" 

 The cavalier attitude of editors here is very concerning.  

 * Other wikipedia articles are not acceptable sources for another given wikipedia articles. Seriously, and you call me incompetent? 

 * Wikipedia articles are not a platform for your original research. There is no evidence linking this topic with those sources. Those sources are about feco-oral transmission, which is a separate article in the encyclopedia. If any of those articles at least mentioned ""the penis can carry these pathogens into the mouth if anal sex is followed by oral sex"" then it would be OK. But they do not, at all.  

 * Why am I being threatened with banning and called incompetent for removing unsourced content and original research? This is what we all should be doing! 

 I think all things considered, the views of editors here strongly diverge from the mainstream consensus of wikipedia editors. Don't worry though, I will not make the mistake of visiting a Wikipedia article about sexual topics again. Clearly, attempts to make these articles encyclopedic are not welcome by these types of editors who consider themselves above the normal rules. -Anon"