In the second edition of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (2012) an otherwise laudable attempt to be more forthright in defining obscene terms seems to have introduced an error. The word irrumo was defined in the first edition of the dictionary as ‘to practise irrumatio on’, which is correct but unilluminating, especially since irrumatio was defined as ‘the action of an irrumator’. Irrumator was then defined as ‘one who submits to fellatio’, which is technically correct, though it suggests a passivity in the action that is not found in the lines from Catullus given as an example of its usage: praesertim quibus esset irrumator | praetor, nec faceret pili cohortem (‘not least when said praetor was a fuckface | and didn't give a shit for his poor staffers’, Catull. 10.11–12). In this poem Catullus is using the word irrumator as a term of abuse, suggesting that his praetor (in Bithynia) took advantage of his staff members rather than taking care that they too should reap some rewards from the province. Although the literal meaning is secondary to a more metaphorical use here, the charge is repeated with more direct reference to its sexual usage in Catull. 28.9–10: o Memmi, bene me ac diu supinum | tota ista trabe lentus irrumasti (‘Memmius, man, you really reamed me over, | force-fed me slowly with that giant whanger!’). In both cases it is clear that Catullus is an unwilling recipient of the praetor's attentions, and the action is aggressive and demonstrates the latter's ability to dominate his victim. It would not therefore be correct to say that Memmius is ‘submitting to fellatio’ at the hands, or rather mouth, of Catullus, even metaphorically. The term fellatio, by the way, was not defined in the original OLD at all, and the verb fello had, as its second sense, only ‘transf., as a sexual perversion’. The definitions as given therefore seem deliberately obscure, as well as misleading about the roles and intent of the people involved.