Talk:Cunnilingus

Point: Ginger cats are male (it's a sex linked gene). _and marmite 22:16, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Toast, I do not believe that all ginger cats are male. I have also seen no indication that the cats are hetrosexual. --"CUR^talk 22:18, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Toast, I am looking at a picture with a ginger cat nursing her kittens. It isn't a sex linked gene. --"CUR^talk 22:19, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I have a female ginger cat. Interestingly though all tortoiseshell cats are female. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:20, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Wrong: there are male tortoiseshell cats- but they are sterile, and very, very rare. --"CUR^talk 22:22, 7 February 2009 (EST)

They would have to have two x chromosomes so neither of those facts surprise me. - User $\scriptstyle h/2\hbar$ 22:24, 7 February 2009 (EST)

(EC) I did a quick Google search. If the internet is right about this, then about three quarters of ginger cats are male. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:23, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Sounds about right. --"CUR^talk 22:24, 7 February 2009 (EST)

I've moved the picture to oral sex, but left the caption as-is. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 22:21, 7 February 2009 (EST)

Fine by me. TheoryOfPractice 22:21, 7 February 2009 (EST)

This Proves It

I think I'm now fully convinced of the superiority of RationalWiki over Wikipedia. --MQDuck (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Blurring the line between "comical description" and "blatant instruction manual" since 2007! ^{d hominem} 01:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed that the article doesn't mention the merit of mustaches or assplay. ÑR_{/Señor Admin}^{/¡hablen ustedes!} 02:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're under thirty and have a mustache, Sir Roux, I'm going to have to ask you to shave your face rat off : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Deletion vote

This article has nothing to do with the mission.--Krej^talk 01:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Delete

1. Krej^talk 01:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
2. i dont care much that it isnt related to the mission, my biggest problem is its just... sorta a crappy article.--^Mikal_lakiM 01:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
3. Not mission related. - ConservapediaMarkman (talk) 21:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Still not mission related. Frederick^♠♣♥♦ 06:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
5. Off-mission and poor quality. ListenerX^TalkerX 07:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
6. Pointless. This article was born tangential crap, stayed tangential crap, and no one has started working to make it anything more than tangential crap. It's embarrassing how we fantasize about how awesome an article will be... in the unspecified future, done by someone else. It's embarrassing how we delude ourselves into thinking that shit articles being judged will actually be improved upon through magic article gnomes — RW is not and has never been the article machine that Wikipedia is, and it's stupid to operate as if we were. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
7. ... Peter ^mqzp 07:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
8. You're all off mission and poor quality compared to this gem. Delete the article because it's too good for you. TOO GOOD. 14:57, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Keep

1. FuzzyCatPotato The article has some useful tips that seek to dispel reasonably common and mostly unbased misconceptions about female sexual pleasure, though this section is small and the article could use improvement as a whole. If anything, the article could be a section for one about orgasms or sexual pleasure. FuzzyCatPotato (talk) 21:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
2. We have lots of sex-oriented stuff, and the potential to undo a lot of the woo/weird beliefs/uptighted-ness that goes with those practices. This would fit right in. If I knew the way/I would take you home. 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
3. Keep. Sex ed is on-mission. EVDebs (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
4. Agree, keep. ShorinBJ (talk) 03:45, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
5. Keep. Sex ed is on-mission, as is anything that pisses off anti-science religious reactionaries. Heywood (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
6. Keep. --Umichcynic (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Goat

• Article is crap. Fix it. Hipocrite (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
• There's very little "sex ed" in this stub. A good mainspace article on oral sex could be worth having, but a bunch of miscellaneous comments about individual practices doesn't seem useful. ωεαşεζøίɗ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 01:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)