Disputatio:Coitus oralis

Pompeii-Image[fontem recensere]

Vide etiam Vicipaedia:Imagines in disputatione.

Yes this image does pertain to the topic, however I assert that it shouldn't be displayed for the same reasons that I have in the past. That it is offensive (to me, but possibly others that share my western mentality), that it detracts from the article (making people less likely to view the article, and isn't necessary to convey the meaning - the text isn't overly abstract), and last but not least that this page can literally be stumbled on per paginam fortuitam. Alexanderr 07:23, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, before starting the discussion, I ask you to unhide the image again: The discussion is about hiding or unhiding. --Rolandus 07:39, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this discussion is about whether or not the image should be hidden, however I fail to see, in this case, why the state of the article during the discussion (the default state) should be unhidden. Agreed it was unhidden, before hidden, but it was also not there before there, thus if we are going to have a default version for the discussion it shouldn't include the image at all. This would also have the added benefit of note prefering either the hidden or the unhidden version, and thereby setting a stable environment for the discussion, not showing favoritism to either side. Alexanderr 07:45, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the image, reverting your last move, Alexanderr, for which I apologise -- I hate reverting -- because, one way or another, we have to be able to see it if we are to discuss it.

Having seen it, it really isn't very explicit, is it? I think it tells you less than the article does. Its value is as showing how a Roman artist who hadn't got any models handy vaguely remembered or imagined cunnilingus to be, and therefore as helping to show that cunnilingus was probably rather a rare pursuit at that time. I might add that point to the article.

Incidentally, is cunnilingus OK as a Latin word? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 09:54, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its explicit enough, but everyone knows my opinion already so...Alexanderr 15:50, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and you know most of us disagree with it. We can move on, then.--Ioshus ^(disp) 16:22, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ioshus, I said that everyone knew my opinion, but it doesn't mean that this conversation is at its end, especially since (with no guidelines for the hide template) we have to do this on a case by case basis. Alexanderr 16:32, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, what can you see on this image? What insulting details? Have you clicked on that image to see details? Why have you clicked on it ... in case you did? --Rolandus 18:07, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The offensive detail is that another persons head is between someones legs, so yes I have seen the image. Alexanderr 01:03, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive? Clearly the words of a man who has never gotten head...--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:09, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and that is really appropriate for this talk page, isn't it? Maybe you can post your comments elsewhere, you know so we can use the talk page for what it was intended for and not to make pointless comments? Thanks, Alexanderr 01:28, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic though it may be, it really is to the point: You find it offensive. I (and most straight men I know) find it delightful.--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:33, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolandus asked me what I thought of it, and why I felt it was offensive, and I told him. No one asked you to make sarcastic, rude, and irrelevant comments. So please, please find somewhere else to make them than on this talk page, for this talk page should concern itself with this article (and it's text and pictures) - not with your rude jibes. Alexanderr 01:43, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<<sigh>> Ok maybe a little tactless, but I repeat my point was not to insult, but to illustrate the fact that this detail as you call it (when really it's the whole image) of a person between another person's legs is offensive only to some. To a huge proportion of the world, coitus oralis is a splendid thing, bar none. Especially on a latin wikipedia... Oral sex played a huge part in ancient Rome's cultural stability, and tons of literature, both written in books and scrawled on whorehouses and bathroom stalls, survive which describe the act. Again sorry for being rude, but the point remains.--Ioshus ^(disp) 01:50, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ioshus, while it is offensive to me, you seem to assume that I'm the only one on earth that can feel this way, even, to quote from your above comment, saying "to a huge proportion of the world, coitus oralis is a splendid thing" where you have (I'm guessing) no sources to confirm whether or not most people feel this is appropriate. While all I say is that this image should be hidden because it "animo vulnerare potest". As I said on your talk page, I don't think sex is evil, and there are images I think shouldn't be hidden (such as the first illustrated anatomy picture on the mentula page, which I find acceptable for the article) - it's just that in the case of photographs, and certain frescos (?) I feel that they should be hidden. Alexanderr 02:07, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and I don't.--Ioshus ^(disp) 02:10, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See and that's where we differ because you think that graphic images should be covered under free speech, and that NOTHING should be censored, while I think that that (the displaying of such images) was never the founding father's intention, and that such images can be legitimately censored. However, as I said, before to hide is not to remove, and therefore not really censorship, it is just more libertarian in that it allows each person to decide what he wants to see, and doesn't force someone else's view on him. Remember that saying about each persons rights only extending until they violate someone elses? Well this violates no ones. Anyways, I gotta go - log off. But if you want to reply I'll be glad to continue this discussion when I get back. Alexanderr 02:16, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But as for sources, you can start with the english article. But that is pretty lacking in historical approach. Certainly the chinese and the hindi have long honored cunnilingus, and in Japan bukkake is practically a cult. I'm pretty sure you're American, too, right? Our culture is fairly obsessed with the notion. And British public health officials (not to mention Madonna) have recently been suggesting it as an alternative to the rising trend of teen pregnancy. If you really want, I'll find some more sources. Sex in history is my professor's specialty.--Ioshus ^(disp) 02:17, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent, I agree with what you said above, however what I was trying to get at was that western culture, regardless of whatever the singer "Madonna" recommends, these acts aren't seen as "splendid". The western mentality still has morals - and believes that certain things shouldn't be discussed. While certain cultures approve of this, possibly including some Japanese and Hindis those most likely to view this encyclopedia aren't of those cultures. I think I saw 1 or 2 people from Japan on here for instance. Alexanderr 04:47, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander, as I understand your answer above, you clicked on that image. Why? --Rolandus 06:56, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rolandus, I viewed the article page with the image up, but don't think I actually clicked on the image - is there some reason I should? Alexanderr 07:19, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you might have clicked on the image? I thought you would never want to do that. --Rolandus 23:41, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only viewed the page, because I thought that (misunderstood) your comment was a request to view the article. Or a comment to the effect of "do you even know what the image is". As I said before, I do, and I don't like it. Alexanderr 01:57, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's bad. So I am the reason why you have clicked on the image, have seen it and are offended now. Would you have been offended if you would not have clicked on this thumbnail? --Rolandus 10:56, 10 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nescio cur tam vehementer de hac re decertandum esse videatur. Haec pictura nihil aliud est nisi vetustissimus eius rei fons, de qua disputatur. Vix quemquam credo hanc picturam alicuius pretii, ut ita dicam, pornographici existimaturum, id quod mihi quidem solum videtur causae fieri posse, cur talis deleatur imago. Maneat. --Irenaeus 13:02, 8 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is cunnilingus OK as a Latin word?[fontem recensere]

My understanding from Adams and other secondary sources was that cunnilingus is indeed an ancient word, but that it means "One who engages in cunnilingus" rather than the act itself. The act is properly cunnilinctio. --Iustinus 17:36, 7 Februarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]