Talk:Autocunnilingus

Prior deletion discussions

There's also this discussion of the redirect (August 18 2013) - result was delete.

However, this version of the article was written from scratch. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• Ex nihilo? From nothing? What kind of "nothing"? Drmies (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Reference issue

The content that is ref'd to the Jesse Bering (2012) book does not correspond with the source. The book itself is a good reference, I'm not disagreeing with that at all! However, the page where autocunnilingus is mentioned, is in passing, only. The emphasis was more on women sucking their own breasts/nipples, on that page. It actually says that there are no known incidences of the act of autocunnilingus, ever, in medical literature.

I am going to reformat that citation more clearly, and move it to external links.--FeralOink (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed my mind, and added a sentence of content with that Bering ref. I also cleaned up the formatting for some but not all of the other ref's. I removed one sentence and ref because it was sourced poorly and didn't make logical sense anyway, about autocunnilingus by non-human primates (is it autocunnilingus or just animal cleaning and grooming?)--FeralOink (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I have meanwhile reverted you. We disagree on the utility of full Google Books URLs: I regard them as useful documentation of the actual wording for those who cannot view the page. The non-human primates bit is parenthetical, I grant you; but the author presents it as autocunnilingus. Bering is being completely dismissive, hence is used to support the point: that if possible, it requires extreme flexibility (my use of "may" was very careful; the sources I found did not support a definitive statement that a non-contortionist can or cannot perform the act). In this instance Bering is not a very good source; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, nor does he actually claim so; but he supports the general point. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

No, that is misleading! If they cannot view the text of the Google books, your searched phrase is not enough. Instead, you must use the template and quote the content. You reverted everything I added, which had the effect of restoring erroneous information. What of the non-human primates? That book is not adequate as a reference. Most important of all is this, "It actually says that there are no known incidences of the act of autocunnilingus, ever, in medical literature." Let me tell you why I feel so strongly about this. I got into a spat with the woman who thinks she "owns" the cunnilingus article. She referred-linked to this article, which is not mainstream for educational purposes. Look at the talk page here, you'll see what I mean.

Also, I spent nearly an hour on this, the edits I just made, that you reverted. I carefully read each source. I know about cunnilingus! I am female. Please, don't just summarily revert my work?--FeralOink (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm back, um, Inge's Daughter. I just visited your user page and laughed out loud at section 4, item one, about the dangers of machine translation! That is hilarious!--FeralOink (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Sigh: No, I don't think that I WP:OWN the Cunnilingus article or any Wikipedia article, for that matter; among other things, I disagreed with your odd assertion that autocunnilingus should not be mentioned at all in the Cunnilingus article, as shown at Talk:Cunnilingus/Archive 1#Autocunnilingus; you seemed to be opposed to even including a link to it in the See also section (read WP:See also). As a far more experienced Wikipedia editor than you are, I knew that you were wrong and I pointed out why. I care not for any more of your mudslinging, so leave me out of any Wikipedia discussions unless I'm directly involved in them. And I agree with Yngvadottir, by the way, for why Google Books URL links can be useful with regard to what Yngvadottir cites above (I've done the same, though an editor or an editor's bot usually came around and cut that part of the source out when I did that type of sourcing). Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to have a better source on the non-human primates, whatever it says. Note the note in the reference: the author's example does not actually support his point. In fact I'd love to have more and better references in this article altogether: I don't have access to medical databases. I am sorry to have hurt you, FeralOink, by reverting your edit - but that's the wiki method (Bold - but other editors may revert in whole or in part - and now we discuss), and my revert was hardly summary: I gave a detailed rationale and followed up with an explanation here. I'm afraid I particularly do not agree about the Google Books links: it's not misleading if I use the reference accurately, any more than an offline reference would be; providing the detailed link is a courtesy to the reader. On Bering, I repeat: absence of evidence is not the same thing as evidence of absence, and I frankly do not believe he can be taken as a total authority on what has ever been published anywhere in the scientific literature. However, what he does say fits exactly with what the sentence in the article says: "Given the even more serious anatomical hurdles ... such behavior in females may not even be possible. I confess I don't know; and there's no mention of it in the scientific literature. The closest female comparison to autofellatio I stumbled upon ...". This is cited in the article as one of several references for this sentence: "An unusually high degree of flexibility is required, which may be possessed only by contortionists." Minus the specificity of "contortionists" (supported by another reference), that's what he's saying - including the "may". (Flyer22, after reading what's now in the cunnilingus article, I would suggest changing "can" to "may" there too, to accurately reflect the sources.) I've looked quickly at the discussion on that talk page, and it does seem to me that you are over-stating the danger involved - particularly in simply mentioning the issue of autocunnilingus! However, as concerns this article, the issue is a lot simpler: nowhere does the article advocate the practice or go beyond what the sources all say - which is that it may be possible but if so, very few women can do it. That's why the article is so brief, and why the psychological and non-human primate points may seem unduly emphasized - there isn't much other data to offset them. So again, what we could really use here is more high-quality sources. Thank you for your effort; if you can find material I and others did not find, especially from a medical point of view, that would be wonderful. But I am not persuaded the changes you made help the reader. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir, the word may was already used at the Cunnilingus article for the autocunnilingus part, but, at your suggestion, I added may for the "can" part; see here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I think this article should be kept: whether or not this is possible, it's certainly a notable idea and an aspiration that is not necessarily physically impossible. However, while absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the absence of any evidence for this in several very lsrge collections of information certainly puts the burden of proof on those who would state that it's an act that exists in the real world.

Demonstration 1: Internet pornography and search engines. There's no doubt that footage of this would be of massive prurient interest, and would be viewed and replicated, and reported on, widely on the Internet if it was available. There can also be no doubt that a lot of people have an incentive to produce such images, for just that reason. The world is also not short of highly flexible models who also do porn. In spite of all this Google search for "autocunnilingus" fails to find any video showing this act. There are, however, a lot of videos of near-misses, where the performer either misses by a few inches, or manages to touch their head to their crotch in the right place, but with their forehead instead than their mouth. As far as I can see, this demonstrates that what is missing here is not super-flexibility to perform a maximum possible front-bend, but either unusual spinal anatomy or an extremely long tongue. Image searching does find a few photographs of what appears to be autocunnilingus, but since these are so easily created by very slightly editing a photo of a near-miss attempt, its hard to give them any credence without attribution to a reliable source.

We now also have the ability of performing exhaustive searches of very large, well curated, sets of documents in ways that can be cited.

Demonstration 2: the medical literature. Doctors are also not shy about writing about both sexual matters and unusual physical conditions, and yet, as of the time of writing, PubMed, the medical literature database, which contains several descriptions of autofellatio, contains no mentions of autocunnilingus at all.[1]

Demonstration 3: the academic literature. JSTOR, which contains several descriptions of autofellatio, also finds no mentions of autocunnilingus either.[2] -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

This most certainly exists in internet pornography. Here is just one example, notably labeled "Another self-licker." https://www.sex.com/pin/56884818-another-self-licker/ -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:6000:B184:A900:3555:2D09:E38B:651C (talk) 20:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

@Impsswoon:, that's steering terribly close to OR. The article already contains many sources saying they've never heard of its being done, and that it may not be feasible. Plus absence of evidence is not proof of absence. I've left your PubMed search in, but technically I should take it out; searches are not valid references. Thanks for your work on improving it, but you've largely confirmed that I had done a good search when preparing to write the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I’m actually a little iffy on this. I mean, there is proof that this is possible, but that proof comes from porn videos (and if you have the stomach to watch them all the way through, you can tell that most of them aren’t being faked). But, I think we can all agree, nobody wants a Wikipedia article to direct them to a video on Pornhub. Math Machine 4 (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion from Talk page

@General Ization:, it is astonishing to see an editor's comment deleted holus bolus from Talk when it does not contain anything more than an opinion (apparently held in good faith). I completely disagree with the opinion expressed but how on Earth can WP go around deleting what people think and express on Talk pages? sirlanz 01:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

See your Talk page for my response. The editor was blocked for abuse of editing privileges at about the same time as the comments were removed. I would not assume anything resembling good faith from the editor in question. General Ization ^Talk 02:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Blocked XVideos citation

I just edited the page to include convincing documentation of autocunnilingus. I wanted to cite the source (XVideos /video70227717/nika_lick_clit), but XVideos is blacklisted. Should it be allowed?70.48.242.125 (talk) 03:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

This entire article should be removed until it can be properly rewritten and updated in light of the abundance of new information/evidence (empirical). The possibility of this act is no longer in question; the question to ask now is: How prevalent is this ability? (So far, evidence shows it to be unique to a single individual.) 2607:FEA8:545D:18E0:A6:40A0:FA7C:7301 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Proof?

Online, there has been convincing evidence of autocunnilingus being successfully performed by Russian webcam model Nika Legran. Is it possible to maybe use this for the article? How would I be able to source such new info if most of these videos and photos come from porn sites? Autisticeditor 20 (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no such thing as double-jointness.

Shame on you. Wikipedia is supposed to be scientifically accurate. If I'm wrong provide proof. 2A02:8084:601D:5880:90E9:F03C:CEE2:D046 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)