UTC)

As far as assuming bad faith, yes, I do where 66.30.36.187 and 75.220.78.107 are concerned. This sophomoric "biting brown" post has been objected to and removed by numerous editors, for a variety of good reasons, yet this post continues to rear its ugly head almost every day. What else are we to assume but bad faith? 98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, but "biting brown" has been added by multiple editors, too. Myself being one. It not "sophomoric" and is not inappropriate. Aren't there a bunch of other slang terms for "anal-oral sex" already posted? What's the problem? I've sat around and watched 66.30.36.187 have their arguments ripped to shreds by a few who don't like the term. Now I'm being accused of being a "sock puppet"?? All along 66.30.36.187 has said that every time he/she responds to their critics, a new objection comes up and quite often in a very uncivil manner. That's not right. How much further they going to go?

Now you have multiple editors who refused to be intimidated. Let's do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.222.10.163 (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Two words for ya...GROW UP!98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel that there are people here that are simply very bored or are taking out other frustrations on those who would try and add appropriate content to this wiki. I haven't heard a coherent reason from anyone why "to bite brown" (including its numerous conjugations), isn't appropriate for this Wikipedia article on anal-oral sex. The current round of personal insults has shown that there are some here who have simply have some other agenda. This has become a cesspool of intellectual activity where a few coarse bullies feel that they can impose their personal tastes on the rest of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I continue to be amazed at how two people adding "biting brown" to this article seriously consider themselves serious contributors instead of what they really are...immature people adding crude, sophomoric nonsense to this article. DO NOT insult our intelligence by acting like it is anything other than that. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 04:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article's protected status

Well, this article is now back on protected status. Once again, though, it expires in one week. My advice, Wikipedia? Keep this page on protected status permanently, because unfortunately, I don't think these two are going to stop trying add back in this foolish "biting brown" entry that is causing so many problems. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 05:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm taking this time to give you a little education on something. Indentation.

Indentations make it easy to tell who is responding to whom, and make new replies easy to spot.

All you have to do to indent is to insert a colon before your text.

Just like this! See? How cool is that?

And when you've indented too much and all your text is crammed right up to the right hand margin on your screen, you might be thinking that it's too cramped and you shouldn't use indents, right? Right? Well, for just such occasions, there is a special thing that you can do, and I'll give you a demonstration on it in just a bit. Ready? Here goes.

Outdent. But use it sparingly. Indentation makes these talk pages easier to read, so PLEASE, FOR THE LOVE OF EVERYTHING THAT IS GOOD IN THIS WORLD USE INDENTATIONS!

It's a standard, for heaven's sake! superluser_tc 2008 April 18, 08:12 (UTC)

I fully understand why this page needs to be locked again, and I applaud that. However, based upon the very weak arguments made against adding "biting brown" to the other slang terms on this Wiki, I feel that it should be locked with BTB included until this gets resolved and I am formally requesting that this change be affected. Thank you for your consideration.

By the way, did 98.220.43.195 really suggest that this page be protected "permanently"?? It's stunning in its ignorance and close-mindedness. When all else fails, merely move to censor those with whom you disagree! 98.220.43.195, do you burn books that you don't like, too? That's also permanent.

Wow, so now you're the great defender of the first Amendment, and I'm a book burner? I am not a supporter of censorship, but I am a supporter of quality Wikipedia articles. And I'll say it again, putting "biting brown" in this article is nothing more than using Wikipedia as a bathroom stall upon which to write crude jokes, crude humor and immature language. The phrase doesn't even make sense as pertains to the article. What does "biting brown" have to do with anal-oral sex? My theory...It sounds like a nickname for "eating sh*t," and that's where I'd bet it has its origins. When or where it became a MAJORLY OBSCURE nickname for anal-oral sex I don't know, but it doesn't belong in this article! "Eating sh*t" and anal-oral sex are not the same thing!(Maybe to those who find the practice distasteful it is, who knows). I support everyone's right to free speech, but free speech doesn't mean you have the right to go into a restroom and deface the walls with graffitti. The same applies here. This post is nothing more than Internet graffitti. This, unfortunately, is one of the downsides of Wikipedia being open to everyone. That means ANYONE with access to a computer can insert any sort of nonsense their immature minds lead them to do, and those with maturity have to spend time and effort undoing it.98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And I'll add this...Permanent protection status is used not as censorship, but to protect a page that is repeatedly, viciously vandalized. And with this "biting brown" post constantly being inserted to deface and vandalize the article, I feel the article thus qualifies for heavily protected status. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The editors who add this seem to have something other than vandalism on their minds. Frankly, I think they're adding this to prove a POINT, but then I also think that the people who remove this are also trying to make a POINT.

So here's my idea--we have no slang terms in the article except those which meet a certain set of criteria. The bare minimum would seem to be at least two sources that can be found in meatspace, but you might want to add a few more criteria. Remember, Wikipedia is NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, so you'll want to have the criteria stringent enough to result in fewer than, say 10 words/phrases (I just pulled 10 out of thin air, so you may feel free to disagree with that number). Okay? Let's come up with a consensus on those criteria. superluser_tc 2008 April 19, 08:50 (UTC)

The term "bite the brown" has been successfully defended against false accusations of:

1. It being made up by an editor

2. It having no references on the Internet

3. It being obscure

4. It not being synonymous with anal-oral sex

5. It not being a slang synonym for anal-oral sex

6. It sounding silly

7. It sounding disgusting

8. It not sounding like a proper description of anal-oral sex

9. It as vandalism

10. It as being immature

All wrong. I resent being mocked for defending free speech, as well as someone out there claiming that vis-a-vis the anal-oral sex Wiki, that I should no longer exercise my chance to add. It's frankly appalling. Don't bully, educate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 03:00, 21 April, 2008 (UTC)

Successfully defended? Editors have defended keeping it, and I find the arguments valid. But that doesn't mean that I find these arguments any more valid than the arguments for removing it. So no, I don't think it's been successful.

Point the second: This is not a free speech case. This is about whether or not the term is something that adds to the article.

Point the third. I'm no longer on the fence about this issue. To get my endorsement, each slang term in the article will need to be attested by two reliable sources. This is a bare minimum, and should be easily attainable for any widely-used term. If you want to come to a consensus that it should have more rigorous standards, that's fine, too. But only one source is not enough. Here are the slang terms:

rimming

rim-job

salad tossing

butt/ass licking

eating ass

reaming

biting brown

Find sources for these. If you can't find two, I'm going to start taking them out.

PS. I refactored your comment. superluser_tc 2008 April 21, 04:51 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent solution to me. If any particular term has two reliable sources to back it up, then it's probably worth mentioning in this article.--Kubigula (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I consent to the new metric for inclusion of slang terms as suggested by superluser.

Bite the brown references:

http://www.geocities.com/lluisa_pr/txt/diccionari_glossari/slang_sex.txt (Glossary of Sexual Slang Compiled by G.F. Pranzarone Ph.D., AASECT: CSE)

http://aethlos.com/gaydictionary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 14:06, 21 April, 2008 (UTC)

The Pranzarone reference is easy to verify (though I may have to contact him to verify that the glossary is accurate--Geocities isn't really the best place for reliable sources), but the aethlos one doesn't assert any authority. Where does that information come from? Why should I trust that information over, say, UrbanDictionary?

P.S. sign your messages. superluser_tc 2008 April 21, 15:10 (UTC)

http://www.roanoke.edu/psych/pranzarone.htm

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bite+the+brown

66 has tried to maintain that "biting the brown" is not a euphemism for scat fetishism, or "eating s*it," but there it is, right there in the urban dictionary. Urban dictionary gives two uses: eating s*it, and licking a girl's a**hole. Well, eating s*it is NOT slang for anal-oral sex, and since a female receiver of analingus is but one of the possible scenarios, therefore making this slang too limited in this case, I maintain this is ALL further PROOF that this ridiculous term has NO place in this article!. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

98 has set a new parameter on this exercise. Apparently these slang terms should no longer have secondary definitions.

"Tossing salad" can also be understood as, well, tossing salad. In fact, one might say that slang definition of the phrase "tossing salad" is far less of a primary one than that of actually preparing mixed greens. However, in this context we understand to be a slang synonym (not euphemism) for anilingus. So, 98, should we remove "tossing salad", too? I'm sure you would agree that we most certainly should not.

"Bite the brown" no doubt has other secondary definitions, as we saw over at urbandictionary.com and might surely find in other references. The primary one however is as slang for anal-oral sex. I do not understand why you keep questioning this in light of the facts. I will not submit to this new parameter being proposed of slang with "no secondary definitions". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say slang for anal-oral sex couldn't have secondary meanings! I merely pointed out that according to urban dictionary one meaning is "eating s*it," and the other applies ONLY to when a female is the receiver, therefore in this case making it a limited slang term. Please stop twisting my words!98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, UrbanDictionary is generally not considered a reliable source. As such, it cannot be used for inclusion or exclusion on Wikipedia. superluser_tc 2008 April 21, 23:23 (UTC)

Good grief. You people just like to argue. See you later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 02:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait - didn't 66.30.36.187 find the two sources that user:superluser and user:kubigula claimed would allow a slang term to be included? Why isn't "biting brown" in the article? It's completely unfair to keep moving the bar as many of you are doing. Superluser, did you ever contact Dr. Pranzarone like you said you would? Did he deny that "bite the brown" is slang for anal-oral sex??

Also, has anyone come up with "two citations" for the slang terms currently posted?? I for one would like to see them. Wasn't that the rule? Why was this rule applied only to user 66's submission? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.233.220 (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Gimme a break. It would probably take two minutes to find a million references to those other terms being slang for anal-oral sex. Even old church ladies have probably heard those terms. "Biting the brown," though...good luck on your scavenger hunt.98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The consensus was that there should be two (2) sources. 66 found two sources. Stop moving the bar... that constitutes bullying in my opinion.

In addition to Dr. Pranzarone's reference, I offer another academic reference: http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/links_sextermsb.htm This is from the Hawai'i AIDS Education and Training Center and AIDS Education Project which is affiliated with the John A. Burns School of Medicine at the University of Hawaii at Manoa. It clearly states that "bite the brown" is a synonym for anal-oral contact.

Superluser, I have tried my best to work with you editors on finding a consensus on the disputed term. I feel that I have answered every objection with honest, straight-forward logic and have backed up my claim to the edit with the two required bona fide citations. I am hoping you agree that it's time to move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 14:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

66 is right. I've found another, slightly different, copy of the Pranzarone text, also with the reference to BtB, so it is unlikely to have been altered for this term. The text in question was referenced in a footnote of a WIPO decision, and the other one is published by the University of Hawaii medical school. I think we have to accept that these are two reliable sources. Thus, if we put slang back in the article, this should go back in. (I think we need to add at least some slang, and will edit it this way once protection ends)

That being said, Pranzarone lists no fewer than 10 terms for anal-oral sex. We shouldn't have to list every term, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

Thus, if this list of terms gets longer, we may need to add additional restrictions to ensure that we include only the most important terms. It is not unnecessarily long at this point, so there is no need for crystal ballery. superluser_tc 2008 April 24, 17:34 (UTC)

O.k., first you say that since there are two sources for "biting the brown," we have to add it back in. But you noted that within that very article there are 10 other terms, but we don't have to add them. Huh? Why not? If we don't have to list every term, as you said above, then why do we have to add in a fringe term like "biting the brown"? You said that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and I agree. But to add a term that most people have never heard of into a list of slang that at least has the implied notion that these are widely used, widely known slang terms, then you open the floodgates for this article and others to be flooded with slang, including relatively unknown slang. I can think of a whole bunch of slang terms that aren't in the article that are much more well-known than "biting the brown." Here's how some people will see it -- if we're going to add "biting the brown" then it should be open season, and we should be able to add every slang term that we can find. Then, you can have several hundred slang terms in one article. Is that how you really want it? 98.220.43.195 (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No one is advocating adding any of the other terms. We can debate that when it becomes an issue. superluser_tc 2008 April 25, 00:48 (UTC)

<Sigh> You missed the main point of what I was saying entirely. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I did. Would you care to repeat it? I really don't want to avoid your arguments. Your argument seemed to be that allowing this term would mean that the article would suddenly be flooded with indiscriminate terms, but no one is arguing that we should do that. This is the fallacy of the straw man, or perhaps the slippery slope. No one is arguing that we should add any other terms, and just because we make one change does not mean that all other changes must happen as a necessity.

In addition, we have no need, duty or obligation to discuss non-actionable courses of action. No one has raised the issue of adding any other terms. The issue of hypothetical terms that no one has suggested adding is moot, and we do not need to address it. In fact, it might be a bad idea to discuss it now, since devising rigid standards now might inhibit future flexibility in dealing with other words. Imagine a requirement that all terms need twelve sources. What if we still came up with a list of 50 terms? Increasing the requirement to thirteen sources would probably not help. We would need to use a different set of criteria, and building the criteria this way will allow us to decide what belongs and what does not in a more organic fashion, and resulting in less monkeying around with the article.

If you want to have the discussion now, I'm open to it, but I do think it's unnecessary at this point. superluser_tc 2008 April 26, 06:50 (UTC)

My point all along has been that this is a fringe term that almost no one has heard of. Before, you had a short, simple list of five popular, widely used terms as examples of slang. Now, you have five widely-used terms and one massively underused, ridiculous sounding fringe term that in at least one source is defined as a nickname for "eating s*it." And it certainly sounds like another way to describe it, doesn't it? So what will be the argument against everyone else inserting their own fringe terms? Before, we could say, "the list is a short list of five widely-known terms." Now you don't have that. It IS a slippery slope. Mark my words. I wouldn't be surprised if 66 and 75 don't start adding some more ludicrous terms now, or someone else will. In any case, what is the defense now, as long as someone brings two sources? TWO SOURCES?!?!? Who cares? Why is that a strict enough criteria? I could probably find two sources for ANYTHING if I tried hard enough. That doesn't mean the term is worthy of inclusion in the article. The integrity of this article is compromised and reduced to a joke with "biting the brown" in it.98.220.43.195 (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

98, is it possible that you are wrong? Is it possible that the term is, in fact, widely used, but that you've just never heard it? We have two sources, one a Ph.D., and the other an accredited medical school, who believe that the term is notable enough. If you have credentials which you feel make you an authority on the subject, I'd be very interested in finding out about them. superluser_tc 2008 April 26, 23:09 (UTC)

Good Lord, this is just common sense. Let's travel the information superhighway, shall we? Do a Google or Yahoo! search of any or all of those five terms. See how many thousands -- or millions -- of results you get. Then try "biting the brown" and see what that gets ya. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The burden is not common sense. It is verifiability. The term has been verified. If you want to suggest a separate set of criteria, feel free. superluser_tc 2008 April 27, 03:36 (UTC)

My point about whether "biting the brown" is an unknown fringe terms stands. If you conduct a search on the two largest search engines on the Internet and come up with nothing, how on earth can that term be considered notable enough? Every day, entire articles are deleted off Wikipedia for lack of notability. I bet all of them have SOURCES. That doesn't mean they're notable. Why can we not apply this standard of notability to whether a term is included as slang? Again, go do an Internet search -- what you'll come up with is multiple references to brown recluse spiders and whatnot, and that's it. That means that this so-called slang for anal-oral sex can't even be found on the thousands or millions of porn-related websites, including those devoted to the practice! I think this would be a good criteria for whether a term is well-known enough to be included -- number of results returned from an Internet search. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:GOOGLEHITS. "a lack of search engine hits may only indicate that the topic is highly specialized or not generally sourceable via the internet." superluser_tc 2008 April 27, 19:59 (UTC)

You left out the second part of the paragraph, though: "The search-engine test may, however, be useful as a negative test of popular culture topics which one would expect to see sourced via the Internet. A search on an alleged 'Internet meme' that returns only one or two distinct sources is a reasonable indication that the topic is not as notable as has been claimed." The Internet is brimming with thousands of pornographic websites. If "biting the brown" were a well-known term, it would show up in an Internet search as a hit on these sites, among other sites. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

But it's not an internet meme. superluser_tc 2008 April 27, 21:15 (UTC)

<sigh> I think "Internet meme" is ONE example of something they are saying the negative test could apply to. I wasn't trying to say "biting the brown" was an Internet meme.98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the point of WP:GOOGLEHITS is that Google is an authority on the internet, and other subjects are much less so. superluser_tc 2008 April 28, 14:44 (UTC)

If you go back through this whole debate, user:superluser has tried (successfully IMHO) to be a firm, but fair arbiter of this discussion. When he/she took the reins of this dispute, they tried to reach out to all sides to work on a compromise. After one was reached and those parameters were met vis-a-vis BTB, user:Nightmareishere has continued on with this fight, even going as far as unilaterally removing all slang terms from the article. I think user:Nightmareishere and their suspected "98" sock-puppet are more interested in creating mischief than reaching accord and moving on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.193.97.233 (talk) 17:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, 98 is not my sock puppet. If you would look a little further, you would see that I admitted 98 is my IP address weeks ago. Secondly, I do NOT agree that Superluser has been a fair arbiter of this debate. In spite of many logical reasons to exclude this term, Superluser continues to hold onto any flimsy string to continue to use this ridiculous term in the article, even going so far as to suggest that Google and Yahoo! are not sufficient ways to determine whether this term is notable enough or not. If the two largest INTERNET search engines are not enough to help with an issue with an INTERNET encyclopedia, then what is? As far as creating mischief, I am not -- I am trying to restore seriousness to this article by removing this juvenile "biting the brown" term. I have to ask, why is it so important for you and 66 to repeatedly add this term back in? Why can't YOU move on? Nightmareishere (talk) 18:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

And I quote: "Sounds like an excellent solution to me. If any particular term has two reliable sources to back it up, then it's probably worth mentioning in this article." --Kubigula (talk) 05:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And again I say, two sources is probably a flimsy criteria for inclusion. Haven't I heard it before, that Wikipedia is not a collection of links and terms, and so forth. I could probably find two sources for ANYTHING if I dug hard enough. That does not mean the term is notable. What's wrong with my suggestion, of using number of hits on an Internet search as a better criteria? I tell you this -- if "biting the brown" is allowed in this article, then I promise you, many more obscure terms will follow.Nightmareishere (talk) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want a stricter set of criteria, fine. But I will not consent to a search engine test.

(psst. [3]) superluser_tc 2008 May 01, 22:30 (UTC)

A single reference from over 35 years ago from a Playboy-branded book is hardly sufficient, IMHO. Apertus (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Kubigula, why did you disable 66's ability to edit this page? He/she has followed and met the parameters that you yourself agreed to 10 days ago. Did you somehow miss these?

http://www.roanoke.edu/psych/pranzarone.htm

http://www.hawaii.edu/hivandaids/links_sextermsb.htm

Please explain yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.2.134 (talk)

I blocked both 66 and 98 temporarily for edit warring and violating the three revert rule. No discussion here enables them, or anyone else, to edit war, which is very disruptive to the project. Temporary page protections didn't seem to work, and when they both crossed the 3RR line, other measures had to be taken to stop the warring.--Kubigula (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Then Nightmareishere needs to be blocked, too. They have admitted that they and "98" are one in the same person. Work-home-work, remember? Does anyone else read this stuff? Nightmareishere/98 continues the edit war against a term that met your own standards.

You are suggesting I be blocked, when you are being used as a sock puppet by 66 to continue to add the "biting the brown" term back in? Unbelievable. Nightmareishere (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I am someone who has sat and watched this fight unfold. Don't call me a sock puppet again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.162.2.134 (talk) 01:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

You obviously know 66 personally. How else would you know that he was blocked from editing? You have taken his place in posting the "biting the brown" comment, so you are a sock puppet. Also, EDITORS TAKE NOTE: This person, 203, vandalized the anal-oral sex page with a crude remark about me. This person should be blocked from editing. Nightmareishere (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you even check the geolocation for these IP addresses before you make your accusations? I don't want to get too specific, but 203 isn't even on the same continent as 66. In addition, all you have to do to find a block is go to the user contributions and click on the block log. I do it myself occasionally, when I get bored.

I, however, most certainly don't approve of vandalism. superluser_tc 2008 May 02, 05:21 (UTC)

Well, if that's what happened here, I stand corrected. But I guess I didn't know it was common practice for users to look at each others block logs. It just seems funny that right after 66 got blocked, this other user just so happened to have this information, and during the period of 66's block, tried to insert "biting the brown" into the article three times. Hadn't contributed to the article before that I know of, but was relentles during 66's block. In addition, geographic location has nothing to do with friendship. One of my best friends now lives 2,000 miles away. I have family just as far away. People have been known to have loved ones who live or travel in other countries for various reasons.98.220.43.195 (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm an expat in living in Vietnam and have no clue who this 66 is. You claim you know so much about the Internet but can't figure out where an IP is from??

I do know that this 98/nightmareishere sock puppet duo has a crap argument, YELLS TO MUCH!!, is a loudmouth, inconsiderate name-caller, knows nothing about ani-slang (eating shit?? hardly, my friend) and is dead wrong on this. He and his blocked sock-puppet (yeah pal, it's a sock puppet if 98 is blocked, but you're still here) think they're totally right on this thing. The goddamn term BTB met the requirements that were agree to. Vandalization? You bet. Don't like it? Then stop vandalizing it yourself. This is a term that someone felt was legit and backed it up according to criteria that were agree to by multiple other editors. You on the other hand just jump up and down and get into edit wars and put up lame arguments and yell. By the way - STOP YELLING!!!!! Unfortunately, we can hear you.

And yes, I did read the block log. You obviously know about as much about ani-slang as you do about the workings of the Wikipedia project.

Superluser is the only one with any sense around here and I commend them.

You have no idea who 66 is? You ARE 66! And no one is yelling but you! And, when you said "Vandalization? You bet", you just admitted to vandalism that was done under the 203 account. My sock puppet theory has just been proven. Editors take note. Nightmareishere (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked one of your admitted sock puppets is blocked, but you're still here. Explain that. Again, you know crap about ani-slang. "Eating shit" my ass....

EDITORS TAKE NOTE: I am objecting to this abusive language from 66. Please do something about it. Nightmareishere (talk) 22:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

66 was blocked pal - check the log. STOP YELLING!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Do you not realize how foolish you continue to look referring to "66" in the third person, when your IP address is signed at the end of the comment and the revision history shows that you are 66 as well? Nightmareishere (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll make it easy for you: *Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/203.162.2.134

No slang?

As an experiment to see how other editors feel it would read, I have eliminated ALL of the slang terms. Does the article suffer? I think not. Put them back in if you want, but I think it's fine without them. Personally, I think this is a way to end this little edit war. Nightmareishere (talk) 06:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This editor feels it's a poor idea that does the article a disservice. Please undo this edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.36.187 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well obviously YOU would feel this way. But I want to know what REAL editors who are not vandalizing the page with sophomoric nonsense slang that stands for "eating s*it" think about removing the slang. Nightmareishere (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for ad hominems here. superluser_tc 2008 April 21, 23:24 (UTC)

I'm 12.218.156.54, and I've been contributing to the discussion anonymously. I also added the info regarding the Starr Report. Anyways, a list of common slang terms should definitely be included. And biting the brown shouldn't. The "Ph.D" includes incredibly ridiculous slang terms. Why not include those other ones? Biting the brown is a fringe term not recognized by most people and should not be included. I'm reverting the page back to maintain its integrity and make it conform with other pages concerning sex terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Altenia (talk • contribs) 23:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of page protection is not to give logged in users an advantage in an edit dispute over anonymous editors. Nightmareishere - as one of the parties to the dispute, I request that you not make edits to the disputed slang terms section during the period of protection unless a consensus is reached.--Kubigula (talk) 02:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Your experiment was a failure, Nightmareishere. You basically vandalized the article. What do you feel gives you the right to conduct an "experiment" like that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.192.233.220 (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with the slang being added back in. I took it out to see if the article would stand on its own without the slang. I even STATED that I wanted editors to discuss it to see if the article was still meritorious without the slang. I did not vandalize the page. Anytime anyone edits a page, it's technically an experiment. On the other hand, you and 66 can't seem to stand the fact that people -- myself AND others -- don't want to see this "biting the brown" nonsense in this article. You two are the ones who can't accept reason, and therefore, YOU are vandalizing the page in my opinion. Nightmareishere (talk) 21:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

No, you took advantage of the fact that you're an established editor, and used that fact to change the article to something else despite the fact that the content in question is still disputed. Now it is the wrong version of the article, whereas before, it was the wrong version.

As for the term, I was waiting to hear more about the non-Pranzarone source. I can't tell if the author is an expert; I can't even tell who the author is. superluser_tc 2008 April 24, 01:45 (UTC)

I do NOT appreciate you calling me a liar, Superluser. My intent was as I said above, not the nefarious, underhanded intent that you claim I had. Please refrain from unfounded accusations and assume good faith from me, because that is all I have ever had with this article. Nightmareishere (talk) 22:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that I've called you a liar. I have done no such thing, and I do not believe that you are. I simply feel that it is inappropriate to change the disputed content of an article before the disputes are settled. superluser_tc 2008 April 25, 00:46 (UTC)

Google hits

I do not believe that Google hits should be used as a metric for popularity of a phrase.

Let me give you some examples.

• Look at Spreading and choking. It says that this is often referred to as "trapping". Let's look up "ink trapping" on google: [4]. 3920 hits.

Amazon.com gives me [5] 19 books, including some well-respected books on printing.

• Byron the Bulb (a fictional immortal light bulb from Gravity's Rainbow) [6]: 2500 Google hits.

Centennial light (a real 100-year-old light bulb) [7]: 5170 Google hits.

• United States that Matter [8]: 19 Google hits. It's currently a meme that's quite popular on Fark ([9]) and moving elsewhere. Notable? Not at this point. But it's certainly more popular than 19 hits would suggest.

It's Raining McCain [10]: 35,800 hits.

I'd be willing to bet good money that a random telephone survey would show that more people are familiar with trapping than the McCain Girls. But Google suggests the opposite. superluser_tc 2008 May 02, 04:54 (UTC)

This needs to stop

This is seriously heading into the territory of lame edit wars. 66 and 98/Nightmare have now been blocked for 48 hours for continuing to edit war and break WP:3RR. I've offered each of them an early unblock if they will commit to stop edit-warring over this and to limit themselves to 1 revert per day.

Because continuing administrative action seems necessary (and because I really don't care that much), I'm not taking any position on whether "biting brown" is or is not appropriate. However, this is disruptive and needs to end. 66 and 98 have voiced their opinions pretty thoroughly, and we've got some helpful comments from Superluser and Apertus. Do they, or anyone else, care to comment further to see if we can build a consensus on this thing?--Kubigula (talk) 04:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the one comment I made above still stands - since the reference provided by someone is over 35 years old, it hardly qualifies as contemporary. Additionally, although Playboy is a reputable magazine, it is known to be irreverent as well. Let's face it: our grandmothers would have been clueless if we used the word "gay" to describe anything other than "happy" 50 years ago. This seems similar. I make no claim to know that "biting the brown" was never a valid term - slang or otherwise - but I don't see that it is today. Google hits don't show it - even with safe search off. Times change, and whether or not it was used in the past, it doesn't seem to be now. When I search Google, I get the recluse spider hits that others get. Yahoo and MSN are similar; although they each have one questionable reference (one gay porn movie and one urban dictionary). Interestingly, though, this page is higher than those hits.

I think there is a certain level expected from a reference in wikipedia. If we have to search high and low and discuss it this much to justify something, we are pushing a point of view rather than reporting what exists. Yes - a porn movie does make reference to this term. But that strikes me as trivia, in the way that every mention of leprosy appears all over the leprosy article, under the guise of "popular culture." As we all know, trivia sections - even when called "In popular culture" - are discouraged. An urban dictionary - community edited, without references, is equally suspect as a reference here. That's not to say nobody's ever heard of it, but it is apparently not common, or there would be more than one or two users trying to get it in the article.

The point has been made that if it remains in the article, then other terms of questionable notability will also creep in. I agree with this assessment, and I really feel the bar should be what it always is: Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It doesn't matter if you or I know 50 people that refer to anilingus as "biting the brown." What matters is whether or not it is published in reliable sources and is contemporary. We surely don't want to start looking at everything since Shakespeare and see all the references to different things that have come in and out of fashion in the language over the centuries. That is NOT what Wikipedia is.

A further note on reliable sources and age thereof. I'm not claiming that because the book reference is 35+ years old that automatically makes it invalid. What I'm saying is that if we have to go that far back to find something that is a slang term - which, by its very nature, is ephemeral - then it doesn't belong in an encyclopedic article. We can prove any number of things from reliable sources that are just plain wrong. We can get references about masturbation causing blindness. We can find published reports about JFK assassination theories. We can talk about the causes of World War I, World War II, and probably every war for the last 100 years. There are verifiable sources for multiple points of view on these things. But it is not our job to evaluate any of them - rather to present them and let the facts speak for themselves. The fact, in this case, is that the evidence for use of the term is flimsy, at best.

You can't prove a negative, so they say. We cannot prove that this term has never been used. But the fact that it has ever been used doesn't automatically merit its inclusion in this article. There are probably easily 50 terms that have been used - maybe 100 - and we shouldn't be discussing every one of them. After this much discussion, it seems clear that this one isn't notable enough, or more people would have stepped up with a wide variety of references.

In conclusion, I'd like to say that the other slang terms are in wide use and can easily be found in any web search, and clearly have one slang meaning. Nobody searching for "rim job" is going to expect to wind up anywhere else, and anyone who doesn't know where they're going to wind up should wind up here, as an accurate reflection of what the term refers to. That is not the case with "biting the brown" (or its more recent incarnation, "biting brown"); a search of that term which leads one here will likely leave them scratching their heads as to why, because it's a dead-end. They would not be able to expand their knowledge of the use of the slang term by clicking any link in this article, because the reference(s) are weak, at best.

If you paid attention this long, my thanks for hanging with me. I hope we can put this to rest, and at the risk of alienating some - without a reference to "biting [the] brown". Apertus (talk) 06:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Apertus, you've hit the nail right on the head. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.53.178 (talk) 07:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Caption on picture

The caption on the picture says. "A person preparing to perform anilingus." The picture is a drawing, not a photograph, so it is not a a person. It's a drawing. Popeye is not a person. The caption should be amended to something like "A depiction of a person performing analingus." "The "preparing to" should be struck because how do you know the dude is "preparing" and is not being depicted in flagrante delicto? He might be coming up for air!Shemp Howard, Jr. (talk) 04:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC) P.S. Would a rose smell as sweet if its name was "fart"?

I completely agree with you, and made the appropriate changes to make it a better caption, but two editors with apparently nothing better to do with their lives reverted them for no reason, with no explanation. Nightmareishere (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

it does represent a person however, that is what artwork's intention is anyways, so i'm going to change it to an artist's conception of... and let's see what you all think.^MY♥_INchile 02:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Somebody previously pointed out that this is probably not a drawing but rather a photograph that has been photoshopped. As I look at the picture now, I think that is probably correct.--Kubigula (talk) 03:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well either way it is art! "probably" doesn't cut it though is it or isn't it? furthermore, we should point that out in the caption if it is so.^MY♥_INchile 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Butt eating and ass eating

Both terms for the buttocks are in common usage so i added it.^MY♥_INchile 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

lingus link

lingus should not link to cunnilingus, since in latin it means tongue so it should link to tongue, perhaps the text should however point out the origen of the term anilingus was by analogly (kidding) with cunnilingus^MY♥_INchile 17:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"thumb|right|An artist's conception of a man performing anilingus another individual's anus. Anal–oral sex, also referred to or described as anal–oral contact or anilingus (from anus + -lingus), is a form of oral sex involving contact between the anus or perineum of one person and the mouth (lips) or tongue of another. Non-clinical, slang terms include rimming, rim-job, salad tossing, butt/ass licking and eating ass/butt. It is performed by people of all sexual orientations. Depending upon the context in which it is performed, this sex act can either be used for personal pleasure among consenting parties or as a form of erotic humiliation."

The problems I have with the last edit are the following, and are my opinion, not authoritative. 1) The caption on the image should be bried, and on topic. IMO, the image speaks for itself, and does not a detailed description. Why should we tell them that it is an artists conception? The topic is oral-anal, so why shoud we say "a man performing anilingus on another individual's anus". That is redundant, and not necessary. It could be brief and say "Anilinugus", or "Man performing Anilingus". 2) Cunnilingus is a person performing oral sex on a womans vulva, clitoris or Vagina. It is not anal-oral contact. 3) There is no such term as "Tongue-lingus". That is made-up. :Lingus" is form the latin verb Lingere. It is used in the term Cunnilingus, as Cunnus is "Vulva" and Lingere which is "To lick". A redirect to "tongue" is not appropriate. 4) There is no need to add the term "butt" in the phrase "eating ass/butt" as it is redundant. We don't need to provide all of the adjectives for the body part, or euphemisms for the act, ont is sufficient. "Eating ass" is suffient, as "Eating Butt" is the same thing.

I will clean it up a little more. Atom (talk) 17:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure' we should provide all the euphemisms, we must be comprehensive in our coverage, if it were simply a description yes it should not be redundant, but it is not it is a listing of the common terms for it and thus we must not eliminate half of the term ass eating, butt eating and also the same with licking^MY♥_INchile 18:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

how bout eating or licking butt or ass, eating/licking but or ass, eating or licking butt/ass, licking or eating butt (ass), butt or ass eating, and butt or ass licking^MY♥_INchile 18:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hear what you are saying. It isn't a dictionary entry though. I don't like the last suggestion, but one of the first two maybe?Atom (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

nose

people also use the tip of their nose to stimulate the anus and the article should mention people insert their tongues inside the butthole.^MY♥_INchile 03:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Biting the brown" rears its ugly head again

66 is back with his "biting the brown" nonsense again. Given this, and the high level of other nonsense vandalism on this page recently, I think maybe it's time to put a permanent protection status on this page. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 17:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to go with no. Settle your differences, please, for the good of the article. If there's any protection going on, I'd have to recommend protection from you two. superluser_tc 2008 October 17, 23:18 (UTC)

Was legit, is legit and was fully referenced. I simply can't sit by while the wiki-bullies try to control a web site that is simply not theirs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.34.55 (talk) 14:31, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Something has to be done about 66

It's a shame that a two-week protection has to be put on this page due to the persistent disruptive editing/vandalism of user 66. And if you read a comment he posted on his talk page, it seems obvious that he intends to resume vandalizing the page as soons as the protection is lifted. Either this user needs to be permanently blocked from editing, or there needs to be an indefinite protection placed on this page. Nightmareishere (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

And now, 66 and his sock puppet, Anlinguist, are vandalizing my talk page and harassing me! SOMEBODY PUT A STOP TO THIS, PLEASE! 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:42, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It's not a sock puppet. 66 and Anilinguist are the same person.

Of course. You are using an almost identical IP address -- a friend/neighbor/place of employment/library -- who knows, and also created Anlinguist, as a way to circumvent the week-long block that was recently placed on your original IP address, so you can continue to be disruptive, including harassing me on my talk page. Hopefully this second IP address and your "anlinguist" handle will soon be blocked too. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

98 - in light of the references that I have once again offered in defense of BTB, what do you have to say for yourself?

My arguments are the same as when you placed these references here six months ago. Really, why don't you just GO AWAY????? 98.220.43.195 (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than discuss in a civil manner, you ignore the evidence and repeatedly call for "permanent bans", etc. You're a bully and I don't like bullies. Your arguments 6 months ago were wrong and were categorically refuted one by one. It's all up there to read. Do you have anything new to say, or are you simply going to continue to claim that BTB should be disallowed because you, 98, personally don't care for the term? Are you really going to continue whining about edits you don't care for regardless of whether they are appropriate or not? If so, maybe it's you that should "go away". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.243.13 (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm a bully? This, coming from someone who repeatedly disrupts this article despite repeated reverts from numerous editors, and who has been warned repeatedly to stop it. This, coming from someone who harassed me earlier today on my talk page. Yeah, I'M the bully. I said go away because it is obvious that you do not want to contribute to this article. You just want to be disruptive and vandalize, and the blocks on your IP address bear this out. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

"Bite the Brown" References

http://multimedia.tomrue.net/library/dictionaries/GF_Pranzarone_-_Glossary_Of_Sexual_Slang.txt

http://www.sex-lexis.com/Sex-Dictionary/anilingus

http://www.definition-of.com/bite+the+brown

http://www.uta.fi/FAST/GC/sex-scat.html

http://www.scribd.com/doc/246306/Dirty-Words-a-scatological-compendium

http://www.aaronsgayinfo.com/AlphaMenu/Bterms.html

http://www.thesexionary.com/letter.php

http://www.dictonarsexenglez.blogspot.com/2008/06/b-25-bite-of-boar-muscatura-mistretului.html

Anyone have any links that suggest BTB is not a synonymous slang term for anilingus? If so, I'd be very interested in seeing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.243.13 (talk) 18:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

More "Bite the Brown" References

http://www.andrejkoymasky.com/lou/dic/b/bite4.html

http://andrejkoymasky.com/lou/dic/syn/rim.html

http://www.odps.org/glossword/index.php?a=srch&d=8&id_srch=a39183cc34f5de29b36e6966aa8ba814&il=en&p=1

http://gacatog5811.00bp.com/analingus-rim/

(Logical) Objections anyone?

Sure: not a single one of those references passes WP:RS. Because a thing is published on the Internet does not make it a reliable source. Apertus (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Apertus. But 66 doesn't get it. All the arguments against using this slang, combined with the multitude of editors who keep reverting it when he puts it in, and he still insists on disrupting this page repeatedly. Only when he is permanently banned from editing will this ridiculousness end. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:05, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not a good point at all, and it shows you didn't take the time to look at any of the references. Don't worry, I'm used to it. To quote WP:RS:

"Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. "

Would the work of a sitting professor of psychology at an accredited American college, who's interests are "physiological psychology, human sexuality, and stress management" pass the WP:RS test? Of course it would and once again, yet another objection to BTB is countered successfully. Dr. Galdino F. Pranzarone of Roanoke College in Virgina, USA published a paper referencing BTB. I referenced it above. Here's his bio http://www.roanoke.edu/psych/pranzarone.htm

98, Apertus, you also are bound by the same standards set forth by WP:RS. The onus is now on you to prove that BTB is not appropriate. Can either of you show me a "reliable source" from a "trustworthy or authoritative" individual stating that BTB is not a true slang term for anilingus? If so, I would be very interested in seeing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.243.13 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

<Sigh>. There are more arguments for excluding this term, and you know it. It was discussed ad nauseum six months ago. Nightmareishere (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

>>Sigh<< ...and those were all successfully addressed one by one and you know it. It's always something else! When it comes down to it, there are people on this wiki that simply don't want to see the slang term "bite the brown" included among the others. Frankly, that's not a good enough argument.

First, the reference you provided hardly qualifies under the quote you provided: "credible published materials with a reliable publication process". It is a text file on a server somewhere. Second, the requirement for inclusion is not "nobody can say it doesn't belong, so it stays", as you would apparently prefer. The requirement is to cite it or delete it, and the citations must meet community standards, and on top of that, there must be consensus that it belongs in the first place.

More to the point, however, is that nobody is saying this slang term isn't in use or never has been. What is being said is that it is not notable. There are probably 50 slang terms for this act; because they've been published doesn't mean they all belong in this article. There are very many slang terms for all sorts of sexual body parts, sexual acts, participants in them, and books, videos, objects, and thoughts to go along with them, and indeed, there are very many slang terms for very many things in this world. However, this is an encyclopedia, not a slangopedia, so they don't belong here. The burden of showing that information belongs in an article (any information, in any article) is on those who wish to place the information, not on those who say it does not belong. Apertus (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Does Dr. Pranzarone need to carve it onto stone tablets for the reference to meet the murky standards you're trying to set here?? Not every doctoral publication gets bound and printed (or carved, for that matter).

And yes, there were plenty of people who initially were saying that the term wasn't real and/or that I made it up when I first posted it. That's what started this whole thing! Apertus, I suggest you go up and read through the discussion before wading into this any further.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlinguist (talk • contribs) 20:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that a wiki article should attempt to contain a comprehensive and exhaustive list of alternate terms and slang. I have no particular objection to the inclusion of the term BTB. What I find disconcerting is one particular editor's persistence that this term be included. Looking over the sources that "66" has provided, it becomes apparent that there are numerous other slang phrases used that are not included in the article either, yet "66" does not seem nearly as upset about their absence from the article. The editor only seems determined to include "bite the brown". I simply fail to see how the inclusion of this phrase contributes significantly to the quality or substantive value of the article. --SeedFeeder (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Seedfeeder, you are correct on one point. Apart from BTB, I am uninterested in working to add other slang terms to the list that exists. However, I am unclear as to why you are using that, as well as my "persistence", as an argument for the disclusion of BTB?

There you have it, Seedfeeder & Apertus. 66 will NOT let this go. It must be some kind of OCD thing. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. It's a BTB thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlinguist (talk • contribs) 20:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Give it up, 66!

"Biting the brown" will continue to be reverted EVERY TIME it is entered, by numerous editors. You CANNOT WIN, 66, Give it up! 98.220.43.195 (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

We'll see, won't we, 98. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlinguist (talk • contribs) 21:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

FYI to Wikipedia Editors/Administrators

For any Wikipedia editors/administrators considering any sort of administrative action against 66's two IP addresses and his acknowledged editing name "Anlinguist":

Just a little while ago I reported him for repeated harassment against me. The reasons are as follows: 1. Repeated unwanted dialogue added to the talk page for my IP address. Prior to reporting him, I asked him repeatedly to stop, but he has failed to do so. 2. Vandalism of the header on a new entry I made on this talk page, titled "Something has to be done about 66". 3. Vandalism of text within the abovementioned entry. 4. The entire removal of another new entry I made on this talk page, titled "Get the hint, 66!". I also mentioned the fact that he is doing all this, despite a just-instated week-long ban on his original IP address, and that he is obviously using the alternative IP & "Anlinguist" handle to circumvent his ban, and continue with his disruptive edits, vandalism and harassment. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Bite my brown, 98. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlinguist (talk • contribs) 03:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Barracking the Obama

Your "biting the brown" entry has been reverted by numerous editors because it IS a made up term. Your continued insistence on posting an artificial, nonsensical term in a legitimate article is vandalism, period. If Wikipedia is open to anything, then I could add a ridiculous slang term such as "barracking the obama" to the list of slang terms. The other slang terms in the article are legitimate, widely used slang terms and therefore appropriate for the article. "Biting the brown" is illegitimate gibberish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmareishere (talk • contribs) 17:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anlinguist (talk • contribs)

So, you criticize me for clinging to old arguments, all but one of which I still consider valid, then you bring up the one old argument of mine that I conceded, six months ago, was wrong. I since listed about a million other reasons why the term should not be used, as have many others. Really, re-posting this just makes you look childish and foolish. Then again, if the last six months have demonstrated anything, you can't really seem to keep from doing that. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 19:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

This backbiting is getting crazy. I've lodged a complaint. superluser_tc 2008 November 07, 06:11 (UTC)

Did you mean "brown biting"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.127.151 (talk) 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks dude, now with Barracking the Obama you gave me a new word for it, i will use it in the future.

SUPPORT FOR "BTB"

It should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.38.18 (talk) 15:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The argument was laid out well enough for me. I would like to see "BTB" included once Anal-oral comes off protection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.242.165 (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

support it, will undo edits to it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.97.210.2 (talk) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors/administrators, please help

I just received this message on my Talk Page:

"THE ATTACK ON "98" ..has begun and will not stop. Sock puppets, proxy servers, fake names, undoings; they're all fair game now and there are lots of us. Nightmareishere will be punished for it's unwillingness to accept the right to free speech."

This user, who is the user 67 above, has already vandalized several different articles by undoing legitimate edits I made in these articles. What can be done to stop him? 98.220.43.195 (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:RBI. The IP is blocked. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

69 Double Rimming

Some reference deserves to be made to the fact that this activity can be done in 69 position ("mutual analingus"). (Simultaneous giving and receiving is best facilitated with 2 strategically placed pillows!) I have a "human pretzel" image which illustrates it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.250.213 (talk) 00:44, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's straighten BTB out, then we'll be all over this.

BTB is straightened out, you just refuse to accept it and leave the article alone. That's why it's on protected status. As far as referring to the act of 69/anal-oral sex, I don't really have a problem with including it. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 05:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia or Pornopedia?

I know people who can and would masturbate while staring at the picture currently used to illustrate anal-oral sex. Pornography is images that are designed to cause sexual arousal, and while you could argue that anything could be sexually arousing to someone, this image would fit under my definition of "arousing" and therefore pornography. Perhaps a less-arousing image could be used? That's just my two cents. -MertJared —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC).

Good Lord, not this argument again. It's not even a picture, it's an illustration. There are Wikipedia articles with much more "arousing" and "pornographic" images than this. Anyone who would spend time worrying about how arousing this cartoon is needs to get a hobby. Plus, if someone has a problem with it, what are they doing reading an anal-oral sex article anyway? 98.220.43.195 (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

My opinion

I think there should be a warning label on sexual articles on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.198.144 (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's a common sentiment, but Wikipedia does not put disclaimers in articles. There is actually already a disclaimer at the bottom of every article: Wikipedia:General disclaimer. --Mosquitopsu (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

What kind of a label? "Warning: this article on licking a** may contain sexual content." DUH! Stupid idea. 98.220.43.195 (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Too technical

My problem with this article is that is does not mention why anyone would be interested in doing it. No offense to those who enjoy it, I just don't get it. If someone could elaborate on that... 83.251.57.154 (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually the "why" you refer to has been incorporated into the article numerous times. And usually gets deleted for either WP:OR, WP:RS or for not meeting WP:NPOV guidelines. Anal-oral sex is just like most other forms of sex... making contact with a sensitive part of one person's body with a sensitive part of another's. That's it.--SeedFeeder (talk) 21:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)