Talk:69 (sex position)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 69 (sex position). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

picture of two fat ugly lesbians 69ing each other

Thats exactly what a respectable encyclopedia needs, except it isn't. Yeah yeah I know its for equality and who am I to judge and I'm homophobic blah blah blah but back in reality land no-one wants to see that nastiness 70.189.144.100 (talk) 21:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought it was a male and female. Nasty either way. I'm removing the pic. Doesn't look like anything is going on at one end either.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"I'm offended by lesbians" or "I'm offended by unattractive people" isn't a valid reason to remove something from an article - according to the image page they are in fact a heterosexual couple but the image isn't framed to be able to tell. I've fixed the now-broken multi-image box. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to delete before the IP user mentioned anything (the day it was added actually). Further fueling the fire to delete it was that the IP user wasn't even sure on the sex of the couple. If you can't tell the sex of the couple or if it looks as though the couple isn't actually engaging in a sexual activity, but rather laying on top of each other. I don't believe the imagine should be aloud.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:53, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

That picture was both.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Misc

I propose deleting the last two sentences of the second paragraph, as they are a) poorly written and b) shoehorned into the text with little context or applicability. They only make sense in this article in the context of a "Advantages and Disadvantages" subsection, such as that in the Missionary Position article. Lacking such a section, I believe they interrupt the flow of thought and contribute nothing of value to the discussion and are as such unnecessary. Nonstopdrivel 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think that the "Advantages and Disadvantages" sections that a bunch of these articles have are pretty stupid, especially since they are probably all V:OR. However, the sentences you refer to do seem to have actual information in them which is not just someone's opinion. I'd rather see them massaged into a better state than deleted outright. --Strait 20:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I can work them into shape in terms of tone and style, but they still seem appended there without any context. Maybe they belong in their own paragraph with some sort of transitional clause. I think a citation would also be useful. I agree that the "Advantages and Disadvantages" sections are stupid, but thus far I've refrained from outright deleting sections of articles, preferring the role of a stylistic editor. I vastly improved the "A&D" section of the Missionary Position article, if I do say so myself. Nonstopdrivel 00:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have accordingly rearranged and reworded the sentences to improve flow. Moreover, I have consolidated the reference to "68" into the paragraph by relating it to the obstacle of concentrating on giving while receiving. While it was in its own paragraph, it seemed to be hanging and its relevance was questionable. Now the entire passage feels more cohesive, IMHO. Nonstopdrivel 00:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Might it not be more general for the image to depict heterosexual intercourse?

Nah, how about some video though? 69.22.126.20 15:39, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Not really - the image would be no clearer as to what the 69-position is if one of the participants lacked breasts. --[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 15:53, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

69.22.126.20, I second that.

The downside is that the picture might compel someone unfamiliar with 69 into thinking that it's just for women.

I'm pretty sure men will figure out that they can get into that mix too. —rebug (talk) 05:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Some mention should also be made of 69 double rimming, or mutual analingus; because 69 is not always mouth to genitals.

Best way to sum it up is, 69 is a fine way to have sex and trust me i would know bescause i do it alot!

I have requested my new image shown across replace the image of two lesbians in the oral sex article which is the same one which is used here. I'd make the same suggestion for this page to. I've tried to make this (which is one of a set of three diagrams) less shocking than the original ones created by User:Rama. I've also made it so that although the gender of the top person is clearly female, the bottom person is not so obvious. It could easily be male or female and I leave it up to the reader to decide what gender they want to read into it. The diagrams are a little more medical and a little less pornographic than the originals. If there is consensus that a change is in the best interest of this article then I will go ahead and do it at the end of this week. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 08:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

as there has been no opposition to this move and also now that this image has been adopted on the oral sex article I have ammended it here aswell. I have replaced the lesbian image with a gender impartial one to fit in line with the oral sex article. Equally whilst we all appreciate the efforts of User:Rama who drew the original image (he has contributed over 1% of the entire commons library of images), I believe this one is more helpful to the article and slightly more aesthetic.

Yes. I notice that many of the depictions in sexuality articles have lesbianism as being taken for granted. The article for 69 and anilingis and even "snowballing" (which necessarily involves sperm!) are all shown in lesbian contexts. As far as I know, people of the opposite sex are still having sex (at least for now) and while someone with an agenda might be trying to make a point, these depictions take away somewhat from a full understanding of these sex positions.

I don't mean to rock anyone's boat, but a better detailed and drawn picture would help and sorry to say a real picture would be helpful for an article like this. Either get a better quality drawing or get a detailed animation or picture. An animation would really help.--WiseCrow (talk) 01:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Also many people get offended by nude pictures and racial sex. Please remove it.

I know there is a large contingent of pro-homosexual people who write for wiki, but I think it overemphasizes the frequentcy and importance of homosexuality to point out that people of the same sex or a different sex can suck on each other. It's like pointing out that either men, women, or homosexual men or women can breathe. What's the point? Well over 90% of people are heterosexual, and the article should reflect what most people are interested in. Diversions can be covered in subheadings or in more specialized articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me brick (talk • contribs) 03:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

" which some claim creates a different sensation to that of the basic oral sex positions." -- Shouldn't this be cited? Who claims? "some" -- meaning, you? the writer? This is really poor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Call me brick (talk • contribs) 03:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the picture to the 2007 version. It was deleted because 'you can't see the other person fellating' which seems to indicate that the person doing the deleting did not understand the purpose for the newer image. The old lesbian image was re-instated in 2008 without any reason given. I believe that the consensus was for the newer more sexuality neutral picture. It might not be perfect but it seems better. The use of different skin colours also helps make the two partners clearer. Please give a reason if you decide to revert or delete this image. It makes it easier for everyone 60.240.207.146 (talk) 00:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

funny

Am I the only one who finds the quotations marks around "nonsexual" for the north-south demonstration picture hilarious?

Don't forget the auxiliary "77" - Just like 69 but you get "8" more...

Or how's about 96? It's just like 69, but you do it back-to-back, and it takes another couple.

69.175.141.196 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC) Jos. S. Theragman

Pop culture references

For some of these, it's not so obvious that they refer to the sex position. Maybe they should be moved to 69 (number).--Army1987 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

don't get me wrong...

this article is great. but seriously... some of this stuff clearly does not belong.

As well as 6 and 9 being the same digit rotated 180 degrees, they are also binary complements:
6 = 0110
9 = 1001

Are you kidding me? I almost want to look through the history to figure out which nerd decided to sneak that in. While interesting, this "fact" is totally irrelevant to the sex act. Shy 07:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC) I agree. Removed it. --Army1987 10:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

seriously now, a lot of people could find that backwards meaning fascinating. it is basically saying the same as how 6 and 9 are related in a complementary sense, but it works in a base two as well. Mathmo ^Talk 07:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

While the binary elaboration is a cute excercise in numerology, it is also original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 10:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

original research?! Nope, not me! Mathmo ^Talk 15:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Two things. Firstly, numerology is actually something else that has nothing to do with the mathematical sciences; I doubt that there was anything religious or mystical implied with the binary observation. It should not take a mathematician or a math major to realize this.

Secondly, as for "original research", I don't think that applies in this case as the statement is mathematical fact, similar to saying that "grass is green", "humans breathe air", or some similar statement that speaks for itself. To call a very simple statement of fact like this "original research" would be such a broad and careless application of the principle as to make impossible the creation of any meaningful paragraphs, let alone an encyclopedic entry. You would have to wipe out every entry in Wikipedia with that logic.

Given that this is a blatantly simple statement of fact, has nothing to do with the mystical, or otherwise making a claim that would actually require peer-reviewed research of any sort, the real question is whether or not this is relevant to the article or not. It is certainly related to the article, perhaps not in a fundamental way but as an item of curiosity. 49.144.207.14 (talk) 21:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha, how unsexy! ArdClose 02:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC) what is all this nonsense? its simply that 6 and 9 are the reverse of each other and the sex position under discussion looks like "69". trying to find and more meanings to it is stupid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The persistent invincible (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony about this is that the binary representation was not "trying to find more meanings to it" but rather the same statement you just said yourself. Namely, that "6 and 9 are the reverse of each other", only in this case in base-2. Let me repeat: the statement "6 and 9 are the reverse of each other" is the same as "0110 and 1001 are the reverse of each other", with the only difference in that 6 and 9 are written differently. Think of it as if 0110 and 1001 were simply different fonts for 6 and 9. A rose by any other name... is still a rose. 49.144.207.14 (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

merge

Is there some reason this article exists separate from oral sex? I didn't find anything in the talk archives there to jhustify splitting this out, and to be honest most of this article is original research, unrelated anecdotes, and duplication of the section in the Oral sex article. I've recommended that they be merged, with a redirect here to aid the search engines. -- nae'blis 15:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC) no it shouldnt be merged for the reaon that many people search for "69" with the express intent on learning about the particular topic.--The persistent invincible 07:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree: it is absurd for this article to exist on its own, and brings down the quality of Wikipedia as a professional encyclopedia. It should be a subsection under oral sex, and really, only one sentence is needed. It is sufficient for the reader to assume what the act entails beyond that, and any further discussion of the sexual act is not helpful, except to degrade sexual union with the impression that it may be vain sexual pleasure. -- Newagelink (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre category

Was there a good reason for this article to be categorised as a sexuality-related list, or is there some mistake? Dev920 (Tory?) 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It appeares under "LIST OF SEX POSITIONS" in the sexuality-related list, so there is a somewhat good reason. -Diabolos 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's bizzare, because it is not a list. All of the other things in that category are lists. I have removed it. --Strait 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, I didn't think it was just me. :) Dev920 (Tory?) 07:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

References in popular culture

While I will agree that the article reads better in its current state, I am still at a loss as to why these topics merit their own encyclopedic entries to begin with. In any normal encyclopedia, names of sexual positions would merit only a "See also . . ." heading, with discussion of the various positions being confined to the main article on Sex, Sexual Intercourse, Human Sexuality, or what have you. I believe in time these numerous short articles on sexual positions (most of which are headed with "slangy" terms anyway) should be consolidated under a heading at least as general as "Sexual Positions" and possibly something more encompassing, such as those mentioned above. Nonstopdrivel 19:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I am removing this section as it is completely irrelevant and unreferenced. It is basically a trivia section that attracts cruft and original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm open to your opinion that it is irrelevant and unreferenced. Why do you suppose that a dozen or more people added those in? Maybe because they had an interest, and it was related in some manner. Sure, some of them could go with little difficulty. None of them are truely encylopedic, but it does little harm to let general interest references remain for those who have a differing opinion that you. Atom 21:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

People add onto it because it is, in effect, a giant banner that screams "Hey! Add irrelevant, content-free trivia here!" And it definitely does harm Wikipedia to add irrelevant, unreferenced, unencyclopedic material, see WP:V, WP:AVTRIV, WP:NOT, WP:OR etc. Now I appreciate your openness to my opinion, but what in the world does that mean? Do you agree that this content is irrelevant and unreferenced, and if so, why keep it? ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is trivial, but much of it is related. Social usage sometimes indicates things about a term. I don't believe that an encyclopedia need be cold and sterile. wp:V doesn't really apply as there is a number of other things mentioned in the article that does not has specific references. Also, some of this "trivia" probably could be cited. WP:AVTRIV is not a policy, it is a manual of style, and a guideline. It says quite clearly "avoid". It does not say "not permitted". The same guideline says "Lists of trivia can be useful for developing a new article, as it sets a low bar for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation - just tack a new fact on to the list. However, as articles grow, these lists become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read." So, when this article becomes more than a stub, maybe we can weed out the trivia as more interesting facts will be in the actual article itself. WP:NOT makes no reference to it, and [[wp:OR] applies to theories, opinions, and research developed for wikipedia. In this case, many of these are facts, intended to be interesting to the reader. Frankly I think you are working to hard on to unimportant an article. If this were a more expansive article, about a different subject, such as say george bush that might be less appropriate. And, per the guidelines, less appropriate for a more fleshed our article. Atom 01:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, WP:NOT is the most pertinent one: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Using the logic that a poorly referenced list of cruft will help add to the actual content of the stub is misguided - it will only add more poorly referenced cruft. Most edits to this article are indeed to the ill-titled "references in popular culture" section, if it is removed passers-by might actually feel inclined to add to the substance of the article, rather than tack on another entry to the laundry list. If one were to write a paragraph of prose on the significance of the 69 position in popular culture and use one or two specific examples, however, then the article would be enriched. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, our readings differ. I view indiscriminate as "deficient in discrimination and discernment". I had thought that the trivia was, in each case, related to the topic of the article, rather than unrelated. Hence my view that WP:NOT was not applicable in thie case.

"Using the logic that a poorly referenced list of cruft will help add to the actual content of the stub is misguided" Perhaps you are correct, but it was the guidelines you quoted (WP:AVTRIV) that indicated that.

"If one were to write a paragraph of prose on the significance of the 69 position in popular culture and use one or two specific examples, however, then the article would be enriched." Indeed, it might, but that would be what is called "original research", not allowed by WP:OR.

Atom 01:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Indiscriminate collection of information as in "69, dudes!" from Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure or The 69 Eyes horror-rock schlocks from Finland. As in completely and utterly useless and uninformative. As in irrelevant. As in not belonging within ten feet of an encyclopedia. That's my reading, ya dig?

As for the sensical solution, the paragraph on cultural relevance, as long as it is descriptive and referenced, it would not be original research. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 02:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL* Well, "Bill & Ted" are pretty much the definition of "indiscriminate", so I won't argue that one. I'll give you that a little trimming would not hurt. I admit that they could all go without reducing the quality of the article substantially. I'm just open to a little trivia if it draws others. Since it really is of little consequence, there is no need to draw out the discussion any longer really. Consider that there are others who may find other things valuable about Wikipedia than what you or I do. Best regards, Atom 02:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Anetode that the trivia section wasn't adding much to the article. Nandesuka 03:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Saboteur

It would appear from a scan of the recent history that we have a saboteur on our hands. Too bad there isn't a way to ban IP addresses for activity like this. I can't stand cowards who play pranks under the cover of anonymity. Some of us have tried really hard to make this article presentable and their actions only bring down the quality of this community. Ah, well, a natural disadvantage of a "group-think" model such as Wikipedia. Nonstopdrivel 23:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You're likely to see a lot of childish vandalism on this page. IP addresses that vandalize persistently can be blocked from editing. For more information, see Wikipedia:Vandalism, Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I submit that vandalous changes should be reverted as opposed to edited out, as this will make it more apparent to would-be editors that these are indeed examples of vandalism and not poor writing on the part of the editors. Nonstopdrivel 06:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Kipling

The line from Kipling ("There are nine and sixty ways/Of writing tribal lays/And every single one of them is right!") is about poetry, not sexual practices. I have therefore deleted the reference.

Agemegos 13:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent point. I always thought the allusion was a weak one at best, but I wasn't familiar enough with the passage to feel justified in deleting it. This is a hilarious example of a misinterpretation of the word "lays." Thanks for clarifying the issue for us. -- Nonstopdrivel 11:48, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it not possible that Kipling hisself was making a pun on two different meanings of the word "lays"? Tom129.93.17.202 (talk) 17:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Importance Scale Rating

I question why this article is rated as 'High' on the importance scale. I fail to see how this particular article is that significant and I don't believe the probability of the average Wikipedia user needing to look up the topic covered by the article is high. Yossarianisdead 04:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Method and Drawbacks

"If a male partner is present, his frenulum rubs against the roof of the performing partner's mouth, while the foreskin and the front of the glans may be stimulated by their tongue."

Actually, the frenulum could be rubbing against the bottom of the partner's tongue; this practice is common, because it stimulates the frenulum better. However, even this does not work as well as non-69 fellatio, because the tongue likes to curve upward.

This is all original research on my part. I searched the web for references to this but could not find any. Does anyone have a reference? (And would it be worthwhile to include this information?)

Also, if anyone changes this sentence, I would like "their tongue" to be "the partner's tongue", or even "his or her tongue". (Grammar police.) Peter Chastain (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The cancer thing

What's with the cancer thing? It seems like something an 11-year old would want to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.98.106 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability?

Y'know, for an article to be on wiki, it should really have more than two entries in obscure books - it should actually BE the subject of those books. So a French guy painted a picture of it, and teenagers joke about it often - so what? This article does not adhere to standards for inclusion in wikipedia.98.223.105.6 (talk) 05:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

you couldn't actually be suggesting there shouldn't be an article on this? (one of the most famous sex positions ever) sure the sourcing could be better, but it isn't an A grade article. I fully encourage you to get out there and find more sources! obviously what is listed on a wikipedia page is not all there is on the subject Mathmo ^Talk 09:41, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

69?

I removed this from the article:

"The *69 is a variation on the 69 which utilises a a sex toy in the anus of one the partners. The *69* utilises two sex toys one in each anus."

Is this an expression in use, or was it just made up by someone? Any source? --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

restoring popular culture

The AfD close for List of pop culture references to the 69 sex position was not redirect, but merge and redirect; the material was merged., but then removed back on October 13, 2006 [1] --primarily at the urging of one editor. I do not think that was sufficient to upset the closing at the AfD and I have resotred it--I see this as a typical example, of first merge, then cut, then leave just the redirect, then remove the redirect, a way to delete an article for which there is not consensus to delete. I have now restored it. I think a renewed discussion is needed--if there was consensus at all, rather than giving in to the preferences of one editor, consensus can change in 3 years.` DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It was rightfully removed, none of this material is cited by a reliable third party source, hence it is original research. I think that Wikipedia has enough unsourced trivia problems, we don't need to pile it on any more. JBsupreme (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

And yes, consensus can change. Thankfully it appears we're shifting towards building a more reliable and respectable encyclopedia these days. JBsupreme (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with JBsupreme. The section as a whole seems like nothing but trivia and doesn't really belong. I would support removal in its entirety. Them From Space 09:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I too generally dislike "In popular culture" and "Trivia" lists in articles, because I think they detract from the quality that an encyclopedia should strive for, and take it more in the direction of the Twitter culture (which has its own merits in its own context, but is inappropriate here, I think). So I'd prefer to see it removed. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Over 18 warning?

You do realize that children visit wikipedia? Searching for prime numbers might just land them on this website. I would reccomend that there be an over 18 warning just like reddit does. The images are quite visual and not meant for minors. I am suprised Wikipedia is endorsing this porn.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.199.127.213 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Something like this before you get to the page would be beneficial.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.199.127.213 (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Most images are quite visual, actually. This kind of thing has been discussed many, many times before. The article 69 is about the year. 69 (number) is about the prime number. Yes, there is still a chance of confusion, but at that point, why would a disclaimer make a significant difference? This article clearly says in the title that it's about the sex position. The general consensus is that Wikipedia:Not censored. Wikipedia offers Help:Options to hide an image, and the project already has a Wikipedia:Content disclaimer, although I admit it's hardly prominent. Grayfell (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Strange because a prime number is a number that is divisible solely by 1 and itself, which is why 2 is a prime number but 4 and all the rest of the even numbers are not. 69 is divisible by 1, 3 = 23 times and 23 = 3 times which is not a proviso for it being a prime number. 61, 67, 71, 73, 79 are the ONLY prime numbers around 69. Strictly speaking 1 is not a prime but regardless of this 69 is NOT a prime number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.108.129 (talk) 15:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

diagram

File:Wiki-sixtynine.png is not too explicit and a simplified diagram like this should be on the page. Just one problem with that. It's far too arousing - to be encyclopaedic. --90.220.22.220 (talk) 06:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

?? File:Wiki-sixtynine.png is on the page in the Method section. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:58, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

History section

I'm unsure of whether the way the history section is written is complaint with copyright (large quotes and all) and opened a discussion about that here. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 21:26, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice

Nice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.88.236 (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 30 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by nominator. Sovereign /^Sentinel 07:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

69 (sex position) → 69 (position) – Per WP:PRECISE, the article title should be 'precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that.' It also states 'when a more detailed title is necessary to distinguish an article topic from another, use only as much additional detail as necessary.' There is no need to use 69 (sex position) as the article title when 69 (position) is enough to indicate the topic. Sovereign /^Sentinel 05:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose this isn't chess. The sphere within which this position is used is specifically related to sex and, on this basis, the article has, I think, logically been placed into Category:Sex positions. Other articles to be considered in parallel are as Piledriver (sex position) and Suspended congress (sex position) and I certainly don't think that titles like "Piledriver (position)" and "Suspended congress (position)" would be in any way clear. Another related article with parenthesis is Spreadeagle (position) but this may relate to a variety of situations including, apparently, ice skating and skydiving as well as bondage and sex. I would have less objection to a suggestion as 69 position though it is commonly simply known as a 69. Greg Kaye 06:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.