The reaction of some people to this question has me scratching my head, going "You kidding me?"
So I was among the first people to notice that question uses an unusual example sentence. The sentence is suggestive, sensual, maybe slightly indelicate and off-color, but not obscene by any standard. Nor can I even say it is vulgar.
I found it curious, so I left a comment asking the OP about their source. They never responded which I guess is because they are trying to be delicate and not to draw any more attention to the context than it already has. Tactful, I think.
I am upset, disgusted, and bewildered by the slew of close votes hurled at this question. I don't understand why this question is targeted and hated, why it's met with such reaction. Since when is ELL crawling with prudes who find words that talk about tongue and saliva and nothing else so abominable that they have to shut it down? I trust that the OP has done their best to keep the quotation and the question kosher and I think that merits acknowledgement from us as opposed to banishment or shaming. The question, to its credit, is reasonably researched and presented, and is well within the scope of on-topic ELL questions. Where you see abhorrence, I see a new community member's honest effort.
Could the OP have used a different sentence to ask about the same grammar point? I bet they could. But what is so grotesque, so morally appalling about the original question to begin with?
I am going to echo J.R.'s spirit here, since I don't think it can be better said than this:
This community was created to cater to learners with questions that may be simple for the native speaker, but vexing for the learner. In this case, an O.P. finds ELL, joins, asks one question – and sees it promptly closed, sans a helpful comment, only to be directed to a book that gives enough meanings of these words to make anyone's head spin.
To be candid, I was disgusted and embarrassed.
Here is my request: Before you vote to close a question:
a) put yourself in the shoes of a learner, and ask if the question is a fair question
b) have some leniency toward newer members of the community; leave some comments to help them learn how to contribute in meaningful ways
Have we? Have we? HAVE WE???
In my few Meta ELL posts, I speak often of being nice to new community members and taking that commitment seriously. Yes, I consider "be nice" a commitment, a vow, rather than an outside rule to abide by. I don't see any trace of it in the close votes hurled at this question at issue.
A two-upvoted (as of this moment) comment reads:
I’m voting to close this question because YUK.
No, "YUK" is not going to cut it. It is not a valid reason to cast your close vote. "YUK" is not justifiable. Your "YUK" is not even explained, and yet at least three close votes stemmed from that "YUK".
So explain to me like I am a six year old why this question is such an abomination. What do you find in this question which you can't bear the sight of and you think should be condemned? Keep in mind I am a six year old, and I know what a tongue is and that spit is gross but we all have saliva. If you can't I will exercise the mod power to unilaterally reopen this question.
I'd started composing before Jason Bassford chimed in with this comment:
Barring context, I immediately thought of the first sentence in the sense of a dog lapping at a ball, chew toy, or some other such thing. Even if it is used in the context of sex, I don't think there's anything "yucky" about sex. That might be a reason to downvote or flag (in the extreme), but not to close it. I voted to close this for a lack of research because no citation or link was given to the definitions provided. Nor do I think it valid to say that the final sentence cannot be said, especially not without explaining why; however, it's actually grammatical, just unusual. – Jason Bassford
This is valid reasoning. And I especially appreciate the affirmation that making mention of sex is not a reason for close. But I wish to add I am not sure I agree with the lack of research grounds very much. There is a gradation of context and/or research insufficiency, and the OP of this question included dictionary definitions, didn't they? You are right the dictionary definitions should have been accompanied by sources, links, references, but that is easily fixable, compared to some glaring issues in other questions which are grossly underresearched and pithy, with zero research effort or context, but which are still allowed to remain open on ELL. Of course different people have different options in response to an underresearched question, but I consider most of the issues we see in this particular question an easy edit away from being fixed, not five close votes.
Another thing I want people to keep in mind is that the context is erotica no doubt, but not heteroerotica. The source article is a homoerotic piece, which of course shouldn't sway your opinion either way. I hope nobody is offended specifically because the sentence in question is extracted from a novella describing sex acts between two women. This is 2020, people! We are way past that. I am sure homophobia is not a factor in this question being targeted. Wait, is it?