` :Hi Catamorphism, thanks for your question on my talk page about why I reverted the removal of the  tags.  I was watching recent changes for vandalism or unwise edits and I observed that an anonymous user removed 4 citation tags with no discussion on this talk page.  They did this in two edits:  One with no summary, the other with an edit summary I believed to be uninformative about their reason for removal.   :My thinking was that someone had found those tags needed for some reason, and that they were deleted with no discussion.  (I did not make the connection betwee n your question and the anonymous user - although even your posting does not seem to question the need for the other 3 tags. :Of course it is always a matter of opinion how strict we are going to try to be with ourselves about citing our sources.   :In this case, in my opinion, the tag you question is probably the tag that is least needed.  I don't really see an urgent need to provide a citation for the fact that women can achieve organism from oral sex.  On the other hand, surely such a source would be trivially easier to find.  So ideally, we should just put a source in rather than deleting the tag. :In the case of the other 3 statements that are flagged as needing a source - these 3 statements are much weaker and really should be cited because as it is they smack of personal opinion and/or original research and/or contaminated by weasel words: :#Oral sex is often used as the principal form of sexual expression or as part of foreplay. Not only are the sexual organs sensitive and well supplied with nerve endings, the same is true of the mouth, tongue and lips, so enjoyment of oral sex is not always limited to the person on the receiving end.  :::``is often used as the principal`` is a weasel phrase.  How often?  By what percentage of people?  How often is it enjoyed by the person giving the oral sex and how often is it not? :#As in all human sexual behaviour, the variety of techniques in cunnilingus and individual responses to them are almost endless.  :::``almost endless`` is not a very encyclopedic term.  Who claims this?  Who claims this is also true of all ``human sexual behaviour``? :#As always, communication, experimentation and practice are the best way to learn how to please a particular partner. :::This is very encyclopedic.  It reads more like a how-to.  Who claims these things are important?  Why do they belong in an encyclopedia? :Thanks again for your question. \ `