What Is Ass To Mouth

What Is Ass To Mouth
Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Acts are classified as ' ass to mouth' , or 'ATM' in porn industry language, when 'a man removes his penis from a woman's anus and, without cleaning it, places it in her mouth, or the mouth of another woman
“Anything I want,” you whispered into my ear. “Yes, yes,” I said. “You're going to do ass to mouth next,” you said. “And don't you dare flinch. I have a dirty cock covered in your shit and you're going to suck and lick it clean.
The list of unsafe (and for many people, distasteful) practices common in porn is lengthy and ever changing. Besides the incredibly trendy ass-to-mouth fetish, there's bottle-fucking, bile-drooling, throat-gagging to the point of vomiting, eye and nasal ejaculation, anal-to-vaginal penetration, anal penetration without lubricant, multiple male "cream pies"...

Learn Fascinating Facts About Birth Order
Coronavirus Antigen Levels Could Reveal COVID Severity
U.S. Monkeypox Outbreak May Be Slowing
USDA Scatters Oral Rabies Vaccines for Wildlife in 13 States
Is the Phrase ‘A Cure for Cancer’ Outdated?
Speed of Drug Development (on Medscape)
How Does the Emerging Threat of Monkeypox Compare to COVID?
See How Technology Could Help You Sleep Better
What Role Does Google Play in Public Health?
Daily Updates Women's Health Good Health
By clicking Subscribe, I agree to the WebMD Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy and understand that I may opt out of WebMD subscriptions at any time.
Blogs: Patient and Expert Contributors See all
Optometrist, professor, and clinician
Charging our content creators to practice journalistic principles of excellence and provide objective, accurate, and balanced reporting
Maintaining editorial independence and transparency into how we protect the integrity of our content
Regularly reviewing and updating our content by working with our network of more than 100 doctors and health experts
Here’s a checklist of questions to ask. The answers can help your doctor figure out screening tests you may need.
Depression, anxiety, and reports of suicidal thoughts are rising on campus – with limited resources to help. This student responded by creating an app.
As a leader in digital health publishing for more than 25 years, WebMD strives to maintain the most comprehensive and reliable source of health and medical information on the internet.
We recognize the responsibility that comes along with being the most well-known and trusted health information platform — and we take that responsibility seriously by:
© 2005 - 2022 WebMD LLC. All rights reserved. WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
We need to get some more sources in the article to help structure it better. We need external sources for things such as first appearances of the practice in film.

We also could do with expanding upon the history, but only if it were well sourced.- Localzuk (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Speaking of sources, I just tried and failed to find something... I could swear I saw in another Wikipedia article a sourced statement that porn stars get an enema to wash out any fecal matter before being filmed having anal sex. I can't find it in the anal sex article though. If this is true (and it seems sensible), then it deserves a mention in the health risks section of this article, perhaps in the context of "don't try this at home; leave it to the professionals." = Axlq 06:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I've added the top message box. Hopefully it covers both sides of the issue. If not, please edit it to address what you feel needs to be said while leaving in place what the 'other' side are trying to say. Thanks, Ben Aveling 21:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

First of all, thanks to BenAveling ( talk · contribs ) for adding that "offensive" notice at the top of the talk page. That at least acknowledges the dislike some users have about this issue.

Okay, so I've been asked to take a look at this, and I can't help to add my two cents (as a 3rd party editor). Frankly, I don't see why this particular article is getting so heated. There are many other articles that cover similar pornographic topics, but I don't see anyone complaining there. First, I would like to know why exactly CyberAnth and 193.219.28.146 feel this article is not encyclopedic. I know that other encyclopedias don't cover such topics, but we're Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia. By no means are we an academic encyclopedia, as you can see by the wide array of content here. This is just a compendium of all notable knowledge. I don't see how this particular article seems offensive to anyone. When you think about it, this all has to do with human sexual behavior. However odd it may be, it still is encyclopedic and at Wikipedia, such articles are welcomed. Nish kid 64 21:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

This seems backwards. What is 'it' in this sentance? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

"It" is the mouth, the only singular noun in the sentence preceding the pronoun. "Applying the mouth to the genitals immediately after applying THE MOUTH to the anus can introduce" e. coli [in]to the urethra.

One thing the article does not address is why someone would do this. My understanding is that people who engage in anal sex generally consider it to be superior to oral sex. If such a person has successfully obtained access to his partner's anus, why would he want to withdraw his penis without achieving climax just to transition to an alternate form of sex that he considers inferior? 4.89.247.63 01:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Articles like this is the reason why Wikipedia is not generally considered as a serious source of information (in comparison with, let's say, Britannica). 193.219.28.146 16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

While the subject of this article doesn't appeal to me either, it would seem that 193.219.28.146 was reverted and blocked (not "censored") because (a) the comment above, comparing Wikipedia to Britannica, violates the leading two paragraphs in WP:TALK ; (b) repeated disruption from re-adding the comment violates WP:POINT ; and (c) repeated violations of WP:3RR . Looking at Talk:193.219.28.146 , it appears this user has been asked several times, but never answered, how his comments facilitate improving the article, or how they are constructive in any way.

To User:193.219.28.146 : Please suggest improvements and constructive changes rather than make editorial comments and complaints. If you feel the article should be deleted, you can always propose it for deletion; see WP:AFD for the process. - Amatulic 20:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I'm going to briefly put in my two cents by applauding those who have created and maintained this article. I did a google search for "ass to mouth", and this article came up. Most of the other links were pornographic or just plain random; personally I think it's good to provide information about the topic in a neutral, non-pornographic way. The section on health risks in particular is potentially valuable and IMO should be expanded if possible. -- Hermitage 16:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

"[T]o eliminate the possibility of any fecal matter appearing on film" is a bit confusing. Is there some sort of censorship provision that guys can have anal sex with someone, but the camera can't show shit on the guy's penis ??? I suppose that would be consistent with prohibiting filming pissing, even though we all do it every day, and barring a few fetishists, it's not even all that sexy.

Responses are urgently solicited. What the f**k is going on ?

Dick Kimball 07:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I would suggest specifying that Hepatitis A, according to the CDC, is only spread from a person with Hep A to another. In other words, someone can't get Hep A from performing A2M on something that has been in their own anus.

HAV is found in the stool (feces) of persons with hepatitis A.
HAV is usually spread from person to person by putting something in the mouth (even though it might look clean) that has been contaminated with the stool of a person with hepatitis A.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/diseases/hepatitis/a/fact.htm

My edit has been deleted, apparently by you Axlq, because you said it was unsourced and my opinion, as you see above I did refrences and you agreed. My problem is an unfamiliarity with the proper format to put footnotes into the entry.
fordag 21:46 13 Oct 08 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.18.109 ( talk )

Despite its health risks, it is prevalent in pornographic films and growing prevalent among teenaged minors as a substitute for vaginal sex because of the lesser risk of pregnancy.[3][4]

Neither of the linked sources state that ATM is growing prevalent among teenaged minors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.224.39.90 ( talk • contribs ) 2008-08-25

(question from len) Why is it that it refers to getting aids from yourself in some weird way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.231.128 ( talk ) 06:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I went to edit some of this article, but I really don't know where to start. It is in dire need of a complete rewrite. There is (for a start) much talk of contracting sexually transmitted diseases from one's own anus, which I believe belongs in the "a2om" section.

As it is, I feel that most of this article reads as if it were written by a 12 year old who is trying rather hard to be obscene. While I have no issue with "objectionable comment", I must postulate that large portions of the text are entirely for shock value, including the rather odd quote (resource 7). The nail in the coffin is the "see also: Dirty Sanchez", which always seems to be tacked onto the end of anal-related articles despite having absolutely nothing to do with the subject other than it is a sexual act.

114.30.108.221 ( talk ) 10:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I hate to mention it, but outside of the US "ass" refers to a donkey. Given that Wikipedia aspires toward national and cultural neutrality, it is probably wise to replace the American spelling "ass" with "arse".

Have to say I am so damn sick of American spelling in a supposedly international Internet resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.74.35 ( talk ) 17:10, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I have no issues with the removing the PC "person" in favour of "man" ( [1] ) given how that paragraph is currently written. However, I'm wondering if we should re-write that to re-PC it and include strap-on dildos. Ass to mouth is already an uncommon activity—is dildo A2M a common enough activity to warrant a minor rewrite? – RobinHood70 talk 01:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

While there were some very good points brought up in the IP's edit summaries, and I think the edits themselves were mostly well-intentioned, they really went too far in removing content simply because it's mis-sourced or unsourced. That, in and of itself, is insufficient reason to remove content if the content is likely to be legitimate and related to the topic. The "Health concerns" section would be one example of that, and some of the other content, while more dubious, could also qualify. For example, A2M is very frequently associated with domination and humiliation, even if that wasn't properly sourced. Whether that's of relevance to the article or not is more debatable. Lastly, I reverted the edits due to the hidden commentary. That's rarely desirable in a wiki article, and completely unacceptable when it contains foul language. – RobinHood70 talk 10:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Some improvement has been made with these deletions. However, I point out that 4/5 sources still do not mention this topic.

The health concerns section is entirely WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH because it implies that these sources are somehow linked to this topic when this needs to be explicitly stated in the source. If you want to put scientific studies in saying this is a risky activity, then the source should probably mention this activity at least. This is not the same topic as feco-oral route of transmission, that's why there is a separate article on that.

The images, especially the image captions, are superfluous and do not add anything to the article. If at least the unencyclopedic captions were removed ... but still this is not the worst aspect of this article's quality.

The Dan Savage reference is barely linked to this topic. Neither is it reliable.

If there are hardly any reliable sources for a topic, do I really have to remind people that reliable sources are a requirement for notability of an encyclopedia entry. If there are hardly any sources, then it should be a stub. Better a stub than filled with bs.

It seems that Wikipedia pages on sexual topics (or at least the 2 I have looked at in detail, this and masturbation ) are very below standard, where certain editors feel that the normal rules that apply to rest of the encyclopedia do not apply to them.

I could go on and on listing furhter original research that has been permitted to remain, the see also links, the hatnote. -Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.10 ( talk ) 23:39, 6 November 2013

OK last comment, because this is getting stupid. As if anyone even reads this article anyway, most probably come here by mistake. "Sexual practices that may involve oral contact with feces, such as anilingus or coprophilia." is unreferenced on that article. Suggest if this is indeed supported in one of the sources from the feco-oral transmission article, and then that could support the following content on this topic: "Anal sex followed by oral sex could be potentially harmful via feco-oral transmission of pathogens ". Then we can delete the OR. Interested parties could then follow the interwikilinks to the other topics. This avoids presenting references on this article as if they are specifically about this topic, which they are not. If, as I suspect the comment from feco-oral transmission is unreferenced and unsupported by any of the sources, that too should be deleted. - Anon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.128.121 ( talk ) 23:32, 7 November 2013‎

I've restored this section with acceptable references. IMDB is an acceptable source for data & raw info about movies. So the material from "Clerks II" is in point of fact a cultural reference to ATM. Please let it stay there, unless you can discredit the info. Tapered ( talk ) 02:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

I'm not sure ATOGM particularly needs its own section. It is, after all, just a variant of the primary activity. It also inappropriately assumes a specific gender. I think the section can be removed, since the lead already mentions it. – RobinHood70 talk 12:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Since both the image usage and its absence are contested, I thought I'd bring it to the talk page. I don't feel strongly about it, but I tend to side with the IP who restored the images. To me, the montage is about as clear as we can get short of adding video since it is, almost by definition, a two-part act. (In a three-way, you could actually reduce it to a single act, but I don't think that's the archetypal version of it.) Per UNCENSORED , I don't consider the images to be gratuitous since they demonstrate visually the act being described by the text. What's the argument for removing them? – Robin Hood (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

the withdrawal of a penis from the receptive partner's anus followed by the immediate insertion into the receptive partner's mouth

While the above does pass muster as a technical description/definition; please be aware that in the majority of instances, both in porn and in real life, the withdrawn penis is then inserted into the mouth of a different individual from the one who has just served as receptive partner.

Thus, as two physical systems are being penetrated, not simply one, the potential for the transmission of sources of infection is greatly increased.

Nuttyskin ( talk ) 23:13, 13 October 2018 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Wikipedia is not censored . Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image .
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-01-02. The result of the discussion was delete .
This article was nominated for deletion review on 2007-01-13. The result of the discussion was overturned .
hide This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects :

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale .
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale .
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale .
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale .

Lola Myluve
Bang Real Teens
Nude Katie Price

What Is Ass To Mouth

Report Page