Jimmy-
That's a long list, and so let me list some examples of what I am personally comfortable with. But let me stress that I'm NOT making any policy here, I'm just arguing as an ordinary wikipedian, trying to help explore these issues thoughtfully.
Some of the terms there are scientific terms, others are sociological, but some are slang terms, generally used primarily for shock value.
Hmhm. My take on this:
1) Slang terms - more appropriate for Wiktionary. Redirects can make searching easier, though, and should IMHO be left in place if the terms are not made up. In the list of sexology topics they look a little out of place; perhaps they should be separated from the other article titles under the heading "Slang terms".
2) Unusual sexual behavior - definitely encyclopedia material. If a substantial number of people practice it, it should be described in as much detail as possible. But stuff like "snowballing" may be better discussed in the context of a larger article, because it seems fairly uncommon (?).
In general, I think that the "things should not look out of place" notion is preferable to an arbitary moral standard. Do you expect to read the word "blowjob" when you read about Bill Clinton in an encyclopedia? Do you expect it when you browse the articles in the category "sexual behavior and related jargon"?
Regards,
Erik