Talk:Anilingus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

PoV

"Anilingus is an uncommon sexual practice. Those who do practice it do so, in many cases, because of the degradation inherent in the sex act for the passive partner."

This whole paragraph sounds like a personal point of view unless a reference to some research can be included to support it. -Unknown

Parasites

The text below was originally at Rimming before a few different page moves/merges.

What about gastro-intestinal parasites? Is it more likely to get some sort of worm this way than by eating raw pig? Does washing help? Also, shouldn't the encyclopedia title be "analingus" and "rimming" be transformed into a redirect page? I thought "rimming" was slang. Loisel 23:15 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)

Much agreed. Analingus is the more accurate term, and the most obvious term. Jeff Anonymous 05:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fetishism

I'm removing the links to coprophagia and scat fetishism because I think they're misleading. We don't have urine fetishism as a "see also" link from oral sex, though that would be analogous. -Montréalais

I'm not sure that's an inherantly accurate comparison. Both genitals are intended as sexual areas and have muscles which stop the flow of urine. Being a liquid, it's also a lot easier to clean and doesn't 'stick around' like the contents of the topic in question. Which, in accessing the anus, is releasing the muscles we have which stops access to the lower intestines. Perhaps a distinction could be made for your cause in 'rimming' the outside, and the insertion of the tongue which is distinctly more related to corprophagia. Tyciol 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Starr PoV

The Starr report mention seems somewhat POV. Daniel Quinlan 03:18, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

agreed -Unknown

Rewrite

This is a good article, but it really needs a rewrite to organize it better. The data is fine, but it is poorly organized. -Unknown

The new name (anal-oral contact) is non-encyclopaedic. Anilingus would be far more appropriate. I see no discussion of the move here. Exploding Boy 16:24, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it fits better with related articles of oral stimulation. Tyciol 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

How is the new name non-encyclopedic? Ass to Mouth does not equate with analingus, but does involve a certain degree of anal-oral contact (via an intermediate object, to be sure). The discussion of the merge is happening right here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:42, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Via intermediate object means there's no contact, it's not really an issue. We don't say oral-audial contact if I lick my finger and stick it in my ear. Tyciol 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's happening post-move. It's non-encyclopaedic in the same way as "vaginal-oral contact" vs cunnilingus. Exploding Boy 21:35, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, the old ass to mouth article is still there, it hasn't been "moved" so much as duplicated. It's not the same as vaginal-oral contact vs. cunnilingus because cunnilingus is the only kind of vaginal-oral contact being discussed, they are equivalent terms. Here, anal-oral contact is a superset of both anilingus ans ass to mouth. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 22:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

It works better if it's not a superset and refers simply to the lingus. Tyciol 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Really? You're adding in-line comments to a discussion TWO AND A HALF YEARS OLD??? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I'm suspicious of the whole "ass to mouth" concept. I don't know if it deserves its own mention at all. We don't have to name and write about every sexual act that human beings are capable of performing. Exploding Boy 23:20, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

That is a different argument than "anal-oral contact is a non-encyclopedic title". I'm not taking a stance on the appropriateness of the content at this point, just on its organization as long as its here. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 00:44, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Different, but related. Anal-oral contact could mean just about anything, plus since there is a technical term available, that's what we should be using. If "ass to mouth" is the only reason why we're using "Anal-oral contact" instead of "Anilingus" I think it's a poor reason. I could as easily claim that "Fellatio" should be moved to "Genital-oral contact" because some people like to lick their partners' balls. Exploding Boy 18:52, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Actually "anus" in Latin does signify the ass-hole. "Nates" is the term for buttocks, but it is almost exclusively used in the plural, since people have, almost exclusively, two buttocks.

Actually (yet again) anus is a third declension feminine, not a second declension masculine. The stem form is therefore 'anu'. not ani. The word should be anulingus. So there. Quod est demonstrandum. Sic transit gloria anu. Et caetera.

Do we really need the Templar photo?

It's rather unnecessary and places a rather non-neutral value judgment against "rimming." Frankly, I think the article is best without it. Thoughts? -Unknown

I can't think of another photo to replace it that wouldn't be totally unacceptable or stomach turning..!!! --218.175.155.56 02:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I personally see it as neutral, because it documents a historical condemnation rather than promoting a contemporary one. I don't think it denegrates the sexual act any more than it promotes the idea that the Knights Templar engaged in it. -Unknown

Then why not remove the image and not replace it with anything? The written desription paints a vivid enough picture. ~~Fishhead64 01:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Degrading?

This quote seems somewhat POV to me:

"After all, anilingus occurs most commonly in pornographic videos in which men are depicted as dominating and degrading women for the erotic pleasure of the audience. Many men and women find these practices offensive, while others find them extremely erotic."

In point of fact, most hetero pornographic videos show MEN performing analingus on WOMEN (and only rarely the reverse), which would seem to "degrade" the men, not the women, if one considers it degrading in the first place. Doubtless, many people find this offensive, but the act is generally performed in private because it is pleasurable-- its assimilation into pornography is an extension of its eroticism, not its degradation.

After all, we're not talking about coprophagy (feces-eating) here, which is a truly degrading act; simply the stimulation of a sensitive area, and arguably less repulsive even than anal sex, since there is no entry into the rectum.

In addition, the next paragraph cites "ingestion" by a known porn actress, implying that we are talking of coprophagy here. Perhaps the writer has confused this act, or lumped it into too general a category?

Basically, I request that the above quote be rewritten. In time, I may write it myself.

I agree. The part about "Prevalence in pornographic videos" sounds very academic but far from the truth though this might be hard to prove. It is definitely more men performing anilingus on women than the other way around in porn movies. Women on women is quite common as well. This applies to your average porn movie that aims at people that get excited form 'conventional' sex acts, which accounts for the larger part of porn. I also have my doubts about the following sentence:

"In order to continue to be shocking, such videos sometimes rely on more obscure sexual acts, that many would consider degrading, in order to elicit a strong reaction from their audience. After all, anilingus occurs most commonly in pornographic videos in which men are depicted as dominating and degrading women for the erotic pleasure of the audience. Many men and women find these practices offensive, while others find them extremely erotic."

In my opinion, the writer of this (probably a woman, but not that it should matter) has a wrong idea about why people watch porn in the first place. I'd say that the majority of people watch porn because it excites them and gives them sexual pleasure (while often combined with masturbation). It is part of their sex life, and normally they would watch things that they would want to do (or to be done to) themselves. The percentage of porn that people see in order to get shocked is minimal i would say, although it obviously exists.

I would also like to know what the assumption that most people see anilingus as being degrading to one of the partners is based on. Consider: a woman performs anilingus on a man in a movie. The female onlooker might see a woman being degraded or degrading herself. A male one may see a woman enjoying herself giving pleasure to a man. Most porn is watched by men i would say. Without some sort of proof this seems to be POV.

I would also say that most people don't watch porn to see women get degraded in the first place. As i mentioned, watching porn is part of (a lot of) people's sex life. Most of these people have 'normal' tastes. Women (not men) are the biggest stars in porn who enjoy huge fan bases of adoring people. Do these fans want to see their idols getting degraded or enjoying the sex they perform? Any statement on this should be provided with some sort of proof. Undeniably, there are people who like to watch porn where women are being degraded by men. But are there more than people who like to watch porn in which it is the other way around? This might be true, but where is the proof. Anyway, anilingus peformed by women on men is quite rare in porn so it is only a marginal subject in my opinion.

"Anilingus became something of a fad around 2003 or 2004 in American pornographic videos. Various explanations have been given for this trend, but one reason predominates: anilingus generally occurs in videos, targeted to both heterosexual and homosexual men, in which men dominate women, at least to a certain extent."

I never heard of this 'fad' and i would like to see references to it and the 'various explanations' for it. Without sources i'd say the whole section should be deleted. --Vunzmstr 21:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that this is because you've never seen a porn movie in your life. (anonymous)

The quoted passage may be true of straight porn. It is certainly way out of date in relation to all-male gay porn (but then, the whole article seems to have been written from a straight person's point of view - not that there's anything wrong with that). Rimming has been a normal feature of gay porn for at least 10 years, probably a lot longer. JackofOz 08:54, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture removal and choosing

The explicit picture of the two homosexuals having sex is not necessary and I am removing it!! -Unknown

Possibly, possibly not. This is really something that can occur M>M M>F F>M F>F. Choosing one sort over others would inevitably offend someone, so it would be best to include none, or a basic diagram where the gender of neither participant is discernable. Tyciol 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong, when an article does not include two men or a man and a woman in favor of two women for example and it cannot fit all the common combinations you simply make sure that if there are 6 or 7 articles related to oral sex, some show men some show women some show a man and a woman, some show dark skinned people or light skinned people. Essentially that they are overall representative of the diversity of the subjects at hand. For now, this seems to be the only picture available and i honestly can't tell what the persons sexes are. I see an anus and a tongue. I think we should be most worried about being inclusive of different races actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.74.132 (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS risk

I was reading an article Avert about how easily HIV is transmitted via oral sex (the conclusion been "not very"). Although the article obviously isn't about anal-oral contact there is probably a correlation. I think mentioning HIV as one of the specific risks is therefore misleading... GalaxiaGuy 20:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

HIV is really transmitted on anal-oral contact. Just ask your doctor and he/she will confirm. The information on the article is not misleading. --Alberto msr 20:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Is your doctor the caveman from the gieco commercials, or probably a prude. Your mouth is more likely to give the anus something. Are you sure it is? How is it transmitted by rimming? Is it if the (HIV-positive) rimmer's saliva gets on the rimmee's anal cavity and its muccous membranes with naturally occuring microtears? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.74.132 (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletions

Anon editor, please don't delete huge chunks of text without giving reason on the talk page. Also, can you source the assertion that the mouth presents more pathogens than the anus and rectum? 02:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Prevalence in pornographic videos

This whole section reads like original research. -216.165.33.63 04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hot Carl

The search term "Hot Carl" redirects to this subject. A Hot Carl does not involve anal-oral contact and should be its own article. -Unknown

I noticed someone reverted back the discussion about Hot Carl vs. Hot Karl, but it was quickly replaced. I wanted to specify my objections to it being redirected to Anal-Oral contact:

1. A Hot Carl does not involve anal-oral contact, only fecal-oral contact, and can be done with or without a barrier.
2. I do not believe this qualifies as sexual slang. There is no proper term for this in sexual descriptions. A blowjob is slang for fellatio, but there is nothing describing Hot Carl.
3. I also point out that a Hot Carl is not Coprophagia, because ingestion of fecal matter is optional. Also, a Hot Carl is sexual in nature, Coprophagia is not.

Thoughts? -DigitalPimpette

Agreed. I'm no expert on Hot K/Carl, but I'm sure it shouldn't redirect here, and even if it does, it needs a mention of WHY it redirects here. Gspawn 20:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Salad tossing?

Man, why is it called salad tossing? I've thought about it,and I can't figure it out. 66.41.66.213 22:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's a prison thing. Lower inmates are forced to lick the assholes of the leading inmates, but they put salad dressing on it to hide the taste. Hence, tossing the salad.Janviermichelle 09:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mutual anilingus

Some mention should be made about mutual anilingus, or 69 Double Rimming, that it can be done simultaneously with your partner. (It is not difficult, but using pillows is quite helpful.) Depictions of this seem to be hard to come by, but they do exist. I have found only two, both male-male. Also, anilingus is spelled with only one 'a'. -Unknown

Above a person seems to be disputing the spelling. They agree it is one a, but rather a 'u' than an 'i'. Tyciol 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article should indeed mention the 69 mouth-to-anus/mouth-to-anus position, but I assume an extensive description of the practice (with diagrams) would belong in the 69 article. By the way, I've never heard of anus-style 69, so thank you for the education! The Winds Are Broken 13:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep! I couldn't post the pics here, but if you care to see them, tracts@juno.com -Unknown

Public notoriety

You can add 2Pac's song Toss It Up. Lyrics are here. This song first introduced me to the term. Although his lyrics do not suggest licking anus (which is disgusting by the way), he does lick other body parts. So apparently the term "tossing the salad" isn't exlusive to just licking the anus. -Unknown

New images

The Templar image looks prett strange. What is your source for thinking it represents anilingus? If a casual observer is confused, and not sure what it represents, should it be the lead image? Atom 16:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Naming page anilingus

How about renaming this page anilingus. Currently, the introduction is a bit innacurate, in my opinion, because it states that anal-oral contact is "also known as anilingus." To be precise, the opposite is true: anilingus is also known as anal-oral contact. GilliamJF 07:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. —Nightstallion (?) 09:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree unless you can provide references that show that "anilingus" is a term which is better established in citable literature. --Strait 18:49, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm more than willing to show that "anilingus" is more cited and/or preferred to "anal-oral contact": 1. Anilingus has an entry in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, whereas anal-oral contact does not appear; and 2. All but 1 Wikipedias in other languages (except Catalan, which calls it "A2M", probably should go to the English A2M) use "anilingus" as the title for the relevant Wikipedia articles. I think that "anal-oral contact" is not the proper English term, and sounds like a fancy way of saying "ass-to-mouth." GilliamJF 12:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I suspect that "anal-oral contact" is not in the dictionary because it is three words, whereas "anilingus" is a single word. (Yes, some phrases make it into dictionaries, but not many. "Anal sex" isn't in Merriam-Webster!) I am by no means claiming that "anilingus" is not a word, just that it is not obviously more accepted than "anal-oral contact".

The article titles in other Wikipedia languages have no standing in this conversation. Wikipedia is not a citable reference for Wikipedia. In any case, the accepted term in other languages may be different.

To get a general idea of what language is used, I have looked at a couple of (non-porn) sites:

• http://sexuality.org/l/safersex/oralss2.html uses the term "anal-to-oral contact"
• http://www.goodvibes.com/Content--Ten-Rules-of-Anal-Sex--id-721.html calls it "rimming"
• http://www.goaskalice.columbia.edu/2087.html calls it 'analingus (also known as "rimming" or anal oral sex)'

I would be happy to work on a more comprehensive survey which includes some published literature, but I'll need more time. --Strait 13:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• "The Little Book of Sex", ISBN 1569753059, says "oral-anal contact (rimming)". --Strait 13:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• PubMed gives 11 hits for "analingus", 2 for "anal-oral contact", 12 for "oral-anal contact", 2 for "oral-anal sex" and none for "anal-oral sex". --Strait 13:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your background research. Perhaps anal-oral contact should be added to "synonyms" in the anilingus entry of Wiktionary. GilliamJF 14:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The term 'oral-anal sex' is not in common use. A Google search suggests that anilingus/analingus are both in much more common usage. The main article name should reflect the most recognized term. (The term 'rimming' is probably the most recognized colloquial term, but its exact interpretation varies as to whether or not it is penetrative.) As per Wikipedia naming policy, the most common name should be used for the article, with redirects as appropriate. This should either be 'anilingus' (or possibly 'rimming', subject to discussion).--Jeffro77 11:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would not have a problem renaming this article "rimming", since people actually use that word to describe the practice. However, between "oral-anal sex/contact" and "anilingus", I am against renaming it to the latter. I have presented (admittedly limited) evidence above that "anilingus" is rather less used than the alternatives when you consider sources with some credibility rather than a blanket Google search. I also don't like it because I feel that it is a rather silly word, constructed by analogy with cunnilingus,[1] probably in an attempt to sound pompous. (Actually, I think that "cunnilingus" was probably also constructed for the same reason. I don't like it either, but it has been in the language some 60 years longer than "anilingus"[2][3] and is much more clearly well accepted.) It is not a word that can be used easily in ordinary conversation. "Remember last night when you were rimming me" is something people actually might say. "Remember last night when you and I were practicing anilingus" is not. The same is true of "anal-oral contact", but at least it is descriptive and doesn't sound so contrived.

In summary, anal-oral contact (keep name as is) or rename to rimming. --Strait 11:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You thinking it is a 'silly word' is hardly a valid reason not to use it, as it is indeed the correct word, and it is derived from Latin directly, not simply as an anology to 'cunnilingus' (as correctly indicated by the second dictionary quoted by the dictionary.com page you cited). I agree with your own implied condemnation of the current title (ergo "Remember last night when we were having oral-anal contact"). Though I can't imagine many people saying "Remember last night when were practicing cunnilingus" either. 'Rimming' does not technically refer to penetrative anilingus, and is therefore really a subset of anilingus. Anilingus should be the article title, rimming is a close second (and is what most people would look up if there were going to). If you think 'anilingus' sounds too 'pompous', or not used in conversation, then the headings for 'cunnilingus' and 'fellatio' will have to renamed as well.--Jeffro77 22:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I already addressed some of your counterpoints in my previous comment. "Cunnilingus" has been in the language for longer and is more widely accepted and is therefore a more valid word that "anilingus". Being derived from Latin does not make something an accepted or "correct" term. (If that were true, then any word that isn't from Latin would be incorrect, which would leave English without much of its most important vocabulary.)

It is interesting/amusing that you regard 'cunnilingus' as "a more valid word" than 'anilingus' on the basis that it has been around for longer. The (unrelated) word 'quasar' has been around for less than 50 years, and isn't in general conversational use. By your reasoning, that would make it a less valid word than 'anilingus'.--Jeffro77 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The flawed logic in your comment on Latin derivation was amusing. Basically you said, 'If A is true because of condition B, then all things that do not meet condition B are false.' But I digress. My previous comments on the Latin derivation of 'anilingus' were not to justify its existence as a word, but merely to indicate that it is not simply back-formed from the word 'cunnilingus'.--Jeffro77 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that naming the article "rimming" is a good solution. I'm not sure that there is any agreement among English speakers that this word does not refer to penetrative anal-oral contact ("rimming" does not "technically" refer to anything at all, since it is not a technical word; its meaning is determined only by how people use it), and, as you say, that is where people will look. If you don't agree, I think we should get a third opinion before doing anything. --Strait 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

'Rimming' technically does not refer to penetration, because the term is in reference to a rim or edge. This topic is not one that very many people will likely rush in to offer opinions; rename article to Rimming.--Jeffro77 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And the tounge is in contact with that rim whether or not penetration is achieved. So I stand by my previous statement. We could get a third opinion using W:Third opinion, but I guess we have come to an agreement despite disagreeing about almost everything. :-) --Strait 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Do not move. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move: after posting on W:Requested moves

To rimming.

Oppose - the proposed move is to a name that sounds fairly unscientific and unprofessional. -Patstuart^talk|edits

Oppose for the reasons Patstuart mentioned. If we change the name at all, I'd prefer the more encyclopedic term "anilingus". HalJor 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. As stated above, I'm happy with either this name or rimming, but really don't like "anilingus". Besides my other objections, it clearly fails to be "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize." (from WP:NAME) --Strait 21:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Support move to rimming, this term has currency beyond practitioners partly thanks to Red Dwarf's antihero Arnold Rimmer (although the show's creators deny they had this in mind). Anilingus is a neologism, and the idea of it sounding professional astounds even me... the things some people do for a buck... (;-> Andrewa 02:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Anilingus is hardly a neologism. Dictionary.com gives an origin of 1945-1950 (citing Random House) and cites four other dictionaries. This doesn't seem to fit the definition of neologism: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, generally do not appear in any dictionary, but may be used widely or within certain communities." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HalJor (talk • contribs) 05:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Hmmm, I'll take your word for it regarding dictionary.com although it would be helpful if you'd give the URL to save us all searching for it. But I think anilingus does meet the definition of neologism you quote. I suppose it depends what you take recently and generally to mean. Andrewa 06:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Dictionary.com, for your reference: [4] HalJor 17:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

That link times out when I try it. Andrewa 08:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Support moving it to anilingus. Wikipedia in all other languages call it by the Latin name anilingus and anal-oral contact comes across as quite unarticulate.- Gilliam 00:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that the name of the page in other languages is completely irrelevant. Common usage in English is not tied to common usage in other languages. --Strait 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Discuss: Merge "Anal-oral contact" with "Ass to mouth"

• Oppose. A2M doesn't have to involve any direct anal-oral contact, so I don't understand the desire to merge them. They seem like totally distinct activities. HalJor 23:29, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Agreed. These two have nothing to do with one another. Where is the justification for the merge to beign with? -Robb0995 09:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. Ditto. I'm removing the tag. --Strait 19:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Pronounciation

Is the "G" in anilingus pronounced as the "G" in "goat" or the "G" in "germ"?

Assuming anyone ever actually says it out loud, I would think it would be as in "goat", in analogy to cunnilingus. --Strait

Agreed, however it's pronounced in that. Any latin grammaticists here? Tyciol 19:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

In Latin, as far as I know, the "g" is only pronounced as it is in "germ" before an "e" or "i". Before an "a", "o", or "u", it would be pronounced as it is in "goat".--Lesouris (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Surge in popularity?

Is it me, or are movies featuring this more than they used to? It seems like I can't watch a porn (it doesn't matter what kind) and they throw this analingus stuff in. It's not my cup of tea, and I think it ruins the movie every time. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like all kinds of fringe fetish stuff (e.g., spitting, anal followed by fellatio, etc.) is getting put into supposedly bread-and-butter porns these days.--Abs Like Jesus 15:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Indirect anal-oral contact in pornography

I've added this to this article, and cited two sources: an article on pornography and prostitution by the American academic Robert Jensen, and an article from AVN, a pornography industry trade magazine, which I believe can be treated as a reliable source in this context. -- Karada 11:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A2M redirect

Ass to mouth recently failed an AfD, and was replaced by a redirect to this page. I feel that Anal sex is a more appropriate page for the redirect, if the subject doesn't deserve its own article, and have changed things accordingly. Tevildo 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. HalJor 00:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Auto-?

In line with autofellatio and autocunnilingus, while I don't think the idea is popular enough to warrant its own article, and obviously more difficult than either of the two previously mentioned feats, the latter of which is still awaiting proof of completion. Even so, perhaps it would warrant a mention in the article? In a metaphorical sense, such as kundalini imagery, the anus holds as much significance to the root chakra as the sexual organs do, and is much closer to the tailbone (bottom/base of spine). It is also more related to the food cycle than the sexual organs which merely release urine to regulate the blood through the kidneys. Also, perhaps tubgirl deserves mention, lol. Tyciol 19:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Benefit?!? Colonic flora recolonization

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22098-2004Mar24 Acct4 15:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Health risks

The reference talks about the health risks of oral sex in general, not anal-oral contact, so the article should be corrected. Mstuomel 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)