489:, 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". (
498:
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.
169:
148:
179:
450:). As a far more experienced Knowledge 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 Knowledge 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).
21:
348:
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.
667:. 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.
375:
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
117:
56:
709:, 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?
682:
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
Knowledge article
347:
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
583:
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
484:
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
497:
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
374:
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
575:
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
588:
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
324:
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
303:
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
782:
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?
593:
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.
757:
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
584:
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
719:
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.
76:
86:
803:
742:
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?
641:
382:
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?--
763:
835:
235:
225:
258:
840:
830:
600:
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,
645:
201:
96:
192:
153:
825:
614:
304:
breasts/nipples, on that page. It actually says that there are no known incidences of the act of autocunnilingus, ever, in medical literature.
580:
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.
597:
We now also have the ability of performing exhaustive searches of very large, well curated, sets of documents in ways that can be cited.
743:
807:
604:, the medical literature database, which contains several descriptions of autofellatio, contains no mentions of autocunnilingus at all.
767:
37:
to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to
27:
396:
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
42:
128:
38:
34:
788:
630:
This most certainly exists in internet pornography. Here is just one example, notably labeled "Another self-licker."
443:
62:
438:
article or any
Knowledge article, for that matter; among other things, I disagreed with your odd assertion that
688:
116:
811:
747:
397:
540:
was already used at the
Cunnilingus article for the autocunnilingus part, but, at your suggestion, I added
20:
784:
184:
672:
613:, which contains several descriptions of autofellatio, also finds no mentions of autocunnilingus either.
503:
353:
269:
134:
722:
704:
637:
178:
168:
147:
55:
684:
621:
405:
387:
330:
312:
200:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
447:
802:
Shame on you. Knowledge is supposed to be scientifically accurate. If I'm wrong provide proof.
553:
455:
668:
499:
349:
288:
280:
265:
605:
439:
197:
631:
446:; you seemed to be opposed to even including a link to it in the See also section (read
658:
617:
486:
401:
383:
326:
308:
819:
431:
710:
664:
549:
490:
451:
307:
I am going to reformat that citation more clearly, and move it to external links.--
762:
is this ability? (So far, evidence shows it to be unique to a single individual.)
494:
435:
376:
284:
174:
65:. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
792:
771:
751:
731:
713:
692:
676:
649:
625:
557:
507:
459:
409:
391:
357:
334:
316:
292:
273:
442:
should not be mentioned at all in the
Cunnilingus article, as shown at
601:
589:
maximum possible front-bend, but either unusual spinal anatomy or an
610:
264:
However, this version of the article was written from scratch.
110:
50:
15:
325:
autocunnilingus or just animal cleaning and grooming?)--
545:
632:
https://www.sex.com/pin/56884818-another-self-licker/
196:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
797:
259:this discussion of the redirect (August 18 2013)
41:regarding potentially objectionable content and
33:Images or details contained within this article
836:Low-importance Sexology and sexuality articles
8:
210:Knowledge:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
841:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality articles
831:Start-Class Sexology and sexuality articles
213:Template:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
114:
798:There's no such thing as double-jointness.
635:
609:Demonstration 3: the academic literature.
444:Talk:Cunnilingus/Archive 1#Autocunnilingus
142:
35:may be graphic or otherwise objectionable
804:2A02:8084:601D:5880:90E9:F03C:CEE2:D046
642:2604:6000:B184:A900:3555:2D09:E38B:651C
144:
683:to direct them to a video on Pornhub.
764:2607:FEA8:545D:18E0:A6:40A0:FA7C:7301
7:
663:, that's steering terribly close to
190:This article is within the scope of
133:It is of interest to the following
493:, after reading what's now in the
193:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality
14:
177:
167:
146:
115:
54:
19:
826:Knowledge objectionable content
430:Sigh: No, I don't think that I
230:This article has been rated as
216:Sexology and sexuality articles
61:This article was nominated for
43:options for not seeing an image
398:dangers of machine translation
293:23:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
274:18:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
39:Knowledge's content disclaimer
1:
204:and see a list of open tasks.
650:20:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
793:18:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
772:22:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
693:02:09, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
677:00:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
626:23:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
857:
812:00:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
558:21:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
508:21:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
460:19:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
410:18:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
392:18:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
358:18:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
335:18:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
317:17:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
253:Prior deletion discussions
236:project's importance scale
732:02:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
714:01:48, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
379:, you'll see what I mean.
279:Ex nihilo? From nothing?
229:
162:
141:
95:, September 21 2005, see
28:Knowledge is not censored
752:03:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
738:Blocked XVideos citation
544:for the "can" part; see
698:Deletion from Talk page
85:, November 2 2006, see
536:Yngvadottir, the word
400:! That is hilarious!--
281:What kind of "nothing"
207:Sexology and sexuality
185:Human sexuality portal
154:Sexology and sexuality
123:This article is rated
261:- result was delete.
75:, March 30 2007, see
485:to have hurt you,
129:content assessment
785:Autisticeditor 20
652:
640:comment added by
250:
249:
246:
245:
242:
241:
109:
108:
105:
104:
49:
48:
848:
730:
728:
708:
662:
218:
217:
214:
211:
208:
187:
182:
181:
171:
164:
163:
158:
150:
143:
126:
120:
119:
111:
67:
66:
58:
51:
23:
16:
856:
855:
851:
850:
849:
847:
846:
845:
816:
815:
800:
780:
740:
723:
721:
705:General Ization
702:
700:
656:
440:autocunnilingus
301:
299:Reference issue
255:
215:
212:
209:
206:
205:
198:human sexuality
183:
176:
156:
127:on Knowledge's
124:
12:
11:
5:
854:
852:
844:
843:
838:
833:
828:
818:
817:
799:
796:
779:
776:
775:
774:
739:
736:
735:
734:
699:
696:
685:Math Machine 4
680:
679:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
394:
380:
377:talk page here
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
340:
339:
338:
337:
300:
297:
296:
295:
254:
251:
248:
247:
244:
243:
240:
239:
232:Low-importance
228:
222:
221:
219:
202:the discussion
189:
188:
172:
160:
159:
157:Low‑importance
151:
139:
138:
132:
121:
107:
106:
103:
102:
101:
100:
90:
80:
59:
47:
46:
32:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
853:
842:
839:
837:
834:
832:
829:
827:
824:
823:
821:
814:
813:
809:
805:
795:
794:
790:
786:
777:
773:
769:
765:
761:
756:
755:
754:
753:
749:
745:
744:70.48.242.125
737:
733:
729:
727:
718:
717:
716:
715:
712:
706:
697:
695:
694:
690:
686:
678:
674:
670:
666:
660:
655:
654:
653:
651:
647:
643:
639:
633:
628:
627:
623:
619:
615:
612:
607:
606:
603:
598:
595:
592:
587:
581:
579:
559:
555:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
528:
527:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
509:
505:
501:
496:
492:
488:
483:
482:
481:
480:
479:
478:
477:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
461:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
428:
427:
426:
425:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
411:
407:
403:
399:
395:
393:
389:
385:
381:
378:
373:
372:
371:
370:
369:
368:
367:
366:
359:
355:
351:
346:
345:
344:
343:
342:
341:
336:
332:
328:
323:
322:
321:
320:
319:
318:
314:
310:
305:
298:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
275:
271:
267:
262:
260:
257:There's also
252:
237:
233:
227:
224:
223:
220:
203:
199:
195:
194:
186:
180:
175:
173:
170:
166:
165:
161:
155:
152:
149:
145:
140:
136:
130:
122:
118:
113:
112:
98:
94:
91:
88:
84:
81:
78:
74:
71:
70:
69:
68:
64:
60:
57:
53:
52:
44:
40:
36:
30:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
801:
781:
759:
741:
725:
701:
681:
636:— Preceding
629:
608:
599:
596:
590:
585:
582:
577:
574:
541:
537:
306:
302:
263:
256:
231:
191:
135:WikiProjects
92:
83:No consensus
82:
72:
26:
669:Yngvadottir
500:Yngvadottir
495:cunnilingus
448:WP:See also
436:Cunnilingus
350:Yngvadottir
266:Yngvadottir
125:Start-class
820:Categories
97:discussion
87:discussion
77:discussion
760:prevalent
659:Impsswoon
618:Impsswoon
591:extremely
487:FeralOink
402:FeralOink
384:FeralOink
327:FeralOink
309:FeralOink
724:General
638:unsigned
63:deletion
726:Ization
711:sirlanz
550:Flyer22
491:Flyer22
452:Flyer22
234:on the
778:Proof?
602:PubMed
432:WP:OWN
285:Drmies
131:scale.
73:delete
611:JSTOR
808:talk
789:talk
768:talk
748:talk
689:talk
673:talk
646:talk
634:--
622:talk
578:very
554:talk
546:here
504:talk
456:talk
434:the
406:talk
388:talk
354:talk
331:talk
313:talk
289:talk
270:talk
93:KEEP
616:--
586:lot
542:may
538:may
226:Low
822::
810:)
791:)
770:)
750:)
691:)
675:)
665:OR
648:)
624:)
556:)
548:.
506:)
458:)
408:)
390:)
356:)
333:)
315:)
291:)
283:?
272:)
806:(
787:(
766:(
746:(
707::
703:@
687:(
671:(
661::
657:@
644:(
620:(
552:(
502:(
454:(
404:(
386:(
352:(
329:(
311:(
287:(
268:(
238:.
137::
99:.
89:.
79:.
45:.
31:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
