RN
The headline premise checks out. Guinness genuinely does not adjudicate this subject, and it says so plainly when asked — a spokesperson responding to one widely reported attempt said the organisation does not monitor a title for longest sex duration, and it has given the same answer to others.
Where the premise misleads is in the word omitted, which suggests a shortlist sitting in a drawer. There is no drawer. There is a set of published rules that this whole category fails, and then a vacuum where an adjudicator would otherwise be.
Five tests, and where the subject falls over
Guinness states what a record has to be before anyone argues about the content. It must be measurable objectively, in units. It must be breakable, so somebody else can come along and take it. It must be standardisable, so any challenger attempts it under identical rules. It must be verifiable through witnesses, measurements, photographs, video or documents. And it must turn on a single variable.
Work through those with any sex record in mind and the problem is structural rather than prudish.
Verifiability is the wall. Clear evidence means an adjudicator or an approved witness observing and measuring the attempt. For most of these claims, satisfying that requirement means somebody officially watching a private act, and there is no version of that which the organisation is going to arrange.
Standardisation fails next. A record needs rules a stranger can follow exactly. Almost nothing in this domain has a protocol — no agreed measurement method, no defined start and stop, no controls.
And then there is the values screen. Guinness says it does not accept records involving harm, risk or discrimination, and it rejects subjective superlatives outright, which removes most of what people actually want ranked here. The bar is not squeamishness; several of the claims in circulation would fail the harm test on their own terms.
What grows in the gap
Remove the adjudicator and the numbers do not stop. They get supplied by whoever has a reason to supply them, and there are three recognisable sources.
Self-report. A person states a figure about their own body. Nobody measured it, and no one has an incentive to correct downward.
Promotional events. Some of the best-known figures come from attempts staged at trade conventions, where the event is the marketing. These often did happen, with organisers, cameras and a count — but the counter was employed by the promoter, and no independent body ratified anything.
Media production. Documentaries and magazine features have a strong interest in a superlative, because the superlative is the commission. A film titled around the biggest anything has effectively decided its finding before it starts shooting.
None of that means the underlying events are fictional. It means the word record is doing work it has not earned. A documented occurrence is not a maximum, and every one of these claims is a documented occurrence at best.
The historical ones are a different animal
Several perennial entries in lists like this come from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, where the evidence is a parish register, a monastery's note or a travelling-show handbill. Those are historical curiosities and are interesting as such, but they were not measurements even by the standards of their own time, and modern demographers have long treated the most famous of them as unverifiable.
Presenting them alongside a figure from a filmed event in the 2000s implies a common standard of proof that does not exist across the two.
The part that was removed
The previous version of this page was mostly a list of named individuals, and that is why it has not been reproduced. It attached measurements to real people's bodies, named a living private individual for her occupation as a sex worker and invited readers to judge her, and described a nineteenth-century woman's fatal childbirth in anatomical detail as an entry in an entertainment list.
The subjects of those entries did not enter a competition. Two of the categories concerned people who never made any claim at all — the claim was made about them. Dropping that material costs the article nothing, because the interesting question was never who holds these titles. It is why the titles have no holder.
The short answer
Nothing was left out of the book. A body that requires objective measurement, repeatable rules, independent witnesses and no harm has, on inspection, no way to accept any of this — and the figures that circulate instead come from people who wanted them to circulate.