This is an archive of past discussions about 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.
The title is ambiguous. "List of human sex positions" would be more accurate. Sex is not unique to humans. Given that the article is not about sex positions for all species clarification is in order.
Disagree. First, most people (I think) would assume that "list of sex positions" refered to humans unless otherwise stated. Second, like many other article titles in Wikipedia, it is not totally specific, but could provide a disambiguation link at the top if there were other pages about similarly named topics. --Strait13:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The illustrations are really nice. Could it be possible to make some of them black background with white lines?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.237.106 (talk • contribs) .
Sexual positions
Extra positions
Are you kidding me. Blatant, but hilarious, vandalism:
"The Cameltoe Slide - The erect penis is gracefully slid up and down between the lubricated walls of the outer vagina contacting the little flicker at the aphex of each oscillation. This is a smooth action and must be performed with constant angular frequency This is a harmonic motion and should always be regarded as such, one must be careful not to operate with unharnessed vigor as the kinetic energy increases as the square of frequency and so the amount of work done in each swing is given by
lol! Nah, this could have been a serious edit done by somebody who also majored in math and sex at university. To write like that is just merely talking in his/her native language. Oh yeah, also I throughly recommend "the Cameltoe Slide" as an excellent way to get warmed up.... MathmoTalk02:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Genital sex positions
I would propose a general pronoun clean-up for these sections, since they refer explicitly to male-female, male-male, and female-female positions. There is no need to use the plural-for-singular here, since the hypothetical actors in these descriptions have already been defined as male and female, by subject heading. Any objections?
From a grammatical point of view, plural-for-singular is always incorrect, strictly, and his/her should be used if gender implications are unwanted. 142.177.229.2005:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Matthew M. White
Plural is better in order to avoid pinning gender to a position - I'm just too lazy to go through and figure out a good workaround. Also "lays" is used where "lies" is preferable, I would propose correcting this as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.237.106 (talk • contribs) .
Male-male genital sex positions
It would be nice if someone would go over this and add some positions unique to gay or lesbian sex, now i can imagine some but i dont know if they are physically possible or their names.
Since i dont have the "right" sexual preference to try it myself this is a call for aid from fellow wikipedians --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:05, 2004 Apr 7 (UTC)
With the exception of what goes where, there is no position a hetereosexed couple can get into that a same-sex couple can't. For male-male couplings, there is obviously no vagina for penetration, so any male-female position performed for anal penetration works. For female-female couplings desiring penile-vaginal or penile-anal intercourse, the use of a strap-on can allow all of the male-female positions possible. - UtherSRG 17:23, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Yes of course, however those may have specific other than the straight-ones, and there may also be some other exotic ones, thats that i was talking about. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 23:24, 2004 Apr 9 (UTC)
All or nearly all other non-penetrative penis- or vagina- manipulation activities are independent of the sex of the other person, with the possible exception of female tribadism and male face-to-face "frot". Still, ignorance does not imply noexistence, so does anyone know of any exotic homosexual-only positions that I have left out here? -- Karada 10:37, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I don't know if this would be considered frot or mutual masturbation, but one man can masturbate himself and a partner (or partners) simultaneously with one hand, I've heard it called "double JO"; also a man can slide his forskin over the glans of his partner, this is called docking. Also there's nothing inherently gay or lesbian about anal use of double ended dildos I'm going to remove that and put some stuff that's been discussed up
70.248.135.22315:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC) I don't know the name of this particular position, but I believe that the recieving partner has to wrap his testicles around the penis of the penatrating partner, while the penatrating partner slides in and out between the reciever's scrotum
one typically homosexual thing is the "dark room party", where naked people dance and rub each other in the dark. Could be done by lesbians or gay (and bisexual of course), but I have heard it was rather a male thing. Can anybody confirm ? (if this is true, we will absolutely have to get a picture ! ;) ) Rama 19:27, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I had just asked this question at Talk:Missionary position wondering the same thing about homosexual positions. I eventually made my way here trying to find out more information. If homosexual couples can engage in the same positions as heterosexuals, then aren't all of the sex position pages from the heterosexual point of view? I was certain that I have heard and used the names missionary and doggy style in reference to the homosexual variants of the positions. I don't think we should change all the pictures or anything as they give the general idea for either type The changing of the use of "man" and "woman" to other articles would be difficult but I just thought I'd ask the question anyway. :) --Sketchee 11:18, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Tori and Uke, like in judo ? :) Rama 11:06, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
How about penetrating and receiving partner? In fact, I'll do that now. --Dmlandfair 7 July 2005 02:42 (UTC)
Anal sex positions
Okay, does anyone have any specific anal sex positions? I can think that most vaginal positions can be adapted anally, although some with difficulty (different angle of rectal vs. vaginal entry) -- Karada 17:58 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Group sex positions
Miscellaneous Comments
Discussion
I'm not sure if Backdoor entrance should qualify as a sex position, it's more of a type of intercourse isn't it? - Camster342
Does the 69 sex position and anal intercourse really qualify as "not widely known"? Also, I feel that "they are not the ordinary acts done between people" seems a little politically loaded to me. I'm going to go ahead and do a couple of verbiage tweaks there. I've also moved the "cybersex" and "phone sex" links to the "See also" section, since those don't really strike me as sexual positions. Justin Bacon
Maybe in the same sense as in "political positions," "moral positions," etc. --Calieber 03:09, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Can we expect a discussion of cultural ways of clasifying sex positions? eg Karma Sutra, Joy of Sex etc, a sort of history of lists of sex positions?
I'm also concerned that this page seems to have a Western POV. For example, the "missionary position" is described as being the most common. I am under the impression that although this position is most common in the Western world due to Christian influence, it had to be taught by the missionaries to indigenous peoples in the rest of the world, implying their cultural preference was other than the missionary position, and hence the name of the position. --zandperl 16:16, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)
The missionary position is BY FAR most common world-wide because it gives the best chance for pregnancy. This is noted because in the animal world "doggy style" is the most common. -Iopq00:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
User:Karada seems to think that the names of the positions on this list aren't genuine, and are in fact copyvios. Any thoughts? See User Talk:Karada. Vancouverguy 23:45, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)
These are not in conformity with regular practice of sex.
What does this mean? Does it mean the listed positions are weird, i.e., there's something wrong with them (or some NPOV version of that sentiment) or that they're unusual, i.e., the sentence merely recapitulates the preceding two? "Not in conformity" gives the whole thing a strange, Orwellian tone. --Calieber
I find the mere concept idea of "regular practice of sex" frightening for the society (without mentioning sexuality as well). Some things are legal and other are not, but nothing is "regular". I certainly agree with Calieber, this formulation leaves room for huge improvements. Rama 09:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Gender Neutrality (Copied from leapfrog position discussion)
Question. Stumbled across this page as I was checking out the recent changes looking for vandals. Are all articles on sex positons written like this? ie...a man and a woman. Could this position not be done by two males or two females (one will strap on)? Should articles include this type of info or are all articles written from a 'straight' point of view? Just asking (I would actually prefer it to stay the way it is but I'm surprised that the wording is like it is!)KsprayDad23:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
I would put in a vote for gender neutrality, I'm sure there's a way to do it tastefully without offending anyone. --TomBurns19:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
I am not going to watch this article. But I remind you that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Tom Haws 07:20, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
Please remove links
It seems as though many of the articles about obscure individual sex positions just get created as vandalism. Many are blanked and protected. Someone needs to go through and remove links to the esoteric positions as they are already defined here. Some sexual positions are popular enough that articles CAN and have been written about them, such as the missionary position and 69. CryptoDerk 03:56, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
This is an issue again. Bagging the bunny and Cleaning the spoon have both been put up as separate articles. The text of the articles is just a copy of the text from the list here. How best to manage this situation?--Gafftalk02:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The language used to describe these positions is a bit on the colloquial side. Also, the "bagging the bunny" section describes a practice rather than a position. The reference to "bunny fuck" might be obscure to some readers. (I admit I had to call upon the vast resources of the Internet to fully understand the concept.) I found no explanation in the Wikipedia for either "bagging the bunny" or "bunny fuck". These practices should probably be documented in Human sexual behavior#Sex_acts_and_practices rather than here.
Is this vandalism? The article says at the beginning: "In fact, some of these positions are also found among bonobos." Even if it were true, it wouldn't be at the beginning of the articles. — Stevey7788 (talk) 21:29, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The article seems non-encyclopedic, because the article seems to encourage people to put into practice what they read on the article.
It looks more like a how-to guide than an encyclopedia article, despite the message inside the article that tells that Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. The message itself suggests that the article looks like a how-to guide.
Editors of this article seem to know a lot about what they write. On the Wikibooks site, they can expand the article/book even more. With the information found on the separate articles in Wikipedia, a whole book could be expanded with details.
This is not a typical Wikipedia list. It is way too expanded in comparison to other lists. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:03, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
Slightly disagree (conditional). If a good trimming of the article can be done... eg., with all content going to wikibooks, a synopsis bere, and a list positon names so the individual articles can be made/found ... I'd support it. A gutting of the article I would oppose.
The article is encyclopedic, because the article describes the topic and then gives a brief summuary of each entry (the entries have thier own articles).
It's an encyclopedia article, which necessarily needs to describe the entries / content of the article (which is a list).
I would support a expanded article/book, if the synopsis is kept here (with the individual articles linked and listed in this article}.
Typical Wikipedia list? It's probably one of the better list that wikipedia has. The other lists need to be expanded.
I do think that, with a careful edit here, an expanded book (multiple time this article size) could be written. With the information found on the separate articles in Wikipedia and more contribution from knowledgeable editors, a codex could be expanded with high detail (which isn't here in wikipedia).
19:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm also against a move to Wikibooks, but I don't have anything against a duplicate or a link in Wikibooks. The article is encyclopedic beacause a good Encycopedia needs an overview of one of the most frequent activities of mankind (besides war). The Preface in fact does warn you not to try any of these activities without proper medical advice.
Consensus has not been reached (several times) whether How-To-Guides should or shoud not be removed from Wikipedia. So for now lists and How-Tos cannot be removed with this argument.
Featuered articles are something we can be proud of and they shoudn't be removed because they are so complete. --Leopard14:17, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
Oppose. None of the arguments stated for the move stand examination. A duplicate, or perhaps expanded duplicate, is of course welcome on Wikibooks, but I have yet to see a reason to remove this list from wikipedia. Rama16:32, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
Double vaginal double anal
Having this helps any reader who has heard about the position or logically extrapolates it from the others, and might conclude that it was left out by accident. How does it hurt anything? --Prosfilaes21:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
The problem with DVDA is that it's physically impossible. Perhaps if a quartet of severed penises suddenly found themselves able to thrust of their own accord...but in a realistic situation, the bodies of those taking part would be in the way of any and all action.
Yeah, its fake. It's a fake sexual position made up by a band who called themselves DVDA.
Double Vaginal (DV) and Double Anal (DA) are very possible, and this is verifiable by the many pornographic videos celebrating it. I think DV and DA as seperate positions are worth mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.137.16 (talk) 02:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
likely
I disagree with Shawnc's edit. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the adverb, likely means: in all probability : PROBABLY <a popular dance hall was more likely her choice than his -- Valentine Williams>
In the original sentence, before Shawnc's edit (There is no evidence that this act has ever occurred and it is likely physically impossible.) the word likely can be replaced by probably without altering the meaning of the sentence. --GraemeMcRaetalk22:17, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, by grammar I meant changing it for stylistic purposes (it had a slight sound of cacophony to me). Shawnc17:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Vandalism
It would appear that this page has been vandalised (not for the first time, I should imagine). I'm not a regular Wikipedian, so I'm afraid I don't know how to fix it myself, nor could I find any pages on which to bring it to the urgent attention of those who do. Kris Hansen04:30, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
Just go back to the last page in the history that's not vandalism, and edit it from there. You might want to check your cache, though; as far as I can tell, I made the last edit and elimated the vandalisation.--Prosfilaes05:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The dirty sanchez link contains information on abusive scenarios akin to rape.
Does anyone know why the POV tag was added recently? Generally when someone adds that, the idea is to talk about the problem on the talk page. Soo... what's the problem? Jacqui★04:43, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, to answer my own question... it was added earlier by User:Exploding Boy, who complained of heterosexist bias. Does anyone have any ideas to change this? There was already some discussion of same-sex positions above. I was under the impression that the issue had been resolved. Jacqui★04:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
This issue was discussed back in July. The final sentiment seemed to be that all references of "man" should be changed to "penetrating partner" while references to "woman" should be changed to "receiving partner." Looking back at the history, these edits were made but then reverted by another user. Not sure if the other editors simply weren't paying attention, or decided it wasn't worth an edit war. Either way, this language can be changed back again, but I think we should get a consensus first. It should also be noted that the intro to the positions reads:
These are the most widely known positions, and are widespread and prevalent during the act of sex. Although these descriptions use the word "man" for the insertive partner, and "woman" for the receptive partner, many of these positions can be used in sex between two men or two women.
I don't get how two women can engage in intercourse at all. Drahcir
Personally, I would think it would be better to use the non man/woman phrases in all cases where "insertive partner" and "receptive partner" wouldn't change or lose any meaning. I will look over the article again, but as of right now I can't recall any instances where that would be the case. I won't do it myself, however, unless/until we agree on it here on the talk page, given the previous rvt. (Was the user who reverted an IP or a username? Perhaps we could ask why he or she did that.) Jacqui★05:26, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I hope that this course of action is not taken. There isn't any "heterosexist" as it is generally accepted that the position are man/woman ... this isn't to say that it's a natural or moral mode. AND ... the terminology is defined in the beginning of the article (eg., explain what is meant by the terms in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader) ... this is congruent with NPOV policy. Also, Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views. Sincerely, JDR16:12, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
(Answers own question again) It was User:P0lyglut who reverted the use of "insertive partner" and "receptive partner". I checked his talk page, and it doesn't seem anyone ever talked to him about it there. I am wondering if it just slipped under the radar after another spate of vandalism. Again, I have not contacted him (yet?); let's talk here first. Jacqui★05:32, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I didn't want to bother with an edit war. It seems important to me that non-exclusively heterosexual positions shouldn't use exclusively heterosexual terminology. Dave15:47, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I think "receiving partner" and "inserting partner" are perhaps a bit dry for an article that is not particularly serious. ("Sorority Fuck?" For fun, I Googled that term, found nothing but this article. Is this encyclopedic? I can see how original research might be particularly tempting for this article, but it somewhat underscores the silliness of some of the entries.) In any case, following PC logic, "receiving" and "inserting" could be said to be phallocentric. For example, why does a man "insert" his penis into a woman, rather than having the woman "envelop" it? (Maybe "pitcher" and "catcher" could be used instead.) I would also add the pics seem mostly to be man/woman. Is that heterosexist? Does someone want to draw other variations? Perhaps mirror articles could be made with the appropriate pics and wording (or sans pics) such that "Male Homosexual Positions" could have its own article, etc. IronDuke05:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for people revolting against phallocentrism, but to me, "receiving" and "inserting" don't necessarily have to do with penises. (This next sentence may be TMI for some, just a warning.) I'm queer, and in some of my relationships with women, we used dildoes. I was both an inserting and a receiving partner, depending on the day, and no penises were involved.
Thanks for your mention of the "sorority fuck" and your work in Googling it. I think that is something we should further discuss, and I agree that it's unencyclopedic. It has nothing to do with the f-word but the fact that the term isn't in modern parlance, at least on the Internet. Jacqui★05:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
A couple of suggestions to choose from:
Put an asterisk after every position that could be man-man. A double-asterisk for woman-woman.
Write a section specifically for homosexual males listing the positions doable by them. And another for homosexual females. Bend over10:10, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Re: the neutrality issue, the page as it stands reflects an overall heterosexist bias. Not only are the positions described not limited to opposite-sex partners, but the one doing the penetrating is not always male and the object used is not always a penis. Some simple editing would remove this bias. Exploding Boy18:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Exploded .... please read the NPOV policy. Wikipedia neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views. There isn't any "heterosexist" as it is generally accepted that the position are man/woman ... this DOES NOT make an assumption that it's a natural or moral mode.
As per NPOV policy ... the terminology is defined in the beginning of the article (eg., explain what is meant by the terms in order to avoid: (a) causing unnecessary offense, and (b) misleading the reader).
It doesn't make that assumption, no, but in an attempt to be enyclopedic we should use the most umbrellaïsh description we can muster unless we're describing something specific. Dave19:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
The generally accepted description is of a man and woman. Unless we're describing something specific between homosexual partners, this should be used. It's not necessary to use the "most umbrellaïsh description". Again, Wikipedia's neutrality policy does not state, or imply, that there must be "equal validity" to minority views.
To be enyclopedic is also not the same a being "politically correct". Using the most umbrellaish description is to be PC ... not enyclopedic. Defining what is meant and how the article is composed is sufficient to avoid causing unnecessary offense. Sincerely, JDR20:34, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
Regardless of whether you say that two men can do the same things as a man and a woman at the top, it still says "man and woman" throughout the article, which is fairly contradictory. Beyond that, is it inaccurate to call the man in heterosex the penetrative partner? The woman the receptive partner? Not at all; it means the same thing in regard to straight people and it extends the current description to include a significant number of people who also use these same positions. Dave06:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I would have to agree with exploding that a brief look through the page shows it to be heterosexist. I think that your argument about NPOV is also wrong in this case. It is not 90% of the population thinks one thing, 10% thinks another and the 90% disagree with the 10% thus forming a majority opinion. It is 90% practices one thing and 10% practices another. This is not a case of reporting the most widely held view, it is a case of reporting the world how it is. I would suspect that in fact 90% of the heterosexuals have most certainly not tried most of the positions, so it would be equally NPOV, by that argument, to only list the top 10, and not mention any others.
That said, I do not think it is in fact necessary for the list to tie itself in knots trying to be gender neutral in every mention. Sandpiper21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
There are a number of images of homosexual sex, particularly in oral sex, though. Overall, the list does not leave me with the impression that is tends to censor out homosexuality. Rama00:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
As much as I understand the desire for NPOV, I think it's important to realise that the topic at hand is highly man/woman oriented. All available pictures display a man and a woman and it's probably safe to assume that the positions were invented in heterosexual vaginal intercourse.
There is a nice disclaimer at the top which also points out that some of the positions might not be adaptable to different forms of intercourse. I don't think anyone benefits from removing that distinction.
In my opinion the best way to make this article more NPOV is to add sections with specific positions for non-heterosexual vaginal intercourse (if there are any). Jeroen(talk)17:50, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Leave it as is. I think its going to make the article too complicated to try to include homosexual info too. Instead, perhaps a second article specifically about homosexual positions? After all the article doesn't include techniques for masturbation, threesomes, use of tools, sex with animals, bondage, etc. You can't include everything in one article.Herostratus20:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
No. Homosexual and heterosexual sexual positions are equally relevant. The only possible way they could be relegated to another article is if we moved this page to List of heterosexual sex positions. Otherwise, excluding them is violently heterocentric; I won't say "bigoted" because I see no reason not to assume your comparison of homosexual intercourse with "sex with animals" is anything but an innocent faux pas. Masturbation is not necessarily a "sexual position" because it doesn't (directly) involve a partner, though I see absolutely no reason not to have a page for masturbation techniques (if there isn't one already), and to link to it here. Multi-partner ones are necessarily sexual positions, and there are already several positions on the page that require more than one partner. Use of tools rarely involves unusual sexual positions, since tools like strap-ons are typically meant to allow access to normal sexual positions in unusual situations. If there are noteworthy positions that require tools, I see no reason not to include them on this list, however, especially since we have positions on the list that are anatomically impossible or the like. And sex with animals is significantly unusual and noteworthy enough that some mentioning of it may be relevant, but only for well-known sexual positions involving animals (as there are probably few, if any); they can also be mentioned on pages like bestiality. I'd suggest giving something like that its own page, but I doubt it would be very long due to a lack of documentation and writing on the subject, so there's no point yet. Especially since I disagree with you that this page is too long; there's plenty of room to grow! -Silence20:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Certain posters seem to be confused about what is being discussed here and why it is important.
To begin with, making the assumption that the penetrating partner is necessarily male and the penetrated partner necessarily female, and that the object doing the penetrating is always a penis is inherently false and misleading. This issue continues to be a problem on nearly all the sex position articles.
The position that it is "generally accepted" that the positions listed are only male/female, inserter/insertee is similarly false. That may be what is generally assumed, but our job is not to perpetuate misinformation.
This is not, as User:Reddi (signing himself as JDR), has stated pandering to "minority views"; rather, it is correcting a series of factual inaccuracies and misleading statements. As the page exists now, most references are to man/inserter-woman/insertee, although those positions can be, and frequently are, reversed. Most references throughout the artice refer to "man" and "woman." Having separate sections for male-male and female-female positions only reinforces this misleading view.
This is not about being politically correct either. It is about (for the umpteenth time) correcting factual inaccuracies.
The claim that "it's probably safe to assume that the positions were invented in heterosexual vaginal intercourse" is incredibly bizarre and probably doesn't need demolishing here.
Being inclusive and factually correct does not have to entail "tying oneself in knots" or awkward language. Writing carefully is the aim of every serious scholar and reputable scholarly work.
I'd be very interested in your demolishing, as I don't see what's so bizarre about my statement. Sex, however nice for recreational purposes, is closely related to procreation, which has a tendency to be something involving a man, a woman and some straight sex.
For the record: I would like to see this article rewritten in a neutral manner, but only if it can be done without the knots. Jeroen(talk)23:31, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
That'd be fine.. if this was an article about procreation. It's not. It's an article about sexual positions. There's only one sexual position you need for procreation. The fact that the article lists dozens of elaborate and unusual sexual positions shows definitively that this article is not strongly tied to procreation (though that is one small part of it), but to pleasure. Homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally capable of having sex for pleasure, and equally capable of using a variety of sex positions—which is the topic of this list. Noone is benefited by excluding a large, significant group of people from the list through unnecessarily biased wording, so there is no reason to do it. Let's not debate whether or not to make the article neutral, but rather debate the best way to make the article neutral. -Silence00:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Hear, hear. By the way, an anon IP removed the POV tag. I put it back, because we're still talking here. I am going to assume good faith about the IP -- the person didn't have anything on his or her talk page, and probably just didn't know how these things work on Wikipedia. Jacqui★03:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Jacqui, thanks for answering me so frankly. I will only add (as I'm sure you're aware) that phallocentrism is possible even when no men are involved...I think Silence has a good point about finding neutrality, but taking that point up, I'd be wary of sentences like this: "The man/insering partner inserts/allows his penis/her dildo/his/her object to be placed/enveloped in the orifice of the woman/man/receiving partner/enveloper." There is no way to construct such a sentence that can adequately encompass all possible permutations and sensibilities. Thus, I would recommed that the page stay essentially as it is, with the tag "heterosexual" applied to it, and anyone who feels that other groups are being left out can mirror the article with their own illustrations and descriptions. IronDuke03:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
That's not the way Wikipedia works. We don't just force groups that are being left out to mirror the article with their own illustrations and descriptions. That's merely a way to fragment Wikipedia.--Prosfilaes04:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think I said anything about "forcing" anyone to do anything. My point, which I'll repeat, was that satisying every conceivable group would make the article essentially unreadable. Breaking it down into more than one article would make each individual article quite readable. If you have a better idea than mine, by all means, put it forward. IronDuke04:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
No one has proposed, despite the strawmen, satisfying every conceivable group. The only thing that has been proposed is satisfying the two groups that will most commonly make use of a "list of sex positions": heterosexual and homosexual people. Is your suggestion that listing significant positions of any group outside of heterosexuals, even a group that makes up 10% of the population, would suddenly render the page unreadably flawed and complex? The "receiving/enveloping partner" thing was a joke, and has no real validity, since no group is being excluded and no untruths are being stated by not wording things to that ridiculous extreme. It seems that a few people in this conversation are incapable of distinguishing between political correctness (which I loathe with a passion) and mere accuracy. Also, you don't seem to have accounted for the fact that if we had one article for heterosexual positions and one for homosexual positions, we still would have all male/male and female/female positions in the same article, thus creating the exact same problems we have now, just exiling them to an article you aren't interested in. How convenient. -Silence04:57, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Okay, things seem to be getting a bit testy here, so maybe I can put a little graphite rod into this discussion. First, Silence, you're right, I was putting up a bit of a strawman, wasn't I? I was trying (poorly perhaps) to get at the notion that attempting to remove a heterosexist bias in a text where the pictures are quite hetero-oriented is a bit silly. I guess what it boils down to is this: I think it's a bit odd to speak of "accuracy" in the context of an article like this that is more of a how-to with cute illustrations that also contains some bizarre (and more than likely invented) sexual "positions." You may have missed my earlier post above, so I'll repeat it: "Perhaps mirror articles could be made with the appropriate pics and wording (or sans pics) such that "Male Homosexual Positions" could have its own article, etc." To this we could add a female/female page, etc. Perhaps the article could begin with a disambiguation page, and individuals could simply click on the article they wanted. And speaking of strawmen, I have absolutely no desire to "exile" anything to anywhere, nor am I any more or less "interested" in an article on homosexual positions than I am heterosexual ones. I came here because there was an RfC, and I commented in the spirit of trying to make the article as good as it could possibly be. And please note, I haven't touched the article itself in any way, and have no plans to. If I wanted to "exile" gays or "force" groups away from the mainstream, I could have edited the article to accomplish just that. IronDuke01:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
"I was trying (poorly perhaps) to get at the notion that attempting to remove a heterosexist bias in a text where the pictures are quite hetero-oriented is a bit silly." - Possibly the most confusing argument I've seen in this discussion is "We shouldn't try to make the text of the article more inclusive, because most of the images aren't inclusive!" Um. Isn't that part of the original point? There are dozens of male/female images, one or two female/female ones, and absolutely no male/male ones. That's not a sign that the article's already perfectly balanced, it's a sign that the images are at least as hetero-focused as the text, if not more so. Let's not give our readers the idea that gay men don't have sex positions.
"an article like this that is more of a how-to" - Wrong. This article is a list of common sexual positions, not a how-to guide. If it is a how-to-guide, that's another matter that needs fixing in this article. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide.
"with cute illustrations that also contains some bizarre (and more than likely invented) sexual "positions."" - Um. I don't quite catch your drift. Aren't all sexual positions "invented"?
"You may have missed my earlier post above" - No, I saw the suggestion, and ones like it. While it's an interesting possibility, it happens to be inefficient, impractical, and, for those who see this as a matter of NPOV, a violation of the Wikipedia:POV fork guideline. Too many sexual positions are used by heterosexuals and homosexuals (male and female) alike. There is absolutely no reason not to simply include it all on one page, and to worry about subdividing or trimming in the future, when it starts to become a problem; it's nowhere near that now, and if we did need to shorten the page, surely the extra images would be the first things to go, not any of the entries or descriptions!
"And speaking of strawmen, I have absolutely no desire to "exile" anything to anywhere, nor am I any more or less "interested" in an article on homosexual positions than I am heterosexual ones." - Sorry. I'm just not a very creative person. That's why I can't imagine what reason there could be for subdividing this list into multiple lists at this point, except to allow people to avoid having to deal with sexual positions they aren't comfortable with or interested in. Since that's apparently not the case, I retract the statement.
"If I wanted to "exile" gays or "force" groups away from the mainstream, I could have edited the article to accomplish just that." - Er, no, because it would have been reverted. Discussing this is the best way to get things done, regardless of what your position is. -Silence02:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I guess I open myself up for this by coming to a disputed page and putting in my two cents. Silence, I have many disagreements with both the tone of your comments above and their accuracy, but I'll try and leave it alone. If you really want a response from me, maybe we can take it to one of our talk pages. All I'll say is, if it's your heart's desire to confront people with sexual images that make them uncomfortable (which is what it looks like from your comments), it might be more appropriate for you to do so in your own blog. IronDuke02:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Que? I thought we were done with the strawmen (my desire here is to ensure that the article is accurate and comprehensive in its subject matter, not to confront anyone on their preconceptions), and that we'd just established that you don't subscribe to the belief I criticized above, making it irrelevant to the current conversation at hand. Why the above comment? It doesn't seem to make sense in the conversation's context; almost my entire above post was unrelated to that issue, and what little was related consisted of explaining and retracting my above poorly-thought-out accusations. But OK, if you're not up to discussing this anymore, that's perfectly alright. I apologize if I in any way offended you. If you feel like explaining anytime what you feel is "inaccurate" about my above statements (I can't help what you think their tone is, everyone sees comments as being of a different tone on the Internet), feel free to say so wherever you feel, be it here or in User Talk or wherever you prefer. -Silence02:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Goodness. Gracious. Sakes. Y'all. This is all a little crazy, hmm, for a list that is--if we're honest--equal parts for edification and amusement? Now, I'm just jumping in here from the RfC page, but it seems like the easiest fix would be to substitute man/woman/cat/batman with "inserting partner/receiving partner" and he/she/etc with "their." It works without delving into the lovely issues of the purpose of sex (AHEM, Jkruis), the patent rights (AHEM AGAIN, Jkruis), or any of the other debatable issues surrounding the nature of sex. This is a list, everyone. Let's not get nasty, it's supposed to be fun...just like I love the 80's and the 100 Sexiest Moments in Barnyard History. I mean, in Hollywood. I mean...you get my point :) Onesong20:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Fictional sexual positions?
Should there be a distinct section for fictional, theoretical, or mythical sexual positions, i.e. ones that have never shown to be physically possible? Or some other way to more clearly note the positions that aren't practical "sexual positions", like Double Vaginal Double Anal? -Silence11:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Removed glass bottom boat ride and angry pirate. Neither are properly sex positions (the same could be said of the Houdidi). Both are also fictional and highly unlikely ever done in reality. Zotdragon13:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Regroup and Organize
I put this article up for RfC because I wanted to get many more viewpoints, and I'm happy that this has generated so much discussion. However, since this has the potential to be an emotional argument, I hope everyone will calm down and we can base everything off logical arguments. Since Wikipedia Is Not a Paper Encyclopedia, we get to include things that wouldn't be included in other encyclopedias, and we get to have debates that perhaps have never been addressed anywhere else in the past.
This being said, the conversations above are nice to read through but hard to get a clear consensus from. So, I've decided to list the most obvious solutions, and have people give their opinions in an organized list fashion below. This probably should not be considered a vote, but rather an organized way to view what most people think.
Keep the page as it is, with the disclaimer already included that the positions are not exclusive to heterosexuals.
Change the language of the entire article to something more NPOV than man/woman. If you support this version, please say which terms you would like to be used (e.g.- insertive/receiving partner).
2 for every situation where the position is regularly used by pairs other than a man and a woman, not for the sake of NPOV, but simply for the sake of accuracy—I view this is a matter of simple correctness, not as a matter of neutral wording or avoiding offending minority groups. Offend whoever you want, just don't be wrong or cause unnecessary confusion with highly misleading terminology. Thus, certainly keep the "man/woman" terminology for every entry that's entirely or almost entirely used by heterosexual couples. On this page, "man" should means male, and "woman" female, and it's just that simple. I don't have a strong preference for the specific terminology we use in their place, as long as it is as clear, simple, and accurate as possible. "Penetrating partner" and "receiving partner" seem fine to me, are already used on a number of pages (like doggy style, probably a good example of neutral wording for us to use as a model), and get 25,000–35,000 hits on Google, so there's no risk that they're unused terms. But if there's some better option, fire away. 3 is a possibility for the distant future (sans the obnoxious over-capitalization), if this article gets too bloated, but is currently completely unnecessary and would just cause a lot of problems because of the sheer number of overlaps there are between sexual positions on all those pages. Vastly more convenient to just have it on one page. -Silence07:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Looking at doggy style, 2 is not as bad as I had feared. 3 seems wrong to me. Positions could be sorted according to the cavities involved, but I don't think it is relevant whether the owner of said cavity is male or female. Jeroen(talk)17:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
2. I especially don't support 3 because Gender and sex are not linked. Naming the separate lists "homosexual" and "heterosexual" therefore doesn't make sense. An MTF, FTM, genderqueer or intersexed person will quite possibly be very confused trying to decide which list to look at if they are named that way. Jacqui★02:23, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
Consensus
Since there seems to be a fairly strong consensus and per CambridgeBayWeather's warning above (see the post just above the RfC section), I think we should proceed with this. The consensus is to change all references to "man" to "penetrating partner" and all references to woman to "receiving partner," except in cases where the type of position is very explictly about one gender (e.g.- some of the stuff starting with oral sex and onward). Anyone who has time/effort can make this change, or do it in chunks. If no one gets around to it, I'll try to do it when I have time. We'll also make sure to monitor the page for a while, to make sure no one reverts this change. Please place posts below if you have any questions/comments/opposition.
No worries. I had felt like putting this "consensus" message for a couple of days now, as it seems pretty clear what the best thing to do is. I think once we make those edits, the POV tag will be removed, and we can get back to adding to the list rather than discussing its word usage. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)06:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Just to add a comment, using man/woman for penetrating/receiving isn't just heterosexist, but also ignores the fact that the woman can be the penetrating partner, with a male receptive partner (ie, pegging). Maybe this is an obvious point, but the current introduction mentioning same sex partners doesn't cover this possibility at all. Mdwh05:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Featured lists
"This is a featured list, so why not let everyone know?"
Because the big box for it is so huge, cluttering, unnecessary, and useless, that if we included it on the main page of this article, list of sex positions would no longer qualify for Featured List status and we'd have to remove it anyway.
"If the featured list template is not supposed to be displayed in an article, please cite the Wikipedia policy which states this."
Not a requirement for removing your addition. Wikipedia's rules and guidelines cannot possibly account for every conceivable situation, and fortunately, they don't have to; common sense and following consensus are much more important than rules-lawyering anyway.
"Common sense" is adhered to by not adding a template to the article that adds nothing to the article: you ask why we wouldn't want to let everyone know, but I counter by asking why we would want to shove it in everyone's face, so blatantly boast about how awesome an article is? If someone came to an article called list of sex positions, it's because that person wants information on sex positions. Someone who comes to this article for that purpose, thus, is immediately confronted with a totally useless, garish box at the top of the page announcing how awesome the article is. Wikipedia does not use templates whenever it can possibly avoid it, and this is certainly a case where we can, and should, avoid it, as the template is no more useful to the article page than if we put a giant, 50-point font message saying "THIS ARTICLE IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1" at the top of the page.
"Consensus" is adhered to by noting that every other featured article and list on Wikipedia is not marred by a huge "THIS ARTICLE IS FEATURED :D :D :D" box at the top of its main page. If you disagree and think that your version should be the standard, the place to take this up is on the Wikipedia:Featured article and Wikipedia:Featured list talk pages, not on individual featured pages.
Thanks to everyone for the response to RfC and the discussions. Per our consensus above, I have made the major edit of changing all references to "man" to "penetrating partner" and all references to "woman" to "receiving partner." I have not edited anything below the start of the "Oral Sex" section; if you feel that this should be edited, feel free to do so, though many of those are single-sex specific. Also, feel free to work on the wording; I tried to eliminate some of the cases where it talked about the "penetrating partner penetrating," but couldn't find solutions to all of them. I have also removed this page from the Request for Comment page. If there is anything else that needs to be done regarding this subject, you can post it below this message. Thanks again to everyone for solving the problem! EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Live images have been reverted a couple times now, and I just wanted to open up a discussion about it. We're currently having a similar discussion over at Talk:Doggy style. The current consensus seems to be that the drawings are plenty descriptive in illustrating sexual phenomena and, because of that, live images are unnecessary. While Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors, this does not necessarily encourage us to be explicit. Rather, it encourages us to be as explicit as is necessary. Any thoughts or comments, especially if you weren't a part of the other conversation at the Doggy style page? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)06:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
These are scientific illustrations. If people are looking up an entry on SEXUAL POSITIONS, they have no right to be 'prude'. The censorship irritates and interferes with dissemination of information. If your offended, GO AWAY!!!
Sex censorship KILLS innocent people!
People must be able to discuss sex candidly, in order to know how to avoid serious health risks. This candor is especially necessary for gay males, who must know there are important alternatives to anal sex. This single scientific illustration makes that information crystal clear at a single glance. This picture saves lives.
I would like to comment on "the drawings are plenty descriptive"; this is at least not always true. There are things which are very difficult to convoy convincingly with a drawing, and some sexual positions are among the possible examples (I am thinking of auto-fellatio in particular).
My feeling is that in general, photographs are intrinsically better than drawings for encyclopedic purpose. In the particular case of sexual positions, we run into the very tricky problem of producing photos which do not look like cheap porn (not to mention the difficulty of producing photographs at all). However, I regard the present drawings as temporary solutions which should fade away when appropriate photos become available. Rama16:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you that the main thing we should worry about is what form of media is the most encyclopedic. We need something that is descriptive, useful, and that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. Whether this is drawings or photographs for the case of sexual intercourse is a topic that I think should be thoroughly discussed within the Wikipedia community before any decision is made. As you said, the major problems with photographs are finding ones that a.) are very descriptive, b.) don't look like cheap porn, and c.) don't violate any copyrights. Assuming we can find such pictures, should we use them on a regular and widespread basis? I hope cooler heads will prevail and that we can have an open, candid discussion about these issues. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)06:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Is there a problem with wikipedians to create the photographs? We just have to decide whether we want it. -- Kirils04:10, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi EWS23. I believe your initial summary of the doggy style debate is lacking. There wasn't consensus in the doggy style discussion. I do concur there was a lot of useful ideas put forward. My reading of the discussion is that possibly slightly more people opted in favour of quality images (including the use of photos) instead of the rather uninformative photograph and rather uninformative line drawings that were originally put forward. This seems to be the gist (theme) here also. I like your suggestions a,b and c. Though (b) is borderline an untenable discussion, as all nudity will be considered cheap by some vocal minority. Your suggestion d-"a cool head" isn't necessarily a good thing when fighting censorship. Sometimes it's better for people to say, "take your thinly veiled moralistic agenda and shove it". Afterall, no-censorship is policy on wikipedia, not some choice that can be put forward for mediation: Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. I suggest a way forward is to define our criteria in terms we can all agree on. Such critera that I notice here and with my interpretation are that we source images that are:
Metta Bubble- You are correct that I initially misrepresented the debate at Talk:Doggy style, and for that I apologize. I assure you it was not intentional, but merely the fact that I more closely read the comments following the RfC than the ones that came before it. I think your six bullet points are very good and should be helpful. As for the "cooler heads" part, I understand that sometimes it pays to be vocal and emotional when combatting an equally vocal and emotional competitor; however, I've also found that debates that allow emotional comments are much more prone to personal attacks and periods of anti-productivity. Getting back to the topic, I am not wholly opposed to live photos, nor am I a "prude" as I'm sure some people will try to label me. However, as a last point in this post, I'd like to point out that we've been able to create great pages on pornography and sexual intercourse without images that would offend most reasonable people (however, I suppose the latter would depend on your opinion of the drawings that are currently up). This may serve as a good starting point- how well do the current drawings on sexual intercourse and List of sex positions meet the above six bullets? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)04:50, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Hi EWS23. Sorry about the lack of reply. I've been giving this discussion some thought. I like where we're heading and and I am contemplating we might be able to contribute these ideas to working standard for the encyclopedic merit of images discussion over the next little while. I'm generally interested in convergence of groups focused on non-censorship and groups focused on decency. I think there's more that can be done to bring these groups together. Peace. Metta Bubble10:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link, Metta Bubble. I'll definately try to steer people who are interested in this kind of debate over to that page. I'll also direct that page to the conversations here and at Talk:Doggy style. Thanks for all your comments, and I'm sure we will find solutions to all these discussions in the near future. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I work in a government place and during an interesting conversation we decided to look up "doggy style". Some government locations have a policy that stipulates we should not be looking at pornographic photo's/images. I think, however, that if they are properly presented in an educative way (that is without the necessity of abundance and too many details), there should be no problem. (ie.: is an orgy image necessary to demonstrate what an orgy maybe?) Aside, though my hormonal intrinsinc sexual beast is saying let's try and look at some porn, the other aquired mild manuristic side is saying, well, perhaps we should try and keep this professional. (So when easilly possible, what happens in bed or with others (sex possitions), should be described by a text and explained with a minimal amount of contreversy and perhaps an image and than a photo.)(note: I think the problem is that a photo has much more info than may be necessary!) (Solution: just say it as it is!) --CylePat17:12, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that pages like this that contain content that might be considered objectionable by some would be bettered by the addition of some sort of warning at the beginning, so viewers of the page know what they are getting into. In this first warning section, I don't think any of said content should be visible. This is especially important for when people are searching for subjects that may have multiple meanings, some that are sexual and some that are not. It could be that an unsuspecting net-surfer, perhaps a minor, would encounter such an offensive page completely unintentionally. In my opinion, this suggestion would not amount to censorship in the least because people would still be able to easily access the content if they so chose. Actually, what would probably be even more effective, and would demonstrate a greater level of concern, would be a catch-all warning in the home page of the wikipedia website that indicates that the pages contained within it are not censored and could have content which some may find offensive. I apologize for the jumbled arrangement of these thoughts, but please consider them and respond to them.65.26.151.706:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This is the image at the top of the page. I really don't like it. First, where is the guy's head? I can't find it. Second, it appears to be a scan out of a book; you can see faint backwards writing behind the image. Is there another we can agree to use? --Strait21:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Cowgirl position variation
There is variation of the cowgirl position not in the article, though I don't have a name for it. If the man's waist is sufficiently slim, the woman (with the man's penis fully inserted and his back arched) can bring her knees under his back, thus providing him support. The man in this position is essentially immobile, and the woman fully controls the intercourse. She brings on the man's orgasm by leaning backwards and pushing against the man. His orgasm triggers her's. In this position, the woman always achieves orgasm and it occurs almost simultaneously with the man's. 159.101.34.7416:48, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
"In this position, the woman always achieves orgasm and it occurs almost simultaneously with the man's."
I'm pretty certain there's no sex position that guarantees the woman 'always' acheives orgasm.....
stundents are creative enough not only to write hoaxes, but to also try them out. so, whatever they add, if it's physically possible, it's probably true. ;) Kirils05:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Lithuanian
The Lithuanian category of sex positions has an large number of sex positions unlinked to the English pages. Unfortunately, the Baltic languages aren't as transparent to the English reader as a Romanace or Germantic languages are, so I can't tell if the Wiki-links are just missing or if there's a different set of positions or different divisions. At the very least, it would be helpful to add wikilinks if anyone can.--Prosfilaes08:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Inconsistancy
When it mentions the missionary position, the comment about the woman feeling "very slightly 'submissive'" is contrived. In the female superior positions, however, it's perfectly ok for her to be just "dominant". This is an annoying inconsistancy, nothing more or less.
I agree. The qualifiers should be left open, not explicitly stated. Exactly how dominant or submissive would vary greatly I imagine, unless someone wants to cite a source for research into this. Peace. Metta Bubble10:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
What is it called when he holds her wrists or arms during doggy?
A friend of mine who helps sysadmin the web's largest porn video download site where users are allowed to select sub-scene clips recently tallied the sex positions in their 25 most popular sub-scene clip requests. He determined that the most popular sex position (for porn viewers to watch, anyway) is doggy style with the guy holding one or both of the girl's wrists or arms, usually near her back or waist. As far as I can tell, this particular position has no name. Clearly this situation must be rectified. Is there anything better than "doggy with him holding her arm"? 71.141.137.6207:34, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Whats going on in that picture?
Okay, I've looked at the "two men and one women" threesome picture for about 20 minutes (all in the interests of academic understanding, of course) and I can't make heads or tails of it. What exactly is going on here? Where is that penis coming from? There seems to be legs coming from every direction-- which set of legs belongs to which figures? Can someone clarify? Freddie deBoer19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't see the problem - guy with face on on the right lays on his back on bottom,
female lies on her back on top of him, guy on the left er... watches and strokes guy on right.
Did you look at the full size picture? IMO it's pretty clear... 71.240.80.21115:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
"Teenage Grundle"
I've deleted the following from the "Receiving partner on top" section:
"Teenage Grundle The recieving partner lays down on his back. The female partner places the mans testicals in her vagina and the strokes the male partner's penis, while penetrating his testicals bouncing up and down. This position has been taboo in many cultures but has been very pleasing to both partners."
Aside from the misspellings and the unusualness of it ("places the mans testicals in her vagina"), it's also largely incomprehensible ("while penetrating his testicals bouncing up and down"). If someone would like to rewrite this and add it back in, that'd be fine, though it might fit better in the "Less common positions" section. --LostLeviathan21:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense positions
I have googled the positions I removed. Bipedi intercourse not even returns a single hit. The two readded ones have a page on WP, one to describe foot fetish, in whcih the feet are sometmes used a tool to reach orgasm, the second the other way round, using the nose as the object to insert in places. --KimvdLinde03:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I agree to the changes. Just didn't have the time to properly fix everything myself, but simply throwing these position out was plain wrong. Thanks for the work! :) --Kirils14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Merge anal sex positions?
Is there any reason why List of anal sex positions should be a separate article (while vaginal, oral etc. positions are not)? There seems no particular need for the current split, and it could be seen as a POV marginalisation of a particular activity. TSP23:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
While most of this list is quite good when it comes to inclusive language, there are a few areas where it could use improvemnt. I wonder, for example, whether it's really necessary, in the "male-female genital" section, to keep repeating "him or her" or to use the singular "they" when referring to the person whose vagina is being penetrated; it seems to go without saying, doesn't it? On the other hand, since these "'male'-female genital" positions could also be achieved using strap ons (thus making them female-female), perhaps we should be less absolute about calling the penetrative partner the "man" in these descriptions.
I'd like to suggest using "'active'and 'receptive' partner," in places where the sexes of the people engaging in the positions described may vary. Exploding Boy23:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that "penetrating" and "receiving partner" is the current terminology in use.
Another odd thing about the page which could perhaps be fixed but will need some thought, is the categorisation. The various positions usable for vaginal or anal sex have been rephrased to be gender-neutral; yet they're still classified under "Male-female genital sex". If they are to remain classified like this, is there any point in rewording them to be gender-neutral? TSP01:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, the "male-female" heading should probably be removed, while the "male-male" and "female-female" headings should stay, since they describe positions specific to those gender pairings. Once that heading is removed/modified, are there any other concerns with the inclusive language? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)01:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, it might be worth considering whether it's really true, as some people on the talk page seem to think, that all vaginal sex positions are also possible anal sex positions. I'm unconvinced.... TSP02:05, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Based on the comments here, I've removed the "male-female" header and attempted to rewrite the intro to that section. [1] Feel free to tweak/change it. As for your other comment, I see no reason why it wouldn't be possible, but I'm certainly not an expert on the subject. Were there any in particular you were concerned about? EWS23 | (Leave me a message!)03:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
This, among other positions, is ideal for stimulating the woman's g-spot. Perhaps a section concentrating on g-spot stimulation positions would be useful.
Kraz_Eric08:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Clarification - the Screw
"The Screw – Receiving partner lies on edge of bed or couch with legs bent to one side, pulled slightly toward chest; penetrating partner stands and penetrates from rear. Very effective for women with orgasm difficulties."
Perhaps I'm just being slow today but this seems unclear - I can't visualise the position of the receiving partner. Are the legs on the bed or off? Both bent to the same side or spread? Can someone with the relevant experience clarify it? You'd be doing me a favour as well as wikipedia :) - Mule Man00:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Gay/Lesbian/Straight Sex Article
I think we should create seperate articles for straights, gays, and lesbians. Each has it's own needs and differences. There are many positions and sexual pratices that are only possible between people of the same sex ... I should know, I'm gay myself. But this article has a straight bias and seems to shy away from male on male sexual positions. QuirkyAndSuch04:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
That would result in an awful lot of duplicated content. Most sex positions are gender-neutral. Powers13:31, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
"Most sex positions are gender-neutral." I agree, but if so, then the illustrations should include depictions of female-female and male-male in some of the positions, rather than male-female only. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Haldrik (talk • contribs) .
If you can find or create such illustrations of similar quality, by all means do so and add them to the article. Powers14:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Addition of endless cruft
There's a lot of entries on here which don't have an article, and have deeply implausible names, deeply implausible physical requirements, or both. I'm in the process of marking them all as {{citeneeded}}; we shouldn't just be listing stuff someone made up, especially not on something that purports to be a half-decent list. if there's no cites provided for these, they really ought to be removed. Shimgray | talk | 19:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've also removed at least one cite which was to a blogspot page, which does not seem to be entirely reliable at a first glance... Shimgray | talk | 19:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I propose the removal of all names that do not have citations. In their place, we could use simple descriptives (e.g. "man standing") or nothing. For instance, I am presently cleaning up the oral sex section and I don't feel most of the names could be deleted without the article losing any information or readability. Thoughts? --Strait22:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok... So I'm currently replacing the dumb names that things have now with dumb names that are enshrined in antiquity in The Perfumed Garden. "Tail of the ostrich" indeed. I hope that the copy I'm reading on the web is not a joke or something... Anyway, I should also soon have some modern citable names to work with too. --Strait06:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Grammar standardization
Unless I have lost it in the massive arguments above, I don't believe there has been any agreement on whether we accept using "their" in place of "his or her". The article itself uses both. Given that the consensus seems to be that we need to allow either partner to be either gender at almost all times, this is an important decision. While I'm not sure I like the singular "their", I also think that endless entries that read "he or she lies on his or her back while the recieving partner sits on top of him or her facing him or her" get really irritating. Shall we take a straw poll? Reply with either "him or her" or "their". --Strait12:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
I have heard no comments, so I am starting a cleanup campaign using my own judgement on this matter. Please head me off if this is not to your liking. --Strait17:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Things which are not positions
I've already deleted a couple of entries because they are acts, not positions. In other words, they either describe a type of motion rather than any particular physical orientation of the participants bodies (such as "ass to mouth"). I would like to get rid of some more in this vein as well as those that describe practices, such as voyeurism, but let me give y'all an opportunity to object first. Is there a reason to keep any of these:
Hearing no objections, I am deleting at least some of these as part of my cleanup campaign. Ones in italics above have been deleted. --Strait22:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Since I've just eliminated and rearranged a lot of entries, I thought I'd expand on my motives for each. For uncited entries, I asked up to five questions:
Is it obviously fine for some reason? (For instance, even though "edge of the bed missionary" is uncited, it is obviously fine because the meaning is clear and the position is obviously not difficult or obscure.)
User:Jaiwills insists that the top image must be 350px even though that interferes with either the intro text or the table of contents for anyone whose browser window is not very wide. The style guide at Help:Images says that thumbnails shouldn't even have a size specified because users can set the size of thumbnails in their preferences. Jaiwills is not paying attention to either of these arguments. I have now reverted his change three times today, so I suppose I'm done for now. I invite others to keep the page readable. --Strait21:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure when you put it there before, but I removed a nearly identical entry last night for "the spocker". I do not feel that it needs to be there:
It is just a minor variant of Shocker (hand gesture), which has its own page. Variants can, and are, discussed there.
There was no citation. Indeed, you used a different name for the same act as the last person.
This page is already too long. There are 6 ways of inserting 2 to 4 fingers in two holes with at least one finger in each hole and not paying attention to which fingers are used. If you allow use of the thumb, there are 10 ways. If you pay attention to which figers go where, there are 170. I'm sure that lots of people out there have names for lots of these, but the only one of them which seems notable enough to merit adding it to this page is the "shocker" itself. Please dispute this if you wish, but provide references.
I am starting another overhaul in which I will de-emphasize the names of positions. This is because I do not believe that more than a handful of positions have a single commonly accepted name. These include:
Missionary
Doggy/Doggie
Spoons/Spooning
Cowboy/girl (maybe)
69
glory hole
(most things under "other positions")
Sandwich
Circle jerk (maybe)
(Some strictly descriptive names like "double penetration")
Please comment if you believe any others to be generally accepted. Comparison of the old format to the new format:
Peace sign – like the missionary position, but with the receiving partner's legs tightly closed and the penetrating partner's legs spread. In this position, the couple resembles a peace sign (☮). (old)
Like the missionary position, but with the receiving partner's legs tightly closed and the penetrating partner's legs spread. In this position, the couple resembles a peace sign (☮) and so this position is sometimes called the peace sign. (new)
Mathmo: I removed the name "Amazon" because I do not believe that there is any consensus among English speakers that this position, or any other, is called by that name. (Yes, the image has "amazon" in its file name, but I can't easily change that.) Please see my other comments above and elsewhere on sex position articles. Do you disagree with my assessment? --Strait09:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi there again, can't see at all why you are thinking this? Is it just your personal view on it? Do you know of any other names it is called, let alone any that are more common than this one? Have you done a google search yet for amazon and seen the many many many results it turns up with? So far everything I've seen is pointing towards it being called amazon with no other alternatives whatsoever. In the absence of you providing evidence to the contrary in response to my points I'll revert it for now. MathmoTalk17:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
heh, I spoke too soon.... once I checked the article I saw the name hadn't been changed anyway, so I left it like that. MathmoTalk17:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I thought I'd actually discuss it first before having an edit war. Strange, I know. :-)
lol, very strange! Actually it is kinda strange to see this on wikipedia, but sensible too. It does take two to make a fight, no matter what I do (not that I'm really that stupid...) I can't get into a fight with you on the article! oh well.... MathmoTalk20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The issue is threefold:
First, it does not matter if "Amazon" is the most common name for a position if most people call it by no name at all. Suppose 5% of people call it "amazon", 1% of people call it "zooman", 1% call it "la la bing bang" and 93% call it "y'know, when she's on top in such and such a position and is facing me". In this case, which I think is likely the case, it is appropriate to call it by no name on Wikipedia. You can find a lot of hits on Google for "Amazon" because it is easy to search for. But consider the relative likelihood of asking a random person on the street what the "missionary" position is and getting the answer you expect compared to asking them about the "amazon" position. "Missionary" is universially known. I suspect that almost no one you run into will agree on what "Amazon" means.
That the average joe/jane walking along the street doesn't have a number for it doesn't matter at all, ask the average person even some basic things about mathematics and they won't even know what you are talking about let alone have a name for it. Should we carry on this ignorance simply because mostly people have it? Of course not, rather we should use the most common name where practical over not calling it anything at all simply because the average person is ignorant of any name existing. MathmoTalk20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Mathematics is not a parallel case. Look, words become generally accepted — and therefore appropriate as the main ways of referring to things on Wikipedia — in one of two ways. Either (1) a majority of people who encounter the concept come to refer to it in the same way because they frequently talk about it with each other or (2) a central authority of some sort writes a document which defines how the word is to be used within a particular field. In technical fields like mathematics, method (2) is in full force in the form of textbooks. In non-technical fields like sex positions, either (1) occurs, as in the case of the missionary position, or neither occurs. Neither has occured in this case. It is not accurate to say that people are "ignorant" of the name of the position under discussion. It simply doesn't have a name. It is not the job of Wikipedia to standardize naming, but rather to report on what naming there is. --Strait20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Second, you say that Google turns up many hits for this position being called "Amazon". Is it really that exact position which is called "Amazon"? Your caption implies that the "amazon variant" is when the woman is on top, has her lower legs against the bed and her chest against the man. I think it is more likely that "Amazon", when it is used, is much more generic and covers everything that "cowgirl" does.
I looked a little more into the results than just the surface, and I don't believe it is quite what you are suggesting it is. On the other hand I'm now starting to have a few doubts if it is what I'd previously been lead to be believe, so I'll keep on looking into this to get to the bottom of it as I get the time and inclination. MathmoTalk20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Third, Google is not the repository of all knowledge. In fact, on Wikipedia, printed references are much prefered over Google search results. Google searches tend to reinforce each other when people take them as gospel. In particular, many search results for topics covered on Wikipedia are Wikipedia mirrors, which clearly can't be used as references! Can you provide any references to books, magazines, etc. that support your claim?--Strait18:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, I agree google is not "the repository of all knowledge". But it is damn close! And the most easily available to the wikipedian, which makes it the first port of call in almost all cases. However this matter is catching my interest enough now I'm going to make sure next time I'm near a bookshop/library with time to spare I'll make sure I pop into check out some of their books. Though don't know when that will next be, will do it. MathmoTalk20:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested to see your results, and I will also conduct my own research as time allows. Until we actually have some evidence one way or the other, will you fight me if I change it to be nameless? --Strait20:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Man/male woman/female
The article right now, as well as other pages on sex positions and acts, uses (fe)male in some places and (wo)man in others. For example: "Pregnancy is a potential result of unprotected sex in any position between healthy ovulating females and sexually mature males." However: "The woman lies on her back as in the missionary position." There are three options:
Convert all gender references to man or woman
Pro: We're not talking about generic males and females, but specifically human ones.
Con: Readers may assume that the words man and woman exclude people younger than some arbitary age (probably 13, 18 or 21).
Convert all gender references to male or female
Pro: Age non-specific.
Con: Species non-specific.
Leave it a mix.
Pro: Variety reads better than slavish consistency.
Strictly speaking (with my nazi-grammarian helmet on), male and female are adjectives, not nouns. Therefore, the sentence The suspect is a 30-year-old male. is incorrect; it should be The suspect is a 30-year-old man. So if any changing is to be done, I'd lean toward man and woman. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule... OscarTheCat317:56, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. It is defined as a noun in American Heritage and Merriam-Webster. (It is also an adjective.) --Strait22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
And Wikipedia is an American English encyclopaedia. :-) Honestly, I don't feel that strongly about it, but some consistency is always a "nice" thing. OscarTheCat300:47, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd support it being a mix, simply because it is the easiest option to do and to maintain. Plus I liked the for reason given the most out of them all. MathmoTalk17:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Fendi lithographs
I kind of liked those 19th century lithographs that Strait reverted, mainly to introduce the points I made in the captions. It seems unbalanced that the last three screens of the article are bare of images, but that is by the by. Here is a link to an archived version with the images. Note that one shows penetration explicitly. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 00:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I don't really like those images. However, I could be overruled if someone else comes down on your side. However, in either case, the group sex section really can't have more than three images without being totally cluttered, so we should come to a consensus on which three to use rather than just adding more. --Strait18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd be on the side of those images staying (or any similar ones), frankly all those black and white line drawings get boring and bland after a little while. Have different styles of drawings and colour, along with photographs keeps the page interesting and holds the readers' attention. MathmoTalk17:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that there's much to be done about the lack of images in the article after the group sex section, since it's just "further reading", "references", "external links", etc. --Strait18:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
On further investigation, I see that you wanted to add the new images to the "with many participants" sub-section, but neither of them illustrates a position described there. Also, I see that both of the images are currently in use at group sex. So while I appreciate that you like them, I don't think they should be here. --Strait18:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
Citations where?
There are currently "citation needed" notes attached to the descriptions of double anal penetration and of double vaginal penetration, perhaps put here by someone overly skeptical of the actual mechanics. What on earth is being asked for here? A list of vaginas that can be verified to have contained more than one penis at the same time? The title of a pornographic movie supplying "evidence"? A photo?
Why was the Donkey Punch deleted from the list of sex positions? It has a decent Wiki article (with sources), and in the 4 times it was nominated for deletion the result has always been keep. I don't think it should go right along side all the other positions as it is mostly fictional and definitely dangerous. I do however think that it deserves a mention somewhere. Thanks -- hibou10:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Because this article is about sex positions, not violence against women. It is also a made up concept, not something real. Atom13:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that it is not a position, it is an act (as I think I said in my edit comment, but should have if I didn't). But I think that the reason Atom gives are also sufficient for exclusion. --Strait22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm. Ok, I'll take Strait's answer. Because Atom, you assume the bottom would be a woman, and this isn't necessarily the case. Also, all positions are "made up" -- until someone tries them, and then they're real ;) -- hibou10:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Proposed Reorganization
1. General Sex Positions
-any positions between two people that wouldn't absoulutely require oral sex or phallus-in-vagina or phallus-in-anus penetration
2. Anal/Vaginal Sex Only Positions
-stuff that absolutely requires a phallus going into a vagina or anus
3. Oral Sex Only positions
-not "fellatio", "cunnelingus" or "analingus" but positions two people can be in while having them
4. Group Sex Only Positions
-not "DADV" or "double penetration ect. but positions people can be in while having them
Velps01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
You've linked to a blog that doesn't have anything relevant visible anymore. But that doesn't really matter unless you can get a clear license statement from the copyright holder... --Strait21:21, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Urban dictionary
This list is starting to read like the Urban dictionary. "Elephant walk"? "Ugg boot"? Does anyone else agree that a large number of items in this list need to be removed? Most of them don't even have a source. shotwell17:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
The image of the lotus position depicts teenagers. Many find depiction of child sex offensive. Could someone replace it with a picture of mature adults? Thanks! 24.130.148.180 (talk) 05:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to see some of the more advanced sexual positions as they relate to the kama sutra. This adds value to the subject for married couples. Using this as a reference: [2] that could really embellish on this page quite a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lev3ra9e (talk • contribs) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Double Penetration Image that feels so good
I think that the picture depicting the double penetration clearly hurts someone's beliefs when put a black and a asian man inserting into a white girl (why not two white europeans inserting into a black gal instead???). ALL other pictures in the Sex Positions are UNCOLOURED, impossible to say the ethinical group of the people depicted, whatta heck the double penetration must be the only one with ETHINIC CONOTATIONS? I demand, for the sake of Wikipedia's neutrality, that the picture became UNCOLOURED TOO. My english is not so good, but I think I made myself clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.84.193.2 (talk) 13:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Surely it's racist to disagree with an image of mixed ethnicity intercourse. You wouldn't complain if a woman with blonde hair and a man with brown hair were having sex. Nor would you complain if people with different eye colours were having sex. So why is it an issue that people with different skin colours are having sex? Declan Davis (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Some of the black and white pictures look a bit like asians to me, so even if you remove color from the images, it doesn't mean they are free from any possible racial interpretations. Also, who cares. Everyone likes sex. Quillaja (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the pics depicting a black fooker putting it's penis inside a white chick are offensive. The neutrality demands non-coloured people or people with other colours than the existing ones, such as green or blue people. If you don't think Wikipedia must conform to my standarts, why I must conform yours? Sooker!
Wikipedia is not censored for any reason, and its content will not be dictated by what you personally may or may not "fine disturbing." --Ketsuekigata (talk) 01:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
colour is very important . i mean who cares. it still shows people having sex ******** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.190.157 (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
Bukkake Illegal?
The article cited that bukkake might be illegal in the United States is a horrible choice, as it does not mention the act and only that a group of films might be considered obscene, which was actually just a trumped up charge to check for tax violations. Therefore, a better citation should be found or that part should be removed. 76.116.109.22120:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, when I went to the link that gave evidence to the illegality of bukkake it mentioned a club that was being researched for tax evasion. The only section that even mentioned bukkake was when listing titles of films that were shipped to customers. The list also included anal penetration (sodomy) which the supreme court ruled was legal. I recommend that the allegation of possibly being illegal be removed, or better evidence be used to support that statement. 74.192.141.214 (talk) 13:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Could one of the moderators/editors please advise if this page meets the standard to be posted as an external link? As you will see, this page contains many sexual positions without any promotional material (e.g. banners, ads, logos, etc.).
I think there used to be an external links section, the problem is that sometimes certain types of articles the external links section acts as a spam honeypot. While I think external links can often have lots of value to add to an article, in articles such as this one posting a request like what you did here is a good idea. Allows others to discuss it and arrive upon consensus. MathmoTalk21:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. There are a number of sites that offer users more illustrations and help further understand this subject. Moderators can decide which links should be included. Does anyone have links to include for review? We can forward them together to a moderator for approval. Also helpful would be if anyone knows the process on how to do this. Cutweed14:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
There are not really moderators as such, rather the point is to achieve consensus amongst the editors. I'm can recall seeing a couple of good sites as external links, but can't recall them off the top of my mind at the moment. If I think of them, I'll mention it here. MathmoTalk00:27, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I have also seen external links in the past on this topic; however, they were removed periodically by moderators/editors. On one hand, I respect that they are doing their job in policing wikipedia from bad content; on the other hand, they removed all external links regardless of whether the websitea are relevant or not. I am just trying to get a way to communicate with them so we can come to some kind of agreements. Personally, I think external sources on this topic add greatly to the articles :) I appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, Cutweed16:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
In this article it is speculated that "DVDA" and "triple double" are physically impossible sexual positions. i would like to correct that by stating that DVDA was performed on camera in the 1996 notorious productions release "My Ass" volume 1 scene 3 by porn actress Dalny Marga, while strap on dildos were used it is still DVDA and can be viewed in the clip "http://www.vidz.com/video/My_Ass_scene_3/vidz_porn_videos_fetish_gangbang_multiple-blowjobs_uniform/?s=7398"
there are also pictures on the site in question showing close ups of the penetration. the act portrayed here clearly shows that DVDA is infact not physically impossible, but rather it is not perticularly comfortable or popular. the triple double is also easily possible as proven in this scene, its too bad there was not 2 more men to have performed it when this was filmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Captainmuhammed (talk • contribs) 08:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
Citations?
My comment is partially in response to the "urban dictionary" post above and partially to the "citation needed" links sprinkled liberally throughout the article. Why are citations needed for most of these, especially some of the common or obvious ones? I don't think we really need a scholarly source to tell us they exist. I'm fairly new to the editing side of wikipedia (despite the creation date of my account being just minutes ago, I've made a number of anonymous contributions before, so I'm not THAT new!), so I'm not really up on the interpretation of policies, but I've read the "verifiable" policy and the "no original research" policy. It seems to me that something that intuitively seems correct and can also be verified with a trivially simple experiment (along the lines of "if I SSSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEXXXXXXXXXX drop a dense object, it will fall") shouldn't fall under "original research" and also shouldn't need to be verified with an external source. If there's a consensus that agrees with me, I'll come back and remove a bunch of the citations; if not, then I guess I'll take my opinion to the policy talk pages. In support of my position I offer the discussion here. Yanroy08:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Many of the "citation needed"s are there because:
The position is given a name and it is not clear that the name is used by anyone except the person who added it.
There are claims made about the position such as "good for pregnancy" which are not obvious.
Less critically, some positions are marked as needing a citation, in my mind, because it is not clear that they really belong on a list which, by necessity (see top of the article), can only contain the more common positions. Having a mention in a published source would be an indication that they are worth listing. --Strait15:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought it was a "This Thread Is Useless Without Pics" type thing. At least, that's what it looks like. :)
Image - Removed
Sorry I reverted the two images that were removed. An automatic reaction to the removal of images by an anon IP. One of them clearly is no longer a valid image. I should have checked that.
The other image, Image:Doublepen.png seems to be a legitimate image. I note that it is from Wikipedia commons, and has a valid GFDL license by user Helmans[3]. It is artwork, and not a picture. It is stylistically different than the other images in that it is coloured, rather than B/W. But seems to be an image directly related to the section that it is in.
I note a discussion related to this image at User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Looking_for_guidance. The conversation, IMO, would suggest that ther eis no problem with this image as long as it is not a copyvio. It does not appear to be a copyvio. Am I mistaken? I will return the image once again. We can certainly discuss whether the image is approriate for this section, this article, and stylistically appropriate, or not. Atom18:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The image indicates it was sourced from the English wikipedia so it obviously has copyright issues. I'm going to hold off discussion about including the image in the article until the image source is provided and the copyright status can be verified. I really never put much weight on the copyright status and verifiability of images but it’s something that should be taken care of before including the image in the article, especially if it has the potential to disrupt the flow of editing or cause edit disputes. --I already forgot18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with determining the copyright status clearly in advance. If it isn't in the article for awhile, I don't think anyone will suffer. They will probably figure out how to do it anyhow. Atom19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Although, I checked out the image pretty throughly. You say that it is sourced form en.wikipedia, and obviously has copyright issues. But, I show that the image we have been talking about Image:Doublepen.png is from Wikipedia Commons. Going to the refeence on Wikipedia Commons[4], shows that it was added by a user "helmans" [5] with no user page, and the only contribution was this image, on 29 June 2006. It shows author as "Cris, Self-made" and has a GFDL[[6]] tag for licensing. I admit the detail is fairly sketchy, but it seems we have done due diligence in determining licensing status, and it is marked clearly licensed under GFDL.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled "GNU Free Documentation License.
Is there some reason to believe that it is not, in fact GFDL licensed? Does Wikipedia not accept or use GFDL licenses images? Wikipedia:Image_use_policy does not explicitly mention GFDL licensing. However, Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags does explicitly say that an image should have GFDL, cc-by-sa-2.5, or public domain tags. What am I missing here? Why does it have copyright issues? Atom19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The image is in fact from wikimedia commons which indicates the source is English wikipedia. English wikipedia is not the source of the image so the proper source needs to be provided. Any person can create an account, upload an image, and tag it with a copyright status. If the user provides the source of the image the copyright status can be verified. Thats my understanding at least. --I already forgot19:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I still don't get it. The image is on the commons site, not on en.wikipedia, nor does it say it is on en.wikipedia. It says that the image was created by the downloader, it gives a very explicit GFDL licensing status. The article does list "english Wikipedia" but the author means that it was created FOr the english wikipedia. Regardless of the incorrect usage of that field, it is licensed. Its source is "self-made". It is GFDL licensed by the creator. Wikipedia allows use of GFDL licensed images. That means we have done our due diligence. Atom19:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
errr... I don't get what this fuss it about, it ought to be obvious this image is fine. You can't possibly be saying "source must be provided", isn't possible! Or do you want the editor to provide a picture of his/her hand?!?! MathmoTalk20:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
WTF? How is this hard to understand? Source is not how or by what means the image was created, it’s where the image was attained and where the permission came from. English wikipedia did not provide the image or give permission to use it so the source needs to be provided. If the author of the image is also the source, make it clear that's the case as not all authors of images can give permission to use the work. How is that not clear? Seems like a pretty easy fix by the user??? Anyway, it doesn’t seem to be as big a deal as I was led to believe so the conversation of excluding the image for copyright problems is moot at this point.
On a side note, can I get some background music from The Dwarves on this page? Back seat of my car would work wonderfully with this article...seriously. --I already forgot18:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
If the copyright question is resolved, then I suggest that {{linkimage}} would be the ideal compromise here. We need to think of what will best serve our readers. Some of them will (based upon past experiences from other encyclopedias) expect to be able to read an informative article on sexual positions without encountering drawings or photos that directly portray penetration. Others may be conditioned by the amount of pornography available on-line to expect that we would be pushing the boundaries and allowing this sort of image to remain. Putting the image in the article but behind a single click helps cater to both desired user experiences. Johntex\talk19:12, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Per our guidelines, this artwork does not fit the characteristics for {{linkimage}}, as it is artwork, and not a picture or video. This is obviously a sexually explicit and frank article. The section the image is in is described as multiple penetration, and the artwork is precisely that. Please don't use rhetoric to censor. If you think there is an editorial or licensing reason for not having the image, then let's discuss that. We aren't going to remove the image because you think it is stylistically similar to what you consider to be pornographic. If it meets the miller test for obscenity, then we should remove it. It the image is not appropriate to the content, then let's remove it. If we have a better image that illustrates that section, then let's change it. But, not just because it squicks you, okay? Please see the Wikipedia Content disclaimer again, if you please. Atom19:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I added Image:DoublePenetration.svg back on to the article. I checked the copyright tag and everything seems good to me. Per above comments: a source is not needed for this image because the image was created by the uploader; there only needs to be a source for an image if it was not self-created. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Generalizing
Maybe the original sources don't generalize, but to keep the article consistent, generalizing the positions seems like a good idea. There's no need to keep the descriptions gender specific especially when the article section starts with the words "These positions involve the insertion of a penis or penis-like object (such as a strap-on dildo) into a vagina or anus." If the reader wants to know the original text information, then they can look there. You can't say that the Kama Sutra was written for such instances as when a strap-on or some such is used.
--Zuejay01:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I'll compromise on Burton's "Seventh posture" for the reasons you give. But I think that it is silly to generalize "lateral coital position" or "coital alignment technique" when they are precisely defined terms which specifically refer to penile-vaginal intercourse and do so for particular reasons. This is in contrast with all other positions in this article — even those listed in the Perfumed Garden or Kama Sutra are not defined anywhere near as precisely as these. --Strait04:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, since I can't say that I've read these texts, that'll have to do. Changing the "Seventh posture" now. Thanks. --Zuejay05:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Is there no name for the double rimming position? It's like a 69 but with rimming instead of oral sex.
I am wondering how one of the positions on the other positions list is possible both partners face the other way top to toe with there legs on each other shoulders. Is this a safe sex position or vandalism? Delighted eyes05:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Recently mentioned in the online comic XKCD is the "retrograde wheelbarrow" position -- I'd like to see it included in the list here. Or is it too obscure? (http://xkcd.com/300/) Zrajm23:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
...and the reverse cowgirl. Although, given that there are probably infinitly many postions possible, we need to draw the line somewhere. Declan Davis (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
All of the graphics on this page are of heterosexual couples. This reis totally biased toward heterosexual couples. It is in no way a "neutral" viewpoint. It is a heteronormative viewpoint. I don't know how to flag this article as being not neutral, but its not. {—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.219.71 (talk • contribs)
I agree. There was some discussion a while ago about the text, and that's been apparently solved, but I just had a quick look at the article and there is only one image of a same-sex couple: two women 69ing near the bottom of the page (plus one image of a 3-some with 2 women and a man--tell me that's not heterosexual bias!). Exploding Boy16:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. Do you also want to show pictures of necrophilia and bestiality? Seriously, being neutral does not mean displaying images that most people find objectionable and offensive. The article, as it is now, already has a disproportionate bias towards homosexuality with its use of phrases like "penetrating partner" and "receiving partner." With language like that, it reads as if the primary audience is homosexual. I see from the above comment that it probably used to say "man" and "woman," but some people believed those words were somehow inaccurate. I am of the opinion that in order to be neutral and unbiased, our emphasis on alternative sexualities should be relatively proportionate to the population of their practitioners. BryanKaplan02:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Did you just compare homosexuality to necrophilia? Luckily your personal opinion of homosexuality, objectionable as it is, has no bearing on the content of Wikipedia articles. Exploding Boy03:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
No, you misunderstand. I never stated my irrelevant opinion of homosexuality; rather I was observing the article's bias towards homosexuality. I mentioned necrophilia because it too is an alternative approach to human sexuality, one which must have it's own unique set of sexual positions. While it would be appropriate to make a *brief* mention those positions in this particular article, it would be awfully wrong to show pictures of it, or to spend very much time talking about it. I recognize that both necrophilia and bestiality are more offensive than homosexuality to just about everyone, but I used those examples to make a point. The point was *not* that I oppose homosexuality or homosexual content in this article; the point was that it should *not* be the emphasis of this article. To the contrary, the percentage of the article that addresses homosexual positions should be roughly proportionate to the percentage of humans who care to engage in homosexual sex. That would be unbiased. BryanKaplan11:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'm assuming good faith here, but I fail to see how increasing the number of images of same sex partners in this article from the current one would constitute a lack of neutrality. Given that there are very few positions that are exclusive to homo or hetero sex, there should be a variety of images. Exploding Boy01:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
According to the article Homosexuality, homosexuals account for 1%-10% of the population. Right now there are 17 total pictures, 1 of which is homosexual: that's 5.8%. Adding another would mean a disproportionate bias towards homosexuality. Furthermore, many heterosexuals in th 90%-99% group will find additional homosexual imagery to be unexpected, objectionable, and offensive. Given that there are very few positions that are exclusive to homo or hetero sex, why should homosexual imagery be disproportionately emphasized? BryanKaplan03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
If you actually go to that link for the wikipedia entry on homosexuality, the statistic of 1-10% says "citation needed", so those numbers have no weight. Basically, anyone could've made up that number and put it in wikipedia. 21:36, 27 June 2007
You can debate the exact specifics of the numbers down to the last decimal point, but regardless the general gist and point of the previous editor should be clear. Which is: "Each viewpoint is currently being fairly represented, to do anything else than fairly represent them is naturally unfair instead." Do correct me BryanKaplan if I have incorrectly paraphrased you. MathmoTalk03:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think that's utter nonsense. Wikipedia isn't bowlderized, and it's not censored to protect the sensibilities of those who might find drawings of same-sex people engaging in sex objectionable. 05:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
" Furthermore, many heterosexuals in th 90%-99% group will find additional homosexual imagery to be unexpected, objectionable, and offensive." Can you offer a properly cited source that states that "many heterosexuals" find homosexual acts offensive? You are projecting your views onto a public that might not agree with you. Emerald80721:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Why shouldn't homosexual images be equally represented? I get the sense that this discussion has become circular, and therefore unproductive. Exploding Boy21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Emerald807: You may be right. It's a very difficult thing to measure of course. Nonetheless my point that adding more homosexual images would be disproportionately biased is much easier to measure, as you can see from my above math. EDIT: No actually there is hard data, and I am correct: most people find homosexuality to be offensive -- see this pdf for evidence. BryanKaplan01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Exploding Boy: Please don't answer my question with another question. This conversation can be productive if we are all willing to honestly consider one another's point of view. By asking my still-unanswered question I am trying to find out whether or not you understand my point of view. Do you understand what I mean when I say "disproportionate?" BryanKaplan01:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The point is, it doesn't matter if it offends the delicate sensibilities of heterosexuals, as stated by exploding boy: Wikipedia is not bowdlerized and may contain material some (or even many) find objectionable. Neitherday01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
How can we prevent this from turning into a lame "pro-gay/anti-gay" argument? I do not want to censor Wikipedia, and I do not oppose homosexual content in this article. To the contrary, I want to help keep Wikipedia neutral. Does anyone understand my statement regarding disproportionate emphasis? If so, do you disagree with it? If so why? BryanKaplan03:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
If you wish to avoid this becoming "pro-gay/anti-gay" argument, it would be best to refrain from making statements such as "most people find homosexuality to be offensive". As wikipedia is not censored or bowdlerized, such statements are not relevant and instead are inflammatory.
That being said, I do agree that the majority of the images on this page should be heterosexual, however a couple more images featuring same sex couples would help the article better illustrate the range and variety found in human sex acts. Neitherday05:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
The American Enterprise Institute? Architects of the GW Bush administrations public policy? Please. That is hardly a neutral source. Plus that study is nearly four years old. And even if it were current and reliable, it still wouldn't make any difference or have any bearing on the number of images of same-sex sex in this article or on Wikipedia. I can't stress enough that such arguments simply don't stand up to our policies.
There's no legitimate reason to limit the number of images of same-sex sex in this article. Besides not complying with our policies, I think BryanKaplan's formula--extrapolating from a best guess of the number of homosexuals to a percentage of images on this article--is just silly. I also fail to see why the "majority" of images should be heterosexual, but that's not particularly at issue here at present. Exploding Boy05:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
There's no legitimate reason to limit the number of images of *necrophile* sex in this article. Besides not complying with our policies, I think Exploding Boy's formula--describing an article with a homosexual bias as being heterosexually biased--is just silly. I also fail to see why the "majority" of images should be of living people, but that's not particularly at issue here at present. BryanKaplan09:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Randomly? The words were systematically replaced, and if you reread it you'll see it makes perfect sense. It's a parody, a light-hearted attempt to poke fun at Exploding Boy's activist attitude. I also added a relevant link you may have missed. BryanKaplan18:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I would have thought necrophiliac sex would use more or less the same positions as normal sex, and hence would not require any special illustration, but I digress. The article currently doesn't contain a single picture of a gay/lesbian couple engaged in penetrative sex. Given that it includes an image of simultaneous anal/vaginal penetration (which I venture to say is probably less common out there in the wild than good old-fashioned gay anal sex), the article ought to be more representative of gay sex. Clearly the purpose of the article is to give an idea of the range of different sex positions, not to show their statistical distribution. Cadr03:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your first sentence ("I would have thought necrophiliac sex..."), you don't digress whatsoever; follow your thought to its logical conclusion: "Therefore, I would have thought homosexual sex would use more or less the same positions as normal sex, and hence would not require any special illustration." Sure, 85% of the illustrations could depict dead people, but that would be ridiculous. Why? Because a) a very small percentage of the overall population engages in necrophilia, b) pictures of it are offensive to most of the rest of us, and c) necrophiliac pictures wouldn't add anything to the diversity of positions represented. The same logic applies to pictures of homosexual sex. BryanKaplan00:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Erm, neither of (a), (b) are true in the case of homosexuality, so the same logic doesn't apply. As for (c), the article currently depicts a number of heterosexual sex acts which are considerably less common than ordinary gay sex. Cadr17:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
In response to explodingboy's statement: "There's no legitimate reason to limit the number of images of same-sex sex in this article". Yes there, it is what we like to call here.... NPOV. It seems you are failing to see the point being made by BryanKaplan, so I shall make it more obvious for you. What if all images on the page are of homosexual couples? What is wrong with this? Hopefully you can clearly see this situation is very wrong, because of giving undue weight to homosexuality. Which as I point out before breaks the fundamental wikipedia policy of NPOV. Now, take what you have learnt from this example and apply it to the current situation. The same general principles apply of upholding NPOV. MathmoTalk04:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Straw man argument: I'm pretty sure exploding boy was not advocating that all heterosexual imagery in the article replaced with same-sex couples. Their position seems to be simply that there should be no artificial limits. Neitherday04:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe we can change the title to "List of heterosexual sex positions". OR, if its not done yet, someone can upload more homosexual images on this page. and see if it gets removed. just a suggestion. kawaputratok2me15:58, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure segregation is the best solution, especially since there's nothing significantly heterosexual nor homosexual about any of the positions. If homosexual images are added, I will not personally change or remove any, since my voice has been so strongly opposed, and since no one is speaking out in agreement with me. I will merely continue to state my opinion that this article is biased in favor of an activist cause. BryanKaplan16:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that pictures depicting homosexual acts have no advantage over those showing a hetrosexual act. While it may alert people to a more realistic spread of homosexual/hetrosexual activities, i wouldn't take out a hetrosexual picture and plop in a homosexual one. Same goes for the reverse. How offensive an article is should not have any bearing in wikipedia. --206.116.159.19902:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
While I believe there should be no artificial limit on the number of same-sex images, I don't think either same-sex images or heterosexual images should be used if there is an image available that is ambiguous and therefore can represent both. The image I have suggested using for fellatio was designed intentionally to have the performing partner be gender ambiguous and I believe in light of the current controversies on this talk page that makes it a better choice. Neitherday17:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The only problem is that the person performing fellatio in Image A is clearly a woman. All of her features are feminine, she appears to be wearing makeup, has no adam's apple, and has breasts. Besides which, the image replaced by this one (showing two men) was added in response to the discussion above, which is a neutrality dispute based on the dearth of same-sex images on the page. Exploding Boy17:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I see no makeup and the breasts could just as easily be pecs. The beauty of the image is that the sex of the performing partner can easily be seen however the viewer wants to see it. Neitherday22:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Now, the real challenge would be to find one where the sex of the receiving partner was open to interpretation ;) Cadr12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the neutrality argument above as valid at this point in regards to non-penetrative positions, as all the non-penetrative images currently depict same-sex couples. Unless you can present a valid reason all non-penetrative pictures need to be clearly same-sex (this image isn't clearly either and could be taken either way), I'm re-adding the image. While I agree the article should be balanced, unbalancing the article in one direction isn't any better than it being unbalanced in the other. A major priority of this article should be to show variety. Neitherday01:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
All the non-penetrative positions are not currently illustrated with same-sex images. Please don't re-add the image or I will have to restore the neutrality tag. Exploding Boy01:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
You are not the sole arbiter of neutrality and you do not own this article. Please explain why no images in the section non-penetrative positions section of the article can be ambiguous and all must be clearly same sex.
The current Non-penetrative positions section has only one image (and it's a same-sex one, yes). As discussed at length above, the neutrality problem with this article was the lack of clear same-sex images. Since all the penetrative iamges are unambiguously opposite-sex, what exactly is the problem with having unambiguously same-sex images? I mean, unless somebody creates abstract images to illustrate the article then most of them are not going to be ambiguous (and certainly I still challenge the claim that the fellater in the image to the right is ambiguous; it's clearly a woman). Exploding Boy01:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess the question is, I don't think anyone has a problem with unambiguously opposite-sex images in the article; is there some reason that you ojbect to unambiguously same-sex images? Exploding Boy01:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
penetrative imageYou are correct. I didn't notice oral sex was a separate section (which is it should be).
I don't have a problem with unambiguously same-sex images. However I believe this article should first and foremost be about illustrating the scope of human sexuality. For example, a woman using a strap-on (either on another woman or on a man) would be an improvement, because it would add to the scope of illustrated penetrative behaviours. I believe the image I'm suggesting here does a better job at embracing the scope of human sexuality than the one that is there now. Neitherday01:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree that a woman using a strap-on would be a good addition; maybe there's one at Commons? And you're right; one of the images of penetrative sex depicts a same-sex couple.
I'm not sure I understand your concern regarding the fellatio image, however. After all, further down in the article this image unambiguously depicts a woman performing fellatio. Surely with the existing images we've covered all the bases? Exploding Boy02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand what is wrong with the ambiguous image... it creates no bias towards either heterosexuals or homosexuals, and if someone is disgusted with homosexuality they can just see it as a woman... there is no problem with it, and in my opinion the only sort of person who would find it wrong to put it in there in place of an unambiguous gay couple would be someone trying to jam gay rights down everybody's throats... i support the reimplementation of the ambiguous-gender image, and if i knew how to I would personally restore it... and i would like it restored... my two cents, thank you 203.164.63.18911:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Neutrality tag removed
I've removed the neutrality tag. Out of 15 images currently in the article, 5 are of same-sex couples in a variety of positions, and a further 2 feature mixed-sex threesomes. I think this satisfies the neutrality requirement. Exploding Boy01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, that's right. At least, according to the image caption, though I'd say it's debatable. It's by no means clear that the person on the lower right is female (and the sex of the person on the lower left is debatable too, in my opinion). I'm going to change the caption to be less specific. Exploding Boy01:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
image proportions
i agree that it is biased to have only images of heterosexual intercourse on this page and I am glad that homosexual behavior has been added, but a quick count indicates that 6 of the 15 images are exclusively of homosexual sex. In recognition of the "undue weight" doctrine, it seems a little excessive to have 40% of the images show only homosexual activity. I don't know off hand what percentage of the world's population is of what sexual orientation, but I would venture an educated guess that far less than 40% are homosexual or bisexual. How about either adding some more images of heterosexuality or reducing the number of homosexual ones to a proportion that reflects prevalence in society? This has absolutely nothing to do with bias against homosexuality and I would suggest the opposite if the situation were reversed, but I think it adds to wikipedia's credibility to try make its image counts reflect statistics.
In response to an earlier post about showing a woman penetrating her partner with a strap-on, again I would cite the "undue weight" concept that this sexual activity is not common enough to warrant a separate picture on what is otherwise a broad survey of sexuality. The same would go for many other sexual activities that are uncommon, to list and picture every single one would be impractical. They properly belong on their own pages with perhaps a link from this one.
I'm thinking it might be a good idea to split the page into "sexual intercourse" positions and "sexual acts" or some other way of dividing the material (maybe penetrative vs. non-penetrative). This would give more room for the many behaviors that receive only a cursory treatment here.
Thanks
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ←BenB410:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Semiprotect?
We get several incidents of vandalism each day, but the basic content is not all that different from six months ago. Thanks to my vast experience with the subject, I can say we have covered all of the essential topics, and if there is anything IPs have to add, they can tell us here on talk. Anyone against semiprotection? ←BenB403:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Why not protect all porn article because the average one has not changed "much" since 6 months ago? This seems like the start of a slippery dick to me. Best not to go to far away from our general concept of "anyone can edit". Though I'm certain you said this with absolutely the best intentions, and I can totally understand (and even agree) where you are coming from... I just can't at the moment agree with your conclusion. So I'm having a tendency here towards preferring to leaving it as it is. MathmoTalk07:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
It's just that IP users haven't contributed anything but vandalism and hoaxes, as far as I can tell. Plus, this isn't exactly porn. ←BenB415:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I must say, I was surprised it hadn't been protected before. It struck me that something must be unique about this article and its' protection status (similar to the main page), but after getting a sanity check from some other people it appeared that I was wrong in assuming this.
So, anyways, it's been semi-protected for two months. If there is indeed a special circumstance for this article (I remember reading something unique about its' reading/editing rate, but can't put my finger on it), which means I shouldn't have semi-protected it, I encourage any other administrator to remove the protection.
That being said, please don't bug me to remove it on the basis that you don't think it was warranted. I disagree, hence my action. In addition, if there is a special circumstance for this article, please request unprotection centrally, because I won't be overturning my own protection in this case. The more eyes, the better. Cheers, Daniel→♦07:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
It is in the top-21 by page views, but in terms of editing, it's been virtually static for months. ←BenB407:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Move to SexWiki???
Might I suggest that this topic moved to the Sex Wiki, and be removed from Wikipedia? I don't see a place for this or other related articles in a website used by school children. Additionally, I'm sure that those that follow and enhance this and related articles would prefer an area where they can create more articles and not be restrained.
I can't in my right conscience recommend Wikipedia as long as articles like this are included. I would also like to request that sex articles be included in the predefined list of candidate articles for deletion on the Deletion Policy page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.148.213 (talk) 03:39, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
I'm in support for NOT removing this or any other sex related articles. Neitherday is correct, Wikipedia is not bowdlerized and this is perfectly acceptable contact for any encyclopedia. Sex is human nature in all it's forms, and furthermore, Wikipedia is not censored for "school children" or anyone else. Besides, although they are children, this gives them a non-pornographic, neutral way to understand the physics of different sexual positions. What if one day they injure themselves by preforming something painful, like hamster style, or kenneth Pinyan style? Donny41717:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
"I can't in my right conscience recommend Wikipedia as long as articles like this are included." Then don't recommend it. But that's your problem, not ours.
"I would also like to request that sex articles be included in the predefined list of candidate articles for deletion on the Deletion Policy page." Why? Because you say so? Because it "offends your conscience"?. If you are going to make such a request, then at least back it up with strong arguments. What goes into Wikipedia is still determined by consensus.
This article is neither pornographic nor repugnant. Therefore it is perfectly suitable for educating schoolchildren above a certain age. Younger schoolchildren shouldn't be using Wikipedia anyhow.
Also, most schools use content filters that prevent this article from being displayed anyhow, so your point is kind of obsolete. If this article offends you such much, I recommend these three easy steps: 1. Install the "Fox Filter" add-on on your Firefox browser 2. Add "sex positions" to the list of censored words 3. Surf wikipedia, and voila, this article will no longer be displayed by your browser. Cambrasa12:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I think everyone has reached a concencus that this post should not be taken off. Wikipedia is not censored, even if potential harm can come from it being uncensored. The pictures are not repulsive, and are quite obviously not for a pornograhpic purpose, meaning it stays within wikipedias bounds. Another reason not to censor it is because it is not clear how the pictures would harm children in the first place, not that it matters due to WP:NOTCENSORED. Finally, your opinion of an article like this does not come above wikipedia policy, even if this could possibly detract potential users. And individually, i think that this encyclopedia would go downhill the day it censored itself to make most people happy. --206.116.159.19901:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
JimQ: Done. BUT, looking at the edit history (every edit individually), and the reliability of the references, I question the validity of that article. I made a couple minor mods to it ad re-added the hoax tag, because something as unrealistic-sounding as that (from a physics of anatomy standpoint) I think would need to be mightily referenced. Some others may agree, some may disagree. FWIW, I am going to leave the page alone after this fix for you, but wanted to let you know. VigilancePrime (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Homosexuals Like Oral A Bit Much?
Why is it that all of the images under oral sex appear to be homosexual couples?
There seems to be a couple too many homosexual images in the entire article as it is.
As this article deals with sexual positions only and nearly all these positions can be performed by any couple regardless or orientation, methinks the number of homoesexual pictures should reflect reality and be proportionate to the number of homosexuals.
Use articles like Sexual orientation to demonstrate the variety of sexual orientations and leave this article to only show the variety of positions with only a few homosexual images instead of the current number. This page is not here to reflect "the range and variety found in human sex acts", only the range and variety of sexual positions. 71.120.201.3920:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I've seen a few references to the "French Butterfly" position in porn site honeypots, and one mention in a story, but no definition. Help?
Finding a cite for Polish (as in Poland) is a little tricky since it's a homonym for polish (as in one's knob). Help welcome; I'll drop a cite tag on it. I encountered it in a men's magazine about twenty years ago.
There is a large section of the page that appears below the References section, in the same small print as the References. When I tried to edit the page, it seemed to be in the correct order, so I don't know how to fix it. Will someone with more editing experience fix this?
--mlesage (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Gustav Klint picture
This picture seems a little out of place in its current location. Compared to the rest of the images, it's a style break, and it's kind of hard to see what's "going on" in the picture (does the guy have a head somewhere?), making it a poor choice for an illustrative example. The image on top should be switched with this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.69.246 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Non-penetrative position missing?
I don't know what the name would be for this, but what about using the cleft of the buttocks to stimulate the penis, without entering the anus, similar to a tit-job?80.7.59.211 (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Error: Spermatogenesis from birth
I'm not an autoconfirmed member, so I can't edit this page...but there is an error in the section titled, "Positions to promote or prevent conception". It states that men produce sperm from birth onwards, but that is not correct. Men are not sexually mature as children because they do not produce sperm, just as women are not sexually mature until they being ovulation/menstruation in puberty. Spermatogenesis begins at puberty for males just as ovulation does in women. The line in the parenthesis should be replaced with: "Men and women are typically fertile by the time they reach puberty." Fertile and puberty should be linked to their respective wiki pages for more information. Chaldor (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
I have read many arguments about the issue of the extent of the inclusivity of homosexual images in this topic. Some have argued that because the population of homosexuals is said to be smaller than that of the "straight" population, that LGBT images should then be less frequently depicted than their hetero counterparts. Another argument was that because homo and hetero sexual positions are often the same, that images depicting homosexuals engaging in such acts need not be displayed because it might be considered repetitive.
On the other end of the arguement have been statements that there is not *enough* inclusion of homosexual coupling and that this disproportionate representation makes the article biased towards heteronormative standards. I think that the actual concern here is that there may, however inadvertantly, be some propogating of stigmas against homosexuals when the depiction of their sexual practices is seemingly *under*-depicted. In other words, that by *not* showing more images of gay sex, that the LGBT community is once again relegated to the status of "stigmatized other". By *under*-representing them, they are again passed over, their expiriences *glossed* over, mentioned only placatingly and then dismissed as soon as can be. This is a legitimate concern for the LGBT community because, as many in this community would point out, behaving in such a way can be the first step towards open hostility and prejudice.
Both sides make important points. But if I correctly understand the ultimate goal in this discussion, and in wikipedia itself, the point that is being lost here is that an article needs to be fair and balanced, unbiased and neutral. I propose that a compromise can be reached here that should meet the concerns of all (or most) parties. I think it would be both fair *and* informative to include images of same-sex intercourse beside *each* heterosexual example mentioned. Basically, if one of the arguments against more inculsion is based on the fact that both hetero *and* homosexuals can preform the same acts, then there should be no problem in showing representitive images of the act being preformed by opposite sex *and* same sex encounters.
Should anyone object to this idea due to the possibility of redundancy, I would propose that it is not at *all* redundant. There are many people in the world who are just accepting their homosexuality and perhaps are unsure of what same-sex intercourse would be like or what it would really entail. Including pictures of gay couples preforming the same acts as their straight counterparts would allow for *absolute* fairness of the article. Furthermore, a person questioning their orientation or who is still intimidated by their self-acceptance, could find a great deal of comfort in seeing same-sex coupling in such a manner. Placing images of straight and gay sex acts beside each other could also serve to display that there is truly no bias of difference in straight and gay sex at all. Presenting the images in such a format could serve to reinforce the fact that gay sex is just as real, just as normal and just as much a true expression of humanity as is heterosexual relation.
For those who would argue that doing this would *over* represent homosexuality, I disagree because the topic isn't about straight vs. gay sex, its about *human* sexual experiences. Are small nations any less sovereign simply because their borders are more narrow than countries whose domain covers a continent? Of course not! Switzerland is just as much a legitimate nation as is Australia, for example. The criteria isn't about differences in population, it's about the *sameness* of humanity. Therefore, to be *truly* equal and unbiased, then homosexual sex education should be represented equally with and as being *no* different than heterosexual sex education.
So, for every sex act that both hetero and homosexual couples can do, then images depicting both sides doing so seems appropriate to me. For a sex act that can *only* be done by a hetero couple, then no matching LGBT image should accompany it, and vice versa for acts which can only be preformed homosexually. This seems to me to be the only truly equitable solution to the matter. (Ladymeadowlark1 (talk) 09:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)).
For each sexual positions that giants can also do then I propose for exactly the reasons you gave those images of giant sex should also be portrayed. I hope you respect how important to me as a (almost) giant this is. Thank you. MathmoTalk11:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
What a flippant and rude response to a thoughtful and well-considered proposal.
Ladymeadowlark, I think it's a good idea, but one that may meet with as much resistance as every other (and again, I can't believe this debate is still going on after all this time). One potential objection will be the sheer number of images that will be required to achieve this. Perhaps if there was some way of having different appropriate images load every time the page is loaded.... Exploding Boy (talk) 15:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
How about using only the best quality image to illustrate any given position, without regard to the gender of the participant(s)? More than one image per subject is redundant. Exceptions should require a good non-POV reason. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem being that we have a selection of images of sex positions that are of identical quality but with different subjects (male-male, male-female, female-female, group). Exploding Boy (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The image that best reprsents the position should be the primary criteria, but not the only one. If we have a male-male, or female-female image for a position that meets our standard for quality and is descriptive, one would benefit the article. If there happened to be a slightly better image that is male-female, since most of the images are opposite sex, putting the male-male or female-female image should be considered. Atom (talk) 17:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Exploding Boy, I'm surprised you called me rude! Firstly, WP:NPA and secondly how could what I said possibly be regarded as rude. I was injecting a bit of humor to what can be sometimes a heated debate, additionally my comment is much deeper than you think. I was making a perfectly valid comment that you should not attack. MathmoTalk01:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
My greatest apologies!! I've fixed my edit now, sorry again that I got you two mixed up because your names where one after another. MathmoTalk06:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Humour has it's place, and I'm well acquainted with NPA. But your comment came off as flippant and sarcastic, and it certainly wasn't helpful to the discussion, was it? Following a thoughtful, considered post with an offhand and silly remark about "giants" is hardly making a "valid" and "deep" contribution. Let's try to stick to the topic, please. Exploding Boy (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
you missed a postion
I must have invented(?) something new (!)?
Start in missionary position.
Penetrate.
Rotate penetration partner (male) legs up out and down, one leg at a time while fem legs are moved together.
Result: much stimulation of fem, male has wide stance that helps slow down orgasm and allows fem to get hers, sometimes several times.
For further illustration: male foot, fem foot, (male penetration) fem foot, male foot.
Male is at an angle such that he is rubbing near or on clit.
The image with the caption, "Michael Lucas topping Kurt Wild sexually during the making of the movie Pounding the Pavement," is pornographic, a diagram like all the rest should be placed in its stead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.228.39 (talk) 21:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, having this image in there violates 18 U.S.C. 2257, and probably Florida Statute 847 (as stated in the "Not censored" link above, Wikipedia's servers are based in Florida and so have to obey Florida law). If someone's a legal expert and they're certain the image is fine, then okay. If not, then the image needs to be removed. As it stands, even if it is legal it doesn't actually tie in with the article: it fits the description of 'the butterfly', but the caption describes it as 'topping', which is mentioned no where in the article; it's the only photograph on there - the diagrams are perfectly fine and considerably less likely to offend people. As the first poster pointed out - it is pornographic; it's actually arguably more pornographic than the images in "hardcore pornography", which is a slightly ridiculous situation (this is not a suggestion for someone to go and add hundreds of hardcore photos to that article). 92.41.48.209 (talk) 02:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Can you provide the texts (or a link to the texts) of those statutes. Although "objectionable" is not a reason to remove it, the fact that text and image don't compliment each other is. Also, if it could possibly violate a law, then we should at least seek a knowledgable admin's opinion. Maybe at WP:ANI. --Evb-wiki (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The text of the statutes is rather long, so I'll post links and a summary of my interpretation (but I'm no lawyer!). 18 U.S.C. 2257 essentially seems to be related to verifying that anyone involved in the production of pornographic material is over 18, and requires some kind of statement to that effect on the page in question (or a link to a page with such a statement on) - the main relevant part seems to be (e). It's possible that the same link would have to be placed on the main wikipedia portal as well - I read something about portals somewhere but can't find it now. [Florida Statute 847] seems to say that it's illegal to put pornographic material up on a website where it could be reasonably expected to be obtained by someone under 18. Salient portions seem to be 847.012 and 847.0138, although there are probably other bits that are relevant.92.41.48.209 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That is wikilawyering, IMHO, the section is titled "Penetrating partner on top ..." so the caption supports that title. No one can reasonably infer that a professional pornography company as documented by a respected editor and one of the most voluminous image volunteers across all manner of subjects is conspiring to break laws to post underage models. If you have any evidence that any of these people are breaking any law then produce that rather than citing laws they could be breaking. -- Banjeboi20:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
The law is not just a statement saying the actors have to be over 18 - it is that a statement saying that the actors are over 18, and providing an address where records to such an effect can be obtained from, must be attached to the image. By not attaching it you're breaking 18 U.S.C. 2257 - the webpage itself is the evidence. Even if you fix that then the Florida law may still make it illegal. I'll refer it to the pornography wikiproject as they're the most likely to know. Even if they do say it's okay, I think it should be removed as it essentially acts as an open invitation for people to start posting porn.92.41.162.115 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The image most likely is copyrighted, is the original uploader of that image the actual copyright holder for that image? "David Shankbone" I'm fairly sure is a fictitious name. So on that grounds alone it shouldn’t be included and be put up for deletion. Also this image is clearly pornographic, and although wikipedia isn’t censored, there are rules against flagrant pornography. It’s also not necessary for this article to use actual pornographic images. Raeky (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe those laws apply to the actual pornographic film but we certainly could, if legally required refer those interested to Lucas' company which follows those same laws. David Shankbone is well respected image volunteer on wikipedia - there is zero evidence that they are in any way misrepresenting what has been photographed. The image is quite tame and images, in general, are preferred to diagrams. Personally, I wish all the diagrams here were replaced by actual images. People already do post porn and generally it's removed quickly as unhelpful - this does not imply porn is bad but simply that the image has to be useful to the subject of the article. Censoring articles, content and images isn't helpful. -- Banjeboi21:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Not that I'm for this image's inclusion, but the name-based reasoning is flawed. This is a fictitious name, but I am the copyright owner of the images I've uploaded. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
(2) There are already two images of 'penetrating partner on top' - why is there a need for a third?
(3) 18 U.S.C 2257 applies to every page on a website that the picture appears.
(4) You're still ignoring Florida 847.
(5) The image has already been 'removed quickly' three times, and possibly would have been removed more times if it weren't for this discussion.92.41.58.84 (talk) 09:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Those guidelines are disputed, looks like for several years and the main disadvantages cited don't seem to apply except the only real reason it's been targeted so far - someone doesn't like it. This is the only photo on the entire article with the rest mainly crude drawings and mainly of male-female couplings one would expect in a primary school sexual education manual. We can do better. If the image is in violation of a law then try to get it deleted on that basis. It's legality isn't with this article but being hosted on the wikipedia websites which I doubt would occur if those legal concerns hadn't been met. -- Banjeboi13:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
It just doesn't seem a very useful image to me. It shows 2 erect penises, neither of which is the important one for the illustration (ie the insertive one). Isn't the 3rd guy jerking off in the shot needlessly additional porn? Allowing porn to illustrate info is not the same as allowing images that contain non-illustrative porn. also shouldn't the legality be addressed as a matter of urgency before the image is included? If a age statement / warning disclaimer is legally necessary in Florida, then it is needed here tooYobmod (talk) 12:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
The legal issue should be taken up with the image itself, not on an article talkpage. The 2 erect penises are both rather obscured by the owners of said penises hardly a good porn shot if that was the goal. Personally I find all the diagrams as rather ... beneath inclusion (they all seem like something out of a grade school book) so would suggest those be replaced by actual photos first. -- Banjeboi01:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
We can agree to disagree on the quality of the drawings - I find them rather distasteful and would prefer they were all replaced by actual photos but others prefer them, so be it. Neither position supports removing the image very well, so this does seem to boil down to WP:IDON'TLIKEIT. -- Banjeboi10:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Alternative image?
I'll ignore the legal talk above for now. WP has always contained lots of sex, and I can't see why the image in question suddenly happens to be illegal. The real problem is that some consider the photo too 'heavy', or 'graphic'. But we don't have any alternatives, or at least no one has presented any. We have this, but that's a poor image. I wonder why there isn't a Rama drawing of this kind of position. This comes close, but it's not completely the same. I have asked Rama's opinion about this matter. Maybe he could draw something new? Cheers, Face15:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
He replied here and said that he already planned to expand his collection some day. It's a low prio point for him though, so we have to wait a while. Oh well, it's not an urgent matter anyway. Cheers, Face17:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Do any of those at Commons:Category:Missionary_positions illustrate this position? I'm a bit confused as to what position the image is supposed to depict: anal missionary position? Male-male missionary position? "Topping", as the caption indicates? We need to know what position this photo is intended to illustrate before we can find an alternative. And an alternative is needed: despite Benji's preference for photos, community consensus has consistently preferred clear, clinical-style illustrations over actual photographs on potentially objectionable subjects like this. So an illustrated version would certainly be better in this case, especially since this particular photo doesn't actually show the insertion it is probably intended to depict, and it is complicated by other irrelevant elements like the man masturbating, a head in the foreground, and other elements. -kotra (talk) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Good grief, we really we could find all sorts of reasons not to include something we don't want. The text could simply reflect that when men have sex with men here are some of the positions they do it in. There's no reason we have to have a picture of the actual penis entering. And no, I don't think there is clear community consensus to censor away actual photos of images and, in fact, I've seem quite the opposite as illustrations can be helpful but have their own limitations. If the issue of another person being on the side of the photo is compelling then we can fix it. Personally I think all these diagrams - as well intended as they are - are rather primitive-ish and bow down to the idea that sex is anything but natural and healthy. I would prefer that all these illustrations be replaced with actual photos showing the mechanics of the positions like only two actual human beings can do. It would be in keeping with modern sex manuals and a 21st Century encyclopedia. We owe our readers better content. -- Banjeboi23:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't assume I'm offended by or "don't like" this sort of imagery, or am advocating censorship. I certainly have no problems with gay porn (or "natural and healthy" photos of sexual acts if you prefer; both terms I feel are accurate). However, this is an encyclopedia intended for everyone, and we have to at least consider that most of our readers do not share our views on sexuality. For this reason we have a guideline (WP:Profanity) that states: "Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." It's a sad but true fact that photos of sex are offensive or obscene to a great percentage of the public, and photos of gay sex are much more so. This is something we should factor in when weighing the benefits and costs of including an image, and it is not something we should attempt to change in the public (at least, not by using Wikipedia as a tool). In that light, your interpretation of the illustrations as "bowing down to the idea that sex is anything but natural and healthy", while perhaps correct, is sort of irrelevant. As for your view that they are "primitive-ish", I'm not quite sure how you've come to that impression. Technically speaking, they look pretty well-drawn to me (aside from Image:Klimt-missionaires-02.jpg, which is admittedly crudely drawn). Regardless, the WP:Profanity statement I quoted means that less offensive images (here, drawn illustrations) are preferable to more offensive images (here, actual photographs) whenever there is no loss in relevant information. So let's find (or make) an informative replacement illustration of whatever the photo is supposed to illustrate (I'm still not clear on that) and move on. David Shankbone's great work and reputation aside, we don't have to use every image he uploads. -kotra (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Under most circumstances a photograph is preferable to an illustration. Notable exceptions being illustrations of complex mechanical devices, industrial/manufacturing processes and intricate anatomy. In the end, I feel that "image retention" trumps accuracy. For every image of non-heteronormative behaviour there is little doubt that someone will be offended by it. I have little doubt as well that any image or even discussion of sexual position will offend many of our readers. These are still not reasons to self-censor. Almost of of these diagrams are well-intended but simply inferior to actual photos. And the only photo in the article is far better than any of them. If we had a better photo showing the same position then great but for many of our sheltered readers this is likely one of the few occasions they will actually see the mechanics of two males and how that works. -- Banjeboi18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
For me it's an issue of clarity. Photo or drawing, hetero or "non-heteronormative," whatever, it should clearly show what it is illustrating. The photo at issue, IMO, is cluttered by extraneous activity - i.e., masturbation and voyeurism. Substitute another photo, but please let's have our images be clearly illustrative. --Evb-wiki (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I hear you saying the photo is better than the drawn illustrations, but you have yet to say exactly why. In what way does the photo impart more relevant information than an illustration would? I can see how on apple, a photo of an apple is better than a drawing, because readers want to know exactly what an apple looks like. When it comes to sex positions, the reader just wants to know how the position works, not how aroused the participants are or what race they are or whether they have a mole on their leg or whatever extraneous information a photo imparts. If you can give me a concrete example of relevant information that a drawn illustration would lack, then I would be fine with the photo. At the moment, though, I don't see any reason a photo is superior to an illustration in this instance, so WP:Profanity comes into effect.
Sorry but I'm guessing my observations of editors simply not liking the image are the most and likely only compelling reason to remove it. I've stated my case and feel further energy of mine here is wasteful. I'm not here to endlessly quibble and wikipedia isn't a battleground. You win - bye. -- Banjeboi21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
My intent was not to "win", but to come to some sort of consensus, while still conforming to the policies and guidelines. Be that as it may, for the reasons I gave above, I still support replacing the photo with a less objectionable equivalent. I've yet to understand exactly what the photo is supposed to illustrate, but I think Image:Andr51.jpg would probably cover all bases? Are there any objections to replacing the photo with that image? -kotra (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Personally I'm not convinced there's any real point to have the image but I always object to (US anyway) legal issues being part of a discussion other then when there is doubt over the copyright status of an image or when there is clear agreement about the legal issues. If editors believe there are legal issues for the foundation for having the image but others don't agree, then they should ask a lawyer (Mike Godwin). Until and unless he either says there may be an issue or he says we should consider for ourselves whether there is a legal issue then we shouldn't be relying on theories from wikipedians. Besides that, if the image raises legal issues for the foundation then I fail to see how simply removing it from the article helps. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
You're right, we shouldn't speculate too much about the legal issues. I suspect that they aren't a problem in this case, but I saw no reason to address them: I argued for its removal/replacement on the grounds that a less offensive and equally informative alternative is available. It has since been removed and replaced from the article on those grounds (I think), and someone has prodded the image for deletion as "unencyclopedic pornography". So I don't think Mike Godwin will need to be bothered. -kotra (talk) 16:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The list still contains a lot of images. I know it's different with every screen resolution, but I'm having quiete some white space: when an image is bigger than a section, it will move the text with it, which causes an empty space between the section header and that text. I'm afraid I will also remove File:Amazon-variant-sex-position.svg to make this list more compact. That image didn't add much anyway, as it was very similiar to File:Missionary_style.svg and is also used in Woman on top. Cheers, Face15:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Moved from article
"A similar position can be used by two lesbians for cunnilingus, and it could presumably be used by two men for anal sex, but it is difficult to find a coherent explanation of the geometry of this position or its variants. A porn actor/actress who has mastered this position is considered an expert. (The piledriver position resembles a wrestling move in which one wrestler picks up his opponent and rams him head-first into the mat. In this case, one might assume an intent to do harm. People trying the sexual position may be assumed to have a different intention, but they must be careful, as injury is possible. Some experts would advise "Don't try this at home.")"
This needed citations and was very unclear, and the jokey tone is not so encylopedic. Who consider a porn actress an expert? Is it named after the wresling move, or do both get there names from the tool? Why mention lesbian cunnilingus, can't a man to that too? And can't cunnilingus be done for any of the penetrative positions if you ignore the position of the active parner? So i moved it here until sources are found.Yobmod (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Rubbish "less common" positions
The last two positions listed in the "less common" section are poorly written and either need to be revised or removed completely. (Article is currently locked.) RawwrBag (talk) 10:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I assume you are referring to the following paragraph in the article:
Humping may refer to masturbation – thrusting one's genitals against the surface of non-sexual objects, clothed or unclothed, but this word is also used in the UK and Canada as slang for penetrative sex.
You're right, humping can mean penetrative sex even in the US. I recommend changing that paragraph to this:
The slang term humping may refer to masturbation – thrusting one's genitals against the surface of non-sexual objects, clothed or unclothed; or it may refer to penetrative sex.
Corrected, that paragraph isn't particularly informative, though, so it could be removed altogether. Thoughts? -kotra (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree, the wheelbarrow should be added as a standing position where the penetrator grabs the reciever's hips and has them dangle on their hands as a wheelbarrow. Also add the retrograde wheelbarrow or reverse wheelbarrow, where the reciever is face-up and hands back rather than face-down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.185.169.117 (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
You have to admit all of them have a very bad quality, but even if they were better made, a drawing can't substitute a real photo. So, why not? BTW, drawings need to go from all normal sex related articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.183.213 (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
What's the problem with gay/lesbian/whatever sex pics? We're grown-ups. and we DO NOT EVER CENSOR. EVER! Every child can handle it (ask them), so quit whining. If you still can't handle it, don't look at this page. Isn't that an easy solution?
But I agree that realistic pictures about the most important and most fun activity in humanity since ever, are a absolute and non-discussable must. Only people infected with religious schizophrenia and pathetic people with a hypocritical "political correctness" oppose them anyway. Those types make healthy humans sick.
I still have not heard mention of any relevant information photos would impart that the current drawings lack. Without even a single reason why photos would be more informative on this topic, it would probably be a bad idea to change to photographs (see the above discussions for evidence of this). But whatever our stances on this, let's refrain from making personal attacks. Slinging insults will not get good results on Wikipedia. -kotra (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Either some of the drawings should be replaced with real pictures as real pictures would be better than some of the drawings. The pictures would give more detailed view of the position which would help people than some of the drawings do at the moment. It depends on what you see at porn and what you see as educational and informative.--Scorpio95 22:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)
Can you be more specific? In all the drawings, I can easily understand how the position works. Any more detail is irrelevant in this article. -kotra (talk) 16:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
some of the drawings aren't very clear and could be better, more detail is always betterScorpio95 20:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Why is more detail always better? Why do anatomy textbooks have diagrams instead of photographs? Sometimes detail is distracting and makes it less easy to understand a topic. A mole on the person's thigh is not going to help me understand the sex position any better. -kotra (talk) 20:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Way too much same-sex images
Okok i know we are tolerant and so, but sex is usually happens between male and female, so should the pictures say. Now more the gay and lesbian picture than the straight ones... 192.100.130.228 (talk) 12:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
What are you on about what you just wrote doesn't make sense?--Scorpio95 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
I count 9 images depicting opposite-sex pairings, 5 images depicting same-sex pairings, and 2 images depicting both same- and opposite-sex pairings (with three participants). Straight pictures are the majority. -kotra (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
so whats the problem?Scorpio95 22:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)
So whats the problem? There could be more pics added to help aid what is said in the article--Scorpio95 11:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
We should only add pictures that aid understanding of the subject; the subject is sex positions, not sexual orientation or whatever other non-relevant differences more pictures would illustrate. This is in line with our image use policy. But see also my comment below, I think one more picture (or a switching out of a current picture) might be beneficial. -kotra (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Lol, my bad, cannot divide 17 by 2... but still. The real problem for me is the classic positions (like missionary) is shown in gay/lesbian, when 3+ ppl in sex that is a must (the same-sex), so its no problem there. 192.100.130.229 (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Missionary has 1 same-sex (male-male) and 1 opposite-sex illustration, which is good because they are, mechanically speaking, slightly different; and so both should be illustrated. The other same-sex illustrations are frot (for obvious reasons), one of the threesome pictures (which I think is ok, but unneeded since there are two other pictures of threesomes), fellatio, cunnilingus, and sixty-nine. I agree that the last three don't need to be same-sex, and you do have a point that these positions are probably more common in opposite-sex couplings, simply because opposite-sex couplings are more common. However, oral sex is the same position when performed by opposite-sex or same-sex couples, the only functional difference is if it's fellatio or cunnilingus. So I don't see any practical need to change the fellatio and cunnilingus pictures, since sexual orientation is irrelevant to the mechanics of the position. However, with the sixty-nine image, it only illustrates cunnilingus; this is a little misleading because sixty-nine can involve either fellatio, cunnilingus, or both. So I would say there should either be another sixty-nine image that illustrates fellatio, or the current one should be replaced with a female-male one that would show both types. -kotra (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Wheres this same sex (male-male) missionary pic? The only same sex one that could be viable is female-female missionary position--Scorpio95 22:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scorpio95 (talk • contribs)
I am very afraid that this article is written like a how-to. For example:
The receiving partner crosses their feet behind their head (or at least puts their feet next to their ears), while lying on their back. The penetrating partner then holds the receiving partner tightly around each instep or ankle and lies on the receiving partner full-length. A variation is to have the receiving partner cross their ankles on their stomach, knees to shoulders, and then have the penetrating partner lie on the receiving partner's crossed ankles with their full weight.
Or another further below:
Shocker: simultaneous fingering of the vagina and anus using one hand. The index and middle finger are inserted in the vagina, and the pinky in the anus. A number of variations are possible by using different combinations of fingers in each orifice.
And one can find dozens such examples in this article. I mean, this is a list article. I find this list also has too many details on each element. --> RUL3R*flaming | *vandalism05:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that all this article does is describe the positions in enough detail for the reader to understand what each position is. A how-to would be like extensive step-by-step instructions in the style of wikiHow. Two to three sentences on each position as we have now only constitute a basic overview, and any less would be too little for the reader to understand the positions. Not a policy violation. -kotra (talk) 06:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Needed: History of Nomenclature and Typology
It's not enough just to describe the various positions, based on whatever sources of knowledge the editors may have. The history of this list-making should be given as well (so far there are references to the Kama Sutra, Perfumed Garden, and Masters & Johnson), along with the history of the various names assigned to the different positions. Think about how the OED would treat a phrase like "missionary position," citing earliest known usages and so forth. Some sort of grounding in scholarly literature (from various relevant fields) is needed to distinguish this article from a mere tip-sheet.
Incidentally, I came here looking for the name for a position in which the woman lies prone, legs together, and is vaginally penetrated by a man straddling her. (For literary purposes, believe it or not.) The article seems to describe the position, but no name is given. (It may be that no good name exists, or that there are several alternative names.)Dawud (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Multiple Penetration = Multiple
Why does it use the word several? Multiple penetration does not imply being penetrated by "several" objects, only multiple. If anything it implies 2 or so, 6 is one hell of a lot, but several is just the wrong word to use. 72.208.128.200 (talk) 06:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
shouldnt some of this stuff come with a warning?
it sure seems that way. i bet some of this stuff can really hurt if you dont know what youre doing.
There are so many incorrect instances of the above that someone should do something about it.
Partner is a singular noun; their signifies more than one.
The correct expression should be:
Positions to promote or prevent conception - implies anal sex directly causes pregnancy
The wording beneath the prevention of pregnancy section seems to imply that a woman may be impregnated through direct anal sex, with no other conditions. The next two examples shows the conditions of semen being introduced to the vaginal opening. Although I think the intent here was to place these entries under one kind of condition (the semen being introduced to the vagina without direct contact between the penis and vagina), the latter examples specifically state the other portion, while the anal just says it is possible. It is certainly not possible to become naturally pregnant without semen introduced through the vagina. This sentence in the article should be revised to better communicate the intended information. 68.214.68.18 (talk) 08:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Why have drawings or paintings when a photograph better illustrates the articles' subject matter? Because some may find it offensive? That seems ludicrous. If we applied that standard everywhere, half of the articles on Wikipedia would need to be censored or removed. ...and who, might I ask, is looking up "sex positions" on Wikipedia and then becomes offended by what he or she sees? I'll have to agree with Atom regarding the photographs. They shouldn't be removed "just because it squicks you." 24.27.113.154 (talk) 16:58, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Usually illustrations can be clearer, and more informative, than a photograph. Unfortunatly, many of the images on the page stylized drawings - losing the clear illustrative quality.Pauladin (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Another less common position
The penetrating partner on their back with knees up torward their chest, the receiving partner then mounts their partner. The receiver controls all motion and thrust. Bacically the missionary position, but the partners positions reversed.
Izzzy12k (talk) 04:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
_Hadrian_and_Antinous_in_Egypt.jpg)
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Doublepen.png){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
